Jim,
Okay, sorry for this, and it probably turned into more like 45 minutes of rapid fire typing. This list has been going through my mind for five years, and you asked for it, so its as good a time to summarize the flaws I find in his logical extensions as any, rather than continue to pick at it point by point.
I will probably be criticized for the term “data points” and for exaggerating these historical references from dozens to hundreds. You have followed these threads and know the main ones well. From quick memory (because it really deserves no more time than this, here are many items that don’t jive with DM’s routing theory, at least IMHO:
CBM implies he needs a topo to route and says he doesn’t have one. DM presumes he doesn’t need one to route.
He uses “your problem” - DM presumes he means “I have started your routing”
Ditto on turning the phrase "I think you can do what you propose to do" into starting a routing plan, rather than evaluating the land as he was asked to do.
Merion always used the tense of “our problem”
No record of written communications between CBM and Merion in 1910 other than the letter -
No record of phone communications between CBM and Merion in 1910. – see above. Also, ignores later record of Wilson using letters to
Oakley for semi urgent construction matters (what do I use for fertilizer? Etc. by letter.
No record of Francis being involved in 1910 – DM assumes it MUST BE so in his essay.
No drawn plan from CBM or others
Presumes CBM’s method of routing NGLA would set the tone for Merion, even though the big difference of CBM being in charge of his own project rather than asked to consult on someone else’s land.
No record that Merion ever asked CBM to route course.
No record of CBM wasting time routing for others on property he wasn’t even sure they owned.
Presumes that there was little secrecy in the Dallas Estate purchase (or that CBM started work after August 1911 when land was bought)
November plan shows no routing, DM presumes there was one.
November plan shows no topo maps, DM presumes there was one.
November plan clearly shows narrower triangle north of Haverford Property Line as Merion property, and road as approximate, David assumes it has already been moved but not shown on plan.
David presumes the right to change the road is only for further changes after the land swap, but no record of multiple changes
Presumes Merion presents an incorrect map to its members to vote on.
Presumes surveyor or engineer would present incorrect map.
Presumes the vague statement “Experts are already at work” in Dec. 1910 can only refer to CBM.
Ignores Merion’s record thanking CBM, thinks there must have been some undocumented arrangement to CBM to formally design course that is never mentioned in the records.
Moving to 1911,
Uses committee structure and titles to minimize Wilson’s involvement in routing. (might actually be true)
Ignores committee structures, titles, and Francis recollections of who he worked with to place Francis earlier in process, working with Lloyd, who other than looking at the land swap hasn’t ever really been credited with a hands on approach to the committee.
Ignores first mention of having a topo map about Feb 1, 1911 as coinciding with its arrival. Thinks CBM has had one for months.
Presumes topo map sent to Oakley had routing on it, but I believe the sections were merely lettered, no? BTW, here is David’s essay on the subject. He starts by saying it would have been helpful to have included the golf holes on the map, but can only presume the routing was done earlier, and then speculate that they must have been!
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.
Check out all the qualifiers in one of his main points just in one paragraph!
Ignores the Merion report which says they took “many plans” to their meeting at NGLA.
Ignores standard English convention, in interpreting Merion’s report of looking over CBM’s “many plans and information about holes abroad” to interpret it as looking over CBM’s many plans FOR MERION and information about holes abroad”.
Ignores the five plans they drew upon return from NGLA as nothing more than variations on the plan CBM drew them (the one that has never been seen or hinted at)
BTW, again from his essay, not how he starts this statement with “presumably” rather than any correlated facts. It is all speculation, with no backup. I think we later learned that his timing of the NGLA trip was wrong:
Presumably, any such discussions between the Construction Committee and Macdonald occurred while the Committee was meeting with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. If not, then Wilson and his Committee had even more contact with Macdonald than is currently known. Either way, Wilson and his Committee began discussing the details of Merion East with Macdonald shortly after the Committee was appointed in January 1911.
Ignores meeting minutes which credit CBM as an advisor (and many other club documents later)
Ignores Francis recollections from 1950 US Open program as confused:
Thinks he forgot to mention working with CBM in routing the course, when asked specifically to recollect how it got designed.
Says Francis was wrong about the blasting occurring soon after the land swap was executed. (no real explanation, other than it doesn’t fit his timeline)
Presumes Merion would be blasting rock from land not owned, despite no deeds, easements, mentions of such contract or arrangement in any documentation.
Ignores Francis when he tells us exactly who was spending many hours in routing – Wilson, Griscom, etc. (in other words, the construction committee)
Presumes Francis taking swap plan to Lloyd means it happened before Construction committee, and not just because Lloyd was both higher up in the MCC structure, but also holder of the land, and only one able to approve buying extra acres, while Wilson could not.
Presumes the phrase “laying out” was only used in one way, despite many examples of it used in connection with planning, and at least one example where if he was right, Merion wrote that the committee was in charge of “Laying out and building the golf course” which would have read “building and building the golf course”
Presumes CBM’s use of “approved” was in the second formal sense Mike Cirba posted, and not just the first, less formal approval, which is also a valid definition.
Presumes many more contacts with CBM that went unrecorded, despite careful recording of three known visits and contacts.
Presumes that April discussion, vote and agreement on land swap was simply done much later than the actual agreement, despite this being fairly unusual to ignore major developments at board meetings.
Presumes Merion would ignore land swap over multiple meetings purposely.
Presumes that the phrase “land already bought” means nothing. Land is recorded as bought in December, so if this swap was agreed to, it must have been prior to that, but this is unrecorded and in conflict with the actual purchase date.
Presumes Findlay’s statement about the many Alps holes CBM created can only mean other holes CBM created at Merion rather than other Alps holes he had made elsewhere. About a 50% chance of his interpretation being correct on this oddly worded statement.
Presumes nearly every other writer crediting Wilson in that era is wrong.
He takes Wilson comment that “fortunately” Macdonald and Whigham had given Wilson and his Committee “a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes,” to mean CBM designed it for them. Denies that trip to NGLA could have been mostly educational. (Now, to be fair, I also believe he gave routing advice because they went with many plans, and basically started over upon return from the trip)
BTW, by DM’s way of thinking, he gave them a lesson in surveying or laying them out on the ground, no? There aren’t really any principes involved in measuring, are there? But, there are in designing golf courses, no? Pure speculation, no back up.
From DM’s original essay and speaking of Wilson’s words in Pipers agronomy book:
Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.” In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design. To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal.
Believes HJW is absolutely correct at CBM Eulogy, even though it is the only mention ever that CBM designed Merion. He dismisses much of what others at Merion wrote as being uninformed (such as Alan Wilson's interviews and report upon his brother's death)
Thinks HJW “was there” but I always wondered that if and when Hugh picked up the telly, if CBM waited for HJW to come over to his office to fill him in on every conversation? Of course not….first, he probably didn’t call, and second, no one was going to pay long distance rates to be put on hold! Short version, we don’t have evidence of further CBM involvement, much less that HJW came over to review every little detail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could go on, and that is about twenty minutes of typing from memory, and that is more than enough.
Go back and read his essay – I did again. On the key points of routing in 1910, his conclusions are really mostly consisting of “they MUST HAVE” without a full connecting of the dots. He really doesn’t have a second, third or fourth backup source for his conclusions. In fact, I recall several instances of him vouching for his own evidence, which isn’t acceptable in court or historical research.
I see David has rebukes for everything I say. He always does. Of course, he has already provided lengthy answers to the questions above, and can post his answers (once again) if he wishes. His personality type, and folks in his position of losing in the big picture do tend to focus on small details that may be wrong, go from offense to defense, etc.
The problem, as I have always seen it, I rarely accept complicated explanations when simple ones will do. I sure don’t accept that multiple coincidental complicated explanations can exist anywhere but in a lawyers mind, and perhaps Hollywood TV shows. An honest reply to the dozens of points above should be possible in several yes and no answers, points to documents (rather than him vouching for his interpretations of parts of some documents) and the like, no?
In my mind, he has basically taken 4-6 ambiguous words, phrases or statements, like a lawyer would, and twisted them into an alternate routing scenario that certainly add a bit of doubt to what is said. However, this is not a courtroom.
All of those alternate theories/interpretations would have to be true – and by definition there is about a 50% chance at most his interpretations of any one of those is right. Also, an awful lot of non-standard and nonsensical stuff would have had to have happened, and happened to the record for his timeline to be true.
On the other hand, to make it Wilson and the committee routing the course from the time they get the topos in January 1911, it all fits like a glove, save a few ambiguities in wording here and there.
In the end, I will say he has actually seemed to soften a few points from his 2008 essay, much like Mike Cirba and TePaul have softened their stances on certain things, but neither is quite ready to concede that the other side needs to agree with them even more strenuously! Sometimes it seems David is just frustrated that all CBM doesn't get more credit, although he usually denies that, saying he is more interested in finding a timeline of what really happened.
There is probably more agreement than not that CBM was a trusted advisor, and that Merion wouldn’t have looked quite the way it did and does if he had not been so helpful. That did seem to get lost along the way, and David highlighted it, corrected some facts (like the trip) filled in some knowledge (like the Whigham cost estimates) that are important to know. As I have always said, I don’t think he needs to in making the point that CBM was thought of as more valuable at the time of construction than later historians remembered.
However, he has far from proven that CBM did most of the routing in 1910. After five years, he has a dozen known supporters, probably fewer. Merion, the USGA and many others remain apparently unconvinced, based on the recent US Open and all that was said there. If this were a prize fight, wouldn't the ref call it for the sake of David's well being? Of course, that is not the nature of the internet, and so it continues.
As you can tell, I always enjoy a spirited debate with smart folks, as it keeps the mind sharp, and David is certainly that. It probably speaks to some aspect of my character, and not an altogether positive one at that!
I think the above is pretty self explanatory. David and a few others will question some of it. I understand. And, some of it is open to debate. But, I doubt I will prolong the agony much further here. I sure won't answer point by point unless David goes in and gives us one source, preferably two, that support his views, other than his many "logical extensions" which I think are more speculation to deliver an alternate theory as much as anything.
Thanks for listening, and I hope I didn't ruin anyone's day.