So much for trying to cover all this in a more organized and productive manner.
________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, I am waiting for you to explain what it is about your methodology that would allow you to add key words to the source material and drop key words from my quotes?
- Why did you add the word "ROUTING" to the source material and then pretend that the source material directly contradicted my statement when it did not?
- Why did you remove the word "ROUTING" from my quote and then pretend that the source material directly contradicted my statement when it did not?
I am trying to understand your methodology here, and so far as I can tell it has nothing to do with accurately representing me or the source material and cannot possibly be geared to figuring out what actually happened, but I am waiting for your explanation to the contrary.
________________________________________________________
Bryan,
I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation in this environment, but I guess I will give it a shot.
There is a lot about that Lesley report to the board that I don't understand and a lot of open questions out there about it that people aren't even asking.
1. Is the transcript we have been given accurate and authentic? I've never seen the actual minutes. I have been denied access to them by both MCC and MGC. I know that TEPaul keeps claiming that anyone can look at them, but this is false. Wayne has arranged it so is the minutes are not available through normal channels, or at least they are not available to anyone who might actually view them with a critical eye. So at this point it is impossible to know if what we have been given is an accurate and complete record of what happened.
Unfortunately we have been provided a number of different versions of the transcript of this supposed report over the years, and this only adds to the uncertainty about its authenticity. Add to that the fact that on multiple occasions the Faker Flynn authors have put forth inaccurate and incomplete information and claimed it was authentic. So it is difficult to know whether to trust this information or not.
That said, I hope this latest version in accurate, but I really wonder about what was before and after that report in the records and why the rest of the records for that meeting were not included on the Flynn Faker pdf. Why wouldn't they have included the records where the golf course was actually approved?
As it is we have little choice but to work of of what we have, but we should all keep in mind the possibility that games are still being played with this material, as games have been being played for years.
2. Who is the author of the report?
The answer seems obvious. Lesley is the author. "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds." But in the past TEPaul and Mike have tried to argue that this was something Wilson had written and that Lesley was reading for Wilson. That doesn't make any sense to me and there is no indication of this in any text I have seen. If this is the case then they ought to bring forward information supporting this.
3. What were the many different courses?
From the beginning of the report, "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land . . ." I assume that the "many different courses" were variations on the route of the golf course.
The many "different golf courses" could easily refer to variations of routings. While it is far from clear, the description could refer to the variations up to that point, including Barker's rough routing, CBM/HJW's suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan (including the addition of the land behind the clubhouse,) Lloyd's and Francis' attempts to make this fit onto the pre-swap land, and the post swap routing that Francis figured out.
4. Who from Merion went to NGLA? We've always assumed it was the Construction Committee, but this report casts doubts on that. Lesley wasn't on the Construction Committee, yet he reports that "on OUR return [from NGLA], WE arranged . . ." It sure sounds like he was at NGLA. In Wilson's 1916 chapter makes it sound as if his Construction Committee was there, so there is some confusion in my mind who was actually there. There are other reasons I have my doubts about who was there and who wasn't, but I will hold them for now. Let's just say that it is somewhat of an open question, at least in my mind.
5. What were "his plans?" Lesley reported, they "spent the evening looking over HIS PLANS and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses . . . ." Since all of you guys seem to think "plans' is synonymous with routing, then this ought to settle it right? I didn't think so. Rather you guys have tried to explain this away, arguing these must be plans from overseas or plans for NGLA but they couldn't possibly be plans for Merion - anything but that! But we know that CBM told them he needed a contour map and we know that they had a contour map for months at least. So it seems entirely possible that they were there going over CBM's plans for Merion and data from overseas, on which those plans were based. We don't know, but it is certainly a possibility.
6. What was meant by: "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans?"[/i] This is another statement which is far from clear, yet you some here think it only could mean one thing: Merion came up with five different routings on their own and these routings really must have had nothing to do with the trip to NGLA. I find this preposterous for many different reasons, but mainly because it ignores the first half of the sentence and ignores that these guys had just been going over this stuff with CBM!
a. The reading ignores the first half if the sentence. The "re-arranged the course." Course is singular. Before the NGLA meetings they had tried "many different courses" --plural, as in they had tried a number of routings. But after the NGLA meeting they rearranged the course --singular as in they rearranged the course to fit with what had been decided. If this sentence is talking about routings, this seems to be the place where it is talking about routings.
b. What were these "five plans?" Many have pretended these were distinct routings and that Merion came up with them after and without CBM. But we don't know this, and to me it seems unlikely given that they also rearranged the singular course. The differences could have had to to with hole lengths or green designs (should the 14th hole be the double plateau green and the 15th the hog's back green, or visa versa?) The differences could have had to do with the order in which the holes played. (Should the course start the 14th thus ending with a par 3? Or should it Start on the par 3 13th and end on the 12th? Should the redan come after the 2nd hole? ) We don't know.
c. What is meant by "laid out" five different plans? For that matter, when Lesley used this phrase earlier when speaking of the different courses, and what did he mean there? Were these five different plans that they had developed at NGLA and were laying off on the ground to see how they worked? Were these five different pland the CBM "plans" referred to above? It is not at all clear.
I could go on. There are many more ambiguities. But the bottom line is for me is that rather than excluding CBM from the design process as Mike and Jeff pretend, this Lesley passage puts CBM and HJW right it heart and calling the shots!
In other words, I don't think we can parse out the "five plans" language and pretend that these two words explain how really Merion came up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after! If the trip to NGLA and CBM/HJW's return visit weren't key details of the design process, Lesley wouldn't have explained them, nor would he have thanked CBM/HJW years later for their help!