I do believe that if you had been that very clear in your initial post that you were disagreeing with Wayne and Tom's interpretation of Macdonald's role at Merion perhaps we could have cut to the chase quicker, but that's neither here nor there at this juncture. Still, it does help to distill the issues and separate fact from speculation.
Mike, that wasn’t the point of my first post. My first post was just to introduce some new information in to the discussion. But based on the reaction that received, I then began questioning their interpretation, and have said so repeatedly throughout. Unfortunately, you and others were so busy saddling me with ulterior motives that you failed ever to believe me. My explanatory skills are far from perfect, but all the skills in the world will not overcome an audience that has their mind firmly set on not understanding.
Speaking of which, even now you discount my words and attribute beliefs and motivations to me that I have never had. . .
It is simply outrageous to suggest that he learned as much in 2 days as in the next 7 months of detailed study, even if Wilson continually gave Macdonald his well-deserved props.
. . .
Are you saying that Wilson didn't need to go to Great Britain? That he would have learned just as much in those two days with Macdonald than he learned over 7 months studying courses, David??
That is REALLY the foundation of this argument, isn't it? I think you should come right out and say that if that is what you believe but it's certainly what is implied in your statements suggesting that we're trying to "separate the trip from what he learned from Macdonald".
Jeez Mike, give me a break.
I never said he learned more in two days than in seven months. I never said he didn’t need to go to Great Britain. I didn’t imply it or suggest it. I am not writing esoterically here. I said what I mean and I mean what I said.
1) You cannot separate out what Wilson learned before the trip from what he learned after the trip.
2.) Wilson thought that what he had learned from CBM was extremely important, and we ought to take his word for it.
David, this is probably a good juncture to ask the simple obvious question here. If the Macdonald influence was so great on WIlson at this time, and then transferred to the early Merion by Wilson, why wasn't the Merion course similar to NGLA with holes all modelled after the great ones overseas?
Mike, if I had a dollar for every time you asked this and a dollar for every time a answered it, I could forget about a coffee and probably buy Starbucks!
Look at what Wilson says about the principles underlying the holes at NGLA (and Pine Valley):
”. . . while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own course. “ Why would you think that Wilson would have taken any different approach than he recommends to others. He used the principles, not the blueprints.
You forgot about Behr's calling Wilson the dictator of Merion's "construction" in 1914, you forgot about local newspaper accounts in 1918 that claim Wilson laid out both courses at Merion, you forgot about Tillinghast making very, very crystalline in 1934, a time when both Macdonald & Whigham were still quite alive (and friends of Tillinghast's) that Hugh Wilson designed Merion, you are forgetting that whatever involvement Macdonald had with Merion's committee seemed to stop dead by 1913 at the latest (if it had been gloriously successful, why not use him for the West course, or consult on further changes over the years?), and most importantly, you are forgetting that the golf course built at Merion looked nothing at all like any golf course Macdonald ever built, or that he or his disciples built over the next 20 years.
I didn’t forget about any of this stuff. My last post was to TEPaul, this is yours.
-- Your first few points are only relevant as to whether Wilson deserves design credit. Surely you understand by now that this is not my issue?
-- As for M&W’s involvement “stopping dead” in 1914, we have been talking throughout about the initial design of Merion, which opened for play in 1912. It is a bit too late to redefine the topic, isn’t it?
-- While it isn’t really my issue, as a neutral observer
, I’ve noticed your reliance on this Behr article is misplaced. Behr thought that Wilson was more of a dictator than committee chair? So what? Does this mean that CBM wasn’t significantly involved?? How so? That he didn’t always take advice? How does that mean he didn’t take MacDonald’s advice? That he studied hard? Yep, with MacDonald and on a trip planned by MacDonald. But what does whether he studied that have to do with anything anyway?
Behr just isn’t talking about the design of Merion, or about CBM’s role. Behr is making an offhand remark that is better to have one sound leader than an entire misguided committee. He is paying homage to men who deserve great credit. But he is saying nothing about MacDonald’s role at Merion.
Not only that, but in your apparent quest to find
anything that puts Wilson squarely in charge, you missed the entire point of the article, which is about the opposite of what you take from it. Behr essentially says,
Look, you committees do not have the slightest idea what you are doing. You’ve got to seek out those who do. Not your golf professional, but those who have done this before. Study how grass grows, go to NGLA and study the course, bring in an expert to inspect your site, and bring in an expert to help you route your course. Get help. No matter how smart you think you are, you need help. If anything, Behr’s article is an affirmation that Merion did it right. Merion sent the chair of their committee to study with MacDonald at NGLA, then overseas. And experts did inspect the site: CBM and Whigham. And experts did help the committee in laying out the course; again CBM and Whigham were these experts.