[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

The word itinerant does not have only a negative connotation. All anyone needs to do is just look up the definitions of it in any dictionary. Nevertheless, I do not mean to indicate that the word Itinerant has a negative connotation in how I use it on here and that should most certainly suffice to explain to both you and others my position of how I use it and what I intend it to mean no matter how many times you deny that or try to imply otherwise.

You should try not to incessantly claim on here that you know what other people mean to say particularly when you keep claiming what you think they mean to say is about the opposite of what they HAVE TOLD YOU ON HERE they mean to say.

This is why you have definitely marginalized yourself on here and elsewhere, MacWood. I think you should be cognizant of this and try to do something to change it so that not everyone on here will come to believe you suffer from some kinf of problems some of us have come to believe you suffer from.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Please don't insult our intelligence. Here is a link to the common use of the word today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itinerant

Drifters, rogues, rovers, vagabonds, vagrants, illegal aliens, nomads, gypsies, hobos, tramps, bums, derelicts, refugees, street people, paupers, squatters, and waifs don't have a negative connotation? You, Mike and Wayno have a tendency, when the facts are not going your way, to attack or tear down the interloper who invades your favorite tale/legend. Though I have admit calling someone an itinerant sure beats urinating on their grave.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

If I haven't been completely sure you have some kind of problem that limits you to a form of myopia (a pretty coincidental word and definition for you on here) your #101 just made me sure. You are obviously not even capable of producing something yourself that makes your point. The definition of itinerant is basically someone who travels from place to place (syn: peripatetic). Obviously some people who do travel frequently may not have much of a permanent home or fall into the category of bums, vagabonds, rogues and such, all of which have a negative connotation.

However, look again at the Wikipedia definition you just produced to try to make your point and tell me if there is some negative connotation about that group of people in that Wikipedia definition under the section labeled "Notable Itinerants."

This is proof positive that you have a problem that gives you myopia or some form of fixation blindness and it is the very reason that even though you may be pretty good at some raw research you are a disasterious analyst and historian, and why it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion with you.

Thanks for that Wikipedia definition and it's too bad you didn't read the whole thing but that really is the way you are. We all know that from years of experience with you on here.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
If you think that "...it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion..."  with Tom MacWood then you're guilty of being a moron by association.  
 

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

Perhaps, but hereinafter I think I will try to avoid being a moron by association by ever trying to have a conversation with you. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I appreciate that, as you rarely maintain a civil conversation without personally attacking those who hold contrary opinions.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Mike, that's your agenda driven conclusion, a conclusion that's nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order."

Patrick:

You call Mike Cirba's conclusion nothing more than an agenda driven attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order, while at the same time denying that Moriarty's agenda driven conclusion was nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the fact that Wilson and his committee routed Merion and not exactly in short order either!

My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.

If you disagree with particularly the latter part of the above then just cite for us one iota of evidence that CBM ever routed Merion East. There is no factual evidence that CBM did that or anything like it. All you can point to is a laundry list of unsupportable assumptions and premises in Moriarty's essay that actually have no basis in factual evidence. It is all nothing other than speculation and tortured logic and reasoning.

Again, I was responding to MIKE CIRBA, in the sole context of his premise that it took a long while to route NGLA.
Mike Cirba was the one alluding to CBM's routing of Merion.
Perhaps your question should be addressed to him.

If you don't think so then just point to one iota or one example of actual physical or textual EVIDENCE from back then (contemporaneous) where any record indicates that Macdonald did something like route Merion East.

See my above response

Frankly, the best piece of evidence about what Macdonald and Whigam did do for MCC in 1910 is that two and a half page letter Macdonald wrote to Lloyd after their June 1910 visit to Ardmore. When Moriarty wrote that essay he did not have that letter; he only had a committee and board reference to it. Some months later, Wayne Morrison on his own initiative actually found a transcription of that letter at MCC. What that letter actually said is perhaps the best evidence there is that Macdonald and Whigam did not route Merion East in 1910 or anything remotely like that and in that letter Macdonald actually even explained why he could not do something like that.

This thread, and my response to Mike Cirba are about the routing of NGLA and Mike's attempt to lengthen the amount of time it took to route NGLA, ...... infering that Merion couldn't be routed in short order .... unless of course, Donald Ross was involved.

People like you, Patrick, just continue to overlook that kind of thing. Why do you do that?

Because it's TOTALLY irrelevant to this thread and the reason for my reply to Mike Cirba.

You may want to dredge up the ghost of Moriarty, MacWood and Merion, I don't.
Mike Cirba's conclusion was an obvious attempt to dismiss the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order.

I think you do it because you are probably embarrassed about condoning a completely half researched and half baked essay like that one in the first place, and this is your on-going way of avoiding and denying that embarrassment. You're no historian, that's for sure. You seem to be nothing more than a pot-stirer! I bet, even at this point, you still have no idea WHAT that all-important letter from Macdonald to Lloyd in the end of June 1910 actually said. Unfortunately Moriarty had no idea what that actual letter said either (all he had was a committee and board reference to it) when he researched and produced that highly misleading essay of his entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion."

I appreciate your attempt at attribution and intent, but, you're wrong.

Let's stick to this thread and not dredge up other threads.

Do you know that participants have left GCA.com because of the "Philly Mafia" ? (;

[TEPaul]

"My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site."


Pat:

Yes, it certainly is true your comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and had NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.

That is my point which is that is the problem you have had with being objective on this entire issue with Merion, Moriarty's essay and Macdonald's part in the routing of Merion East, and with Mike Cirba's point that it was highly unlikely and probably impossible for Macdonald to have routed that golf course in the day he was at Ardmore in June 1910! Not to even mention what Macdonald's letter actually said which was that he could not do something like that without a contour map in front of him. In that letter he actually even articulated that that was the problem to that MCC had before them. Of course Moriarty was not aware that Macdonald had written that when he wrote his essay because at that point Moriarty had never seen Macdonald's letter, and had only seen a MCC committee and board reference to that letter (neither of which said a thing about Macdonald routing the course).

This is Cirba's point and it is a good one, but yet of your own admission you did not and do not address it even though you do mention the possibility of CBM routing Merion East in short order.

There is also not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald did anything like that at any time in 1910 or that he was even at Ardmore between June 1910 and April 1911. That is almost ten months, not to mention that there is not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald himself had anything at all to do with the routinng of Merion East at any time.

Regarding exactly how long it took to route NGLA, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows the answer to that because when they began the routing compared to when they finalized the routing was never actually reported in detail. If it was show me where that was ever said; and I don't want to hear just a long litany of additional speculation.

 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I appreciate that, as you rarely maintain a civil conversation without personally attacking those who hold contrary opinions."


Jim Kennedy:

Again, perhaps, but it seems the same is true of you, and after-all you're the one who just initiated the remark about moronic by association, not me.  

And Cirba is right about you when he said you are not even-handed or objective in lecturing people about incivility on here. I don't recall you ever saying anything to Moriarty on here about that and no one on earth who has read some of his recent posts on this website could possibly miss that he is completely out of control with his incivility; constantly calling me a creep, a liar, the poorest excuse of a man, an alterer or hider of official documents and whatnot. It is so outrageous and so out of control recently it's actually funny! Not to mention what is all over the Internet that has to do with that guy's background in the last some years. I was not even aware of any of it until less than two weeks ago, but he and MacWood have been riding me to do more "INDEPENDENT" research, and so I did! Damn depressing, actually, in the depth and breadth of it all, if you ask me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site."


Pat:

Yes, it certainly is true your comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and had NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.

That is my point which is that is the problem you have had with being objective on this entire issue with Merion, Moriarty's essay and Macdonald's part in the routing of Merion East, and with Mike Cirba's point that it was highly unlikely and probably impossible for Macdonald to have routed that golf course in the day he was at Ardmore in June 1910! Not to even mention what Macdonald's letter actually said which was that he could not do something like that without a contour map in front of him. In that letter he actually even articulated that that was the problem to that MCC had before them. Of course Moriarty was not aware that Macdonald had written that when he wrote his essay because at that point Moriarty had never seen Macdonald's letter, and had only seen a MCC committee and board reference to that letter (neither of which said a thing about Macdonald routing the course).

I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course.

In "Scotland's Gift" he cites the fact that not only was a contour map not available, but that the NGLA property hadn't even been surveyed when he first toured it, yet, riding over the inhospitable site he was still able to find the topography necessary to place his holes.  The contours he studied were the natural ones in the ground, and not a contour map on paper.

This is Cirba's point and it is a good one, but yet of your own admission you did not and do not address it even though you do mention the possibility of CBM routing Merion East in short order.

I did address it, you just missed it.
The sites are wildly disimilar.
NGLA's property was little known and had never been surveyed, whereas the Merion property had been well surveyed, was well known, and in use.

There is also not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald did anything like that at any time in 1910 or that he was even at Ardmore between June 1910 and April 1911. That is almost ten months, not to mention that there is not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald himself had anything at all to do with the routinng of Merion East at any time.

There's also not an Iota of evidence that he didn't

Regarding exactly how long it took to route NGLA, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows the answer to that because when they began the routing compared to when they finalized the routing was never actually reported in detail. If it was show me where that was ever said; and I don't want to hear just a long litany of additional speculation.

He did route the course quickly, he cites how he found hole after hole after hole on the property when he toured it.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you find all of the holes you desire to place upon the land, that you've figured out the routing, if by no other process than default, like the last few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

[TEPaul]

"I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course."


Pat:

I think it would be best for me to take your post responses in little baby steps. So from your quote above how do we actually know or why would you say you believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course. I want to see actual and factual evidence from you and not your speculations.

Did you know, for instance, that David M. Raynor surveyed Shinnecock's land and apparently some of the surrounding land in the early 1890s and with his young son Seth pulling the rods and chains for him?

Do you even know, Patrick, anything about the history and evolution of the entire Shinnecock Hills (about 3,500 acres), the history and evolution of its development companies and who essentially owned them over time (the time being from perhaps the 1870s until perhaps the teens or even 1920s?) Something tells me you know none of this and probably have never even thought of it before! Believe me, Patrick, when it comes to history and analyzing it on these kinds of subjects that have to do with the entire inter-related history of Long Island and other places that deals with land development and golf courses and who all was involved with it, you really do need to stick with your old mentor and friend----ME!    

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP
You were the genesis of the ‘moron by association’ remark when you said "it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion" with TMac. You've been interacting with MacWood for the past ten years on this site, ergo, I rest my case.

And please, stop playing the innocent. You and Wayno The 'Whiz' Kid have been on the attack ever since Tom MacWood wrote about Merion some 8 years ago and David Moriarty posted his recent Missing Faces piece, and you and 'The Whiz' showed a propensity to make it personal instead of measuring up to even the most casual standard of fair discussion.  As for Mike Cirba, I don't when or how he let himself be dragged into the fray. Probably some perceived slight about one of the Philadelphia architects.       

All one has to do is look in the last page or so of this thread to see how you operate. You malign TMac and suggest he has 'problems' that 'everyone' on this site is aware of. A few posts later and you're making abusive remarks about David Moriarty. Just recently you made such a blatantly libelous allegation about David that I was amazed you escaped a lawsuit. You should be thankful that he shows more restraint than you, although I don’t know how long that will last, especially now that you're 'searching' into his, and TMac’s, personal lives to dig up skeletons, imaginary or real. I’d say you have been a lucky man,  so far.

Actually, Wayno The Whiz has been much more pleasant than you ever since it has said “Guest” under his name.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

There is plenty of evidence that CB did not route Merion and NONE that he did.

CB didn't tell us he routed hole after hole after hole.  He tells us Whigham found a great hill for an Alps, they turned and saw a great natural landform for a redan, they found an inlet where they could create an Eden where you couldn't roll it up, and right next to there a waterway for the Cape. 

He also mentioned a site to copy the Short hole at St. Andrews out at the point of the bay that was never built.

That's it.

Based on those excited finds, he secured an undefined 205 acres out of 450 available and then proceeded to hire Raynoe, clear and survey the land, and begin work as a committee to route the course. 

George's book tells us that CBM was continually tinkering with the routing over that period prior to construction and seeding.

We also know that when the process began CBM anticipated using much less than the 205 acres and planned to give plots to the Founders with the remainder.

It's ludicrous to say he routed the golf course in a day or two.

It's a myth.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
You were the genesis of the ‘moron by association’ remark when you said "it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion" with TMac. You've been interacting with MacWood for the past ten years on this site, ergo, I rest my case."




Yes I have, Jim Kennedy, and it would probably do you well to rest your case completely and stay out of that in the future and if you must enter into it then try to be a bit more objective and even-handed about it as Mike Cirba accurately mentioned and asked you to be.  

You're an odd one on here, Jim Kennedy. I don't know you or who you are but you seem to want to be perceived on here as some kind of moderator or school master type who wants to keep the peace. Occasionally you actually offer some really insightful opinions, as I believe you did on this thread and then oddly you deleted most of them and replaced them with a "smiley" and preceded on with your apparently intended moderator or school master persona. I have no problem with any of that other than to reiterate what Cirba said about you----eg you just don't seem to know how to be even-handed or objective about it with the participants on this website.

I suspect that many of us on here have some form or degree of your MO on here, which is that we all have some of our own inherent biases and prejudices about certain things and believe me, with you it shows in spades to me! Apparently you seem to feel the same way in that vein towards me that I do towards you.  


PS:
All I said to MacWood was that I feel it has become virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion with him on here. I didn't say a thing about association or morons----you are the one who first mentioned that Jimbo, Bimbo, Akimbo Kennedy.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

After leaving the site for six months, I returned with the idea (and Ran's recommendation) to just have fun here.

You must have missed my public courses before the depression thread where those paragons of innocence and virtue, David and TMac basically drove that thread off the road, into the gutter, and then backed up and ran over me again.

What was my sin?  Having the audacity to claim that prior to the depression, Cobbs Creek was viewed by many observers as the best public course in the country.

But I guess you missed all of that...

Ironically, I was looking at microfiche at Temple U library today with Joe, Mark MacKeever, and John Shimoney and what do we come across?

Oh, a 1928 article with 3 time US Publinks champion Carl Kaufmann stating his belief that Cobbs Creek was unsurpassed as a test of golf and the best public course he had ever seen.

Oh well...I'm sure Mr. Kaufmann will now get posthumously pounded, so I probably shouldn't have brought the poor fellow into this.

[Mike Cirba]

And Jim...what did Jeff Brauer and Phil Young ever do to deserve the constant barrage of personal insults the receive from your angelic twosome?

I guess they dared to disagree with their often preposterous theories and tortured logic, very respectfully, but one evidently must not do that here with the self-appointed  keepers of the true truth.

Wayne Morrison hasn't been on this site for years, yet he gets more mentions from the three of you than Tom Doak.

Give it a rest.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I don't think anyone's personal life should be discussed on this website, nor their professional life unless they are involved in golf course architecture.

This shit has to stop, no matter who started what. 

Please give it a rest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course."

Pat:

I think it would be best for me to take your post responses in little baby steps. So from your quote above how do we actually know or why would you say you believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course. I want to see actual and factual evidence from you and not your speculations.

Sure, just look at page 187 of the book I gave you, "Scotland's Gift"
CBM himself states, "This property was little known and had NEVER been surveyed"
So, if the property hadn't been surveyed, then, NO contour map could exist.
CBM then states,
"we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in NATURALLY with the various CLASSICAL HOLES I had in mind, AFTER WHICH we staked out the land we wanted.
We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."

So CBM was able to blend his concepts of ideal golf holes to the land he walked/studied WITHOUT the benefit of a contour map.

Did you know, for instance, that David M. Raynor surveyed Shinnecock's land and apparently some of the surrounding land in the early 1890s and with his young son Seth pulling the rods and chains for him?

I'm not interested in the surrounding land.
I'm interested in the 450, narrowed down to 205 acres that CBM declared as unsurveyed.

Do you even know, Patrick, anything about the history and evolution of the entire Shinnecock Hills (about 3,500 acres), the history and evolution of its development companies and who essentially owned them over time (the time being from perhaps the 1870s until perhaps the teens or even 1920s?) Something tells me you know none of this and probably have never even thought of it before!


I have not invested my time in the study of Shinnecock Hills as you and Wayno have.
My focus has always been on NGLA.
If you want to start a thread on SHCC, please do so, although, I won't be able to contribute much when it comes to SHCC's history.
I can contribute a little regarding the play of SHCC dating back more than a few decades.

Believe me, Patrick, when it comes to history and analyzing it on these kinds of subjects that have to do with the entire inter-related history of Long Island and other places that deals with land development and golf courses and who all was involved with it, you really do need to stick with your old mentor and friend----ME!    

I'm sure you're right about SHCC.
As to other areas of Long Island, I do have some insight into history.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What is silly is the idea that the process of land aquisition at the two clubs was even remotely similar, much less identical in terms of process, intent, or "pre-routing", other than the fact that they both wanted to build great golf courses and they both took a few months to route their courses before construction and seeding.

That was my point.

But, it was far more difficult to route uncleared land, land that had never been surveyed, than it was established, surveyed land.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In a real effort to be objective and fair and logically analytical with you I would sure admit that CBM may've been correct when he mentioned that as far as he knew the land he bought for NGLA in 1906 or 1907 had never been surveyed. But what if a topographical survey map is found that includes that land and that precedes the purchase and creation of NGLA and what if it is a survey done by the firm of Raynor and Co, of Southampton BEFORE NGLA? What would you say then, Patrick? What if the entire area that was then known as "Shinnecock Hills", all app. 3,500 acres of it (that now includes Shinnecock, NGLA, Southampton GC, Sebona and even well west and soutt of the RR tracks that now includes LI University Southampton had been surveyed, topographically and otherwise long before NGLA? What would you say on here then, Patrick? Would you deal with it; would you admit that CBM may've been mistaken in his 1928 book; or would you just ignore it and rationalize its meaning away somehow?

[Jeff Taylor]

Drexel anybody?

[TEPaul]

Mike and Patrick:

I think what we are going to find and will find is that the committee structure and makeup, the business aspects, land development (residential) and otherwise, the corporate entities and structure to support and effect it all are remarkably similar between the concepts and creations of NGLA and MCC in 1910 and that is what a lot of what the reason they got CBM to Ardmore was all about. The rest had more to do with agronomic potential (or lack of it) and agronomic development than golf course architecture.

The architectural development and who was responsible on both projects? I think you are going to see that is was very little different from the way both clubs have always reported it and presented it in their history and history books and otherwise.

Personally, I have come to believe that all this "stuff" that goes on here on this website and has for years should be made part and parcel of the history and reportage on both of these famous and signifcant clubs but perhaps more as an example of overaching misinterpretation or perhaps even a chronicle of how not to analyze and treat history of GCA and otherwise in the future! Perhaps, even, as a wonderful example of an over-riding joke!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The course opened informally with this Invitational Tournament in 1910, and opened formally in 1911.   I think Macdonald made a minor typo in his book, which is the only one I've found.

I don't believe that's true.

CBM states that the course was first played in 1909.
Subsequent to that play, he states that "it was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the course in an improvised competition, our club house a tent.  So perhaps the twenty friend improvised competition took place in 1910, but, prior to that, in 1909, the course had been played.

For years we've been told that Macdonald first routed the course on horseback in 2-3 days with Whigham, and then bought exactly the property they needed for their golf course.   That is clearly untrue, and George's book makes that very clear as well.

I see, you accept George's book as the Gospel and dismiss Macdonald's own account in his book, "Scotland's Gift".
How convenient.

During those days, we were also told that any reference to Macdonald's estimate of 110 acres for the golf course, or any reference to having building lots for the Founders all related to a much earlier 1904 letter and was irrelevant a the time Macdonald actually secured the land for his course in late 1906.   This is simply untrue.

We can see from these articles that since inception, the magic number had been slightly over 200 acres, although Macdonald himself believed that only about 110 of these acres would be needed for golf, with the rest going to building lots.

That's your misquided interpretation.
Macdonald himself states that out of the 450 acres reviewed, they chose 205 acres, and there's not a single mention of housing.
Please tell us, where, on that narrow piece of property, with an out and back routing, the housing sites were to be.
Macdonald describes that land as being worthless, abounding in bogs and swamps and infested with insects, hardly the idlyic spot for building lots.  But, again, I ask you, were on that narrow strip of property, removed from the golf course, were the housing lots ?
The long narrow site, occupied by an out and back golf course, doesn't lend itself to any suitable location for housing.

This June 20th, 1906 article, after Macdonald's return from his visit abroad that year, and just months before he found the Sebonac property shows clearly that he's still looking for the exact same slightly more than 200 acres he was looking for in the original 1904 Founders letter.




More interestingly, sometime during these next few months, a Brooklyn Company took hold of the 2000 acres of Shinnecock land at a bargain-basement $50 an acre.   Macdonald tells us that he tried to jump on this oppotunity and offered to purchase 120 acres for $200 an acre near the canal between Peconic and Shinnecock bays, which was rejected.

So what, Macdonald cited same on page 186 in his book.


Possibly CBM saw this site as particularly advantageous for his golf course, and was willing to scrap his building lots plan to get it at very low prices?   We're not sure, because neither his account nor George's tell us much about why he made this offer but I think one can safely assume it was for his golf course.

Again, Macdonald states that he wanted that site near the Shinnecock Canal for his golf course.

So, this idea that he routed the course in 2 days on horseback after finding all his holes on it is poppycock!

How do you draw that conclusion in the face of Macdonald stating that that's exactly what he did ?
Before answering, please take a careful look at the schematic in "Scotland's Gift".
It's obvious that the routing could have but one configuration, an out and back routing.
If you found the sites for his ideal holes, by default, the others would have to flow to and from them, making the routing a rather simple exercise.

Instead, I think the evidence indicates that during that ride, they found some great landforms they could use for an Alps and redan, the body of water for the Cape and Eden, and enough possibilities to be enthused.   They offered to buy 205 acres of the 450 tract, as yet unspecified in terms of boundaries in December 1906.

Mike, please, please, please look at the schematic or google earth.
Once you understand that the holes you mentioned were established, it almost completely establishes the routing for the remainder of the holes.  If you route # 3 and # 4, # 13 and # 14, don't you think you've also figured out # 1, 2, 5, 12 ,15, 16, 17, 18, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 ?   Just look at that narrow site, now insert just those four holes.  From that starting point, by default you come close to routing the entire golf course, save for some minor variables, especially if you've sited the clubhouse behind or near the current 9th green.  Like a jigsaw puzzle, it all falls into place with those four holes and the clubhouse.

Seth Raynor was hired, the land was cleared, and over the next few months the routing and decison-making of which holes go where took place, followed by construction and seeding, which took place in the fall of 1907.    George's book tells us that Macdonald was forever tinkering with the routing.

Where does George's book "tell us that Macdonald was forever tinkering with the ROUTING ?"

Why do you constantly accept George's over Macdonald's ?  

 CBM himself tells us in December 1906 that the exact holes to be reproduced, as well as the yardages of the holes would be decided in coming month.

Oh, so NOW you're telling us to accept Macdonald's word.
The word, "exact" should be a clue for you, if you didn't have an ulterior motive.
Exact holes ? exact yardages ?  Please, you're taking fine tuning of yardage and features and trying to tell us that that equates to changing the routing, and that's sheer bullshit, or rather, wishful thinking on your part.

Over time, probably due to the amount of swampland on the property, as well as the width necessitated by the strategic options Macdonald was trying to create, he quickly forsook the idea that the course would be 110 acres, and even though as he notes in his Founders letter there was still significant land from the original purchase left over, he and the members thankfully never used it for housing.

I'll ask you again, in the confines of the property, filled with bogs and swamps and a golf course, where would the housing sites be ?

So, I'm really not sure which "crazy theories" about NGLA I've been supposedly propagating for months here, or which ones aren't fully supported by the contemporaneous records, news accounts, CBM's book, George Bahto's book, or any reasonable account or reading of the history?  

Since you seem unclear on the subject, let me clarify it for you.
You're propogating the theory that Macdonald couldn't route a course in short order.
By your own admission you've stated that Merion and NGLA were disimilar, yet, you want to take the difficulties associated with routing an unsurveyed course on a site replete with bogs and swamps and equate that with a well established site.
You want to take Macdonald's mission at NGLA, namely to incorporate his ideal concept holes on a given piece of property, and the difficulty associated with that, and equate it on the creation of a golf course with NO predisposition toward individual or collective hole design.  I'd say that's pretty disengenuous, and agenda driven.  But, that's just my theory.

Jim...I think I still have the right here to defend myself against these type of wild, unfounded allegations, and if I saw a way to make the thread also educational and useful to others here, all the better.

My allegation is neither wild nor unfounded.
You've cast the die in your own words.

Macdonald was never the type of guy who would do a paper job in a day visit, farmland or not.  

That's speculation on your part.
CBM's ego was such that I'm fairly sure that he would think he was capable of rising to such a task, if asked.

In fact, his whole career was a rejection of that approach as he clearly loved and respected the game too much.    



He loved and respected himself, first and foremost.

In fact, by 1910 his thinking had evolved to the point that when a club approached him about 100-120 acres they were looking at for a course, his first concern was if they had enough land for a first-rate course.  

Maybe that had something to do with the configuration of the land, land that had a road running through it.
Where have we seen that before ?

Also, his recommendations that they acquire a few more acres near the farmhouse near the railroad they propsed using as their clubhouse takes on a different meaning once one realizes that Macdonald estimated needing 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounding amenities for his project.

This is clear evidence, again, of your attempt to dismiss Macdonald at Merion, which, I felt was your agenda all along.
It's unfortunate that you can't create any thread related to Macdonald, directly or indirectly, which doesn't attempt to discredit him in/and his role at Merion.

Have a good day, and if you are going to scold, don't play favorites.

Playing favorites appears to be your forte (;

[TEPaul]

Can I predict and wager anyone that we are about to see more and greater uncivil caterwalling on here from David Moriarty than we have effectively ever seen before?

If you're interested let's let Patrick handle the "Book" and the wagering.  

Pat, you can have some "vig" on this but you're gonna have to negotiate the percentage with me first!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

In a real effort to be objective and fair and logically analytical with you I would sure admit that CBM may've been correct when he mentioned that as far as he knew the land he bought for NGLA in 1906 or 1907 had never been surveyed.


I would think, if he wrote that, that he was sincere and had nothing to gain by mistating the facts.

But what if a topographical survey map is found that includes that land and that precedes the purchase and creation of NGLA and what if it is a survey done by the firm of Raynor and Co, of Southampton BEFORE NGLA? What would you say then, Patrick?


I'd say the obvious, that Macdonald NEVER knew of such a survey.

If he knew about the existance of a survey or topo, he wouldn't have said that none existed.

What if the entire area that was then known as "Shinnecock Hills", all app. 3,500 acres of it (that now includes Shinnecock, NGLA, Southampton GC, Sebona and even well west and soutt of the RR tracks that now includes LI University Southampton had been surveyed, topographically and otherwise long before NGLA?

What would you say on here then, Patrick? Would you deal with it; would you admit that CBM may've been mistaken in his 1928 book; or would you just ignore it and rationalize its meaning away somehow?

No, I'd state what I stated above, that if such a survey or topo existed, Macdonald didn't know about it.

But, let me ask you this.
In your first paragraph in your reply above, you agreed that Macdonald may have been correct when he stated that the land he bought had never been surveyed.

In your following paragraphs you allude to the existance of a detailed survey and topo map which predated Macdonald's purchase of NGLA.

You're contradicting yourself.

So, I'll ask you directly.  
Is there a 1906 survey and/or topo of NGLA that predates Macdonald's purchase of NGLA that you've seen ?  Or, know to exist ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()