Shivas,
I appreciate you wading in here, but I hope you realize that much of what two of these guys write is more than a little misleading, especially when they pretend to depict my position. I'd really appreciate that you just ignore all their putting words in my mouth because chances are very good whatever they say in this regard will be absolutely wrong.
- Like when Brauer blatantly misrepresents my take on the quarry blasting.
- Or when Brauer pretends that Merion "saw right through" CBM and built a longer course than suggested. (Merion's course was at best around 6000 yards and they built the holes CBM suggested almost to a tee.)
- Or when, as above, he makes all sorts of ridiculous claims about what I gleaned from this February 1, 1911 letter, even claiming that I think Wilson was in constant contact with CBM between June 1910 January 1911. All I was addressing from that letter is that CBM and HJW were in contact and discussing the creation of Merion East sometime shortly before February 1, 1911. The rest is just their usual garbage, fiction, and misrepresentations, and the only purpose it serves is to highlight how little he understands about my position and about what happened.
So please don't rely on their versions of what I think. Neither has the first clue, even if they were willing to honestly express it.
_____________________________________
As for your list of what we agree upon and don't, if it were only so easy . . .
1. I think we all agree that in June 1910 CBM and HJW inspected Merion's Ardmore Ave. site at Merion's request, and that CBM sent HG Lloyd a letter containing recommendations. Beyond that there is bound to be disagreement.
2. I think we all agree that Merion announced the purchase to their members in mid-November 1911, but when the land was actually purchased and by whom is much more complicated.
3. I think we all agree that the Construction Committee was created in early 1911 and that Wilson was on that Committee.
4. I think we agree that Wilson wrote a letter to Piper on February 1, 2011, copies of which are posted above.
5. I think we agree that representatives of Merion visited NGLA so that CBM could continue to help the prepare to build their golf course.
6. I think we agree that CBM and Whigham came back to the property in April 1911 and that they again inspected the land, and that while there CBM and Wilson chose the final routing plan. Although we are bound to disagree as to what choosing the plan entailed.
7. I assume we all agree that they had telephones. I think that MacWood may have even had Wilson's telephone number.
There are a number of other things on which we ought to agree, such as that in late December 1910 or early January 1911 Merion announced to their members that experts were at working planning Merion's golf course. And that sometime after CBM and HJW returned to Merion to agains inspected the land and to choose the final routing plan, Merion's board was presented with this layout plan and told that it was the one that CBM and HJW had chosen, and that the board authorized the construction of the golf course pursuant to that plan.
There is more that we should agree upon, but somehow I doubt we will even agree on this much.
Brauer's theory on what they CBM and Merion would have had to talk about during the interim is very odd. I never claimed Wilson was communicating with CBM about the design during this period and I would be very surprised if he was. But I would be shocked if Merion had no communication with CBM during this period. Particularly, I expect that Merion sent CBM a copy of the CONTOUR MAP. In his June letter, CBM mentioned that it would take a contour map for him and HJW to be certain whether a first class course would fit, and we know that at some point before February 1 Merion had that contour map drawn up, because Wilson, who was contacting Piper at CBM's direction, had a contour map sent to Piper.
_________________________________________
As for your theory regarding the 6000 yard course, it is interesting speculation, but I don't think that it was the case. CBM wasn't building courses for professional golfers playing the tips of the back tees, and I don't think he was describing courses that way either. So when he refers to a 6000 yard course, I think he had a course like NGLA in mind. In other words, I think he considered it to be around a 6000 yard course. As he said in Scotland's Gift, when they first started playing NGLA it was, "roughly speaking, 6100 yards" and the first tournament was played at around 6100 yards, even though the first scorecard listed the championship length at over 6300.
In his 1907 article on the Ideal Golf Links, his ideal holes added up to around around 6020 yards. But in both these instances, there was ample room to make the course longer "at will." I explained above how CBM listed the yardage about 40 yards less than he could have on the Alps hole because to him that was the proper playing length at that time. And CBM "measured from the middle of the teeing ground to the middle of the putting-green. With proper teeing space and putting greens each hole could be lengthened at will by 20 to 30 yards."
So despite what Mike, Jeff, and others would have us believe there was no magic cap on 6000 yards. Nor was CBM trying to jam a short course down Merion's throat. The average of the hole distances listed is about 6000 yards but the range goes up to 6300 yards. If anything, Merion's course was barely as long as CBM suggested, which is to be expected, given that, as he expressed in his letter, their problem was fitting a first class 18 hole course on the acreage they proposed buying.
(To give just one example of how far off Merion's measures were, the old 10th hole was listed at 385 yards. In a straight line it measures more like 305-315, and if the hole had a dogleg it was very slight. A number of other holes seem to have been off by 10% or more.)
_________________________________________
Jim, I don't understand your take on "immediately." No doubt they waited to contact Piper/Oakley (who were NOT mentioned in the June letter) but it is Wilson who attached a sense of immediacy to the whole thing in the letter, as if he had just spoken to CBM. I cannot imagine a scenario where letting eight months lapse could be called "immediately."
As for the swap, there was plenty of room for that green and tee on the 1910 plan. As usual, Brauer isn't familiar with the facts and has gotten himself all confused and is making no sense. He even admits that the pre-swap border was at the back of the 17th green which essentially concedes the entire argument.