[Patrick_Mucci]

But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?  

I  don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up.  

You have a theory.  Mike et al have a theory.  I suppose I would critique either of you if you suggest that your theories are definitive.  I suppose if Mike posted here that Wilson or the Committee definitively drew the 5 plans and did the hole designs, I would critique the basis of his claim.

Bryan,

You seem to be indicating that the Merionettes have yet to produce substantive proof that Wilson and/or his committee drew the five (5) plans and did the hole designs.  Is that correct ?

If so, you and I are in agreement on that issue

Attribution will continue to be a mystery until more documents are discovered/revealed

[Jeff_Brauer]

There may be some doubt about the hole designs.  There is no real doubt about those five routings that were presented to CBM in April.

The Lesley report tells us in no uncertain terms the committee did five routings.

While TMac thinks there was a course already on the ground because of some clumsy wording, we know that is NOT true because they plowed in late March to start prepping the soil, and they didn't hire Pickering, the man who actually constructed the course until April 19.  No way anything was on the ground.

While David has doubts it was Wilson's committee that went to NGLA, I disagree.  We know:

The construction committee was appointed in Early 1911.

There were two committees - one to find the site and another to design and build the course (Alan Wilson letter 1926)  There is no evidence that the committees would usurp the others role, or that the search committee would have existed after its function was complete.

We know from H Wilson's letter to Oakley that he DID go to NGLA.

We know from Francis that he both contributed to the routing was on the Construction committee (from both his remembrances and names of each committee in the Wilson letter) so it is extremely likely that it was the construction committee that went to NGLA.  Even if it was some combination of committees going for some kind of transitional continuity, or if the entire committee couldn't make it, there is nothing there to conclude that they did no routing at all.

That Lesley report is reporting on committee activities.  It wouldn't say they did many routings, and then five routings if that was not a committee activity.

Now, I am willing to engage in a reasonable debate as to how the golf features themselves came about.  They obviously went to NGLA intent on following that model.  But honestly, after seeing the first attempt at the Alps, I would think the debate would be to avoid credit - from both the CBM and Wilson camps!

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I know you'd rather I didn't respond, but you lost me yet again.   In your first paragraph you indicated that you were NOT critiquing me based upon my inability to state my theory with "absolute certainty." In the second paragraph you conclude that I do not have enough evidence to draw a "definitive conclusion."  Huh?  The distinction, if there is one, between a "definitive conclusion" and "absolute certainty" is lost on me.   Perhaps you could explain?

Because as I see it, epistemologically speaking, there is no way I could ever draw a "definitive conclusion" in this circumstance.  The record is not complete.  All I can do is try to determine what is most likely to have happened given my analysis of the information which is available, and I think I have done that.  Haven't I?   What is the point of stating the obvious --that we cannot state our claims definitively?   How does that advance the discussion? What does it have to do with whether or not we have determined what is most likely to have happened?    

Take your example: I don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up.  I don't follow the way you are using about half the words, but I assume you are referring to the issue, Who came up with the five plans apparently mentioned in the April 19, 1911 Lesley Report?

I agree that neither side can definitively state who came up with these five plans.  But let's compare the approaches to this issue.

1. I have NOT definitively concluded who came up with these plans, but I have considered all the evidence and have explained, repeatedly and in great detail, how the evidence supports my belief that CBM had major substantive input into how Merion's course was rearranged upon Merion's return from NGLA, and how Merion laid out those five plans on the rearranged course.   Whether you agree with this belief or not, I trust that you will agree that it is a a reasonable conclusion based on ample evidence?

2. Mike and the Fakers have definitively concluded (and repeated so) that Wilson and his Construction Committee were 100% responsible for these five plans.  But what, specifically, in the contemporaneous record supports their opinion? What evidence supports their affirmative opinion that it was Wilson and his Construction Committee who came up with these five plans?

3. As for Brauer, when he is not flying off the handle, falsely accusing me of lying, or otherwise making a fool of himself, he has occasionally and begrudgingly admitted the obvious-- that Wilson and his committee were not completely responsible for the design, becauseCBM/HJW obviously had an impact. But he also backtracks to try minimize the extent of his CBM's obvious impact, I guess because he thinks doing so automatically means that Wilson must have done it.  But even in this, this he entirely misses the point.  

Take Brauer' "first" and only attempt at making a substantive point in his latest whiny digression about all the things he dislikes about me and apparently all attorneys.  

First, I have offered up the basics, including the Merion document that are germain to the case and a point by point discussion of exactly what CBM contributed in his four days of advice.  You ignore them and ask the question again.

He obviously can't even grasp the question.   His speculation about "exactly what CBM contributed" has been discussed TO DEATH and as NOTHING to do with the questions I have been asking.  

What he fails to address, is the same thing as Mike Cirba, the Fakers, you, Jim, and everyone else refuses to address: "Exactly what did Wilson contribute?"   Or more generally and for starters only . . .

WHO AT MERION CONTRIBUTED TO THE DESIGN?
WHAT EXACTLY DID THAT PERSON CONTRIBUTE?
WHEN HOW AND WHY DID THEY CONTRIBUTE IT?

And, most importantly, I don't want mere opinions or tenuous speculation like, X must have contributed because it was his baby. Rather I want the EVIDENCE indicating the who, what, where, when, how and why of the involvement of each player at Merion, and the facts supporting every exactly.

When we get through with that, then we can turn to the course itself, and we can do the same thing for each hole and each feature on it.

And before anyone objects, answer how this is any different than what we have been doing regarding CBM's involvement for the past five or six years?
____________________________

Was typing during Brauer's latest post.  Unless he is setting the record straight for falsely and repeatedly accusing me of lying I am probably not interested.

[DMoriarty]

I am sure you have all heard the one about how the physicist, the chemist, the economist were trapped on a desert island with only canned beans, and with each trying to figure out how to open the cans?  If not, you can see where it is going.   Anyway the punchline is that the economist's solution is to assume he had a can opener.  

Well Jeff is our acting economist here.  He resolves these issues by making things up.
________________________________________


Jeff Brauer claims he knows who came up with those five plans, and that there is "no real doubt."

Well, I have my doubts. Maybe someone can explain to me how Jeff can definitively conclude that the Construction Committee "did five routings"(whatever that means) and presented them to CBM in April? Because the Report makes no mention of 1) the construction committee, 2) that this committee did five routings (whatever that is supposed to mean), or that this committee presented the five routings to CBM in April.  

As usual, Jeff has apparently just ignored the what is written in the actual record, and substituted in what he wishes it said. Analysis is easy if you just make up your facts.  

Same goes for the rest of what he wrote.  Among other things . . .
- He mischaracterizes TomM's point about the plan appearing on the blueprint by pretending TomM thinks there was a course already on the ground.
- He conveniently forgets that even TEPaul has acknowledged that the Construction Committee did not exist in the beginning, but that Wilson was put on some other committee.
- I have no idea what he thinks he is proving by bringing up the Francis article, but is sure as hell doesn't say anything about Francis at NGLA, or Francis coming up with five plans.  
- He correctly noted that the Lesley report is addressing "the committee's activities," but somehow neglects to mention that Lesley was explicitly reporting on the activities of the "Golf Committee" of which he was chair.  Not the construction committee, which probably didn't even exist yet, and of which Lesley was not a member, when it finally did come into existence.  

There is more misleading or flat out wrong, but such a half-assed effort on his part doesn't even deserve the response I have given it thus far.

Is this really the best you can come up with as an evidentiary basis for believing that Wilson and his committee came up with the five plans?  Maybe the joke is on me, because I can't figure out whether you guys are trying to insult my intelligence or whether someone should be insulting yours . . .
________________________________________________

Maybe we need a different approach.     Perhaps we should try to deal with specific and discrete questions, only actually rely on the record and sound analysis rather than just making things up.

Let me start with a key question, on that Jeff Brauer should have answered but didn't before he claimed to know that the construction committee "did five routings" and "presented" them to CBM.

What exactly could Lesley have meant when he wrote, "Upon our return, we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans . . . .?"

I've answered this questions many times, and in great detail, so I'll let you guys go first.  Then, if you'd like, I'd be glad to address it again. But only if you'd like.

Anyone?

_____________________________

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You must have missed my earlier question.

Have you been granted unrestricted access to all documents at MCC and MGC ?

You indicated that unrestricted access would be available to David, Tom and myself, and I just wanted to know if you had been granted the same unrestricted access ?

Thanks

P.S.  If so, did you avail yourself of that access ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

There was the new golf grounds committee, the construction committee and the golf committee (that Lesley reported for). So far as I know, no one here has put forward who was on each of those three committees nor clearly what their respective mandates were.  If you have it or can get it, please post it.  I assume that the formation of the committees must have been somewhere in Merion's records.  Perhaps it still is.  Or, maybe it's lost.

Although I think it likely that the golf committee or the construction committee (or some members thereof) did put pen to paper to create (incorporating some advice from CBM) the 5 plans. there is no conclusive proof.  You seem to think it is very likely to certain.  I don't think it is certain.  David has his theory which he thinks is very likely.  I don't think it is conclusive either.  As far as I can understand, even David doesn't claim that his theory is certain.


David,

Sorry I lost you.  You seem to be reading a lot into what I'm saying that I don't think is there.  We have a failure to communicate.  What's interesting to me is that we can't seem to communicate ideas to each other even when we're dialoging back and forth, but we claim to understand what people were trying to say 100 years ago and we certainly aren't dialoging with them.

I can't really figure out a way to make it clearer to you.  But, one last try.

Sometimes you have made statements that read as statements of fact, when you really meant them as things that were likely.  I have critiqued some of those instances.

Nobody, in my opinion, has surfaced any documents that have proved conclusively who did the 5 routing plans or did the individual hole designs that comprise the routing. I'm not criticizing anybody, including you, for that.  It's just the way it is.

Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum.  There is a difference of opinion.  There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion.  After thousands of posts over the years, there is no agreement as to whether your theory is more likely than Tom's or Jeff's or Mike's.  But, you can certainly pursue it as long as others wish to debate it with you.  Too bad it always degenerates into name calling and vitriol.  And that remark is aimed at all involved, not just you.

[Tom MacWood]

While TMac thinks there was a course already on the ground because of some clumsy wording, we know that is NOT true because they plowed in late March to start prepping the soil, and they didn't hire Pickering, the man who actually constructed the course until April 19.  No way anything was on the ground.

Jeff
Is that what I've been saying? I thought I have said there existed a plan on paper or staked out on the ground or both in February when the construction committee was appointed. And after that, after consulting with Oakley and others, Wilson began preparing the fair greens and greens for seeding. I thought all along you've had clear understanding of my position.

It appears you have confused the greenkeeper information as well. Wilson wrote to Oakley on June 21 and said they were having difficulty finding a greenkeeper. On June 30 Wilson wrote again saying they had finally found their man, no worries. This person's name is not given; it may or may not be Pickering. If this person was Pickering, then apparently he was not around when construction began on April 19.

[Tom MacWood]

Nobody, in my opinion, has surfaced any documents that have proved conclusively who did the 5 routing plans or did the individual hole designs that comprise the routing. I'm not criticizing anybody, including you, for that.  It's just the way it is.

Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum.  There is a difference of opinion.  There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion.  After thousands of posts over the years, there is no agreement as to whether your theory is more likely than Tom's or Jeff's or Mike's.  But, you can certainly pursue it as long as others wish to debate it with you.  Too bad it always degenerates into name calling and vitriol.  And that remark is aimed at all involved, not just you.

On their return from the NGLA in early March they re-arranged the golf course, and laid out five plans. The minutes do not specify there were five routings. That is a very unlikely scenario based on what we know from the letters and based on historical practices at the time.

I hope one day we get to see this particular document, because it appears something is amiss. And I find it a little strange that when Patrick begins to pursue access to these records our one local participant seems to have flown the coop.

[Kirk Gill]

One quick question from a lurker - has anyone asked Merion Golf Club for access to their records and been denied? If so, was there a stated reason for the denial?

Humbly,

k

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I think I was wrong.  The April 19 resolution was to hire Johnson, and Pickering apparently came later, right? (I understand that once again, the Wilson letters don't mention exact names, probably because everyone knew who they were talking about, or perhaps because Oakley didn't really need to know)

As to your thoughts that they had even one plan staked out in February because of the wording of that letter, I still believe that the middle part of that Lesley report is just a connector phrase, a general phrase pre-describing the five layouts comment.  After all, it was read and copied, so perfect language is even less expected than if someone was sitting at a desk and writing something.

Regarding your comments to Bryan, I don't recall anyone using the phrase "routing" from all the documents of those days.  That seems more modern parlance.  To me, lay out is the same and its hard to read the comments about who laid out the plans as anything other than the committee. I understand Davids point that the report doesn't specifically list the committee.  Like you, having not seen the entire minutes, I suspect they might clear up that little uncertainty.  That said, the Alan Wilson letter speaks very specifically of the two committees formed and their responsibilities.

So, the primary document that addresses the routing tells us the "committee" did it.  The identity of the committee can reasonably if not certainly be gleamed from the Alan Wilson letter, the Francis report where he tells of spending many hours discussing, etc.  And we know he was only on the construction committee from the Wilson letter.

So, please tell me if that is a more certain or reasonably likely scenario and if not, why not?

It certainly has more backing than David's theory that Francis did the swap while working in an uncredited role on the site seach committee, who wasn't charged with design and construction, and who would have been overstepping their bounds, and BTW, there is still not one document that David has tied to CBM being there any more days, but some say "we can't exclude the possibility that he was".

Again, which is more likely, despite some unanswered questions because documents simply didn't address them thoroughly enough to understand completely 100 years later?

David,

I think we all want to know more detail about who did what and how much at Merion.

All we can say for certain from the documents is that Wilson was the main driver, and that Francis did the land swap.  He mentioned that his committee (the construction committee, only one he was on) spent "many hours."  He also mentions that Wilson went abroad while the committee was at work, suggesting some kind of work went on while Hugh was over in GBI.

We only know that Wilson went to NGLA, although the Lesley report says the committee went.  See above for my rationale that the construction committee went.  I read your repeated claims to the contrary, that we just don't know.  Agreed, but under the most reasonable theory, I think I am most likely right.  If it had happened any other way, it would just seem sort of convoluted and in reality, most history goes in pretty logical fashion.  Looking for something out of the ordinary, and for out of the ordinary things to have happened repeatedly, just doesn't seem likely to me.

Specifically, why would the site search committee continue on with design and construction functions?

[DMoriarty]

Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum.  There is a difference of opinion.  There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion.

I think all we have discussed ad nauseum are my affirmative theories.  The other side's affirmative theories have been treated as some sort of default position, and these guys  seeem think that if the scream and holler enough about how it was obviously Wilson and Co., then that ought to be good enough.  It isn't.  They haven't even begun to make the case that Wilson and Co. were responsible, or even primarily responsible. Because they cannot make their case.   Brauer's repeated misstatements of the record are proof of this.  They have to make stuff up to even begin to try and make their case.

And Jeff continues to misrepresent the record.  

1. These conversations would go much smoother if Brauer and Co. would actually bother to read and try to understand the source material.   Instead, he just replaces one misstatement about the record with another, going from having been being wrong about Pickering to being wrong about Johnson Contractors.  The April 19th resolution had nothing to do with hiring Johnson Contractors, it dealt with acquiring the land necessary to lay out the golf course according to CBM and HJW's plan.   The April 19 Lesley Report indicated that by that date, Merion already had an "agreement" with Johnson Contractors.

2. He states as fact that the Lesley Report was "read and copied" rather than a written report, but there is no evidence to support this claim.   And if it was "READ and copied" then it was written in advance.  It would have been an easy matter to copy it verbatim into the minutes from the WRITTEN report, just like Sayres did with the  CBM letter, the other Lesley report, and the various letters that were copied into the record.  It should be treated as "if someone was sitting at a desk and writing something," because even in Jeff's baseless assumption this is exactly what would have happened.  Given Lesley's skill and experience as a writer there is no reason to just ignore and dismiss key phrases like, "Upon our return we rearranged the course . . . " as filler or a repetitious and nonsensical connector phrase.

3.  Brauer admits the phrase "routing" wasn't even in use, which again raises the question of why he is inserting such words into the Minutes.  

4.  His treatment of "lay out" is incoherent.  "To me, lay out is the same . . ."  I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  Anyone?

5.  Brauer continues to insist that Lesley's report is addressing the activities of the Construction Committee.   He admits that this is not what the record indicates, but nonetheless speculates that the Minutes might clarify the Committee to which the Lesley report is referring.
   a. Jeff knows damn well that if there was anything remotely supporting his claim that it was the CONSTRUCTION Committee, the Fakers would have been all over it and we'd have known about it long ago.
   b.  The Fakers have admitted that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ANYWHERE IN THE MINUTES DURING THIS PERIOD.  
   c.  The version of the report brought forward by the Fakers does explicitly clarify which committee.   "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows . . .."
   d.  The Resolution of the same date confirms this, "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing . . . "
   e.  Lesley was NOT A MEMBER OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, yet much of his report, for the GOLF COMMITTEE, is written in first person.  

So WHAT EXACTLY SUPPORTS BRAUER'S NOTION THAT IT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE?   Aside from wishful thinking on his part?

Brauer's approach here typifies their approach to all these issues.  The facts as we know them all point to the Golf Committee.  But he wants it to be the Construction Committee, and wishes it was the construction committee.   So he just pretends maybe it was the construction committee despite the facts, and without offering anything remotely resembling factual support.

Granted, Wilson was apparently at NGLA.  But the fakers let slip that he was put on a committee other than the  Construction Committee and they have hinted it was either the golf committee or the site committee.  So putting him there doesn't help us with the "construction committee."

6. Likewise he broad brushes the Alan Wilson letter and claims that the Alan Wilson letter, written a dozen years after the fact by someone who wasn't even there, is a "Primary Source."  It is not even close.  Plus it is not even c lear from the Alan Wilson letter who A. Wilson thought went to NGLA!

7. As for his irrelevant tangents into the swap, that is covered plenty elsewhere.

8. He asks what is more likely?  What is more likely is that Lesley meant what he wrote.   It is also more likely that . . .
- Upon their return from NGLA, the Golf Committee rearranged the course based on what CBM had instructed and laid out (marked off) five different plans (variations) on that course, as instructed by CBM.    
-  Then CBM and HJW returned to go over it all again and reviewed the various plans on the layout they had suggested, and came up with the final layout plan.  
-  Then Wilson's Construction Committee was formed and Wilson and his Committee attempted to lay out the course according to CBM/HJW's plan.

9.  I his comments to me, again Jeff disingenuously claims that Lesley indicated that "the committee went" to NGLA.  If he means THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (which he obviously does) then HE KNOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE.   I mean really, how many times is he going to try and misrpresent this?  

10.  He asks why the site committee would carry on with the design.   That is how convoluted this discussion has become.  
- Lesley's Committee was involved with question of the design from the beginning, which is why they brought in CBM and HJW in the first place - to figure out whether a first class course was possible - and why CBM and HJW were advising them on the design beginning in June 1910.  
- It is also why Barker did his routing and why that routing was provided to Merion.
- It was Lesley's Committee that was dealing with the design because Merion did not want to purchase property unless until they were certain they could build a first class course, and this meant that could not commit to the purchase until the had figured out a design.  And even then they hedged, leaving open the possibility of tweaking the borders even after they agreed to the purchase.
- That is why Lesley's report repeatedly discuss the golf course, Barker's routing, CBM/HJW's input, etc. and why CBM was dealing with Lesley's committee.
- It is also why everything from Wilson focuses on agronomy and construction.  The construction committee wasn't there to plan the course, he was there to lay it out according to CBM/HJW's plan, and  build it.  
- Even the fakers admit that the actual land transfer hadn't even yet taken place as of April 1911.  Why would Lesley's committee have disengaged if the final transfer of land had not yet even occurred?

Jeff argues that they did not begin laying out the course until after April 19, 1911.  Yet we know that the plan for the golf course had been in the works, one way or another, since the previous summer.   This raises the real question:

WHY WOULD THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE HAVE EVEN BEEN INVOLVED BEFORE IT WAS TIME TO LAY OUT AND CONSTRUCT THE COURSE?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You're replies are usually instantaneous.

My question only required a "yes" or "no" answer.

I have to conclude, that unless you're at Happydale Farms for your weekly visitation, that you have not been granted unrestricted access, and that your claim that David, Tom MacWood and I have been granted unrestricted access is false.

Please confirm so that those participating and lurking are kept in the loop.

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
Why are you glossing over your misrepresentation of my position on a golf course being on the ground? You implied that I believed an actual constructed course was on the ground in March or April, and I've never implied anything of the sort. Is this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures?

Kirk
I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited. I asked if they had the documents I was most interested in seeing - the minutes from November and April - I was told they were not yet included in the archives. Hopefully they have been added and Pat or Mike can see them, and make copies.

[Tom MacWood]

"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional."

Jeff
Regarding your interpretation of the April document, I'm pretty confident in saying I've probably read more articles and documents from this era that anyone involved in this thread, and possibly more than all combined. Let me translate:

"after laying out many different courses" = after routing many different courses

"they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald" = "they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald"

"On our return, we re-arranged the course" = on our return, we re-arranged the course

"laid out five different plans" = 1)we devised five variation of the one routing, probably incorporating additional land, or 2)we devised five versions of our routing incorporating CBM holes, or 3)both

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I am certainly willing to entertain the notion that it was five variations of the same basic concept, and think I even posted some ideas of how likely that is to be true, based on Francis telling us the first twelve holes went in fairly easily.

The only thing I really take exception to was your suggestion that it was narrowed down to one course, then expanded to five, although its a fine line.  All I am really trying to say is that the board finally selected one plan and took action based on the April report.  They might have been close to the final routing, but they didn't have one until April 19, when the board approved it, authorized land purchase to support that routing, etc.

Hence my comments that even if Hugh Wilson did send Oakley a routing, it was not the final one, and actually, IMHO, probably didn't contain the land swap, so there may have been soil sample taken from inexact areas.  But again, the soil from the left rough of the 14th hole wouldn't likely be much different than the right rough of the 14th hole, and that much detail wouldn't be necessary to assess what needed to be done to the soil, i.e., add lime.

We don't really know exactly how all that transpired, and would love to, but probably never will.

I have said I think routing was discussed at some level at NGLA - at least enough that they say they threw out whatever they did before.  Did CBM put pencil to paper at NGLA?  Perhaps.  Still, they prepared the routings, and as we know, Francis got some of it on his own, and unless CBM was there for a pajama party, he did it on his own!

So, to answer David's routing question, we can credit Francis with five (he credits himself) completely independent of CBM.  I believe CBM knew the 3AC RR land would make a great short hole even in June 1910, so there is one for him.  And he almost certainly showed them or told them their first efforts were not worthwhile, or they wouldn't have scrapped them.

I am sure open to any interpretation of actual words participants spoke or wrote to flesh it out any more, but I don't think I have seen any, have you?  And I mean fairly direct quotes, not extrapolations that are way out there?

How can you be sure that five routings means one routing with minor variations?  You may have read a bunch of old stuff, but basically I cannot see that this part of the report bears much parsing.  We have seen the word laid out used in a few different ways, and the word routing wasn't common.  Even David will use laid out, if Findlay says CBM laid out the Alps, but insists that laid out as it pertains to the Merion committee means only laying it out in the field.

So, laid out five plans could mean a lot of different things, from changing just a few holes, to trying five plans based on different criteria.  We just don't know with any confidence, do we?

As to incorporating CMB holes, I think that happened as they went along.  As an example, once the third was settled, and may have been settled fairly early, it was seen to have some Road Hole characteristics, which they saw at NGLA.  It may have influenced the routing plans they were doing to go counterclockwise along the property rather than the other way around, because they liked that hole.  Its hard to know exactly when features get incorporated in a routing. 

The other side of the coin is that there is sometimes little good that comes from planning features until the routing is settled.  If they had switched out the way they were going to use the quarry, any detail planning they did would be wasted time.

On a typical design, there are usually features that work both ways ni the routing process.  I suspect the same happened at Merion, but only based on my experience over 33 years, and not anything specific that I read there.

[mike_malone]

 After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.

[Patrick_Mucci]

After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.

Mayday,

Wouldn't that be dependent upon what, specifically, is in their history ?

[Tom MacWood]

After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.

Mike
That is no minor change because it sets off a domino effect and alters the entire story. Because the story is Wilson began his design activities after he returned from the UK. That means his design activities did not begin until May 1912, or after the course was largely designed and built (I say largely because there is evidence he did add some touches at the end). Therefore the course was most likely designed by Barker and/or CBM. Thats a pretty big change in the history, isn't it? 

[Tom MacWood]

Is it just coincidence that Francis said there was an issue with getting the last five holes to work (requiring new land), and the minutes five different plans, and additional three acre purchase? Are the five different plans actually five different hole plans? A different plan for 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I think its a coincidence.

As to the big change in history, my impression is that they sort of forgot CBM's contribution over time and need to simply highlight his advice in the next history, rather than really change their history.  This discussion has probably done more to flesh out what his adivsory role was than the last 50 years of in house history, which didn't appear to be all that dilligent in some respects.

[Tom MacWood]

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different holes [the last five holes].
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.

If you substitute the word 'holes' for 'plans' the entire entry makes more sense, and matches what Francis reported.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Yes, but if you start substituting words for what they have written, they you are changing history, not interpreting it.

Kind of a stretch.  Also, Francis wasn't reporting on the feature designs of holes, he was reporting on his contribution to the routing, i.e. the first twelve holes were easy to fit in with some ground....etc.  He didn't say it was easy to make one a road hole, the other the Alps, etc.  He was talking about routing.

BTW, its Saturday at noon, so I am not drunk, should you be thinking of defening that post with another accusation! (insert smiley)

[Tom MacWood]

Francis never claimed the committee routed the course. He doesn't say who routed the course only that he came up with idea that altered the 15th green and 16th tee. He said the first twelve went in smoothly but the last five were another story, but he is vague about that story. We don't know if there was a problem with the original routing they were given to build, or if they were actually routing the course themselves (which based on everything we know is very unlikely, see below). And for some odd reason Francis forgot to mention CBM's involvement; that seems like a major oversight IMO.

Unlikely because:
1. Intelligent people would not engage a bunch of novices to design one of the premier courses in the country
2. They had the two top designers in the country at their disposal
3. The committee's responsibility was construction
4. In those day it typically took about week to route a golf course, and the project began in November 1910
5. The P&O letters lead one to the conclusion the course was already routed when the committee was formed
6. The minutes indicate a golf course was routed in March, which was re-arranged
7. Francis was obviously looking at map with a golf course on it when he came up with his idea
8. See #1

[Jeff_Brauer]

You are a piece of work, TMac!

We have discussed 1 and 2 before - even Pat says you should be careful deciding that a golf committee does what is logical.

2 - many documents say they were responsible for design and construction.

3 - You contradict yourself, using the fact that it only took a few weeks to route a course for you (or David) to surmise that it HAD to have started way back in 1910.  Besides, the Lesley report tells us when the routing occurred.  If it took longer, its only because they decided to wait until CBM came back on his scheduled visit to approve their final layout.

5 - The P and O letters only indicate a final routing to YOU

6 - Yes, it appears they had some preliminary plans, which is normal - several preliminaries lead to a final plan.

7 - Yes, and it was probably the first four unsuccessful attempts at routing after NGLA, although we cannot be sure of the exact timing.

8 - See my response no. 1.  Even more than David's theories, which I have some respect for, even when I disagree, I just cannot respect that you keep telling us what makes sense, when it contradicts so much of the record. Its a classic case of bias affecting results.  Hard to see you cannot understand that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW,

Why is it so nonsensical that Merion would design it themselves.  They called in CBM, and why wouldn't he have championed them doing a committee design, since that is the method he favored?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()