Tom Paul,
Will you go back to Hawaii??
What's with this crap of coming back here and trying to interrupt MY thread before we reach 100,000 posts and 5,000,000 views?!?
Do you really think we can reach consensus here?
Ok, that was a serious question.
For my part, it boils down to this...and I've said it before.
I think that David and Tom MacWood's research have yielded some very interesting facts and certainly all the subsequent, reactive digging got us all a lot further into a true understanding of Merion's early history than we probably all thought was possible in the beginning.
I'm not sure the cost was worth it, but nevertheless....
And I do believe that Macdonald's role was greater, and at least more understood now than the vague, general term "advise" would indicate, but I think where we're never going to reach consensus is simply that after all of the new evidence has surfaced, I see no corresponding concession from others that maybe, just maybe, by virtue of the fact that these guys were the best golfers in the club and smart, sharp, Ivy-League educated guys who had been involved in golf for almost fifteen years at about the highest playing levels in the country, and had time and interest, and motivation...that perhaps they didn't spend a hell of a lot of time studying and asking questions, and modifying, and asking more questions, but ultimately were responsible for creating the plans that they then passed by a host of more experienced folks, from Macdonald, to Alex Findlay, to Fred Pickering, but ultimately, everyone in town who knew the story, including most importantly one AW Tillinghast, at the end of the day both inside and outside of the club credited the Merion Committee, and most particularly Hugh Wilson with the bulk of the design of Merion East, even if CB Macdonald came down for a day in April 1911 and approved one of five final "plans".
As long as the goal of some here is to wipe Hugh Wilson's original contribution from the history of golf, and can barely even admit that "he might have had some input to the original course", then it's tough to see how any consensus could be reached that reflected any historical accuracy in the least.
I think most of us are not only more cognizant now of Macdonald's role due to David and Tom's research, and actually believe it enhances the original story of Merion East's origins, but are not willing to simply add a contribution of unknown proportions by Macdonald to the story at the cost of discarding what was already known. There were simply too many there in town who credited Hugh Wilson to believe it was either a lie, a mistake, or that they were patronizingly lauding him and his committee with selecting good grasses and manure.
Hugh Wilson and his committee were there during the design and build for hundreds of days. Macdonald and Whigham were there for two. Their contributions were valuable and I think as the first correction to the history books, it should be reflected that M&W came back on April 6th, 1911 and helped Hugh Wilson and Committee select the best of their plans, approving one that went to the Merion Board for final approval and implementation.