David, you have been consistent in stating that you are not trying to give design credit to M&W, so I'm wondering what you're interpretations of "laying out" are?
David, I think that they were rather loose in their use of the phrase; I don’t have a concrete definition for them, because I don’t think they had a concrete definition themselves. One thing to keep in mind is that the state of golf course creation was really in flux during this period, and so I think the terminology was very likely in flux as well. Sometimes they seem to be referring to just the routing and maybe the general placement of the hazards, but other times they seem to also include the actual construction of the course. So generally, I would say that laying out a course encompasses routing the course including hazard placement, but sometimes also includes at least the rough construction.
________________________
Mike
First, I do not understand how you can say that you I “agree that M&W advised the committee on the layout and their advice was deemed very beneficial,” unless your view has changed since your post above where you appear to conclude that they did it themselves, and that M&W’s advice and suggestions were ultimately was not followed at all. What am I missing here?
But, did that mean their contribution was 50% of the layout work? 90%? 5?
I just don't think this is anything you can break down into percentages. What percentage of Pacific Dunes was Jim Urbina? What percentage of Rustic Canyon was Jim Wagner? Geoff Shackelford? You could try to come up with numbers, and numbers might make you think you were being objective, but the reality is that the numbers will never come close to accurately reflecting what really happened.
We don't know but we do know that what was built was nothing at all like any Macdonald or Raynor or Banks course that was ever built before or for the ensuing 20 years. That is the physical evidence we're left with.
This might matter more if we were talking about design credit. And it might matter more if anyone was claiming that Raynor or Banks or even M&W were involved in the actual construction. But for reasons I have explained repeatedly, when it comes to the question of whether M&W's advice and suggestions had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East, I do not think it could matter much less.
As for your personal example, I find it an interesting story, but I am not sure how it bolsters your position.
When it comes to your specific area of involvement, it sounds like you were pretty important. And you likely deserve credit for your contribution, but only within the narrow realm of your involvement. So if the principles ever write an article on how to go about doing a successful restoration and are describing their own experience, they ought to mention that bringing in a person as knowledgeable and articulate as you was crucial in reaching their decision to stand firm, and that by standing firm and conveying your ideas to the partnership, they were able to get a real restoration done, and the course is the better for it. Now obviously, I don’t know everything that happened, but from your description it sounds like ignoring your role would be telling well less than the entire story, at least when it came to the initial decision of whether they would push for a true restoration.
You say the principles thought your input would be valuable; it sounds like it turned out to be valuable; and it also sounds like they have acknowledged the value, at least to you.
Given your description and the principles’ viewpoint on the matter, it would be absurd for me to claim that your input was disregarded or ignored or politely listened to then dismissed. Yet when just about everyone who was there agrees that MacDonald’s advice was valuable, you still conclude that they really did not mean it; and that M&W’s advice about the lay out was completely ignored in the end.
_________________________
Patrick. Based on the information I have seen, we know as much or more about what M&W specifically did than we do about anyone else involved in the initial creation of Merion East. Wilson is referred to many as the architect and his brother says he was the main guy, but I have seen little or no information about what he specifically did. Does this mean he was not the designer or the main guy? Of course not.
Your demand of evidence of CBM’s specific tasks makes about as much sense as TEPaul demanding that I find and cite a post which he destroyed. I’ll never find it because it is no longer available by reason of destruction. But y inability to find a deleted quote is irrelevant to whether the quote ever existed.
Likewise the laundry list of who did what (if there ever was one) is not available, and the inability to find CBM on that unavailable list says absolutely nothing about whether or not he was specifically involved.
How can it be that the great CBM wasn't given credit for his SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS to the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?
He was given credit by Tillinghast, Travis, Leslie, Tolhurst, A. Wilson and H. Wilson, and they apparently so no point in listing his or anyone else’s specific contributions. You cannot dismiss their statements just because they don’t provide a laundry list of exactly how his advice was helpful!
I understand your theory. I have just not seen any support for it at all.
__________________________
TEPaul, as for what you said and didn’t say, I am done with it. I am not going to argue with someone who deleted all his posts and is now demanding I cite them. I know what you said, and had you not deleted your posts we would never have to have such a ridiculous discussion.
At this point I don't even care.
I guess you must be trying to imply that since there is no evidence of anyone’s specific contribution including no evidence of Macdonald’s specific involvement that therefore it follows that it must be a mystery about who designed the golf course.
No, I am not trying to imply this.
By stating that no evidence has been found of anyone’s specific contribution, and no evidence has been found of Macdonald’s specific involvement, I suppose you mean no laundry list has ever been found about who was responsible for the design of each and every hole, each and every green, bunker etc, and perhaps the over-all routing. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen architectural responsibility listed that way for any golf course at any time.
So why then have you and Mr. Morrison been demanding evidence about CBM's specific involvement from the beginning of the thread?
The rest of your post deals with proving that H. Wilson was the architect. I have never had a quarrel with this. You can go back through my posts if you do not believe me.
I do disagree, though, that H.Wilson's brother pronouncing H.Wilson as the architect provides us with any specific details of what H.Wilson specifically did. You apply a double standard. Vague pronouncements are okay if they are about H. Wilson, but not if they are about CBM.