I sense that you feel victimized by what you feel is a burden of proof I am imposing on you. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure what burden of proof means to you. I do recall a good book by that name of some years ago. But, to clarify again, I am NOT trying to figure out "which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened". What's the point in doing that? The most reasonable and most likely may not be the truth. Is it not better to continue pursuing more of the truth of what actually happened that to surmise what happened through inference and interpretation? In the meantime, the analysis of the information we do have is enlightening and entertaining. Debating is fun on its own merits, as long as it doesn't get too emotional.
Victimized? I don't think so. I am asking you to give some consideration to your own methods and standards, because when it comes to methods and standards you seem to be all over the place, and it makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. If you are not trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely, then why are you speculating and surmising and inferring and interpreting? Does saying it is "enlightening and entertaining" somehow free you from any standards or consistent methodology?
I guess my ideals are rather Socratic in that I think that while figuring out the absolute truth may be impossible, a reasoned debate ought to help us at least move in the right direction. So I don't get why you keep challenging me to state my points as absolute certainties. I don't see this as productive or reasonable within the context of the conversation. I know my points are not absolute certainties, which is why I am engaging in debate about them. So then the question becomes which among the various claims make most sense, and how do those claims match up with the facts as we know them.
How can you productively participate if you aren't trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely? You seem to be of the notion that if we cannot come up with absolute certainties then one theory is as good as any other, but I disagree with this. This has been Mike's approach for years, where he comes up with a theory, no matter how outlandish, and sticks with it no matter what as if it has equal merit with all the rest. All this does is stall and derail productive conversation, which may serve his purpose but doesn't serve mine.
________________________________________________________________
Niall wrote:
Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.
The course certainly evolved over the years, but this conversation (or at least my part in it) has generally focused on the initial creation of the course. And before Merion even opened - before Wilson had returned from his trip abroad - it was already being reported that most of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad. Think about that. They were modeling their course on holes that Wilson had never even seen. Based on what? With regard to the initial creation of the course there is little mystery as to from where these ideas came. Hugh Wilson told us they came from CBM. Lesley confirmed this, as did Alan Wilson and others.
So when they told us from where the ideas came, why would we not listen to them? Why would we try to hypothesize from where else they might have gotten their ideas? Is it possible they could have figured it all out without CBM? Very unlikely but also irrelevant, because they told us they were listening to CBM!
David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee. I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true. From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.
I don't think that exactly what he said. I believe he said
nearly every hole commands a view of the entire hole from the tee. There are some blind shots at NGLA where the strategy of the hole dictates a blind shot (the Sahara, Alps, and Punchbowl for example) but for the most part I found the visibility to be pretty good. As for the Redan (or any other hole) CBM and HJW were not designing exact copies but rather were incorporating the basic strategic concepts as they fit with the landscape. From the 1914 article CBM and HJW wrote for Golf Illustrated:
The principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made. Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland was almost exactly like the North Berwick original. All that had to be done was to dig the banker in the face, and place the tee properly. . .
There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.As you can see by the description of the various examples (including Merion) they were not looking for exact copies.
Here is a photo from the tee of the hole from the same article:
___________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, You aren't emotional about Hugh Wilson but you certainly are about me, Tom MacWood, and your pal TEPaul. And you are increasingly emotional about CBM. I came across some of your messages and comments from early on in this debate before you started running with TEPaul. That Jeff Brauer didn't agree much with this Jeff Brauer, but then he didn't personalize this stuff as much either. Of course you think it was the evidence that changed your mind, but your behavior on this issue and others suggests it is more about loyalty than anything else.