David,
AS you wrote, "CBM wrote extensively about how the course came about (as did others) and CBM credited and acknowledged many of those who were involved in the process, whether through advice from afar or by work on the ground. So it is not as if there is a huge mystery about how NGLA came about, and it is commonly known who was involved..." are you then going to give Devereaux Emmet and Whigham EQUAL design credit for NGLA?
It simply seems to me that it is a consistent stand to giving CBM equal, or as some belive you are doing, more credit for the design of Merion.
Tom Macwood, you stated, "Phil, Did you sleep through the other threads on this subject?" and "In this case thankfully Wayne Morrison is not aware of HH Barker's final resting place." You simply can't keep from being arrogant and insulting despite my stating from the beginning that this was a serious question and asking that that type of garbage not be posted. Either stop doing so or stop posting because you show yourself to be a little man by doing so. If you want a question to answer, and as you place so much faith in CONTEMPORANEOUS newspaper accounts, then you MUST also agree that Emmet, Travis and Whigham should be given EQUAL design credit with CBM based upon this CONTEMPORANEOUS account.
Jim, you stated, "As you seem to keep on forgetting, CBM gives a lot of credit to Whigham, Hutchinson, Raynor, Payne, and others. Having said that, whose holes do you think Mortimer Payne, under Raynor's direction, placed onto the ground at NGLA, the committees? I think your credibility as a 'historian' will go the way of Mike Cirba's (read his two replies ) if you think that the outcome was not of Macdonald's making."
Jim, you obviously are simply not understanding my question. I am not asking what credit CBM gave, I am asking why those on golfclubatlas who believe full design credit should be given to others than those who have been historically credited with a design based upon much less SPECIFIC evidence than what is CLEARLY stated in this article are unwilling to do the same in the case of NGLA? For me it is a question of consistency of applied principles. How can Macwood be given serious consideration for his belief that Barker routed Merion because he did a drawing for someone who may or may not have even been involved in the process yet NOT give the three at NGLA full and equal credit to CBM for the lay out and design when even David above admits that they had involvement and the contemporaneous article clearly states it.
It is consistency of applied principles, e.g.- the weight one ascribes to the veracity of "proofs" offered for suppositions or theories that proves one to be a good historian. That is why I am NOT concerned about my own "credibility as a historian" as you put it... Also, you closed your statement by saying, "if you think that the outcome was not of Macdonald's making."
Please show me where I made any statement or even intimation as to who I believed designed, laid otu, routed or built NGLA> You can't because I didn't. You are taking a defensive attitude as if I've attacked something or someone where all I am trying to do is see a consistency in applied principles in course design attribution by those on the site.