Mike,
The first problem is that our resident Merion "experts" still deny the validity of even the list you posted. They deny any influence or involvement beyond Wilson's initial visit to NGLA, and they have even downplayed that involvement. They also claim that almost every bit of credit needs to stay with the men who were in Philadelphia working in the course. This is hardly an honest assessment of the historical record.
And with all due respect, even you have waffled back and forth between acknowledging CBM's continued involvement and influence, and downplaying this involvement. For instance, in your post above you try to attach special influence to the order in which Lesley credits the committee and MacDonald & Whigham, stretching to try to make the point that if MacDonald had really been a significant advisor or influence he would have been given top billing! But if we review your old posts, we see that you have also argued that Lesley only mentioned MacDonald to use a big name to hype his new course. MacDonald was included to hype the course, but wasnt given high enough building to really have had much involvement or influence? That sort of creative interpretation would put even the neocons to shame.
Even in acknowledging the record in your last thread, you stretch to diminish its significance: Do you really think you are being entirely genuine when you claim that "we don't know exactly whether that related to Merion East, or in more hypothetical, philosophical terms." ??
The second problem is that you keep misrepresenting Tom's position and my position. We aren't arguing for some greater degree of influence that the historical record indicates. Rather, we simply want to give the historical record its due.
Men like Lesley were in a much better position to judge MacDonald's level of involvement than we are, and if he thought that MacDonald deserved credit for advising about the layout of the course, then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we should give it to him. And you guys ought to quit stretching so hard and far to take that credit away from him.
__________________________
JES,
I don't want to give MacDonald credit for any specific work without evidence that he did that work. But I do want to acknowledge him at least to the extent that Lesley, Wilson, and the others did.
As for my term "generousity of spirit," I don't quite understand why that rankles you and Mr. Stamm, but I hate to see it as a sticking point in what could be an otherwise productive discussion. I was simply looking for a phrase which captured the essense of Geoffrey Shackelford's approach to George Thomas'sinfluences in Geoff's book, "The Captain." My point was simply to contrast Geoff's approach to that of our resident Merion "experts" which seems to be a much less genuine and productive approach. But if you think it grossly twists my position to one of 'giving credit where no credit is due,' then I'd be glad to try and put it in other terms.
Our resident Merion "experts" have come into this discussion with a strong home-course bias, and have been unreasonably reluctant to accept any facts which give any credit to anyone outside of a small circle of Merion men. They have been unwilling to even consider (much less accept) even the most obvious and factual disagreement.
An example of their parsimonious, grudging, avaricious, and petty approach to this matter? Mr. Morrison's continued unwillingness to accept the fact that 1930 measurements (or estimates) of B. Jones drives on the 10th hole were wrong by 40 yards, (or 20 yards if the same source had the tees wrong.) As recently as yesterday he denied the correct measure of the distances, deleting his thread shortly thereafter.
Now except for the fact that his understanding of how far (in yards) drives flew on this hole was based on the Jones measures, I have no idea why such a minor issue is of such importance to him that he would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge overwhelming evidence. But unfortunately, this is indicative of his approach to this entire matter.
If someone is so set in their position that they will not even consider evidence as factual and objective as a straight line measurement of a golf shot, then how are they to genuinely consider general evidence of something they are completely predisposed to reject, like CBM's influence?
As far as I know, Leslie and the committee at the time were completely fair to MacDonald when the acknowledged his involvement in Merion East. I will continue to believe this unless and until some concrete evidence to the contrary is unearthed.
But I will not sweep these acknowledgements under the rug based on illogical analysis and pure speculation and pathologizing. That is exactly what TEPaul, Mr. Morrison, and others (including even Mike Cirba,some of the time) are trying to do.
I hope this helps clear up my position, and Wayne's to the extent that it agrees with mine.