Oi Vey!
David,
As to how many days it takes to qualify as a designer of record, it is obviously (then and now) a case by case study. If you don't think starting at modern day standards and comparing is correct, may I ask you to direct me to some old day standards that might apply? I really don't know of any.
I am not convinced, BTW, that Wilson's mention of CBM in the agronomy letters logically means anything more than the meetings already on record - a day in June 1910, 2 days at NGLA (or parts thereof) in March, and another day in April. I threw in a bonus day. I have heard you contend that any document should have some back up to corroborate it, and as far as I know, the known documents only mention those days. I haven't read all the agronomy letters so maybe someone can post the relevant ones.
As to documenting the HW time in routing from Nov 1910 to April ? 1911, we know he spent two days at NGLA, was likely present at the approval meeting in April, and starting in Feb. he was active with at least seeing the topo map he references. He had to be around when MCC prepared some plans of unknown detail before going to NGLA, and he surely had a hand in the five plans they drew after that meeting. I mean, if Richard Francis spent many hours at the drafting table, at least some of the time HW had to be there.
Granted, the committee might have done more routing on those five + plans than HW, we just don't know. But, MCC said he was the leader of the pack. I guess it doesn't matter to me if they collaborated in house.
For CBM to have routed it by himself, we have to accept that all of MCC's minutes are incorrect, no?
And, we have to decide what interpretataion of their words about the NGLA meeting are correct.
Yours reads:
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 (FOR MERION) and the various
data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses.
I take it, based on stuff my English teachers taught me, that the and connects two thoughts and I read it as:
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 (FROM FAMOUS GOLF COURSES) and the various
data he had gathered abroad in regard
to FAMOUS golf courses.
Again, we have to accept your interpretation, which you call common sense, and I call very possibly wrong. Obviously, anyone's take on those words might cause them to believe CBM did the routings at NGLA, as I think you have contended. Otherwise, it seems to read:
* They did some preliminary, if clumsy layout plans
* Ran into trouble or wanted confirmation they were on the right track
* Went to NGLA specifically to learn what CBM learned in GBI, about hole design, but
*Were told to send someone themselves to be really sure they knew what they needed to.
*Apparently got agreement from CBM that he would look at their next set of routings and help them pick one.
(not sure, but I recall that someone found the actual HW letter setting up the meeting)
So, in that sense, we have some fundamental issues, agreeing that CBM did definitely help them. I would also suggest that it was at the April meeting that he may have suggested at least a few good locations for each, such as using the Redan on 3, flipping it, etc. Not sure if that is the case, since it "benefitted" from HW's GBI trip.
As always, fascinating stuff.
But, we are getting into old ground. I know exactly what you are saying when you say he was a big influence. I don't think we are debating big differences here. But, as you say forgetting credit, and just trying to find out what happened, the above shows the differences of opinion on just what happened and when, and we cannot know from 100 years distant. (and, it seems almost exactly 100 years. Surprised there weren't more 100 year anniversary posts of the various meetings here......