There are about a dozen debates/discussions going on here at the same time, including one about the relative value of David's essay given that he wrote it before some information had come to light/he had access to said information. I read David's essay again; it's a good piece of theorizing, written by someone who was obviously engaged and interested in the subject/material at hand.
At the time David wrote his essay, he described it as rough draft I believed then (as I do now) that he had every right to explore this subject and to posit some of his early ideas/theories about it. (The trouble came, I think, when the essay was met with such hostility -- including probably from me, which I regret -- that David then felt it was necessary to defend his theory as if it were rock-solid fact.) While noting that it was a rough/preliminary draft, however, David also made clear the elements of his basic/initial thesis, which can be summarized (in his own words) as follows:
1. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes.
2. My preliminary view is that many of the original holes at Merion East were based upon the conceptual underpinnings of the great holes, as understood by Macdonald and Whigham.
3. Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East. The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.
Okay - there it is; that's it. That's the basic thesis.
I'm not trying to end debate or this thread, but I think it might be somewhat useful if people don't lose sight of the main (initial) points of contention, and that whatever details that are shared/debated now be 'tied into' these main points.
I'd be interested to know two things: 1) would David, after a couple of years of reflection, change anything that he wrote above? 2) Can others, removed from the main debate a couple of years ago, see/recognize and appreciate how David came to the thesis he did?
Peter