Bryan,
I think we've been through this before, haven't we? You don't like the conclusions I draw from the factual record and want to substitute your own conclusions for mine. Well I am not convinced that yours are better. I think they are worse.
We're back to the question of who drew the 5 plans. At the moment we don't know definitively. In that circumstance how can we give primary or equal credit to CBM/HJW for the routing and design. Equally, I guess, we cannot give the Committee (whichever one it was) primary or equal credit.
I am glad that you finally seem to agree with me that crediting the committee over CBM is not a viable default position. If we don't know what happened we don't know it for both.
We don't know definitely, but looking at the context gives us a good idea of what is most likely to have happened. Merion laid out the plans after having just spent two days with CBM where CBM was helping them plan the layout! So I think it unreasonable to think that these plans were created without the input of CBM. Also, these plans were created in the context of
a rearranged course, so I think it unreasonable to think there were five distinct plans rather than variations.
In short, I don't think you can insulate the "five plans" from CBM and the trip to NGLA that they had just taken.
Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land. These are both suppositions on your part. In the former were they not brought in to advise on the suitability of the HDC land for a golf course. That's not the same as advising on what land to purchase. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice. Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA. Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan. As they said, they valued CBM's advice. Perhaps they brought him back to assure themselves that their plan was good and right. That he approved of it. No response required; I know you don't agree.
I think the evidence directly supports my statements. CBM and HJW did not just rubber stamp what Merion was going to buy. The recommended the purchase of the additional acreage behind the clubhouse.
Your
supposition about why they might have brought him back is contrary to the record, to who CBM was, to how he worked, to how Merion treated him, to the context of the times, etc.
But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.) Because the Committee on whose behalf Lesley was reporting, felt that CBM approving "of" the plan would help them sell it. As good an explanation as any. Do you really think that CBM had some formal hierarchical authority over the Committee's work to approve it or disapprove it before it was submitted to the Board? Do you not think that the Committee may have just wanted their expert adviser to tell them that the plan was right and good?
Why do you keep saying approved "of" the plan? Is there yet another version of this thing floating around out there?
Your explanation is NOT as good as any. At least not in my opinion. This was CBM. He didn't need "formal hierarchical authority" in order to call the shots when it came creating a golf course. They realized the value of his advice and they followed his direction. Had he not had a real role, Merion not have brought him down and he wouldn't have come down! Had he not played a real role then he would not be mentioned again and again in the minutes as playing a real role! He made the decision as to what plan would go to the board for goodness sake! How much more in charge could he be?
Was this just idle chat? Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier? No, it wasn't just idle chatter. They wanted to know that their expert adviser felt the plan was right and good and fit on their land.
Interesting speculation, but WHY? Unless they were planning on following their advice, then why ask, and ask, and ask? Why go see him for two days? Why bring him and Whigham back down? Why not just show them THE plan instead of the five versions? Why waste the time of of these men if they were just there for rhetorical support?
For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?" As debated ad nauseum, we don't know what his plans were of.And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned? If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan? Wasn't Lesley reporting to the Board on the Golf Committee's behalf. Why would he need to mention Wilson was running the show. The Board already knew that. Lesley was presenting their report. Mention of CBM was noted because they weren't part of the Committee and as I suggested above, it would no doubt have helped sell the Board on the plan knowing that the expert advisers were in favor of it.
Again, Lesley and Wilson were not on the same committee. Wilson was not on the golf committee, which was the committee for whom Lesley was speaking.
Help sell the board? Now that is some speculation. H.G. Lloyd was a governor of the club. Lesley would be President of the club and was chair of the Golf Committee. Yet they didn't have the chops "to sell the Board on the plan" without dragging CBM and HJW into it? Was the board so hostile to the idea that they needed to call in the biggest name in golf to lobby for the plan? Were they just using CBM for name recognition at the highest level of the board?
Before construction, who do you think the Board would have thought had called the shots on the design? And what is your basis for so thinking?
With my few little editorial changes, here is the minute as transcribed by Tom. BTW, why do you accept on faith the "approved" statement when you question virtually everything else that Tom has put forward from the minutes?
Bryan, Are you really rewriting the report to your liking? I thought only TEPaul tried such stuff. It is hard enough to trust without you now changing it to suit your purposes.
And I do have a problem with everything in that report, including the way they have played with "approved." I think reviewing the actual records would help tremendously in figuring this out but unfortunately the History Fakers have arranged it so that an impartial review of the actual documents is impossible.
That said, these guys have always manipulated the evidence to try and help their case. I can't imagine why they would change it to "approved," unless it formally said something that made it even clearer that CBM was calling the shots.
_______________________________________________________________
Adam Messix asked:
Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks? I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive. Just curious as to your thoughts.
1. Interesting question as to Ross. He was probably familiar with many of the holes early on, but after NGLA got going and designing based on the great holes became the rage, even Ross traveled back abroad to (further?) study the great golf courses. When was the course to which you refer built? Was he working with anyone else?
At Merion, given CBM's extensive involvement with Merion throughout the process there is little or no doubt as to where the ideas for the "template" holes at Merion came from.
2. Most or all of what we think of as CBM courses were built by Raynor and Raynor had a recognizable aesthetic style. Merion was NOT built by Raynor or Banks, so I don't think we ought to expect that same aesthetic style. Besides there are plenty of design features at Merion that are distinctive of CBM's style, just not aesthetic stylings.
__________________________________________________
Bryan,
You are wrong about the template holes and features. Most are still there but in need of a haircut. The Alps was was one of the highlighted holes early on, lasted a dozen years, and got ripped up because it crossed a road, not because it was a bad hole.
What is your ultimate theory?