Merion's Early Timeline

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Are you sure that was 1913?

Jim,

Sorry...I'll correct.  My understanding is January 1911.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim/Bryan,

Since both of you have been very much of the Literal Interp of Francis camp, while I have you here, perhaps you can address the question of how you think he swapped a 4.8 acre triangle for "the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road"?

[JESII]

Mike,

My opinion is that it could have happened any number of ways, i.e. an even 4.8 for 4.8 swap, a complete redraw of GHR as Jeff has suggeted (and Tom previously even if not laid out specifically as jeff did) or some other scenario...

My main issue with Jeff's plan is that it is based on 122 acres as measured from what is very clearly not a firm boundary ("approximate location of road") on a map clearly produced by professional surveyors along with a business detail asking for funding for 117 acres...in other words Jeff's theory is a net negative two acres for Merion from the Land Plan date asking for 117 acres until July when they bought from Lloyd 120 acres.

I think, again, too much weight is being placed on the exact location of the "approximate" GHR on the November 1910 plan.

[JESII]

There is something else...Francis does not say the first 13 holes were routed prior to "solving" the last five...he simply said they were "pretty easy" as opposed to the more complicated last 5...

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Macwood asked me to post this for him:

"What realistically were there options?

The best courses in the country at that time were being designed, and built and modified by their amateur friends and competitors, NONE of whom has a wealth of previous experience...you had Leeds at Myopia...Emmett first at Garden City, but then vastly updated by Travis, you had Oakmont being built and evolved by Fownes, you had Shawnee just designed by their friend Tillinghast, and you had Macdonald...who had just spent four years trying to get NGLA open, which was almost at fruition.

Then you had the one-day-wonders the pros like Dunn, and Barker, and Bendelow....they had been instrumental in furthering a growing game but their courses and model for development of courses hardly reached anything close to the excellence these men wanted to achieve."


Mike
Leeds began his association with Myopia in 1896 and Emmet at GCGC in 1899, not exactly the same time frame. CBM was recognized around the world as an authority. Travis was nationally respected from his writing on the subject and his historic redesign of GCGC (with Barker). Oakmont was not Oakmont in 1910. Fownes overhauled Oakmont later making it the course we now recognize. Shawnee opened after 1910.


In 1910 you had Barker, Bendelow, Ross, Watson, Findlay, Emmet, Strong, JD & Seymour Dunn, Tucker and several others practicing golf architecture in America. You also had amateurs M&W and Travis. M&W were beginning to dabble with outside projects around this time; Barker was Travis's surrogate. It was Travis who suggested Barker should get into golf architecture.


Regarding what these men wanted to achieve, in every article announcing the project GCGC (and Myopia) is given as an example of what they wanted to achieve. Who better than Barker to give them something approaching GCGC. He was also the source of that quote.






"You are quite correct, Mike possibly does have a better resume than Wilson and the individual members of his committee, and if he were alive in 1910 and a member of Merion then it might have been Mike Cirba and his committee. That really was how it was done back then."


Niall
It was done that way back them? Are you sure about that? I'm not aware of any comparable project, where a board appointed a complete novice to design their golf course, a golf course on which their entire project rested. Do you have any comparable examples?


Jeff
As far as your theory that Merion picked Wilson because they saw him developing into a later day Leeds or Macdonald. Wilson was not independently wealthy, he did not have a magnetic personality, he was not elite golfer, he had not studied golf architecture, he did not associated with those who'd studied golf architecture, he had never been abroad, other than that he was like Macdonald and Leeds in every other way.


=

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Please refer Mr. MacWood for me to the thread titled, "Hugh Wilson - an ongoing investigative analysis" as his characterization of Hugh Wilson prior to 1910 is about as accurate as Ron Whitten's architectural attribution of the Black course.

Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Two things;

First, it was Bryan Izatt and David Moriarty, I believe, who measured the Land Plan at 122 acres.

Jeff merely measured all of the "takes" and "putbacks" along the road as drawn in that plan and came up with the exact answer!

Now, if it has been independently measured prior at any other acreage, the numbers simply do not add up.

HUGE Coincidence, or so obvious its been staring us in the face all this time til Jeff, based on his own real world experiences, simply saw the truth we've all been struggling with?

I believe he"s dead on, because his theory also matches the factual historical timelines.

Also, Francis said, "The land was shaped like a capital L and it was not very hard to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion - with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Avenue - but the last five holes were another question."

I'm not sure I understand your contention that he doesn't mean the first 13 holes were already routed?  Could you elaborate?

Thanks

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, would anyone care to venture say what they believe Francis meant previously when he wrote, "Still another problem faced the committee..."

Prior to that statement he wrote about his Francis Land Swap, and then how they originally thought the road would make a fine hazard and had a number of holes crossing it.and how it was that way until the road became too busy.

What prior problem faced the committee that Francis is referring to?

Sure doesn't sound much like "construction" to moi! 

[JESII]

Mike,

You are so bent on this thing having two distinct sides that you assume because Bryan and David (who also disagree with your conclusions) may have come up with 122 acres I would change my tune...that's been a major theme throughout the discussions from you and it hasn't helped move it along. I have major disagreements with David's premise, but agree with his disagreement of your conclusions...and I haven't actually seen a theory or premise of Bryan's so I can't speak to it.

I don't care who came up with 122, but Jeff's theory is 100% dependent upon the "approximate road" being used as a formal boundary line prior to the swap for negative 2 acres...the same Plan that measures out to 122 acres was created by a professional survey/engineering company, are you suggesting they were so incompetent that they mismeasured the northern part of the property by 10%? Why would a Plan measuring 122 acres be used in conjunction with a proposal that states the committee had already "secured" 117 acres?

[JESII]

By the way, would anyone care to venture say what they believe Francis meant previously when he wrote, "Still another problem faced the committee..."

Prior to that statement he wrote about his Francis Land Swap, and then how they originally thought the road would make a fine hazard and had a number of holes crossing it.and how it was that way until the road became too busy.

What prior problem faced the committee that Francis is referring to?

Sure doesn't sound much like "construction" to moi! 

Can you point me in the right direction to find the full quote?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

My theory doesn't depend on the approximate road being the working boundary....my theory is that the approximate road WAS the working boundary!  Yes, that is the point. It's 100% dependent on a document we have, too.  No one else can say that.

Now, I will admit that mine is a guess or a theory because, barring seance, no one alive then can come back and tell us what really happened. Such is the nature of research into history.  At least we aren't looking at fossils and relying on carbon dating!

That said, is it better to rely on what we have, or to rely on something we don't have?  To explain the evidence that is out there or require some non-existant evidence to make our point?  Obviously, not everyone in this discussion wants to come to a consensus.  If we were intersested in a consensus, I think most would say (perhaps grudgingly) that my theory is the best one to build that consensus on at least as it relates to the boundary.

If Pat M wants to say "just because there is no evidence of something, doesn't mean its not true" or you want to keep all options open until further notice rather than try to move to closure, then Mike and I are pissing in the wind.

Of course, its your right, and its presumptuous of us to think others want closure just because we do, so the debate continues, even absent anyone providing anything more concrete, other than they don't agree.

[JESII]

Jeff,

I don't quite see the point in closing the book and calling your theory the final and correct one if it may not be.

Perhaps you did when you first posted the numbers of the swap all along GHR, but could you make a guess as to why Merion would solicit members based on a professionally produced map which is off by 5 acres in a section of only about 55 acres? Don't you agree that 10% is a pretty substantial miss for a professional engineer?

The truth is, you guess is currently the leader in the clubhouse...but I think you'd agree that without some added information it's just speculation.

[Andy Hughes]

I hear what you are saying, but go back and read my post 2012.  That is at least my take on it. I think they got more help out of CBM than they would hiring Barker, Travis, or anyone else claiming to be a gca at that time.  With Wilson's interest and CBM's help and advice don't you think they might have had a comfort level?  

Jeff, actually I found post 2012 to be interesting and educational-thanks.  They likely were comfortable with Wilson, I have never doubted that.  I just wonder that none of these titans said at any point 'Ya know, Hugh's a nice chap and he seems eager enough, but maybe we would be better served by someone who has done this before.' But maybe that was the nature of the business at that time.

Seriously, I think you're making a mistake by trying to go back to that time with a modern mindset.

Mike, that may be true. It does seem though that they could have found someone from either side of the ocean who had actually at least once designed a good course.  Without doubting any of Wilson's many fine qualities and fully grasping the success of Merion, Wilson had never been overseas, and had at best seen how many great American courses?  

[JESII]

It may have begun a couple years later, but wasn't Pine Valley a similar concept with a good amateur player taking the reins and guiding the whole process?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I guess leader in the clubhouse will have to be as good as I get!  Frankly, I just want to close the book because I am tired of discussing it, but I can see where others might want to keep it going.

I don't know why that Nov. plan was drawn the way it was.  For an engineer or surveyor, being off eve 1/100th of a percent can be a huge problem, so I figure they just drew a concept plan to illustrate where the golf course was generally going to go. I have done that, and I have done that without paying much attention to exact acreages, because its not supposed to be a legal survey, its a drawing.

But, to attempt to answer Mike C's question to you, lets noodle on where this mythical boundary (that everyone knew would be in place only a few months until the final routing was accomplished) might be.  I see only a few logical possibilities, knowing that the plan was to be finalized soon after Nov 10.

The first is to lop off the triangle adjacent to Haverford College.  That, we know is just under 5 acres and in fact, if the land enclosed in the Nov map is about 122, then in neatly brings it to 117, the target number.  That would mean that Francis simply went back to the original plan (sort of) by getting that triangle back into golf, but reshaping as necessary.

The second would be simply to move the road east about 50 feet and make that the boundary.  At 3780 feet, each 11-12 ' east lops off about an acre from the golf course.  50 feet east would create 117 acres and make the triangle so small that getting it back would be almost swapping for the whole thing.

The third optoin would be to, well, configure it any way they wanted to but that would make as much sense as not bothering to reconfigure it at all, pending the final routing, wouldn't it?

Which of those scenarios makes more sense to you?  Or, do you have some other theory that makes sense over these?

[John_Cullum]

At what point does the flogging of this long deceased nag cease?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike & Jeff,

I've been preoccupied for the last few days and haven't kept up.
I intend to carefully review this thread and respond.
I'll be preoccupied for the next few days, but, I'll try to respond to Jeff's post # 1977 and others, sooner, rather than later.

So, with that being said, and with apologies for the crude drawing, here is my attempt to route a course on the Johnson Farm.  
Obviously I've used a few existing holes, but I think it shows a few things;

Wouldn't the fact that you've chosen to use existing holes lend credence to the premise that the committee also used existing holes from Barker's routing ?

1) Anyone can do a one-day routing, for better or worse.   This took me about 2 hours total.  
I'm now going to change my name to Mike Barker.  

Interestingly, yesterday I happened to discover a stick routing of a pretty good Barker golf course circa 1909.
While stick routings are simplistic, diagramatically, the routing was quite sophisticated in terms of the topography and the routing of the holes, with the ultimate routing and hole design pretty much mirroring the "crude", "sketched" stick routing, the type that you're so quick to be critical of, without ever having seen it.

I also recall seeing a stick routing and/or "crude" routing of GCGC.
Again, the routing, while simplistic was sophisticated and highly accurate with respect to some of the holes that remain today.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the technique of routing and/or diagraming was fairly "crude" at the turn of the 20th Century.

Since GCGC seems to have turned out quite well, as did the golf course I saw yesterday, I'd have to advise you to keep your day job and forget about a career in GCA.

If the "crude" "sketched" stick routing of  Merion was anything like the one I saw yesterday, it was a pretty good effort/product. [/b][/size]

2) The Johnson Farm plus the 3 acres of RR land M&W recommended would easily accommodate M&W's hypothetical, ideal 6000 yard course.   This one measures 6494.

3) We know that whatever Barker came up with for Connell in June 1910, there is no evidence of it being used or even presented to Merion


You don't know that, you've only chosen to conclude that because it serves your purpose.
A prudent man would conclude that the routing, which was referenced in the letter contained in the Board report, was viewed by the entire Board and probably a much broader audience.

and we also know that the Committee worked on many plans of their own from Jan-Apr 1911 and that M&W helped them select the best one.

How do you know that the committee and/or CBM didn't:
 
1   see the Barker routing
2   use facets of the Barker routing for their plans

Is there ONE IOTA of contemporaneous documentation that unequivically verifies that Wilson routed Merion ?

I'm quite sure critics of my brilliant routing will come along here and I welcome any and all comments.  

Your brilliant routing abilities are only exceeded by your expertise in drawing flawed conclusions, which is quite impressive.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

With Pat back, I vote for right now.....

[Mike_Cirba]

I would like to hear any person still defending the LIFS theory to explain why they believe Merion created a right-angle, straight-line cut through the northeast portion of the Johnson Farn that in one arbitrary and foolhardy swipe;

1)Cut off their access to College Avenue

2)Restricted their ability to use the quarry as a hazard by truncating the course just 65 yards north of the quarry after M+W just pointed out that much could be made of it as a hazard..

3) Left them with just 22 acres of usable golf land north of the clubhouse.

4) Eliminated nearly 200 yards of golf course fronting properties along Golf House Road

Anyone??

[Mike_Cirba]

I would like to hear any person still defending the LIFS theory to explain why they believe Merion created a right-angle, straight-line cut through the northeast portion of the Johnson Farm that in one arbitrary and foolhardy swipe;

1) Cut off their access to College Avenue

2) Restricted their ability to use the quarry as a hazard by truncating the course just 65 yards north of the quarry after M+W just pointed out that much could be made of it as a hazard..

3) Left them with just 22 acres of usable golf land north of the clubhouse.

4) Eliminated nearly 200 yards of golf course fronting properties along Golf House Road

Anyone??

Forgot...

5) Cut off their access to the northern train stop.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Sadly, it was me. I am sorry for venting some frustrations at you, even if I am beginning to think you are a world class knucklehead!  Allowing you to bring me back in to a pointless debate is a character flaw of mine, I admit.

I never allowed MIKE C to conclude that "the Barker routing wasn't substantive because there's no proof that the committee/Board viewed the routing".  We all know they viewed it.

Mike Cirba keeps insisting that they never saw it.

In one of my posts, I argued that subsequent events rendered in non-substantive in the history or Merion, or more accurately, in the final form that Merion East assumed.  Period.

I don't know how you can conclude that none of Barker's routing was preserved in the final product.
How do you make that leap ?

One of the principle tenets, previously accepted as The Gospel, has also been swept under the rug.
That tenet was that Wilson routed and designed Merion.

While I appreciate your acknowledging the role played by CBM, the Committee and, if I may add, Wilson, we still don't know the genesis for the routing an design, nor do we know the author/s.  While you may want to end the discovery process, I'd prefer to see it continue.
It may be that we won't learn anymore than we know today.  Then again, a great deal more might be discovered through continued due diligence.

BTW, Barkers letter that your refer to says he is enclosing a rough sketch.  I am not assuming anything, just taking the man at his word.


Just yesterday, I saw one of his "rough sketches" circa 1909, and it was impressive.
So, I'm not prepared to disdain and dismiss his efforts, as is Mike Cirba.

As to the virtuoso comment, since the specific debate on this thread is to determine the Merion East Timeline, I have asked you just how (and as you demand) with what FACTS do you surmise any portion of the Barker Routing made it into the final form of Merion? 


I've NEVER asserted that Barker's plan, be it a routing or hole design or both, made it into the final form at Merion circa 1912.
What I have said repeatedly, is that you CAN'T unequivically state that it didn't, as Mike Cirba has done time and time again.
What you continue to miss, time and time again, is the flawed concept of one way exclusion as practiced incessantly by Mike Cirba.

If you have answered that in all your bluster I have missed it. 
You've missed it over and over again because you only choose to examine the color of the type.

If I want someone to repeatedly tell me I am wrong without really listening to me, I believe I will return to my ex wife.

Maybe that explains why she's your ex-wife.
You're not listening either.

As hard as this will be to believe to readers of this web site, she is even more repetitive, less logical and more of a bulldog than you are. 
A real sweetheart, both of you!

There's no doubt that she's less logical than me.
Ditto for being more repetitive.
With regard to bulldogs, the leg lifters are the more tenacious.
As to sweethearts, I'd like to hear her opinion of you before casting my vote.

In actual FACT, MCC talked to Barker (hired by Connell) and they talked to CBM. 
They moved forward using CBM's advice. 
They did NOT move forward using Barkers advice. 

How do you know that ?
How can you state, unequivically, that Barker's plan or portions of his plan weren't presented and preserved by CBM or the committee ?
You, like Cirba, keep drawing one way conclusions WITHOUT the supporting facts.

They talked to two of the leading golf course experts in June of 1910 and made their selection to have CBM assist them. 

That doesn't preclude the use of Barker's plan or portions of Barker's plan.

Absent his "sketch" you can't draw definitive conclusions EXCLUDING any and all portions of his plan.

Since you get easily confused.
I'm NOT stating that all, or portions of his plan, made the final cut.
What I am stating is that neither you nor Cirba can exclude them out of convenience.

Ask me, Tom Doak or any gca and you will soon here that they may have done some speculative and/or paid preliminary routings and then not gotten the job.

That doesn't mean that their entire plan was rejected.
There may have been elements that were retained.

You can't make a blanket statement that NONE of Barker's plan was used by the Committee and CBM.
You simply don't know what elements of Barker's plan were eliminated or retained.
Therefore, you can't claim that Barker's plan was irrelevant.
At this point, we just don't know.
However, Mike Cirba continues to claim that NONE of Barker's plan was retained, and you know, unless your ex-wife was right about you , that that can't be. 

That seems to be what happened to Barker. 


No, it's not.
It's what you and Mike Cirba surmise.

While he claimed "20 projects" in that June 10 letter, according to Cornish and Whitten he had but three completed projects by then


While I applaud C&W's efforts at establishing a historical record, I don't view their work as "The Gospel"
If as you allude to, Barker lied to Connell, ergo the committee and overinflated his efforts and products to date, how would that be accepted by these distinquished and worldly business barons ?

You're willing to take Barker at his word on some items, yet you reject his word on others.
You can't have it both ways.

(to 2 for CBM, but CBM's were more highly regarded) 
He prepared a quick sketch routing, for another party,
and apparently not even if required by his engagement to Connell (although I don't know that for sure) 

I've always admired architects for their ability to route courses.
Perhaps it comes easier to some.
I'm not prepared to dismiss a routing because the architect, an architect of note, was able to do it in a short period of time, especially when stick or rudimentary diagrams were the fare of the day.

Yes, it was seen by MCC.

We agree.
Perhaps your ex-wife wasn't right about you all the time ?

However, in my estimation, for it to be substantive, it would have had to be, well..... USED.... by MCC in later work rather than discarded. 


But, you don't know that it wasn't, in part or in whole.

Are you going to argue that an unused routing not paid for by MCC is substantive? 

I ask you once again.
How can you declare that NO PORTION of Barker's routing was used ?

Or are you prepared to show some proof other than some more bluster, or alleging a Philly conspiracy that it had some substance?


Oh, oh, I'm begining to think that your ex-wife might have been on the money.

Its about LOGIC Jeff.

You can't claim that NONE of Barker's routing or plan or hole design WASN'T retained in the final design circa 1912.

That's always been one of my points.

Whereas, you and Cirba are automatically dismissing any portion of Barker's routing from the final design circa 1912, and you're doing so without a shred of proof.

Now do you get it ?

According to your ex-wife, I already know the answer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Because you saw a sketch of a Barker routing from 1909 it's supposed to mean what exactly to the history of Merion?

There is NO evidence that his routing was seen by the Merion Board (it wasn't attached) much less the membership.   In fact, there is no evidence it was seen beyond Connell, although I'm betting the Site Committee saw it too.

How many courses did Barker have completed on the ground as of June 1910.   It's fair to ask Tom MacWood if you need to.

Are you going to spend this entire thread asking and answering questions long since answered.

If you have any additional proof of Barker's involvement, or anyone else's, please bring it forward.

Otherwise, please save us the green type and constant distractions from the real issues that have been uncovered in recent weeks..


Jim,

Here's the Francis article...you should be able to find the "Still another problem faced by the Committee.." on the third image;

I'd really be interested to hear your interpretation there, as well as to my other question as to which area "covered by fine homes along Golf House Road" he was referring to when he supposedly traded 4.8 acres for it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

That is apparently an oblique reference to their clay soils (vs the ideal of sand) and all the advice CBM gave them on agronomy, not to mention, it apparently was a struggle to grow the grass in.

Patrick,

I have always gotten the fact that Barker probably stumbled on some good hole corridors, particularly south of Ardmore where the basic land was the same, save the later addition of the Dallas Estate.  I mean, its basically 4 holes wide, so in some areas, how different might it be?  Reversed perhaps, shortened to the final perhaps because of no Dallas Estate land, etc.

If you want me to concede that IF we found the Barker plan that it MIGHT have at least one hole that we WOULD recognize, then I will do that. IF that is all you were trying to say, then no problem.  We MIGHT.

If you want me to concede that the Barker Plan WAS included in the report to MCC, I wiill.  If you want me to concede that a plan could be brilliantly thought out and crudely drawn, I will concede that.  (I may be working on one right now, but in the computer age......)

If you want me to relay from Ron Whitten and Geoff Cornish that their book isn't totally infallible, they admit that.  At some point, unlike these threads, they had to put it to bed for printing.  They made corrections in subsequent editions.  Actually, I think Mike and I are informally proposing something similar in the net age - wrap this up and make a best conclusion we can for now, let TePaul and Wayne find and share some more documents and reconvene just before the 2013 US Open to see if we HAVE learned anything new since today that would alter opinions.

I still maintain that you are arguing that "just because there is no proof, it doesn't mean something didn't happen" when in reality, it usually does mean exactly that.  I also maintain that Barker hitting upon a few holes in a routing probably doesn't amount to "substance.'  

More importantly, and having given it more thought that it deserves, I believe that your bluster about Barker perhaps having some of his holes make the final, after the committee produced many plans, took them to CBM, refined them to 5 plans, swapped land, added the Dallas Estate, etc., just really doesn't matter.  As I have stated somewhere that no one can probably find anymore, I have built courses where other gca's have submitted routings.  Yes, if there are some good holes, more than one gca found those.  No one credits other gca's who put in proposals just because of that, and it would be going against convention to make a special case for including Barker in MCC's credits, based on conventional standards.

Oh, and by the way, like my ex wife, I still want a separation and divorce from you!  The rest of both our lives is too short to be fighting over a woman named Merion on the coulda, woulda, shoulda and WhyIoughtas.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

That is apparently an oblique reference to their clay soils (vs the ideal of sand) and all the advice CBM gave them on agronomy, not to mention, it apparently was a struggle to grow the grass in.

Jeff,

Yes, but I'm focused on his use of the word, "Another", as in "Another problem facing the committee".

It's usage tell us that something preceding it was also a problem addressed by the committee.

Make sense?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Because you saw a sketch of a Barker routing from 1909 it's supposed to mean what exactly to the history of Merion?

It means that you can't diminish or eliminate its relevance due to its form.

There is NO evidence that his routing was seen by the Merion Board (it wasn't attached) much less the membership.  

Jeff Brauer and every intelligent individual without an agenda concedes that it was seen by the Board.
You're the only one claiming that it was "disengaged" from the letter and hidden in a closet, never to be viewed again.


In fact, there is no evidence it was seen beyond Connell, although I'm betting the Site Committee saw it too.

Mike, I don't mind you making irrational statements, you're good at it, I do mind it when you draw irrational conclusions

How many courses did Barker have completed on the ground as of June 1910.

More than Wilson or any member of the committee.  

It's fair to ask Tom MacWood if you need to.


I don't need to, my answer is more than sufficient.

Are you going to spend this entire thread asking and answering questions long since answered.

If the question/s was/were answered, I have no need to ask.

You've continually claimed a finite conclusion where none exists.

If you have any additional proof of Barker's involvement, or anyone else's, please bring it forward.

Barker's involvement is already a matter of the documented record.
We find no such contemporaneous documented record/s when it comes to your claim that Wilson routed and/or designed the golf course. 
You've yet to provide similar evidence when it comes to Wilson.

Otherwise, please save us the green type and constant distractions from the real issues that have been uncovered in recent weeks..


You keep trying to divert and deflect attention from the issue/s, constantly retitling your thread and constantly telling us the case is close.
Yet, the case remains open.
No one has provided information sufficient for a prudent person to conclude that Wilson routed and designed the golf course.

If you have that information and have been withholding it, please present it now.
If you don't have that information, just admit it and let the due diligence continue.
What are you afraid of ?