"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying....."
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Mike, my thoughts on the above statement are as follows.
I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs.
I think "they" presented them to CBM.
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion.
I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive.
That's the way I read that passage.
Patrick,
Sorry for the spun, knee-jerk response of last evening.
I do very much appreciate you at least trying to intelligently discuss what is clearly evidence, much as others may claim it's been tampered with, or otherwise faulty.
I do think your responses deserve serious discussion so let me try to do that.
You said;
I think "they" had prepared several routings/designs. I agree that this is clear and I also would contend that because we know the same group went to NGLA "after" doing this, and "on our return" laid out five "different plans", we know beyond any doubt that if the minutes are accurate that we're talking about the same group, or Committee. Further, since we know clearly from other sources who went to visit M&W at NGLA, we also know the Committee in question is Hugh Wilson's committee, would you agree?
I think "they" presented them to CBM. This could certainly be inferred, and it seems reasonable they would have done this. However, there is also no direct evidence to indicate this being so. For instance, they do not say "we presented our plans for the new golf course to Macdonald for his review", or anything of the sort. Instead, they seemed to be much more focused on what HE, Macdonald had been doing and how he had gone about building NGLA, rather than their own efforts to date. They went over his plans ( I assume his plans at this point were related to his work in progress at NGLA, as he had only seen the Merion land one day 9 months prior and wrote a single-page report giving a bit of a wishy-washy recommendation that the land might be suitable for a first-class golf course) and and his sketches of holes abroad, and the next day toured the golf course at NGLA, which I'm sure was a very valuable and instructive use of their time.
Hugh Wilson himself told us exactly what they did there; "...in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than in all of the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish (bold(s) mine) with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses."
I think CBM offered a critique on each one, pointing out the strenghts and weaknesses.
I think CBM offered alternative routings/designs.
As a result, I think they went back to Merion, armed with CBM's redrafting of their plans. While you make clear that this is your inference, I do think you are reading a lot into it without much in the way of evidence. It seems to me again that what is mentioned is what HE Macdonald had been doing that was the focus, not what the Merion group had done to date. Given the force of Macdonald's personality, and the respect the Merion Committee had for his opiinion, I can easily see it being much of a one-way conversation, with short Merion questions resulting in long Macdonald answers. I think the short passage here in the minutes is reflective of that dynamic.
They benefited from having examined NGLA with CBM.
The benefited from listening to his on site commentary about NGLA and golf design, and how they might work out at Merion. Wholeheartedly agreed, and I do think Hugh Wilson makes that very clear in his own reminisces. I think this meeting was somewhat of a turning point in the process, which is why they mentioned it even years later, and it helped them clearly.
I think THAT meeting resulted in the end stage routing/design of Merion and I believe CBM's hand in the routing/design was heavy/substantive. Patrick, while I agree that this meeting had a big impact on the committee, I think it was in terms of clarifying some of their thought processes around their design, and perhaps giving birth to other flights of imagination. We KNOW it was significant to the final design stage simply because they went back and "laid out five different plans" after the meeting. I think ultimately the question that we will never answer and probably always debate will be one of percentages.
I think it's good that we've finally reached a point where it's agreed by many here including you that all of this routing activitiy didn't happen prior to the end of 1910, although some rough or informal routing processses initiated by Merion may have preceeded 1911 (although no evidence of that exists). I think that's progress.
I think it's good that we're now focusing more on the first months of 1911 in our collective search, because this is also clearly when things were determined and no matter how anyone wants to cast doubt on what the MCC Minutes actually say, they clearly do reflect the major design activity taking place in the first four months of 1911.
And, as I mentioned, because the details aren't recorded, unless further evidence surfaces, I think we'll always debate exact contributions that Macdonald was responsible for versus Wilson, and those who favor one side over the other will try to steer the argument in their preferred direction.
From my perspective, in the final analysis, while I agree that Macdonald had a larger role than was previously known, not a single contemporaneous account of his contributions actually pulled that trigger and mentioned the "D", or the "R" words, instead simply saying he "advised" the process and offered "suggestions", however valuable.
To me, a man in charge does not "suggest" or "advise". To me those two verbs clearly refer to someone who is outside the main ongoing process, and it's always been somewhat amazing to me that everyone at that time used nearly the exact same verbiage to describe what they did, whether it was Robert Lesley, Alan Wilson, A.W. Tillinghast, or "Far and Sure". None of them ever pulled the trigger and suggested that the routing or design was of Macdonald's authorship.
Neither does the word "approve" suggest someone who is an author, much like Shvas pointed out months back. To me, it is very clear that they highly-valued Macdonald's opinion, and the fact that they asked him to come down and help them pick the best of their routings is proof-positive of that. But the question remains, if Macdonald was the author of that plan, why would he need to come back to pick it? Of course he wouldn't.
Finally Patrick, I know you're a man who believes in taking direct personal responsibitliy in any endeavor, amd that ultimately, the buck has to stop somewhere. As Chairman of the committee in charge of the new golf course during this period, wouldn't Hugh Wilson ultimately be the one to get the credit or blame, no matter whose advice he took, or who he asked questions of, or how many ideas he solicitied and opinions he listened to?
Max Behr in 1914 wrote that Hugh Wilson was virtually dictatorial in the way he operated at Merion, much like Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia. Does that sound like a man to you who would have shirked direct personal responsibiilty and decision-making for what took place at Merion?
Thanks for listening, and thanks for trying to advance the dialogue.