[Tom MacWood]

A week ago we were sharing information and trying to better understand the events surrounding the course's creation. TEP has returned the tone has changed just a bit. I was hoping it would return in a cooperative mood. I was wrong.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

To quote Larry the Cable Guy (and probably MCC co-designer, why the heck not)

"I don't care who you are, that's funny!"

I think even stuffed shirts like Lesley would have fun reading this thread up in heaven next to their true designer, Jesus.  I guess we can now start vetting what God meant in the Ten Commandments!  Not that most of us haven't bent the meaning of at least a few of those over the years to suit our needs!  But, I am pretty sure DM would tell God that he didn't fully understand them w/o DM interpreting them.  Also, he would probaby ciritique the use of "thou" rather than "you" and other grammatical anomylies.

PS - Let us know if there are an unusual amount of lightning bolts around MCC today, and I will do the same for Texas!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I've asked you some serious question that I'm waiting for your response on.

In the meantime just having a bit of jovial, satirical good humor, which you are normally as good as anyone here at levelling... 

.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm sorry, I guess it's just my odd sense of humor; threads like this one need a modicum of humor, don't you think? I'll leave then and you all can continue on in your cooperative tone and mood. I'm willing to be cooperative though; what do you want to cooperate about? I've also been wondering if you have so little faith in my word, opinion, interpretation and information why is it that you keep asking me so many questions?

However, I would suggest you tell us what Merion's history books say word for word about Macdonald's contribution since you have said recently that they are so inaccurate. What is so inaccuracate about them other than that 1910 trip which we all know and have explained to you the reason the books were inaccurate about it?

You can quote what the books say about Macdonald's contribution, can't you? My God if you don't even know what they say exactly what in the world does that say about you and your research, your methods and motivations and the opinions you put on here?

[Mike_Cirba]

Actually, Jeff...

I would say that Merion does not have the imprimatur of either the very penal, vengeful God of the Old Testament, nor the Love Thy Neighbors fairness and tolerance of the New.

Instead, it offers temptation and trickery and risk of damnation at nearly every turn, and although I've yet to find contemporaneous documentation, its pretty clear to me that the only logical designer could have been...in the immortal words of Church Lady...

Satan!?!?   

[DMoriarty]

I am sorry to see that one side is again resorting to nothing but snide sarcasm, snickering, and obtuse potshots.

Jeff,

If you think I am calling you stupid I understand why you are upset.   But I haven't done so.   My point is more one of proper procedure rather than of substance.   We need the source material.  You keep telling me that the "source material" is what TEPaul has told us, but surely you understand the obvious flaw in this representation.   We need to be true to the truth seeking process, and that means we cannot rely on the amorphous representations of an interested party but must rely on real source material.   The problems that this reliance on TEPaul's representations creates are evident throughout these threads and underly about 60 pages of discussion.  

The problems are also evident in just about every one of your posts lately.   Your misrepresentation of what you call  "source material" is an example, but is unfortunately not an isolated one.
 - About every time you have told us what the "source material" says, your description differs from your prior versions.    
-  Moreover, your multiple versions of the "source material" are different that what TEPaul has represented.  
-  More still, TEPaul has repeatedly changed his version of the "source material" to suits his needs, most recently a few posts above where he changed "THEY" went to the National to "WE" went to the National to support his contention that Wilson was the speaker.  

We may disagree with the meaning or importance of the "source material" but that is not what is going on here.  Here, we DO NOT HAVE THE SOURCE MATERIAL yet you and TEPaul insist as if we proceed as if we did.  

So I am not telling you that you are "dumb as a stump."   My purpose is to get it right by following proper truth seeking procedures. Blindly and unquestioningly taking TEPaul's ever-evolving word for these things does not serve that purpose.

[DMoriarty]

Just out of curiosity, and understanding completely why you want to see the source document, IF TePaul has doctored his excerpt, just what do you expect to find that he doctored?  And, how would changing the grammar of all that affect anyone's theory?

Up front Jeff, before you and others ridicule me for what you will undoubtedly consider more attacks on TEPaul, please note that
1.  I am trying to honestly answer your questions.
2.  Everything I write directly pertains to our efforts to getting at the truth of what happened at Merion .
3.  Everything I write is based on my understanding of the facts.  I don't dwell on those facts because to do so would take much too much time and would inevitably be considered piling it on.  While I'd rather keep moving forward, I will provide a sampling of those facts if you or others find it necessary or doubt my conclusions.

Now as to your questions . . .
- I have speculated in the past that, at a minimum, the actual source material will clarify whether this was a report written by Wilson and entered into the record by Lesley or whether it was Lesley's report report about the history of the planning process, including but not limited to a description of what Wilson and his Committee did at NGLA. 
- I suspect that some or all of the pronouns are TEPaul's creation and not Lesley's or Wilson's.   I will be very surprised if it turns out that Lesley, Wilson, or Sayres (the Secretary) made such foolish grammatical errors and let them stand in the record.
-  It is as difficult for me to guess as for you, given that neither one of us really knows, but I will not be surprised if TEPaul used one or more of the pronouns to mask a transition that was awkward to his position.  For example, I would not be surprised if the actual transcription was something like . . .

The Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, reports as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground, we appointed a sub-committee in charge of constructing the course.  They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day the sub-committee spent on the ground studying . . . .  Upon their return from NGLA, we [or "they" depending on who did it] rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.

Or something like: 

The Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, reports as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground we appointed a sub-committee in charge of constructing the course, and that sub-committee reported to me as follows:   "We went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses.  The next day the sub-committee spent on the ground studying . . . .  Upon our return from NGLA, we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans."

But Jeff, surely you understand how absurd all this is, don't you? TEPaul can do whatever he wants with this source material, yet rather than provide it to us, or even to clarify what it says, he continues to evade and avoid addressing what is REALLY written in the minutes, or even whether he has provided us the complete and accurate transcription.    What do you suppose your hypothetical "historian" would say about that?

I say it would be very risky for him to alter the document here, both because of his relationship to MCC and because if it ever came out, his rep would really be damaged.

But TEPaul has repeatedly misunderstood, misrepresented, and concealed major portions of the source material and been caught red-handed doing so on numerous occasions.  Yet you and others have given him pass after pass, and his actions have been without real consequence so far.  So why should he expect any consequence to follow now for mischaracterizing the contents of this report?  He will undoubgtedly  say is that it was a mistake or that he was going by Wayne's quick transcription of the actual document (something he has already claimed, by the way) or that he didn't mean it the way we thought he did, or some lame excuse, and you guys will nod their heads and pretend it never happened.   

Look a few posts above.   Without explanation or even pause, TEPaul changed "they" to "we" to justify his claim that the report was in Wilson's voice.    What were the consequences for him again changing the source material to suit his rhetorical needs?   You and others did not even notice or comment.  You don't care.  You want the report to have be in Wilson's voice so you apparently don't give a damn that he has just again altered what was supposed to be an exact transcription of the minutes.

In short, you and others enable TEPaul's continued bad behavior and disingenuous use of the source material by constantly overlooking these transgressions (and transgressions that have been much, much worse) and by not calling him on it, and not DEMANDING that he come clean with all the relevant source material.

Unlike you, I do know real life "historians" and other academics, and I am thoroughly aquainted with how their process works.   I have worked for them and with them, and have even been considered one myself (although I would beg to differ.)   It is tedious work but they generally take it very seriously, and in the end all they really have are their reputations.  Their reputations are largely based on their work product, and ideally, their work product is judged by a rigorous peer review process where both their arguments and the facts they offer to support those arguments are subject to repeated critical analysis, verificitation, and vetting.   

If your hypothetical historians had any respect whatsoever for themselves or their discipline, they would never put up with what you guys put up with here from TEPaul.  His reputation would be in tatters, and he would have been shunned and laughed right out of the conversation, as he should have been on here a long time ago.   Academics might have even a lower disregard for those that won't play by the rules as do serious golfers.

In addition, he would really have to concoct an alternate scenario to cover his bases that would pass vetting as well.  I am not critiqing his intelligence when I say it would be difficult to anticipate all the possible ramifications of such deception that you allege.

Why?  Thus far TEPaul has lived n a world without real consequences at least around here.  He obviously doesn't concern himself with such things, as they have never mattered before.  At this point I cannot even imagine how much it would take for the hardcore Tompaulogists to hold TEPaul accountable.  Although I do know that many have privately seen the light and disavowed his information, explicitly or implicitly, so maybe there is some hope that others will start holding him to the even the basest standards of civil discourse.

I mean really, do you think he has all the time in the world to do that, just to screw with you?

It is obvious he has all the time in the world, and do think he is scrambling to save face here.  But I don't think it is necessarily to screw me.

As he has explained on many occasions, he actually believes that he KNOWS what happened at Merion, at least to the extent that anyone should or could know what happened.  He has repeatedly stated, even in this thread, that with the exception of the timing of the trip, his view on what happened at Merion has NOT CHANGED ONE BIT, despite all the new information that has come out over the past six years.   

He is NOT here to figure out what happened.  In other words, his mind is made up and was made up all along!  His role here is to convince you that he is correct.   And in this regard, the ends justify the means.  He has stated as much on many occasions, even admitting that he and Wayne have concealed source material in the past because of what TomM and I might make of it; even admitting that his KNOWING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED determined how he viewed the Findlay's apparent statement that CBM was responsible at least some of the holes at Merion!  It couldn't mean that, because TEPaul KNOWS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

So TEPaul knows what he knows DESPITE the facts, not BECAUSE of the facts, and when one approaches source material from this perspective it becomes very easy to ignore, misrepresent, and/or conceal any fact that might be construed against what YOU KNOW TO BE THE TRUTH.  After all, when you think you already know the truth, what is the harm in protecting that truth by any means necessary?

In short, rather than obfuscating the truth finding process, I think TEPaul really thinks he is serving and protecting the truth by manipulating the source material.   And he may not even realize he is doing it some of the time, for as you have often noted with all carry our biases with us.

I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.     

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I understand your postion even where I don't agree with it entirely.  And I was a bit harsh saying you called me dumb, and I know you really didn't.  But, in several consecutive posts where I was told what I didn't understand, I admit to getting a bit Wisconsiny (i.e., cheesed) about the whole thing.

[Rich Goodale]

I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.

No, Dave.  It does not.

Please take a rest and let the rest of us take a rest.  You are getting nowhere, and neither are we.

Constructively

Rich

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

I see you too have chimed in with the sarcasm.   Do you have any interest in actually discussing this?  

At the time MCC referred to "experts at work preparing plans . . . " (late 1910 or early 1911, not 1901,) those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses.   Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before.    I reached this conclusion by looking at dozens of uses of the term "expert" in the this context from 1909 through 1912, all of which support my conclusion.   I found no examples anyone having been described as an "expert" at planning or creating golf courses merely because they were good amateur golfers.  

Based on my research into the usage of the term, I think it is extremely unlikely that the MCC announcement was referring to Wilson and his Committee as "experts at work preparing plans . . .."   That MCC had been dealing with real experts makes it even more unlikely.

-  Do you have any factual basis for disagreeing with my conclusion?

-  What does the 1901 British Am have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?

-- What do the 1901 or 1910 handicap listings have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?  These lists do not even include professionals, yet the vast majority of those considered experts at planning courses were professionals.  

-- What is the factual basis, if any, for your belief that Wilson et al. qualified as "experts" when it came to "preparing plans" for golf courses?  

Thanks.  

_______________________________________________

Mike Cirba, the same questions apply to you  Are you ever going to directly answer them directly?  


[/quote]

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

That was the 1901 (British) Open.  Most of the best players in the world were playing ther and then.  90 was a good score.  Please try reading more carefully in the future.

Constructively

Rich

PS--it was Tom Macwood who said above:

"Not 1901 again, every golfer who could break 90 within a 200 mile radius of NYC was called an expert."

Sorry if I tarred you with his brush.......

rfg

[JESII]

David,

I know I am late to this segment of the conversation but I've thought for a while now as this "experts" question was debated that exactly WHO used the term AND their audience are the key to deciding whether or not Wilson and his crew qualified...

I would ask about the research you did: What sources did you search? Were they club documents or local newspaper reports or golfing publications? If they were other than club documents, is it possible that the source of the information was direct from the club in questions own words?

I ask this because the use of the term within a club is very likely to comfort the rest of the membership that their new course is in good hands...much like my questions to you about your statements that CBM chose the land they purchased...

For what it's worth, a typical club member today would still view their top 10 players as experts and if the club made a conscious decision to not hire a golf course architect, these are the people that would be selected to do the planning.

[DMoriarty]

I hope this clarifies my thinking on this.

No, Dave.  It does not.

Please take a rest and let the rest of us take a rest.  You are getting nowhere, and neither are we.

Constructively

Rich

 

While I have long ago grown tired of the same old nonsense, I don't think a rest will change that.   Above is my honest and (I believe) accurate attempt to answer the questions Jeff asked, and I have thought long about the answers, and I don't think any break will change my take on the issue.  

It is all about the process, Rich.  A few of us want to follow established, accepted, and necessary procedures to try and get to the truth of the matter, while most others insist that we just accept what we are told as the truth.   It is an age-old discussion, and one that has long tended to rile those comfortable with conventions, much to the detriment of those who would dare challenge it.  

If you find anything about my answer inaccurate or unfair, I'd be glad to address it.

In the mean time, do you mind actually addressing my questions regarding the use of the term "expert?"  

Thanks for the clarification regarding the tournament, but that it was the 1901 Open makes no real difference to me or the issues at hand, as I understand them.   My questions remain unanswered.  Will you answer them?

Thanks.

[Rich Goodale]

Jim

I did not ask you to take a rest, nor was I talking to you in my post you cited directly above.  I was "talking" to David.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the last sentence of your last post and am clueless about the rest of it to the extent it seems to be aimed at me.  What did I do you deserve your wrath?

Constructively

Rich

[JESII]

Rich,

You were not in my thoughts in the least...all David.

Regretfully misunderstood,

Jim

[Rich Goodale]

That's two beers you owe me, Sully.

Thirstily

Rich

[DMoriarty]

David,

I know I am late to this segment of the conversation but I've thought for a while now as this "experts" question was debated that exactly WHO used the term AND their audience are the key to deciding whether or not Wilson and his crew qualified...

I would ask about the research you did: What sources did you search? Were they club documents or local newspaper reports or golfing publications? If they were other than club documents, is it possible that the source of the information was direct from the club in questions own words?

My sources were three different online databases which together comprise a compilation of archives of thousands of newspapers from around the country, of which at least hundreds of which were in existence during 1909 to 1911.  I plan on checking a different database later this week.  I searched for all articles from 1909 through 1912 referencing the relevant terms "expert(s)", "new," (and synonyms) and "golf."  I then examined at the articles to determine if the "expert" was involved in creating a new course, or if the article was about something else.  I then looked at the basis for referring to this person as an expert, and depending on the person, conducted additional searches to determine the basis.  But almost always the basis for the expert designation was in the article, such as in this example from the April 15, 1911 Charlotte Observer article about a new course to be "Laid Off" at Greensboro Country Club:
". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country.  He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there.  While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."

I ask this because the use of the term within a club is very likely to comfort the rest of the membership that their new course is in good hands...much like my questions to you about your statements that CBM chose the land they purchased...

As I said, all my sources are from newspapers. But one can see by examining the various articles about Merion that these articles are very often parroting some sort of communication to the Members within the club.    This seems to be the case with many of the articles I viewed, although with a few (such as the one I from quote above) it is difficult to tell whether the information is from a club communication or from the golf pro doing the work.  

No doubt these articles comforted the members in the same manner than any  any underlying club announcements on which they may have been based would, but the usage is extremely consistent throughout the articles I have found.  In articles, club members with no design experience are not called "experts" at designing courses, even when they were good club golfers.  

For what it's worth, a typical club member today would still view their top 10 players as experts and if the club made a conscious decision to not hire a golf course architect, these are the people that would be selected to do the planning.

Not sure this applies here, since we know that MCC was working with real experts before and after the announcement.   Plus, I came across no examples of this type of usage.  

___________________


Jim,  there really aren't even any of what I would consider close calls or borderline cases, other than what I have pointed out in earlier posts. Those that they called "experts" actually possessed some qualifications, if one considers being a professional a qualification.  

Here is one that I guess could be considered sort of an exception, but only because although he undeniably a real expert golfer, I don't think H. Chandler Egan was a professional golfer, was he?  As I noted to Mike earlier, comparing H. Chandler Egan to Wilson hurts his point much more than it helps it.

I am also posting the article in the interest of full disclosure and because I thought it was interesting.  I was not aware that Egan was designing courses this early.  We usually his work from later 1920s.

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country.  He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there.  While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."

Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography.  "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."

Try harder next time.

Rich

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

In case you missed them above, I've reposted my questions to you, with the one change you mentioned.    

At the time MCC referred to "experts at work preparing plans . . . " (late 1910 or early 1911, not 1901) those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses.   Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before.    I reached this conclusion by looking at dozens of uses of the term "expert" in the this context from 1909 through 1912, all of which support my conclusion.   I found no examples anyone having been described as an "expert" at planning or creating golf courses merely because they were good amateur golfers.  

Based on my research into the usage of the term, I think it is extremely unlikely that the MCC announcement was referring to Wilson and his Committee as "experts at work preparing plans . . .."   That MCC had been dealing with real experts makes it even more unlikely.

-  Do you have any factual basis for disagreeing with my conclusion?

-  What does the 1901 Open have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?

-- What do the 1901 or 1910 handicap listings have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?  These lists do not even include professionals, yet the vast majority of those considered experts at planning courses were professionals.  

-- What is the factual basis, if any, for your belief that Wilson et al. qualified as "experts" when it came to "preparing plans" for golf courses?  

Thanks.  

_______________________________________________

Mike Cirba, the same questions still apply to you.  Are you ever going to directly answer them directly?  

_______________________________________________________


Does anyone have any factual basis for rejecting what I set out above?

Rich . . . . . ?

Mike . . . . . ?  
 
Beuhler . . . . .

[Tom MacWood]

Please read the 4th headline, and look at the golfers with 4, 7, and 8 handicaps in 1901

Rich
Here is the article from 1901 that Mike was referring to. You must have missed riveting discussion of several days ago.

My response to your quote would similar to what I wrote Mike: "Are you saying that an article written in 1901 that states every golfer within 200 miles of NYC (no matter their handicap) is an expert should be our guide for an expert in 1911?"

Golf architecture advanced quite bit between 1901 and 1911.

[DMoriarty]

Dave

". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country.  He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there.  While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."

Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography.  "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."

Try harder next time.

Rich

Rich, maybe it was a very large club.




If you've finished nitpicking, can you answer my questions?  Will you?

 Thanks.

_____________________________________________

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

You know that I know of that article.  Please don't pretend to be any more gormless than you often appear to be.

Rich

[Rich Goodale]

Dave

". . . Mr. Peacock is an expert in his line and has laid off the grounds of clubs of importance in the country.  He is in charge of of a country club at New Brunswick Nova Scotia, and spends his summers there.  While here he will also give instructions as to the game to local players."

Mr. Peacock may have been an "expert in his line" but he was crap at geography.  "New Brunswick Nova Scotia" is equivalent to "Connecticut Massachusetts."

Try harder next time.

Rich

Rich, maybe it was a very large club.




If you've finished nitpicking, can you answer my questions?  Will you?

 Thanks.

You have a question?  One for which you do not already have the answer?  Re-educate me please!

As for Canada, my maternal Grandmother was born in St. Stephens, New Brunswick.  I'll try to channel her tonight to see what she knows about Mr. Peacock.  Don't expect any results soon, however, as she is and was a stubborn woman.......

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Have you read the NY Time article?

Please read the 4th headline, and look at the golfers with 4, 7, and 8 handicaps in 1901

Rich
Here is the article from 1901 that Mike was referring to. You must have missed riveting discussion of several days ago.

My response to your quote would similar to what I wrote Mike: "Are you saying that an article written in 1901 that states every golfer within 200 miles of NYC (no matter their handicap) is an expert should be our guide for an expert in 1911?"

Golf architecture advanced quite bit between 1901 and 1911.

Tom,

Have you actually read the article?

It does not say that at all.

The article says that over 2500 golfers in the MET region were rated.

Of those 1175 had handicaps below 18.   Those above were arbitrarily given handicaps of 18, the highest available.

The HIGHEST HONOR was to have a handicap of 10 or below, of which 242, or less than 10% of the total had attained that distinction.

That gave them the right to participate in MET Championships.

They were called the Golf Experts.

Of those 2500, a total of 43 men had better handicaps than Hugh Wilson, meaning that 1.7% of the total 2500+ golfers in the MET Division were higher ranked than Hugh Wilson.

He was a golf expert.

He was also called an expert in 1913 before (according to you and David) ANY of his design work was opened, and I proved that, as well.

Robert Lesley was also called a golf expert, although he never laid out a golf course, nor was he a professional.

This is a non-issue, demonstrably proven to be true.

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood, 

Thanks for reposting the article, as I had paid little attention to it, and it really highlights how weak Mike's position is.

Note that the article identifies AT LEAST 242 experts.  There may have been more, as the 242 were those experts who qualified for the Met championship.   But even assuming that there were only 242, this a bit short of 1/4 of the 1124 players with a handicap of 17 or less. 

Go back to April of that year and there price of expertise was cheaper still. 211 of the 648 -just short of 1/3 - with ratings were experts.   Oh to have born in 1875, so I too might have been expert golfer, for a few months at least. 

________________________________________________________________

You have a question?  One for which you do not already have the answer?  Re-educate me please!

As for Canada, my maternal Grandmother was born in St. Stephens, New Brunswick.  I'll try to channel her tonight to see what she knows about Mr. Peacock.  Don't expect any results soon, however, as she is and was a stubborn woman.......

I have a few questions, not just one.   I've bolded them below:

At the time MCC referred to "experts at work preparing plans . . . " (late 1910 or early 1911, not 1901) those considered "experts" in planning golf courses actually had obtained a level of expertise in planning golf courses.   Almost without exception such individuals were professionals and/or had done it before.    I reached this conclusion by looking at dozens of uses of the term "expert" in the this context from 1909 through 1912, all of which support my conclusion.   I found no examples anyone having been described as an "expert" at planning or creating golf courses merely because they were good amateur golfers. 

Based on my research into the usage of the term, I think it is extremely unlikely that the MCC announcement was referring to Wilson and his Committee as "experts at work preparing plans . . .."   That MCC had been dealing with real experts makes it even more unlikely.

-  Do you have any factual basis for disagreeing with my conclusion?

-  What does the 1901 Open have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?

-- What do the 1901 or 1910 handicap listings have to do with whether, in late December 1910, Wilson et al. had any expertise at planning golf courses?  These lists do not even include professionals, yet the vast majority of those considered experts at planning courses were professionals. 

-- What is the factual basis, if any, for your belief that Wilson et al. qualified as "experts" when it came to "preparing plans" for golf courses? 

Thanks.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()