The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

If I understand your position correctly (not sure I do) are you saying that on November 1 that CBM was still considering the Canal site (as well as Montauk) and that his offer on 120 acres was rejected some time after Nov 1. 

You've pointed out many times that CBM originally in 1904 mooted 110 acres for the golf course, and he subsequently wrote that he offered on a 120 acre site for the golf course near the Canal.  We KNOW that the course as built occupies a little more than 200 acres.  When do you suppose he figured out that his ideal golf course wasn't going to fit on 110 to 120 acres, and he really needed 75% more space than he originally planned?  If he was offering on 120 acres in early November and "securing" 205 of 450 acres in mid-December, I presume you think that he figured it out between mid-November and mid-December 1906.  What caused the epiphany, do you suppose?


Bryan,

I also find it odd that you're willing to accept the October 15th article as having some basis in fact, particularly in terms of an agreement of some sort (which was not repeated in any other NYC paper), but are in the Muccian camp of discounting others, lumping them all into the "news articles are crap" bin.  My post that you've quoted below was not about the October article or lumping all news articles in the crap bin.  It was about trying to figure out what I thought were the ramifications of various facts and assertions that you've made.

Are we going to do that here, or are we going to use higher standards of discernment to see what facts that we know support which articles? 

I do find it funny as Jeff said, how that worm has turned here compared to other threads where news articles were held to be virtually infallible, and worthy of changing attribution records of major club courses. I assume this lecture is generic and not particularly aimed at me

In any case, let me try to answer your questions, although some is admitted speculation.

First, I doubt that NGLA as built was over 200 acres of golf course.   I recall David measuring it some time back and estimating that it was around 165-170 acres today.

Here's a drawing from back then...it certainly doesn't seem to take up the entire shaded 205 acres, does it?  You're assuming that the shaded area of the following graphic represents 205 acres. How do you know it does?  The area of the golf course proper (as close to the outside edges of the fairways as the course stands today) is about 175 acres.  The area to the east of the 17th hole and north of the 18th tee is about 27 acres.  That leaves about 3 acres total to provide a thin strip of rough along the outside edges of the course.




In fact, CBM himself told us that he didn't use all of the land he bought for the golf course in his 1912 Letter to the Founders, under the heading, "Surplus Land".   He refers to his original Agreement (also reproduced here) where he thought there would be land enough left over for 1.5 acre building lots, which didn't turn out to be the case, obviously.;  I assume that the surplus lands he was referring to were the 27 acres to the east of the 17th green and north of the 18th tee.  The northern part appears to have been pond and swamp in that  era.







This was nothing unusual.  Even by 1915 Max Behr wrote about the amount of land needed for a golf course and talked about the variables of land shape and routing that would play into that determination.    He seems to say that although more is better, about 120 acres of so will work in most cases.

CBM himself also told Merion they could build a first-class course on 120 acres, so we know it was in the range of what he thought.  I accept that at some stage he thought 110 to 120 acres was enough for the course.  In the end he used about 50% more. 



Nevertheless, we know golf course when completed took up more space than the 110-120 acres CBM himself estimated and wrote that he'd need.

I think this is due to a few reasons.

First, we know that CBM's primary focus was the golf course.   I'm not sure he ever really wanted to build lots for his Founders at all, but probably saw that as a necessary incentive to gaining enough Founding members and seed money to build his dream course.But, he's still carrying on the charade to some degree in 1916.  There's no ooops, I made a mistake, and there's only 27 acres for lots; just a note that there is some surplus land and they can figure out what to do with it sometime later..

So, I don't think he shed many tears in scrapping that part of his plan, probably figuring that he could financially compensate them in some other way once things were up and running.  He's still paying lip service to the housing lot plan in 1916.  When do you suppose he scrapped the idea in his own mind?

I also think that once he scrapped that idea it really opened up the whole playground for him, and gave him unique opportunities to create width and expanse that was beyond probably what he even envisioned at first.   Playing into that however, was the fact that some of the land was not quite as good as CBM originally hoped, and a lot of dirt was brought in, and swampy areas attempted to be filled, with some of it remaining not very good for golf, and probably not for building lots either.

One other thing that I don't think he estimated was exactly how wide he'd need to make his fairways to accommodate "safe" avenues of play for short hitters and high handicappers playing "around" his hazards.   As such, today the width of some fairways is over 100 yards, which is HUGE, and the scale of the course is impressively huge.Which ones are 100 yards wide?  Some may be wide, but look no more than 75 yards to me.  Others are 35 yards.

So, as far as the timeframe for when this transition happened?

Personally, I think it happened over the course of the design and early construction phase in 1907 and into 1908.   

I don't see any reason at all to think that CBM added 75% to his estimate between late 1905 and late 1906, nor do I believe that CBM thought the canal site would make a great golf course at 120 acres, but somehow he needed 205 at Sebonac Neck.   It's a ridiculous contention, frankly.

I'm not making that contention.  I was trying to understand your theories.  Let me say again, as I understood YOUR theory, the October article was about the canal site which CBM has stated was 120 acres.  Do YOU agree that that is YOUR theory - that the October article is about the 120 acre canal site?  If so, do YOU believe that in October 1906 CBM thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres?  Do YOU believe that when he made that offer that he had scrapped the Founders' lots idea?   Whu do YOU think he then turned around a month and a half later and decided to buy 205 acres?  Was it just to get the Founders' lots back in, or because he suspected he needed substantially (50%) more than 120 acres for the course?

In the end, as Max Behr said, enough land was purchased to incorporate all of the best natural features for golf and then "no concession was made to economy in the use of land."   Once CBM scrapped his building lot plan, he certainly had a LOT to work with.

Interestingly, even in 1915 Behr wrote, "Even so, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the golf course and is available for other purposes."

Do you think it was simply coincidence that CBM wrote in 1904 he needed 205 acres, was quoted during intervening years as looking for slightly over 200 acres, and purchased exactly 205 acres at the end of the day?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,
Wayne finally laid down his cards, and while some of the information from MCC was  "pertinent," it certainly doesn't live up to its advanced  billing.  Mainly, the information confirmed that CBM was not only involved in the entire planning process, he chose the final routing, so if anything Wayne's trip to the sister club made my case all that much stronger.  Other than that, there doesn't seem to have been much there there.   Of course we may never know what they are still hiding from public purview.  

In short, they have been bluffing this entire time.  I guess that is why it was/is so important to try and ruin my reputation.  Their proxy rebuttal is an absolute joke.
_______________________________________________________

 

Good evening.  I would implore you to stop insulting us by telling others how we should act or think. I am speaking specifically to your request above to write out some sort of comprehensive rebuttal to your IMO piece.

Jeff,  You implore all you like, and I'll keep imploring you and anyone else taking unprovoked and baseless pot shots at my essay to back up your spurious claims with a coherent and comprehensive critique, instead of the piecemeal sniping and endless character assassination.  

Really, I don't need 1000's of words to make my point, as the former lawyer in you appears to need.

Gee, what a surprise.  Another lawyer crack. What's next? One of your didactic lectures about all reasons you dislike me? Glad that none of this is personal for you.  

As for me needing 1000's of words to make my point, consider yourself lucky; it could have been 1000s of pages without any apparent point.  Besides, my IMO made dozens of points that had never been made before, and so I'd say was pretty brief for considering the depth of the content.   Wait until you see Part II.

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

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

The true-or-false approach to historical analysis?  No thanks. You well know the whether I have access to such documents is by no means dispositive on this issue.  Stop the grandstanding and cheap rhetorical ploys, or at least ask your buddies whether such documents exist. They are the ones playing games with the source material.   Besides, aren't you the one who is always lecturing about such things fallacious reasoning, such as this sort of false choice?   You should take your wikipedia cut and pastes to heart.

I'll be glad to address this argument and all other of your arguments when you put it all together in a coherent and comprehensive critique of my essay.  Good luck with that.  

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

More fallacious logic, this time a false analogy, and some more personal insults and more lawyer bashing to boot!  You are on a roll!  Is this more of the part where it isn't personal for you?   Amazing how you can admit that I am always honest in my posts, yet you still manage to try to paint me as a liar.  Always classy.
  

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

Are you kidding me?   First, although the one to which you refer was rude, this wasn't even close to the over-the-top posts to which I referred.  Second, you didn't address a damn thing in my IMO in the post to which you refer.   All you did was cut-and-paste a wikipedia entry!   I never made any such changes to my logic.  If I did, address them in a coherent and comprehensive critique and I'll get back to you.

I don't believe most of the negative attributions and character assassinations you have presented on this site about others.

Of course you don't believe me, but then that is what friends are for.  

But it is YOUR character assassinations that are at issue here, not mine.   You are the one who CALLED YOUR BUDDY A LIAR, NOT ME.   You do recall telling me that your buddy told you that there were NO Drexel documents, and THAT HE HAD MADE THE ENTIRE THING UP (AND KEPT IT GOING FOR MONTHS) IN ORDER TO TRY AND MAKE A FOOL OF ME?  If I recall correctly, you told me this offline as well as online.  I am sure I can find a record of it. (By the way, you are not alone.  Others of his confidants supposedly said the same thing.)

So isn't it you who is assassinating his character by claiming he admittedly came up with the entire cynical and dishonest scheme to try and make a fool of me.  And that he used Ran's website for months to serve his little scheme?  And didn't you then come after me for taking him at his word, as if believing a word the man said was an absolutely absurd thing to do?   What could be more a character assassination than the man's own friend scoffing at others who were dumb enough to believe him?  

So don't try to pin it on me.   All I want to do is figure out what happened.  

Did he lie to all of us by making up these Drexel documents, as you claim he told you he did?

Or did he lie to you about lying to me, so he could sit on pertinent documents rather than confirming my only remaining thesis that yet to be definitively confirmed?

Surely you understand why I want to get to the bottom of this.  

I understand your frustrations with TePaul, but it is really an insult for you to call me despicable puppet, and also post falsehoods about me to make your point.

I didn't post falsehoods about you. You, on the other hand, claimed that except for the bit about the timing of the Wilson trip about, your buddies had already known everything I uncovered.  That is straight out of your buddy's talking points and it is an outright falsehood.  I worked damn hard on that essay and about everything in it was novel information that had never been presented before and certainly wasn't understood by your cronies.  

So if you want to recant and set the record straight, then do so.  But if you want to stand by your false claim, then while "despicable puppet" is your terminology, it sure seems to fit.    

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

 

I am sure you did enjoy it. You always enjoy taking shots at me, no matter how unfounded.  But you by no means set the record straight, and you are by no means a neutral party in all of this.  You are defending your pals, just like you always do.  

Hopefully Ran will fix my essay then newcomers can evaluate my claims for themselves. They could even compare it to that long promised point-by-point counterpoint, but no one was ever able to come up with one.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, good evening once again!

IMHO, endless gasbagging usually equates to no real answers.  There were really just one simple yes or no question  concerning the part of your essay that believes that CBM's involvment from June 1910 until March 1911 actually happened.  Try to break down the faulty logic for me in the contention that No evidence = most likely not true?

Do you have evidence?  I take it you don't, so I am still quite confident that on the point above, you are most likely wrong.  As to your twisting words to make your theory, I stand by that and anyone can read it.  Here is the relevant passage I mentioned:

Merion wrote:

"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." (emphasis mine)

Which you converted to:

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



So you converted two words, which entirely changes the most likely meaning of the real document.  Your essay is also full of your favorite phrases like "In all likelihood", "It seems unlikely", etc. etc. etc. which reduce my confidence that its a real historical document, despite the considerable research that went into it.

You also wrote:

"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. " 

That is a key statement, backed up with no facts, just your opinion. I don't consider the comparison to NGLA to be any proof that a different project with different players ended up the same way.  At least, I have never seen two projects unfold identically.

In short, I am just not convinced of your premise of routing before they started the committee.  I can see why you might feel that way, and perhaps others agree.  Its an intellectual disagreement.  I really don't see where I have attacked your character in these posts, but you have attacked mine, and I see no reason for that.  I apologized for old transgressions and yes, have told it like it is about your approach (see above) where I think it afffects the truth of the matter.

Sorry to hear about your essay getting ruined. I read it once again in cut and pasting the parts above, and it wasn't obvious to me which parts had been omitted, but then, I don't have a perfect memory.  Again, its good writing, and has some value.  I just don't happen to agree for reasons stated about the main premise of CBM being involved before the documentation says he was.

Cheers and good night.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

1.  I have plenty of evidence, some of which is in the essay.  It is not up to you to tell me what my evidence should be.  You can accept my argument or not, but of course it was always a given where you stand.  

(I love how you hold up your mild critique of Cirba's bizarre third site theory as evidence of your neutrality!  Loyalty is one thing, but not even Cirba can stand by Cirba all the time, so it is hardly a valid example.)

2. As for the first passage to which you refer about the "nearly 120 acres," are kidding me?  That is the big error in my essay?  You don't like the way I used the term "specific?"  What a joke! Not that it matters one bit, but I was referencing the fact that it was "nearly" 120 acres which matched perfectly the exact amount they set out to obtain which was more than 119 acres but less than 120.  It is all there in proper context, but then you seem not not be able to deal with anything in context.  Don't blame me for your shoddy comprehension skills.

3.  You then quote my topic sentence about Merion choosing the course before purchasing the land, and laughably claim I offered no fact but just this opinion.  To the contrary. This is exactly what a huge portion of my essay, probably the next six or seven sections of the IMO, was dealing with and set out to do!   This is a farce and EXACTLY why I am done with this piecemeal crap.  You are pulling sentences out of context and then blatantly misrepresenting them with a bunch of nonsensical b.s. which only demonstrates how little you understood about the essay.  

And you wonder why I have implored you and others to stop with this garbage and address it in proper context? The pettiness of your piecemeal critiques does more than I ever could to make my point for me.

4.  You now have the nerve to claim it is just an "intellectual disagreement."  If that was the case, then why the hell did Cirba throw TEPaul into the mix?  And why did he my essay asinine?  And why did he falsely claim that there were no facts backing it up?  

And why did you hop in?  You were not only agreeing with him, you claimed yourself that I "knew wrong" and there were no facts backing up my theory.   And why did you spout off some bogus crap about how my theory has been disregarded by most?  Most who?  You and your cronies?  Give me a break.   And why did you start throwing these phony conditions at me as if you could dictate exactly what I needed to prove to be correct?

It is quite clear from your posts that you didn't insert yourself into the conversation to explain that while you understand my point, we had an "intellectual disagreement" about the meaning of some of the facts!  You were here to take some shots and grandstand about how I was wrong.  Nothing "intellectual" about it!  


5.   You don't see your jabs to be an attack on my character?  Do you believe your own b.s.?  

How about when you write,  "You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions."? Sounds to me like you are calling me f-ing liar who is too smart to get caught.  With your friends that might be high praise, but it is pretty damn insulting to me.

Or how about when you accused me of "cleverly and purposely chang[ing] key words" to manipulate the discussion Again, maybe "cleverly and purposefully" misrepresenting the source material deserves high honor amongst your crowd, but I don't like being called a liar.  Not even a clever liar.  

And I am most insulted by your misrepresentations of what my essay did and did not establish. You are absolutely wrong when you claim that your buddies knew it all before.  That is beyond intellectual disagreement.  It is an outright, despicable falsehood.

6.  In a perfect close, you immediately return to misrepresent my essay, ridiculously claiming that my "main premise" involved the timing of CBM's involvement, as if the fact some might think he planned the course a few months later defeats my claims!   I don't give a damn whether he routed the course in the fall (which I believe he did) or whether he waited and to plan the course at the NGLA meeting and his follow-up visit when he chose the final routing. Either way, he was involved in the entire planning process and is the primary force behind the routing plan  and the planned hole concepts!  

7.  Why won't you answer my questions about the Drexel documents?   You are the one who started this nonsense about the time period which the alleged Drexel Documents supposedly clarify.   Are you caught up the lies now, as well?  

[Mike Cirba]

There's a reason I didn't want this discussion to be about the "M" word, even though guys like Patrick kept wanting to bring it back to that...ugh.

I guess he'd rather question my motives than try to show us how CBM magically routed NGLA in a day or two, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such a feat, and plenty of evidence including direct quotes from CBM to the contrary.

Perhaps it's easier to question people's motives than trying to defend the preposterous notion that CBM in 1906 located the exact 205 acres he needed specifically for his golf course, like a hand in a glove, even though the evidence clearly shows the CBM thought he needed much less than that for his golf course, and had intended on creating building lots for his Founders.   Of course, then it's harder to explain why he made an offer previous for only 120 acres, or later told the M club that they could get by with only 120 acres, but rather than try to illustrate and bolster the ridiculous proposition that CBM first routed the golf course, and then secured the exact 205 acres he needed, when again the contemporaneous record and CBM's direct statements shows completely otherwise, we go off into the weeds arguing with people who aren't even on this website any longer.

Are we done with NGLA here?   Anything further to add?

Because if this is going to turn into Merion Part XV I'm outta here...

Once we go down that road, it seems all logic goes out the window and highly intelligent people who should know better start making absurd statements like "CBM was involved in the entire planning process", which is both hysterically funny and historically farcical.

CBM visited the site under consideration in June of 1910 and didn't return again until April of 1911, TEN MONTHS later, AFTER ALL of the "planning process" was DONE.    

Gary Player and Freddy Couples make more site visits and provide more hands-on planning.

So, I would "implore" others here to avoid the mistakes of the past and either stick to the topic at hand or move on because I think overall this thread has been an interesting and educational one and not needing to end in yet another insult-fest.

[Andy Hughes]

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

David, thanks, I think that is exactly the point. It certainly appears to me too that Behr is making that point--that CBM had his routing before he bought the property. But I wonder, as I asked before, if we really have good reason to suppose Behr would truly know such a thing or if he needed to rely on CBM. Guess we can't really know at this time. Mike and Pat and Jeff and Bryan, do you suppose that is true? That CBM had his routing pretty nailed down before he purchased the land?


(PS To all--Let's please drop all Merion references from this thread?---everyone involved here is pretty familiar with the old threads and wounds and insults and bad feeling and it is taking away from quite an interesting topic. Could we just let everyone who has already made their Merion comments have the last word and leave it at that (I know, I know)?)

[JESII]

Andy,

That question is really the crux of my interest here and I think there's plenty of evidence that CBM had a rough routing figured out with several specific holes located. My theory is that this gave him enough confidence in the exact boundaries to make the purchase although I doubt he had every tee and green located because the December articles do say he was going to spend months (5?) figuring those details out.

But, I don't think there is a concensus here...

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning.

If your contention about CBM's involvement doesn't depend on him having routed the course prior to November 1910, and is only that he was more involved than Merion tended to give him credit for, then we really have no argument.

If you are still contending that CBM did route it before November, as your essay claims, then I still contend that such a theory goes against all the known contemporary documentation that shows he provided his design assistance in March and April 1911, and will do so until you or others provide contemporaneous documents to that effect.  I don’t consider your essay portions starting with words like "In all likelihood" to be convincing, but rather a theory offered up by you for vetting.  

You have called your IMHO piece a rough draft, subject to change.  If you DON'T care or know if/when CBM routed it, or it now it “misrepresents” your feelings, or has been changed by Ran, then I would suggest you pull down or modify your IMHO piece, because as I read it, that is what it still says.  I mean, a historian can only believe in one set of facts, no?  It was routed in 1910 or 1911, but not both.  If you have changed positions, this seems…….. (Dare I use the “D” word, given my distaste for it?)
  
To bring this somewhat back to NGLA, I have never fully understood the arguments that claim some of the different details would dismiss or enhance CBM’s involvement at MCC.  However, it seems to center around your essay’s claim of the earlier routing before MCC secured the property, right?  It was you, starting around post no. 62 that made sure we all knew that Mike was trying to discredit your essay.  So, if you no longer contend he had to have routed it prior to the MCC option in Nov 1910, the point is somewhat moot, no?

I still see a lot of parallels between the two courses.  CBM recommended 120 as he did on the canal site, when the developer would control the housing sites as would be the case at MCC.  MCC maintained some “wiggle room” after securing the property, as was done by CBM on the final site, and most likely on the canal site of 120 acres.  There are some differences, but that is to be expected on two separate projects.  I also note that in both cases, it seems to have taken longer to get the property secured than we would like to think - June 1910 to December 1910 for MCC and June 1906 to December 1906 for NGLA.

Cheers.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

I think CBM told us exactly what he did and by when, and I'm not sure why others don't believe him.

At the time he secured 205 undetermined acres of the 450 acres available on that tract of land on Sebonac Neck, in December 1906;

1) He determined his starting (and ending) holes would be located near the Shinnecock Inn, which would serve as his clubhouse.

2) He had located great natural features for an Alps hole, and surprisingly to him, a nearby natural ridge for a redan hole.

3) He had determined to use a little inlet at the edge of Bulls Head Bay for 1) a site for an Eden hole with a forced water carry (differing from the original in that respect because CBM felt being able to roll the ball to the green on the original was a deficit he was looking to correct), and 2) an adjacent setting for what he felt was an original hole with a diagonal carry from the tee across water, his "Cape" hole.

4) I think it's also reasonable to assume that CBM would have wanted his course to run along some portion of Peconic Bay, which was 1.45 miles away from the Shinnecock Inn.   I think his purpose would be two-fold...1) for purposes of beauty and drama ,and 2) to establish a yacht basin for his rich member friends.   Because of the distance he had to traverse to get there, he was only able to use about a quater mile of the 2 miles of Peconic Bay coastline available within the 450 acres before having to turn the course "back" towards Shinnecock to the south.

5) He tell us, in quite detailed fashion, that he was going to spend the next several months figuring out the rest, including which holes and features to reproduce, as well as the yardages of the holes, after which he'd stake the exact 205 acres and complete his purchase, which took place in the spring of 1907.

6) We also know that CBM felt he'd need far less than 205 acres for golf, but ended up using a lot more land to build NGLA than his original estimates.   Thankfully, his plan to create building lots for the members never came to fruition!    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Andy,

OUr posts crossed.  I think Behr used what CBM told him to write a mostly unrelated article.

I think we all know the basic NGLA sequence, and given it was a cooperative venture, not sure any more detail is required to understand it.  I don't know if CBM had 4 or 18 holes routed prior to the final option in December and construction in spring.  For that matter, we don't know if he had a "final routing" in earlier time frames, and then made last minute field changes even past the start of construction, do we?  We don't know when that final 205 acres was settled.

As to wanting 80 for housing and ending up with 27 as Brian says, I can tell you that happens, especially when golf is the driver.  Given it was his ideal project, working like Pete Dye and going off his original self limits of property is not unreasonable.

I do think that HJW relaying of the Sept pony rides strongly suggests the whole time frame started later than some suppose.  It seems he would have jumped right in upon return from GBI in spring, and figuring out why it took longer might require some digging into CBM's work life as a stockbroker, or personal life to see if some other issues slowed down his quest.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Just a housekeeping footnote...CBM went abroad early in February 1906 and returned in June.

Here's an article from June 20th, 1906, and it also speaks to the acreage CBM was looking for;

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

My bad. I knew he left in spring and returned in June.  Not trying to be disingenous or anything......

That article confirms he didn't start looking until June 1906 though.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

This article from March 20th 1906, which shows a letter from abroad, also refers to the plan to incorporate Building Lots for the members in the overall plan;




This one, from the same month, and written by HJ Whigham, goes into further detail about the plans for building lots, calling the plan 'ingenious", NOT disengenous!    .

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also interesting that CBM is not feeling too anti-techology at least regarding the rubber core ball, saying as much skill is still required, if perhaps different.  I kind of feel the same right now.  Ground game may be gone, but a different skill set is introduced when new technology comes along.  Probably equal difficulty, just different than it used to be.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

You should be able to see it now, correct?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

yes

[Mike Cirba]

Let me say again, as I understood YOUR theory, the October article was about the canal site which CBM has stated was 120 acres.  Do YOU agree that that is YOUR theory - that the October article is about the 120 acre canal site?  If so, do YOU believe that in October 1906 CBM thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres?  Do YOU believe that when he made that offer that he had scrapped the Founders' lots idea?   Whu do YOU think he then turned around a month and a half later and decided to buy 205 acres?  Was it just to get the Founders' lots back in, or because he suspected he needed substantially (50%) more than 120 acres for the course?

Bryan,

Yes, my theory is that the Canal Site offer happened in 1906, not 1905, and I believe the articles appearing in the Oct/Nov timeframe referred to those discussions/negotiations.

I also believe that CBM was well aware of the Sebonac Neck site at that time, and that the horseback ride likely took place in September as Whigham later wrote, but that the canal site was his preference.

I can't see any possible or plausible reason why CBM would have told folks at Garden City during the Lesley Cup matches (reported on November 1st, 1906) that he was trying to get the site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground (the Canal Site) if it had already been refused, or if he preferred the Sebonac Neck site instead.   Who was he going to fool?   Alvord owned both properties.

I do think that at that time CBM still believed he could build his ideal golf course on 120 acres.   I think he believed it throughout the entire purchase process...otherwise, why make an offer on 120 acres for the Canal Site in the first place?

And yes, I DO believe CBM wanted building lots for his Founders as it had been part of his initial plan and the plan for over 200 acres with building lots was referred to by Whigham in 1906 so it was still the plan at that time.

I think he dropped it for the Canal site, probably after realizing that there was no way Alvord would allow him to compete alongside him in that regard, so what was likely a 205 acre original offer was reduced to 120 during the negotiations, and later remembered and referenced by CBM in his book.

And yes, I do believe that once the Canal offer was refused and he made a subsequent offer on Sebonac Neck that he went back to his original strategy of needing 205 acres, realizing that there were no competing plans by Alvord for building sites there at the time.

I think it was only during the design and construction phases AFTER December 1906 that he ended up using considerably more than that, likely figuring that if he delivered first and foremost on a great golf course, some other economic reparation could be arranged with the Founders in lieu of the building sites.

As far as the widths of fairways CBM eventually used, here are some of them as I measured at their widest points;

#7 - 134 yards
#16 - 85 yards
#17 - 90 yards
#18 - 81 yards
#8 - 79 yards
#9 - 76 yards
#12 - 83 yards

This is particularly ironic as CBM himself wrote that his ideal course should have fairways that averaged 50-55 yards, and railed somewhat against the trend to wider fairways.

In the end, I think the fairways at NGLA average about 72 yards in width, which I believe was deemed necessary to create "safe", but longer avenues around hazards on holes such as 3, 7, etc.  

Other holes such as 5 and 16 with their large bowls required more land for fairway because of landforms.

This doesn't answer the question in total, but I think at some point CBM just kept using more and more of the land available to him, until the whole question of building lots was no longer feasible.

[DMoriarty]

Andy,

I would love to leave Merion out of this but I am not going to sit quietly while let these "gentlemen" inaccurately malign my hard work.  If they had anything of substance to say they would put in an their own comprehensive and complete IMO, but they are obviously incapable of this, so the sniping continues.
________________________________________________________

There's a reason I didn't want this discussion to be about the "M" word, even though guys like Patrick kept wanting to bring it back to that...ugh.

If you didn't want this to be about Merion, then why the hell did you inject both Merion and your buddy TEPaul back into this? Why did you mischaracterize my essay, claim I had no facts backing it up, and refer to my theories as "asinine?" That is a lot of bullshit to heap into a conversation you claim isn't about Merion!   As I said above, you obviously can't help but talk about Merion, you just don't want me to respond!  

Look at the post to which I am responding, above, for example.  In classic Cirban self-contradiction and duplicity, you cannot resist once again misrepresenting both my essay and the underlying facts on the matter, again conveniently forgetting the NGLA meetings and the evidence of communication between CBM and Wilson and Merion.   But of course once you've said your piece, then the you "implore" the rest of us to drop the subject?   I call "bullshit."

Or how about your warning us not to turn this into another "insult-fest" when a few lines before you were the one dishing out the insults, calling my statement about the tenure of CBM's involvement "absurd" as well as "hysterically funny" and "historically inaccurate" and drawing ridiculous comparisons to CBM and Gary Player? Almost as bad as when you compared your own experience to CBM's!  Remember that abCirbaty?  

Such commentary is not only extremely insulting, it is inaccurate.  You are absolutely, unequivocally, and factually wrong with your ridiculously limited description of CBM's involvement.  CBM was involved throughout the planning process whether you care to admit it or not, and the fact on this one aren't even in dispute.  He was there when they chose the land, the first sign of Wilson involvement in the process was him consulting CBM and acting on CBM's advice!  The next month Wilson was at NGLA with CBM working on the layout plan, and a few weeks later CBM was back at Merion choosing the final layout plan!  CBM was involved throughout the entire planning process!

I guess he'd rather question my motives than try to show us how CBM magically routed NGLA in a day or two, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such a feat, and plenty of evidence including direct quotes from CBM to the contrary.

You've got a lot of nerve talking about questioning motives after the various witch-hunts you have lead!  Or did you forget your long-running campaigns to impugn my motives based on entirely false information?   The difference it is that I am not spreading petty gossip like you did when you were trying to falsely impugn my motives.

You are responsible for injecting Merion in here with your false representations of the facts and my position.  If you want it to end then stop with your nonsense.  
______________________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

1.  As usual you entirely missed my point and are instead taking it entirely out of context to serve your own purposes.   I am not changing my position or recanting on my theory about what happened in the fall.  I was objecting to your false characterization of my "main premise."  So you twist my words and the context and then then call me disingenuous (whether or not you use the term) based on your twisting.  This has become standard practice for you.  

2.  You are wrong about who injected Merion into this.  It goes back to the previous threads and the Myopia thread where Mike left no doubt what this was about.    But as usual, you cherry pick something out of context then run with it.

3.   Why won't you answer my questions regarding the Drexel Documents?   You told me that there were no Drexel Documents, and that TEPaul admitted to you that he made the whole thing up to try and make a fool of me. I am looking for some clarification here. Have you ever figured out whether he was lying to you or lying to me?  

____________________________________________________________________________________

Andy,  

While it was a good question, you'll get nowhere on the matter of whether CBM routed the course prior to purchasing the property.    Mike and Jeff are just is cherry picking select words and phrases (some of which weren't even used) and ignoring everything else.

CBM told us the order things happened in Scotland's Gift:
- First he and and Whigham rode the property and determined the land was suitable.  
- Then they approached the developer and the developer agreed he would sell him acreage out of this property.
- Then they again studied the contours in earnest and determined how to use the natural features for the holes agree they had in mind.  Mike agrees that this is when they routed the property.
- Then they staked out the land they wanted.
- Then they optioned the land.
- Then they finalized their purchase.  

All of Mike and Jeff's twisting and taking things out of context doesn't change this order, and playing games with the chronology in Scotland's Gift doesn't change this basic outline.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I posted nothing about twisting CBM's basic timeline for NGLA other than what he said and some speculation that he could have easily continued to tweak his routing right through construction.  And that is because I have no dog in the hunt that would make me want to assign a clear date to the end of routing to prove anything about Merion.  Please, stop lying and twisting.  As usual, you are the worst at it, and you add to insult by accusing others of exactly what you do to cover it up.

As to Merion, I never said routing before Nov. was your main emphasis, but did say that is what your essay says (it does) and that is what you say in a post above that you believe (you did)

As to context, there is no context.  Either there are documents showing CBM's involvement pre November, or there aren't.

Who injected Merion?  Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)

As I have said every time you bring it up, TePaul told me originally that he didn't have any Drexel documents.  He made it up as a joke on you.  If such documents existed, it would prove CBM's involvment in routing, as your essay surmises, which is why you were so interested in them.  But, they don't, so for now, I believe the March-April scenario that the documents we know of say happened.

I undestand you are more emotionally invested in your IMHO piiece, and have taken a lot of crap for it.  I have said it has some value.  But, based on your own standars, the portion about CBM routing it pre November isn't a supportable conclusion.

That's all I have to say on the matter.  Not worth anyone's time and we all know you can argue til the cows come home.

Cheers

[JESII]

Who injected Merion?  Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)

Jim Kennedy!

How dare you slip to such disingenuous tactics to drag my reputation through the mud...

Seriously though, the first mention of Merion on this thread was from Jim Kennedy...not sure where he has disappeared to...

[Jeff_Brauer]

OMG, so sorry Jim!  I hate it that I destroyed your reputation.....

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

So now you are flat out calling me a liar, instead of coyly suggesting I was just good at getting away with lying?  

Rather than lash out at me, perhaps you should try to comprehend what I wrote?   If you had, you might have noticed that I noted that you and MIke have long twisted the order of events as set out in Scotland's Gift.   You have.  You and Mike have long insisted that the "option" did not occur in the order it is laid out in Scotland's Gift, but instead insert in in the middle of the long paragraph above.  Go back and see what you wrote earlier in the thread if you can't keep track of your own argument.

So about that flying off the handle about me "lying and twisting."  You were wrong.  Just like you have been wrong in a number of misrepresentations about me and my IMO on this thread.   Care to set the record straight yourself, or will you just move on to your next unfounded insult as you have been doing?  

As to Merion, I never said routing before Nov. was your main emphasis

Wrong again.  In post 1452, the post to which I was objecting, you referred to the timing issue as my "main premise."  Not even close, which is why I objected.  

As to context, there is no context.  Either there are documents showing CBM's involvement pre November, or there aren't.

In that case you are wrong again.  Documents show he was involved before November. He was there in July, visited the course, and sent a letter then.    It is when you start playing games with before this date but after that date that it becomes clear that you are taking things out of context.   Documents before and after the period you mention strongly imply he was involved even during the period you mention, whether you agree with me or not!   For example, his July letter mentioned he would need a contour map to tell for sure if the holes he suggested would fit, and they'd have to have been idiots not to send him one.  For another example, the Ag letters strongly suggest that that CBM was dealing with Merion during the period in which little documentation of anything is available.  And then of course there are the documents suggesting that some form of routing was in place by then, but they have been discussed to death.

4.

Who injected Merion?  Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)

As Jim S. points out, you are wrong again.  Jim Kennedy first mentioned it, and others too I believe.  (Jim deleted some of his posts.)  But the reality is that it was obvious what this was about to anyone who had been following along with the last thread on Myopia, where Mike launched into all this crap clearly tied to Merion.  This thread was to try and prove a point about Merion.  See his sad self-proclaimed attempt at an IMO midthrough if you don't believe it. Besides, you know damn well this is all about Merion for Mike, so quit playing games.

As I have said every time you bring it up, TePaul told me originally that he didn't have any Drexel documents.  He made it up as a joke on you.  If such documents existed, it would prove CBM's involvment in routing, as your essay surmises, which is why you were so interested in them.  But, they don't, so for now, I believe the March-April scenario that the documents we know of say happened.

So he told you that NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS EXIST, and that he was lying to me to try and make a fool of me.   I knew that already.    

Please answer my questions, though.  They are serious questions worth considering.

How do you know he was not lying to you about lying to me, so he could avoid coming forward with the documents?

Seriously, with all the games he has played with the source documents over the years, doesn't it seem possible that he just couldn't go through with bringing forward documents that would kill his own legend once and for all, so he decided to take the easy way out and play along with the conventional wisdom that he was lying about it the entire time?  

What seems more likely?  That TEPaul would come clean with such important documents if they went against his beliefs, or that he would try to lie his way out of having to turn them over?  

Because I still have trouble reconciling what you are saying with:  1)  His original posts on the matter; 2) the fact that he kept the charade going for months, even after you had exposed his lies; and 3) the fact that the story he told in those first posts makes a lot of sense based on what I know about the parties involved.  

So what do you think?   Was he lying to you or me?   If me, how do you know?  

[Andy Hughes]

David, I wonder.  TMac posted this earlier:

"In Great Britain in 1903 seaside links were regarded as an unapproachable first class. St.andrews, Hoylake, Prestwick, Sandwich and Muirfield were the big five, and if any were to be added to their number they would be of similar character. In the US this has never been the case. It maybe assumed that the course which O&CGS played were a fair sample of the best of their time, and Shinnecock Hills was the only one of them which was of the sand-dune type. While we were there Mr. Charles Macdonald showed us the neighbouring dunes which the National was made, a bold project which he brought to a successful issue some years later."

Do you think your step one:
 - First he and and Whigham rode the property and determined the land was suitable.   would have been necessary given that CBM had been salivating over that land for years already? Presumably he would want to closely look at it before taking the leap.

I think we all know the basic NGLA sequence, and given it was a cooperative venture, not sure any more detail is required to understand it.  I don't know if CBM had 4 or 18 holes routed prior to the final option in December and construction in spring.  For that matter, we don't know if he had a "final routing" in earlier time frames, and then made last minute field changes even past the start of construction, do we?  We don't know when that final 205 acres was settled.

So Jeff, you don't think we should put stock in Behr's article to decide if CBM had a decent idea of his routing already in place before he made his offer?

[DMoriarty]

Andy, if Allison's recollection was correct, then CBM might have already been at least somewhat familiar with the land.  But I given the tenor of these conversations I try to to go out on too many limbs, so I stick pretty close to what I can support, and CBM noted that he and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the land contours before finally determining it was what they wanted.   

Mike would have us believe that because CBM wrote that the property was "little known" and that "every one thought it was more or less worthless" should be read this to mean that CBM didn't know about it, and that CBM didn't recognize its value for golf.  But I've never understood it that way, and find this highly unlikely, especially given the land's proximity to SHGC.   

If I had to paint a complete picture I'd say it seems most likely that CBM was familiar with it, but that HJW and CBM rode the property for two or days to make sure and of course would have been looking out for golf courses the entire time. And then once determined it was suitable they approached the owner, then again studied the contours in earnest and finished the rough routing, then staked out the land containing the routing they wanted, then optioned the property.
___________________________________________

For the record I don't doubt that the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I think we all agree that "the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property."

It's just that we cannot know the exact level of detail planned prior to the option, as I said 4 or 14 holes, no one knows.  And, I doubt it makes a lot of difference to NGLA and its history, but would be fascinating to find out.

A small but unimportant quibble - given CBM's writings and first offer, I certainly had the impression that Alvord alerted him to the Sebonack Neck as a likely place after turning him down, but the Allison article does show us he was familiar with the property.

As to our disagreements on Merion, I think we made our points on where we disagree and can drop it. 

As to whether I know if your adversary is lying to me, I think I can judge character well enough to know and I don't think so, but can anyone know anything like that past 99.99%?  It is my understanding from him that he emailed you what he has, which amounts to six letters to Lloyd that were of all things, from ANOTHER Charles McDonald, (a bridge engineer working on a separate project for Lloyd) and the original letter than Merion has a copy of and we know the contents.  As far as I know, he is being truthful about that and there is nothing more, just in case you deleted his email to you.

Andy,

See above. Not sure I can clarify my position any better.  We don't know and I don't think Behr carries more weight than CBM's words later.  But, like David, it appears they found at least four holes quickly, which would put those ahead of the December option.  Was the routing closer to finished than that?  Probably, but by how much we cannot know with existing information.