The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan - re routing 5 different layouts in 30 days, I would suggest that its not that difficult,  particularly if several of the routings had similar elements to them.

Niall, not difficult for whom ?  A seasoned architect, or a group of novices who had never done this in their life ?
Circa 1911 ?

And, I'll add another complication to the equation, the cross overs and/or need to walk through the clubhouse to get from green to tee.

This wasn't an easy piece of land upon which to lay a routing.  Perhaps that's why there were five versions.


The real question is whether they would be any good.

That also goes to the complexity of the site, crossovers and use of the clubhouse to get from green to tee.
This wasn't a simple parcel of land

I would have thought, and here Jeff can advise, that you would likely come up with two or three different basic routings fairly quickly when looking at a tract of land and from that choosing the best and refining it from there.

Template holes and CBM - has anyone considered that Merion already had a Scottish pro at the time they were conceiving the course and that furthermore when Wilson visited the UK, as well as bringing back plans he also brought back George Sayers, son of Ben Sayers, long standing North Berwick pro and golf architect.


The routing and individual hole designs had already been bult and seeded six months before Wilson left for the UK.
The die was cast in terms of routing and hole design.

George Sayers stayed at Merion as pro for a good number of years thereafter and it occurs to me that if I was looking to incorporate a Redan into my course I would be saving myself the price of a phone call to Long Island and instead asking the resident pro if he didn't mind giving me the benefit of his thoughts.

Sayers appeared after 1911, when the plans for the course had already been approved and the course already constructed and planted.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, "

And you could also read this many ways - such as that CBM merely hosted tours of NGLA often, but other committees designed the courses, no? Would CBM get design credit for inspiring others by giving the standard tour?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

So I guess Mike Pascucci spent a lot of money unnecessarily when he hired Doak and Nicklaus.

All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion.

[DMoriarty]

"And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, "

And you could also read this many ways - such as that CBM merely hosted tours of NGLA often, but other committees designed the courses, no? Would CBM get design credit for inspiring others by giving the standard tour?

Such a reading might make sense for someone like Perry Maxwell, a non-golfer who became inspired to build a golf course because of the Scribner's Magazine article on NGLA by H.J. Whigham, illustrated by Franklin Booth. After reading the article Maxwell set out to NGLA and other courses to better understand how to build a golf course.  But CBM should NOT get credit for designing Maxwell's Dornoch Hills; he didn't help Maxwell choose the land, or help come up with the rough layout, or again go over the land and choose the final layout plan, but Maxwell's experience is indication of just how broad was CBM's impact on golf in America.  

Given what else we know about what happened, applying such logic to Merion would be more than a little disingenuous.
________________________________________

Patrick brings up a good point.  

Jeff Brauer splits his time around here between conflicting agendas. On the one hand, he often tells us just how little we really know about creating quality golf courses.  On the other hand, he tells us that a NGLA course tour prepared self-described novices to design and build one of the World's great golf courses.

Which is it Jeff?  Does designing and building a World Class course really require any sort of expertise?  Or is it enough that one simply takes a tour of NGLA? I've visited NGLA a few times and I couldn't have asked for more educational tours.  So am I ready to design a World Class course? Somehow I don't think so. How about you? Have you been to NGLA? If so, did the World Class courses just flow out of you after?  Or does it only work with novices?

Maybe a NGLA tour is the gca equivalent of having stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

As an aside, many years ago Rees Jones told me that every time he visited NGLA he saw and learned something new about it.

I feel the same way

There are so many unique subtleties that I think it's impossible to drink them all in in one day, or two days or a week.

I think that's one of NGLA's endearing qualities, that you discover more about it with return visits.

The notion that CBM was invited by Merion to help locate, route and design their golf course, but after visiting, went incognito, and was unreachable by Merion, only to briefly resurface thereafter, for the purpose of reconnecting with the committee for a brief period,
then disappearing again, then reappearing to approve/execute the final plan, seems preposterous.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Bryan,

I think we've been through this before, haven't we?   You don't like the conclusions I draw from the factual record and want to substitute your own conclusions for mine.   Well I am not convinced that yours are better.   I think they are worse.

Yes, we have been through this before.  Much like the other thousands of posts on the subject.  I kind of knew you wouldn't agree.  I can live with you thinking that your theories are better than mine.  But in the end you can't say with certainty that your theories are the truth.  So, this member of the jury remains out on your theories.

Re the committees at MCC, do you have any source documentation about what they were and who was on them.  You seem to think there were at least three - the Golf Grounds Committee, the Golf Committee, and the Construction Committee.  Were there more that are relevant to this discussion?  The mandates and membership of the Golf Grounds Committee and the Construction Committee seem pretty clear.  The Golf Committee was chaired by Lesley, but who else was on it and what was their mandate?  Perhaps Mike has something or can get something from the peanut gallery.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Wow.  I'm almost speechless, but not quite.  You have certainly colored in many of the blank parts of the picture.

My theory ?  My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs.  I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.

And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later.  A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.

Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?

I don't.

I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.

I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.

Which "committee" do you suppose CBM was working with from June to March?

Do you think they knew which 117 acres they were going to use in June 1910?

Why, after 9 months of design effort, would the "committee" go to NGLA to see CBM's overseas research stuff?  Surely after 9  months the routing and design would have been fairly far along.

Why would they have to do 5 more plans if they'd already spent 9 months on working up a plan with CBM?


_____________________________


I don't believe that I had previously seen your "belief" about Merion trying to eradicate (forgive the choice of word) the CBM identity of the course.  This seems preposterous to me.  You would have us believe they worked with the preeminent architect of the time to route and design a course that is described as among the best in the world, and then the amateurs deface it to eradicate the CBM identity and somehow still end up with a best-in-the-world golf course with a new identity.  Wow.  


______________________________

All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion.  

Perhaps you are just no Hugh Wilson.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Niall,

How are things at Glasgow Gailes these days.  Are you still there?  Over here, we're shortly going to need row boats to get around our courses.

I agree with you that doing 5 plans or variations on a theme is doable in 30 days.  They did say that they did it, so it was possible.  Perhaps if they had consulted with Sayers more when he arrived they might have got a redan that actually had the fundamental principle of the redan hole - a green that is angled and tilted away from the tee shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not that this whole thread hasn't been ridiculous, but its getting even moreso, IMHO.

Why should we even worry about Patrick's speculations about how long it took to route Merion?  Barker routed one version in a day, Bendelow would have done the same.  Why would it take CBM over nine months to route MCC if he really did start in June, if he had so much experience?

But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened?  Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National?  Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?

I have always said that the last 100 pages or so of any thread occur mostly because we like to argue, and not because we have anything new to say!

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Once again, you are spot on, as are many of Bryan's observations.

After reading Patrick's latest WHALE TALE, perhaps the best thing I can do is just remain quiet and let the absolutely ridiculous absurdity of his theories and obvious Bromance with CBM speak for themselves.    

As far as the Golf Illustrated articles, who has ever argued that the amateur sportsmen at Merion weren't directly inspired by what the amateur sportsmen at NGLA (Macdonald, Whigham, Emmet, Travis) did, and looked to emulate their efforts?

All the early Merion articles also cited two other superior courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen that they hoped to emulate, which were Myopia and Garden City.

But since the article cited new courseS in Philadelphia, I have to ask...

What other Philadelphia courses besides Merion in Philly do David and Patrick want to give CBM sole design attribution for?

And what about poor HH Barker....I'm imagining somewhere Tom MacWood is still looking for that train ticket.    

Carry on...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.

As far as I can tell, the mistakes in the history re the Wilson trip occurred in Tollhursts club history in 1988.  Before that, it is true that the club had heard about their committee design over the years and CBM suffered from some benign neglect, but the 3M crowd is really arguing that the big lie started from the very beginning.

Look who had to be in on it - CBM for ignoring it in his own book, Tillie and others for not putting it in any articles, and so forth. All of the astute members of Merion (who until these threads probably never had their truthfulness questioned so brazenly) who, we need to recall, would have to have kept their stories "straight" for many years.  But, HJW "cracked the code" in his eulogy, and that is what counts!

It is a shame (or a sham) that the 3M boys have decided to use their time on Merion. Roswell NM is more their caliber of subject to attack.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

It's sad that due to his man-love of CBM, Patrick, who's often a nice, reasonable, sensible guy, has hitched his wagon to the wildly careening trainwreck of absurd and historically-inaccurate speculation perpetuated here by the other two over the years.

Sadder still is that he has used this thread from the beginning to personally insult me time and again as lying about the facts, or making stuff up, and/or being "disingenuous" when I've been about the only one here who has actually produced hard evidence and documentation.  

I still love the big guy, but it's been painful to witness.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, the best thing about these threads is that I have learned a bit about Merion and a lot about being disingenous!

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I am fine with you not being convinced.  Given the burden of proof you require of me, I am not counting on convincing you.  Convincing you or any other "jury" was never my goal.  Besides, the burden of proof you are requiring is much more demanding than would be required by any jury.

What surprises me about your approach is what seems to me to be a double standard, where you impose almost impossible burden of proof on me, but comparatively lax standards for you and others.    For example above you note that I cannot say "with certainty that [my] theories are the truth." Of course I can't!  That is the nature of historical analysis.  

But while you hold me to this impossible standard, you and others go on loosely speculating about all sorts of things, none of which you can say with certainty.  For example, you seem to think that it was Wilson's committee who came up with the five plans or iterations?  You cannot say this with any degree of certainty, and I think it extremely unlikely, yet it is apparently good enough for you.  

But maybe I just misunderstood your methodology.   I thought you were actually trying to figure out which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened.   Yet your approach seems to be very similar to that of Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba.   You all seem to think that if you can conceive of any sort of alternative theory - no matter how unlikely - then my theory must fail.   In other words, my burden is to prove my theory as an absolutely certainty --you state as much above.   Yet your own burden seems to be that of mere possibility.

As for your questions about the various committees, I don't have that in front of me right now.  We know the members of Wilson's Construction Committee.   Lesley was not among them.  Somewhere I have the identity of Lesley's Committee, and Wilson was not a member.  I don't recall offhand if the Golf Committee and what you call the Golf Grounds Committee were the same.   Lloyd was on both Wilson's Committee and Lesley's Committee.    
_________________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer wrote:

But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened?  Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National?  Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?

One of the big fictions around here is that, 100 years ago, Merion credited Hugh Wilson and not CBM as designer of the course.  This was not the case.  Brauer, the Philadelphia Posse, and even many legitimate historians had misread the record for years as if this is what it said, but it does not.  Take the Hugh Wilson chapter for example, long misinterpreted as being about preparation for the trip abroad until I set the straight.   Or take the Lesley report, twisted by them to diminish CBM's contribution when the article itself does nothing of the sort.   Or take the Alan Wilson document, where Wayne and TEPaul went so far as to doctor their presentation of the text to hide the extent of the CBM and HJW's involvement in the design process.   The reality is that Wilson and his Committee were not singled out for design credit over CBM and HJW.   All of the early accounts - including Merion's Board Minutes - highlight CBM and HJW's  contributions - but few even mention Wilson.

I keep asking them for a list of these early sources that single out Wilson and his Committee for design credit over CBM and HJW, but none has been forthcoming, and none will be because such documents do not exist.   CBM is mentioned again and again during the PLANNING, in the press and in Merion's internal administrative records, but not Wilson.  

My judgment, 100 years later, is entirely consistent with Hugh Wilson's words, and Robert Lesley's, and Whigham's, and with Alan Wilson's.    It is Brauer, Cirba, and their cronies who have to discount and twist the words of these men to make their case!    They are the ones who won't take the words of those who were there! \\

________________________________

Cirba asks "who has ever argued that the amateur sportsmen at Merion weren't directly inspired by what the amateur sportsmen at NGLA (Macdonald, Whigham, Emmet, Travis) did, and looked to emulate their efforts?  

Has he forgotten the past many years?   His posts do not deserve addressing.

[Mike Cirba]

Hoooooi boy....what can you say to that?

Someone cue the Twilight Zone theme perhaps?

As i said, perhaps the best thing to do is simply just let these guys post their increasingly bizarre rants and just stay out of the way.   They make the case for the how ridiculous these alternative theories are far better than i ever could.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, the best thing about these threads is that I have learned a bit about Merion and a lot about being disingenous!

Jeff, I see you're perfecting that trait.

You didn't mind it when Mike Cirba declared that David and I were lying, but, somehow you took great offense, when in the same thread and only a few replies later, I said that Mike was being disingenuous.

How do you reconcile, in terms of objectivity and even handedness, the double standard you apply ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Wow.  I'm almost speechless, but not quite.  You have certainly colored in many of the blank parts of the picture.

I told you that it was my theory.  I didn't ask you to embrace it.
I think it's a reasonable possibility.
It's just as reasonable as a complete novice getting together with 4 other rank amateurs and routing and designing a golf course.

My theory ?  My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs.  I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.

And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later.  A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.

Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?

I don't.

I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.

I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.

Which "committee" do you suppose CBM was working with from June to March?

Members, prominent members and perhaps even some who would be on the committee.

Do you think they knew which 117 acres they were going to use in June 1910?

I couldn't tell you the exact date, but, at some point, prior to the official acquisition, they pretty much knew what land would or could be at their disposal.  That's why I brought up the point, the issue that Merion's Board officially approved the plan on April 19th and that they began construction almost immediately thereafter.  But, they didn't own the land at the time., so they're building/constructing a golf course on land that they didn't officially own, since the official titles weren't passed/executed/recorded until July 19th, three full months later

Why, after 9 months of design effort, would the "committee" go to NGLA to see CBM's overseas research stuff?  

Is it your theory that that's the only reason they went to NGLA ?  To see CBM's overseas research ?
I think they went for reasons beyond that.

Surely after 9  months the routing and design would have been fairly far along.

Wouldn't that depend upon how much time was directly devoted to those pursuits.

Why would they have to do 5 more plans if they'd already spent 9 months on working up a plan with CBM?

Who said that they did 5 more plans ?
How do you know that the other plans weren't just variations of the "core" plan

I don't believe that I had previously seen your "belief" about Merion trying to eradicate (forgive the choice of word) the CBM identity of the course.  

I never used the word "eradicate", that's your word, a word with built in bias to further your views.

This seems preposterous to me.  

Not to me, I've seen it happen at a number of clubs.
Perhaps I just have a little more experience in this area.
I wonder how the original members at Piping Rock would view my theory

You would have us believe they worked with the preeminent architect of the time to route and design a course that is described as among the best in the world, and then the amateurs deface it to eradicate the CBM identity and somehow still end up with a best-in-the-world golf course with a new identity.  

"Deface" ?  Another absurd choice of words on your part.
Why the need for exageration with your response ?  Why not just use the same word I used, "distance"

All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion.  

Perhaps you are just no Hugh Wilson.  

But, If I had Pete Dye or Tom Doak or Coore & Crenshaw as my "advisor" maybe I would have been.

Of course, Merion wasn't parked next to Sebonack.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not that this whole thread hasn't been ridiculous, but its getting even moreso, IMHO.

Why should we even worry about Patrick's speculations about how long it took to route Merion?

Jeff, I stated it was a theory.  I never asked or demanded that you accept it.  You're free to craft your own theory. 

Barker routed one version in a day, Bendelow would have done the same. 

But Jeff, Mike Cirba's told us that's impossible.

Why would it take CBM over nine months to route MCC if he really did start in June, if he had so much experience?

What's the rush ?
Were they going to build the course over the winter ?
There are many reasons that could explain the time frame, one of which is that it wasn't as if CBM didn't have anything else to do.
He didn't have a penalty clause for not producing the routing and design by a set date.

But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened? 

But, they don't tell you what happened.
Even Wayno Morrisson stated that so much is unknown.

And, we KNOW that Merion got their history wrong on Wilson's trip.
Their website declared that Wilson took his trip before the course was routed and designed, and we know that Wilson didn't take his trip until 1912, AFTER the course was routed and designed.  So, I'm not as willing as you are to accept everything that Merion states, as the Gospel

Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when.   You don't know who crafted the plans.  Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ?  Whigham ?  All of them, none of them ?

So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.

In an email to me, Wayno declared, that for over one year there was never any phone contact between the parties because there's no record of those calls.  Can you imagine the absurdity and bias behind that statement.  No paper trail certifying phone calls ?  ?  ? 
Is it REASONABLE to believe, that for over a one year period, the people in Philadelphia didn't use the phone to communicate with the people in New York about a joint venture project they were involved in ?

Yet, Wayno claims, with imperialistic authority, that it never happend because their no supporting paper trail to prove it.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up

Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National? 

I don't know, you'd have to ask him.


Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?

There could be a number of reasons.
"Scotland's Gift" was written almost two decades after Merion was crafted and recrafted.  Perhaps in its altered state, CBM didn't want to take credit. 
We know that Whigham, who was there every step of the way, stated that Macdonald did design Merion.  Whigham gives him full credit.

I have always said that the last 100 pages or so of any thread occur mostly because we like to argue, and not because we have anything new to say!

Is that why you've continued to post on these last 100 pages, just to argue ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.

As far as I can tell, the mistakes in the history re the Wilson trip occurred in Tollhursts club history in 1988.  Before that, it is true that the club had heard about their committee design over the years and CBM suffered from some benign neglect, but the 3M crowd is really arguing that the big lie started from the very beginning.

Jeff, now you're both lying and being disingenuous.

I NEVER stated that.
And, you know, from a shared group email that TEPaul asked me that question and that I answed it correctly.
So you KNOW that I NEVER stated that the Wilson trip error was from the very begining.

Look who had to be in on it - CBM for ignoring it in his own book, Tillie and others for not putting it in any articles, and so forth. All of the astute members of Merion (who until these threads probably never had their truthfulness questioned so brazenly) who, we need to recall, would have to have kept their stories "straight" for many years.  But, HJW "cracked the code" in his eulogy, and that is what counts!

It's bad enough that you lied when you declared that I stated or believed the error in the Wilson trip date occured at the very begining, but, to piggy back an absurd scenario on top of it is beyond disingenuous, it's dishonest.  You're so desperate that you've compromised your integrity to try to make your point, or worse yet, to fabricate and distort my point.  And you, you're the one always claiming to be holier than thou.  That's a joke.

It is a shame (or a sham) that the 3M boys have decided to use their time on Merion. Roswell NM is more their caliber of subject to attack.

I put forth a theory.  I think it's a reasonable theory.

You should admit that your position, your tone and attempts at ridicule are based solely on your personal dislike of David and myself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

It's sad that due to his man-love of CBM, Patrick, who's often a nice, reasonable, sensible guy, has hitched his wagon to the wildly careening trainwreck of absurd and historically-inaccurate speculation perpetuated here by the other two over the years.

Mike,

I haven't "hitched my wagon" to anyone's premise.
I presented my theory, one I believe is reasoned.


Sadder still is that he has used this thread from the beginning to personally insult me time and again as lying about the facts, or making stuff up, and/or being "disingenuous" when I've been about the only one here who has actually produced hard evidence and documentation.

Mike,
You're being disingenuous again.

When you stated that David and I were lying, I didn't take it personally.  So, a few replies later, when I stated that you were being disingenuous, you shouldn't either.  I mean, you can't call someone a liar, and then take offense when they indicate you're guilty of same. 
Truth be told, it was Jeff Brauer who fanned the flames on that issue.
He transitioned the word, "disingenuous" to "liar" and has been beating the drum of righteous indignation ever since.
I think you and I were OK with some flippant name calling during the heat of the debate.
It's Jeff who's continued to fan the flames on that issue.  

I still love the big guy, but it's been painful to witness.

Mike, I"ve never presented my theory as anything other than my theory.
I never insisted it was fact, I never insisted that you accept it.
It's a theory, a reasoned position.

That Jeff, Wayno, TEPaul and others want to ridicule it is there privilege.

Let me ask you this.
If you retained me as your "advisor" and we had a project of major undertaking, do you think that I'd go incognito, hiding in a closet in New York City and Southampton for a year, or, do you think that I might just pick up the phone and talk to you about our project, our joint venture, on an ongoing basis ?

The notion that CBM and the committee played hide and seek is preposterous.

By the way, David Moriarty has executed a subpoena on AT&T and obtained teh phone records between Philly and New York for Calendar years 1910, 1911 and 1912.  There are 875 calls from Philly to Southampton and 697 calls from Southampton to Philly.
Strangely, all of the calls made from Philly were collect calls.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Bryan,

I am fine with you not being convinced.  Given the burden of proof you require of me, I am not counting on convincing you.  Convincing you or any other "jury" was never my goal.  Besides, the burden of proof you are requiring is much more demanding than would be required by any jury.

I know you have stated before that you are not trying to convince anyone, rather you are trying to figure out the truth of what happened in the initial design.  I got that, believe it or not.  But, you'll forgive me if I read the thousands of posts by all concerned and not come to the logical conclusion that you are all trying to convince each other that your theory is the most likely and theirs is not.  Since you seem to feel I am pointing at only you in this, let me be explicitly clear - it's not just you it's everybody involved.  It doesn't take thousands of posts to explain anybody's research and findings and conclusions.  It apparently does to convince the other side that they are most likely wrong and you are most likely right, and vice-versa.

What surprises me about your approach is what seems to me to be a double standard, where you impose almost impossible burden of proof on me, but comparatively lax standards for you and others.    For example above you note that I cannot say "with certainty that [my] theories are the truth." Of course I can't!  That is the nature of historical analysis. 

To be clear, I don't think that the other side's theories are proved with certainty either.  I don't think any of us know with certainty about who did what to whom regarding the routing and hole design.  You feel your theory is the most likely.  Mike, Jeff and their peanut gallery think their theory is the most likely.  Even Pat feels that his theory is the most likely.  And, of course, there's TMac and his Barker theories.  But, I challenge any of those theorists to post here that there theory is the absolute truth.  The truth is we don't know.  The search for the truth is interesting though.  Too bad it gets so emotional.

But while you hold me to this impossible standard, you and others go on loosely speculating about all sorts of things, none of which you can say with certainty.  For example, you seem to think that it was Wilson's committee who came up with the five plans or iterations?  You cannot say this with any degree of certainty, and I think it extremely unlikely, yet it is apparently good enough for you. 

You are wrong about what I seem to think.  I don't know with any certainty that Wilson's Committee did the 5 plans or variations or whatever they were.  I am agnostic - I don't know.  You and the others all have the right to question my speculations or anyone else's.  We've all been doing that for years and thousands of posts.

But maybe I just misunderstood your methodology.   I thought you were actually trying to figure out which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened.   Yet your approach seems to be very similar to that of Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba.   You all seem to think that if you can conceive of any sort of alternative theory - no matter how unlikely - then my theory must fail.   In other words, my burden is to prove my theory as an absolutely certainty --you state as much above.   Yet your own burden seems to be that of mere possibility.

I sense that you feel victimized by what you feel is a burden of proof I am imposing on you.  I am not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure what burden of proof means to you.  I do recall a good book by that name of some years ago.  But, to clarify again, I am NOT trying to figure out "which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened".  What's the point in doing that?  The most reasonable and most likely may not be the truth.  Is it not better to continue pursuing more of the truth of what actually happened that to surmise what happened through inference and interpretation?  In the meantime, the analysis of the information we do have is enlightening and entertaining.  Debating is fun on its own merits, as long as it doesn't get too emotional.

As for your questions about the various committees, I don't have that in front of me right now.  We know the members of Wilson's Construction Committee.   Lesley was not among them.  Somewhere I have the identity of Lesley's Committee, and Wilson was not a member.  I don't recall offhand if the Golf Committee and what you call the Golf Grounds Committee were the same.   Lloyd was on both Wilson's Committee and Lesley's Committee.

If you can find the information on the committee structures at MCC, at the time, it would be helpful.  At the very least we could then debate about who on those committees might have done the routing and design work and/or worked with CBM/HJW on the routing and design work depending on which theory you believe in.  If Mike is reading this, maybe you could weigh in with the official MCC version of the committee structures.  Surely it is in the MCC archives/minutes somewhere. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when.   You don't know who crafted the plans.  Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ?  Whigham ?  All of them, none of them ?

So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.

So, you agree that we don't know the "details, specific details. of who did what and when".  I think as I parse through David's theories and postings that he would agree too.  I agree.  Do you suppose if Mike and Jeff and the peanut gallery agreed, that we could all agree that we are just all speculating, looking for what seems to each of us to be the most likely scenario?

In any case, let the speculating and the debate continue.



 

[Niall C]

Niall,

How are things at Glasgow Gailes these days.  Are you still there?  Over here, we're shortly going to need row boats to get around our courses.

I agree with you that doing 5 plans or variations on a theme is doable in 30 days.  They did say that they did it, so it was possible.  Perhaps if they had consulted with Sayers more when he arrived they might have got a redan that actually had the fundamental principle of the redan hole - a green that is angled and tilted away from the tee shot.

Bryan

Haven't been down to Gailes in about 8 or 9 months as I'm now more or less spending most of my time in the north of Scotland. They do tell me though that the greens are now in the best nick that they have been in years. Now a member at Moray so next time you're over come up for a game.

With regards to my Sayers comment, while it wasn't entirely facetious, I was trying to suggest that perhaps the Merion Committee had more sources on how to design a Redan and do other things than just CBM.

David/Patrick,

Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.

David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee. I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true. From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.

Patrick - re routing. A good number of years ago when I flirted with getting into gca I did a course along with seven others. During the course we did a number of routing exercises, some from plans only, others with plans and access to walk the site. Most of the sites chosen had severe restraints for obvious reasons. Each exercise was done over a couple of days. From that I can assure you that coming up with a basic routing or several based on roughly the same idea wasn't that difficult. What was interesting was that others in the group would have a completely different take and would route the course in the totally opposite direction say. So very quickly you would have 8 routings.

Now I imagine the exact sort of thing would happen with the Merion Committee in that they each would do there own routing and then discuss the respective merits, refining them, and then choosing what they considered the best to show to CBM for comment. The question however, as I stated before, was whether they were any good, and whether the one chosen had any alterations made by CBM.

Niall

[Tom MacWood]

I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.

Wilson designed the West course and significantly redesigned the East course; Wilson was in charge of construction of both courses. What big lie? Golf architecture history is replete with confused attributions and no one refers to them as 'big lies.' This is another example of the emotional illogical reaction one gets when a legend is questioned, especially a Philadelphia legend.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Why do you think I am or would be emotional about Hugh Wilson? I'm not, and your postulation that I am (as a Chicagoan/Texan) is as ridiculous as your HHBarker designed Merion theory.