Phillip wrote:
A single phrase certainly seems to be causing much disagreement. “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground…”
What could this possibly mean? How does one go about “laying out many different golf courses on the new ground” especially after the committee that wrote of this followed it by stating that “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
Not sure that it was the same committee in both cases, Phillip, or even if it was a committee in the first place.
What could they have possibly meant?
Some have argued that to “Lay Out” a golf course at that time required that it was being constructed. Others have argued just as hard that it refers to the design of the course and not the building of it.
Why, though, is it not possible for both sides to actually be at least partially correct?
David Moriarity wrote, “I think that, generally, "to lay out" a golf course meant arranging the golf course on the ground, whether staking it out, marking it out, or even by building it. This is distinguished from planning a golf course, which can be done on the ground as one marks, stakes, or lays out the course, but can also be done on paper…”
Now whether one agrees with David’s interpretation of what a proper definition of the phrase “Lay Out” means in regard to a golf course is correct or not, he is right in stating that “laying out” a golf course can be done by “staking it out.”
Isn’t it simply most reasonable to believe that the “committee” of Merion men STAKED OUT a “golf course” of their own design on the ground? And that after doing so they made changes, rearranging holes and lengths and sites and even routings? After all, the only thing that would have been required was a bunch of wooden stakes and energy.
Especially that makes sense because of what the entirety of that portion of what they wrote states: “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…”
They didn’t state that they laid out five “variations” but rather “five different plans” and this in a single day. The only way this would be possible is if they simply moved stakes to different locations. A lot of work and a daunting task; that goes without saying, but they certainly could have had enough committee men and others there to do it. They certainly had the motivation for it.
Note that this also leaves open the possibility that they are staking out these courses based on someone else's plans. One need not have come up with the plan to stake out a golf course.
Now Mike wrote that, “It is not clear which committee ‘laid out many different courses on the new ground…’”
Again, whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the FACT is that SOMEONE LAID OUT five different plans ON THE GROUND after visiting with CBM & Whigham. What can be stated UNDENIABLY is that it WASN’T CBM & WHIGHAM!
I think you are confusing two things here. It could have been CBM who laid out one of the many courses on new land. While CBM and Whigham could not have staked out the five different plans, they could have provided the plans or at least helped create the plans that CBM gave them.
Did they advise the “committee” including Wilson and the other members when they visited on how to go about properly “laying out” a golf course. Assuredly so! But that “advice” could NOT have been the final word since if it was they would have simply returned and staked out what they were told to; this they did not do. How do we know this? Because they wrote that, “On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans…” Not a mention of the “plan that CBM just gave us” nor any mention of even “as he advised, simply that they “laid out five different plans.”Why do you require that they must have said something like this. I think it may be clear from the context that they were talking about CBM's plans. Whether either one of is correct, we are not Necessariliy so.
For me, and I am sure that I will face an onslaught of arguing against this, I must conclude then that the “Committee” designed Merion and that the SIMPLE proof is staring at all of us in that single paragraph…
Phillip, I am surprised you'd come to this conclusion as if it were a NECESSARY conclusion, especially after warning us recently and repeatedly on not confusing fact with opinion. You state that the advice at NGLA "could NOT have been the final word . . . " Of course it could have been the final word, at least as to the plans that were laid out. M&W could have given them five different variations to stake out, so M&W could later inspect these options on the ground.
Also, you are reading to0 much into this paragraph.
1. Recall that the source is well less than reliable and has only provided us what he wants us to see. The reality is, we don't know what this paragraph consists of, or whether it is complete or accurate. In fact, it has internal inconsistencies and ommissions that suggest that it is PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE OR COMPLETE.
2. You base your conclusion on your observation that there was not "a mention of the 'plan that CBM just gave us' nor any mention of even, 'as he advised' . . .
- It is YOUR OPINION that the paragraph would have contained this language if CBM came up with the plan. It is by no means necessarily so.
- They had just mentioned going over CBM's plans, and these could be the plans to which they refer.
3. Lastly Phillip, you overlook the fact that the staking out of the five different plans was definitely NOT THE FINAL WORD. M&W returned to Merion to go over these five possible layouts and to chose the best one, possibly even altering it in the process. If you are looking for the final word, it was the plan determined by M&W that went to the board and was approved.