Shivas,
Methinks thou doth protest too much! ;
On every single one of the relevant points, David's essay tried to use the NGLA example to prove his case that the golf course at Merion had been laid out before the land purchase, JUST LIKE HAPPENED AT NGLA ACCORDING TO HIS ESSAY.
NOW, it turns out that none of it was true.
NGLA first purchased their land of just over 200 acres.
Then, they came up with an estimated area for the golf course of 110 acres.
Then, they came up with a Real Estate scheme to sell off the rest at lower cost/higher value proposition.
ALL OF THIS WAS DONE BEFORE A SINGLE GOLF HOLE AT NGLA WAS DESIGNED, LAID OUT, LAYED OUT, CONSTRUCTED, ROUTED, OR WHATEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE FOR WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE!!!!
ALL of these points David contended just the opposite, and used them time and again to show us all how Merion first used Barker and/or Macdonald/Whigham to design their golf course, TO FIND AN EXACT NUMBER OF ACRES AND THEN BUY THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR GOLF, all based on what happened previously at NGLA.
Only, we now learn that just the opposite happened...that NGLA bought a bunch of acreage...held out against establishing any firm boundiaries UNTIL THEY ESTABLISHED THEIR GOLF COURSE...UNTIL THEY CREATED THEIR HOLDING COMPANY....UNTIL THEY CREATED THEIR COMMITTEE TO LAY OUT AND DESIGN A GOLF COURSE, and ONLY THEN then made the division of land between golf course and real estate.
JUST LIKE MERION!
The parallels are incredible, striking, and undeniable..
Your 10-second summary dismissal of long-held "FACTS" that were a HUGE PART of the evidence David presented make me think that you're not very even minded in your judgement.
By the way..the article IS MUCH LARGER..
Should I copy more???