That's right, and for about the thirteenth time I'm not going to transcribe the MCC meeting minutes or the Wilson Committee report that was given by Lesley to the board to you or on here. I've told you that about a dozen times already but apparently you seem to understand exactly what that means about as well and you understand the architectural history of Merion.
And I also realize you weren't aware they reported anything. That's just another good reason why you shouldn't have even attempted to write the essay you did about Merion's history when you did it with wholly incomplete material and research. I've also told you that about a dozen times but you don't seem to understand that either any better than you do Merion's history.
I also never concluded that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. The only person who thinks I concluded that is you. What I said was the Wilson Committee report given to Lesley to present to the board mentions nothing at all about Wilson and his committee discussing Merion's layout while at NGLA. But the report does mention what they DID discuss with Macdonald and Whigam during that visit to NGLA. I already told you about a dozen times that it says they discussed Macdonald's plans and drawings from abroard FOR NGLA the first night and they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed THAT course and discussed the golf course NGLA and apparently the principles behind ITS design.
That's also what I've said to you about a dozen times already but you seem to understand that about as well as you understand the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all after all this time.
1. You will transcribe the minutes if you think it helps you, yet not this portion. I wonder why that is?
2. Scolding me for not obtaining information that you are hiding from me is a bit silly, even for you.
3. Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley? If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?
"Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."
Absolutely. I don't think anyone that knows anything about Merion has ever denied that, particularly as the basic idea was to study and analyze THE PRINCIPLES of well respected holes abroad and put those principles into effect over here.
You definitely didn't think that one up for Merion, that's for sure. Herbert Warren Wind explained how Wilson had copied European architectural principles at Merion East but a whole lot more subtely than Macdonald did at NGLA, but MacWood and apparently you discounted or ignored that too. That's pretty amazing that MacWood or you would so blithely discount or disagree with a golf writer of the stature of HWW just because it doesn't agree with your fanciful notions.
But using some well respected architectural principles from abroad over here as Wilson and Merion did is a long, long way from assuming or concluding that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were the driving force behind it.
But maybe you've never understood that either any better than you understand the history of Merion.
Frankly, when it came to analyzing the principles of well respected architecture abroad and putting it into effect over here Macdonald wasn't even the first over here to think of that or do it; it's just that he was the most public and vocal about it and what he did very publicly IDENTIFIED which holes and hole principles were being used over here.
We know Herbert Leeds did the same thing with Myopia but about half a decade at least BEFORE Macdonald did NGLA. Leeds doesn't get much attention on here for it though since he was so much quieter about what he was doing and had done with Myopia and he didn't try to actually name what he learned over there with the same names of some of those holes over there.
I don't think you understand any of this any better than you do the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all.
I'm glad you finally agree that Merion was a cbm course, in the sense that it was based on CBM'S UNDERSTANDING of the principles of the great holes, and how they should be applied at Merion.
But all this you write about the great holes abroad is misleading. The great holes abroad were not even a direct source of information. It was CBM's understanding and application.
As for Mr. Wind's observations, I addressed them in my paper. While a brilliant writer, Mr. Wind made the same mistake you, Wayne, Merion and everyone else made for years. He didn't understand that CBM was the driving force behind the hole concepts (and their placement at Merion.) The hole concepts were directly from CBM, not from Wilson's experiences abroad.
________________________________
Mike,
Once again you ignore and misread the source material when it is inconvenient for you. I'll stick with those who were there.