[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

While only once putting my own money in a far less than dream project, I have had a few that had an extensive search of sites, including Colbert Hills, which was certainly a dream course for them.

You would be surprised how much the practical aspects - utility costs, location, real estate, etc. play in selecting the site.  I recall many old articles about gca telling me that in many respects, natural features may be one of the last things to look at in a site!  Obviously, CBM was going to build those in where needed, but something like a free clubhouse couldn't be attained any other way than selecting the site he did.

And, if using my own money, I have no doubt I would be similarly enticed by lower costs.

As to VK's question, I was interested in where the first site offer was, and in the general time frame and process he used.  Some here (Pat) seem to be interested in just how long it might take CBM to route a course of that caliber, for a variety of reasons.   That said, I just don't think its a bad thing to want to know more detail about how it came together, but at the same time, I think we already know all the detail we are ever going to.

[V. Kmetz]

Jim, Mike

Thank you for the second clarification.

No matter what, I truly appreciate the dogged, voluminous research that all parties bring to bear.  Analysis and conclusion may be a different story, but the effort that all posters make is usually very valuable.

My input, given the context as I'm understanding it is that:

- I would suspect that CBM's dedicated search was a little bit of both, he both had some holes in mind and was still open to the uniqueness/suitability of a property as it was presented to him.

- once he got to honing in on a general "area" for the course, these senses became more acute, then things became more specific, and elements of price, other development and so forth were arranged on a priority basis, in his mind.

I guess what I'm saying is that - even with one's own money - the process in 1904-1911, as it is in 2004-11, is one that is necessariy fluid, blending circumstance, fortune and design in equal measure.

There's no doubt CBM was earnest and visionary in controlling the former factors as best he could to serve the latter.

cheers

vk

[Mike Cirba]

VKmetz,

Great post and I completely agree with your thoughts on this process.   

I'm hoping the thread has some value to folks here...lord knows the collective man-hours spent on it have been substantial! 

Thanks for your participation and insight.

[DMoriarty]

V.Kmetz,

Sorry I haven't responded to your post.   As I said above this has become rather pointless.   But I will try to explain why I have been involved thus far and what I think has come from it.

Either 1300 posts ago or now, how does this thread advance our knowkledge of something vital?

What could it possibly matter to the product or to the reputation of CBM or NGLA if the purchase of 205 acres, includes, anticipates, contemplates or varies from the "theoretical 120" needed to build JUST golf course?

This was a revolutionary time in Golf Course Design in America and understanding NGLA is essential to understanding what was ongoing then and what happened after.  To put it simply, NGLA changed the way America (at least) approached the creation of golf courses.  There were other important courses, but none compared to NGLA in terms of influence.  It was the exemplar, the laboratory, the reference point. People think of CBM as the guy who built templates, but there are many other very important aspects to his work and one of them is generally being discussed here: the way in which clubs should go about creating their golf courses.

To generalize, golf clubs in the past had made due with whatever land was available and convenient, whether or not it was land ideally suited for golf.  CBM's well-publicized search for the ideal holes and the perfect site changed the focus so that the quality and suitability of the land became a major component in creating a golf course.  As Max Behr put it in the article posted above by Mike, but which Mike still apparently does not quite grasp:

The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape.  Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

As Behr noted, NGLA set the standard, and "provided the solution of the whole business."  It was the exemplar.   Behr was telling clubs across America, don't just buy land according the acreage, roughly figure out your course FIRST, and then, AFTER YOU HAVE ROUGHLY SKETCHED OUT THE COURSE, you should buy that land.

CBM describes the process the same way.   First he and Whigham rode the property to determine the general suitability, then he made sure the land owner was willing to sell him the land, then they again studied the land and countours earnestly and came up with his rough routing, then he secured the property encompassing the land he had chosen for his course.  [CBM apparently even went further and left himself some leeway regarding the exact boundaries of his purchase.]

That to me is what is important about this conversation.  CBM set the standard as to how to go about choosing a site, and to varying degrees other courses followed suit as best they could in their circumstances, or they reconsidered the land land they were already using and better utilized their own natural conditions.  This site-based approach to choosing a golf course (or at least the elevation of the importance of the suitability of the site) was one element of a major turning point in golf course design, and is still very relevant today.

Sure other considerations were important, but the golf course itself was the driving force.   

In effect, are we saying that if X happened at Y, NGLA is different? CBM is more of a genius or more of a fool?

That is an interesting question, and to understand the answer you must understand a bit about the history of these threads, as this is at least the fourth or fifth one with a similar slant.  Not trying to disparage Mike here, but I think it is important to understand history to understand the present.  It all goes back to the seemingly endless attempts of Mike and some of his friends to downplay or diminish CBM's impact on golf design in America in general, and on the creation of Merion East in particular.  Along these lines, in the past we have been treated to a series of claims about CBM and NGLA, most of which will hopefully seem pretty silly now, even to Mike.   
   For example, Mike and Co. have argued that NGLA was a course squarely stuck in the dark ages of design, with geometric features, cop bunkers, etc.
   They also have argued, in 1910, CBM and HJW were not well known as creators of golf courses, but rather were known mainly for the golf Championships each had won about fifteen years before.
   They also have argued, C. B. Macdonald and Henry J. Whigham knew little (or nothing) more about the creation of golf courses than the men at Merion who turned to CBM and HJW for help in creating Merion East.   
   They also tried to argue that, if anything, CBM and HJW were only experts on agronomy, and that Merion would have only gone to them for advice on agronomy rather than on design.
   They also tried (and still sometimes try) to represent NGLA as a contemporary of, as opposed to a precursor to, courses like Merion East which were built after NGLA.  (They do so by focusing on the date NGLA's clubhouse opened, as opposed to considering when the course was built and the press it received from 1904 on.)
   They also tried to argue that CBM was an egomaniacal braggart who insisted on being credited for everything he touched and would never had gone out of his way for the good of the game unless there was something in it for him.

That list doesn't even get into some of the crazier discussions (such as the nasty business about Wilson's trip, or some of the nastier characterizations of CBM personally) but hopefully it gives you and others some understanding of what is really ongoing here.   

As you put it, at the root of it this is all geared toward making CBM out to be "more of a fool."

This particular instance of portraying CBM as "a fool" goes back to a series of threads where, to varying degrees over the past few years, Mike has argued that CBM locked himself into the property without considering whether and how the golf course would fit on that property.   Fortunately, he has been largely unsuccessful and has had to drastically temper his claim because the facts are just too overwhelming to the contrary, but as you can see by his post to you, he is still basically selling that same bill of goods.  This is what he is getting at when he argues, "I think it was after securing enough land, sometimes with undetermined boundaries within a larger land mass as in the case of NGLA and Merion, that the fun started, the routings were determined, the stakes were plotted, and the ultimate purchase of the finalized acreage subsequently took place."
   
Never mind that this is directly contradictory to Mike's fallback point about how very careful CBM was, and how he he knew the importance of carefully and correctly utilizing the land.  And never mind that even by Mike's version CBM still had room to adjust the boundaries later.  And never mind the overwhelming facts to the contrary.  Mike still wants to convince us that CBM committed to the land without having even a rough idea of how the course would fit on that land.

And the reason, as can be gleaned from the quoted sentence immediately above, is of course Merion.  There is no question that CBM and HJW helped Merion choose their land for Merion East.   But Mike would have us believe that in so doing, CBM and HJW did not at all consider how and where golf holes would fit on the property Merion was considering (or even on the additional property CBM and HJW suggested they purchase.)   I guess Mike figures that if he can prove that CBM and HJW blindly locked themselves into the land at NGLA without concern for how the course would fit, then they must have recommended that Merion do the same thing.   That is what is behind this multiyear process, and this monumental waste of valuable time.   

[As an aside, Mike's second point - about CBM not doing a quickie routing - is also all about Merion.  While it isn't the case, Mike seems to believe that I think CBM planned Merion in one day.  That is ridiculous, but Mike thinks I believe this, so he is intent on proving that it took a long time for CBM to plan NGLA, therefore he wouldn't have planned Merion in a day.  But this is obvious on both counts.   It took a long time to plan Merion as well, but what Mike ignores is that CBM was involved throughout the planning.]

So in a sense, Jim had it right above.   This is very much a proxy for the Merion discussion, in that the reason we are having the discussion and the reason Mike takes the positions he does is directly related to making CBM out to be a "fool" for the sake of Mike's Merion argument.    Why else would Mike insist that CBM would lock himself into land without considering how a golf course would fit on that land? 
   I guess for me one could say that this is about Merion as well, but I think it might be more accurate to say that THE MERION DISCUSSIONS WERE REALLY ABOUT THIS.  In other words, for me it is ALL about understanding early golf course architecture in America, and Merion was merely an avenue to explore what happened back then, and how it was being distorted by certain commentators.  It was just one piece of the puzzle.

What fact that might come out of this (doubtful) is essential to our understanding (never mind application) of the history of GCA?

Part of the problem with this thread is that IMO the entire goal has been to distort understanding of what happened at NGLA.  So my goal in essence is to stop the distortion, and to keep CBM from being falsely portrayed as "a fool."  That has gone on too much around here.    In the process, hopefully some have come to realize what I suggested above about how NGLA was an example of the right way to create a golf course.

Would the certainty of one date of one land transaction over another, change anything about our understanding of the growth of the course or CBMs role in the devlopment?

It might keep an accurate understanding from being distorted and in the process lead to a more accurate understanding of the time period. 

[Andy Hughes]

The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape.  Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

Do we have good reason to believe that Behr would truly know all this to be true? Or is he relaying what he has been told after the fact?

[DMoriarty]

Do we have good reason to believe that Behr would truly know all this to be true? Or is he relaying what he has been told after the fact?

Would he truly know?   I guess it depends upon what you mean.  He certainly seems to have been much better situated to comment on the situation than Mike. CBM tells the same basic story as Behr, and this in and of itself is very good reason to believe both Behr and CBM!
 
If you are asking whether Behr was actually there when these decisions were being made, I don't know, but I doubt it.  I can't remember the source offhand, but there is at least one random report linking Behr to the creation of NGLA, but I've never been able to confirm his direct involvement.   But he was a friend of CBM's and the editor who published CBM's and HJW's "Representative American Golf Holes" series.  He was a respected writer and wrote about what happened early on at NGLA on numerous occasions.   He was a well respected writer and knew and was friends with the main parties involved.  He was in the know enough to have been included in the first tournament at NGLA.

So I'd say he probably didn't know first hand, but that he most likely got his information directly from those involved, since his version is corroborated by CBM's and the vast majority of everything we know!   (I find it interesting that he even cited the correct acreage.)

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Where does CBM say he routed the course in a couple of days or or did a rough sketch or  that the course laid itself out?

Where exactly are the stories of the two men identical exactly?

CBM in December 1906 tells us something very different...why do you think he's being made to look foolish?

That preposterous...this thread has exalted him...it's silly, cheap caricatures that minimize his efforts that I think detract from his very real and very singular accomplishments.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Where does CBM say he routed the course in a couple of days or or did a rough sketch or  that the course laid itself out?

This stuff requires a modicum of common sense as well as a good faith willingness on the part of the reader to actually try and understand the point the author was trying to make.  As has often been the case, you fail to meet either requirement.  

1.  Behr was NOT being literal when he noted in parentheses that the course "really laid itself out to a large extent."  The course wasn't really out there marking off greens, tees and bunkers, or building them.  No matter how spectacular the land, courses are not literally self-creating.  
   The point Behr was trying to make was that the ground CBM had chosen was extremely conducive to golf, and once CBM had already found the suitable territory and then been over the land to work out the rough routing using all of the best features of the landscape including the features such as the Alps, the redan, the cape, etc., then much of the work of laying out the course on the ground already done.   An Alps hill did not have to be built because it had been found. Likewise for the Redan, Cape, the location for the Eden, the Sahara, etc.  

2.  Likewise, Behr was NOT being literal when he when he wrote, "the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape."  The routing may or may not have been literally sketched out (roughly or otherwise) but the point Behr was making was that CBM figured out the rough routing "using all the best features of the landscape" BEFORE he bought the property.  

3.  I never said anything about CBM routing the course in a couple of days and neither did Behr!   Why do you just make garbage like this up?   It is ridiculous.

The kind of intentional obliviousness and misinterpretation you display in your question above is the central reason why these threads have become such a waste of time.  

Where exactly are the stories of the two men identical exactly?

I am not sure what "exactly . . . identical exactly" means, but I am sure I never used the words "identical" or "exactly" when comparing the two version.  I wrote, "CBM tells the same basic story as Behr," and I explained how the stories were the same.  Both involved CBM finding the right landscape, then roughly routing the course using the best features, and then finally purchasing the property containing the course he had roughly routed, or as Behr said, the course he had roughly sketched out.   Again, you seem to be intentionally obfuscating the issue by misrepresenting what I wrote.

CBM in December 1906 tells us something very different...

Not so.  In December 1906 CBM provided many details about his routing of the course and of the property itself, more than enough to convince a reasonable reader that he already had a rough idea of the course at this point.  And when read in conjunction with Scotland's Gift and everything else we know, this becomes even more apparent.  But then, this assumes that the reader will use common sense, and make a good faith effort to understand what was meant given the entire context, not just run with a few out of context (and often misquoted) sentences.  

why do you think he's being made to look foolish?

Despite your attempts (only some of which have been outlined above) CBM hasn't been made to look foolish because some of us have been steadfast in setting the record straight.  Hopefully, the one thing that may have come from this is that by now everyone (including you) must now realize how absurd some of those characterizations have been.  
  That said, the attempts above have made you and your friends look foolish.   Unfortunately, by playing along I've undoubtedly made myself look foolish as well.  

That preposterous...this thread has exalted him...it's silly, cheap caricatures that minimize his efforts that I think detract from his very real and very singular accomplishments.

The "silly, cheap caricatures" are the ones you and your friends have foisted on us, and some of them (there are many more) are accurately listed above.    These latest misrepresentations are just a continuation of those caricatures.  

[V. Kmetz]

David,

Thank you for that thorough and detailed breakdown.  As I said before, I am ultra-appreciative of the dedication the long-time posters, no matter what disagreements or debates ensue.

Mike,

Same goes for you - just the post beginnings and many of the articles and tableaux that have been posted are fascinating.

Full disclosure:
I'm one of those guys who would call CBM the Father of American GCA, not because of exclusivity, but because George Bahto's book has the perfect title - he was the evangelist.  I think by dint of his associations with the Scottish masters of the first Open era, it was CBM who was the first American to get it in his mind that America "needs" this - or at the very least, he needed to have it in America, if only for his own pleasure.

Right there, I'm making the case for the dark side of CBM, the ego.  He was a brash and self-aggrandizing cuss.  His behavior, or instigation, in those first US tournaments is proof enough for me on that crappy side of his personality.  He couldn't help but always want to be in the conversation, he felt some ownership of the conversation.

I have none of the decisive provenance many of you fellows have put forward, even if some pieces end up being contextual, and not seven-ways-to-Sunday redundant fact.  Still my view is that Charlie had his hands in everybody's pie, when there was such a small and clustered pie to carve up.  I think he insinuated himself into golf conversations and stewardship, even where he had no proprietary part and NGLA was another way - ends up being a brilliant iteration - to make sure everyone knew his authority.

He had an honest inspiration claim and he wished that it would be a hegemony.  Of course, the dynamics of a spreading, founding sport do not allow for such hegemony and so the patina of his memory make him seem as much braggart as genius.

I would like to think of it this way; of the early American founders he was the one most in tune with Scottish lineage and knew the most about the architectural values of Scottish courses, and gave them the most thought and study. Like clubs, balls, and rules, these needed importing too and in a meaningful way Charlie was an effective tradesman in their worth.

I'd wager he saw or looked for Scottish and European values of the courses he played and studied in every piece of land he looked at OR was given to work with.  The National "opportunity" was a unique one to put a fine point on that; one that satisfied ancillary or accidental needs as well as the core values and hole templates he saw with his eye - with an opportunity to tweak multiple play and aesthetic values into a unique form, like the Cape.

Again, I thank those who do the work on this.  i'm fascinated by the level of detail all uncover and me picking a winner is irrelevant, because I don't think I'll ever be an architect, I probably will never play National ever again - but I may write about these topics and this is an avenue of inquiry that is nutritious for that effort.

cheers

vk

[DMoriarty]

V. Kmetz,

I agree with much of what you wrote but think perhaps the "dark side" of CBM gets overplayed, at least around here. 

You mention "his behavior, or instigation, in those first US tournaments" as "proof enough" of the "crappy side of his personality."  I assume you are referring to the two 1894 national championship tournaments at St. Andrews and Newport, and the story in George's book and elsewhere about CBM throwing a hissy fit after losing the Newport tournament and forcing those in charge into holding a second, 'do over' national championship tournament at St. Andrews, NY, then pulling the same thing after losing there.  Thus essentially forcing the creation of the USGA in large part to hold a third tournament and to try and put the reigns on CBM's ego. 

It makes for a great story and one I've seen told many times here and elsewhere. But like many great old golf legends, I suspect that while there is some truth to it there is also quite a bit that perhaps ought to be written off to creative license.   As I understand it (based on what I have gleaned from contemporaneous accounts) the controversy actually arose before either tournament took place, with both clubs claiming to hold the national championship.  And the pre-tournament controversy involved not just he setting but also the format (match play vs. stroke play) as well as with the respective fields.  And there were calls for some sort of national unification to deal with such matters before either tournament was played. 

Anyway, no doubt CBM was imperfect man, and maybe there is some truth to this particular legend, but we need to take all of this stuff with a grain of salt.

[Mike Cirba]

VKmetz,

I'm very glad that you see the value in these threads despite the disagreements that sometimes ensue.   If nothing else, it does exemplify the passion some of us feel on these topics.

And please don't mind David...I think he feels if he doesn't throw in a personal insult to me in each and every post of his I'll stop loving him.   Either that or I'm the only one he has left to argue with now that Tom Paul has moved on. 

David,

Let's not bring Merion into this again.   That's not what this thread is about.

Unless you're finally prepared to document ANY evidence of CBM's supposed invovlement with that club between July to November 15 of 1910 (by which time you say the course was fully routed), then I think we've fully exhausted that topic.   

Let's keep it to Charles Macdonald and the approach he used to build his ideal course, because it's been fascinating and educational.

[DMoriarty]

Either that or I'm the only one he has left to argue with now that Tom Paul has moved on.

He has?? Because I've got a junk mail bin full emails suggesting otherwise. Rather than moving on, he seems to have simply gone underground.  And judging by the subject matter lines on those unread messages he is still as glued to gca.com and as focused on his petty vendettas as ever.  Perhaps he should take his talents to treatment.

David,
Let's not bring Merion into this again. That's not what this thread is about.

Of course it is! That is how and why it started. And every other similar thread you have started has been about Merion as well. You couldn't even resist trying to tenuously tie it back to Merion in your answer to V above. Go back and read your own pitiful attempt at an "IMO" part way through this thread if you don't think this is about Merion!

Unless you're finally prepared to document ANY evidence of CBM's supposed invovlement with that club between July to November 15 of 1910 (by which time you say the course was fully routed), then I think we've fully exhausted that topic.

Typical Cirba. Insert Merion into the conversation, then claim you don't want to talk about Merion while at the same time drawing some asinine conclusion blatantly misrepresenting my position about Merion.  Obviously, you plan to continue talking about Merion. You just don't want me talking about Merion.

Let's keep it to Charles Macdonald and the approach he used to build his ideal course, because it's been fascinating and educational.

I am sure it has been fascinating and educational for you, but then with all of your comical portrayals of CBM over the past few years, you have had the most to learn by far.  For some of us it has been endless hours of remedial discussions trying to stop you and your pals from blatantly misrepresenting the history of golf course design in America.   Hardly a productive or necessary use of anyone's time.  

Seriously, have you ever paused to consider how absurd most of these claims were?  What have you learned about your approach by all of this?  Anything at all?   Let's take just one. Surely you recall your endless insistence that in 1910 CBM and HJW weren't well-known for gca in 1910?  After all this, what do you think of your claim? Would you like to amend that?  Have you learned anything about CBM and HJW that has changed your opinion on this particular issue?

[DMoriarty]

VKmetz,

Along the same lines regarding those 1894 tournaments, according to the NYSun (October 13, 1894) during the first day of the St. Andrews tournament (before CBM's loss in the finals) it was announced that "a golfing association composed of all of the clubs in the United States would be formed" that fall, with Theodore Havemeyer as the President.  Reportedly, the new association would draft the rules for the playing of the next championship and choose the sites of the championship contests.  This was a couple of months before the meeting between the five clubs at which the USGA was formed.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

That sure was a lot of talknig about Merion for you not to talk about Merion.  

Sheesh...stick to the topic at hand if you still have no evidence of any CBM activity there in the second half of 1910, please.  

You're the guy who told us the course was fully routed by November 15th, 1910 when they secured the land, not me.   I agree completely that this position is "asinine" based on the evidence, but that's probably where our agreeement stops.    Let it go.

I would think this whole thing would be very educational for you, as well.

[DMoriarty]

David,

That sure was a lot of talknig about Merion for you not to talk about Merion.  

Sheesh...stick to the topic at hand if you still have no evidence of any CBM activity there in the second half of 1910, please.  

You're the guy who told us the course was fully routed by November 15th, 1910 when they secured the land, not me.   Let it go.

I would think this whole thing would be very educational for you, as well.

You are confused Mike.  You are the one pretending not to be talking about Merion, not me. 

So far as I know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910.  But of you cant even get that right without misrepresenting me.  It is all set out in my IMO (or at least it was before it got garbled.)   Despite many empty promises, no competent rebuttal has ever been brought forward or published.  

Now will you answer my questions about CBM in the last paragraph above?  

[V. Kmetz]

David,

I shouldn't have used the word phrase, dark side, that was flimsy on my part.  And I think it WAS totally overblown and over emphasized right from the beginning.

I don't have my library nearby at present, but after reading some writers like Wind and Sommers (The US Open Story) in blend with other accounts, I think much of Charlie's rep from that time took on the patina of gossip as fact.  Nobody's fault, just a small group of original competitors and patrons who would naturally take disparate views and those views leach into the realm of the reality we deal with 100-115 years later.

Scotlands Gift is just about my favorite book ever, for Golf and even in a general literary sense I think of it as meaningful as Caesar's Commentaries. And even in that labor-of-love autobiography, I intuit that there's something about Charlie that made him want to say, "I loved her first."

cheers

vk

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I understand some of your frustrations with Mike, as his arguments have veered all over the map on this.  That said, and with all due respect, I gotta call BS on these:


So far as YOU know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910?

Then, you know wrong.  Or at least, you can only SUSPECT that Merion was routed by then.  But, no documents have ever come forward proving it, and that is not really any different than some of the cases Mike or others make.  

"Despite many empty promises, no competent rebuttal has ever been brought forward or published. "

Hard to rebut a proposition that is forwarded by one person, but without facts to back it up, isn't it?  If you don't think your Merion theory hasn't been pretty well disgarded by most, if not all, then you really just aren't listening and willing to accept others opinions.


Like Mike says, bring forth ANY documentation of CBM's involvement other than what is known, and we will all hail you as the greatest historian ever, and applaud your intuitiveness (even more actually, I do respect your intelligence and agree with you on many of these historic matters).  Right now, we are just asking you to hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others to.



Given VK was asking some back story and seems to be too new to remember all the old wounds, I just figured we should let him know you have a wounded dog in this supposed fight, too.

All the best.

[DMoriarty]

V was doing just fine and and certainly doesn't need you coming in here in pretending to set the record straight.  You obviously come with a chip on your shoulder and aren't really all that concerned with what really happened, and he just might be.   You do him a disservice by misleading him.  

As for your opinion of my essay, you've now expressed your it almost as many times as your buddies, and each time is as substantively empty as the last.  If you or they disagree with anything in my essay, then by all means make your case.  But do so in a coherent and comprehensive manner, addressing all the issues.  That is what I did, and what you and they have consistently failed to do.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.  

Hard to rebut a proposition that is forwarded by one person, but without facts to back it up, isn't it?  If you don't think your Merion theory hasn't been pretty well disgarded by most, if not all, then you really just aren't listening and willing to accept others opinions.

It is easy to rebut a errant proposition without any facts backing it up.  But is hard to rebut a reasonable theory when it is backed up by facts and when it provides the most logical and likely explanation of what happened.  That is the situation here.  

Like Mike says, bring forth ANY documentation of CBM's involvement other than what is known, and we will all hail you as the greatest historian ever, and applaud your intuitiveness (even more actually, I do respect your intelligence and agree with you on many of these historic matters).  Right now, we are just asking you to hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others to.

This is rich. "What is known" is only known because of my essay.   The main body was made up of something like 24 or 25 separate sections, every one of which contained new information about Merion which had never before been brought forward, and the vast majority of this information has proven true and accurate.  

Yet to you I am still one document short of making a convincing case?  I could raise CBM and Hugh Wilson from the dead and have then sign notarized statements, and you guys would claim it was just CBM bragging and Hugh Wilson being polite.  

Bottom line his that you are just here defending your buddies and trying to take some more shots at me.  You aren't interested in what really happened.  You really should quite pretending that you are.    

[Mike Cirba]

So far as I know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910.  But of you cant even get that right without misrepresenting me.  It is all set out in my IMO (or at least it was before it got garbled.  

"So far as I know"??

"roughly"??

I have no idea what this backpedaling actually means but it sounds like at least you now at least kinda, sort of, so far as I know admit that your essay was wrong in those respects.   

As far as times I've been wrong about CBM or other matters, I've openly admitted it.   It sounds like you're starting to do the same, so perhaps there is a chance of progress here after all.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I certainly wasn't trying to anger you, but simply point out facts, or at least perspective.  If I am doing VK a disservice, then I might add that you are doing a disservice almost any time your posts focus on telling us what Mike thinks, we should think, etc.  

EDIT: BTW, I meant to ask you what you mean that "your essay has become garbled?"

I did think your Merion theory was "reasonable" but later came to believe it wasn't what actually happened.  And, as I recall it, it later turned up that other than the mis timed theory of Hugh Wilson's trip, most of what you wrote was actually known by Merion, albeit, they seemed to prefer downplaying CBM's role more than you would like, or more than modern historians might.

As to making my case against your theory about CBM routing the course between his June visit (where he had no maps) and Nov 15, 2010 here it is:  There are no documents suggesting this, and other documents suggesting he aided the Merion committee in March 1911, so the contemporaneous records suggest that your theory isn't true.  I mean, what else do you think we need to do to rebut your theory?  I think that covers it (and in many other debates, you would also have argued that it would, too, if presented by Mike or others)

So just to point out some of the factual errors in your last post, which you try to cover with indignity and disgust:,

Most of what you wrote about Merion was known, and simply rediscovered,

I am in fact very interested in what happened at various famous courses, and not defending my buddies at all.

My disagreements with you have nothing to do with friendships, allegiances, etc.  It is a fact based disagreement in that no documents tying CBM to the Merion process between June and Nov 1910 exist to back up your theory.   And yet, if I could, I would try to produce those documents, because I am interested in it, no matter who turns out to be right on that.

Again, I am not angry at anyone, but I do think your last post is clearly misleading as to what went down in those threads about that course that we are not talking about out loud, but really are talking about under the guise of talking about another course......just wanted to clear this whole scenario up for the newcomers.  I think my last sentence does that pretty well!

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I am not backpedaling on anything.  No need to.  I often wonder if you ever bothered to read past the synopsis preceding my essay. If you did read it, you certainly didn't understand it and still don't. Why am I not surprised?

If you, Jeff Brauer, or any of your cronies have anything to say about my essay, then put it in a coherent and comprehensive work addressing everything.  That is what I did, but what you and your cronies have been unable to do, for obvious reasons.   Don't cherry pick things out of context like you do above or base your comments on artificially narrow constraints like Jeff does.   Address it all.   Everything.  That is what I did.    I'll be glad to review it and I will surely give it more of a fair shake than you and your buddies my work.  
____________________________

Jeff Brauer,

1.  It is a bit late in the game for you to start pretending to be a neutral and objective observer.  What about the endless jabs, insulting lectures, and the sarcastic screeds and over-the-top attacks which even you have admitted went way too far? What of the childish and petty games you and you buddy have played with my reputation?  What of the harsh criticisms of posts of mine when you hadn't even bothered to read them? Quit playing the righteous, objective, innocent here.  While you are certainly self-righteous, you are neither objective or innocent in any of this.    

2.  As for your question, my IMO and others were garbled by one of system updates a couple of years ago, and are hardly readable. Had you ever bothered to look at my IMO in the past few years, you'd know what I am talking about!  Yet here you are discussing its merits.  Further confirmation that your pontifications aren't really based on anything in it.  

3.  Likewise, for your "making your case against my theory."  There is a hell of a lot more to my "theory" than you let on, and while your proffer may satisfy your standards, it doesn't even come close to addressing even this small portion you confuse with my overall theory.  But then you never bothered much with the "factual" part of factual analysis anyway.

4.  When I ask you to make your case, I mean make your entire case.  Address everything. Comprehensively and in context.  Don't just throw out some b.s. about a few months while ignoring everything that happened before and after.  And I am not going to argue it here, Jeff.  No more of this piecemeal crap.  If you want to make your case, then make your entire case.  Address my entire essay once and for all. I came up with a coherent and cohesive statement of my position in my IMO.  Surely it isn't too much to ask the same of you and your cronies.

Besides, you apparently forgot about the infamous "Drexel Documents."  Remember?  At the time your buddy took his talents underground, he had never come clean about his oft repeated claims (on and off the website) that he had found documents from the exact time period you mentioned and they established CBM's involvement throughout that time period.  But of course you claimed that your buddy WAS BLATANTLY LYING.  Or rather, you claimed that HE TOLD YOU HE WAS LYING TO TRY AND MAKE A FOOL OF ME.  As I recall, you not only stood by your friend, you even had the nerve to publicly scold me for giving him the benefit of the doubt!  How does that gel with your claims that your posts to me have nothing to do with your puppy-like loyalty to your buddy, the one you claim is a liar?  What a joke!

By the way, have you ever figured it out?  Was your friend lying to you when he told you he was lying to me?  Or was he lying to me and the rest of Ran's website when he told us about these documents?  Or were you lying when you said he told you that he was lying to me in order to try to make a fool of me?  My, what a tangled web.

5.  Your recollections about my essay are inaccurate, to put it mildly. I might have thought you were intentionally misrepresenting my essay, but that would have taken some actual familiarity with in on your part, and you don't seem to be at all familiar with it.  Your comments remind me of how, for post after post, you harshly criticized my detailed and  posts on the origins of Shinnecock Hills.  Then you finally admitted that you hadn't even ever bothered to read the posts in question!  Of course you were sticking up for your buddy then as well.   Yet more evidence of your neutrality and impartiality when it comes to disagreements between me and your crony.

Just so we have have this straight, you have read my essay, haven't you?  Obviously you haven't even looked at it in a couple of years, but did you even bother to read it when it first came out?   Or did you get stuck in the synopsis like Mike?  Are you pulling the same thing you pulled on the Shinnecock thread here?  

As an aside, if you never got around to reading those you Shinnecock posts, you should read them.  They were pretty damn interesting. Same goes for my IMO, if Ran would ever puts it back together again.   You should read it.  

How's that fit in with your claim that you really are interested in the history of these old clubs?  Shouldn't you have at least read the posts if you were so interested? 

[DMoriarty]

I didn't want this last part getting lost at the bottom of above post.  Unlike the usual nonsense from Jeff, Mike and their buddies, this next part I do really care about . . .

6. Jeff, your claim that Merion already knew most of what was in my essay is straight out of your buddy's talking points!   If you are going to claim neutrality here, you at least ought to try and write your own material.  

More importantly, your buddy's claim to that effect is an absolute LIE.  There was very little in my essay that had every been understood or brought forward before, at least in the past half century. Your buddy and his writing partner had proclaimed themselves the living experts on the history of the course but they hadn't ever bother to do the research.

-  Had it all been known before, then Wayne wouldn't have needed to plead with me to digitize and send him all my source material in the days following my IMO.  Imagine me having to send him letters from Merion's board, the Nov. 15th map, substantial portions of the club secretary's scrapbook, etc. from Los Angeles when it was all right under his nose!

-  Had it all been known before I wouldn't have had to explain to Wayne in great detail how the various real estate transactions went down.  (Wayne thought that Merion had purchased about half-the-county in 1907 but he was looking at a conveyance that that had nothing to do with Merion or Merion's land!   TEPaul dishonestly posted that he had documents proving that Merion controlled the land starting in 1909, and then he chastised me for questioning him about it!)

-  Had it all been known before then the Barker routing wouldn't have been news.  We'd have been talking about it for years! (Or does Wayne's ridiculous claim that maybe he had known about that at one time, but must have slipped his mind, count as Merion knowing all the time?)

-  And how about the NGLA meeting?  Merion's self-appointed experts had long claimed that these meetings had nothing to do with planning the course, and that they had occurred long before the course was planned!  They also claimed that about all they discussed at the meeting was Hugh Wilson's pending tour of the courses abroad!  It was my IMO that  pointed out that the NGLA meeting was crucial to the planning of the course, and that it occurred at a crucial point in the planning process, and that the focus of the meeting was planning the layout of the course!   In fact, here is about about the only influence your buddies the self-appointed experts would admit: To them  CBM was essentially a glorified travel agent who helped Wilson plan his trip!  And your buddies weren't the only ones!

But the list goes on. Your buddies had no idea of the reasons Merion's Board gave for the move, and they still don't accept the reasons. They had no idea who was behind Haverford Development Company or its crucial role in bringing about the creation of the course, or the extent of the real estate angle.   And they had absolutely no idea about the various machinations of the land deals, including the crucial Dallas Estate deal.  They had no idea the role Lloyd played.  They had no idea that it was Merion's Golf Committee who brought in CBM and HJW to inspect the land; that, according to Merion's Board, the land purchased was based upon CBM's and HJW's recommendations; that it was CBM who recommended they use the land behind the clubhouse that they leased rather than purchasing; that CBM remained involved throughout; that CBM and HJW returned to Merion at Merion's request to finalize the plans for the layout that they had been working on for the past half year!  

And Jeff, we are still on the first page of my essay!  To list all that they did not know understand would be to write out my entire essay.    

In short, your buddy and his writing partner aren't being honest when they pretend they knew it all before, or even that Merion knew it all before!  Sure at the time all this was happening 100 years ago Merion was aware of it, but what had happened became long lost in the legend.  Your buddies may have had access to source material which ought to have made it clear, but they had never figured it out.   They had no clue.  Just like Hugh Wilson's 1916 Chapter.  It was right in front of them but they had no idea what it meant!  They still don't, apparently.

There is of course another alternative.   It is possible that your buddies have been blatantly lying to us for a decade about what Merion knew and didn't know!  Having dealt with both of them, I wouldn't put it past either.  But they can't have it both ways, and it is too late for your buddies to claim they knew all along.

More than that, it is despicable that they are pretending to have known all along and that they pretending to have figured it out for themselves.  It is despicable that they cannot even give credit where credit is due.   And, loyal friend or not, it is despicable that you play along with them, and passing along their misrepresentations to others as if true.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good evening.  I would implore you to stop insulting us by telling others how we should act or think.  I am speaking specifically to your request above to write out some sort of comprehensive rebuttal to your IMO piece.  Really, I don't need 1000's of words to make my point, as the former lawyer in you appears to need.  Here it is again:

To date (101 years later) there are absolutely no documentation of CBM being involved in Merion's design between June-Nov, 1910.  True of False?

You have on many occasions said "Having contemporaneous documentation is the "gold standard" for historical research.  True of False?

With no documents supporting that position, I have concluded it is false, much like you would probably conclude that one of my, or Mike’s, or Wayne’s, or TePaul’s positions, based on “reasonableness” would be false.   You have railed my opinions, but never actually said they were false.  You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions. 

As to making a more detailed case, you will recall that in one of myself professed "over the top" posts to you, I also laid out where the foundation of your essay went wrong - you quoted the documents, and in the next PP, you cleverly and purposely changed key words like "approximate acreage" to "exact acreage" among others, and then you were off to the races.  So, the rest of your “logic based argument” (as opposed to source based argument) is tainted because the beginning is wrong.  Anyone interested can look those posts up.

For the record, I have read your piece on more than one occasion, and have agreed that it was quite respectful in tone towards the club, and not deserving of some of the crap you took.  Your piece uncovered some new truths and had some value, which was lost in the battles between you and others. 

I don't believe most of the negative attributions and character assassinations you have presented on this site about others.  I understand your frustrations with TePaul, but it is really an insult for you to call me despicable puppet, and also post falsehoods about me to make your point.


The rest of your crap doesn't deserve an answer.  Looking at the bright side, we do agree on your post a while back that this kind of crap is a waste of time.

I won't post on Merion related items in this thread again, but did enjoy setting the record straight for the newcomers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

If David hadn't posted his White Paper, Wayne Morrison wouldn't have visited the MCC archives and found pertinent information that hadn't been presented.

As to Merion having knowledge of everything David brought forth, even their website had Wilson's overseas trip incorrect, so I don't buy into that.

You may recalll Mike Cirba fighting vehemently to prove that Wilson sailed when they said he did, even after David provided the ship manifest proving otherwise.

I don't think David ever posited that his white paper was infallible.

The truth is that more is known about Merion due to David posting his white paper.

You might also recall that some, including myself, fought David on the issue of CBM's early involvement and the original 10th hole being an "Alps" hole.  Wayno even went on site and measured the hole, attempting to disprove David.  I posted replies disputing David, but, when he or someone else posted pictures clearly showing an "Alps" or faux "Alps", I had to concede that David was correct on that issue.  There were other template holes that reflected CBM's influence, direct or indirect.  Chances are, unless there's a new discovery, we'll never know.

Like many threads, more is known at the conclusion of the thread than at the begining and I think that's a beneficial bi-product, an asset to GCA.com and participants and lurkers whose hobby or passion is in golf course architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I agree we know more about Merion due to the IMHO piece, despite all the unpleasantness that transpired.  I guess that just goes with the internet territory.  That is why I said the piece had value, and despite what David has said from time to time, I have never simply sided with the Philly crowd in all aspects, including this thread where I have repeatedly said I disagree with most of Mike's third site or any theory that morphed from that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()