Mike Cirba,
In all seriousness, what's always troubled me is THE lack of attribution, the general references, without specifics on various phases of the project.
Don't forget that Merion was an existing club, not a new one, hence they had structure and the recording of specific events would seem to lend itself to detail, yet the record is..... vague at best, when it comes to specifics.
That seems strange to me.
Pretend for a second that I was part of the committee and came up with the idea/concept for five holes, the routing or the overcoming of a problem. Why wouldn't they record that event/discovery, stating that I had conceived of the hole designs, routing or cross over features ?
Why wouldn't they engage in attribution ?
I know the Merionettes will claim that these were humble people, but, that's nonsense, they aren't the ones writing the minutes, and it seems more than odd that credit wouldn't be given where credit was due. People, even humble people, appreciate recognition for a job well done, especially amongst their peers. To give blanket credit, almost equally, seems unrealistic or perhaps communistic.
Francis downplays his role, which would mean that someone else's role had to be expanded, no ?
It seems strange, if not bizarre that a "committee" is referenced, as if they all had a simultaneous epiphany, that they all had the same idead at the same time, and, we know that doesn't happen amongst five individuals engaged in a creative process.
It seems more likely, that when other outside parties do the heavy lifting, then you credit the committee, equally, for their efforts.
So, you have to ask yourself, absent specific details, if the club wasn't just recognizing the committee for successfully accomplishing the OVERALL mission, even though each member didn't craft the routing or the specific hole designs.
As for the placement of bunkers subsequent to Wilson's trip to the UK in 1912, their location was almost pre-determined by default.
Were they going to place the bunkers 20 yards off the tee ?
40 yards from the green ?
I see the bunker placement nothing more than finishing details with the general locations predetermined by the configuration of the holes. Holes that existed prior to the trip to the UK.
If someone, somewhere, said, Francis really routed and designed the course and the committee tagged along, I could buy that easier than I can accept that this committee of five individuals, had each individual contribute EQUALLY in the routing and hole designs such that they got equal credit and that they were in perfect harmony on the routing of the course and design of each hole.
I have a conceptual problem with the structure, format and total lack of attribution, thereby, by default, giving credit to the "committee".
I know you'll come back and state that the records show that Wilson is given the lion's share of the credit.
BUT, only in vague terms, never with specific detail, and that's what troubles me.
And, it should trouble you too.