Part of my frustration with these threads relating to Macdonald and/or Merion is that we regularly cycle through the exact same arguments, often times with the same people making the exact same claims they have before, even though large portions of these claims were previously erroneous and shown to be so.
It seems a better approach would be for the protagonists with these theories would be to gather all their information and put all their ducks in a row, and put it in a coherent Essay or IMO. If they attempted to do so, they might themselves come to a better understanding of how all the source material fits together, and if they got past that stage and actually wrote the piece, we might all come to better understand the strengths and weaknesses in their positions, and could perhaps deal with at least some of the issues once and for all.
This discussion is a perfect example. We've covered all of the issues at least two or three times before, with Mike Cirba and others claiming virtually the exact same things, sometimes based on the exact same misreading of the exact same material. Apparently they have forgotten or chose to ignore these prior conversations. It gets rather old.
-- Mike's claims that "
the article is from the time Macdonald bought the land to build his Ideal Links." While Mike did not do us the courtesy of providing the date or source of these articles, they are likely from sometime near the end of 1906, as that is when the vast majority of articles that say essentially the same thing were published. The problem is that he land at NGLA was
not purchased until sometime in the summer of fall of 1907. At the time of the articles, the land had been optioned, not purchased. NGLA had an option to purchase 205 acres out of a much larger plot, and had the ability to choose the boundaries.
-- Mike claims that the golf course had not yet been routed. Yet the articles themselves discuss a number of specific holes and their locations.
-- Mike claims that CBM was only planning to use 110 out of the 205 acres he had "purchased." The 110 acre figure was not based on anything to do with this transaction, but was taken almost verbatim from an explanatory hypothetical in the original agreement between the founders CBM had drawn up in
1904.
-- Mike claims that CBM bought a much bigger portion than he needed and was planning on using the supposed extra acreage (95 acres) for homes of the subscribers. Again, straight out of the 1904 original agreement, and again part of a CBM's hypothetical explaining how the deal could work out.
-- Mike denies the course was routed or planned at the time of the purchase. In reality, they already had a very good idea of the routing before they even optioned the property, and then they optioned the property, then they continued the detailed planning until they knew exactly the land they needed, and
then they purchased the land.
-- Mike pretends to not understand that there is still plenty of planning to be done even after a preliminary routing is in place. That was the case here.
Here is one such thread with some similar articles posted by Joe Bausch. We had already gone over it multiple times before Joe started the thread, and we went over it again a couple of times (at least) after. Yet here we are again.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39906.0/Mike, do you mind taking another look at that thread so we can put some of this nonsense to rest?
_________________________________________________
Dan and Mike C,
My mistake. It was TomPaul who was egging you on, suggesting that I was I liar and that Ran ought to kick me off the site.
________________________________________
Bill McBride wrote:
Since Scotland's Gift is autobiographical (CBM writing about himself and his life in golf), it's almost impossible to know what is truly factual and what might be exaggerated. His overweening ego shines through in every section, and it's a fascinating study in American golf and the psychology of the very upper class of his era.I disagree. Almost everything covered in Scotland's Gift was a very big deal in golf in America, and was discussed elsewhere. So there is little need to take CBM's word for much of anything. I am unaware of anything that doesn't check out.
What confuses me is that you said it was the book that gave you your impression of CBM, but it apparently it is nothing in the content or substantce of the book, but rather just a general negative impression of the man. And when you write that his "overweening ego shines through in every section," I am left to wonder whether your opinion of the man influencing the way you view the content of the book. Because so far as I can tell the book is remarkably accurate considering it was written by a man with as many years experience in golf as had CBM.
___________________________________________
Melvyn,
CBM mostly borrowed fundamental concepts and features. According to HJ Whigham, who was with CBM and who knew the holes on both sides of the Atlantic, there were four copies at NGLA, and even these substantially departed from the originals.