[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I don't have much time right now but we should be able to figure out mathematically how CBM originally derived the presumed acreage of his "Ideal" course.   We know it was about 6000 yards in length...regarding width, this is what he wrote;

The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Deally, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards.

I would give the proper width three marks, as well as two
marks for good tees in close proximity to the putting green. Walking
fifty to one hundred :and fifty yards to the tee mars the course
and delays the game.  Between hole and teeing ground people sometimes
forget and commence playing some other game.

We could probably assume some number of ideal width between holes, but as seen in the letter CBM wrote to Merion, this was basically a mathematical puzzle for him.

[DMoriarty]

It was far from a mathematical puzzle for him.  The acreage needed depended upon the course they found.   "Ideal" didn't mean definite and exact template of what would definitely be done.   It was all contingent upon the land.    

You have what happened at NGLA exactly backward.   They didn't buy a piece of land and then start thinking about how they could jam a course onto it.  The found a course, and bought the land on which it sat.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The playing corridors at NGLA are generally wide, which may be a design factor or concession to the wind that sweeps the site, or both.

Your reliance on the sketch reflecting the short course is skewing your ability to draw accurate conclusions.
That sketch is inaccurate and shouldn't be relied on to draw any linear conclusions.

I don't know that you can take Macdonald's "rambling thoughts" his generalizations and apply them as absolutes to a specific project.

But, in viewing the 1928 (1907) schematic, the 1938 aerial and 2010 aerials, not much has changed in terms of the macro features of the golf course other than lengthening of the holes.

David Moriarty has it right.
They found the holes first and subsequently configured the purchase of the 205 out of 450 acres to suit their needs.

They did NOT buy the land first and then go about routing and designing the course.

How could you subscribe to that theory ?

Macdonald tells us that he found the holes first and then staked out the 205 acres he wanted.

David,

Could you please repost the aerials of NGLA.
Something's wrong with my computer and I can't cut & paste.

thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Technically, you're both correct that CBM purchased the land based on a staked out golf course.

However, this was months after the initial ride around the property with Whigham, and months after Macdonald secured an indeterminate 205 acres.  

Over the next months when the course was routed, and the exact holes finalized,  the exact lines of the property got worked out and the purchase was completed..

If you don't believe me, read CBM again.   He tells the story quite chronologically, and as was his nature, quite precisely.



a·gain  (-gn)
adv.
1. Once more; anew: Try again.
2. To a previous place, position, or state: left home but went back again.
3. Furthermore; moreover: Again, we need to collect more data.
4. On the other hand: She might go, and again she might not.
5. In return; in response: paid him again.


The definition used by CBM in that paragraph is #1, not #3.    There is no comma.





Those months were spent clearing and surveying the land and meticulously routing the golf course, prior to purchase, EXACTLY as CBM told us in those December 1906 articles he was going to do over the next several months.


btw...at Lido the golf course was 115 acres, for comparison.

[DMoriarty]

You are getting closer Mike, but you are still not there.

But before we go on let's end this nonsense about the 110 acres once and for all.   Can you see now why there is no way they ever contemplated putting ninety 1-1.5 acre lots on that property? Can you see now how the property lines were tailored to the golf course, and not visa versa? 

Here is the incredible 1938 aerial. If anything the playing corridors were generally wider then, except perhaps in a few places.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why didn't you underline the previous sentences in RED.

You have to understand that what those sentences tell you is that they found the holes first, then sought the land that would incorporate them.

They had determined the routing and the holes BEFORE they attempted to purchase the land.

Macdonald states, " ... spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably"  So, he knew exactly what land he wanted since he had sited his holes on the appropriate contours.

He didn't go out and buy the land and then determine the routing as you claim.
He didn't go out and buy the land and then site his individual holes as you claim.
He first sited his holes, routed the course and then bought the land that would incorporate his design.

Hence, the routing and holes had been determined prior to the purchase, not after it as you would have us believe.

They had their ideal holes all sketched out and predetermined.
They toured the land for 2 or 3 days, studying it and determined that the contours would accomodate their preconceived holes, had routed the course and then sought to buy the land upon which the course would be constructed.

It's all right there, how could you miss it ?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You seem to have left this thread in the lurch.  This would be fine with me, except that this is at least the forth or fifth time we have had this conversation, and I suspect it is just a matter of time before you start at square one again. 

The major issues are most likely useless to pursue, but I was hoping we could at least try to get some closure on this issue of the 110 acres for the golf course. Now that you have seen the aerials, old and new, and can see how much room the course took up, do you still think that there was originally supposed to have been around 60 to 90 acres of lots on this property?  Do you still believe that he was only planning on using around 110 acres for a golf course when he secured that land?

If so, how could that possibly have worked? Where were these houses going to be?   

Have you found anything indicating that CBM, HJW, or anyone involved ever wrote anything about lots on this particular site.    I am aware of the earlier article by Whigham, but that was before they found this property and before they made an offer on the 120 acre property near the canal, where said offer could not possibly have included housing.   

Are there any about this property?

Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

Back by popular request, and thanks to Joe Bausch, here's HJ Whigham's May 1909 article in Scribner's Magazine;

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I believe and have postulated that CBM's philosophy of what was required in terms of acreage changed dramatically during the creation of NGLA, and I believe it's because when all was said and done, his strategic holes required MUCH more in terms of overall hole width than what he originally conceived.   I believe this all took place during the time he routed the course and started to look at strategic options, and how a weaker golfer might need to play his holes.

As I posted earlier, Macdonald originally believed and earlier wrote that fairways were becoming much too wide, and wrote that there was no reason for fairways to be larger than 45-60 yards in most cases, again as an average depending on the type of hole.

Here, he breaks out the "scoring" and important parameters of his "Ideal course".




It's very easy to see where his earlier idea that he'd only need roughly 110 acres for the golf course came from.  

Assuming a course of roughly 6,000 yards long as "Ideal", and assuming that with 50 yard wide fairways you might need setbacks of another 25 yards on each side in an out-and-back routing (very conservatively totaling 100 yards of width for each hole with 75 yards between centerpoints of adjoining fairways )  and another 500 yards to walk from one green to the next tee (although ideally, CBM felt this should be a very short walk indeed), you come up with 134 acres.

So, it's no wonder that by 1910 when coming to Ardmore and looking at roughly 120 acres of land, his cautionary reply was that it was going to be a tight fit, but recommended a course around 6000 yards and he thought they could make it.

So, then, what was different at NGLA?

Well, as mentioned, CBM broke his own rules in terms of "do as I say, don't do as I do".  

To create his desired strategic options, CBM created hugely wide fairways in most cases...my rough estimations of their widest points, clearly designed for maximizing strategic options using Google Earth are as follows;

1 - 60 yds
2 - 65
3 - 56
4 - 65
5 - 70
6 - 75
7 - 135
8 - 80
9 - 70

10 - 69
11 - 65
12 - 83
13 - 60
14 - 48
15 - 38 (Narrows)
16 - 86
17 - 90
18 - 82

I'm not sure at what point in his evolution that Macdonald realized he'd need much more land to build the type of holes he originally envisioned, but we know in 1906 that just before acquiring the Sebonac property he tried to buy 120 acres closer to Shinnecock, so it's unlkely he made that move without thinking he could build his ideal course there.

I think and believe the evidence shows he went into the NGLA project and Sebonac property exactly as he promised the Founders in his original agreement...needing some amount of land in the 110-130 acre range for the golf course, 5 acres needed for the clubhouse, and the remainder of his targeted 205 acres for building lots for the 60-70 Founders, which might be an acre-and-a-half as he originally wrote in 1904, or an acre as Whigham wrote in 1906, depending on the size of the course.  

It's just that when they got done building the best course possible, they had used most of it up due to the increased need for width, and had to make some accommodations to the Founders for what was much less "Surplus Land" than originally projected.  

His original 1904 agreement cited needing 205 acres, he secured exactly 205 acres, and the thing that changed by the time the course opened is that his golf course had grown from his original projection of 110 acres to something closer to 160-170.

It's pretty tough to divide the surplus land of 35 - 45 disjointed acres so Macdonald likely convinced the members to just accept some other compensation.

I'm also certain that his primary goal all along was to build the best golf course possible, and believe that his "giving something back" to the members in his original proposal was designed to get money to back his project, first and foremost.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't too disappointed with either the outcome or the lack of Founder's building lots.  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

As much as you don't like those December 1906 articles, they tell us precisely what CBM and Whigham had discovered to that point in terms of golf holes...they mention the hill Whigham found for the Alps, the nearby redan, the inlet over which to create an Eden, and the waterway for their original Cape hole.

The articles then say they'll spend the next several months selecting the holes to be copied and the yardages to be utilized.

This matches almost exactly what CBM wrote in his book.

They didn't find or route the whole golf course during their horseback rides over 2 or 3 days.   They found locations to build some of their Ideal Holes, found enough promise overall in the makeup and character of the land and soil, then secured their earlier projected estimate of 205 "undetermined" acres needed for golf and building lots (that were yet to be located and staked out of the 450 acres available), and then set about clearing, and surveying (hiring Seth Raynor), and then routing the holes on the land, ending up with five template "copy holes", most of them "Composite" holes, with a few "originals" over the next few months.

THEN, they purchased the exact 205 acres that encapsulated all of the golf holes they wanted.

CBM's account matches those articles almost exactly.










I'm surprised you missed it!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

As much as you don't like those December 1906 articles, they tell us precisely what CBM and Whigham had discovered to that point in terms of golf holes...they mention the hill Whigham found for the Alps, the nearby redan, the inlet over which to create an Eden, and the waterway for their original Cape hole.

Mike, they don't tell us anything with precision.
How can you state that: "they tell us PRECISELY what CBM and Whigham had discovered....."
When those same articles tell us that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except from the low lying stretches ? ?  ?   You can't claim that the articles provide an accurate account when they are so blatantly incorrect about critical issues.
You continue to insist that we accept those articles as accurate when it's been proven that they're highly INACCURATE.[/b]

The articles then say they'll spend the next several months selecting the holes to be copied and the yardages to be utilized.

They're WRONG on that issue as well, and in direct conflict to what CBM stated in "Scotland's Gift"
Macdonald told us, on page 187, how he found the holes first and then configured the purchase of the land to include those holes.
So there's no mistake, CBM stated, after his ride around when they found what they wanted, "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.'

It doesn't get clearer than that.

They studied the land, found the location for the classical holes he wanted, and then and only then did they stake out the land that he wanted that incorporated the entire golf course.  One only has to examine the entire 450 acres and compare it to the 205 acres purchased to see that he had his specific holes incorporated into that out and back routing.

I've already explained how simple the routing process was, and, I cited Max Behr as having stated that the course basically routed itself.

Yet you continue to post flawed exhibits, over and over again, in a feeble attempt to support your tenuous position, a position without a shred of merit.

To maintain that CBM picked out the land then found the holes and routed the course makes you look like an idiot or someone who is so agenda driven that they're blind to the facts.  

Please cease your foolish pursuit which is nothing more than a subterfuge to undermine David Moriarty's treatise on Merion.
[/b]

This matches almost exactly what CBM wrote in his book.


"Almost", counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in establishing a factual and chronological history.

It doesn't match exactly.
I posted "EXACTLY" what CBM stated, not what some seriously flawed newspaper articles, written by someone who had never set foot on NGLA had to say.

According to newspaper articles, headlines I might add, "Dewey beat Truman"
Do you still cling to that myth as well ?
Or do you accept that HST became the 33rd President of the U.S.[/b]

CBM's account matches those articles almost exactly.


NO, it doesn't.
I'll post CBM's account again.
"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"

It doesn't get clearer than that, they found the holes, they routed the golf course, then they staked it out, then they bought the 205 acres they staked out.

End of story.[/b]

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 

Again with articles?   Might I suggest that the reason you keep posting these entire articles that when you break them down and look at the specific information contained therein, they do not support what you claim?

Earlier you wrote that CBM described the process in chronological order.  Well look at what CBM wrote:

1.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the the contours of the land.
2.  The company that owned that land agreed that it would sell CBM 205 acres and agreed to allowed them to locate it to best suit their purposes.
3.  CBM and HJW again earnestly studied the land, and found the land which fit with what CBM had in mind.
4.  CBM and HJW staked out the land they wanted.
5.  CBM optioned the land they wanted in November 1906, and judging from the schedule discussed in the articles, the option period was for five months.
6.  According to the articles, during the option period they were going to work up a detailed plan and create a miniature topographical model to aid in the construction.  Also according to the articles, the option also included the right to alter the boundaries of the property if need be.   "The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished the plans."
7.  According to Scotland's Gift they took title in Spring of 1907 and began developing the property. 

 Now how you can try to twist this into some situation where CBM agreed to purchase this land and then got around to routing the course is beyond me!

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I thought you were the one in the Myopia thread arguing for the veracity of news articles?  These aeticles are way more detailed and consistent than any of those old Boston articles and yet you selectively dismiss them?  Please tell me which facts they report that are in error...my sweet lord, they even have the same direct quotes, obviously coming from a press release from the architect himself telling you exactly where they are at in the process and precisely what they are going to do next!

Yet, you and Patrick would rather believe in romantic myths and fairy tales about completing a routing on bramble-covered,swamp, unsurveyed land thatwas so thick and overgrown they couldn't walk it and had to navigate on horseback!

If that fantasy helps you both to think he was a magic man, embodied with special prescient powers, so be it...I don't want to be the one to shatter that nice illusion, but I really think it minimizes unfairly the amount of meticulous precision, planning, and effort he put into the routing and sets a bad example of how this actually happened on those first amateur-sportsman designed courses where greatness was achieved through persistent, diligent effort over a lengthy period of time.

In the case of your numbered order above, if you move your number 5 up between numbers 2 and 3 as CBM wrote in his book you'll have it exactly correct.

Go back and read what he told us in his book...he went back "again" to study the land again AFTER securing 205 acres, not before.

This is in exact agreement with what CBM told us in those Dec 1906 articles you now conveniently call poor journalism.

[Mike Cirba]

And David and Patrick...if you don't like those three news articles from different papers in Dec 1906 I'll be happy to dig up some more.

They ALL have the exact same quotes from Macdonald from what was obviously a press release emanating directly from CBM.

They all quote Macdonald as saying the next few months will be spent determining what holes to build and the yardages of the holes and staking out the property with his committee.

If that isn't routing I don't know what the heck you'd call it and perhaps Tom Doak is correct that we who aren't in the business probably should think twice before opining on these matters.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I thought you were the one in the Myopia thread arguing for the veracity of news articles?  These aeticles are way more detailed and consistent than any of those old Boston articles and yet you selectively dismiss them?  Please tell me which facts they report that are in error...my sweet lord, they even have the same direct quotes, obviously coming from a press release from the architect himself telling you exactly where they are at in the process and precisely what they are going to do next!

Yet, you and Patrick would rather believe in romantic myths and fairy tales about completing a routing on bramble-covered,swamp, unsurveyed land thatwas so thick and overgrown they couldn't walk it and had to navigate on horseback!

That's actually funny.  It's mind boggling that you categorize Macdonald's written words as myths and fairy tales while at the same time proclaiming the accuracy of newspaper articles that have the Atlantic Ocean visible from everywhere on the property except the low lying stretches.  What a joke.
That's got to be the biggest myth and fairy tale ever told on the East End.

Your categorization of the land is disengenuous, you're attempting to portray the land as the collectivization of the individual components and we all know that's not a factual portrayal.[/b] 

If that fantasy helps you both to think he was a magic man, embodied with special prescient powers, so be it...I don't want to be the one to shatter that nice illusion, but I really think it minimizes unfairly the amount of meticulous precision, planning, and effort he put into the routing and sets a bad example of how this actually happened on those first amateur-sportsman designed courses where greatness was achieved through persistent, diligent effort over a lengthy period of time.

Mike, you introduced Max Behr to support your case, yet, Max Behr stated that the routing of the course was a rather simple endeavor, that the course basically routed itself.

When you understand the fact that they quickly recognized the location of 5 or 6 or more of their ideal holes, and they knew where the starting and finishing holes were, the routing becomes a simple self completing process.[/b]

In the case of your numbered order above, if you move your number 5 up between numbers 2 and 3 as CBM wrote in his book you'll have it exactly correct.

Go back and read what he told us in his book...he went back "again" to study the land again AFTER securing 205 acres, not before.

Mike, this may be your greatest misrepresentation ever.
YOU need to go back and reread page 187. 
Let me help you.  Macdonald states:

"The company AGREED to sell us 205 acres, as we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."


The owner of the land agreed to sell Macdonald 205 out of 450 acres, but, they didn't know which 205 acres.


"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"


So, while the company had agreed to sell 205 undefined acres out of the 450 acre parcel, CBM hadn't determined which 205 acres would be sold/purchased until AFTER he had located and sited his ideal holes.

ONLY AFTER CBM found and located those holes did CBM define which 205 acres he wanted.
Then and ONLY then did he stake out the 205 acres he wanted for NGLA.

For you to maintain otherwise is either out of ignorance or a predetermined agenda.[/b]

This is in exact agreement with what CBM told us in those Dec 1906 articles you now conveniently call poor journalism.

Mike, that's not true.
Please don't insult our intelligence.[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

And David and Patrick...if you don't like those three news articles from different papers in Dec 1906 I'll be happy to dig up some more.
Bringing forth more articles that claim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying stretches only serves to prove the inaccuracy of those articles.[/b]

They ALL have the exact same quotes from Macdonald from what was obviously a press release emanating directly from CBM.


Once again, that's your interpretation.
Now you're telling us that these articles are based on a press release, directly from CBM.
Yet, something is puzzling.
If this was a press release, directly from CBM, don't you think he'd know that you CAN'T SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN FROM NGLA ?

I hate to say this, but, with this last allegation you've gone from being intellectually dishonest, to just flat out dishonest.
How can you state that the newspaper articles, which repeat an enormous mistake, are press releases, DIRECTLY from CBM.

You CAN'T SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN FROM EVERYWHERE ON NGLA.  Forget the low lying stretches, you can't see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points.

And, you would have us believe that CBM lied about this or that he was so unfamiliar with the land he had "STUDIED EARNESTLY" that he made this calamatous mistake.

Mike, those articles are repetitive in nature, they merely repeat what another article stated.
It's obvious since they all make the same mistake, a calamatous mistake.
It's akin to an AP release which is picked up by various newspapers and reported as distributed.
The authors of those articles NEVER set foot on NGLA.
And, they wrote/printed those articles without exercising due diligence, they failed to confirm the facts.[/b]

They all quote Macdonald as saying the next few months will be spent determining what holes to build and the yardages of the holes and staking out the property with his committee.

Right, they all repeat the same mistakes, over and over again without the authors exercising any due diligence or confirmation of the facts.

"Dewey defeats Truman" 

You can print/publish it in 20 newspaper articles, repitition doesn't produce veracity.
No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it's still a falsehood.[/b]

If that isn't routing I don't know what the heck you'd call it and perhaps Tom Doak is correct that we who aren't in the business probably should think twice before opining on these matters.

I think you're confusing your threads.

If you think we should respect Tom Doak's words and not opine on Golf Course Architecture, then perhaps Ran should shut down this site and disolve GCA.com.[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Two of those articles came out on the same day...pretty neat trick to plagiarize, I'd say.  

I'd say when you are down to telling us that multiple newspapers exactly reporting the same quote on the same day are both exactly wrong, you've clearly lost your unbiased perspective and are now simply an advocate for a position that has been proven incorrect.

It's ok...talk to Macdonald and I'm sure he'll still want credit for all of his hard work routing over that rough property instead of the myth that's been perpetuated here of a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, two-day routing of his masterpiece with Whigham on horseback!    

He spent months and months abroad studying holes and now you guys say he routed his course over an unsurveyed, bramble covered possible 450-acreage they couldn't even walk on foot in two days.

Give me a break!    

Read again how he describes how forbidding the property was...

However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac
Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Day and lying
between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property
was little known and had never been surveyed. Everyone
thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps
and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry,
blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only
way one could get over the ground was on ponies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Two of those articles came out on the same day...pretty neat trick to plagiarize, I'd say.  

Not at all, it was common.
The Associated Press was started in 1846.
In as early as 1846 different newspapers were sharing the same story.
A story NOT written by the individual newspaper's publishing the article.

You're allowing your ignorance regarding the publication of newspaper articles, circa 1906, to taint your already tainted perspective on this issue.

But, explain this for me.

How could Macdonald state that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except from the low lying areas ?

Please address that issue, that one question, DIRECTLY.[/b]

I'd say when you are down to telling us that multiple newspapers exactly reporting the same quote on the same day are both exactly wrong, you've clearly lost your unbiased perspective and are now simply an advocate for a position that has been proven incorrect.

You just don't understand newspaper reporting.
It's common for different newspapers to report the same information/article.
How can you not understand that ?
The fact that the articles are IDENTICAL tells you that they came from the same source (Not CBM) and that none of the publishers conducted independent third party confirmation (due diligence), they just ran the same story.  And you think that repetition equates to veracity when nothing could be further from the truth.

Please explain, how CBM, who had studied the land earnestly, on more than a few occassions, could claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA, except for the low lying stretches ?

Please address the above question.

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

At the present time, you're on line, on the site, so why the extended delay in answering the simple question I posed to you ?

No need to research, no need to consult others, just answer a simple question.

Do you think Macdonald, after studying earnestly on several occassions, was so obtuse, so ignorant, so unfamiliar with the site at NGLA that he proclaimed that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except from the low lying stretches ?

You did claim that the above statement was a press release, DIRECTLY, from Macdonald.

So, a simple YES or NO will suffice.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Mike, whenever these discussions go in a direction you don't like you one of your immature little fits.  Can't we just discuss this like adults?

You are stretching those newspaper articles beyond all comprehension to try to muddy the waters in a situation that just isnt' that muddy.

CBM tells us what happened in Scotland's gift, and I outlined that above.

- Is their something inaccurate about what CBM wrote?

- Is there something inaccurate about the chronology I set out above?

As Patrick said, look at Behr's description of what happened.  In his April 1915 column he used NGLA as a model for how to go about establishing a golf course!  The reason being that, at NGLA, CBM and Whigham FOUND THE GOLF COURSE FIRST and then purchased the land upon which the golf course sat.

"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."

The course was roughly sketched out using all the best features.  THEN enough land was bought to embrace all this.

Why do you think you know what happened better than Max Behr and CBM?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It's 11:10 pm, EST and I see you're still online.

I don't understand why you haven't answered a very simple question I posed to you about 11 hours ago.

Would you please answer the question.

Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

The articles also talk about a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, don't they?   They are obviously talking about the entire 450 acre tract that Macdonald was still considering in the placement of his golf holes, which is the land that INCLUDES today's Sebonack GC, and that runs for a lengthy stretch along Peconic Bay...I measured it and it's a mile all told between the two courses.

I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.

Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.

The articles also talk about possibly "skirting" Bullshead Bay with the course for about a mile, and then the opportunity for creating a "Short Hole" at that point.

David,

Do I think they had some "rough" idea of where they could locate holes based on their bramble-covered ride?   Yes, it's clear from the articles.

In terms of percentages, I'd say they saw enough to make them excited, and enough to identify a few places for template holes, but like the mention of the obviously aborted "Short" above, they did not have a routing completed by any means.   Maybe something like 20-30% and enough good land around it to give them confidence they could do the rest, especially since they were still looking to secure 205 acres as they always intended and believed they'd need considerably less for the golf course.

Guys,

More articles to come.

[Mike Cirba]

As mentioned prior, many NY newspapers contemporaneously reported the news of Macdonald securing 205 acres right after the contracts were signed and they read almost identical in terms of understanding and factual information, indicating almost certainly either a press release or a news conference.   The idea that they were all erroneously reporting or copying from each other is ludicrous.

The first two published here prior were on the exact same date, December 15th 1906, in the "New York Tribune", and the "New York Sun", respectively.






Two days later, on December 17th, 1906, this article appeared in the "New York Evening Gazette".  





Here's a newly found article from December 16th, 1906 from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle", which lists some of their sources of information.   It also provides more information about the original plan to create building lots for the Founders, stating, "While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."






Over nine months later, on August 26, 1907, the final plans for the routing and hazards of the golf course was published.   What is interesting to note at this point is that the targeted width of the fairways is still at 50-55 yards, MUCH narrower than they were to become as noted previously where the average width of the fairways today is approximately 72 yards.   This lends credence to the idea that it was only later in trying to create strategic avenues of play around hazards for the weaker players did the overall size of the golf course increase significantly from what was originally anticipated, effectively squashing the original plan to create building lots for the founders on the "Surplus Land".

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I do appreciate the effort and the articles (thanks Joe) but these articles say not much different that the previous ones.   Some are retreads for the umpteenth time.    They contain some of the old info from 1904 that is wrong, and some other info that you seem intent on twisting into something that it clearly as not.   I do appreciate the article with the map, though.  I hadnt seen that one.

And Mike, you have expressed frustration that we have indicated your approach is dishonest and disingenuous in the past.  One of the reasons I, and I assume Patrick and others, feel that way is you habit of avoiding all reasonable questions.  Or if you do answer them you twist the facts beyond recognition.

For example, Patrick has asked you rather simple questions and you refused to answer.   Now that you finally do, you twist the facts to suit you with what I can only conclude is outright dishonesty on your part.   The articles YOU HAVE POSTED repeatedly write that there was a mile of frontage on BULLS HEAD BAY not Peconic  Bay.   Yet you disingenuously ask whether the articles said there was  a mile frontage on Peconic, and then jump to the ridiculous conclusion that at this point they were dealing with the entire 400+ acre parcel even though repeatedly they discuss the 205 acre parcel and EVEN DESCRIBE IT.    That sort of thing is beyond bush league.   It is flat out dishonest.   Or you have no idea what these articles even say, even though you have been posting them again and again!

Quit playing these immature and asinine games, Mike.  They should be beneath even you.   If you cannot answer the question, admit it.   Admit that some of the contents of these articles is just flat out wrong!  It isn't the end of the world.

And how about my questions Mike?   CBM told us what happened, in even what you said was chronological order.     Yet you continue to ignore this.  Why is that?    Here was my rough summary from above:

1.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the the contours of the land.
2.  The company that owned that land agreed that it would sell CBM 205 acres and agreed to allowed them to locate it to best suit their purposes.
3.  CBM and HJW again earnestly studied the land, and found the land which fit with what CBM had in mind.
4.  CBM and HJW staked out the land they wanted.
5.  CBM optioned the land they wanted in November 1906, and judging from the schedule discussed in the articles, the option period was for five months.
6.  According to the articles, during the option period they were going to work up a detailed plan and create a miniature topographical model to aid in the construction.  Also according to the articles, the option also included the right to alter the boundaries of the property if need be.   "The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished the plans."
7.  According to Scotland's Gift they took title in Spring of 1907 and began developing the property.  

Here are the questions I asked and you ignored:

- Is their something inaccurate about what CBM wrote?

- Is there something inaccurate about the chronology I set out above?

Will you directly answer my questions?

Max Behr held CBM's process up as the ideal, because CBM found the course first, and then bought the land accordingly.  THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING.  Here again is what Max Behr said about the process:

"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."

The course was roughly sketched out using all the best features.  THEN enough land was bought to embrace all this.

Was Max Behr's main point entirely wrong?    

Why do you think you know what happened better than Max Behr and CBM?


Answer these questions Mike.     Surely you cannot avoid CBM's own account of this, can you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The articles also talk about a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, don't they?   They are obviously talking about the entire 450 acre tract that Macdonald was still considering in the placement of his golf holes, which is the land that INCLUDES today's Sebonack GC, and that runs for a lengthy stretch along Peconic Bay...I measured it and it's a mile all told between the two courses.

That's irrelevant
[/b]
I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.[


What tree and bush growth ?

Those articles claim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from EVERYWHERE on the property EXCEPT the low lying stretches.
Everyone mildly familiar with NGLA and Sebonack knows that that's physically impossible.

Do you still insist that the newspaper accounts are accurate ?

Do you still insist that the newspaper accounts are press releases DIRECTLY from Macdonald ?

"YES" or "NO" answers will suffice.
No need to post more irrelevant and/or inaccurate newspaper articles that repeat the lie.
 
With Macdonald's knowledge of the property, after having STUDIED IT EARNESSTLY over several days, do you think he was a (1) a moron, (2) saw a mirage, or (3) never made that statement as part of a press release ?[/b]

Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.

No Mike, it's your failure to accept a huge, calamatous mistake.
It's your insistance that the articles are press releases directly from Macdonald.

So, I'll ask you again, do you think he was so unfamiliar with the property, after having studied it earnestly, over several days, that he could make that absurd mistake.

PLEASE answer my direct questions.

PLEASE cease trying to avoid directly addressing my questions.[/b]

The articles also talk about possibly "skirting" Bullshead Bay with the course for about a mile, and then the opportunity for creating a "Short Hole" at that point.

That's also irrelevant.

Just answer my direct questions with "YES" or "NO" answers.
They are simple, straight forward questions, only requiring a minimum of effort to answer them.
And, please, please, please don't substitute more flawed articles for your answer.

Thanks[/b]

David,

Do I think they had some "rough" idea of where they could locate holes based on their bramble-covered ride?   Yes, it's clear from the articles.

In terms of percentages, I'd say they saw enough to make them excited, and enough to identify a few places for template holes, but like the mention of the obviously aborted "Short" above, they did not have a routing completed by any means.   Maybe something like 20-30% and enough good land around it to give them confidence they could do the rest, especially since they were still looking to secure 205 acres as they always intended and believed they'd need considerably less for the golf course.

Of course they had the routing completed.

Do you think they were going to buy the staked out land when some holes might have been outside of those boundaries ?
Do you think he'd stake out the land for purchase not knowing where the holes/routing would be ?
Macdonald told you, directly, that they found the holes he wanted and then, and only then did he stake out the boundaries necessary to build his ideal 18 hole golf course.

Max Behr stated that the routing process was "duck soup", simple, that the course routed itself.

I showed you how simple it was to fill in any missing blanks, if there were any, once you had just a few of the ideal holes he mentioned, coupled with the starting and finishing holes.[/b]

Guys,

More articles to come.

Save your efforts, they're worthless, merely repetitious of the other flawed articles.
Haven't you figured out yet that when all of these articles repeat the same information, with a glaring mistake/s, that they're just copies of the same article and NOT the product of independent research and personal, verifiable information ?[/b]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()