I dont know that I'd call GCGC flat...4 has nice rolls to it, 15 goes pretty severely uphill...a lot of hills roll gently up and down. Granted its not as hilly as LGC, but it's not as flat as Eisenhower.
Maybe Raynor was involved to some degree, but it seems to me that if CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't we would have seen even more "footprints" in the form of more template holes? If CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't it have looked a lot more like the typical raynors we see? With the four different par-3s for openers? dan spooner and I both went over the course maps and there seemed to be no redan, eden, or biarritz. CBM/Raynor would have probly used them at the par-3s, but the map doesn't indicate these shapes and lengths. WHat about the fact that nine were built in 1909 and the other 9 in 1919. So did Raynor/CBM come back again in 1919?
John foley and Jim kennedy are on the right track I think. I think emmet built it, talked around the water cooler with CBM and Seth for ideas, borrowed some ideas for holes CBM and Seth used, fit the rest to the land as he found it with his own tweaks - like his version of the short at 12, as JNC said. It certainly doesn't look as much of a raynor as Sleepy hollow or charleston or yale.
At the end of the day, what the club says goes. Right now, they say Emmet, as does everything we've read till now. George, as I read your post, I think you disagree that Tucker was involved originally? and in 1919?
Moreover, at the end of the day, my piece's theory is right - you see alot of what raynor and CBM did at LGC. That's what I said all along. First my dtractors tried to say no it isn't, then they tried say it's more than I thought at first. That's flip-flopping AND splitting hairs. Moreover, my piece is for everyone - not just people so obsessed with GCA that they argue minutia like the American economy was at stake. It's simply a nice travelogue so people will go see the course.