(I'm sorry this is so long but you asked for a really considered and comprehensive answer to your questions and it takes some space. This also took me a while, for sure. I hope this gives this complex, long running issue the understanding it deserves for all and hopefully some agreement and an end to these time consuming threads on Merion, Macdonald and Wilson).
David Moriarty:
Well, since I guess I fall into the category of the "others" who you do not think have directly explained the basis for rejecting this interpretation (that Findlay is referring to "Others" as really good CBM holes at Merion), I'll give it another shot.
And I'm also going to strive to do it very civily.
You asked:
"As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good. Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?
If not then why not? (Where is our mistake? What have we missed? What does not make sense?)"
Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations. You have done that above. I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpretation.
Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation. For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so. It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed something."
1. I’m not suggesting that the interpretation that Findlay could be referring to “Others” as CBM holes at Merion makes no sense at all to some people, just that it is not the only interpretation that makes sense and in my opinion is an interpretation that makes much less sense than the interpretation that Findlay was referring to CBM holes ELSEWHERE. Firstly, Findlay does not actually say the "others" of CBM's that he said were really good are at Merion. Of course anyone could say, given how unclear Findlay's writing and meaning is in that particular article, that he means those he referred to as "others" were CBM holes at Merion. But the fact is undeniable that he did not actually say that. The fact is also undeniable that there are other ways to interpret what he did mean by "others" that do not include an interpretation that those "others" were CBM holes at Merion or even holes at Merion. Of course, I am certainly assuming, if you are asking these questions honestly and in good faith, that you will admit there actually ARE interpretations OTHER THAN YOURS, and certainly sensible interpretations (given close consideration of the information that follows) of what Findlay meant when he said "others" in that article. If you're not at least willing to admit that then I don't see that there's any reason to discuss this with you any more or any longer and one wonders why you even bother to ask in the first place.
2. The following just may be the most meaningful answers of all to your questions, particularly for those people who don't have a very good working knowledge of All the material DETAILS of the history of Merion East. They should be considered very carefully by you and others interested in this subject and should definitely not be dismissed, discounted and certainly not avoided. You should give a response to each and every point as to why it may seem implausible or unlikely to you. If you don’t you are simply not dealing with the realities of the material details of Merion East’s original history.
A/ C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam spent seemingly only two days----period----at Merion's Ardmore site over a period of approximately ten months, and as far as I can tell and the Merion detailed history records they did not ever again return to Merion for the purpose of advising and helping them after April 6, 1911. It is not exactly recorded if they spent more than a day there in June 1910 but it does seem it was a day or less given what he said in his letter he noticed there at that time and what he suggested to them at that time. It is not possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have routed and designed a course on that property at that time because he even said as much when he mentioned there wasn’t much he could do to make more suggestions without a contour survey map in front of him and he also implied they should get that done for themselves.
B/ It is probably possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have looked at Barker’s “rough sketch” of the property also done in June 1910 but that was never at any time mentioned by either Macdonald and Whigam or Merion. If they had decided to use that as a basis for a routing and design at any point in time it certainly should have been recorded by at least one of them or by the club somewhere in their very comprehensive administrative record keeping but nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by any of them about Barker and his “rough sketch” again except that he had done one for the developer George Connell for Connell’s account, meaning Connell paid for what Barker did and not Merion. After that “Search Committee” and board report in July 1910 Barker’s name was never mentioned again BY Merion. Of course that was all about a half year before Merion even bought the property. Obviously some later newspaper report (Nov, 1910) by some unknown writer from a newspaper (Philly Press or Telegram) Merion does not seem to have even subscribed to and couldn't conceivably contain anywhere near as direct or relevant information on Merion as Merion’s own comprehensive administrative records on the creation of their new golf course says that Merion hired Barker and will use him for their future course! THAT kind of report and information should be an indication and warning to all you study this stuff about what really is relevent and factual and what isn't. Obviously the information contained in that particular article came out of some five months old file (June 1910)and is not relevent to the factual history of what was going on at Merion to prepare for the routing and design of the East course and who would do it. That example should be a warning to all on here who put so much stock in the reliablity of ANY and ALL newspaper and magazine reports and information compared to a club's own administrative reports and records! In effect, H.H. Barker, at that point, was a total nonentity as far as what was about to happen about 2-7 months hence with the routing and design and construction of Merion East and who would be involved in it!
C/ The next time Merion had any contact with Macdonald/Whigam was nine months later when Wilson and presumably most of his committee went to visit Macdonald/Whigam at NGLA. That was apparently in the beginning of the second week of March, 1911 (from a March 13, 1911 letter to Russell Oakley from Wilson stating “we” had just returned from NGLA) . What they did during those two days at NGLA was pretty specifically recorded in the Board meeting minutes of MCC in mid-April 1911 via a report Wilson apparently made up to give to Robert Lesley to report to the board about what the committee had done with the course planning to that date. That report mentions that previous to going to NGLA Wilson and his committee had “laid out numerous courses.” Wilson sent a copy of a contour survey map of the course property to Russell Oakley at the US Dept of Agriculture on Feb. 1, 1911 and so we know Wilson and his committee had a topo contour map of the property to work on course routings and hole design plans before that point. Wilson mentioned to Oakley that Macdonald had recommended MCC be in touch with he and Piper for a soil analysis and to discuss the difficult problem of preparing the course for seeding and the difficult problem of seed selections. The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there (we can discuss some other time what-all that may’ve meant in a routing and hole design alteration on the five different Merion plans or the one they took to the board for approval less than two weeks hence).
D/ As far as I can tell neither Macdonald (nor Whigam) ever actually did a course routing drawing on paper at any time pre-construction for himself or anyone else----eg it seems Macdonald always depended upon Seth Raynor to do that for him (you or we or any of us should check with George Bahto on that but I do not believe he has ever seen an actual Macdonald course drawing and if he has noone I know of has ever seen one---even though apparently in the last year NGLA has found two Macdonald hole drawings (of NGLA apparently)). Raynor was never at Merion for the purpose of Merion East's design and if he was noone ever said so or recorded it. If the foregoing is true one needs to consider who actually did the drawing of the routing and hole designs of the course that was presented to the board only two weeks hence (I think it’s pretty obvious it was Richard Francis, their Wilson committee member who was also a professional engineer/surveyor who worked for George A. Fuller Co, a Philadelphia building construction contractor).
E/ Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.
3. Therefore, to address again why I think your interpretation that Findlay meant that the “Others” he mentioned in that article were holes by CBM at Merion don’t make much sense, I submit the following supplemental information and opinion:
A/ Macdonald/Whigam did not have the OPPORTUNITY and particularly they did not have the TIME to create a routing and/or hole design plans for Merion because for all the reasons shown above they just did not have the opportunity in June 1910, and according to the specific account of what was done at NGLA in March 1911 Merion’s own design plans were not even discussed or considered at that time (again what was discussed and considered and shown to them at NGLA was reported and it all had to do with NGLA itself and Macdonald’s sketches from abroad for NGLA, and not Merion Ardmore or Merion’s design plans). Therefore that would have only left Macdonald/Whigam a single day to create their own routing and hole concepts and designs for Merion, not to mention that Wilson and his committee had clearly spent months creating their own, five of which they asked Macdonald/Whigam to consider on that single day in April, 1911. For anyone who knows even a modicum about the practicalities and logistics and the time involved of routing and hole-designing certainly understands that all that could not and does not happen in a single day. And it is irrefutable that a single day is all the time and opportunity Macdonald/Whigam had to do such a thing even if Merion asked them to try to do such a thing. As far as I know, Macdonald was only involved with Merion one other time after that which only involved a letter from him to Wilson in June 1911 which spoke only about the amounts of manure, lime and fertilizer to use to prepare ground and greens for seeding.
B/ It does not appear from any evidence anywhere or at any time that Merion even considered asking Macdonald/Whigam to route or design their course or any holes on it for them, not to even mention that he probably wouldn't have even considered something like that, particularly at that time before his own course was even finished or open for play. All they apparently asked them to do is to show them or advise them (apparently over a period of only four days and only two of which were spent at Ardmore by Macdonald/Whigam) how they could do it themselves, apparently as they knew he had done with NGLA with a committee of amateur/sportsmen (himself, and with Whigam and originally Travis and later with Emmet and others of Macdonald’s friends from New York).
C/ It has never been documented, mentioned, suggested or even implied or rumored anywhere or at any time for over ninety years that Macdonald/Whigam actually routed any of Merion East or actually designed any of its holes. Nothing like that was even imagined by anyone that any of us here are aware of until both you and Tom MacWood came along on this website beginning in 2003 with that rather unusual suggestion or implication. I do not believe there is any documentary information available to us today about the original creation of Merion East that was not known by those men back then who were involved in it, including that mysterious remark by Whigam in a magazine eulogy to Macdonald in 1939 about Macdonld designing Merion, so if that doesn't say something about your Macdonald implication as to the routing and design of that course, I just can't imagine what would!
For the foregoing reasons I’ve just supplied in answer to your questions I hope you can understand why this interpretation you presented and asked about on the above post of what Findlay meant by “others” doesn’t make much sense.
I hope this answered the questions you asked and I hope it helps. There is more that supports what I’ve outlined here but this should be enough for now to answer your questions about why some of us don’t think your interpretation of what Findlay meant in that article of June 1912 makes much sense.
It also just must be considered with these kinds of questions of yours that the weight of evidence of who did route and design Merion East originally is so overwhelming and in so many places and from so numerous sources. For that reason I hope you can learn to appreciate its significance and not continue to discount it, dismiss it and certainly not avoid it when we present it to you. If you do, I’m afraid it casts significant aspersions on the integrity of not us here today but of all those people involved with and around Merion who have all virtually said the same thing about what Hugh Wilson did there back then close to a century ago now.