The Bunkering at The National

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It's more likely a photo of the 3rd hole, or as George Bahto suggests, some other golf course."

Pat:

Let's step back here for a moment and look that that photo in question reasonably.
To do that let's first find out where it was published back then.
If we find it was published or talked about by the likes of Macdonald or Whigam in some publication about NGLA then of course it couldn't be some other golf course.

That's absolutely incorrect.
Frequently, the wrong photo is published in an article, including pictures of individuals.
Just because an article is topic specific doesn't mean that the accompanying photo is the correct photo.

The question on the floor at the moment, therefore, is can anyone prove THAT photograph was ever used in a Macdonald or Whigam publication about NGLA?

That's also irrelevant.
Editorial mistakes are made all the time.

Look at the land form.

Is there anything at the land form at # 2 that looks anything like the topography in that photo ?

[TEPaul]

"That's absolutely incorrect.
Frequently, the wrong photo is published in an article, including pictures of individuals.
Just because an article is topic specific doesn't mean that the accompanying photo is the correct photo."
 


Look Pat, I think I've had about enough of your rationalizing horseshit. If you actually think some photograph of a hole at NGLA is going to be published and reviewed by the likes of Macdonald or Whigam and that photograph of the hole of NGLA is NOT at NGLA and it is going to pass by publishing editing without BEING CORRECTED (at some point) you are a whole lot stupider than I sometimes say you are!

Now I think I see the full import of why a guy like Wayne Morrison became so disallusioned by this website! 

[TEPaul]

I know this is a very rare case, but at the moment, I agree with what Moriarty has said about that photograph. I have thought this about that photo long before he said it because I actually went out there a few years ago and noticed how much that land goes up to the right on that hole from where that photographer probably took that photo from.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Why do you assume that CBM had editorial review, including the verification of the appropriate photo ?

Those things rarely occur in journalism.

I'll ask you again.

Look at the photo, from any angle you want.
Does the land form look remotely like the land form at # 2 ?

Does the green not look like the 3rd green ?

Does the fronting bunker not look like the current hollow in front of the 3rd green ?

George Bahto may be correct, it might not be a photo of NGLA, the land form, especially the land form behind the green, looks nothing like the terrain at NGLA, no matter what angle you look at it from.

[TEPaul]

"I'll ask you again.

Look at the photo, from any angle you want.
Does the land form look remotely like the land form at # 2 ?"


Yes, Patrick, it does. A few years ago with this very photo in mind (that I had seen in the clubhouse) I went out on #2 early in the morning and looked at the topography of that hole from where I thought that photo was taken from and where that original green was and I was amazed how much the land on the right of that hole slopes up (towards Sebonac) as I said on this thread and on another thread a few years ago. Have you ever done that? 

[Bradley Anderson]

Not sure what your point is there Mr. MacWood.

But you seem to be implying that if an eminent person is involved with helping an architect with a project then that architect is not a solo artist? Would that mean then that James Taylor not a solo artist because he records with a band, and with the aid of a Producer? Sorry but I'm confused by how you define attribution.

Have not studied Sutherland. I have studied Beale however. I'm not sure how much Beale helped CBM. I wouldn't be surprised if he did help a lot though. In fact I am curious if you know if Beale had his own line on uncontaminated pure seed. Anyone in those days could have recommended a seed blend, but pure seed was a difficult commodity to secure. I wonder if that is what really set Beale apart was access to the good stuff? My guess is he did, but I base that solely on the good report that was given to the extraordinary quality of golf courses that he worked with such as Old Elm and Country Club of Detroit.

James Taylor? You're really on the cutting edge of music. My point is NGLA was more of a collaboration than you realize.

Mr. MacWood,

Isn't every golf course a collaboration? And yet there is a distinct look and feel to all of the golf courses that are attributed to CBM. Just as there is a distinct feel about everything that is attributed to Travis.

[Bradley Anderson]

Not sure what your point is there Mr. MacWood.

But you seem to be implying that if an eminent person is involved with helping an architect with a project then that architect is not a solo artist? Would that mean then that James Taylor not a solo artist because he records with a band, and with the aid of a Producer? Sorry but I'm confused by how you define attribution.

Have not studied Sutherland. I have studied Beale however. I'm not sure how much Beale helped CBM. I wouldn't be surprised if he did help a lot though. In fact I am curious if you know if Beale had his own line on uncontaminated pure seed. Anyone in those days could have recommended a seed blend, but pure seed was a difficult commodity to secure. I wonder if that is what really set Beale apart was access to the good stuff? My guess is he did, but I base that solely on the good report that was given to the extraordinary quality of golf courses that he worked with such as Old Elm and Country Club of Detroit.

James Taylor? You're really on the cutting edge of music. My point is NGLA was more of a collaboration than you realize.

The quote above I think is a good display of what is odd on GCA. Go back and follow my engagement with Mr. MacWood and you will see that I am not mocking him. I am trying to understand where he is coming from.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

I don't think you could say that better. I've been saying the same thing for years now and a number of times on private emails. It's too bad the guy doesn't just come right out and admit what is really motivating him as it might be very interesting. As it mostly always has been it's just a series of question responses to questions asked him or points made to him as if his real interest is to never look as if he loses any point.

There are a couple of people on here who do that---eg pretty much answer everything with a question. It appears to be just an interest in perpetuating an argument.

In a way it's sort of the Socratic Method (the use of questions) but the only problem is the guys who do it the most on here aren't exactly Socrates!  

By the way, Bradley, I just reread that interesting article you sent me some months ago by C.S. Lewis entitled "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism." It is very good stuff and pretty appropriate to some of the things that go on here.

Brad, you should have left that last post of yours the way it was instead of deleting the last part.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:
It seems however, that there was a rather distinct difference of opinion on this particular subject (the quantity of fertilizer to be used) between Macdonald (and Beale) and the US Dept of Agriculture's Russell Oakley (at that point Wilson had not been in contact with C. Piper because he was still abroad in the East). Obviously Macdonald had turned to the US Dept of Agriculture (Piper and Oakley) before he turned to Beale (and others) and it seems there was a distinct difference of opinion between them about what had caused the initial agronomic problems at NGLA.

Tom Paul,

I have attached a link to Alan Wilson's article in 1920 about the previous 8 years of experimentation in the grassing of Pine Valley's fairways. http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1921/210698B.pdf  I offer this as evidence of the difficulties in getting grass to grow on sandy sites, given the technology they had at this time.

George Crump was trying to grow-in PV with a 120 GPM irrigation system. Impossible. He was constantly spreading manure and compost on the turf - commercal synthetic fertilizers must not have been far enough along in development at this point? In either case, I think we may assume that NGLA was having the same issues.

Now if this was what they were dealing with on fairways, one can only imagine how much difficulty they were having with establishing any kind of stability or turf on the 3 to 1 slopes of bunker faces.

[Bradley Anderson]

Brad, you should have left that last post of yours the way it was instead of deleting the last part.

Tom Paul,

I think most men are intuitive enough to know when someone is playing cat and mouse with them. But I don't know if that is what he is doing, only he knows that. It sure feels that way though.

[Tom MacWood]

Mr. MacWood,

Isn't every golf course a collaboration? And yet there is a distinct look and feel to all of the golf courses that are attributed to CBM. Just as there is a distinct feel about everything that is attributed to Travis.

Not every golf course has the likes of CB Macdonald, HG Whigham, D Emmet, W Travis, J Low, HG Hutchinson, J Sutherland and R Beale collaborating. Can you name another project in history with equal brainpower? After answering the question go back and read your original statement about Chicago. It doesn't make any sense.

[TEPaul]

"George Crump was trying to grow-in PV with a 120 GPM irrigation system. Impossible. He was constantly spreading manure and compost on the turf - commercal synthetic fertilizers must not have been far enough along in development at this point? In either case, I think we may assume that NGLA was having the same issues."

Bradley:

The thing that has always struck me as odd with what Crump went through with growing grass on that course in the mid-teens was why in the hell he didn't learn from what had happened to Macdonald and NGLA in the same vein before him. Obviously the two were not exactly collaborating on that problem, and it probably explains Macdonald's single remark about PV----eg, "It could be one of the greatest courses in the world if they can get grass to grow there."

Both sites (NGLA and PV) were obviously just straight sand sieves essentially allowing no water retention unless and until both architects literally dumped thousands of cartloads of topsoil and natural fertilizer on them but in both cases after the fact of the initial grow-in attempts that in both cases were pretty much total failures.

[TEPaul]

"Can you name another project in history with equal brainpower?"

Of course but why bother?

[Bradley Anderson]

I doubt that the work in Chicago could have possibly prepared him for what was undertaken on Long Island. Those are two totally different environments with their own unique set of challenges.

Mr. MacWood,

What doesn't make sense about this statement? The man built golf holes on Illinois prairie soil before he built golf holes on Long Island sand. Those are two radically different environments for building a golf course on. And so one can say that the former experience did not prepare him for the later.

[Bradley Anderson]

Bradley:

The thing that has always struck me as odd with what Crump went through with growing grass on that course in the mid-teens was why in the hell he didn't learn from what had happened to Macdonald and NGLA in the same vein before him. Obviously the two were not exactly collaborating on that problem, and it probably explains Macdonald's single remark about PV----eg, "It could be one of the greatest courses in the world if they can get grass to grow there."

Tom Paul,

Yes that is very very odd, because in 1913 The Boston Sprinkler Company installed four inch irrigation lines on the fairways at NGLA, GCGC, and several other clubs as well. To support that size of pipe they would have been pumping at least 600 GPM conservatively.

But as late as 1918, George Crump never pumped more than 120 GPM, and I don't think he could have had any water left for fairways.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

You have a very good point there about Macdonald in Chicago with architecture compared to NGLA. If Chicago had totally prepared him for NGLA one really does wonder why he felt the need to spend many months abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 studying golf course architecture. But to Tom MacWood it's probably just a minor point he will ignore or rationalize away somehow. You know the drill by now----eg always try to make it look like you never lose a point!

[TEPaul]

"But as near as late as 1918, George Crump never pumped more than 120 GPM,"


Brad:

How do you know that?

[Bradley Anderson]

"But as near as late as 1918, George Crump never pumped more than 120 GPM,"

Brad:

How do you know that?

Tom Paul,

Actually I don't know that for certain and thank you for catching me on that one. I do know that Crump started with 120 GPM, and in 1921 they upgraded to 500 GPM - three years after Crump died. There may have been additional upgrades in the interim - there was a second water tower installed, and that may have bumped it to something half way between 120 and 500. But still, even 500 GPM was stretching it.

Another odd thing is the Boston Sprinkler Company proved that the annual amoritization schedule of their system was less than what clubs were spending annually on reseeding fairway loss following the summer dry spells.

Crump would have most certainly have been informed of this. I can't imagine how he could have not been given that sales pitch from someone. Go figure.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

I think someone stole my PV history book but I recall that Crump ramped up the irrigation capacity relatively early on with some pretty sophisitcated water works out there (you can see it behind #17 tee) that tapped into an awesome natural water vein (I forget the name of it at the moment). I don't know whether you've ever heard it, Brad, but some of the purest water in the world sits under that entire area (the New Jersey Pine Barrens) and in massive quantity. In that way it's sort of like eastern Long Island! 

However, with both Macdonald at NGLA and Crump at PV apparently no one really thought about the importance of moisture retention for golf agronomy in the beginning------hence the need to dump literally thousands of cartloads of topsoil, manure etc on both sites after the fact of initial grow-in failures.

Did you read Alan Wilson's rather long report of Options A and B to fix the agronomic failure at PV? Thank God Option A actually worked or else the architecture out there may not look today exactly as it does.

[TEPaul]

"Crump would have most certainly have been informed of this. I can't imagine how he could have not been given that sales pitch from someone. Go figure."


Brad:

I have never been able to understand why but for some reason Crump was not exactly on board with some of the sort of cutting edge agronomic research investigations Hugh Wilson was doing with Piper and Oakley through the mid to late teens. The truth is it was Alan and not Hugh who seemed to have more to do with PV at that point. Hugh got more involved with PV again after Crump died.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul,

Yes I read Wilson's plan A & B. It was from Wilson's report that I read the GPM figures. Regardless of what GPM they were running at what dates, there was a big problem with moisture retention on these sandy sites. It seems that NGLA and GCGC cracked the code as early as 1913, whereas PV was still wrestling with these issues over half a decade later, but I may be reading more into that than is there.

Still the point is, the bunkering at NGLA would have looked different in those early opening day era photos because there would have certainly been some real challenges in getting grass to grow and fill in around them at that early stage. One really good windy day might been enough to  change the shape of some of those bunkers.

[Tom MacWood]

I doubt that the work in Chicago could have possibly prepared him for what was undertaken on Long Island. Those are two totally different environments with their own unique set of challenges.

Mr. MacWood,

What doesn't make sense about this statement? The man built golf holes on Illinois prairie soil before he built golf holes on Long Island sand. Those are two radically different environments for building a golf course on. And so one can say that the former experience did not prepare him for the later.

Bradley
How long had Macdonald been living in NY when the NGLA opened for play? How did Macdonald prepare for the NGLA project?

[TEPaul]

"Still the point is, the bunkering at NGLA would have looked different in those early opening day era photos because there would have certainly been some real challenges in getting grass to grow and fill in around them at that early stage. One really good windy day might been enough to  change the shape of some of those bunkers."



Brad:

I couldn't agree with you more on that but I doubt you'll get much agreement on it from some others on here. The reason seems to be it doesn't agree with some of the other unsupportable points they are trying to make about why the bunkers of NGLA looked the way they did later.

Personally, I've always felt the bunkers of NGLA were grassed down to flat floors not just to create stability in a sand based site but that many bunkers on those famous holes abroad that Macdonald was copying had grassed down (or boards) on their steep faces for the same reason----eg to create stability! And so he just copied one of the bunker aesthetics that had existed on many of those linksland holes. Macdonald certainly didn't use that flat-floored bunker look everywhere at NGLA (and other projects) but he did do a lot of it. I might even say he just did it where he felt he had to create the necessary stability.

[George_Bahto]

I think the photo was taken from the windmill toward the hill (fairway) above and short of the green. I think the sand hazard in the picture is not the massive bunker you see off the tee but the bunker over the hill.



does this make sense?

[TEPaul]

George:

I would have to say that photo was taken from somewhere up in that original old water tower (before the windmill). Obviously there was a ladder in that water tower and it would appear that photograph was taken from quite a few feet off the ground (check out how far below the photo that road is). And I think that original green started somewhere near that scale or whatever that light thing is on the right side of the right hand photo in your post just above. The basic shape of that big bunker and the island and cape within it also pretty much match up as to placement.