I think it is safe to say that in short, David believes that CBM had far more to do with the design and creation of Merion than he has been given credit for and that he now also believes that Wilson made his "study trip" overseas in 1912.
David, is this a quick synopsis of your hypotheses?
The reason I ask is that it appears that no one has yet to realize that if the trip that Wilson took in 1912 was his "study trip" this means that CBM had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the design of Merion.
Consider the following four statements and timeframe made by David:
1- “Spring 1911. Committee collected all the information they could from “local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the Spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land.” –Hugh Wilson
2- “April 1911, the course is “nearing completion in the planning.” M&W returned to Merion to offer suggestions and advise on the lay out. (A. Wilson) CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.” –Tillinghast, American Golfer, May 1911.
3- Sometime in 1911.(?) CBM tells Travis that Merion will be one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . -Travis, January 1913, American Golfer (Travis wrote: “Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . . . .”)
4- September 1-15, 1911. Merion seeded the golf course.
So then, by the timeframe that he has laid out CBM was FINISHED with whatever advising and influence he gave for the design by September 15, 1911.
Yet he then maintains that AFTER this Wilson went to Europe to “study the great courses” and came back and THEN applied what he had learned to the design of Merion, with the course then evolving to a finished form. If true, this can only mean that the finished course was Wilson’s design and not CBM’s.
David refers to the statements made by Travis in his January 1913 article where he speaks of Merion. He offers this as proof that it was in 1912 that Wilson made this “study trip” and yet then misses out on the importance of what Travis wrote as it would apply to CBM’s actual involvement. “Mr. Wilson visited many prominent courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used… Many of the imported ideas on hazard formation are good…”
Why are these statements important when considering CBM’s involvement? Because his advice was given back in 1910 & 1911! Here we are in 1912 and they are implementing ideas that came back in Wilson’s mind from Europe. It clearly shows that it was Wilson’s hand then guiding the design and not CBM’s.
Philip,
The reason I quit participating on this thread is simply your first paragraph, which is something I've been saying for the past month.
Although I consider David a friend whose heart is in the right place, I wholly object to the tactics he is using here and believe that they are borne out of real or perceived past transgressions from Wayne and Tom Paul.
His periodic hollow reminder that he agrees fully that Hugh Wilson is the architect of Merion while attempting in every way possible to cast doubt and shadow on that fact reminds me of Marc Antony's speech after the assassination of Julius Caesar, in which he spent 90% of his time exalting the wonders of Caesar while also periodically reminding us that "Brutus and Cassius are indeed good men!"
It's a nice lawyer's trick of damning with faint praise.
If he had simply come forward back in November when he started the "Other Piece of the Puzzle?" thread and told us all his hypothesis based on the tidbit of info he hard garnered from a ship's log, as well as the hypothetical timeframe he had put together base on other evidence, then I'm certain he would have gotten a fair hearing.
Instead, we were led on what I termed earlier as a "Tragical History Tour", where despite many folks asking hiim what his real purpose was, he continued to obfuscate and re-direct, and ultimately cause the frigging trainwreck that was that thread, and which sadly led to the loss of Tom MacWood from this website.
More sadly, I believe the reason we took that circuitous detour was simply to somehow make Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul look bad, or wrong, or in error in their understanding of the origins of Merion.
When asked, David would state that he simply wanted CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham to receive acknowledgement as having advised the committee in valuable ways. When all of us did that, over and over, in multiple ways, did that satisfy or end the debate?
No, of course not.
Because that is not, nor has ever been the point here.
The reason a lot of us have been confused, and continue to be, is that this is not meant to make some universal point that will increase all of our understanding and insight on the origins of Merion and of American golf in general.
No, instead it's a personal pissing match, and David, you're correct that I'm frustrated and personally disappointed in this whole fiasco. I don't like the tactics used here and I think it demeans and belittles those people who care a great deal about the architectural legacy and historical understanding of that great course.
If you believed that you'd come across some new and exciting and relevant evidence that was noteworthy, conclusive, and educational, you should have just written the article you mentioned and let others judge the facts for themselves. Instead, you chose to come here and play a game of personal public poker where you hid your hand in a coy manner while asking questions you already knew the answers to.
That is ultimately insulting and condescending to all of us following along who care about this stuff and I really hope you consider such tactics more carefully in the future because we really aren't all worthy of such seeming contempt.