[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

A "survey" isn't a topo/contour map, it's a survey, a two dimensional schematic.

Everytime I bought a home or property, I requested a survey from an independent engineering firm.
That survey wasn't a topo/contour map, it was a survey, focused on the boundaries of my property and the location of any buildings.

The topo of Kent is a formal post construction topo and I'd imagine that many of them exist, sometimes you even see them on dinning placemats.

I can't recollect ever seeing a pre-1910, PRE-construction topo with the holes superimposed on it.

I have seen post-1910 pre-construction topos with the holes superimposed on it.

I believe that the CC of York, in PA.. that Ross and Flynn competed for would be a good example.
But, that was years removed from 1910.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Then let's discuss topos at PV...

Why would Tillinghast predict in January 1913 that the property won't prove so daunting "after careful topographical charting" if Crump was already working with a topo as the whole thrust of your thread seems to suggest?

Probably because GAC would commission more refined topos with higher frequency/resolution elevation differentials to "CAREFULY" study the land

How different are the topo lines in the 1898 USGS topo from the topo lines in the Blue/Red topo ?
My eyes aren't good enough to compare the two. .

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  A survey is a general term and its meaning depends on the circumstances and its usage.  While generally not necessary for home purchases, surveying can (and often does) involve collection of three dimensional (elevation) information. 

As for pre vs. post construction topos, in many instances I am not sure how one could tell whether the topo was used pre-construction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  A survey is a general term and its meaning depends on the circumstances and its usage.  While generally not necessary for home purchases, surveying can (and often does) involve collection of three dimensional (elevation) information. 


David,

If out of 450 acres, you had determined where the holes were and you only needed so much land to accomodate them and the land hadn't been surveyed, wouldn't you have the parcel you needed surveyed so that you could purchase it from the owner ?

CBM was given that latitude.  He could choose rougly 200 acres as he saw fit.  He determined the holes, starting at the SI, running alongside Shinnecock and north to south along the water and back to the SI.  He determined this on his initial visits and then needed to have the parcel he selected surveyed so that they knew where and how much land he needed.  The seller needed that info as well.  Thus, the FIRST survey had to be of the intended property lines that CBM STAKED OUT.

He sited the holes prior to configuring the land for purchase.

As for pre vs. post construction topos, in many instances I am not sure how one could tell whether the topo was used pre-construction.

It's apparent that the Red/Blue PV topo was pre-construction.

Post construction topos tend to have additional information on them, like yardages, and other features.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Since you and David are still discussing it, does CBM tell us that he routed the course by studying the contours of the land before or after they got agreement from Alvord to sell them 205 acres?

[Mike Cirba]

David, 

Of course there was a contour map of the entire property prior to the start of construction in early 1907...CBM said so.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about?

CBM also differentiates between the flat survey map of the property vs the later contour map which we know preceded construction.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, No doubt CBM had the property surveyed to determine the exact borders.  And if George's information about the hash marks on the blueprint is correct, he also had the elevations of his planned tees and greens and points directly in between surveyed.  All this after he found the golf holes.   He first found the golf holes, then he drew the lines around it, and he determined the elevation changes of the routing.

As for Cirba's question, don't bite.  He is just playing word games trying to trip you up.
___________________________________

Cirba

Quit playing dumber.   The blueprint was NOT a contour map, and the information in the August 1907 article I quoted was NOT from a contour map.  Both describe the same thing.  A survey of the exact elevation of tees and greens and points directly in between.  Prior to determining such information, as a first step CBM would needed to decide upon the location of the tees and greens.  He first found the course, then he surveyed land he wanted to buy and either in the same survey or after, he also surveyed the the elevations from tee to green.

Raynor walking in a straight line from tee to green, around the course.  Just like you were mocking above in your pathetic attempt to dismiss the facts without addressing them.

And as you scramble and misrepresent your story is changing.  You claimed the blueprint was "as-built." But as the name on the blueprint and the August 1907 article confirm, the in-line elevation information was determined before the course was built but AFTER THE HOLES WERE ALREADY LOCATED.  

That is what you keep purposefully missing.  The issue at NGLA isn't pre-construction or post-construction.  It is pre-routing or post routing.  And the elevations were determined post routing.   They first found the holes, then they had Raynor survey the property to prepare for construction.   Just like CBM describes in Scotland's Gift.
____________________________________

As for your question to Patrick, you have got to be f'ing kidding me.  We've been over that for hundreds of pages.  
- They first found generally suitable land.  
- They then approached the owners and the owners were willing to sell them a portion for a reasonable price.
- They then studied the contours earnestly and found the golf holes and staked out a preliminary routing.
- They then secured the property in November 1906 by option and by purchase in the Spring of 1907.

You throw around the word "agreement" duplicitously. You purposefully try to convolute the land company's willingness to sell the property at a reasonable price, on the one hand, with a formal agreement between the parties, on the other. These are not the same thing! Again Mike:  CBM secured the land by option in November 1907, AFTER CBM and HJW had earnestly studied the contours and found the golf holes.  That is what it says in Scotland's gift.

This crap has gone on for too long.   You are wrong.   The blueprint confIrms it.  Quit holding the website hostage and give up this nonsense.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Stop wasting your time re-answering questions that have already been answered and accepted by prudent minds

As to your Kent topo, it's clear that it's a post construction topo.

The superimposition of the Blue/Red holes on the topo seems to be proof positive that a topo was instrumental in crafting PV.

It would be interesting to find out how similar the 1898 USGS topo and the Blue/Red topo are.
What's the date of the Blue/Red topo ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I know that GAC took what seemed like an inordinate amount of time to craft the routing and hole designs, but, despite the time on site, it would appear that topos would provide more information than field study, from a hole design perspective.

Could you elaborate on why you think the topo would have provided more information than field study from a hole design perspective.  

For several reasons.

1  GAC was totally inexeperineced in routing a golf course
2  Because GAC was totally inexperienced in designing golf holes
3  Because GAC was totally inexperienced in creating features within a hole
4  Because the terrain is very difficult, with steep slope a major problem.
5  Because establishing spacial relationships in a dense forest covered with jungle like undergrowth is almost impossible
6  The fact that it took hiim the rest of his life and he still hadn't completed the task would seem to prove the above..

With all due respect, your points 1 to 4 don't explain how a topo map would provide more information than field study.  Point 5, if true, might indicate that a topo map might provide more information than field study.  Point 6 might demonstrate that he was a perfectionist neophyte, not that topo maps provide more information.  Do you know what GAC's learning style was?  Some people learn well by reading manuals others learn better with hands-on training.  Sort of the difference between learning from topos or learning by seeing the reality.

The topo is a two dimensional simplification of reality.  

No it's not, it provides length, width and height, it's three dimensional

A map is by definition two dimensional.  You have to use your imagination to visualize the vertical dimension from the contour lines.  A plasticine model would be a better three dimensional representation. Ooops, wait, that's CBM again - off topic.  

It would seem to me that field study would provide a much more informative three dimensional view of the land.

Have you ever walked the terrain at PV ?  No.  Irrelevant.  
Especially the terrain where the slopes are steep and treed ?
If you had, you'd understand the difficulty he faced with field work.   I didn't say field work was easy.  It may have been more informative for him, though.

Remember, he cleared corridors of play, so he had to establish his routing and basic hole design prior to clearing the specific corridors.  Are you sure he only cleared the corridors?  Maybe he clear cut entire areas.  Do you have a reference supporting only clearing corridors?

In the early days you seem to feel that GAC wouldn't have been able to gather much information from field study due to the density of the forest and underbrush.  How do you suppose that the USGS created the contour map in 1898 in that dense forest and underbrush?

Surveyors are skilled at their job.
Surveyors making the topo merely had to determine finite elevations.

I think you missed the point.  Surveyors need to use transits, plane tables and rods to establish contour lines.  In order to do so, they need to be able to see lines of sight from place to place.  The USGS surveyed it in 1898.  They must have been able to see in order to measure the contours.  If they could see well enough to contour map it, then Crump could just as easily see it to understand the topography.

GAC had to interpolate those elevations and transition the raw land to golf holes, a subjective exercise that he was totally unprepared for based on his prior experience.

He may have been unprepared, but he did do it.  It took a long time, so maybe that's indicative of his unpreparedness. In any case, it's at least arguable that he could have learned as much about the land from field study as from topo maps.  Designing from topo maps seems to me to be the more subjective of the two exercises.  Or, perhaps he did both.  A black and white, either/or proposition seems a little dogmatic.

Is the red blue map the one that is supposed to have contour lines on it?  Is there a better version of it where the contours might be more readily identifiable?  At the scale of the map, I'd be surprised if it was at any finer detail of contouring than the USGS map.

For your amusement I have overlaid the red blue map on Google Earth.  The red blue is quite distorted, but with a little tweaking it is quite close.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

That's very cool...

Thanks for infusing some much needed rationality into this discussion.   If it wasn't for you popping in now and again I'd lose all faith in humankind.  

Patrick,

I know you don't want and refuse to admit that CBM didn't route NGLA in 2 days on horseback as you've insisted all along even though not a stitch of evidence supports that, including CBM's own words.   It's ok...we all understand.

David,

Yes, of course a finalized, topographically mapped routing was completed by summer 1907 at NGLA...I even showed you that article with the elevation changes which you weren't aware of prior.   However, there wasn't a completed routing in the period of Oct/Dec 1906 when they got agreement from Alvord to sell them an undetermined 205 acres (the number of acres they were looking to buy since 1904) at the price CBM wanted.  

But, there was very likely a contour map already created by Raynor by the time of the agreement with Alvord, or shortly after, which is my point.   I think the evidence shows it's highly like that a contour map was used to assist the routing process at NGLA during the winter/spring of 1907, as we know CBM tells us it was first created, and then LATER he gave Raynor his topos of holes abroad, telling him he wanted the holes laid out along those lines.

The December 1906 news articles announcing the agreement to secure 205 acres, which allowed them to AGAIN spend the next several months studying the contours earnestly and specifically routing the course before staking out the final boundaries during the spring, followed by a specific purchase agreement all confirm what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift.

Related, do we know for certain when that actual purchase took place?   I think George's book has a different month in 1907 from what CBM wrote, so he may have seen the actual contract.   I'm not at home this weekend, so perhaps someone could confirm?

Again, I don't know what point you're trying to argue.

I think we both are saying much the same thing, except perhaps I think the evidence point to a timeline where he secured the property in December, and AGAIN studied the contours earnestly over the  next several months and completed a routing which he ended up formally purchasing sometime in the spring of 1907.   You seem to think it came earlier, which I don't believe is supported by the evidence.

In either case, this routing process didn't take 2 days as Patrick will still argue, I'm sure, but at least we both seem to agree this planning took place over a number of months.

I think ultimately you simply don't want to admit that he didn't first secure some specific 205 acres that fit his routing like a glove as you've argued in the past.   Instead, that was his estimated number he'd need from 1904 on his original prospectus to potential members which included roughly 110 acres for the golf course and 1.5 acre building lots for his founding members.  

He first secured, and then locked into that number, later purchased 205 acres that encapsulated all the best features he had found for golf on the property, but even his 1912 Founders Letter mentions again the fact that there is surplus land, referencing his original 1904 letter.   Of course, as the course building progressed, there just wasn't enough of it (about 30 acres) to do much with it when all was said and done.  

Even the December 1906 articles in multiple competing newspapers mention that plan for golf and member lots...did they all independently get it wrong in articles that directly quote CBM?   I don't think so.

One last thought...

If NGLA was fully routed by the time CBM secured the property in December 1906, then why did it take until August 26th of 1907 for that routing of the most famous golf project in America to finally be revealed to a waiting public?  



Off to play Longaberger...

[DMoriarty]

You are really too much, Cirba.  You just make shit up.  There was no contour map in the fall of 1906.  You just made that up.   There is no way in hell that there were earnestly studying the contours in the WINTER of 1906-1907.   The fall of 1906 articles make clear they had already studied the contours and found the golf holes and came up with a rough routing of the course. The blueprint and the article are the first solid evidence of any sort of elevation survey and both of those necesarily came AFTER the routing was in place. 

In other words, you can file your theory that NGLA was routed via a contour map with all of you other lame, unsupported, illogical theories you made up to support your agenda, despite the facts.   You are a waste of time. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I know that GAC took what seemed like an inordinate amount of time to craft the routing and hole designs, but, despite the time on site, it would appear that topos would provide more information than field study, from a hole design perspective.

Could you elaborate on why you think the topo would have provided more information than field study from a hole design perspective.  

For several reasons.

1  GAC was totally inexeperineced in routing a golf course
2  Because GAC was totally inexperienced in designing golf holes
3  Because GAC was totally inexperienced in creating features within a hole
4  Because the terrain is very difficult, with steep slope a major problem.
5  Because establishing spacial relationships in a dense forest covered with jungle like undergrowth is almost impossible
6  The fact that it took hiim the rest of his life and he still hadn't completed the task would seem to prove the above..

With all due respect, your points 1 to 4 don't explain how a topo map would provide more information than field study.  

You must be kidding.
Your lack of familiarity with the land is causing you to draw flawed conclusions.

What kind of field study could he get done in a forest with undergrowth so thick it was like a jungle, on hostile land with very steep slopes ?
Again, your lack of familiarity with the land hinders your ability to understand the conditions.


Point 5, if true, might indicate that a topo map might provide more information than field study.  

Point 6 might demonstrate that he was a perfectionist neophyte, not that topo maps provide more information.  

You can't refute point # 1 and then accept point # 1 as factual to prove a subsequent issue.


Do you know what GAC's learning style was?  

Do you ?

Some people learn well by reading manuals others learn better with hands-on training.  
Sort of the difference between learning from topos or learning by seeing the reality. [/size][/color]

This is what you don't get.
The reailty was that it was a dense woods with jungle like undergrowth.
You couldn't see any meaningful distances.
The land had very, very steep slopes, it was hostile, it would be next to impossible to visualize holes of 130, 380, 440 and 580 yards through that thick vegetation.

But, a topo would allow him to better visualize the terrain in the context of placing golf holes upon it.


The topo is a two dimensional simplification of reality.  
[/size]

No it's not, it provides length, width and height, it's three dimensional

A map is by definition two dimensional.[/size]
 
A topo isn't a map, it's a three dimensional representation of the land.

You have to use your imagination to visualize the vertical dimension from the contour lines.[/size]  

No you don't, the lines clearly indicate elevation and elevation differentials

A plasticine model would be a better three dimensional representation. Ooops, wait, that's CBM again - off topic.   [/size][/color]

I would agree, to the novice, plasticine models would be a better 3-D representation

It would seem to me that field study would provide a much more informative three dimensional view of the land.


Have you ever walked the terrain at PV ?  [/size][/b]No.  Irrelevant.  

No, it's far from irrlevant, it's critical to understanding the Herculean task Crump faced.

Especially the terrain where the slopes are steep and treed ?
If you had, you'd understand the difficulty he faced with field work.[/size][/b]   I didn't say field work was easy.  It may have been more informative for him, though.

If you were familiar with the land I doubt you'd make that claim.

Remember, he cleared corridors of play, so he had to establish his routing and basic hole design prior to clearing the specific corridors.
[/color][/size][/b]
 Are you sure he only cleared the corridors?[/size]YES  
Maybe he clear cut entire areas. [/size]
"Maybe ?   I don't think so.

Do you have a reference supporting that he only clearing corridors?

YES, irrefutable evidence.

In the early days you seem to feel that GAC wouldn't have been able to gather much information from field study due to the density of the forest and underbrush.  How do you suppose that the USGS created the contour map in 1898 in that dense forest and underbrush?

Surveyors are skilled at their job.
Surveyors making the topo merely had to determine finite elevations.

I think you missed the point.  Surveyors need to use transits, plane tables and rods to establish contour lines.  In order to do so, they need to be able to see lines of sight from place to place.

But, they don't need to be able to see 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 yards, they can do the sight line work incrementally
That's the difference, Crump couldn't see 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600 yards, the distances necessary to see a "hole"

Your lack of familiarity and your desire to just argue for argument's sake is undermining your credibility on this issue.

The USGS surveyed it in 1898.  They must have been able to see in order to measure the contours.  If they could see well enough to contour map it, then Crump could just as easily see it to understand the topography.

Absolutely not.
You evidently don't understand the process of surveying and you evidently don't understand the process of routing a course and designing golf holes.
Add that to your unfamiliarity with the land and it puts you at a severe disadvantage when it comes to discussing this issue.

GAC had to interpolate those elevations and transition the raw land to golf holes, a subjective exercise that he was totally unprepared for based on his prior experience.[/b][/size]

He may have been unprepared, but he did do it.  It took a long time, so maybe that's indicative of his unpreparedness.


"Unpreparedness ?  That translates/equates to "Inexperience"  Point # 1.


In any case, it's at least arguable that he could have learned as much about the land from field study as from topo maps.
Now it's "could have learned".
It's your unfamiliarity with the land that causes you to reach that flawed conclusion.

Designing from topo maps seems to me to be the more subjective of the two exercises.

Again, your lack of familiarity with the land is causing you to reach that conclusion.
I believe he "roughed" the holes out from the topo and once he cleared those corridors for the holes, did the site/feature work


 Or, perhaps he did both.  A black and white, either/or proposition seems a little dogmatic.[/size]

Not if you view the process chronologically

Is the red blue map the one that is supposed to have contour lines on it?  Is there a better version of it where the contours might be more readily identifiable?  At the scale of the map, I'd be surprised if it was at any finer detail of contouring than the USGS map.

TEPaul would probably know the answer to that, but, he's been incognito lately.
I know, where is he when you need him ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I know you don't want and refuse to admit that CBM didn't route NGLA in 2 days on horseback as you've insisted all along even though not a stitch of evidence supports that, including CBM's own words.   It's ok...we all understand.


Mike,

CBM's 2nd paragraph on page 187 clearly indicates that that's exactly how he found the holes and routed the golf course.

Behr, later states that the course basically routed itself.
You remember that quote, you posted it.

But, more importantly, email me the stick map of NGLA you just posted.
It seems to prove my theory that CBM designed # 13 (# 4) as the 7th and 11th at TOC
Also, what was the date of that map ?

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Behr wasn't there and his account nearly a decade later was making a completely different point.   He was saying that if you can obtain enough land that encapsulates all of the good golf features you want than laying it out on the ground is relatively easy.   He said that an average golf course needed about 120 or so acres, and that CBM did it ideally by buying a lot more than that.  That out of context quote you and David keep repeating is as misleading as your mutual use of the Findlay quote.

All of the other contemporaneous evidence, including CBM's book, tells a much different story than Behr, which I'll try to timeline sometime this weekend.

As far as the second paragraph, if the word "Again" had a comma after it, as though CBM was simply reiterating a point, I'd agree with you.   However, it doesn't, and it indicates a period of time sometime AFTER the initial pony rides, which CBM doesn't timeline.   However, the contemporaneous articles do.



Regarding Crump, don't you think if he was looking for a topo map in 1910 that he would have specified that for his brother-in-law?   No, instead we have an exact quote that is asking simply for a map of the county.

The early maps I've seen from that time period usually have the landowners listed, particularly the county atlases.   I think it's more likely that Crump was looking at dimensions of the property holdings, perhaps the landowner, etc.

Certainly the 10 foot topo from the time that Bryan provided does little to help one put together a golf course routing.

David,

I'll try to put together a timeline to see specifically where we disagree.

In the meantime, I'd simply ask, does CBM tell us that he had Raynor create a contour map prior to construction or no?   It seems pretty clear that it was pre-construction...even prior to giving Raynor his contour maps of great holes abroad and asking him to lay them out on the ground.

[Tom MacWood]

8/26/1907, Brooklyn Daily Eagle

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks, yes....that's the one.

Only about 10 months after CBM supposedly routed the course on a pony.

[Tom MacWood]

Is the red blue map the one that is supposed to have contour lines on it?  Is there a better version of it where the contours might be more readily identifiable?  At the scale of the map, I'd be surprised if it was at any finer detail of contouring than the USGS map.

Yes, this map has contour lines on it. The original contour map was made March 1913.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'll try to put together a timeline to see specifically where we disagree.

In the meantime, I'd simply ask, does CBM tell us that he had Raynor create a contour map prior to construction or no?   It seems pretty clear that it was pre-construction...even prior to giving Raynor his contour maps of great holes abroad and asking him to lay them out on the ground.

Cirba,

I am NOT going to engage in a discussion with you about whether or not Raynor did a contour map pre-construction, because that is entirely beside the point.   The only reason I entered into this discussion was to correct your ridiculous representation that NGLA was routed using a contour map.  It wasn't.   But now, rather than manning up and admitting this, you are trying to change the subject.  

The only issue is your spurious claim that Raynor did a contour map before CBM and HJW routed the course.  The evidence strongly suggests that he did NOT.   In fact, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A CONTOUR MAP WAS CREATED BEFORE THE COURSE WAS ROUTED, AND STRONG EVIDENCE THAT NO SUCH PRE-ROUTING CONTOUR MAP EXISTED.  

In other words, You were just making shit up.  Again. You start at your desired conclusion, and then make shit up to suit it. This is not only counter-productive, it is damn annoying.  Unfortunately, seem incapable of doing anything else.

As for your attempt to divert attention away from your own silly theories by returning to your stale mischaracterizations of Patrick's understanding of what happened at NGLA, it is just more sleaziness on your part.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Behr wasn't there and his account nearly a decade later was making a completely different point.   He was saying that if you can obtain enough land that encapsulates all of the good golf features you want than laying it out on the ground is relatively easy.   He said that an average golf course needed about 120 or so acres, and that CBM did it ideally by buying a lot more than that.  

That out of context quote you and David keep repeating is as misleading as your mutual use of the Findlay quote.

Niether quote is out of context.
In fact, it was you who originally posted the Behr quote.
But, like many things you post without carefully examining them, it eventually disproved your point

All of the other contemporaneous evidence, including CBM's book, tells a much different story than Behr, which I'll try to timeline sometime this weekend.

If by contemporaneous evidence you mean faulty/flawed newspaper accounts, I think we can discount them in favor of CBM's own words.

As far as the second paragraph, if the word "Again" had a comma after it, as though CBM was simply reiterating a point, I'd agree with you.   However, it doesn't, and it indicates a period of time sometime AFTER the initial pony rides, which CBM doesn't timeline.   However, the contemporaneous articles do.


What part of:
"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, STUDYING the contours on the ground.  Finally, we determined it was what we wanted providing we could get it reasonably"  "Finally" means after two or three days of riding and studying the land,  "Finally" means at the conclusion of their two or three day journey.

The found the land and the holes long before the property was surveyed, and the only reason to have the unsurveyed property surveyed, was to determine the boundaries of the parcel they were about to purchase.



Regarding Crump, don't you think if he was looking for a topo map in 1910 that he would have specified that for his brother-in-law?  
Maybe he did.
Can you detail everything that was on that postcard or just the sentence Finegan chose to quote ?

No, instead we have an exact quote that is asking simply for a map of the county.

That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE and just another one of your efforts to rewrite history to your liking.

Do you think that by quoting the one sentence Finegan chose to include in his book that nothing else, no other sentences were on that postcard ?
Citing but one sentence and excluding the possibility of any other sentences is disengenuous.

The early maps I've seen from that time period usually have the landowners listed, particularly the county atlases.

Baloney. since when do NJ county maps, circa 1910 show every property owner ?

Show us the county maps from NJ, circa 1910 that show all of the landowners in that county.
Why do you just make this stuff up ?
 

I think it's more likely that Crump was looking at dimensions of the property holdings, perhaps the landowner, etc.

Nonsense. He was familiar with the land, having hunted on it for years if not decades and he lived just up the road from it.
He didn't have to get a county map to determine the dimensions of the property
A map of the town of Clementon would have sufficed for that purpose.
Or, he could have simply asked his brother-in-law to get a copy of the public survey of the land that the company owned in Clementon.

If he had narrowed his choice down to PV's land, why would he need a map of the county, a county he grew up and lived in ?

Certainly the 10 foot topo from the time that Bryan provided does little to help one put together a golf course routing.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you're incorrect, 10 foot incrementals tell a revealing story, especially at PV

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Behr wasn't there and his account nearly a decade later was making a completely different point.

Yes it was a decade later, but, he was friendly with CBM and he was familiar with NGLA.  

He was saying that if you can obtain enough land that encapsulates all of the good golf features you want than laying it out on the ground is relatively easy.  

That's not what he said, that's what you want to misrepresent what he said.




He said that an average golf course needed about 120 or so acres, and that CBM did it ideally by buying a lot more than that.  That out of context quote you and David keep repeating is as misleading as your mutual use of the Findlay quote.

NO, that's not what he said. He said that the course basically layed itself out, that it was self evident.
Only you want to believe that he wasn't refering to the specifics at NGLA..

Again, here's what he said, he said the course, NGLA basically laid itself out

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Cirba's misrepresentation of Behr is really pretty pathetic, considering Behr couldn't have been more clear ...

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.

This is exactly the way CBM described what happened in Scotland's Gift.
1.  First CBM and HJW found the right sort of land.
2.  Then, after determining that the owner was willing to sell them land for a golf course at a reasonable price, CBM and HJW earnestly studied the contours and came up with a rough routing using the best features.
3.  THEN they bought the land encompassing the course they had found.

As for Cirba's dismissal of Behr, he has apparently forgotten about Behr's familiarity with the project and M&W's connection to Behr's magazine. For Cirba to think he is in a better position to know than Behr or Macdonald is equal parts arrogance and idiocy.  

Note also that every time he quotes Scotland's Gift he leaves out the key sentence which immediately follows what he posted.  All of which he quotes happened BEFORE CBM optioned then purchased the property.

I am close to giving up.  Cirba cannot carry on an intelligent and reasonable conversation about this stuff, and he is either unwilling or incapable of even beginning to objectively consider the source material.  Yet he foists his idiotic ideas and tangents on us over and over again, thus essentially ruining any potentially interesting conversation on the history of golf design.  

[JESII]

I kid you not!!!


http://smartabouthealth.net/1/2011/09/04/cincinnati-man-dies-from-toothache-lack-of-insurance/


Also, regarding the names of land owners...we certainy have maps of the Merion site pre-1910 and ther were owners names on it, would that be a different type of map then you're discussing now?

Pat, How would a general topo with 10 foot increents help someone find land for a golf course? Would TOC even have a line on it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I kid you not!!!


http://smartabouthealth.net/1/2011/09/04/cincinnati-man-dies-from-toothache-lack-of-insurance/


Also, regarding the names of land owners...we certainy have maps of the Merion site pre-1910 and ther were owners names on it, would that be a different type of map then you're discussing now?

YES, it's entirely different than a 'COUNTY" map from NJ circa 1910.



Pat, How would a general topo with 10 foot increents help someone find land for a golf course?

You're kidding, aren't you.

Would TOC even have a line on it?

That would seem like sufficient information.

Remember, PV has sharp, pronounced elevation changes of 30, 40 and 50 feet or more and those would clearly show up on a 10 foot topo.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat and David,

You guys spent all day typing all that and still didn't answer any of my questions.


Why is that?

[DMoriarty]

Because your questions irrelevant to this discussion and your own claims.   And we have covered your idiotic theories for hundred of pages.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()