[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I'm willing tp accept your criticism and feedback with an open mind but when you call an identical, contemporaneous quote from CBM published in multiple newspapers "alleged", then you lose me, and I think you also lose most objective, unbiased observers, and as much as I like and admire you personally, I really don't understand how you can call me "intellectually dishonest" whien I know deep-down you really aren't as obtuse and absurdly argumentative as you are being here, seemingly either for the sport of it, or just to maintain whatever mythology around CBM you want to romantically hold onto in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Mike,

When you see the same text in several newspaper articles, AND the WRONG information repeated in those articles, YOU KNOW that they weren't sourced quotes, but copies of one another.

The alleged view of the Atlantic from is a perfect example.

There is NO view of the Atlantic from NGLA, yet, article after article that YOU cited, references that view.

You know that CBM didn't make that claim.
You know that the author of the article never set foot on NGLA
You know that the author didn't get independent confirmation.

So you know that those contemporaneous accounts are ALL FALSE, that they copied one another.

And YOU KNOW THAT.

That's why I stated that it's intellectually dishonest of you to offer those accounts as accurate, independent, knowledgeable accounts, inclusive of alleged statements by CBM.

CBM NEVER stated that you could see the Atlantic from NGLA.

Yet, you repeatedly posted these articles offering them as The Gospel and claiming that there very number was evidence enough to support their veracity when nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather than posting these articles and making wild, unassociated claims, you should read the articles and determine if they're flawed, before posting them.  All of these articles were seriously flawed, incredibly inaccurate, so why would you offer them as proof positive to support your theory..  That's being intellectually dishonest.

When you posted these articles and I asked you from which vantage points on NGLA can you see the Atlantic, why did you refuse to answer ?

When I asked you where the surplus land was at NGLA, the 60+ to 105+ acreas, why did you refuse to answer.

You can't make a post, inclusive of third party information, and then refuse to answer legitimate questions about your post, the third party information and your theory.

I like you too, but, you have to take the time to read the third party info you post and then to address questions asked about that third party, to decline to do so is also intellectually dishonest.[/b]

David,

One of us is not explaining himself well enough if you think I'm being disengenuous in either my opinion or my presentation.

Perhaps both of us are being less than completely candid.

In any case, I'll assume that I'm the guilty one and try to explain myself better tomorrow.

[Mike Cirba]

The Timing and Process of the Routing

Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement.  And, crazy though I may be  I believe I can shed some light on this.  

We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape.   This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.

Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.

We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.  

If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?

Because these were two different things.   Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;








Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road.   In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."

I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.

Here, a close reading reveals the following;

1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.

2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.   From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.

3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf.   In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.

4) SUBSEQUENT to him securing the desired amount of land, "slightly more than 200 acres" as Macdonald wrote in his original Founders letter, CBM and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".

This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.  

I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.

It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.

Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared.   I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.

 From "The Evangelist of Golf";

"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.   The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs.   In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."

"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property.   To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based.  Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."

Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. 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.

[Mike Cirba]

It might be easier to just paste this all together for easy reference...thanks.

110 acres and Building Lots for Founders

There is no question that Macdonald thought his ideal course could fit on something around 110 acres, as he clearly wrote that in his 1904 Founders Agreement.   There is also no question that Macdonald was searching for slightly over 200 acres to fit both the golf course and planned building lots for the Founders.  

Macdonald viewed this golf course estimate is something of a math problem.   He had previously defined the necessary ideal yardages for his "Ideal Golf Course", coming in at around 6,100 yards, and extrapolated how much width he thought he needed for fairways and thus his estimate.

Specifically, CBM wrote that he would need approximately 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds, and the remaining 90 acres would be used for 1.5 acre building lots for the Founders.

In fact, six years later, 3 days before the soft Opening Day Invitational Tournament in 1910, CBM wrote to Merion (who were considering a developer's offer of "100 acres or whatever would be required for the golf course"...after CBM's one-day June 1910 visit Merion believed they would need "nearly 120 acres") that;

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "


Earlier in 1906, HJ Whigham reiterated Macdonald's plan in news articles to provide building lots for the Founders, calling it "especially ingenious".

So we KNOW that was the plan well into the year 1906.   That is a fact.

However, for whatever reasons, we know two things changed once Macdonald's search brought him to the land near Shinnecock.

First, he made an offer on 120 acres of land closer to Shinnecock than the present property.   Obviously, at this point and for this property, Macdonald was only focused on buying enough land for the golf course.   Perhaps it was water locked and no more adjacent land was available?   Perhaps he thought he was so ideally suited he was willing to give up on the Founders Lots and return their extra money?   Perhaps he thought he could get such a screaming deal that he couldn't pass it up?  

We don't know.

What we do know is that after the owners rejected that offer, his attention turned to the land where he finally built his course and we know that once again he was looking for more than 200 acres, which is what he secured in November 1906 and purchased in the spring of 1907 (although George Bahto's book says the official purchase occurred in November 1907, so I'm not sure about that discrepancy).

We also know that the course Macdonald built opened at around 6100 yards, but was already expandable to over 6300 yards by early 1912, and was about 6600 yards long (or over 500 yards longer) by the time Macdonald wrote his book.  Today's course is 6,935 yards.

We also know that the course today doesn't take up over 200 acres.   In earlier threads both David Moriarty and Jim Kennedy used Planimeters to estimate the acreage of today's course and came up with a range of about 165-180 acres.  

I think it's likely that a few things influenced this change.   First, I think that CBM's idea of using width to create alternate strategic options for weaker players around some of the hazards created a bigger golf course than perhaps he originally estimated.   I also think he underestimated the number of acres that wouldn't be usable as they were either swampy or water covered, reducing his overall land.  

But, he had clearly promised the Founders "something in return" for their investment and faith in him, and he did his best to address this in his 1912 letter to them under the heading "Surplus Land".  

Obviously, the approximately 25-45 acres left over wasn't going to satisfy the original promise of 1.5 acre lots for 60 Founding members, so it is likely that some other financial recompense was made after the fact, and I'm pretty sure that CBM was able to justify this quite easily to them in terms of it being all for the betterment of the golf course, and of course he was correct in that judgment.

Max Behr, writing in 1915, described the reality of Surplus Land.

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.

The Actual Opening Date

Strangely, CBM seems to have confused the soft Opening Date of his club by a year when he wrote his book in 1928.    

It is clearly documented by contemporaneous sources that the soft opening was an informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward and played July 2, 3, & 4th in 1910.




In his book, CBM mentions that the tournament happened in 1909, which is incorrect.



The Timing and Process of the Routing

Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement.  And, crazy though I may be  I believe I can shed some light on this.  

We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape.   This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.

Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.

We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.  

If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?

Because these were two different things.   Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;








Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road.   In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."

I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.

Here, a close reading reveals the following;

1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.

2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.   From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.

3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf.   In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.

4) SUBSEQUENT to him securing the desired amount of land, "slightly more than 200 acres" as Macdonald wrote in his original Founders letter, CBM and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".

This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.  

I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.

It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.

Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared.   I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.

 From "The Evangelist of Golf";

"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.   The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs.   In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."

"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property.   To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based.  Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."

Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. 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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Timing and Process of the Routing

Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement.  And, crazy though I may be  I believe I can shed some light on this.  

We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape.   This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.

Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.

We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.

Mike, again you quote "articles" as irrefutable sources, when we know that they're grossly in error.
Yet, you continue to make those articles the foundation of your position, expanding/expounding upon the articles and drawing conclusions that fly in the face of Macdonald's own words, words he memorialized when he wrote "Scotland's Gift".

When they located the site for four or six of their ideal holes, that automatically provided the basic routing for the prior and following holes.  In addition, knowing where they were going to site their temporary and future clubhouse provided the sites for the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th holes, AND therefore, the 2nd, 17th, 8th and 11th holes.  When you combine that with the sites of the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 14th holes, the ideal replica holes they quickly found on their 2-3 day pony ride, that automatically provides you with the basic site of the 2nd, 5th, 12th and 15th holes.

Hence, at the get go, after finding their 4 to 6 ideal holes, the clubhouse starting and finishing holes, all of the others fall easily into place.

Holes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 were there from the get go.

The only "fillers they needed were holes 6, 7 and 16.  If you know where # 17 and # 15 are, it's easy to figure out where # 16 will go., same for knowing where # 5 and # 8 are.  It doesn't take much to figure out where to put # 6 and # 7.

That's why Max Behr stated that the course basically routed itself.

When you view that exercise, within the context of the land at NGLA, that narrow, long, OUT and BACK routing, it's easy to see how the process could complete itself in short order.

What I don't understand is how you won't acknowledge this, especially since you were the once to cite Max Behr and his "routing itself" statement.]/b]

If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?

It can be because you're citing newspaper articles as producing irrefutable evidence, when we know that they're seriously flawed, in fact and conclusion.  Your entire premise is based on a collection of erroneous newspaper articles.  Ergo, garbage in = garbage out.
[/b]

Because these were two different things.   Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;

Mike, I've read these 100 times before you ever saw them.
They don't support your view, a view that's skewed by your insertion of erroneous newspaper accounts that you proclaim are infallible, when they seem to serve your purpose.[/b]

Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road.   In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."

For the moment, let's go with that.
So he immediately found the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 13th holes.  We also know that he immediately found the "Cape" hole, the 14th.

We also know that he had selected the site for the temporary clubhouse and the future clubhouse.

So, from the get go we have current holes #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18.

If you have # 7 and # 9, you obviously have # 8, which was one of his ideal holes.
If you have # 4, you certainly have # 5 and if you have # 5 and # 7, you have # 6.
So, in short order, we have today's current front nine, just as Max Behr proclaimed, it routed itself.

If you have # 10, 13, 14 and 18, on that piece of property, you certainly have # 11, # 12, # 15, # 17 and by default, # 16.

Hence, in short order the course routed itself, aided and abetted by CBM's desire to introduce some of his 18 ideal holes which he lists for us on page 184 of "Scotland's Gift"

The process was so simple that Max Behr stated that the course pretty much routed itself,
Yet, you want us to believe that after he found 5 or 6 replica holes in the first two or three days, that it took him five months or more to find the rest.  Hell, even TEPaul, with or without his faithful companion, "Coorshaw" could have done that routing in a day or two.[/b]

I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.

Here, a close reading reveals the following;

1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.

2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.   From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.

3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf.   In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.

4) Subsequently, Macdonald and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".

This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.  

I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.

It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.

Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared.   I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.

 From "The Evangelist of Golf";

Once again you choose a third party, 80 years removed, over Macdonald's written account.

Why do you constantly dismiss Macdonald's own account, and rely on unverifiable accounts from uneducated third party newspaper reporters ?[/b]

"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.   The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs.   In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."

"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property.   To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based.  Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."

Macdonald himself tells us that he found them before any land was cleared, that he found them with Whigham while riding the property on Ponies the first two or three days.   Why do you try to dismiss and distort Macdonald's own words ?[/b]

Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;

George states that Behr was on target, that the course routed itself with ease.
In terms of his assessment on the level of effort, George doesn't context that effort as being "chronological"[/b]

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. 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.

Mike, I'll ask you again.  Would you identify the considerable part of the land not touched by the golf course on that property ?

Why do you blend, in terms of the routing time line,  Macdonald's determination/selection of the best holes in golf, which occured prior to Macdonald ever seeing the land, to the process of routing the golf course once he found the land ?  

Why do you blend, in terms of the routing time line, the search to find the land, with the process of routing the golf course once he found the land ?

I think the real problem is as follows.

You have a predetermined or predisposed agenda.

You present grossly flawed newspaper articles, some copied from others, as bona fide and irrefutable evidence, when nothing could be further from the truth.

You accept the word of uninvolved third parties, some 80 years removed, while discounting and dismissing Macdonald's own words as penned in his account of NGLA, in "Scotland's Gift"

And all for what purpose ?  To put forth your agenda that Macdonald couldn't have routed Merion in a day.

Yet, we know that Donald Ross and others could route courses in a day.

I wonder, if instead of CBM, David Moriarty produced evidence that DR did what CBM did, if you'd be making the same claim about the impossibilty of a one day routing ?  How do you explain how Donald Ross could route a course with but one visit ?
How do you explain how Donald Ross could route a course with NO visits ?[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Would you please address and answer the questions I've asked you over and over again ?

I've addressed and answered every one of your questions.

Please address and answer mine.

I'll repeat them for you.

Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?

From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?

Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?

Thanks

P.S.  No need to post the articles again, just answer the questions, they're rather simple and straight forward.

[DMoriarty]

I have taken a bit of time to go back and reread some of the posts in the other threads, and I have got to tell you, what you are doing here is absolutely crazy.  We've covered this same material again and again.  You have made the same claims again and again.   Sometimes you have come to the realization of where you messed up, and back away, but you always return to the same exact mistakes.  

It reminds me of something I recently saw about an experiment where scientists adjusted a certain chemical in a rats' brains to impact their memory. The rats were in a maze and on portion of the maze game them a nasty shock. Those with higher levels of that chemical would avoid this area in order to avoid the shock. Those with lower levels of the chemical would return again and again to that same area despite the shock.

Like those rats you return to this same area again again, despite the inevitable and negative consequences.  But you are not a rat, you are a human, and as such you really ought to be able to learn from your past mistakes.    

Please go back and reread the old threads, including your "Bombshell thread," the Early NGLA Articles thread, and those various sections of the Merion Timeline thread (around page 92) where you digress into all this same garbage.    I explain it to you all in those threads, as do others.  

I had high hopes that since you finally bothered to get the book and actually look at his 1912 statement and his 1904 letter, you'd be able to put those articles in context.  But so far you remain caught up in some "Groundhog Day" scenario, only you seem to have know idea that you are reliving the same thing over and over again.

[Mike Cirba]

I'd really like to address the question of David telling me I'm misrepresenting his Opinion Piece and views on the land purchase and routing of Merion, but had also wanted to keep this thread about NGLA as much as possible because I believe it is very revealing to what an incredibly meticulous, detailed, and grand undertaking Macdonald accomplished.

However, since both Patrick and David stated that I'm being "Intellectually Dishonest", and "disengenous" with the facts here, I might as well explain my understanding and where it is derived from and get it over with.   If my understanding is mistaken, or if I'm not presenting something factually, then lets discuss and correct it here and move on.


In June 1910, Rodman Griscom of the Merion Site Committee had as his guest CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham at land in Ardmore they were considering for their new golf course, and Macdonald and Whigham were in town for the US Open at Philly Cricket Club.   At the time, the Haverford Development Company had secured over 300 acres and offered Merion "100 acres or whatever would be required" for their new golf course.   Given the wish to maximize land for profitable real estate, there definitely were some incentives to keep the golf course constrained to as tight an envelope as could be done while still meeting the club's goal for a top-notch, first rate golf course.

After the visit, Macdonald penned the following letter to HG Lloyd, who headed Merion's Site Committee;

New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.


Based on their discussions on the site with Macdonald and Whigham, as well as the contents of Macdonald's letter, a mere two days later, on July 1st, 1910, Merion's Site Committee wrote the following letter to their Board of Governors, recommending the purchase of land for their golf course, thinking that they'll need "nearly 120 acres".  






Based on that exchange of information, David Moriarty's IMO piece here, "The Missing Faces of Merion" portrayed that communication and its meaning in the following manner.   In fairness, David was unaware of the contents of the June 29th CBM letter when he wrote his piece.   The bolding for emphasis is mine;

Merion’s Site Committee Brings in Macdonald and Whigham

Apparently not content with Barker’s routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham, to inspect the site. The Site Committee explained their qualifications to the Board of Governor’s as follows:

These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.

After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald.

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.”  As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.

...

Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.

It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.

The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.


Obviously, the evidence shows that this attempt to tie in the land procurement process at NGLA to what happened at Merion is faulty, as the two processes were considerably different.   At the time of CBM's visit to Ardmore, we don't even know what exact "100 acres or whatever" were considered, as a large portion of today's golf course (known at the time as the 21-acre "Dallas Estate") wasn't even in Haverford Development  Company's control.   In fact, all the company owned outright was the property that was known as the Johnson Farm, that had several advantages for both golf as well as access, as it adjoined a railroad and had large farm building near to those tracks that could be converted for clubhouse and storage purposes.   There was also a beautiful creek and a quarry, although one member apparently  complained about how much money it might require "to fill in" that blasted quarry!  

In any case, it wasn't until late in 1910 that Merion was even able to secure the "nearly 120 acres", which ended up being made up from 117 acres, made up of 96 acres of Johnson Farm land as well as the adjoining 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on the southern end below Ardmore Avenue, which came under Haverford Development Company control in November of that year.   They also leased a 3 acre property between the clubhouse and railroad track extending to Ardmore Avenue as CBM had suggested.   In light of what we've learned about CBM's "estimates" at NGLA, and his belief that 5 acres were required for the clubhouse and surrounds, this works out quite precisely.

Much like at NGLA, after the property was secured in December 1910, Merion set about planning and routing their new golf course, forming a committee in January 1911 led by Hugh Wilson but also including men more experienced in golf course construction and even design, as both Rodman Griscom and Dr. Harry Toulmin (and possibly HG Lloyd) had been involved in the creation of early courses at Merion and Belmont (later Aronimink) respectively.   Hugh Wilson had served on the Green Committee at Princeton in 1900 when that club was building a new Willie Dunn course.   The fifth member, Richard Francis, had skills as an engineer and surveyor and collectively they made up five of the six best golfers of the hundreds of members at the club.   The best player, Howard Perrin, was a relatively new member.

They spent the next several months trying to take a crash course in agronomy and construction, and followed Macdonald's good advice to contact Piper and Oakley in that regard.    They also tried various attempts to lay out the golf course, and then had the good sense to visit Macdonald at NGLA in March of 1910 for a night of discussion about golf course architecture and spent the next day seeing Macdonald's great course.

Hugh Wilson later wrote about that visit;


We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.


After their return, internal club documents show they created five different plans, and in April of that year had CBM and HJ Whigham back down to walk the property with them and help them select the best of their proposed routings.   CBM felt that the one he selected had the best seven finishing holes of any inland course he had ever seen.


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

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

“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”  


The committee's report, with Macdonald's recommendation, was presented at the Board Meeting later in April 1910, and was approved, as was the need to purchase an additional 3 acres for the course necessitated most likely by what we today call the "Francis Swap", making the final course 123 acres...120 of purchased land and 3 acres leased.

The final land purchase was made in July 1910, construction commenced, and the course opened for play September 1912.   It opened with very few man-made bunkers, the feeling that this placing of artificial hazards should be evolved over time as play is witnessed and studied.    By 1915 the course still had very little bunkering, largely because it was deemed challenging enough as is to the vast majority of members.   However, that year the US Amateur for 1916 was awarded to the club and Hugh Wilson with help from William Flynn began a program in earnest to make it a championship course that continued most of the next 14 years.


Now, as relates to my possibly misrepresenting David's understanding and beliefs he's communicated here, if he has changes to make, and no longer believes that CBM and Whigham laid out Merion during their one day visit in June 1910, subsequent to which Merion then made recommendations to purchase a very specific piece of pre-routed land, I would like him to tell us that clearly.

And, if he has evidence that CBM and Whigham participated in any of the further planning that happened at Merion between July 1910 and December 1910 when land was finally secured by the club then I would certainly enjoy seeing that as well.

I believe David's essay and the following argumentative discussion that took place here over any number of years did have one benefit and that was to force all of us to dig deeper in understanding what truly transpired, including to me an enhanced role for CBM and HJ Whigham in the overall planning for that course.   I certainly acknowledge that.   I just don't think it was to the exclusion of anyone else, much less Hugh Wilson, as the man thesis statement of David's paper argued.

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.


If David no longer believes this to be accurate, or believes I'm misrepresenting his beliefs somehow, then he should make that clear and if it's the former, he should modify his essay on this site accordingly.

Thank you for reading and I hope we can all move past this in good accord and civil and productive discourse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Please delete the Merion stuff and post it on a Merion thread.

Don't deflect or divert this thread from discussing NGLA

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

With all due respect, I think I'll leave it here for now but I understand and share some of your reasons and will consider what to do with it later.

For years David and others had asked that one of us write an IMO response piece to David's essay, and I think maybe I just did, although it's admittedly not polished.

But, I think I've said everything I want to say on the matter, unless someone has specific questions.  

If nothing else, it makes very clear that Merion was not routed in one-day by CBM in June of 1910 and shows clearly how that whole thing got misinterpreted and then misrepresented in David's essay based on what I'd call his "hopeful misunderstanding" of the contents of CBM's June 29th letter (which he'd never seen prior to publishing his essay) so hopefully you can acknowledge that and we can move on.

There...that feels better.  

Thank You.

[DMoriarty]

For years David and others had asked that one of us write an IMO response piece to David's essay, and I think maybe I just did, although it's admittedly not polished.

That's your long awaited IMO piece?  After all these years, that is what you come up with?  Fascinating.  You should really be proud of yourself. 

Be sure to get that to Ran right away so he can get it posted and preserve it for all posterity.   It really says it all. 

I'd really like to address the question of David telling me I'm misrepresenting his Opinion Piece and views on the land purchase and routing of Merion, but had also wanted to keep this thread about NGLA as much as possible because I believe it is very revealing to what an incredibly meticulous, detailed, and grand undertaking Macdonald accomplished.

However, since both Patrick and David stated that I'm being "Intellectually Dishonest", and "disengenous" with the facts here, I might as well explain my understanding and where it is derived from and get it over with.   If my understanding is mistaken, or if I'm not presenting something factually, then lets discuss and correct it here and move on.


In June 1910, Rodman Griscom of the Merion Site Committee had as his guest CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham at land in Ardmore they were considering for their new golf course, and Macdonald and Whigham were in town for the US Open at Philly Cricket Club.   At the time, the Haverford Development Company had secured over 300 acres and offered Merion "100 acres or whatever would be required" for their new golf course.   Given the wish to maximize land for profitable real estate, there definitely were some incentives to keep the golf course constrained to as tight an envelope as could be done while still meeting the club's goal for a top-notch, first rate golf course.

After the visit, Macdonald penned the following letter to HG Lloyd, who headed Merion's Site Committee;

New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.


Based on their discussions on the site with Macdonald and Whigham, as well as the contents of Macdonald's letter, a mere two days later, on July 1st, 1910, Merion's Site drafted the following letter to their Board of Governors, recommending the purchase of land for their golf course, thinking that they'll need "nearly 120 acres".  






Based on that exchange of information, David Moriarty's IMO piece here, "The Missing Faces of Merion" portrayed that exchange and its meaning in the following manner.   In fairness, David was unaware of the contents of the June 29th CBM letter when he wrote his piece.   The bolding for emphasis is mine;

Merion’s Site Committee Brings in Macdonald and Whigham

Apparently not content with Barker’s routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham, to inspect the site. The Site Committee explained their qualifications to the Board of Governor’s as follows:

These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.

After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald.

The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.

"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.”  As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.

...

Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.

It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.

The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. Again, 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)

In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.


Obviously, the evidence shows that this attempt to tie in the land procurement process at NGLA to what happened at Merion is faulty, as the two processes were considerably different.   At the time of CBM's visit to Ardmore, we don't even know what exact "100 acres or whatever" were considered, as a large portion of today's golf course (known at the time as the 21-acre "Dallas Estate") wasn't even in Haverford Development  Company's control.   In fact, all the company owned outright was the property that was known as the Johnson Farm, that had several advantages for both golf as well as access, as it adjoined a railroad and had large farm building near to those tracks that could be converted for clubhouse and storage purposes.   There was also a beautiful creek and a quarry, although one member apparently  complained about how much money it might require "to fill in" that blasted quarry!  

In any case, it wasn't until late in 1910 that Merion was even able to secure the "nearly 120 acres", which ended up being made up from 117 acres, made up of 96 acres of Johnson Farm land as well as the adjoining 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on the southern end below Ardmore Avenue, which came under Haverford Development Company control in November of that year.   They also leased a 3 acre property between the clubhouse and railroad track extending to Ardmore Avenue as CBM had suggested.   In light of what we've learned about CBM's "estimates" at NGLA, and his belief that 5 acres were required for the clubhouse and surrounds, this works out quite precisely.

Much like NGLA, after the property was secured in December 1910, Merion set about planning and routing their new golf course, forming a committee in January 1911 led by Hugh Wilson but also including men more experienced in golf course construction and even design, as both Rodman Griscom and Dr. Harry Toulmin (and possibly HG Lloyd) had been involved in the creation of early courses at Merion and Belmont (later Aronimink) respectively.   Hugh Wilson had served on the Green Committee at Princeton in 1900 when that club was building a new Willie Dunn course.   The fifth member, Richard Francis, had skills as an engineer and surveyor and collectively they made up five of the six best golfers of the hundreds of members at the club.   The best player, Howard Perrin, was a relatively new member.

They spent the next several months trying to take a crash course in agronomy and construction, and followed Macdonald's good advice to contact Piper and Oakley in that regard.    They also tried various attempts to lay out the golf course, and then had the good sense to visit Macdonald at NGLA in March of 1910 for a night of discussion about golf course architecture and spent the next day seeing Macdonald's great course.

Hugh Wilson later wrote about that visit;


We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.


After their return, internal club documents show they created five different plans, and in April of that year had CBM and HJ Whigham back down to walk the property with them and help them select the best of their proposed routings.   CBM felt that the one he selected had the best seven finishing holes of any inland course he had ever seen.


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

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

“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”  


The committee's report, with Macdonald's recommendation, was presented at the Board Meeting later in April 1910, and was approved, as was the need to purchase an additional 3 acres for the course necessitated most likely by what we today call the "Francis Swap", making the final course 123 acres...120 of purchased land and 3 acres leased.

The final land purchase was made in July 1910, construction commenced, and the course opened for play September 1912.   It opened with very few man-made bunkers, the feeling that this placing of artificial hazards should be evolved over time as play is witnessed and studied.    By 1915 the course still had very little bunkering, largely because it was deemed challenging enough as is to the vast majority of members.   However, that year the US Amateur for 1916 was awarded to the club and Hugh Wilson with help from William Flynn began a program in earnest to make it a championship course that continued most of the next 14 years.


Now, as relates to my possibly misrepresenting David's understanding and beliefs he's communicated here, if he has changes to make, and no longer believes that CBM and Whigham laid out Merion during their one day visit in June 1910, subsequent to which Merion then made recommendations to purchase a very specific piece of pre-routed land, I would like him to tell us that clearly.

And, if he has evidence that CBM and Whigham participated in any of the further planning that happened at Merion between July 1910 and December 1910 when land was finally secured by the club then I would certainly enjoy seeing that as well.

I believe David's essay and the following argumentative discussion that took place here over any number of years did have one benefit and that was to force all of us to dig deeper in understanding what truly transpired, including to me an enhanced role for CBM and HJ Whigham in the overall planning for that course.   I certainly acknowledge that.   I just don't think it was to the exclusion of anyone else, much less Hugh Wilson, as the man thesis statement of David's paper argued.

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.


If David no longer believes this to be accurate, or believes I'm misrepresenting his beliefs somehow, then he should make that clear and if it's the former, he should modify his essay on this site accordingly.

Thank you for reading and I hope we can all move past this in good accord and civil and productive discourse.

Amazing.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?

From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?

Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?

Thanks

Patrick,

Did you even read my opinion piece?   

The newspaper articles are very, very accurate, and without the original deeds I can't show you exactly where the estimated 25-50 acres are that are unused by the original golf course.

David,

Thank you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?

From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?

Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?

Thanks

Patrick,

Did you even read my opinion piece?  

The newspaper articles are very, very accurate, and without the original deeds I can't show you exactly where the estimated 25-50 acres are that are unused by the original golf course.

How can you say that the newspaper articles are very, very accurate when the proclaim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from NGLA ?

Would you cite for us, where on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
Your newspaper articles said you could see it from everywhere except the low lying stretches.

Can you see it from the 16th fairway ?
The 17th tee
The 5th tee
The 6th tee
The 9th tee,
The 11th fairway
The 1st tee
The 2nd green,
the 4th tee

All high points on the property

Can you see it from any one of those points ?

How about all of them, which the article claims, have a view of the Atlantic ?

You don't need the original deed/s.  Just go to Google Earth, then tell me where the 60+ to 105+ surplus acres fit for building lots are located.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Once again, we totally agree. It’s like we were separated at birth! That post was amazing.

Mike recalled that you presented this to us:

"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."

The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.”  As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.

                                                                    ***
I think it is amazing that you deduced what CBM’s recommendation was to Merion before having seen that letter!  That he actually recommended something else than what the committee recommended to the board is of no real import, is it?

It’s truly amazing that you twisted Merion’s actual words from “probable” and “nearly” to “required” and “specific” thinking no one would notice, and then spun your whole incorrect theory from that!

It’s even more amazing that you have spent the same amount of time looking for source material to back up that theory as, say, OJ has spent looking for the “real killer.”  At the same time, you could have written “War and Peace” with all the words you have used to attempt to discredit, insult and browbeat others into submission and 100% agreement with you.

You recently stated to me that your theory is still correct about Merion, and nothing has proven you wrong, demonstrating an AMAZING ability to totally and selectively ignore things like real letters between CBM and Merion that DO exist, or for that matter, nearly any club document. 

And you have told us that in amazingly delusional fashion you have done “more to clear up history” than anyone other than Tom MacWood.  That part might be true, as I hear these clubs are absolutely (and amazingly) unified in what their history is now. 

And even more amazing that several years later, you keep giving us this same boatload of “expert analysis, critical thinking” crap over multiple threads and expect us to buy it, all while telling us we just aren’t smart enough to deduce things as well as you, or even know what we read with our own eyes!

And the most amazing thing is, you have been able to get away with this internet flaming repeatedly on this website, when on 99% of discussion groups worldwide, you would have been banned and your threads locked.

All of that is truly amazing, it really is..........

Ummmm,  that was what you were thinking was amazing, no?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Thank you.

You are welcome, Mike, but I was being facetious.  My mistake for thinking you might be able to understand that.  Your IMO misrepresents the history of two great clubs, not to mention what I have written about the subject both in my IMO and repeatedly since.  On the plus side, your "IMO" says quite a lot about you your inability to comprehend this material.  Also I don't think I ever really understood the depth of your obsession with Hugh Wilson and Merion until now.  You really should get over it.

As I skimmed your "IMO," I kept thinking of this self-serving and self-righteous statement you made a while back:

In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.

So how did that go?   What was NGLA's reaction when you informed them that their course was supposed to be almost half housing?   What did their internal documents say about the matter.  Surely you have done "all your homework" here, including "prior outreach to the club."  

_________________________________

Jeff Brauer.   This thread is about NGLA, whether or not Mike knows it.  Your post is obnoxious and pointless, but not surprising.  Get a life.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know what exactly was purchased, particularly when it came to space for the yacht harbor, but here is approximately what 205 acres looks like at NGLA.  As you can see there is not a lot of room for the sixty 1.5 acre lots for the members.

 

Your theory about the real estate scheme on this property is an absolute joke.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

My apologies. I agree its about NGLA, and will post no more, as I haven't been following it.  I am sorry I couldn't resist myself in responding to your opening.  It was a cheap shot. Won't happen again.

[DMoriarty]

David,

My apologies. I agree its about NGLA, and will post no more, as I haven't been following it.  I am sorry I couldn't resist myself in responding to your opening.  It was a cheap shot. Won't happen again.

If you were truly sorry you'd have already deleted it.  And it will happen again. It always does with you. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Last time I deleted a questionable post, you reposted it to prove I was of unsuitable character.  I considered it, but it seemed futile.

Your last line reminds me of a supposedly true story of a priest reciting the whole "peace be with you" mantra, and with the congregation responding "and also with you."  At one point, he hears static, and interupts himself saying "There is something wrong with my microphone" but the congregation still responded "and also with you." 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Thanks for posting the "Google Earth" image.
I've been trying to get Mike to look at it and tell me where the 60+ to 105+ surplus acres were.

I think it's rather obvious that no such land existed.

And, if you zoom out, it becomes obvious that you can NOT see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except the low lying stretches.  In fact, you couldn't see the Atlantic Ocean from anywhere on the property.
I think the highest elevation at NGLA may be the hill fronting the 3rd green, which I believe is at 15m.
The clubhouse ridge at Shinnecock is at 24 to 18m making a view of the Atlantic impossible, and, that's from the highest point at NGLA.

The land behind the 1st tee and 18th green was the 2.5 acres CBM alluded to for the protective buffer.

The Yacht Basin and facilities were to be North-East of the 17th green on the other side of the road in that natural harbor setting.

You should also know that the land directly behind the current 9th green was purchased in more recent times.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  Thanks for the clarifications.   I agree that there isn't any space for Mike's housing project, but he's had to have known that all along, which is probably why he has never answered your questions or mine.  But you don't really think that he will let facts stand in his way when he has a point about Merion to make, do you?   

[Mike Cirba]

David,

What metes and bounds of the original purchase are you using for your determination of the total expanse of the 205 acre property that CBM puirchased in 1907 in your graphic above?

Some months back, you told us that your planimeter reading of the total acreage of the modern NGLA course was conservatively between 150-165 acres.   Jim Kennedy responded to you that it was more, about 180 acres.

At the time, after I posted an aerial picture of the NGLA property you wrote;

It really depends on what one measures, but the figure looks to be 150-170 acres.  Well more than the 110 you speculated.   They way you have it drawn looks to be roughly 165 acres.

So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size.   Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.

So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes?   That's a range of unused, "Surplus Land" that Max Behr referred to, as did CBM in his 1910 letter to the Founders of the Club, of 12 to 17% of the original purchase unused for the golf course.

That's quite a bit, yes?

I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?

Where would you say those acres not used for the golf course are located when measured against the metes and bounds of the original property agreement?

Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us exactly what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

As I wrote, I don't know the exact land purchased.  My point was simply to show you and everyone else what 205 acres looks like at NGLA, and how snugly the course itself filled that 205 acres.  

I believe my previous estimate went up to 170, but as I explained then, Jim's 180 was probably closer to the truth, for the course alone. Mine was an intentionally conservative measure so as to avoid the controversy of you claiming I had made it too big. No range, no basin, no road, no entry, no bordering property on the outside of the holes.  Basically OB where the irrigation ends.  (As NGLA has not OB, this was obviously too conservative an approach.)   I guess I just delayed the inevitable.

Remember, at the time you were foolishly claiming that NGLA was only 110 yards of golf course, and so I wasn't trying to give an exact measure of the land they would have purchased, but rather was demonstrating to you that even with the most conservative measure, the course took much more land than that.  I believe I said at that time that Jim's measure of 180 yards for the course only was more realistic for just the course.   So we are talking about 25 acres, before the range, yacht basin, buffer, entry, etc.  

In other words, this measure goes to where I think the property line would have been -- the tree line along the right of the property on the outward holes for example, and the water to the right on the inland stretch.   And obviously there just isn't room for a housing project, or lots, or whatever.

But don't take my word for it.   Measure it yourself.  

You wrote:

So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size.   Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.

 

It is statements like these that completely undermine your credibility.    Do you think they were originally planning to put housing between the greens and the next tee?  Maybe a house between the second green and the third tee, so that one would have to walk through someone's kitchen to get there?    Because that is where the vast majority of the additions to length came --between the holes.  While your mentor and his writing partner claim otherwise, CBM built some elasticity of into the course and intentionally so.  

So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes?

Incorrect.  It leaves 25 acres for a range, for a yacht basis, for the entry, and for a fairly thin buffer between the golf course and the rest of the world.   "When playing golf you want to be alone with Nature."  

I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?

Stop this nonsense Mike.  I wrote right up front that I didn't know what they purchased.  Do it yourself if you don't trust  me.   Where else could the borders be?  

That is 205 yards.   I cant make up the planimeter reading.  How could I draw the lines any different than I did.  

Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.

"Us" ?   I thought you were all alone out there.   The problems with your use of those articles are outlined in great detail in the threads I references you to above.  Me explaining it again will do no good, so why don't you go back and read them and see if you can figure it out for yourself?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Please show me where I ever claimed that NGLA was 110 acres.   I said that it was originally planned to be 110 acres, and that was CBM's estimate and goal at the time he was looking for property.  

His original, well documented plan was to purchase just over 200 acres, which he estimated at 110 acres for the course, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre lots for each of 60 Founding Members.  That works out to 205 acres, exactly.   t's extremely well documented.

When he came to Sebonac, he secured 205 acres of land, just as he planned.   At what point he scrapped his idea to create building lots and use more land for the course we don't know, but up until at least mid-1906 that was the plan as mentioned that year by Whigham.

We also know he told us at the end of the day that he had "Surplus Land", just as he had planned, and left it to the Founders disposal, because we know it wasn't big enough for the housing he originally anticipated.    We also know Max Behr told us the same thing..that there was land left over.

That is simply because he secured the amount of land he thought he needed, then routed the golf course, then finalized the boundaries and purchase, and then just plain ran out of room.

His math problem didn't quite fit the property, probably due to under anticipating the width some of his holes would need, as well as under anticipating how much of the course was unusable swamp.  

It might be interesting to go back to his "Ideal Course" calculations and see what he had to say about ideal hole widths and see how NGLA measures up, particularly today's course, which to me seems perhaps a bit wider than what we see in that 1912 map of CBM's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

What metes and bounds of the original purchase are you using for your determination of the total expanse of the 205 acre property that CBM puirchased in 1907 in your graphic above?


If you look at the 1928 schematic Macdonald provided in "Scotland's Gift", he tells you that that schematic is practically the same course as it was in 1907.  The 1928, ergo 1907 schematic is practically the same as it is today, as evidenced by David's aerial.

There's been no substantive increase in acreage, save for the land behind the current 9th green.

Mike, why did you change the title of this thread so late in the discussion ?[/b]

Some months back, you told us that your planimeter reading of the total acreage of the modern NGLA course was conservatively between 150-165 acres.   Jim Kennedy responded to you that it was more, about 180 acres.

At the time, after I posted an aerial picture of the NGLA property you wrote;

It really depends on what one measures, but the figure looks to be 150-170 acres.  Well more than the 110 you speculated.   They way you have it drawn looks to be roughly 165 acres.

So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size.   Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.

Mike, lengthening the golf course didn't increase the acreage of the property.

Instead of trying to constuct, vis a vis, guestimates and voodoo math, just LOOK at the aerial and tell us where the 60+ to 105+ acres of surplus land is.

What the aerial doesn't show are the steep slopes between holes, like # 5 tee and # 15 green, or # 3 and # 4 and # 15 and # 16.  Or, the land to the right (east) of # 16 and # 17.  So, while the aerial would seem to show open areas between the fairways and roughs, they are severely pitched in many cases, and still in play in others.

Would you agree that there's NO usable surplus land within the confines of the golf course ?[/b]

So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes?  

NO, it doesn't.
Please look at the aerial and identify for us where the surplus acreage is.[/b]

That's a range of unused, "Surplus Land" that Max Behr referred to, as did CBM in his 1910 letter to the Founders of the Club, of 12 to 17% of the original purchase unused for the golf course.

No, it's not.
That's your predetermined conclusion.
Just look at the aerial and identify the 60+ to 105+ acres of surplus land you insisted existed.[/b]

That's quite a bit, yes?

I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?

Where would you say those acres not used for the golf course are located when measured against the metes and bounds of the original property agreement?

The practice range and the steeply sloped area to the right of # 15, # 16 and # 17.[/b]

Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us exactly what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It might be interesting to go back to his "Ideal Course" calculations and see what he had to say about ideal hole widths and see how NGLA measures up, particularly today's course, which to me seems perhaps a bit wider than what we see in that 1912 map of CBM's.

Better yet, take a look at the 1928, ergo 1907 schematic and compare it to today's aerial and you'll see that there isn't much difference.

As to the map below, which you posted, you should know that it is inaccurate.

When Mike Pascucci bought the Sebonack property, some at NGLA and outside of NGLA were shocked at how close to the playing corridors the property line was.

# 5 might be a good example.
NGLA had to alter the limited amount of land they had to the right of the hole to create a high berm, a containment mound, along with a trench bunker, to shield the view of the maintainance facility since the property line was so close to the land "in play".

In October of 2005, George Bahto, TEPaul and I examined that area as I pointed out a long deflection spine that ran along the right rough and bunkers to the right of that deflection spine.  I told George that that spine should be mowed as fairway, not rough, such that ball hit up the "bail out" side, balls attempting to use the "turbo boost, should be punished if they went to wide, by allowing the deflection spine to direct balls into the bunkers to the right, one of which had long ago been abandoned.

NONE of those features exist today because they weren't on NGLA's property.

Hence, I wouldn't use the drawing you've posted here as being an accurate depiction of the property/property lines.

Not much has changed since 1907 with respect to the property lines.
2.5 acres was purchased behind # 1 & # 18 and additional land was purchased behind # 9.
But, the golf course is pretty much the same as it appeared in the 1928 schematic, ergo 1907.

While you may include areas between holes, behind holes, etc, etc. in your quest to find the phantom yardage you allude to, the aerial tells the story quite clearly, whereas your newspaper articles are nothing more than "fluff" from authors who never set foot on the property.

I have a 1938 aerial of NGLA, along with Shinnecock and Southampton, which is probably clearer than the aerial David posted from Google Earth since it was taken at a much lower altitude.  I think you'll find the configuration of the golf course about the same, although, all courses were much more heavily bunkered.[/b]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()