Merion's Early Timeline

[Tom MacWood]

I put this in chronological order, what is interesting Mike was quoting the excerpt before TEP.

As far as those minutes, I heard earlier this week that the Flynn book that Wayne Morrison has been working on is now going to press, so I'm hopeful you'll get a copy and we can finally put this matter to rest.  My understanding is that it will include verbatim accounts of those MCC minutes, which make very clear that no routing was approved (despite the many iterations of "plans" the committee devised) til late April, 1911, with Robert Lesley reporting for Hugh Wilson and Committee to the Board.   They will also make clear that Macdonald recommended which of the Committee's plans to use, and that's the plan that went to the board for final approval.  Somewhat magnamoniously, Macdonald says that if they use that particular plan, they will have the finest 7 finishing holes in the country.    They will also make clear that both the 3 acres that Macdonald recommended they buy back in July 1910, as well as the land along Golf House Road that was swapped in the Francis Land Swap Deal were both purchased after that approval date in late April 1911, prior to construction.   Once you see them, the timelines of everything should become much clearer.

As it turns out, partially due to the work you've put forward and the corresponding research in reaction to it, Macdonald's role as a superb advisor to the Merion Committee was confirmed and probably even accentuated, but what we now also know in much greater detail than ever before is that Hugh Wilson kicked some serious ass, and fully deserves to be known as he always has been as the architect of Merion.  

All,

Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding.   "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.

But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty  fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;

I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald.   That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.

Let's consider the timeline;

June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.

Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course.    In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.

July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.  

December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.

January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land.   They report later to the Merion board;

""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.

March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA.   The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.

to be continued

Tom,

I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.

I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.  

Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?

It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.

However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies  of each hole.   Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.

Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".  

But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.

How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?

Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."

Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.

Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:

            Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
            Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....

This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.


Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.

If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!

Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?

No, I didn't think so!  

HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.

In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!

In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.

[Tom MacWood]

According to TEP the April report began:

"Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds."

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Jim,  I get your point.  In this instance Tom asked me what the point was, and I told him.  Tom claims he is not withholding portions of Lesley's report, but his own posts indicate that he is.  He apparently referenced one of the "they" references as referring to a Johnson company. and we haven't seen anything referring to Johnson Co. nor have we seen the pronoun referencing the Johnson company.   Likewise by TEPaul's count of pronouns, we are still missing some.  Likewise, we have never been told the rest of what happened on the second day.    In short, TEPaul is withholding information from this report and so long as he claims he is not, I will point it out to him.   

As long as TEPaul and Mike continue to use their mystery sources, what choice do I have?  We ought not to put up with this kind of B.S. here. 
__________________________
You wrote:

On a related note, the way you interpreted the words of Alan Wilson as comparing and contrasting Hugh Wilson's role in the process ONLY against the rest of the committee and not at all against M&W "because he had already mentioned them and then put them aside" is not exactly an objective view...You and Tom Macwood have both demonstated an ability to read paragraphs by these guys as saying things I couldn't dream of. If I were arguing with you over some specific point I don't think I would give you the material either because what could I have to gain? Your interpretations are not certain fact, they are just your interpretations and are as wildly one sided as you believe Tom and Mike's are in the other direction...

First, whether you agree with my interpretation of the Alan Wilson document or not, please do not compare my approach to the source material to that of TEPaul, Mike, and Wayne.   I am NOT providing you with only my interpretation and demanding you believe me.   You can see the document for yourself and decide for yourself.    In contrast TEPAUL, WAYNE, and MIKE WILL NOT EVEN LET US SEE THE DOCUMENT FOR OURSELVES TO DECIDE FOR OURSELVES.   That is the fundamental difference and that makes all the difference.

Second, I disagree that my interpretation is "wildly one sided" if by that you mean it it does not flow from and is not supported by the facts.   It is no accident that whenever Mike and TEPaul bring up this example, they have to drop the first part of the sentence; the part about the rest of the committee. 

For the sake of clarification, Jim,  my interpretation is not so much based on Alan Wilson setting aside M&W (although I think this is exactly what he did) but is more based on the context of the words himself.   In other words, the sentence provides the context.    When "while" is used as a contrastive conjunction it generally means there is a contrast drawn between the subordinate clause and main, clause, and also that there is also some sort of commonality that is being compared.   In this instance the commonality is committee membership.    While the other committee members contributed, Hugh contributed the most.    M&W are not part of the comparison.   

I guess if you want to infer it in you could, but that is a pretty big inference on your part and the passage will make less sense. 

M&W were of great help and value . . . except for what they contributed, the Committee did everything . . .  while everyone on the committee contributed, Hugh contributed the most.   

It is a stretch to think that this last part has anything to do with H&W. 

[JESII]

I may have a couple different passages running together in my mind, but if this is the only Alan Wilson excerpt probably not...I think your leap is in not in that section, it's in not heeding his words about this being a "homemade" course and that M&W were helpful advisors. I think he was being inclusive (of all but Barker...sorry Tom, couldn't resist) of those that contributed when all of the passage is considered together.

I'd take a stab at Tom M's repeated question about the discrepancies in the Alan Wilson letter by saying simply that in 1926 it probably seemed like the world at Merion East must have only begun when the Wilson Committee was formed...from that point they tried to get a playable course on the ground as quick as possible (I agree with you both that some rough routing must have been done prior, but I think Wilson would have been involved at that stage) with the knowledge that they would "improve" upon it over time and so the timing of the trip was unintentionally botched AND that the majority of Hugh Wilsons architectural work would happen afterwards.

I also think the goose chase about whether or not Alan Wilson had any first hand knowledge of the goings on is a less than objective view...I can understand if you are suggesting that/asking those questions just to context the debate differently, it doesn't seem like an honest view of reality.

[TEPaul]

"As long as TEPaul and Mike continue to use their mystery sources, what choice do I have?  We ought not to put up with this kind of B.S. here."


What choice do you have??

Why DON'T you go to Merion yourself as a few of us have??

WHY do you keep ignoring this QUESTION David Moriarty???

Come on Moriarty----YOU know as everyone else on here already does or should THAT is the question you are going to have to ANSWER SOME DAY!!!!  

Why keep criticizing me for the information on Merion I've provided on here? If you don't like it or agree with it THEN WHY don't you go get it yourself? Is that club or any other have some problem with you and if so don't you think you should tell us what that is and WHY?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

Just the opposite is true.

I don't believe that's the case.

Wayne has asked me a number of times over the past several months to just stop responding to this inanity, in the belief that if Dm, TM, and you have no one to argue with you won't get the satisfaction.

Mike,

You don't get it.
This isn't an argument, it's a search for the truth.

I don't know the full extent of all the details surrounding the origins of the golf course at Merion.

DO YOU ?

IF you do, could you produce all of the details ?

If you DON'T, why are you being an obstructionist ?

Don't you want to know the full extent of all the details surrounding the origins of the golf course at Merion ?

Anything I've posted here was stuff Wayne gave me copies of long ago, or that I found on my own, or with or by Joe Bausch, or had already been posted here or in the public domain.

In fact, I've probably strained our friendship by continuing to respond to this asinine nonsense because to all of us, and particularly to the "historians", Merion is an abstraction.

I believe that David Moriarty and Tom MacWood are SERIOUS researchers and not loose canons.

To Wayne it's friends' family, and community.

Wayno just joined Merion.
He's a rookie, not someone deeply entrenched in membership.

That we would collectively permit this to go on here certainly doesn't say much good about our methods of engagement.


That's an absurd attempt at deflection, something you've engaged in repeatedly.

Moriarty and MacWood have proven to be serious, accomplished researchers who have uncovered interesting facts about Merion and other courses.

Facts that would lead a prudent person to seek more information.

Yet, their attempts to discover more information have been intentionally and repeatedly thwarted.

WHY ?

Lastly,

Could you answer the questions I posed ...... directly ?

Thanks
 

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood.

Thanks very much for doing that.   It's about as much fun as digging through a dumpster looking for a dime.

Leaving aside some of the sketchy transitions:

- Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
- Your committee desires to report
- “we laid out numerous different 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."

What jumps out at me is the contrast between the first two:  WE laid out numerous courses on the new ground.  THEY went down to the National.   Doesn't sound like the same committee to me.  Of course who the heck knows with they way it changes from line to line.  

Hopefully we can at least agree that FROM WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, WE DO NOT KNOW WHO IT WAS WHO LAID OUT NUMEROUS COURSES ON THE NEW GROUND.

___________________________________________

Jim, I am pretty comfortable with my understanding of the Alan Wilson document, but I'd be glad to address the part where you think I lept if you care to point it out.  

As for the rest, I agree with you if you are saying that Alan Wilson was looking at this entire thing from the perspective of 1926, and that he might not have been all that concerned or in touch with particular details at this point.  But I'd note that this applies to the discussion of whether or not his knowledge was truly first hand as well.  

[JESII]

David,

I am sure you are comfortable with your understanding of the letter...my initial post was meant to suggest that it (along with Tom Macwood's interpretations) is wholly one sided and not based on a realistic expectation of what could have happened...much like I think Mike and TEP are wholly one sided the other way in their interpretation of the timeline.

With the two main combatants being so entranched this might go on for a while...

[TEPaul]

"I believe that David Moriarty and Tom MacWood are SERIOUS researchers and not loose canons."


Patrick:

If you really believe that then why didn't either of them go to Merion FIRST? Afterall Merion is where all the records of Merion are!

[Tom MacWood]

I may have a couple different passages running together in my mind, but if this is the only Alan Wilson excerpt probably not...I think your leap is in not in that section, it's in not heeding his words about this being a "homemade" course and that M&W were helpful advisors. I think he was being inclusive (of all but Barker...sorry Tom, couldn't resist) of those that contributed when all of the passage is considered together.

It was a homemade course in 1926. The original course with CBM's influences was probably a distant memory in 1926 and there is no indication the routing was considered important or 'architecture' in Allan Wilson's mind.

I'd take a stab at Tom M's repeated question about the discrepancies in the Alan Wilson letter by saying simply that in 1926 it probably seemed like the world at Merion East must have only begun when the Wilson Committee was formed...from that point they tried to get a playable course on the ground as quick as possible (I agree with you both that some rough routing must have been done prior, but I think Wilson would have been involved at that stage) with the knowledge that they would "improve" upon it over time and so the timing of the trip was unintentionally botched AND that the majority of Hugh Wilsons architectural work would happen afterwards.

What discrepancies? He does not say when Hugh went abroad. I assume he knew he travelled to the UK in 1912 and when he returned began asserting his influence, and the news reports seem to indicate that is what was occurring. I also take Hugh Wilson's account literally, which I believe excludes him from an earlier routing.

I also think the goose chase about whether or not Alan Wilson had any first hand knowledge of the goings on is a less than objective view...I can understand if you are suggesting that/asking those questions just to context the debate differently, it doesn't seem like an honest view of reality.

I assume he did have first hand knowledge.

[JESII]

Tom,

For example, who do you think conceptualized the really cool undulations on the present 7th green?

How about exact placement of the short right bunker on #5?

[Tom MacWood]

The undulations in the 7th green could be Wilson, CBM, Pickering, Flynn, Whigham, an unknown construction hand or a combination.

The bunker on the 5th could be Wilson, Barker, Macdonald, or Whigham.

When you have so many chefs involved its difficult to pinpoint who suggested a single ingredient.

[TEPaul]

"It was a homemade course in 1926."


Tom:

Except Alan Wilson didn't say the course was homemade in 1926. I guess you must have missed or forgot what William Philler asked Alan Wilson in 1926 to write on about Merion.

What do you think Philler asked Wilson to write about Tom?  

[JESII]

The undulations in the 7th green could be Wilson, CBM, Pickering, Flynn, Whigham, an unknown construction hand or a combination.

The bunker on the 5th could be Wilson, Barker, Macdonald, or Whigham.

When you have so many chefs involved its difficult to pinpoint who suggested a single ingredient.

Interestingly Tom, I am a believer in taking responsibility for a screw up and the benefit of taking that responsibility is the deserving the credit for a home run. After all, approving something done by someone else makes it your own when you're the one in charge, right?

[Mike_Cirba]

eMeneMeneM.

At this juncture, after reading your collective biases and misinterpretations and transparent attempts to discredit Hugh Wilson over the past several years for what I can only surmise is some odd academic envy of his Ivy-League roots mixed with personal animosity for Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, I will tell each of you that your passive/aggressive efforts to try and bait me into providing more info re: the MCC Minutes is really a waste of time.

Frankly, none of you have shown the slightest bit of respect for the naterials and/or the men involved in creating that history and from my perspective, you also haven't exhibited even the slightest modicum of the objectivity necessary to provide a valid, valuable interpretation of the materials.

In a perfect world, this material could be placed on GCA for everyone's edification and enjoyment, but that is no longer possible.

You can cry and pout and hurl insults claiming that someone is hiding the truth but it is precisely that very attitude you've had from the get-go that is largely responsible for creating  this unfortunate environment we find ourselves in.

[Tom MacWood]

The undulations in the 7th green could be Wilson, CBM, Pickering, Flynn, Whigham, an unknown construction hand or a combination.

The bunker on the 5th could be Wilson, Barker, Macdonald, or Whigham.

When you have so many chefs involved its difficult to pinpoint who suggested a single ingredient.

Interestingly Tom, I am a believer in taking responsibility for a screw up and the benefit of taking that responsibility is the deserving the credit for a home run. After all, approving something done by someone else makes it your own when you're the one in charge, right?

You are asking about two different features. The placement of the bunker is architectural in nature, and who was in charge of the architecture is debatable. The undulations of a green may or may not be architectural. It could be the genius of the construction crew or the person overseeing the construction crew - Wilson, Pickering or Johnson Contractors.

[Tom MacWood]

eMeneMeneM.

At this juncture, after reading your collective biases and misinterpretations and transparent attempts to discredit Hugh Wilson over the past several years for what I can only surmise is some odd academic envy of his Ivy-League roots mixed with personal animosity for Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison, I will tell each of you that your passive/aggressive efforts to try and bait me into providing more info re: the MCC Minutes is really a waste of time.

Frankly, none of you have shown the slightest bit of respect for the naterials and/or the men involved in creating that history and from my perspective, you also haven't exhibited even the slightest modicum of the objectivity necessary to provide a valid, valuable interpretation of the materials.

In a perfect world, this material could be placed on GCA for everyone's edification and enjoyment, but that is no longer possible.

You can cry and pout and hurl insults claiming that someone is hiding the truth but it is precisely that very attitude you've had from the get-go that is largely responsible for creating  this unfortunate environment we find ourselves in.

Mike
I'm curious, where did you get those direct quotes from the April 1911 report? It appears you were quoting the report before TEP.

[JESII]

You are asking about two different features. The placement of the bunker is architectural in nature, and who was in charge of the architecture is debatable. The undulations of a green may or may not be architectural. It could be the genius of the construction crew or the person overseeing the construction crew - Wilson, Pickering or Johnson Contractors.

tom,

I didn't doubt what you were thinking when you typed all those names, but that's just the point, there was only one man named Chairman of the Committee tasked with creating the golf course. There are plenty of men throughout history that botched the job and took responsibility for that, Hugh Wilson got this one right.

Is there more to it than simply saying he did 100% of the work? Absolutely.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I am sure you are comfortable with your understanding of the letter...my initial post was meant to suggest that it (along with Tom Macwood's interpretations) is wholly one sided and not based on a realistic expectation of what could have happened...much like I think Mike and TEP are wholly one sided the other way in their interpretation of the timeline.

With the two main combatants being so entranched this might go on for a while...

Jim, I really disagree with you on this.  In the heat of battle I sometimes get dogmatic, but believe it or not I am trying to consider all of the facts, and if you think I am stretching something, I'd appreciate if you pointed it out so I can reconsider.  That is how conversations work and how I learn; by presenting and defending positions against any and all challenges.   

In contrast TEPaul and Mike are insisting that we agree with them without allowing us to even see the facts, much less challenge them.   That is no conversation at all.

We are certainly not going anywhere so long as one side is trying to control the historical record.

_________________________________________________

Tom,

For example, who do you think conceptualized the really cool undulations on the present 7th green?

How about exact placement of the short right bunker on #5?

Wilson reportedly tried to build a replica of the Eden green on the 15th.  Now given he had never seen the hole when he built the green, how do you suppose he planned this?   And according to Tolhurst, the front of the 17th was supposedly based on the Valley of Sin.   
Same question as above?   

Actually, the 17th is interesting because the green was rebuilt very early on, so theoretically Wilson might have modeled it after something he had seen overseas, except that I am not sure the hole was conceptually changed or whether the swale was or wasn't there before.  I don't have my info handy on this hole.   

My point is that there is plenty to talk about regarding the actual architecture, and I certainly would NOT exclude green contours.  Those were pretty important to CBM and, arguably, his fingerprints are there.  To me that is the more interesting conversation.  But I'd like to finish this one first.   

Same goes for bunkers, although those are tough because some were added later, and I don't know exactly which ones.   I generally think it is reasonable to credit HW for bunker placement.   Some bunkers were somewhat destined given the type of holes I think they were trying to create, but even in this case it would have been HW who was in charge of the exact placement, the look, etc. 

______________________________________

Interestingly Tom, I am a believer in taking responsibility for a screw up and the benefit of taking that responsibility is the deserving the credit for a home run. After all, approving something done by someone else makes it your own when you're the one in charge, right?

I don't really have a horse in this quest for credit, but I don't get this.   Haven't we been told that it was CBM who approved the final layout plan?   And wasn't it the plan he approved that went to Merion's Board of Governor's for final approval?     So then by your logic doesn't he get credit?

[JESII]

Just to that last segment...I think it is a very tough argument for you to make; with Wilson holding the title of chairman and all the reports being that he deserves the credit for the course, that CBM's role could be looked at as THE authority on the project...I know you've been making it, and believe it or not there are plenty out here waiting to be swayed, but there is the very hard truth that he wasn't there much and the guys that were all said HW deserves most of the credit.

So, I could debate CBM approving one of five plans before the committee sent it to the board with you but you've done it and I don't want to. I would reiterate another possibility of that "approval" of the final plan. Another sales pitch, much like the land in June 1910. They may well have known what they wanted and thought it would carry more weight with CBM's stamp.

I don't want that to sound like minimizing CBM's role, I don't think they used him in any ill conceived manner, but there is a flip side to all of your interpretations of what he did.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know Jim,  we can't just dismiss every mention of CBM as a sales pitch, can we?   He did after all host the Construction Committee at NGLA for a couple of days and then travel back down to Merion in early April.   I know TEPaul likes to portray CBM as second fiddle in the social set to the great men of Merion, but really do you think they would trouble CBM and Whigham (third fiddle?) by bringing them back down if Merion wasn't looking for them to tell them what was right and what would work?   And why would they have been hyping CBM in the Board of Governor's meeting minutes? These didn't go to the members, did they?  

But to take a step back, it is easy to forget (even for me sometimes) that my position here is extremely narrow.  I think CBM and HJW were the driving force behind the plan, and by that I mean the routing and the hole concepts.   Beyond that I have always credited HIW with the rest, and think there was plenty.  Given that the planning took place before anything else really got going (the building, seeding, features, greens, etc.) I am sure that HIW appeared to to be the man in charge and the final authority, because after the plan was finalized he most likely was.  

But we have been told that with regard to the plan, it was M&W that were calling the shots, the final one at least.  

[JESII]

What about the Francis Land Swap? Surely you cannot give CBM credit for that piece of the routing?


No, I don't think CBM was just a sales pitch, I thought I made that disclaimer...I was just trying to point out that there is a view 180 degrees opposite of yours that could have some merit.

[Tom MacWood]

You are asking about two different features. The placement of the bunker is architectural in nature, and who was in charge of the architecture is debatable. The undulations of a green may or may not be architectural. It could be the genius of the construction crew or the person overseeing the construction crew - Wilson, Pickering or Johnson Contractors.

tom,

I didn't doubt what you were thinking when you typed all those names, but that's just the point, there was only one man named Chairman of the Committee tasked with creating the golf course. There are plenty of men throughout history that botched the job and took responsibility for that, Hugh Wilson got this one right.

Is there more to it than simply saying he did 100% of the work? Absolutely.

I don't equate chairman of the construction committee with creator of the golf course. He wasn't chairman of the architectural committee.

Typically the architect gets 100% credit and the contractor and/or construction committee gets zero credit. But based on what we have uncovered so far this case is more complicated. There is the possibility one person routed the course. Another man or men designed the individual holes. A third man put his stamp on it after a trip abroad. And I haven't even mentioned the contribution of the contractor.

[Tom MacWood]

"Human error is a logical explantion if you have a transcribed copy, but he says he has a photocopy of the original document. He made the exact same error over and over again, and as a result those of us quoting him - Mike, David and myself - have made the exact same error over and over again. How do you explain that?"

Tom

When you refer to human error and someone making the same error over and over again are you referring to me or someone else? If you are referring to me I wish you would stop just mentioning it and just show me and this website where I made an error over and over again. Don't forget, everything that has been said on this website is in the back pages. Don't just tell me actually SHOW ME where I made some error over and over again! Go find it and put it on a post and SHOW ME the error I made over and over if it is me you're referring to.

My bet is that you will avoid this as you always do when you say things on here like that!  

I was referring to you. How do you explain it?

Where does Johnson Contractors fit into quote?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

There is no possibility that one man routed the course! Not if you consider that:

*Francis did little by his own admission, but was responsible for the 15th and 16th via his land swap. 
*And that Lesley approved that swap. 
*The (or for DM, "a") Committee did "many" routings
*CBM approved the rest of the routing

Even if you throw Barker in there in December, direct evidence contradicts the "single gunman....oops "single router" theory!

David M,

I have no problem with the general idea of seeking the truth, even on the MCC Creations story.  Taken in the context of 6.5 years of arguments, in which many theories have been proven at least partially wrong, discarded, and/or argued endlessly based on parsed words, tortured logic, etc., my tone is perhaps of frustration.

I mean really, if we haven't "proven" anything yet, is there any realistic hope that we will?  And, if we are only out to find who did what, is there ANY chance we will absent new documents that probably don't exist, like the letters you have been looking for between Wilson and CBM that prove CBM was working on the project more than the existing record gives him credit for?

At this point, its been a title fight that was a ten round slugfest.  The winner wins on points, not a knockdown.  And, unless the challenger was clearly better, the champ retains the title, IMHO.