Jim,
I think that you and I both seek some middle ground which is probably reality, and others perhaps get hung up in black and white theories, start and end dates, strict attribution, etc.
Let’s look at a couple of things from my perspective.
David’s essay with no proof, basically postulates that MCC “must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA." Has anyone looked beyond that to see how CBM did it at his own Chicago Golf, other consulting jobs he took, Piping Rock? How many of his dozens of projects followed the NGLA ideal?
And, why overlook the fact that he basically lucked into the ideal process at NGLA more because of Alvord’s situation and direction than his own beliefs. Why do we have to assume that he would strongly advise Merion there was only one way to do this? It wasn’t the only way CBM did this, and yet, that is what David and others have fixated on.
We forget that CBM first offered for 120 acres somewhere in the middle of the “in planning” Alvord subdivision, without a routing (At least, his writings don’t mention it, but he had postulated earlier that about 120 acres being ideal for a golf course.) Does that sound familiar? IMHO, the ONLY reason he (and Behr later) writes in depth about the second site process is because it was so ideal, not so common or mandatory.
If CBM did only his ideal course that way (and on the second try at that) how is that proof that Merion had to do it that way, rather than a more typical way? It appears to me to have been a long, slow carefully considered process of constant refinement to a final routing, ending at the last possible moment prior to construction, or maybe slightly after. I find situations where I can design right up to dropping the grass seed are in fact the most ideal!
The Merion parties brought in two Golf Course Architects for opinions on whether a good golf course was possible on that site. If you bring in two experts and both say it’s good property, and one does a first pass routing of parts of the course (Barker) and another studies the maps enough to tell them that the 3 Acres would make a great short hole par 3, and the Quarry can be used (CBM) and goes so far as to suggest 120 acres (both in general and after looking at the regular borders, dimensions and gentle topo of the MCC site) and a bit of wiggle room from his experience, wouldn’t you feel comfortable that you were making good choices in moving forward?
As I have speculated, CBM’s recommendations were probably based on his look at the Barker plan, which probably showed that holes west of Ardmore could only fit the land a certain way - as it happened, the creek is right in the middle of the property (between 4 and 5) and then veers to more of a 1/4 - 3/4 location up near 7. By luck of topography and border, it was pretty clear that the land was four holes wide. Holes 10-12 were obviously a bit clunky, running against the long dimension of the land.
If nothing else, I believe Barkers plan convinced CBM and the committee that to fit enough holes of adequate length west of Ardmore the Dallas Estate would be beneficial. But, we cannot know if any Barker holes were used exactly, or if there were map scribbles by CBM while on site looking over the maps, Barkers plan, and the ground.
In other words, based on CBM’s expert opinion of a one day visit, and another day to look maps and write a letter, MCC had done just enough to be comfortable that a final solution was attainable, rather than preparing a final routing by November 15, 1910. If they had the final routing at this time, of course there would be no need to leave the wiggle room with Golf House Road in December 1910, or to change the lease agreements in November 1910, about a week after agreeing to buy the land, etc. The record on when it was finished is pretty clear.
You could argue yes, Barker had an influence, and CBM provided at least some of the holes in June 1910 and perhaps in March 1911 when they were at NGLA. DM could probably pick out from above that I would agree at least parts of the course had some kind of “rough routing” or interim study, or TMac the same. I am fine with that, because routing “parts” don’t constitute a routing to me, given the importance of having it all fit together, which seems to have happened on CBM’s last visit.
To use TMac’s phrase, Merion’s original version of its history is certainly both a “plausible theory” given how things are usually done and still has the most documentation to back it up.
Don’t know if that changes your mind, but it sums up why I argue what I argue in this.