[JESII]

I think the routing process began in June 1910 and that by March 1911 they would have had a good idea of the bones of each hole. In that context, combined with the resulting Board Approved Plan, I think it's unreasonable to think CBM didn't suggest the tee placement for the3rd (current 6th) hole and the shelfed green...similarly, the structure of the original 10th and it sounds like there's a real case for the Hell Bunker on the current 4th.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I have been entertaining your idiotic theories, your misleading and disingenuous interpretations, and your repetitious and barely tangential wild goose chases for years now.  Like everything else we have discussed you don't seem to understand this either, but me be clear.  Conversing with you is entirely unproductive.  I don't want to waste my time with you anymore. I'll stick with what Francis said about the swap.  You make believe whatever you wish.  
_________________________________________________________

Jim,

A while back you were going to produce a list of source material you believed clearly pointed to Wilson as opposed to CBM as the person mainly responsible for the design. Thus far you have put forth the Lesley article which tells us, I think, that CBM and HJW advised Wilson and Co. how to lay the course out upon the ground.  

Anything other contemporaneous source material out there you'd like to put forth?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Duck, bob, and weave all you like.   The obvious contradictions in your theories are simply more apparent to everyone else here.   Frankly, other than you and the other 2M boys, (MacWood and Mucci), I can't recall anyone else who seems to think I'm off base.   IN fact, quite the opposite.   Given the reputation of your supporters, I'm quite confident that I'm on the right side of history.

Since you came back to this site last spring, you've followed me around on every single thread I've posted on and sat back and flung cheap shots and insults.   This began back on the old Cobb's Creek public course thread, and has persisted since.   It's time to have it out and move on, David.   Put up or shut up.   Shit or get off the pot.   

I'm game...are you?

At this point, your personal insults have become like comfortable friends to me, like sitting around a roaring fireplace with a glass of wine.  They've appeared in every post of yours for the past year and I almost wait in gleeful anticipation to see what type of wildly defensive and creative obfuscation you'll come up with next!  

Thanks for the warm glow.  

So....since you seem to be sticking to your "course routed by November 1910" theory, please show us all your evidence for CBM's invovlement between July 1910 and November 1910.

Or, did your dog eat it?  

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I am not longer reading Cirba's posts and I guess I missed your post above where you mention the hell bunker on Merion's "long" hole.  I agree with you.  It is another telltale CBM characteristic, especially its placement.   But I am not exactly sure I understand the methodology of picking out certain features and attributing them to CBM.  For example, take the hole called a Redan by just about everyone, including CBM and HJW.  I really don't care to again go through the arguments whether it qualified as a Redan in todays terms as that is entirely irrelevant to the inquiry.  The question is, did it qualify given the understanding of the time, and it surely did. Isn't this another instance where it would be unreasonable to assume that CBM did NOT place the hole?   If not then why not?   

[Niall C]

Patrick

Re your post 2278, and on the question of Wilsons remarks on the experience of the Merion Committee, I think as always it comes down to interpretation and in interpretating the comment I think you need to put it into context. Mike's post 2197 suggests that the Committee had a good bit more experience and exposure to course design/construction and maintenance issues than the average club member, unless of course the average club member back then routinely did a turn on the Greens Committee.

I also note that Wilson's comments came some time after the course was "completed". In answering an enquiry about the Committee's input and his own personal input into the course, I think it entirely plausible that Wilson was being modest given what we know about the Committees previous experience as outlined in Mike's post. People react to that type of question in different ways. Some people answer with a frank honest assessment (as they see it), others in a self-promoting way and yet again others in a more modest way, which I believe may have been how Wilson answered the question. Would he be lying in answering the question like that if the Committee had in reality more experience than the average club member ? Well not if the questioner (and Wilson) knew Wilson was being modest and therefore the questioner made allowances. As I said, it comes down to interpretation. You choose to take his words literally whereas others including me having considered other factors such as the Committees previous experience and have allowed that he was likely being modest.


However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM.

Niall, your lack of familiarity with NGLA is hampering your ability to understand the issues and CBM's abilities.

Secondly, you've changed your question, so to remind you, I'll repost your question in it's original form.

Patrick

I'm not aware that I have changed my question. The basic question concerned the difference in experience/ability between the Merion Committee and CBM compared to myself and TD or any other similarly experienced/working GCA.

Firstly, CBM had the experience of creating a couple of courses before NGLA, neither of which I believe made any great advancements in golf course design at that time. As I understand it at NGLA he had the luxury of picking out 200 (?) acres out of what, a couple of thousand acres ? to ideally suit his purposes. Furthermore he was basically building on sand so I presume drainage wasn't an issue. We know from his own writings that he was able to pick out parts of the site with features suitable for his template holes which suggests to me he was largely laying the course over the land. Now tell me what modern day gca wouldn't give his right arm for that kind of opportunity.

The real test of CBM's ability would be to see how he would have coped with a far smaller site with issues on drainage/topography etc. Basically, he didn't have to deal with the same issues that modern day gca's regularly do. Remember, we are talking about 1910 and CBM's experience up to that point. There is no question that CBM achieved great things at NGLA. He raised the stakes, both literally in the sense that he raised the money for the project and figuratively in the way he put strategic hole design at the forefront of the design. Patrick, I get all that but please don't tell me that CBM of 1910 was better equipped than a modern gca to design and build a course, its simply a ludicrious proposition for all NGLA's greatness.

And as for the proposition that designing a course on 200 acres of sand based ground with no restrictions making you uniquely qualified to route a course on 120 acres of farmland, that just doesn't stack up IMO.

FWIW, my take on CBM/HJW's involvement was that the Merion Committee got the VIP tour of NGLA and were blown away with what they had achieved. They no doubt asked hundreds of questions and got loads of info back in response. They would have likely gone away totally inspired by what they saw and what they had learned about the principles of the design of NGLA and then gave a lot of thought to the lessons learned and how they could be applied at Merion. In short CBM was likely an inspiration to them, not the only inspiration no doubt, but an important one, but where I disconnect from what you and David and others are saying is in the idea that CBM basically routed and designed the course. That he had a hand in showing them how it could be done, I'm fully on board with, but that is different to CBM actually doing for them.

Niall

[Niall C]

David,

I think this will be my last post on this thread but before I go let me thank you for your post 2266 on CBM which I greatly enjoyed and there is very little in it I would quibble with. Certainly NGLA was well noted over here before and after completion. Much of the early comment was patronising and condescending, as it missed the intent that CBM was seeking to take the strategic intent out of the classic holes rather than simply trying to reproduce them in their entirety. Many of those that CBM contacted from the UK in relation to the project made a point of visiting and playing the course and comment was generally favourable although not universally without criticism. If memory serves me right Hilton may have been one of those that made some critical remarks.

It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in  such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.

Niall

[Tom MacWood]

No Tom, no one mentioned Myopia in 1910, which was a work in progress by Leeds until his death in 1930.

That's why Myopia had hosted its 4th US Open in 1908 and why all the associated articles about Merion (as well as Barker himself) mentioned that the goals were a course in the league of Garden City and Myopia.

If you recall, Barker was brought in by Joseph Connell of the Real Estate Company to assess the land for a golf course as part of HDC's efforts to entice Merion to purchase their land and thus increase the value of their development.   Barker also drew a rough sketch routing for Connell, which has not been found.

Not surprisingly, with that kind of incentive, Barker found the land to be among the best of it's kind he'd seen anywhere!    

HH Barker wrote this in June 1910;

I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.

No doubt Myopia was considered a great golf course, but Myopia was a methodical redesign over a period of two decades +, and none of those individual changes drew the attention of the golf world like the changes made to GCGC or the design of the National circa 1910. That is a fact. By the way Leeds retired in 1917 and that year was the last of his changes. The NGLA project received international attention, and largely thanks to Travis being editor of American Golfer, the redesign of GCGC received widespread attention in America.

In the US in 1910 if your intent was to design a modern world class golf course you turned to CBM or Travis/Barker. No one was asking Leeds to help design their golf course.

[Mike Cirba]

Niall,

You're a very bright fellow and your instincts and interpretations are right on the money.   Thanks for weighing in here and shedding some much needed sanity on the proceedings.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

I think this will be my last post on this thread but before I go let me thank you for your post 2266 on CBM which I greatly enjoyed and there is very little in it I would quibble with. Certainly NGLA was well noted over here before and after completion. Much of the early comment was patronising and condescending, as it missed the intent that CBM was seeking to take the strategic intent out of the classic holes rather than simply trying to reproduce them in their entirety. Many of those that CBM contacted from the UK in relation to the project made a point of visiting and playing the course and comment was generally favourable although not universally without criticism. If memory serves me right Hilton may have been one of those that made some critical remarks.

It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in  such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.

Niall

Niall
Have you read what Horace Hutchinson wrote about the NGLA in 1910?

[Mike Cirba]

Niall,

I thought you might enjoy this 1898 article from "The Golfer" that references a few of these "average club members" twelve years before they designed Merion East.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Are you calling Wilson a liar ? ?  ?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I believe that is the seventh or eighth time you have posted that same article from 1898 and each time it continues to underwhelm. Didn't Joe B post an article that claimed Willie Campbell was involved at Belmont, although I think you disputed the report.

If you were given the task of constructing a modern state-of-the-art golf course in 1911 (as opposed to 1898) would you place the task of designing it at the feet of five relatively inexperienced members (one of which may or may not have been involved in the design of a golf course of dubious reputation in 1898) or would you seek out the best golf architects in the country?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

If all of the best courses in the country by 1910 had been designed and built by amateurs for their own clubs with little or no previous experience at the time...men like Leeds, Emmet, Travis, Fownes, Macdonald, then I certainly would seek to emulate their model.

Which is exactly what Merion did.  

Your incredulity doesn't change that.  

Actual factual evidence to the contrary to support your position might, but it seems the dog ate that, no?


Patrick,

When that's all you guys have left, I think it's officially "case closed".   

[DMoriarty]

It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in  such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.

Niall

Niall, I don't think I portrayed it as "a night and day event" in terms of the timing.   In my post 2266 I gave a brief idea of what was ongoing, starting in about 1904.   But in terms of golf courses NGLA was considered night and day, at least if we are to believe the many reports of actual experts who had seen it and what else was out there.  Garden City was scrambling to try and catch up, and Myopia was good but undergoing its own continuing evolution, and not widely considered to be anywhere near the same level of golf course.  But no, I don't think there had been much of a gradual evolution going on.   So in terms of advancing the genre, NGLA was indeed "night and day."  At least it was widely considered to have been at the time.   

One can get some understanding of the gap by looking at Mike's rather silly attempts to establish those at Merion as some sort of experts comparable to CBM and HJW.  Sure they had been around golf courses but the golf courses they had been around were a far cry for NGLA.  As I said above, it was a different era before NGLA so whatever it was that Cirba thinks they knew in 1898 didn't translate to what CBM was teaching in 1910.   Thus Wilson's clear statements about the state of their knowledge in comparison.

Here is a photo from another course where Cirba and the Merionettes would have us believe that that Wilson became an expert designer before having met CBM.  A typical "bunker" at Dunn's Princeton, from 1902, where Wilson served as golf team captain and student representative on the green committee for a year.   I believe that may be Wilson 3rd from the right.

[DMoriarty]

And Niall, I have tried to patiently answer your questions as best I can, so I was hoping you could answer just a few of mine from well above before you disengage.

If CBM and HJW were not directly involved with the design at Merion, then how do you explain Merion's attempt at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM?

If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a course with strategic features typical of a CBM course? 

Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?

[Tom MacWood]

Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell in 1894; Leeds began redesigning it 1897 and continued for the next twenty years. Emmet and Hubbell originally laid out GCGC in 1897 and were advised by Alex Findlay. Walter Travis (and Barker) began overhauling the course ten years later. Macdonald et. al. laid out Chicago in 1895. The course was tweaked numerous times over the years. Oakmont was laid out in 1903 and had little or no reputation. It was redesigned in 1909-10, and its reputation was made when it was chosen to host the US Am in 1915 (postponed to 1919) or fours years after the Merion membership were making their decisions.

None of these are good examples of the state of the game or golf architecture in 1911. Do you believe the membership of Merion were stuck in some kind of time warp and thought they were operating in the 1890s? I don't, which is why they engaged the two biggest names in the game, and the top construction company as well.

I'll ask you again, if you were given the task of constructing a modern state-of-the-art golf course in 1911 (as opposed to 1898) would you place the task of designing it at the feet of five inexperienced members or would you seek out the best golf architects in the country?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks for trying to find some middle ground in post 2248.  As you know, I did have trouble with your phrase "calling the shots" which, despite agreeance on several points you make regarding CBM's involvement the latter parts of that post, and others, the phrase just doesn't ring as true to me as "advisor."  As I have always said, in many ways, its just semantics.  No one denies CBM being involved (despite your protests to the contraray) but just how much is up for debate.  It is ridiculous to take a hard line (they only looked at the GBI plans while at NGLA, for instance) when human nature suggests a free form discussion (providing there was free flowing booze.....)

As to semantics, isn't it is as easy to interpret six template holes in a design as Merion taking some advice but not following it completely, substituting their own judgement in spots, as they would do if he advised, but not if he designed (to such a large degree?)

BTW, at one point you postulated that MCC had more templates than CBM's first claimed design for others, (Piping Rock) but in checking George's book, it appears PR had the full complement, including the first Biarritz.  Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way, if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?

And I believe they took some completed routings to NGLA, and also "rearragned them" upon return.  No doubt it was because of what they learned from CBM via discussion.  However, if they routed, he critiqued, and they routed some more, it seems plausible that, given the times and nature of architecture accreditation, they thought of him as only the advisor.

It even occurs to me that if we take the Francis story at face value, they had the final routing, and Lloyd had approved it.  No word on Wilson and the committee, but its not too unreasonable to assume they saw the brainstorm the next day or so, and had all agreed before CBM got there.  It is quite possible that they set up the return visit by CBM while at NGLA, wondering if they would have any routings at all, but by the time CBM got there, they had figured it out themselves thanks to Francis and CBM's "approval" was not much more than a rubber stamp/confirmation of what they were already 90% sure of, despite what the original intention of the meeting was.  It appears that they did the bulk of the work, and he edited to some degree.

Just a few thoughts.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

As you may recall, I think Merion too had an attempt at CBM conception of a Biarritz.  The 17th.  It is quite as obviously recognizable as such, but then I wouldn't expect it to be given that Wilson had no Biarritz to view at NGLA and given that CBM hadn't yet built a course with his own version.  

CBM's original conception of the Biarritz as expressed 1906 and by HJ Whigham after Piping Rock's got built was quite a bit different that a hole with a swale running through the green.  The swale was before the green and it was about 30 yards  from beginning to end. Alot like the swale fronting Merion's 17th hole.  

Below are Merion's 17th, the plasticine model of Lido's Biarritz, and Piping Rock's Biarritz.   The Lido Biarritz was listed at 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line of the other two are each 230 yards.  

Look how crazy the first section (the "hogsback") was meant to be at the Lido.  



You ask: "As to semantics, isn't it is as easy to interpret six template holes in a design as Merion taking some advice but not following it completely, substituting their own judgement in spots, as they would do if he advised, but not if he designed (to such a large degree?)"

Given that NGLA only had four or five true template holes, six is a hell of a lot don't you think?   And as I have said there were more than six,  So far I've just stuck to the most obvious ones and those directly called by the name of the template, so as to avoid the inevitable pettiness that will follow.  (See what happens with by Biarritz post above.)  

But they certainly could have put in their own touches and altered things here and there.  And as time went on they did.   But even here there are remnants of CBM's ideas.   I've said that from the beginning that my concern has always been with two things and two things only:  The strategic concepts underlying the holes, and their general location on the ground.  

CBM didn't build the course and I doubt he ever worked up an exact detailed blueprint to use in construction.  But so far as I can tell, Merion attempted to build a CBM course, which has been my main point all along.

And  this said, at some point there has to be a tipping point where we stand back and say, "Holy Shit, there were CBM strategies and tells all over this place.  It was obvious he was very much involved in the design."   I think we are well past that point.  

Or are there any non-CBM courses from around this time with attempts at a Road Hole, a Redan, an Alps, a double plateau green, an Eden green, another double-plateau with a biarritz-like orientation, a long hole with a properly placed hell bunker, a hole fitting the description the Biarritz concept (yet to even be built by CBM)?  And more.  

You ask: Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way, if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?

Can you readily identify 16 or 18 "templates" at Sleepy Hollow's original course?  Can you readily identify 16-18 at Piping Rock?   If so, please do and describe their defining characteristics for me? Thanks.  

But I don't think you will succeed, because I don't think that CBM was building 16-18 replica holes at this time.  I think there are certain core holes and features that show up again and again, and the rest are combinations or concepts.  Merion has the core holes, and then many of the concepts.  Like Merion's 7th hole.    It wouldn't necessarily jump out as a copy of anything, but it is a perfect utilization of the bottleneck concept utilized by CBM on some of his designs.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're now accusing not only me, but Hugh Wilson of lying.  

No Mike, you are.

You and the Merionettes have claimed that his statement wasn't true, that he lied in the name of modesty.

Why would he do that ?
If the committee was intelligent, skilled and experienced, why wouldn't he simply say, "my committee was composed of intelligent, skilled and experienced members" ?  
Why wouldn't he tell the truth, instead of lying, as you and TEPaul insist, for the sake of modesty ?

Your problem is you blindly accept everything the Merionettes claim.


You grow increasingly hysterical and desperate in the face of actual facts and evidence and the fact is that Hugh Wilson and his committee were NOT and did NOT have the knowledge of average members but were in fact humble, gracious gentlemen, and not self-promoting blowhards.

Anyone who's read the vile emails from TEPaul and Wayno knows who's hysterical and who's rational in this debate and in life in general.
To make my case, should I publish them ?
Or do you want to reconsider and restate who you think is "hysterical"

Mike, stop the nonsense.  As it typical of you and the Merionettes, you exagerate to the point of extremes.
One can accurately assess the abilities of the committee members while remaining humble, gracious and gentlemenly, without self promotion.

It's you and the Merionettes who now claim Wilson was lying when he described the abilities of his committee.

Wilson claimed that they had the expertise/talents/experience of the average member.
I'm content to accept his word, that Wilson was telling the truth.
It's you and the Merionettes who claim his writings were false.

Unfortunately, you and the other agenda driven Merionettes, can't accept Wilson's written statement because it undermines your position and magnifies the need for the committee to call on the recognized expert in the field at that point in time, Charles Blair Macdonald.

Your complete ignorance of golf course history is only matched by the misplaced arrogance of your arguments.

Mike, if it wasn't for the Merionettes, TEPaul and Wayne Morrisson who have been sending an inordinate number of emails on this particular topic in the last 48 hours you wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on.  Stop being their stooge !

Unfortunately, because Wayno and TEPaul continued to send email after email after email, I had to finally put a "block sender" on my computer.

In addition, you know that other recipients of those group emails took offense to what Wayno wrote and that they asked Wayne to cease and desist, and take them out of the loop, just as I had requested dozens of times previously..
And, that other person was not David Moriarty or Tom MacWood, but someone you considered an ally.

The conduct of the Merionettes has been reprehensible.

WHY ?     Because others disagree with them ?  And you think that that justifies the vile emails emanating from TEPaul and Wayno ?

You've chosen, foolishly, to continue "channeling" and being the shill for TEPaul and Wayno.

But, after the last few emails from Wayno and TEPaul, which were grossly inaccurate with respect to Wayno's reckless and irresponsible allegations toward me, and his wild accusations that Ran was guilty of lying, I'd suggest that you exercise extreme caution and give considerable thought to what you type before you hit the "send" button, lest you find yourself joining the Merionettes in their banishment and exile from GCA.com
The accusations in that email were beyond hysterical, they were wild, reckless, irresponsible and insane, and you're directly contributing to the problem by being their shill, their stooge.
So, be guided accordingly

Do you think the man who had been chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since 1896, and whose committee had designed the second nine holes and modified the first nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course, Rodman Griscom, had the knowledge of the average club member in construction and agronomy?

Mike, I've been on green committees for over 45 years and have served as Chairman and I can tell you that being on a green committee or serving as chairman, doesn't qualify you for squat when it comes to designing and building an 18 hole golf course.
Especially circa 1910

What's amazing about this debate, is that you're categorizing Wilson as a liar.
You're unwilling to accept HIS written word.
What's even more amazing is that the irony of that is completely lost on you and the Merionettes.

How about Dr. Harry Toulmin, who had been one of the earliest founders of golf in the city and had co-designed the original Aronimink course (when the club was known as Belmont)?

Do you have the specifics of his involvement at Belmont, or just general references through more newspaper articles ?

What about Engineeer/Surveyor Richard Francis?

I've always acknowledged his area of expertise.
But, what did Francis write about his role ?
He minimalized it didn't he.  

Another ignorant club member?

Those are your words, not mine

How about Hugh Wilson, who had been on the Green Committee at Princeton for two years while their new Willie Dunn course was being built?

Two year Green Chairman are a dime a dozen, there are gazillions of them and the great majority don't know squat about designing and building a golf course, at the begining and at the end of their two year term..
Most of them take two years just to be brought up to speed to begin with.

How many green committees have you served on ?

What about HG Lloyd, who had served on the Merion Green Committee since at least 1903?

Would you enlighten us with respect to his duties while on the green committee ?
Could you address his experience in designing and building an 18 hole golf course on his own ?

Average Club Member??   Are you kidding me??  

NO, Wilson wasn't kidding and he wasn't lying as you and the Merionettes claim.

Now, did they know the latest in grasses, fertilizers, construction techniques?   No, they didn't, and it's clear that's what Wilson was talking about.

Patrick, you really need to get a grip and try to learn something here.

Mike, having been involved, intimately involved, in every phase of significant projects, from planning to budgeting, to contracting, to bidding to construction, I can state, without fear of contradiction, that you and the Merionettes have a lot more to learn than I do.

You're all out of your league in this area.
And, you're all out of your minds in many others

As I stated above, unfortunately, I had to implement the "Block Sender" feature with respect to receiving emails from TEPaul and Wayne.
They've lost any sense of control, relativity and reality.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss/debate with you or anyone else, but, please, stop being the stooge of the Merionettes and put forth your own arguments, and not arguments you receive in hourly emails from them.

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I also believe the Swap happened prior to November 15th but do not believe CBM/HJW were directly involved in it.

Jim,

What makes the date of the swap so important ?

We know that Merion began building the course shortly after the April 19th Board meeting despite the fact that they didn't come into title to all of the land until July 19th.

Is it not probable that the legal date of the swap is less important than the date the swap was conceptualized and agreed upon ?

Your thoughts ?

An answer to many of your questions in that post regarding all the action in the Spring if the Swap/Routing were complete by November is two-fold.
1 - Is it possible that a "different plan" as referenced is simply slightly different hole lengths on connecting holes such as 2 and then 3, current 7 - 8 - 9, 14 and 15? Wouldn't the courses plan be different if #2 were 400 yards and current 6 were about 525?
2 - I still disagree with your reading of Francis in that the first 13 were fixed before the Swap. We even went through the exercise of discussing how could/would those 13 be fixed if they didn't have the last 5? What would they do if the suggestion of the Swap was rejected by Lloyd/HDC? Have you thought about it in that respect? He said they were fairly easy to fit but the last 5 were another matter...that does not mean they were fixed and locked.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Given that NGLA only had four or five true template holes, six is a hell of a lot don't you think?"

David,

How do you figure NGLA had only 5 template holes?  Besides most of the classics being there, it is by definition, "the" template course and all they had to study at the time, regardless of what happened later on with CBM/Raynor.

[Mike Cirba]

Wow...

Go away for a day or two and the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Too funny!

[Dan Herrmann]

(I thought this thread was about National Golf Links of America?)

[Patrick_Mucci]

BTW, at one point you postulated that MCC had more templates than CBM's first claimed design for others, (Piping Rock) but in checking George's book, it appears PR had the full complement, including the first Biarritz.  Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way,

if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?

Jeff, the answer is obvious.

Because Merion didn't want to be known as NGLA South or NGLA Philadelphia.

[DMoriarty]

How do you figure NGLA had only 5 template holes?  Besides most of the classics being there, it is by definition, "the" template course and all they had to study at the time, regardless of what happened later on with CBM/Raynor.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by template holes, but there were only four or five readily recognizable copies of great holes abroad.

However you define template holes, what were the 16-18 template holes at each of Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, and what were the distinguishing characteristics of these holes?   Should be easy enough exercise, given you theory that a CBM designed course from around this time would have 16-18 template holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()