Merion's Early Timeline

[DMoriarty]

Mike C,

What song did the Beatles write for the Rolling Stones?  Other than Let It Be and Let It Bleed?

David M,

If you have Chris Clouser's book on Maxwell, you will see that the original Dornick Hills had a lot of NGLA/CBM in it.  Later, I think the depression got him to change his style to something easier to maintain.  However, Chris still thinks he used a lot of highly altered template holes. I have never viewed it quite that way, but go back and look at the original DH plans.  CBM was clearly a major influence for PM>

I have not read the book, but plan to.   It is refreshing to hear that he would actually consider that CBM had a lasting influence on Maxwell.  It is also depressing to think we have been at this for six years, and I doubt TEPaul, Wayne, or Mike would even admit that CBM  influenced Wilson to try and build a Redan and an Alps.

As for the rest, that is not what the source material said, or not what we have been told it said, and what we have been told it said doesn't make any sense, and is not complete.  Plus, I haven't seen this document.  Have you?   It sure isn't a "first principle" because TEPaul tells us it is.  Plus, you jump from your understanding of this supposed "first principle" to conclusions that I am not sure it ever supports.   But as you said, you don't care about logic, so I hope you won't be offended if I don't bother.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, about 80% of your posts call some document or others logic "nonsensical", and you did it again above. If it isn't nonsenical, its a conspiracy by TePaul to deny you the truth.  If I were so out of touch with the rest of humanity that I considered that much nonsensical, I would begin to consider if I was the one being nonsensical.

A primary source document says what it says.  It may have some "nonsensical" grammar in your eyes, but there is no record of MCC having an English teacher come in to vet their meeting minutes. They are what they are.  I have been told by you that I don't understand the meaning of the simple words "your work". I have been told by Tom Mac that I don't know what a blueprint is, despite working with them for over 30 years.  You have both told me and others what we just don't understand how things were back in the day, even though you and I have both lived the same number of days in the year 1910-1912 - ZERO!

Geez.  Are you know telling me that I am incapable of understanding such straightforward words as "we laid out many plans, went to NGLA, came back, did five more plans, and then had CBM come over for a final look, and then we approved the routing about two weeks later?"  Those words are pretty straightforward, are they not?  Oh no, of course not.  We need the super secret David M decoder ring to know exactly what they mean.

I think I understand what a source document is.  The April 19 minutes are one.  All the other opinions offered here, mine included, are less likely to be fact and more likely to be opinion than what is said in that document.  Oh yeah, we can't trust that because TePaul, the devil himself, has posted it.  Well of course, because nothing is as it seems and everyone is against you.   

I stand by my reasoning in saying that the MCC minutes that we do have, sans interpretations by any of us, probably tell us the most about how MCC was created over other documents, theories, etc.  As always, just my humble opinion.

Of course, I am now debating whether it was the Beatles or the Rollling Stones who designed MCC.......

[DMoriarty]

Geez.  Are you know telling me that I am incapable of understanding such straightforward words as "we laid out many plans, went to NGLA, came back, did five more plans, and then had CBM come over for a final look, and then we approved the routing about two weeks later?"  Those words are pretty straightforward, are they not?  Oh no, of course not.  We need the super secret David M decoder ring to know exactly what they mean.

That is not what the document says, or even what we have been told it says.   But this is what happens when we rely on a second hand, "nonsensical" version from an interested party who insists on telling us what we should believe the documents say.  


I think I understand what a source document is.  The April 19 minutes are one.  All the other opinions offered here, mine included, are less likely to be fact and more likely to be opinion than what is said in that document.  Oh yeah, we can't trust that because TePaul, the devil himself, has posted it.  Well of course, because nothing is as it seems and everyone is against you.


Believe what you want.  Trust TEPaul at your peril.  I'd rather see the real source material.

I stand by my reasoning in saying that the MCC minutes that we do have, sans interpretations by any of us, probably tell us the most about how MCC was created over other documents, theories, etc.  As always, just my humble opinion.

Of course, I am now debating whether it was the Beatles or the Rollling Stones who designed MCC.......

Perhaps you might consider getting some sleep . . .

[Tom MacWood]

David,

I think I understand what a source document is.  The April 19 minutes are one.  All the other opinions offered here, mine included, are less likely to be fact and more likely to be opinion than what is said in that document.  Oh yeah, we can't trust that because TePaul, the devil himself, has posted it.  Well of course, because nothing is as it seems and everyone is against you.  

Jeff
In the past TEP has mentioned the privacy concerns of MCC, that has been his alibi. He is obviously sharing the material with you, and he has shared excerpts on GCA. If he can share it with you, and he can reproduce sections on GCA, why can't he share the entire document with us all.

There has been more information released and shared in the past few weeks than in the entire history of this debate. In the spirit of that increased cooperation this would be the perfect time for TEP to share that information.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

You can't even admit the simple facts obvious in the articles I posted calling Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley "experts".

I do hope I read Tom Paul correctly but listening to you lecture Jeff and I on the meaning of simple words and phrases tells me again that further discussion with you regarding the evidence is non-productive.

I hope you find what you're looking for here.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Are you still arguing Hugh Wilson was an expert in 1911?

He was a 6 handicap. He was not a nationally known golfer, he'd never competed in the big national or regional events like the US Am, US Open or Lesley Cup. He had no design experience and there is no evidence he had an interest in the subject. He was not associated with golf architects or men known to have studied golf architecture. He had not travelled overseas. What qualifications did Wilson have in 1911 that would warrant the 'expert' tag?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Yet. We are supposed to believe that because he put sticks in the ground where someone else told him to, and then sat idly as Pickeeing supervised construction, that he was suddenly expert by spring 1913, such that he was called that in news articles and suddenly had Geist,' Gimbel,Lesley and Meehan asking him to design their courses.

Oh...that's right.  It's because he attended a pajama party at Macdonald's house and became an instant expert, even if he wasn't able to use any of it to design Merion!

After reading your account of the man, Tom, I'm surprised they let him in the club at all!

Why do you think they named him to any committee, much less as chairman?

[TEPaul]

“There is no olive branch, no offer concerning the source material, no conciliatory attitude, no real attempt at resolving anything, no interest in actually getting to the truth.”



Sure there is and here it is again for the third time in three days:









“I do have what may be a great idea to bring this whole Macdonald and Merion issue to a close once and for all on this website. I would suggest that this thread that is certainly the longest in the history of GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com be brought to a close with the agreement of all its participants (or the site's two administrators) and that a new thread be started with the title "What mistakes did Merion's two latest history books make regarding Merion East's architectural history?"

I'm extremely familiar with the details of what those two Desmond Tolhurst history books say and I believe any participants on this website can have easy access to those two history books and what they say. Both books seem to treat Macdonald's contribution to Merion East early on appropriately given the length of those two books and the extent they treated and reported Merion's architectural history.

If anyone on here feels that something is amiss or lacking in how those Merion history books treated Macdonald's contributions, then I guarantee that Wayne Morrison and I, at least, will definitely note some consensus on here of what is lacking and recommend to Merion that in a future history book it be addressed in some manner, at least. I also guarantee that preceding another history book any factual evidence that has been found since the last Tolhurst Merion history book (2005) be reported to and included in Merion's historical archives (which are pretty much state of the art, by the way).

That would certainly include the fact Wilson went abroad in 1912 and probably not in 1910 (that apparent mistake is both understandable, explainable and actually somewhat humorous in how it was reported in one Tolhurst history book) and it would also include these MCC board meeting minutes, Cuylers letters et al and the Wilson report to the board in April 1911 that were apparently never considered by Merion's history writers in the last half century because they had been residing unseen and unconsidered in the attic of MCC (another club since 1942) for very close to a century now (found by three Merion members about a year ago).

I know Merion and its members and administrators of the last thirty years or so well and I know they care so much about their history and that it be reported both accurately and comprehensively. Merion is not a club that is shy or reserved about their club and its history and they are most definitely not trying to hide anything from anyone or anything legitimate anyone may find about their history. As most know the club has perhaps the most impressive USGA tournament record in American golf history and it is soon to be added to by two impressive USGA tournaments in its immediate pipeline---eg the upcoming 2009 Walker Cup and the 2013 US Open.


I cannot think of a better resolution for both the passionate architectural participants on Golfclubatlas.com AND Merion Golf Club!”





I’d address the above to these remarks from Tom MacWood on this thread:



“Tolhurst's account is taken, almost verbatim, from Richard Heilman's 'Golf at Merion 1896-1976.' 
Haven't we in effect been showing that those books are incomplete and inaccurate for several years now?”



If the suggestion from some on this website is that Merion’s history is incomplete and inaccurate let’s first take a look at what Tolhurst’s two Merion history books say about Merion’s history of this time and about Macdonald’s contribution. Can Moriarty or MacWood quote what Tolhurst’s history books say about this early time of the architecture of Merion and Macdonald’s contribution? Could they quote it when they began this campaign over six years ago about Merion minimizing Macdonald’s contribution to Merion? Were they aware back then of what both Hugh and Alan Wilson said about Macdonald/Whigam’s contribution?

As far as I can tell Tolhurst’s history books treat Macdonald’s contribution to Merion very appropriately. It certainly is not as if those history books don’t mention his contribution!

Did Tolhurst’s history books get something wrong about that time? Yes they did---eg both books said Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months. The reason for that mistake has been known now for a few years and it’s both understandable, explainable and even quite humorous in how the first book treats what Merion assumed was a rumor that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic in 1912 on his trip home.

So this is the olive branch to try to end this subject on here to the satisfaction of the passionate analysts on here and Merion G.C. too. Tom MacWood and David Moriarty, you are the two on here who have claimed that Merion’s history was inaccurate so other than the mistake made in the books about that 1910 trip why don’t you two at least tell us what else is inaccurate in those books? Do you even know at this point what those books say about this early time and Macdonald’s contribution? If so, show us what they say. Quote the books regarding what they say about Macdonald’s contribution and then we can all discuss if it seems appropriate to what most, including Merion, believe Macdonald/Whigam really did do for them back then.

Hopefully, we can resolve all this in this manner!

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's assume for a moment that these revisionist theories are correct and Wilson and his band of idiots were out all winter 1911 playing pick up sticks and laying out "many plans" for the new golf course on the ground with stakes to someone else's plans.

Who would have been directing that exercise in lunacy?

Would it have been Macdonald, who had seen the property one day 7-9 months prior, or Barker who did the same?

Why would they create "many plans" remotely?

How would they know if any of them worked well or not?

If they were such experts, why couldn't they get it right in one or two tries?

If Big Mac, why have them come up to NGLA after making them spend the winter playing pick up sticks to his whim of the day?

Why not just get it right then when you have them there?

Why send them back with five different plans and then STILL have to come down 3 weeks later to make up his mind?

Was he some rtype of sadistic madman toying with the committee for having the audacity to ask him to design their course in the first place or a moronic fool who couldn't make up his mind?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Yet. We are supposwd to believe that because he put sticks in the ground where someone else told him to, and then sat idly as Pickeeing supervised construction, that he was suddenly expert by spring 1913, such that he was called that in news articles and suddenly had Geist,' Gimbel,Lesley and Meehan asking him to design their courses.

Oh...that's right.  It's because he attended a pajama party at Macdonald's house and became an instant expert, even if he wasn't able to use any of it to design Merion!

After reading your account of the man, Tom, I'm surprised they let him in the ckub at all!

Why do you think they named him to any committee, much less as chairman?

Mike
It makes sense to me he would be considered an expert in construction in 1913. He had built two courses, and designed at least one. He had been in constant contact with Oakley and Piper. He had been working with the top construction firm in the country. He had been working with one of top grass men in the world - Reginald Beale. CBM had taken him under his wing. He had studied the NGLA and travelled overseas studying developments over there. The Hugh Wilson of 1913 was light years ahead of the Hugh Wilson of 1911.

Why was he chosen the chair the Construction Committee? Wasn't Wilson chairman of the Green Committee at the time and weren't the others also members of the Green Committee (excepting Francis)?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David M,

No surprise here. I am now being told that according to you, I cannot interpret what some straightforward wording means.  Wow!  BTW, there is no peril in trusting TePaul.  At worst, I will have to admit I am wrong if any other evidence comes forward in the history of MCC, but I will suffer no bodily or mental harm.  

Like TePaul, I do hope you find what you are looking for.  The funny thing is, I agree with a lot of what you say and yet somehow you find a way to blue type me in nearly every response, parsing my words like you parse those of everyone else.  Again, I have trouble buying into any theory that relies on just about everyone involved from 1910 until now being too dumb to understand and having to be told what things mean according to you.

I would love to know just how CBM influenced them from June 1910 until opening, what hole designs he suggested (since some but not all of his templates looked to be included originally, even if modified later as Wilson remodeled the course circa 1912-1925, etc.  Wilson deserves a lot of MCC credit for the redos alone.

As TePaul says, if MCC ever writes another history, for the 2013 Open Program, for instance, I think the wording on the CBM contributions should change a little. I don't think the evidences is as strong as your statement that CBM "was calling all the shots" but I do think his influence was greater than what the brief snippets of existing histories say and that enough info has been brought forward to strengthen that statement and acknowledge it.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

This debate about the use of the term "experts" by Merion in 1911 really seems out of focus on this thread. The point and the issue is not whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think Wilson and his committee were experts in 1911, the real issue is did Merion call them "experts" when it was mentioned by Merion to its members that "experts are now at work" in January 1911?

Since we know that Wilson and his committee had just been appointed in January 1911 and had just gotten to work on what they later reported was the laying out of numerous different courses for Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911, of course they were the ones Merion referred to as "the experts" whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think they were novices or not.

The fact is there was no one else there at that time doing anything other than Wilson and his committee.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

In the spring of 1913, he was starting to design Merion West.

No newsman would have known about his PO letters and Pickering was credited with construction.  According to you and DM, he had no courses designed at that time.

He was called a "golf expert" nevertheless, which David contends was only used for pros or amateur archies.

I contend that the term was much more widely used to indicate mostly proficient golfers, much like the 1901 NY Times article I posted thart called Hugh Wilson, along with Macdonald, Travis, Emmett,and othwrs "golf experts".

Which do you believe?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

My comments in post 6209 was really directed at TM and DM:

I don't really care what anyone thinks is "logical."  I got to thinking about how much of other peoples logic I agree with on a daily basis, from the President and Congress, to the ex and kids, to the coach who refuses to go for it on 4th and 1.  I would be lucky if decisions were made 50% of the time the way I would make them, and in reality, since I am not King of the World, its really like 5% of the time that I completely agree with the way people do things.  With 6 billion humans on this planet, all with different perspectives, basically, very little goes the way I think it should, "logically."

So, forget our logic, and go with the most direct source documents.  It is much more likely to be the truth than anything else.

Like you, I have finally concluded that the documents say substantially if not exactly (but I wish they were in more detail, like everyone else) what they say they say.  Whether DM or TM logically thinks that the best golfers should be called experts, it appears they were.  It would take a contract with Barker, or more letters from CBM to surface to prove otherwise, not just the "logic" of these two to prove it otherwise in any serious historical circles.  At the moment, they just don't have the horsepower behind their arguments, IMHO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

If they were all on the green committee in 1910 (I know Griscom was chair of the GC back in 1896) then how the hell could they have been complete novices as you and David keep repeating?

When did you learn of this and what is your evidence?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

In the spring of 1913, he was starting to design Merion West.

Month newsman would have known about his PO letters and Pickering was credited with construction.  According to you and DM, he had no courses designed at that time.
He was called a "golf expert" nevertheless, which David contends was only used for pros or amateur archies.

I contend that the term was much more widely used to indicate mostly proficient golfers, much like the 1901 NY Times article I posted thart called Hugh Wilson, along with Macdonald, Travis, Emmett,and othwrs "golf experts".

Which do you believe?

 

Not 1901 again, every golfer who could break 90 within a 200 mile radius of NYC was called an expert. Now you are just being difficult. Use your common sense man - his experience in 1913, by any measurement, was far greater than in 1911.

Contruction of the West course began in the Spring of 1913 - the course had been designed.

Wilson began asking for Oakley's assistance on Seaview in late 1913 or early 1914. When did Wilson become involved in that project?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

If they were all on the green committee in 1910 (I know Griscom was chair of the GC back in 1896) then how the hell could they have been complete novices as you and David keep repeating?

When did you learn of this and what is your evidence?

Wilson said they went in to the project with the experience of typical golfers. As members of the green committee they would not have had any design or construction experience...unless they had been involved in some major redesign. Is there any reason to doubt Wilson's description? Was there a major redesign of the old course during Wilson's tenure? 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

This debate about the use of the term "experts" by Merion in 1911 really seems out of focus on this thread. The point and the issue is not whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think Wilson and his committee were experts in 1911, the real issue is did Merion call them "experts" when it was mentioned by Merion to its members that "experts are now at work" in January 1911?

Since we know that Wilson and his committee had just been appointed in January 1911 and had just gotten to work on what they later reported was the laying out of numerous different courses for Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911, of course they were the ones Merion referred to as "the experts" whether you or me or Mike Cirba or David Moriarty think they were novices or not.

The fact is there was no one else there at that time doing anything other than Wilson and his committee.

The disjointed excerpt you have given us does not say Wilson's committee had layed out many different courses in the winter and spring of 1911. The author of the report was Lesley, he was not on Wilson's committee. There is no mention of Wilson or his committee in the report. And Lesley does not give a time frame for when these different course were laid out. It could have been in 1910.

[Rich Goodale]

Vis a vis "experts" and 1901......

The Open that year was held at the OTM-designed Muirfield, and only 3 players averaged below 80 for the 4 rounds, the great triumvitate--Barid, Taylor and Vardon.  John Low, the fine player and poster child for the architectural amateur, shot two double snowmen (88, 88 for newbies) and missed the cut.  Does that make him not at "expert?"

Playing off 6 then was probably the equivalent of a plus 2 player today, and being Captain of Princeton was probably similar to being the best player at a leading Div I school today.  And in 1901, HH Barker hadn't won any tournament of any significance in the UK and was 7 years away from travelling to the US (as an amateur with only one title of any significance (Irish Amateur) under his belt) and morphing himself into a professional "expert."  Well done, HH, and well-done HI!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tmac,

There were other meeting minutes, such as from Nov. 1910 that reported what was going on.  Of course that focused on the property purchase, but as far as "could have been from 1910" is it "logical" that this important work was deemed fit to put in the minutes, but only months later?  That is a real stretch to me.  Minutes report what is going on right now, or in the very recent past, no?

Did we not conclude that the Wilson committee was a sub committee of the golf committee?  Lesley was reading Wilson's report into the minutes. Since Wilson wrote it, of course he is not going to mention himself, right?

Please do not accuse anyone else of rampant speculation, since it would be the pot calling the kettle black!  (but hey, I am guilty of similar stuff on this thread. Not busting any chops, just noting that we are falling back into the same pattern of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff)

[Mike_Cirba]

Not 1901 again, every golfer who could break 90 within a 200 mile radius of NYC was called an expert. Now you are just being difficult. Use your common sense man - his experience in 1913, by any measurement, was far greater than in 1911.

Contruction of the West course began in the Spring of 1913 - the course had been designed.

Wilson began asking for Oakley's assistance on Seaview in late 1913 or early 1914. When did Wilson become involved in that project?

Tom,

In the 1901 article, Wilson is in the Top 1.7% of over 2500 golfers handicapped by the Metropolitan Golf Association at the time, which as you know was the largest and by far the most prestigious section in the country.  

By 1910, of 800 golfers handicapped in Philadelphia (max of 18 hcp), there were only 11 golfers in the district with lower handicaps, a single 4 and 10 5s.

In spring of 1913, according to revisionist theories, he did not have any designs on the ground that any newsman would be aware of yet he was called a "golf expert" that spring.

Why would Robert Lesley also be called a golf expert?   I don't recall him designing any courses or giving lessons?

Also, what evidence do you have that Wilson and the others were essentially the green committee in Jan 1911.   As mentioned, Griscom was chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896, when they went from 9 to 18 holes, so there is no way that he would or any of the others would have had "the knowledge of construction and agronomy of the average club member", despite Wilson's humble, self-effacing words.


and by the way, despite my satirical style, these are serious questions and I think they betray who was there and who actually was responsible for the plans...

Let's assume for a moment that these revisionist theories are correct and Wilson and his band of idiots were out all winter 1911 playing pick up sticks and laying out "many different golf courses", supposedly with wooden stakes on the ground to someone else's plans.

Who would have been directing that exercise in lunacy?

Would it have been Macdonald, who had seen the property one day 7-9 months prior, or Barker who did the same?

Why would Macdonald or Barker create "many plans" remotely?

How would they know if any of them worked well or not?

If they were such experts, why couldn't they get it right in one or two tries?

If Big Mac, why have them come up to NGLA after making them spend the winter playing pick up sticks to his whim of the day?

And then, once you have them all there at your house, why not just get it right then and be done with it?

Why send them back with five different plans and then STILL have to come down 3 weeks later to make up his mind?

Was he some type of sadistic madman toying with the committee for having the audacity to ask him to design their course in the first place or a moronic fool who couldn't make up his mind?

[TEPaul]

"The disjointed excerpt you have given us does not say Wilson's committee had layed out many different courses in the winter and spring of 1911. The author of the report was Lesley, he was not on Wilson's committee. There is no mention of Wilson or his committee in the report. And Lesley does not give a time frame for when these different course were laid out. It could have been in 1910."

Tom:

How do you know Lesley was the author of that report to the board of 4/19/1911?

I realize Lesley was not on Wilson's committee. That's why it would be pretty odd if Lesley authored that report and said "we" went up to NGLA. Why would Lesley go to NGLA if he wasn't on Wilson's committee?

I guess it would be convenient for us a century later if that report mentioned Wilson but it seems to me it probably wasn't necessary to mention his name back then at that board meeting as all the men on the board of MCC certainly knew what was going on then and who was doing it.

No, Lesley or that report does not mention a time frame but if all that laying out of numerous different courses had taken place in 1910 one would think it would've been mentioned by Lesley at the board meetings of November and December 1910 or January 1911.

But perhaps not:


Lesley at the 4/19/1911 board meeting:

"Ooops, sorry guys, I guess I forgot to tell you at the last two or three or four board meetings that chairman Hugh I. Wilson and his four man member New Golf Grounds Committee were over there at that old Johnson Farm in Ardmore in 1910 laying out numerous different courses for a new course for us over there which is pretty nice of them since I don't believe we even appointed them to a committee until last January or something. Did you guys know we are moving our golf course from Haverford to Ardmore and Old Money Bags Horatio here has taken title to about 160 acres over there? Or is it 117 acres? Or 120 or maybe 130 with an option for 13 more? Whatever, this young "go-get-'em" whippersnapper novice golf architect of ours, Hughie I. Wilson and that plan-drawing Dick Francis, will figure it out for us somehow even if they have to ride a scooter over to see Horatio in the middle of the night for some late night land swapping permission; and if they can't figure it out then Rodman can always get those two fine gentlemen Macdonald and Whigam back down here again at some point to route and design us a world class golf course in about two hours. What did you say, Horatio? You're saying Macdonald and Whigam were here about two weeks ago for a day to approve a plan that's attached to this report and I just reported that? Oh, yeah, I see where Wilson's report says that and you're right here's that plan under my briefcase. Did I just read that? Maybe I did; I guess I must have been thinking about pussy or something which shouldn't be surprising to any of you guys! Did you notice the chassis on that waitress who just brought us our tenth drink?"

[Tom MacWood]

Tmac,

There were other meeting minutes, such as from Nov. 1910 that reported what was going on.  Of course that focused on the property purchase, but as far as "could have been from 1910" is it "logical" that this important work was deemed fit to put in the minutes, but only months later?  That is a real stretch to me.  Minutes report what is going on right now, or in the very recent past, no?

Did we not conclude that the Wilson committee was a sub committee of the golf committee?  Lesley was reading Wilson's report into the minutes. Since Wilson wrote it, of course he is not going to mention himself, right?

Please do not accuse anyone else of rampant speculation, since it would be the pot calling the kettle black!  (but hey, I am guilty of similar stuff on this thread. Not busting any chops, just noting that we are falling back into the same pattern of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff)

Jeff
The November 15, 1910 minutes deal with finalizing the purchase of the land. All the news reports at the time, announcing the project, said the work would commence immediately. Why is it a stretch to believe that the course was laid out immediately, in late 1910?

I have no idea if the Wilson committee was a subcommittee of the Golf Committee or not, or if the Green Committee was considered a subcommitte of the Golf Committee, the fact remains Lesley was the author of the April report and there is no mention of Wilson or his committee. So if we are speaking of stretches, don't you think calling that report the "Wilson report" is a stretch?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tmac,

There were other meeting minutes, such as from Nov. 1910 that reported what was going on.  Of course that focused on the property purchase, but as far as "could have been from 1910" is it "logical" that this important work was deemed fit to put in the minutes, but only months later?  That is a real stretch to me.  Minutes report what is going on right now, or in the very recent past, no?

Did we not conclude that the Wilson committee was a sub committee of the golf committee?  Lesley was reading Wilson's report into the minutes. Since Wilson wrote it, of course he is not going to mention himself, right?

Please do not accuse anyone else of rampant speculation, since it would be the pot calling the kettle black!  (but hey, I am guilty of similar stuff on this thread. Not busting any chops, just noting that we are falling back into the same pattern of coulda, woulda, shoulda stuff)

Jeff
The November 15, 1910 minutes deal with finalizing the purchase of the land. All the news reports at the time, announcing the project, said the work would commence immediately. Why is it a stretch to believe that the course was laid out immediately, in late 1910?

I have no idea if the Wilson committee was a subcommittee of the Golf Committee or not, or if the Green Committee was considered a subcommitte of the Golf Committee, the fact remains Lesley was the author of the April report and there is no mention of Wilson or his committee. So if we are speaking of stretches, don't you think calling that report the "Wilson report" is a stretch?

Tom,

Work did commence immediately.

Cuyler advised that a corporation be formed, which happened by December, and also advised that Lloyd buy the property.

All of that was done by December 21st, even considering the busy times of the winter holiday season.

By January, shortly after New Yeark, they were ready to roll.

[John_Cullum]

Was a drawing of a golf course attached to the April report ?