What is clear to me in all the debate about when Wilson went overseas and the basic timeline of events surrounding the development of Merion's East and West courses is that it is impossible to make conclusions from doing research in California, Ohio or anywhere else unless you start locally and exhaust all resources and slowly broaden the scope of the investigation. What possible conclusions can be drawn from incomplete ship's manifests or a research library, even as one as strong as Mike Hurdzan's? Unless local newspapers, libraries, historical societies, golf societies and associations (including the USGA), club archives, interviews, etc are conducted, why make premature conclusions based on very limited information? Allowing limited information to bias an investigation often results in significant mistakes. Research should never deviate from the scientific method if one's goal is to come up with unbiased conclusions or educated assumptions, which must be presented as such.
One of the goals of the USGA Golf Architecture Archives and Research Center is to disseminate primary sources of information for all to study. Eventually, the USGA GAARC will offer content and context based upon the primary assets. Such transparent sources allow peer review of the secondary content. The lack of peer review in golf architecture history to date has led to a number of errors and mis-attributions. Unfortunately, when something appears in print, it is often mistaken for fact. These facts get perpetuated and are hard to overcome, sometimes even in the face of conclusive proof to the contrary. The USGA GAARC is something we all should get behind and assist if we want to refine the study of golf architecture and raise it to the level of other disciplines.