David,
You stated, "I've never been concerned with "credit," only with WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. That you cannot comprehend that these are not the same thing doesn't surprise me."
I'm sorry, but that makes two of us because they sure do the seem the same to me. In defining what "ACTUALLY HAPPENED" you are by definition giving CREDIT to those who ACTUALLY did the things you are talking about. If CBM laid out and routed Merion you are CREDITING him with the design. Based upon that, are you willing to give equal credit for the layout and design of NGLA to Emmet, Travis and Whigham since it is quite clear that it was a 4-person "committee" who were both given the responsibility for doing it and who planned to spend the 5 months following routing the course and picking out the holes?
Phillip, They aren't the same thing at all.
1. Crediting one or a few for creating a course is obviously very political, and the credit will rarely be an accurate and complete reflection on what actually happened. Judging how clubs seem to latch on to these legends it seems that it has much more to do with the club's own self-perception than it does about what actually happened. None of that should be a concern when figuring out what happened.
2. While it is rarely defined, "credit" is necessarily definitional. And unfortunately there is no agreed upon definition of who should get credit. So unless and until we can agree on some methodology of who gets credit, it seems a pointless discussion to me. In contrast, figuring out who did what is largely descriptive and analytical, not definitional.
3. However one chooses to define credit, no doubt the definition will vastly oversimplify what actually happened, just as your attempted analogy oversimplifies both what happened at NGLA and Merion. That is what givng credit does, it simplifies, summarizes, and reduces what actually happened into a few words which fit nicely on a scorecard. In contrast, figuring out what happened expands our knowledge by unwrapping the neatly packaged legends in order to obtain a deeper less cliched understanding.
-- Take your answer to JC Jones' hypothetical. You assume "they both did equal things" in routing the course, but just because they were both involved doesn't mean they did equal things. You also assume that building would include changes to the plan. We don't know that either. So far as we know, in this hypothetical Emmett might have merely walked around listening to CBM and writing down everything he said regarding the layout, and that every single idea was CBM's, and that Emmet's role amounted to nothing more than building it exactly as CBM told it to. I'd be more interested in what actually happened out there than coming to some oversimplified conclusion based on who spent more days on the project.
Plus, I doubt his could possibly your standard for credit. Should we take away MacKenzie's credit at a whole slew of courses, including his Australian courses? Just because his involvement was limited in time? How about with Tillinghast? If Tillinghast, accompanied by a chair of a greens committee, spent two days planning and laying out a course, and then the chair of the greens committee actually built the course to his plan, would you honestly not give Tillinghast any credit for the course?
I am a bit taken aback by your superficial treatment of both Merion and NGLA, but that is precisely what happens when we focus on credit instead of delving into what actually happened.
"If CBM laid out and routed Merion you are CREDITING him with the design. Based upon that, are you willing to give equal credit for the layout and design of NGLA to Emmet, Travis and Whigham since it is quite clear that it was a 4-person "committee" who were both given the responsibility for doing it and who planned to spend the 5 months following routing the course and picking out the holes?"First regarding Merion, I don't think CBM laid out Merion. I think Hugh Wilson and his committee laid out Merion. CBM and HJW were integrally involved in choosing the land, choosing the hole concepts and planning the layout. They not only guided Merion in planning the layout and other matters, they chose and approved the final routing, which was submitted to the board as the plan they had approved. Others were involved in all of this as well, including Francis with his swap idea and Lloyd for shepherding the idea through, and Wilson with working on the preparation and the plan, even if he was being guided by CBM. Hugh Wilson was reportedly responsible for the finishing touches on the course including the fairway bunker placement and some other details. Wilson was also reportedly responsible for the changes which took place in the first half of the 1920's, including the new 10th-13th holes, and was apparently responsible for initiating the project to redo the bunkers which was not finished until after his death. Etc.
Now this just touches the surface of what happened, and there is much more under the surface, but hopefully you get the picture. Yet you write that I think that CBM laid out Merion; therefore I am "CREDITING HIM WITH THE DESIGN." That is your oversimplification and mischaracterization, not mine.
Second, regarding NGLA, why would you risk debasing your credibility as a researcher by even suggesting that we could hand out credit for the design of NGLA based upon a 1906 article and a few snippets,
all written before the planning had been completed and the course built?
Those versed in the origins of NGLA will immediately recognize that the article contains a number of inaccuracies and the source of those inaccuracies is obvious. Much of the article simply parrots sections of the original 1904 agreement, including hypotheticals and suggestions, as if they were part of the current circumstance. They were not. Not surprisingly the article ignores the one portion of the 1904 agreement which actually addresses how the golf course would be created. The last two paragraphs of the 1904 Agreement address "the building of the course" with the last paragraph in particular addresses who would be primarily responsible. Here are the last to paragraphs, with my emphasis added:
As to the building of the golf course, it is well known that certain holes on certain links abroad are famous as being the best considering their various lengths. It is the object of this association to model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous holes abroad, so that each hole would be representative and classic in itself.
Mr. Charles B. Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate himself with two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme. In the meantime, you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter entirely in his hands.Similarly, after both the course and clubhouse had been completed, CBM wrote a statement to the members and again mentioned who had ultimately responsibility for the project.
The course is now completed, the clubhouse erected, and the direction of the Links has passed into the hands of a Board of Directors appointed by yourselves, who in turn have appointed subcommittees in their various capacities. It occurs to me that this is an appropriate time to make a statement, acting, as I have, practically as a Committee of One in the furtherance of this project, with the devoted assistance of a number of the Founders most keenly interested.
Macdonald clarifies further in Scotland's gift, when CBM noted that he dropped Travis and
"Jim Whigham and I, with the kindly interest taken by Joseph P. Knapp, James A. Stillman, Devereaux Emmet, Charles Sabin and others, forged ahead with the construction from the surveyor's maps and the thirty or forty drawings which I had made myself of different holes which I thought were worthwhile." Even by looking at the article, there is no doubt that the planning had already been ongoing and that a number of the key holes (if not all of them) had already been located on the property at this point, including the Eden, the Alps, the Redan, and the Cape. Scotland's Gift confirms that it was largely he and HJ Whigham who found many of these holes. Scotland's Gift also confirms that CBM found many of the others as well, such as the Sahara and the Road, and that he was responsible for the derivations from the originals. CBM also details contributions made by a number of others, as listed above. Yet you want to ignore all this and go with a statement in the article?
Frankly, it is a bit too much for you to take an 1906 article, fraught with mistakes, and start declaring that the four mentioned ought to get equal credit because the article said that the four of them would be working on planning the details. What is your point in oversimplifying and caricaturing NGLA like this? While others are obviously trying to, I am not oversimplifying or caricaturing Merion's history in such a reckless manner and I am a bit offended that you would compare my research and analysis at Merion to your jumping to conclusions after a superficial reading of one sentence in one 1906 article.
_________________________________
David M,
Regarding your post 36: "... I never told Merion how they should credit their course...
--------------
Sir, to quote from your Missing Faces essay:
"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..... While my research is in the early stages, 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.""
--------------
I respectfully submit that the quoted section of the essay may be seen as an attempt to tell Merion how to credit their course.
That you and others still refuse to believe me about my intentions says much more about the paranoia which still surrounds my essay and the bizarre protectionist attitude toward Merion's Legend, as does Mike Cirba's post egging you on and also
suggesting that I may be lying and that perhaps Ran ought to throw me off the website.
I know what I intended, Dan, and I never intended to tell Merion how to credit the course. And Dan, there is nothing respectful about you telling me what
my intentions were, especially since I have clarified
my intentions, many, many times. Merion's Legend was my jumping off point to discuss what really happened. Had you ventured into the actual essay instead of sticking within the synopsis to find your quote, you might have realized this.
___________________________________________________
Bill, I shouldn't have called your statement that CBM would never share credit for NGLA ridiculous, and I apologize.
In my opinion he did share credit, and repeatedly and graciously so.
But I agree with you that CBM had an ego and would add that he seemed to think he was on a mission as well. But if he felt he played a large role in the growth to early maturity of American golf, then in my opinion he had good reason to think and if anything he underplayed his importance. I cannot imagine who might have had more influence on so many different aspects of the game before 1912.
Where if anywhere in Scotland's Gift do you think that CBM exaggerated or overstated his accomplishments or importance? Who if anyone didn't he acknowledge that he should have acknowledged?