The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[DMoriarty]

While Mike is getting his haircut maybe he should let a few things soak into his skull.  There is nothing at all in the minutes about the "Construction Committee" having been formed in January or February 1910 or before.  There is nothing in the minutes about the Committee at all.  

If you don't believe me here is what that paragon of honesty and virtue, TEPaul, had to say about it:

I don't know because in the entire administrative records and board meeting minutes of MCC there is no mention at all of any committee called "The Construction Committee."

That seems to be the name that perhaps some of its members such as chairman Hugh I. Wilson gave it after the fact (in an article) and perhaps his brother did as well many years later (in a long requested letter from the MCC historian). But there never was a committee ever referred to that we know of at any board meeting known as "The Construction Committee."

So were we to let the Merion minutes be our guide, you guys are crediting the course design to a committee which never even existed, and if it did exist at this point (I have my doubts) it was not even worthy of mention.  

You guys have assumed that the Lesley Report was about the "Construction Committee" but what is the evidence for this?   Lesley was not even on the Construction Committee.

And how about the Alan Wilson report?  You guys have taken this document almost as if it were a first-hand account of what happened according to the surviving members of the Construction Committee.   But if so, then how come Alan Wilson's statement couldn't even accurately place Hugh Wilson's trip in the chronology?   Reread the Alan Wilson report and tell me which Committee went to NGLA, and who specifically went to NGLA.  The members of the Construction Committee aren't even identified until after the discussion of CBM's involvement.  

So my questions to all of you are, was there a construction committee during this planning stage, and if so when was it formed?  More importantly who was on it and when?

You guys have made a big deal out of the fact that Francis did not mention the NGLA trip or CBM's trip to Merion, and have concluded based on Francis' failure to mention it that these contacts were not very important.   My question is, looking at the Francis report, does it seem that he was even at NGLA?  Or even aware of how the plan came about?  When I read his statement, especially the bit about the Redan hole, I have to wonder how much involvement he even had during this early stage, and especially if he was even present at NGLA or with CBM/HJW's later visit?  

No doubt you will brush these questions off as you do everything else (and same as you did when I told you the trip story was all screwed up) but I am not sure that flies here.    You guys are crediting the planning of the course to a committee that might not have yet existed.   And ignoring mention after mention of CBM's involvement.   Explain how that works again?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I had forgotten that the committee was never mentioned in the concurrent minutes, if that is true.  The term was sure used in other places, like the invite to the dinner, etc.

But now you are telling us that the order Alan Wilson wrote his letter (describing activities and then listing the committee members) is a huge factor in determining what he meant?  He did tell us he wasn't very good at writing such things, and even so, I am not sure parsing idea order in a letter is quite the key as to what he actually said.

Ditto the Francis letter/piece.  Even disregaring the probable editing for length that someone else did, he focused primarily on his contribution, because that is what he was asked.  So, after a month or so of you and Patrick stretching the record to say that "just because no one mentioned it, doesn't mean it didn't happen" you now insist that because Francis piece is not all encompassing, it means he wasn't there, didn't participate, and didn't understand what was going on?  I don't think so.

And, by the way, I did notice in post 2553 that you casually try to slip Francis in earlier than any documentation shows with the other two.  In a few more posts, I expect you will declare your little assumption as fact that we have already agreed to, if the past is any indication.

Now, it may be that history will record you in the same breath as the guy who first declared that the world wasn't flat, because from time to time, the one guy outthinking all others does happen.  There is just nothing in your unsupported essay and subsequent posts that suggests to me that this is one of those rare cases.  As always, I could be wrong.

And I say this from the perspective of one who is really in the middle of the fence - believing that we don't know the details, but that many, by today's standards would give CBM more credit, because he probably did directly suggest, in his role as advisor, at least as much as a Ron Whitten at Erin Hills, or Brad Klien at Wintonbury, etc. and they get credit for their roles for far less credentials.

This is really beyond worthless in its repetitiveness and lack of substance, and I will say from both sides.  The arguments are getting increasingly silly - again on both sides.  I truly think that the more we all read those documents, and over read them, the more we overanalyze them, and probably to no good effect. 

Most times, the first reading gives you the right impression and you have to be looking really hard to think they are saying something other than the common meaning, but yet David still reads deeper and deeper meaning into things like word order as time goes on to support his point.  What's next?  Capital and comma use?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I had forgotten that the committee was never mentioned in the concurrent minutes, if that is true.  The term was sure used in other places, like the invite to the dinner, etc.

So now that you have been reminded, how does that change your theory?  Or does better understanding the facts have absolutely no impact on your theory?

The dinner was after Wilson went abroad and built both courses.  No doubt the "Construction Committee" existed at some point and no doubt it directed the construction of the courses.  I am not talking about the construction and I never have been.  I am talking about the initial design of the course, ending at the date CBM determined and approved the final routing plan which was sent to the Board as as the plan he approved.  As for laying it out and building it, Merion wanted to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved."

The question here is, what evidence is there that Construction Committee was at all involved in planning the course?  As contemporaneous evidence goes, THERE IS NONE.
- There is no evidence of who, other than Wilson, actually went to NGLA.
- There is no evidence of who was present when CBM and HJW came back to determine and approve the final plan.  
- There is no evidence that anyone on the construction committee did anything at all during this period.

You guys have spent so much time trying to shoot holes in my theory, you apparently haven't noticed you have no tenable theory of your own, especially by your own methodology of requiring an unambiguous statement about who designed the course in the minutes.

Or maybe I missed it. What contemporaneous documentation indicated that the construction committee designed the course?  What evidence is there that anyone except for Wilson was at all involved in early 1911 through the board meeting?

But now you are telling us that the order Alan Wilson wrote his letter (describing activities and then listing the committee members) is a huge factor in determining what he meant?

 

I told you no such thing.  I asked you to look at his statement and tell me, based on the statement, who went to NGLA? I don't think you can tell one way or another from the statement.  He was all over the place and obviously didn't even understand when his brother went abroad to study, or where that event fell in the process! How could that be?

You guys seem to have this strange notion that you don't need to support your theories.   All I am asking you is for you to explain your affirmative position.  Because I don't get it.  Did the Alan Wilson letter say who went to NGLA or with whom CBM and HJW were working? I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.

He did tell us he wasn't very good at writing such things, and even so, I am not sure parsing idea order in a letter is quite the key as to what he actually said.

Take it in any order you want.  

But tell me, What is the key to understanding what he actually said?  What exactly did he say about who went to NGLA, for example, and when the construction committee was formed and who was on it, and with whom CBM and HJW were working with when it comes to the design?  For that matter, tell me the key to understanding what he said about the trip abroad?

Ditto the Francis letter/piece.  Even disregaring the probable editing for length that someone else did, he focused primarily on his contribution, because that is what he was asked.  So, after a month or so of you and Patrick stretching the record to say that "just because no one mentioned it, doesn't mean it didn't happen" you now insist that because Francis piece is not all encompassing, it means he wasn't there, didn't participate, and didn't understand what was going on?  I don't think so.

So tell me, when was Francis appointed?
Was he at NGLA?  
Was he present when CBM and HJW came back to Merion?  
How do you know these things?

He told us he had nothing to do with the layout except for one thing, yet you have him out there in the snow in February.  What is the basis for you having him out there?  And how do you explain that he did not seem to understand where Wilson got the idea for the Redan, which was there before Wilson went abroad?

And, by the way, I did notice in post 2553 that you casually try to slip Francis in earlier than any documentation shows with the other two.  In a few more posts, I expect you will declare your little assumption as fact that we have already agreed to, if the past is any indication.

What are you talking about?  I told you that there was no evidence that anyone on the committee did anything early on (meaning early on after the committee was formed) and you that you had a "Gotcha!" moment and asked what about my swap theory.  I explained to you that in my opinion three of them had been out there the previous summer, and now you are criticizing me for "casually trying to slip Francis in earlier?"   I wasn't trying to slip in anything, but was  just address your attempted "Gotcha!" moment.  And you wonder why I question your methodology and motives.

Now, it may be that history will record you in the same breath as the guy who first declared that the world wasn't flat, because from time to time, the one guy outthinking all others does happen.  There is just nothing in your unsupported essay and subsequent posts that suggests to me that this is one of those rare cases.  As always, I could be wrong.

In these conversations are any indication, you usually are.  But you guys overestimate how many agree with you on these issues.  The feedback I have received is much different than you and the Merionettes portray.  You shouldn't assume that people agree with you just because people aren't dumb enough to waste their time here.

And I say this from the perspective of one who is really in the middle of the fence - believing that we don't know the details, but that many, by today's standards would give CBM more credit, because he probably did directly suggest, in his role as advisor, at least as much as a Ron Whitten at Erin Hills, or Brad Klien at Wintonbury, etc. and they get credit for their roles for far less credentials.

These comparisons again demonstrate the complete lack of understanding you seem to have for who CBM was and who these guys from Merion were.  CBM was the expert. CBM was the designer.  They were neither.    

Most times, the first reading gives you the right impression and you have to be looking really hard to think they are saying something other than the common meaning, but yet David still reads deeper and deeper meaning into things like word order as time goes on to support his point.  What's next?  Capital and comma use?

This always comes up in your posts and I suspect it is at the root of your dislike of me and my methods.  This is what is always said in these situations and why old legends die hard.  It is the same thing that has been said to me every step of the way, and contrary to your bogus claims above, my track record is pretty damn solid, and a hell of a lot better than the those with whom you always side.  

I think you just cannot stand the notion that I may be better at this sort of thing than you and your pals. But, just like with golf and golf architecture, life is not fair and talents are never handed out democratically. Just like I am a crummy golfer, most are crummy at this sort of analysis, and most would be crummy at designing courses.  And just like with any discipline, there is also proper methodology, and most have no clue.    

[DMoriarty]

Here are a few excerpts of TEPaul waxing on with his speculation about what was ongoing with the committees during this time period.  

From the records of the club itself there is a brief mention in the late fall of 1910 of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee, or perhaps a morphing of the former "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" that we have known as the "Search Committee" that clearly was an "ad hoc" commitee that was passing out of existence as their work was done when the club board approved the soon to come purchase by Lloyd of the land that Lloyd appears to have almost single-handly negotiated and arranged the deals of and for and that would become Merion East in a year or so.

That morphing of the former "Search Committee" into what may've been called for a time or in a board meeting or so, the "Special Committee on Golf", was at least temporarily chaired by Lloyd in Nov (perhaps because he was a board member anyway and attended board meetings), not to even mention he alone had engineered the entire 338 acre arrangment himself for MCC with Connell of HDC, according to board minutes). It looks to me sort of like an "ad hoc" committee that had essentially completed its work by the fall of 1910 and was beginning to morph into a new "ad hoc" committee that was populating up for their charge of a new responsibility in the coming months (years actually) of designing and building of the golf course. . . .

Throughout the entire time from early Nov. 1910 until July 1911 there was not a single mention in club records or correspondences about Richard Francis. . . .

I am not all that interested in his speculation, but am interested in his claim of a "brief mention in the late fall of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee."

1.  From the sounds of it, and despite their claims otherwise, these guys have no idea when the "construction committee" was formed, who went to NGlA,  or who was involved in designing Merion East, other than CBM, HJW, and perhaps Hugh Wilson.
 
2.  For those who claim that these guys have been honest and forthcoming with all the relevant source material, please tell me exactly what this document says?  

Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

In 2253 you wrote:

"He wasn't on the construction committee when he figured out the space problem. Three of the members of the construction committee reportedly made substantial contributions that previous summer and fall.  Lloyd (the deal), Griscom (who reportedly got CBM to come, but I have my doubts,) and Francis with his swap."

Now you tell me I interpret that wrong?  OR that you didn't mean Francis was working on the routing pre Nov 1910? I am just asking what record there is that Francis was doing anything in 1910, because I don't recall anyone presenting any record of it.

But, I think I understand your theory  from your recent writings:

Francis and CBM had a sleepover at Francis house prior to Nov. 1910.  During a pillow fight, CBM's pointy sleeping cap fell to the floor, suggesting the triangle to CBM, as a famous gca (who strangley no one on the board new who he was and that he was working with them)  Afraid of homophobic backlash, and damage to CBM's reputation, Francis alone road to Lloyd's house, where to further cover up CBM's involvement from an unsuspecting membership, counseled him to show a blank land plan to the members.

After approval, they let the committee work up plans, but told them not to take them over to NGLA, so they could see CBM single handedly route their course before dinner (not knowing that he had already done it months before)

So, despite the fact that Wilson and the construction committee had been formed, and was working diligently to gather all types of information relating to the new golf course, the special committee on new golf grounds, whose work was done, but who had also heard that the CBM pajama parties were a blast, and that he served great booze, went instead.  No word on why they waited from Nov to March, despite a time crunch.

To keep the ruse going, the grounds committee told the boys on the construction committee to go back and work on five more plans, even though CBM had shown them his completed routing plan at NGLA.  Then, they invited him over in April to approve one plan which means one of them had been let in on the secret.

Yeah, all that makes perfect sense to us!

Once again, I still don't know what exactly you are arguing about.  Contrary to your opinion, no one says CBM wasn't involved.  It just appears you want the percentage to be close to 100%, as opposed to lower involvement (whether 1% by time, 20% by hole concepts, etc.) than others.  But, its just not worth the time.

Now that you are back to the Club records being unreliable, current supporters being document alterers, Merion not letting you play in their sandbox, and the website eating your homework, added on to your usual insults, accusations, logic stretches, word parsing, etc. I think its time to be done with this.  Declare victory if you want.  The truth in these matters usually comes out eventually, and I think that will happen here, too. 

If it turns out that you are right in all these matters, I'll be the first to shake your hand.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I asked you to make your affirmative case, and you come back at me with this crap?  Tell me you aren't channeling your drunken buddy again?  

Your last semi-coherent argument against CBM's involvement was that, had he planned the course, then Merion's minutes would say so.   So show me where Merion's minutes say that the construction committee planned the course?

Surely if the construction committee planned the course, the minutes would say so, right?

And a few more few simple questions . . .

When was the construction committee formed? How do you know?
When was Francis added to the Construction Committee?  How do you know?
Was Francis at NGLA?  If so, how do you know?
Was Francis at Merion when CBM came back and determined the final routing?  If so, how do you know?
Who, according to Alan Wilson, traveled to NGLA?  
Who, according to Alan Wilson, were CBM and HJW advising?
In the Lesley report, who went to NGLA?  How do you know?  

You cannot answer a single one of those questions, yet you claim the construction committee planned the course?  CBM is all over the minutes.  Yet you put him at 1 to 20 percent? Who has the other 80-99 percent?  And where in the minutes does it say so?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Just proving I can make up crap with the best of them...and you are the best!  But that theory would explain how CBM and Francis could have come up with the triangle swap pre Nov 1910, and with about as much speculation as you use...

More seriously, in reading your question I am struck by the assumption that if all the committee wasn't at NGLA, say one had a cold, that it makes some kind of difference?

I haven't pilfered my copy of the Nature Fakers yet, as you have, but it has been reported here many times it was apparently in Jan 1911, based perhaps on Wilson's start of many letters instead of actual minutes.


We have been over the committee stuff several times. Yes, the record is a bit sketchy.  As TMac points out, if it were absolutely perfect, there could be little argument.  But, I have trouble believing that the construction committee, formed in January, wouldn't be invited on a fact finding tour of NGLA since they had started fact finding in other areas.  Yes, it could be that the new grounds committee continued on its routing mission, but on the other hand, so many documents (unoffical, I guess) say the Wilson committee did all the work of layout and construction that its hard to believe they got it wrong every single time.

For that matter, all the mentions of CBM are as an advisor, but you subtly change that to designer, and then trumpet that he is all over the records as designer.  He is all over the records as an advisor who spent 4 days with them.  You make a combo of subltle changes and big strecthes to make your case (just because there is no record, even though in three or four changec they record the 4 days, doesn't mean they didn't record other signifigant contributions.  Besides, you have admitte advisor is a proper title in what was a unique and complicated relationship.

And really, why should anyone bother answering your questions again, when you hardly ever answer questions like your placement of Francis on the scene in 1910, with no mention of him, or a routing plan in 1910 by CBM, with no mention of it, etc.?  The only real differences between the camps is your insistence that 1-20% isn't right.  But of course, you refuse to let your self get pinned down.

I know you feel the same way.  Hey, we are the type that enjoys engaging in some playful debate.  Neither side has a mortal lock on any conclusions, and we have established where we agree, where we disagree, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does splitting the committee work between land acquistion/design and construction make more sense to most folks than a split of land acquistion and design/construction?

David's theory of who went to NGLA would require the former over the latter, and yet the dinner invite in 1912 and other recollections consistently say it was the latter.

And, I have never seen such a split.  Usually the real estate guys are real estate guys and the golf guys are the golf guys.  Just a thought.

[DMoriarty]

I make things up?  That is rich coming from you and your crowd.   Tell me again about those plans that Merion brought to NGLA.  Or just look at your post immediately above.  

The Construction Committee was appointed in January, because you think the Fakers might have said so?  Read the excerpt from TEPaul above.  The Fakers have no idea when the Construction Committee was appointed. And read TEPaul's description of Wilson maybe-sorta-getting-put-on-something-or-another at the end of 1910.  I don't doubt Wilson got put on a committee for 1911, but it sure as hell wasn't the "Construction Committee," at least not at first.   Otherwise we would could read about here and/or the Faker Flynn pdf. And the Fakers know it, which is why we haven't seen the document to which TEPaul was vaguely referring.  

There are later accounts of the construction committee being formed at the beginning of 1911, but it is starting to look like the story was a bit more complicated than that.  

More seriously, in reading your question I am struck by the assumption that if all the committee wasn't at NGLA, say one had a cold, that it makes some kind of difference?

You don't get it, do you?   I am not saying one of them wasn't there, I am wondering whether the construction committee even existed yet.   Even you will have to admit that the Construction Committee couldn't have designed the course if they didn't yet exist, won't you?  Probably not.

Hugh Wilson was there.  He began working on the project sometime shortly before February 1, 1911, when he contacted CBM and discussed Piper/Oakley.  But that is not the story, the story is that the committee designed the course.    Surely it is reasonable to expect the proponents of the story to at least be able to establish the that the construction committee existed.  

You write that "the record is a bit sketchy."  A bit sketchy?  The committee you think designed the course is never even mentioned in Merion's minutes, and you call the record a bit sketchy? And the minutes do not say anything at all about Hugh Wilson designing the course.  

Yes, it could be that the new grounds committee continued on its routing mission, but on the other hand, so many documents (unoffical, I guess) say the Wilson committee did all the work of layout and construction that its hard to believe they got it wrong every single time.

They didn't get it wrong.  The construction committee's job was to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved." The quoted part is from the minutes.  So why shouldn't they get credit for laying it out and constructing it according to that plan?

For that matter, all the mentions of CBM are as an advisor, but you subtly change that to designer, and then trumpet that he is all over the records as designer.  He is all over the records as an advisor who spent 4 days with them.  You make a combo of subltle changes and big strecthes to make your case (just because there is no record, even though in three or four changec they record the 4 days, doesn't mean they didn't record other signifigant contributions.  Besides, you have admitte advisor is a proper title in what was a unique and complicated relationship.

I changed nothing.  He was an advisor.   He advised them how to layout their course.  He advised them what holes to build and where to build them.

And really, why should anyone bother answering your questions again, when you hardly ever answer questions like your placement of Francis on the scene in 1910, with no mention of him, or a routing plan in 1910 by CBM, with no mention of it, etc.?

I've explained over and over again, for years, my basis for placing Francis on the scene when I do and I have explained my basis for thinking CBM had a rough routing in mind.  You may not like my explanation or agree with it, but I have explained it again and again.  Now I am asking you to start explaining the basis for your position, and all you can do is continue take shots at me.
___________________________________________

As for the bit about real estate people are real estate people and golf course people are golf course people, I think it is pretty lame how often you try to foist some degree of authority onto this stuff, as if your practice is anything like what they were doing at Merion. You should explain your theory to Lesley.  He was chair of the site committee yet was the one reporting on CBM and HJW's aid in getting the course planned.  
__________________________________________

And you are flat out wrong when you claim that everyone agrees that CBM  and HJW were involved in the planning. In the Fakers convoluted say-anything-to-protect-the-legend logic, CBM and HJW were not involved in the planning.   Somehow, determining and approving the final routing isn't part of the planning at all!  And they even claim that CBM and HJW were not at any planning meetings.  What the hell do they think happened at NGLA?  I guess Wayne still must think CBM was running a travel agency.  

CBM was gracious enough to host representatives of Merion at NGLA and to teach those representatives how to lay out their golf course, and CBM and HJW were gracious enough to return to Merion and make sure they got it right, yet these Merionettes have the audacity to claim that CBM and HJW did not attend any planning meetings?  

What an embarrassment.

[Mike Cirba]

Committee??  What Committee???



January 1912



















April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;

Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.


Here is what Alan Wilson wrote;

There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, 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 ground and later to consider and advise about OUR PLANS. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

[Mike Cirba]

As far as what transpired when the Committee visited NGLA, why do we have to speculate?

Hugh Wilson told us several times exactly what took place.





―Dear Mr. Oakley:

I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald (sp) at the
National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the
course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming over in a
couple of weeks to help us with some of his advice, and we had hoped that you would
be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that
account…Mr. McDonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and
fertilizers, and I will be very much obliged if you will send me any that you think would
help us out on the new course, in regard to grasses, fertilizers, etc.
I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new
problem.

Very truly,
(signed) Hugh I. Wilson


Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

The documents leave little doubt that the entire construction committee was formed by 2-1-1911.

To be fair, I do see where Wilson writes in the Oakley book that "we" went to the National but in his early letter to Oakley, he say "I" just went to the National. 

And, given they say that both the construction and golf committee (from the newspaper article you posted above) are in charge of all matters golf, its not impossible that members of BOTH committees went to NGLA.  It would not be unreasonable to presume that they would have done that for some sort of transition from one to the other.

But again, so many times they say that Wilson and the crew laid out and constructed, conceived of the holes.  And, as one wag notes, the best holes are the ones NOT copied from those abroad, suggesting that while there were some holes copied from NGLA, certainly not all were.  The committee concieved of some problems based on following their land.  And, the report is consistent with the Alps and Redan that got some sort of remaking later.

No disrespect intended for David, but when you keep reading these over and over, its just hard to see his interpretations being right, without some extraordinary coincidences.  He picks out certain sentences, like a lawyer might to get a witness to concede that its 1% possible, and ignores the totality of what was written.  And he asks us to focus on the minutes, and dismisses 2-5 year out recollections of those who were there for but embraces recollections of HJW from 20 years later.

Hard to figure.  But, I can say my disagreements with his method have little to do with me thinking he is smarter than me!  He is a smart guy, but the more we debate, the more holes I see.

David,

BTW, you really haven't repeatedly explained the Francis in 1910 article.  A while back you told me it was all in your essay, so I read it again to be sure I understood your point.  I found that part of the essay to contain no actual record of Francis being on the scene, but a lot of "must haves" "most likely" etc. that were basically you extrapolating the triangle on the plan, and nothing else.  Of course, that can be interpreted different ways.

When I pasted your essay into one of my posts, you told us that the supporting facts that were footnoted in your essay had been garbled by the transition of the web site (hence, my snide "dog ate the homework comments) and have yet to copy and paste them here, merely telling us again and again you have a supported view of Francis being involved earlier.

We can't see it and I doubt you have it, other than your extrapolation, which is unsatisfactory to me, and probably most.  Thus, I asked to see what your backup was.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.

You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.

As you know, I don't put much stock in newspaper articles, and neither do you unless they suit your purpose

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,
When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.

You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.


Patrick,

Once again, you should spend more time learning and less time typing.

The Hugh Wilson article was written in 1916, first hand by Hugh Wilson himself.

He wrote it at the request of Piper & Oakley, who asked him to write about agronomic issues, which was their focus.

Are you trying to suggest that Hugh Wilson didn't remember correctly what happened at NGLA a few years prior, at the ripe old age of 36?   That's pretty rich.

As far as the Findlay article, I'm not dismissing it at all.  

I find it amazingly telling that even at that early date Findlay compared Hugh Wilson to HC Leeds, whose Myopia course was Findlay's favorite in America.  

The article does speak about "many of the others" as being laid out by CBM, but as Bryan, Jeff, and many others have noted, it is very unclear to determine what exactly he was referring to.   Other courses, other holes, other holes at Merion?

You call it indisputable, but that's clearly not the case.   Beginning with the fact that Findlay told us he's not ready to even talk about "the possibilities" of the new Merion course it is exceptionally unlikely that he'd be calling holes at Merion "really great" a few sentences later.

If he had written, "Many of the other golf holes on the new Merion Course that were laid out by CBM", then I would agree that it's conclusive.

As it stands, it's much more confusing than conclusive.

Whatever Findlay thought, we know that when the golf course opened, he once again credited Hugh Wilson and his Committee for the course, comparing them again with what HC Leeds had done at Myopia.

There is no mention whatsoever of CBM and Whigham.

[DMoriarty]

Mike's spastic reaction above is emblematic of the hysteria which as plagued the discussion from the beginning.

My inquiry was very specific, and concerned when exactly the construction committee  was formed and who (if anyone) was on it through April 1911?   I readily acknowledged that the construction committee laid out and constructed the course according to the plan determined and approved by CBM and HJW.   The question is, what role, if any did they play in assisting CBM and HJW in coming up with that plan?

Regurgitating a bunch of documents about how Hugh Wilson and his committee laid out and constructed the course doesn't address these issues at all.   It avoids these issues and convolutes the conversation with thickheaded emotionalism which leads to nowhere.

I also readily acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was involved from late January 1911 on. The question is, in what capacity.  The Ag letter is signed "for the Committee."  Of course the question is, which committee?  My guess is at this point he was acting on behalf of Lesley's Golf Committee.  

So my questions remain unanswered.  

The Fakers know that there was no "Construction Committee" at this early date.  They know that whatever committee Wilson joined in late 1910, it wasn't the Construction Committee.   That is why they have never brought forward the document to which TEPaul was referring.  It doesn't support the legend, and they have a history of suppressing all information not supporting the legend.

____________________________________________

Jeff Brauer wrote:

The documents leave little doubt that the entire construction committee was formed by 2-1-1911

.
Did you even read them?   Almost all of them are about the construction of the course.  It is statements like this that convince me that your transition to just another partisan hack is complete.

The construction committee laid out and constructed the golf course according to the plan determined and approved by CBM and HJW.  

I am still waiting for any evidence that the construction committee was involved with helping CBM and HJW come up with that plan.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Not that's funny!   I guess presenting factual evidence instead of specious wacko theories with no substantiation is what passes these days in your mind for "hysteria".  

I think you need to go and look up the definition of "approved" in the context of having no formal role with the club.  

Hugh Wilson himself tells us specifically that the Construction Committee was formed in early 1911, prior to the visit to NGLA and he tells us the membership of that Committee...same as it always was...Francis, Griscom, Toulmin, and Lloyd, with Hugh Wilson as Chairman.   This is not a mystery to anyone but you.  


ap·prove  (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,
When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.

You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.


Patrick,

Once again, you should spend more time learning and less time typing.

Perhaps, just perhaps, one day you'll learn that sometimes I know the answer to a question I've posed.
Bob Huntley might be able to give you a refresher course on the subject.

The Hugh Wilson article was written in 1916, first hand by Hugh Wilson himself.

Interesting that Wilson would write that recommendation six (6) years before the course even opened.
In 1918 when Crump died, holes 12-15 hadn't even been completed, let alone played upon.
So, how does one evaluate a golf course that's still in the planning construction phase ?
Does this cast doubt on Wilson's writings ?

He wrote it at the request of Piper & Oakley, who asked him to write about agronomic issues, which was their focus.

I'm aware of that and it's not the agronomic issues that concern me.

Are you trying to suggest that Hugh Wilson didn't remember correctly what happened at NGLA a few years prior, at the ripe old age of 36?   
That's pretty rich.

Not really.
He's writing about how great Pine Valley was before the planning and construction and play of the entire golf course was accomplished.
That you don't find that strange or questionable is indicative of your defensive bias.

As far as the Findlay article, I'm not dismissing it at all.  

I find it amazingly telling that even at that early date Findlay compared Hugh Wilson to HC Leeds, whose Myopia course was Findlay's favorite in America.

So, you accept that Findlay's written words are "The Gospel"
That CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion.  

The article does speak about "many of the others" as being laid out by CBM, but as Bryan, Jeff, and many others have noted, it is very unclear to determine what exactly he was referring to.  

Unclear ?  Unclear to whom ?  You, Jeff and Bryan, who may just have a slight bias.
It's crystal clear what he meant.
He wasn't talking about "Alps" holes as you originally declared, as CBM hadn't laid out any other Alps holes except for NGLA and Findlay uses the term "many"
Other courses ?
You, yourself, declared that he had only done one other course and according to you his first attempt was abysmal, so now you're trying to change your position to conveniently suit your predetermined perspective.
Other holes ?
What other holes ?
He was clear.  He was talking about the holes AT Merion

Other courses, other holes,

Nope, we've dismissed that.

other holes at Merion?

YEP

You call it indisputable, but that's clearly not the case.

It sure is clear and it's indisputable.
There aren't "many" other courses.
There aren't "many" other holes.
Especially in the context Findlay used.

Beginning with the fact that Findlay told us he's not ready to even talk about "the possibilities" of the new Merion course it is exceptionally unlikely that he'd be calling holes at Merion "really great" a few sentences later.

"Possibilities"  in what context ?
Findlay was crystal clear, he stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion.
And, no matter how you try, you can't prevent those words from passing his lips or be written in his hand.

If he had written, "Many of the other golf holes on the new Merion Course that were laid out by CBM", then I would agree that it's conclusive.
Oh, I'll have to tell him to modify his writing style so that it provides ample evidence for you.
In the context of Findlay's statement, it's irrefutable, he was talking about CBM laying out many of the holes at Merion.
The fact that there are so many templates at Merion should be sufficient for even the Merionettes to concede that CBM was responsible.


As it stands, it's much more confusing than conclusive.

Only to the Merionettes

As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the October 1914 issue of "Golfer's Magazine", Cold declares that he laid out Pine Valley in 1913.

Whatever Findlay thought, we know that when the golf course opened, he once again credited Hugh Wilson and his Committee for the course, comparing them again with what HC Leeds had done at Myopia.

The subsequent accolade is irrelevant in terms of designing the course.  It's akin to AWT's remarks regarding Crump at PV.
Contemporaneously, Findlay stated that CBM designed many of the holes at Merion.

There is no mention whatsoever of CBM and Whigham.

In context, that's irrelevant

[DMoriarty]

I know what "approved" means. Cirba's idiotic repeated recitation of the definition doesn't change what happened.  CBM had already advised them what he thought they should do with the land, and he had come back to sort through it all again and to come up with a single, coherent plan that would give Merion a first class golf course. Yet the Fakers and their Merionette pretend he was an outsider and passerby who happened to say something like, Gee, look at the golf course, it looks neat.

I also strongly suspect that Merion's internal records tell a more complicated story of what happened with the structure of these early committees than does Wilson's brief summary.  To whatever committee Hugh wilson was added in the record to which TEPaul referred, it wasn't the Construction Committee.  And when Lesley wrote about going to NGLA he was NOT reporting for the construction committee in his report to the board because he wasn't on it. Anyone have any other ideas on why Fakers would fail to bring forward this indication by the Board of just what was up with Wilson?

But I could be wrong.  Let's see the contemporaneous support for the claim that the construction committee as we know it existed before NGLA.

If I had to guess who was at NGLA, my money would be on H. G. Lloyd and Lesley, who brought Wilson along.   Take a look at the men with whom CBM was involved in all of his other projects.

[DMoriarty]

Jim and Bryan,

I am beyond bored with dealing with these same bombastic interpretations and Cirba's broken record loop through the same old documents talking about how Wilson and his committee laid the course out on the ground. While I don't agree with many of your respective opinions, the two of you are at least trying to have some semblance of a reasonable conversation about the matter.   

I keep hoping you will try to addressed some of the points I raised and questions I asked to specific points and posts of yours.   

Bryan, have you had a chance to consider my Reply #2459 to your post on the Findlay article?

Jim, it has been so long I don't even know where to look . . . .

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Do you even read the historical materials that are presented here or just make it up to suit your biases?

By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.

As I said, more time reading and less time typing would do your understanding of history a world of good.

[DMoriarty]

By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.

Wait, I thought that was Cobbs Creek?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Do you even read the historical materials that are presented here or just make it up to suit your biases?

Would you cite what I've made up.

By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.


Would you cite the expert observers who had visited Pine Valley who determined that it was the best course in the U.S. in 1916.

As I said, more time reading and less time typing would do your understanding of history a world of good.
My understanding of history is excellent.  It's your distortion of history that's the problem

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I must admit that I get tired of the endless circling, of the same dead carcasses, by all the regular participants.  It continually amazes me that you and Mike have enough time in your days to think (I hope) and type so many replies.  I try to have a life beyond this thread.

I think that you have your sources and have made some good points and interpretations, and Mike has his sources that he thinks tell a different story.  I see some plausibility in both points of view, but I don't know for sure.  But then neither do you, or Mike.  Sadly, both of you, out of hand, assert your theory as the truth and reject the other.  Until something new surfaces that might clarify what actually happened, I doubt either of you will change.

Re your assertion to Jeff that you're smarter about this research than the rest of us, I'd just remind you that pride goeth before the fall.

Re the questions below, I'll answer although I have no expectation that you will accept or agree with any of my views. 

Bryan,  I am trying to understand your logic regarding the Findlay article but I am not sure I do.   

I think I understand your position on Findlay having stated that he was "not yet ready to talk about the possibilities of the new place."   As I understand it, you are suggesting that if Findlay said he wouldn't discuss "the possibilities" of the course then he must not have been talking about the Merion when mentioned "many of the others, as laid out by" CBM.  I agree that this is arguable on its face, but I think it is less tenable when we look closer at the passage.  I think you get it.  I assume the possibilities of the place refer to the possibility that when finished it will be great.  It seems illogical to me that shortly later he would say that many of the other holes are great. But, it is possible that he was being self-contradictory in a couple of sentences.

First and foremost, it does not seem that he could have meant what you think he meant.  Because shortly after writing this he began discussing Merion's Alps hole. If he meant what you think he meant, then what was he doing discussing Merion's 10th hole?  I took the anecdote about Merion's Alps hole as a goodhearted needling of Wilson.  It sounds to me like there might have been some earlier discussion between Findlay and Wilson about the merits of the Merion Alps.  Now that Wilson had seen the real one at Prestwick, I take it that Findlay proved his point that Merion's was not too stellar and consequently was sticking the needle in.  Yes, doing this was self-contradictory with the previous sentence where he said he wouldn't discuss the possibilities. After reading many of the items posted, news articles, reports, minutes, letters etc I'd come to the conclusion that these guys generally didn't write very well.

It seems he either immediately reversed himself or he meant something other than what you think he meant. Either way I don't think it logically tenable to conclude that "others"  could not mean Merion's golf holes when the sentence before was about one of Merion's golf holes.  I'm not saying I'm absolutely correct.  But, in my opinion it is logically tenable. I think your interpretation is logically tenable too.  Who's right?  Who knows.

More likely, he just didn't mean to completely exclude any mention of the golf holes, especially not a passing mention. Calling the "other" holes, in their unfinished state, great is more than a passing mention, don't you think.  In this regard, I think you should have started highlighting a sentence earlier. To paraphrase:  Findlay wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania." Findlay then said that it was too early for him to sign off on this for the reasons above.  Findlay seems to have have been indicating that he was holding off on making an overall judgment on the course even though that is for what H. Wilson is aiming.  So, he didn't want to pass judgement on the course as a whole, but was willing to say many of the other holes were great.  How is that tenable?  Would a collection of great holes logically make a great course?  This is a bit different than indicating that he will not discuss anything about the course, and it fits better with the rest where he obviously does discuss the course.  He doesn't discuss the course; he sticks the needlt in about the shortcomings of the Alps hole.  Also, Findlay did eventually sign off on this in the fall, pronouncing Merion the nicest course in Pennsylvania. Not to be too cynical, but it seems that articles about many of the courses said glowing things about the courses in question.  A lot of it sounds like marketing hype to me.

But that is the easy part.
________________________________________

I cannot make sense of portions of the remainder of the post. Do you mind clarifying a few things?

1.  When you wrote, "The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole" to what "Alps hole" were you referring?  Merion's 10th hole?  Prestwick's 17th hole?  Some other Alps? The lead in is about Merion's Alps hole, and the needling about its shortcomings.

2.  When you wrote, "the link back to "others" is logically to 'Alps,'" is this the same "Alps" I mentioned in the question above, or something different?  If something different, to what Alps were you referring?  Merion's 10th hole?  Prestwick's 17th hole?  Some other Alps? The grammatical link is to Alps holes.  There is no mention of any other holes preceding the "many of the others" comment.

3. Regarding your clarification as to "many of the others" I agree that "many" signifies  a subset of "others.". But as to your example, do you really think 2 or 3 out of 4 could reasonably be properly described as "many?"  I have no idea what number many would have meant to Findlay.  A question for you.  How many of the 18 holes at Merion were the "others" in your interpretation?  All 17 not including the Alps? Some subset?  If you think it is less than 17, who do you think routed and designed those holes?

Thanks.  You're welcome.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

If it means anything, I read that whole deal the way you do.  And I wonder if David's interpretation - where he spends hours parsing through a sentence Finlay took seconds to write - is really a good method?  And not just Findlay - there are literally hundreds of sentences written about Merion where David uses the same approach to draw conclusions.

His theories seemingly depend on those hundreds of sentences not meaning what the majority who read them would first conclude, after David's deep analysis.  Or, him thinking, for instance, that Hugh Wilson, who wrote loads of letters for the construction committee, was probably signing for the golf committee in Feb 1911.  Could it have happened?  Yeah.  How much histronics do you have to go through to conclude that the letter Mike posts bucks the trend of what he was doing at the time?

It just has always struck me that David may be smarter than us, but I agree ego gets in the way of accomplishment, and I am also reminded that its possible to be too smart for his own good!  Hey, I agree Merion is a national treasure, but sometimes David's take on its history reads more like the movie National Treasure, where everything is a secret clue.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I think you and I have different ideas of what "logically tenable" means.  

1. What makes more sense?  Let's assume you are correct, and that "others" refers to Alps holes as opposed to what I think is the more logical reading, other holes at Merion.  

To paraphrase, your reading leaves us with:  Merion's Alps hole sucks, but many of the other Alps Holes, as laid out by Macdonald, are really great. This makes no sense, because there were not many other Alps holes as laid out by CBM.   Merion's was only the second Alps Hole CBM is known to have laid out.  

So no, I don't think your reading is logically tenable.  Nor do I think it is a "who knows" situation between two equally tenable readings.  THERE WERE NOT "MANY ALPS HOLES" LAID OUT BY CBM.

Less importantly, I don't think you are following the valid "grammatical link" as you claim.   "Others" is an indefinite pronoun and as such refers to unspecified things in this case a group or category of things. So one just cannot go backwards in the text to the first noun one hits.  One must actually think about it a bit.   The two possibilities seem to be either "many of the other holes at Merion . . ." or "many of the other Alps holes . . ."  Since CBM hadn't laid out "many other alps holes" the former makes much more sense.

Also, the article was about Merion, not a critique of CBM's templates nationwide.  It would make no sense to break into some other conversation for one sentence.  

2.  What was Findlay willing to discuss?   Again I think you are stretching beyond the realm of reason. He was willing to discuss Merion's holes because he discussed about Merion's Alps hole.   Given that Findlay rips into Merion's 10th hole, it should come no surprise that he immediately softens the blow with a glowing yet nonspecific line about the quality of many of the other holes.

And the answer to your question is, NO.  I don't think that his statement calling many other holes "really great" amounts to much of a discussion about Merion at all. He didn't mention or describe a single other a single hole or feature, nor did he make any sort of pronouncement as to the overall quality of the course.   And judging how much emphasis he puts on growing and conditioning (to tout Pickering) I don't think it unreasonable to think he was commenting on the layout as is, as opposed to the overall quality.

Haven't you noticed that almost all these articles have some sort of disclaimer about how they will not know the quality of the course for certain until the course is mature, but then they go on to talk about the holes anyway?   Well Findlay does this less so than many of the rest!

In sum, Findlay was discussing Merion, and Merion's 10th hole.  Regardless of what he meant about not yet judging the course, he ripped Merion's 10th and not surprisingly he followed up the insult by saying many of the other holes were great.  That makes the most sense to me.   Reading in some general statement about many other of CBM's Alps holes makes no sense, especially because there were not many other CBM Alps holes.
_____________________________________________

As for the rest,  I think you overestimate what I take as fact, versus what I take as theory.  It is pretty much all theory to me, depending upon the state of the evidence.  But some theories are more sound than others.  

Also, I think you have misconstrued my point to Jeff, or perhaps I was to flippant in making the point.

Jeff has essentially been chirping like a third grader that I think I am soo smart, but I am not as smart as I think I am, and other grade school crap like if he and his pals believe it, it must be correct, and claiming that by questioning Merion's accepted history and the views of him and his Faker buddies, I am really saying I am smarter than all of them.   I don't see it that way.  For me it is not about who is smarter, it is about who follows facts, reason, and sound methodology.  I trust my own own judgement, especially when compared to the track records of the Fakers and their Merionette.  
______________________________

Jeff Brauer,

It doesn't take hours to understand Findlay's sentence.  I understood it immediately.  You and the Fakers will probably never understand it because it would undermine your position if you actually tried to understand it.

And you again confuse you and your Faker buddies as some sort of majority.   You also forget that many important aspects of Merion's accepted history were wrong, and that only a few of us figured that out, much to the consternation of your fictional majority.  Bottom line for me is that I don't care what other think.  I trust my judgment when it comes to understanding and analyzing the record.  

You can cast aspersions at me all you want, but your actual understanding and analysis don't back it up.  As an example of the quality of your analysis, you wrote immediately above:  

Or, him thinking, for instance, that Hugh Wilson, who wrote loads of letters for the construction committee, was probably signing for the golf committee in Feb 1911.  Could it have happened?  Yeah.  How much histronics do you have to go through to conclude that the letter Mike posts bucks the trend of what he was doing at the time?

This is pretty laughable since TEPaul has come close to conceding that he was not writing for the Construction Committee as we know it.   Go back and read what he wrote about the evolution (or his take on the evolution) of the committees.  Wilson wasn't appointed to the Construction Committee, but according to TEPaul to something else and eventually the committee evolved into the construction committee.   Now there may be some "histronics" there, or perhaps even some histrionics, but they are his not mine.  

But what it really shows your shoddy methodology and your lack of understanding how this process works. You seem to think it is my responsibility to DISPROVE whatever you believe, rather than YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.  

I readily admit that it is possible that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911.  u]But what is possible is not necessarily so[/u].  

As for me, I don't know for sure what happened with these various committees, and that is what I am trying to figure out.  On the other hand your entire theory rests on this particular version of the Construction Committee having been out there in the February snow planning the course.

So prove your case.  

Prove to me that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911.  And in doing so, make this jibe with TEPaul's statement which seems to contradict this.  

Prove that this particular committee came up with the final plan.

You demanded a statement in the minutes to prove my case, so let's have those statements about these guys.