David,
As you suggested, I have reread your essay. You shouldn’t have suggested it. In a re-read, it looks even weaker than I remember it. (You may recall that I was initially impressed and agreed. It was only later that the arguments and documents that turned up as a result of your essay convinced me otherwise)
Not only do I not find any attributions to nearly every section, I find a lot of suppositions where you fill in the blanks for us, and admit you have no facts, using phrases like “In all likelihood”, “Presumably”, “It is probable”, “must have” and the like for nearly EVERY MAIN CONTENTION YOU MAKE.
A few samples that highlight my case against your essay:
"In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best."
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
, Macdonald and Whigham remained significantly involved even after Merion purchased the land based on their recommendations.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay! We do know they came back twice, as per the Wilson letter four years after the fact. But, if Wilson’s Brother says they came back twice only, why do you suppose it was more? Why tell us that?
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay! See above.
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.....To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned.
As you know, this is my personal favorite falsehood. Your essay takes their written, contemporaneous words, and tells us approximate means required, and “nearly” means “specific!”. But where are your facts? Why should we accept your words over theirs?
Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion.
Is this supposed “proof” of how MCC did it? And yet you tell us that it was Mike Cirba who brings up NGLA as a proxy for Merion, while you are pure as new snow?
While the Plan for Proposed Golf Course does not include the routing plan, when viewed in light of another crucial piece of the puzzle, it does reveal that the course had already been planned at the time the document was drawn up.
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had the routing, but for some reason didn’t show it?
It has long been assumed that the “swap” occurred while Construction Committee was in the process of building the course. But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910[/b],
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC started working on the plans before January? IF so, why were their no reports of anyone working on the plan earlier?
Since, according to American Golfer, Macdonald was in Chicago for the USGA annual meeting in mid-January 1911, the Committee was most likely met with him in the second half of January 1911
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC talked with CBM in January, rather than in March and April as reported? Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements.
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had a routing? If I recall, the areas of soil samples were marked with letters, rather than hole numbers, which could easily suggest no routing had taken place, at least to most of us! But that is not of concern, not in your essay!
By the time of the NGLA trip:
1. Merion already had a routing plan. Francis had been putting the finishing touches on the layout plan months before, when he resolved the routing issue.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
Wilson said: “Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton – both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick – twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans.”
As mentioned, if the contemporaries say CBM advised twice at Merion, including the June 1910 visit and later that April visit, tell me why we should believe your contention that he was much more involved? Where are your facts? Not in your essay!
Tillinghast did not identify who it was that showed him the plans, but he had apparently spoken to Macdonald about the course for the American Golfer article.
Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements. But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
David, to sum up your big flaming pile of pooh essay, and your horrible behavior here over the years, your essay simply is light on facts, and long on your “logic” of putting them together, which you demand we accept, when you call BS when any hint of that is done in reverse. You speculate, you make stuff up, and you have an agenda. Further, you cloak your true position by attacking and browbeating others endlessly.
Your essay is not worth the band space it’s written on, although I have admitted for all the mess, it created some value, by forcing others to go dig out documents, and probably does more clearly highlight CBM’s role in assisting the committee.
But to use your favorite phrases, it’s time for the world to see that “As far as I know, in all likelihood, it is probable, that you presumably must have stretched the truth just a wee bit for whatever reasons you may have had.
I will leave it at that, and I think we can leave it that we simply disagree on some of the major contentions of your essay.
I do agree that an IMO in point-counterpoint is “probably” more productive and lasting. I don’t think it should come from me, but if Ran or any of the Philly boys want to incorporate parts of this in any of their rebuttal pieces, they may feel free to do so.