David,
Well, I guess once you apply your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" theory of historic interpretation to your theory, then yes, anything goes. You did it all through your essay, using your own logical interpretations in place of any written record, so yes, I guess you really didn't have very high standards for your theories. I have to admit, when you told Mike that was your standard on this thread, it floored me. Also, I am struck by how often your defense, even more so lately, comprises of saying we made stuff up, we use hyperbole, etc.
Of course, you can find inaccuracies in the record that might point both ways. But to say there is nothing in the record, such as his letters to Piper, the applause of others, etc. you are being very selective your own self.
Here is my quick count of all the instances where your theory "makes stuff up" with no real evidence. In a few cases, these were later proved wrong when more evidence came to light.
All regular case type is quotes pasted from the original essay. The bold parts are what struck me as assumptions you ask us to take as fact, even if not in the written record. The red are some of my supplemental thoughts:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned….
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase.
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
MY NOTES – AREN’T “PROBABLE” AND “NEARLY” EVIDENCE OF AN ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE ACREAGE, NOT A PRE-DETERMINED ACREAGE AS YOU NEED TO SUPPOSE TO MAKE YOUR THEORY WORK?
But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion secured the land, which was before Merion appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee.
The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company
PLEASE PROVIDE SOME PROOF
The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.
My NOTE- WE NOW KNOW THIS WAS IN JUNE 1911, SO YES, IT WOULD CONFIRM THE LAND SWAP AT THAT TIME
The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.
MY NOTE – ELSEWHERE, WE KNOW FRANCIS WAS ADDED TO A COMMITTEE NOT FORMED UNTIL JAN 1911, SO WHY WAS HE WORKING ON IT BEFORE THEN? PROOF?
Moreover, the timing and the synopsis of the site committee’s report both strongly suggest that requirement for the specific “nearly 120 acre” site came about largely as a result of Macdonald’s and Whigham’s inspection and subsequent letter.
MY NOTE – NOT SURE WHY, AND NOT SURE THIS IMPLIES DESIGN IS DONE, NO RECORD. ALSO, YOU SAY SPECIFIC, THEY SAY “NEARLY 120 ACRES” YOU ADDED THIS, NOT THEM.
Macdonald and Whigham had given Wilson and his Committee “a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes,” thus implying that the Committee’s trip to NGLA occurred at the beginning of their endeavor.
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee.
WE NOW KNOW THAT MEETING WAS IN MARCH, AFTER WILSON CAME ON BOARD, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY BASED ON THE PIPER LETTERS
Thus, before February of 1911, Wilson and his Committee had already been in contact with C. B. Macdonald, discussing matters as specific to the construction as the type of grass Merion should try to grow.
CMB RECOMMENDED THIS IN HIS JUNE 1910 LETTER. MAY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWUP TO GET ADDRESS, AND TO SET UP NGLA MEETING, BUT NO EVIDENCE OF OTHER CONTACT.
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.
AGREED, AND WITH NO OTHER RECORDED MEETINGS, THE MOST LIKLELY SCENARIO IS HE IMPARTED ALL KNOWLEDGE HE COULD IN A 2 DAY VISIT.
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.
YOU USED THE TERMS “MOST LIKELY” SEVERAL TIMES HERE….ASSUMPTIONS, NOT RECORDED FACTS. ALSO, WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY RECORDED FACTS THAT THE ROUTING HAD BEEN “KNOWN FOR MONTHS” THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART.
Basically, the essence of your theory is all "most likely" in your opinion. It is really very weak historical argument. Of course, the fact that you have only really convinced a few that these big leaps of faith, contrary to much/most of the written record, and that most of us here, Merion, and the USGA seem to have disagreed, suggests as much.
Not saying flat out your theory isn't true, just that it isn't all that strong, all things considered. Just saying, again and for the last and most detailed time, that you haven't convinced me. And, I think you do need to provide more real records in many instances for your theory to stack up.
But, if you haven't found much additional proof beyond your own logical conclusions, I doubt you will convince me, but others are free to disagree. And, as a few posts back, I know you have subtly changed some of your thoughts as years have gone on.
Lastly, I always thought there was some middle ground here. We all agree CBM was of great influence, and always have. Sometimes, it seems you want us to agree with you 110% instead of just 95% or so. Sometimes, despite saying you just want to know exactly what CBM did (which is unknowable to all of us) it really seems as if you are beating the drum for CBM to get more credit than Merion has always given them, while we simply feel what exists is pretty appropriate. In the end, I never thought the difference of how far apart you and Mike (and Pat and I, etc.) might be was all that great, and yet, due to personalities, the argument continues.
Obviously, such a strong post against your theory is likely to anger you, and I understand, even if I am just asking for more proof from outside your own mind (and which you asked long ago for us to provide as your theory evolved.) For that, I am sorry. It is hard to discuss such difference of opinion without raising at least some anger and resentment.