The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.]
But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."

Jeff & Bryan,

I'd like to try to get clarification on your positions on the above quote.

To provide some context,
The Findlay quote was published in June of 1912, which means it was probably written earlier, perhaps prior to May of 1912.
Wilson didn't return from the UK until May of 1912.
CBM hadn't completed any other courses by June of 1912.

In the first sentence, can we agree that Findlay is stating that the 10th hole at Merion, the Alps, is underwhelming in its present form ?

In light of the time frame listed above is your contention:

1. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing NGLA ?
2. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other "Alps" holes at other CBM courses ?
3. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at other CBM courses ?
4. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at Merion ?

Would you agree, that the time line doesn't support # 2 and # 3, hence they can be eliminated.

Leaving # 1 and # 4.

Findlay clearly states in his first sentence, that he's referencing the 10th "Alps" at Merion.

Why would he suddenly switch gears and start referencing OTHER holes at NGLA ?
Everyone was already aware of the qualitiy of the holes at NGLA, that's one of the reasons the committee visited NGLA earller that year.

It makes far, far more sense that he's referencing OTHER holes at Merion, as laid out by Macdonald,

But, I would like to hear your take in light of the time line

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Why dont you believe Hugh Wilson when he wrote that his committee was formed in early 1911, included all the usual suspects, and that they all went up to NGLA?   Im not sure what could be more simple and straightforward.

Also, evible for by 1912, do we?  Especially considering that by 1915 CBM had been called in as a "friendly adviser" whenever a notable course was under construction in the east (and likely the midwest as well).en though i believe Findlay was referring to other holes on other courses lps theme Findlay may have thought CBM was responsabroad that CBM referred Wilson to (and then goes directly into a discussion of them), we really dont know how many holes based on ano A

[Mike Cirba]

Gh....fat fingered on a blackberry...sorry for. The garble.

I would only add David that your seeming need to fling personal insults in virtually every one of your posts really reflects on the strength of your case and your confidence to let those supposed facts speak for themselves.u

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mikk,

AKS I can saa about pist 2586 is goxrxgboxxle fit cub, dawxxzmm and wisglgnenook.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba asks why I don't believe Hugh Wilson.  I do believe him, I just don't read as much into that statement as Mike and his buddies do, for the following reasons.

1. Because Lesley was not on Wilson's Committee, yet Lesley reported for the committee who went to NGLA and was working on the plan with CBM.  

2. Because Wilson's was a general account, doesn't go into specifics of how the committee's evolved or the dates when each member started on the project, and because  "early" is hardly well defined.  

3. Because, based on something from the minutes we haven't seen, TEPaul admitted that it was not nearly this cut-and-dried as this, and it was more than likely some sort of evolution, with Wilson having been put on a different committee and then that committee somehow morphed over time into the Construction Committee.

4. Because one member of the committee may not have even been in the country at the time.

5. Because Francis' account is strange if he was on the committee this early.  He didn't even seem to understand from where the conception of the Redan hole came.

____________________________

Mike
You talking about personal insults is pretty funny.   I am not flinging personal insults.  But I am calling it as I see it.  

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,
That last post of yours might be the most intelligent post on this thread to date!  .

[Mike Cirba]

David,

It's not as difficult as all of that.

The Wilson committee reported to the standing Golf Committee, which was chaired by Lesley.

He would be the one responsible to report to the Board.

The Jan 1912 article points out pretty clearly who the men were in charge, as does 1ilson.

Was there overlap between the members?  No question, although Lesly almost certainly saw his role as Chairman needing to preclude his direct participation on a temporary subcommittee reporting to him.

Did Lesly go to NGLA?  Possibly.

[DMoriarty]

Typical Cirba,  

He went into hysterics when I suggested that there is some confusion about just who was on which committee and when. ¥et now, while he surely fails to realize it, he essentially admits as much.  Lesley "possibly" went to NGLA? Huh? So much for pretending to know what happened.  He has no idea who was on what committee and when, or when exactly and how exactly the "Construction Committee" came into existence, or who went to NGLA.  

As for the rest, more nonsense.  The January 1912 letter doesn't say a thing about when the Construction Committee was formed or who was doing what during the winter of 1910-11.  

Where is the proof? Surely we aren't expected to take Mike Cirba's word, without proof, of what happened at Merion during the winter of 1910-1911?

We have spent years with me answering every conceivable question and challenge to my claims.  It is about time these guys started trying to support their own case.   So far, the only ones directly connected to the design are CBM and HJW.

[Mike Cirba]

David,


Hugh 1ilson's committee was formed before they went to NGLA in early 1911.

Why are you so dense...it's in black and white and Wilson told us who was on it.

Did Lesley travel with them?  Who know?  What difference does it make either way?

Please dont answer that last rhetorical question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

This is an interesting quote,  what's the date of the document ?

RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out AND supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses.

It states that Hugh Wilson rendered "invaluable service" in laying out and supervising the construction of the golf course.

It doesn't state that he designed any holes on the golf course.
It doesn't state that he routed the golf course, only that he rendered invaluable service on these projects, which is what you'd expect of any Committee Chairman charged with the oversight of a project.

Jeff & Bryan,

When you have the time I'd appreciate your addressing the questions posed in reply 2585.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Wasn't Mike just criticizing me for name calling?  Hypocrisy has always been one of his rare strong suits. I wish someone would teach him about the concept of a rhetorical questions, though.  He seems to think that if he designates an actual question "rhetorical," then it must be such, regardless of whether there are more reasonable answers than the one he assumes. It is almost exactly like his approach to historical analysis --find an answer you like and don't even consider anything else.   But I won't bother answering his non-rhetorical "rhetorical" question for him this time.  If he can't figure out why it matters himself, then the heck with him. 

The record indicates that HJW and CBM played a crucial role in every step of the planning from helping determine what land to purchase, to determining and approving the final routing plan.   

Mike's proclimations to the contrary, it doesn't seem that the Fakers or their Merionette can even place most of their guys on the scene during any of the crucial planning events, such as at NGLA or on CBM's and HJW's return to Merion.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Who laid out NGLA?

What did that work entail?

David,

You can tell us that over and over but with a generic form letter in June 1910 , not a whisper for the next 10 month while the Minutes tell us the Merion Committee developed multiple plans, then ano overnite stay at NGLA by that Committee where they saw and siscussed. The great holes abroad and their principles at night and toured the golf course the next day, followed by the Commiittee creating five different plans, folollowed by CBMs one day visit in April 1911 to help the Committee select the best of their five plans sure doesnt sound like he did much.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

As for the rest,  I think you overestimate what I take as fact, versus what I take as theory.  It is pretty much all theory to me, depending upon the state of the evidence.  But some theories are more sound than others.

It's an easy trap for me to fall into since much of what you write is so forcibly stated.  I understand that it is pretty much all theory, not only for you, but for the opposition, at least as it pertains to the microcosm of who specifically routed the "approved" course and designed the 18 holes.  I'm sure that we could all debate ad nauseum even if some day a signed copy of the original routing plan was found.

I understand that you feel your theory is more sound.

Can you take a stab at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many".


Pat,

I don't think I can be any clearer and I don't think it would be helpful to further deconstruct the sentence and its grammatical relationships.  We can't get into Findlay's head to figure out what he meant in those few words.  In my humble opinion it does not provide the case closed proof that you seem to feel it does.  But, as usual, we can disagree.  

Could you also give a shot at  trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many"?

I'm also curious how Findlay could say the course wasn't ready to be evaluated because it was still not completed, but then could declare many of the holes as great.

[Jeff_Brauer]

 Mike,

Since no one else has highlighted this, and David seems to believe that it was more likely that the earlier committee had routed the course, please note what Alan Wilson's letter says:

a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.

That is an indication that there was no overlap between those committees, one whose work concluded on Dec 23, 1910 with the agreement to buy the land, and the other, started in early 1911 (most likely pre 2-1, given Wilson's first letter to Oakley as its head).

Now, it may be possible that some members of both committees went to NGLA, just because they were interested, or they wanted a transition, some good booze, whatever.  But, its clear there were boundaries on what the committees were assigned to do, and frankly, I would think that would be the way committees operate.  Why form a new committee to do the work an existing one is already doing?

And, if  Francis was working pre 11-1910 on the routing, what are chances he was doing so as an unnamed member of the new golf grounds committee?  By this time, those interviewed would have known what went down.  Why no mention of Francis on the earlier committee, not to mention no mention of CBM, again other than as an advsor?

The most logically tenable reason is because he wasn't.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think I can be any clearer and I don't think it would be helpful to further deconstruct the sentence and its grammatical relationships.  We can't get into Findlay's head to figure out what he meant in those few words.  In my humble opinion it does not provide the case closed proof that you seem to feel it does.  But, as usual, we can disagree.  

Would you agree that options # 2 and # 3 are not viable ?

Could you also give a shot at  trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many"?

I usually assign a good deal of credibility in terms of the use of language in the days when a good deal, if not most, of the communications were by written form.  "Many" is defined as an indefinite large number.   Since we're capped at 18, you have to ask, in the context of 18, what's a large number ?  6, 9, 12 ?
I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.
As a starting point I think you have to include all of the template or hybrid template holes and go from there.

I'm also curious how Findlay could say the course wasn't ready to be evaluated because it was still not completed, but then could declare many of the holes as great.

Probably the same way that many on this site claim that they can evaluate a course without having played it.

What's the date of the Alan Wilson letter ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Written communications ruled except for late 1910 when phone calls were in vogue and no one wrote down anything?

[Mike Cirba]

Id like to see those who are arguing for CBM's detailed involvement "all through the planning process" to get very specific. In terms of describing those activities as well as the physical evidence supporting those assertions in a timeline fashion.

If we assume the planning process ran from roughly April 1910 thru April 1911 i'd like to see the CBM proponents use ALL of their evidence during this time period to make their case.

[DMoriarty]

Can you take a stab at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many".

I forgot to answer this when you asked before, perhaps because I don't really have a sound basis for speculating on the exact number.  

It is impossible to say for sure, but the simplest and most straightforward reading seems to be that there were 17 others (Merion's 10th hole and 17 other Merion holes.)  I guess it is arguable that only a subset of these were "laid out" by CBM, and then a subset of these were really great, but I think requires reading in a lot that isn't there.  As for how many is "many," I don't know but I would think that "many" would have to be more than two or three.

But as I said above, I think this statement was likely thrown out to partially offset the slam about Merion's 10th, and not as a specific discussion of any other holes in particular.  It is a bit like damning someone with faint praise, only here is damning them with particulars but masking it with general praise.

I understand you don't want to further mince the passage, but perhaps you can explain one thing . . .

How could many of the other of CBM's Alps Holes be really great when Merion's 10th hole was only the second of CBM's Alps holes?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike,

Since no one else has highlighted this, and David seems to believe that it was more likely that the earlier committee had routed the course, please note what Alan Wilson's letter says:

a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.

That is an indication that there was no overlap between those committees, one whose work concluded on Dec 23, 1910 with the agreement to buy the land, and the other, started in early 1911 (most likely pre 2-1, given Wilson's first letter to Oakley as its head).

Now, it may be possible that some members of both committees went to NGLA, just because they were interested, or they wanted a transition, some good booze, whatever.  But, its clear there were boundaries on what the committees were assigned to do, and frankly, I would think that would be the way committees operate.  Why form a new committee to do the work an existing one is already doing?

And, if  Francis was working pre 11-1910 on the routing, what are chances he was doing so as an unnamed member of the new golf grounds committee?  By this time, those interviewed would have known what went down.  Why no mention of Francis on the earlier committee, not to mention no mention of CBM, again other than as an advsor?

The most logically tenable reason is because he wasn't.....

Jeff
I think you forgot this part:

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and AS A FIRST STEP , Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and whole largely helped by many suggestion and much good advice from the other members of the committee, they have told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West course.

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

I've always found this to be such a strange passage, but not just for the "first step" language: "On his return the plan gradually evolved . . .."  Huh?  His return was late spring 1912, and the course did "gradually evolve" from that point on.   But the course had already been planned, laid out, and built by then.  Shouldn't they have planned the course before the plan gradually evolved?  Where again is it in this passage that Wilson and his committee planned the course? This section seems to have skipped right over that.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Id like to see those who are arguing for CBM's detailed involvement "all through the planning process" to get very specific. In terms of describing those activities as well as the physical evidence supporting those assertions in a timeline fashion.

If we assume the planning process ran from roughly April 1910 thru April 1911 i'd like to see the CBM proponents use ALL of their evidence during this time period to make their case.


Mike, since you're the away team on this one, you go first and address the questions you ask in terms of Wilson's specific involvement.

[Tom MacWood]

David
I've always felt the trip to Europe was the turning point for Wilson, it was only at that point that he began exerting his design influence (which turned out to be a very significant influence over the years). Things like the Mid Surrey mounds begin showing up when he returned. And like you said the course had already been designed and built when Wilson began gradually evolving the plan.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Thanks, that's what i thought.

All of CBM's involvement in the planning process is extremely well documented.

If it was any bigger, you could fit it in a thimble.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Yes, i believe the MCC Minutes precisely state that Wilson's interest in golf course architecture began on May 17th, 1912, at approximately 7:34 AM.

Prior to then he thought Willie Campbell designed awesome stuff, but only had a. Passing interest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I see that you can't answer the questions specifically detailing Wilson's involvement, and he's the home team guy