News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #800 on: May 28, 2015, 12:34:33 AM »


...........................



2.  The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick.  He was not that stupid.

Rhic, what the heck is wrong with the 17th at NB.  The fairway is wonderfully bumpy, the trench bunker at the foot of the hill, the blind shot to the green, and the dell green - what more could you ask?  No need to respond - it's a big world and you're allowed to think it's an abomination even if I don't agree.


................................



3.  Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.


Rich, CBM wrote that he had another site for the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn but abandoned it (after the SI burned down) and decided to go with the Peconic Bay site.





...............................


NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green, so tell us how a clubhouse built "near" the current 9th green could be accessed ?



...................................


Patrick,  according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.  See the yellow outline in first aerial below.  The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.

As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below)  The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.








« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 01:02:39 PM by Bryan Izatt »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #801 on: May 28, 2015, 02:20:31 AM »

David,

Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.

The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land.  That would put it around early December 1905.

The Stillman letter in the Walker Cup program is dated March 7, 1906 in London.  So he was definitely there in March.  The letter also states that he will be back (to the USA) in June after two months gathering data overseas.  So your "Between Spring 1906" headings are a little off.

In the letter he also states that he's still looking at three localities for the course.

So, when he returned in June 1906 he still had to decide which of the three properties to choose.  Also, he came back with a lot of data, plans, maps and principles - more than 30 potential templates if I recall correctly. He still hadn't decided at that point what resemblances and principles he wanted to use.  It must have taken some time to digest all the information and winnow it down, let alone apply it to a property that wasn't selected at that point.  So sometime between June and October, let's say 4 months, he consolidated his ideas on what template holes and principles to use; selected Sebonac Neck from amongst the three sites under consideration; rode around Sebonac Neck for three days and noticed enough interesting features to decide to offer on the property; and then study it earnestly and route the course before optioning it in November.  Not to mention he played tournaments monthly over this time period.  And, presumably was still involved in a day job.  Sounds like an exceedingly busy 4 or 5 months

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #802 on: May 28, 2015, 03:27:46 AM »

2.  The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick.  He was not that stupid.

Rhic, what the heck is wrong with the 17th at NB.  The fairway is wonderfully bumpy, the trench bunker at the foot of the hill, the blind shot to the green, and the dell green - what more could you ask?  No need to respond - it's a big world and you're allowed to think it's an abomination even if I don't agree.


................................



3.  Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.


Rich, CBM wrote that he had another site for the clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn but abandoned it (after the SI burned down) and decided to go with the Peconic Bay site.



Thanks, Bryan.

I'm reasonably sure that when CBM visited NB, the 17th was played from that great fairway to what is now the 1st green.  That would have been an abomination as would the 1st hole hitting to what is now the 17th green (i.e. both totally blind and hitting to an elevated and sloping front to back putting surface....).  Today the 17th is a great (even though extremely difficult and frustrating) hole and the 1st remains an abomination.

As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash.  Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course.  After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.  At least IMHO.

Hope all is well.

Rich
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #803 on: May 28, 2015, 06:20:44 AM »
David,

Why did you not include Macdonald in Dec 1906 quoted as saying the next five months would be spent determining which holes to include and their distances?  He is quoted as saying, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."  You didn't find that relevant to your timeline?

I'd also note that the December 15-17, 1906 newspaper reports were in response to CBM signing the deal for the land on the afternoon of Friday, December 14th.   Without mentioning that fact it gives the impression they had all been scooped two months prior by a Boston paper.

Also, as Bryan mentioned, CBM was abroad acquiring reams of drawings and photos into June 1906 so you may want to adjust your timeline.

He reported in March and June 1906 what his next steps were.   I think they are rather relevant.

Also, in waist high brambles it might be difficult to survey to a level needed for golf architecture, no?  Do you think he cleared 200 acres before surveying on land he hadn't yet secured?

You may want to look at that October Boston Globe report a bit more critically to determine what information was being shared between CBM and the others named in that report during that period.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 08:23:58 AM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #804 on: May 28, 2015, 09:23:19 AM »
Mike,

Why is it that I answer all of your questions, but, you never answer mine ?

So, I'll ask you again.

If CBM was going to build homes along the 9th fairway, as you indicate, how were those homeowners going to access their homes ?

Pat,

Don't most developments include the creation of roadways?   This was a planned development and the men involved could certainly afford to build roads, no?

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #805 on: May 28, 2015, 09:41:22 AM »
David,

Why did you not include Macdonald in Dec 1906 quoted as saying the next five months would be spent determining which holes to include and their distances?  He is quoted as saying, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."  You didn't find that relevant to your timeline?

I used the Tribune article as a template, and it says 'three months to stake out the course' which I included.  I'll change it to the Sun quote if you prefer. It is more specific and it really makes no difference to me or the timeline.

Quote
I'd also note that the December 15-17, 1906 newspaper reports were in response to CBM signing the deal for the land on the afternoon of Friday, December 14th.   Without mentioning that fact it gives the impression they had all been scooped two months prior by a Boston paper.
Given that on Dec 3, CBM had indicated the sale already had taken place, I'm not sure that Dec.14 date is accurate or important, but I'll consider adding it.

Quote
Also, as Bryan mentioned, CBM was abroad acquiring reams of drawings and photos into June 1906 so you may want to adjust your timeline.
I haven't  gone back to through my research to confirm the exact dates so I used the general description for now. But it makes no difference to the point of the timeline if I say Spring or June.  If it is important to you and if you have direct source references for the exact dates, I'd be glad to change it.

Quote
He reported in March and June 1906 what his next steps were.   I think they are rather relevant.
To the order things happened on the NGLA property?  How so?

Quote
Also, in waist high brambles it might be difficult to survey to a level needed for golf architecture, no?  Do you think he cleared 200 acres before surveying on land he hadn't yet secured?
No and No. You need to make up your mind Mike.  You can't insist that finding some features was a breeze, but that finding others was impossible.

Quote
You may want to look at that October Boston Globe report a bit more critically to determine what information was being shared between CBM and the others named in that report during that period.
If by "look critically" you mean ignore the parts you don't like, then no thanks.  The article said what I said it said, whether you chose to believe it or not.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 09:43:00 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #806 on: May 28, 2015, 10:31:30 AM »
David,

Briefly back from my well deserved and self imposed time out for bad behavior, if only briefly.

I generally agree with your timeline, but put some elements further back.  Also, nice work on comparing property lines.  A few notes on my slightly differing perspective:

If you go to page 202-3, CBM answers a question I asked a while back - it was he who paid for the summer 1906 survey can contour maps, and it was Seth Raynor he paid to do it.  Somehow, I had not noticed that before.  Just a new fact to point out (I think).

If CBM returns in June (or late May), takes a bit to search, finds the SB land, rides it, gets agreement from SHPB to survey the property, hire Raynor to survey it, then add the contour map, etc. I believe that analysis takes them further in the summer.  

BTW, my reading of page 202-3 seems to indicate that he hired Raynor to first survey (probably initial/potential boundaries) and then a bit later, make the contour map.  I doubt CBM would order a topo map and then charge ahead before having it, placing the second ride and earnest contour study (which in part could be having Raynor make the maps) later in summer or early fall, giving some time to negotiate the option by October. I see little possibility of CBM having a full routing in mid summer or spring.  I think he would put in more work after formally had option to the property.  It would be sort of a waste until he was sure, right?

Second, your synopsis of both the October and December articles conveniently leaves out the contemporary report and quotes putting design in the future.  Only Whigham had seen the property by October 16, and Travis had been invited. Later, they had all seen it.   I see Mike points it out, too, but you dismiss it as making no difference. And, you don't seem to feel the need to address the points brought up with any facts, other than your analysis means it makes no difference.

In Dec. 1906, CBM is quoted as saying “the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans.  He also says, “Distances and holes to be reproduced will be decided in the next five month.”

I see Mike points it out, too, but you again dismiss it as making no difference, yet don't say why. I think most historians would consider that contemporary quote a more reliable source than a book published in 1928 (and written God Knows when, it did stretch out, but was not contemporary) Again, I have a hard time putting any other interpretation to it other than to read it for exactly what CBM says.

Those quotes lead me to believe that only a few holes had been picked out (the same 5-6 always mentioned, and oddly all near the center of the property, not near the coast or Inn) and the general land between the Bay and the Inn selected and probably at least initially staked, considering the 205 Ac target, those features, the Inn, etc.  Every time I read them, ALL it says is those holes have been found. Nowhere does it specifically say a routing has been attempted, started, much less completed.

Certainly the entire routing cannot have been finalized before October 1906.  CBM says so.  I think we probably have agreement that the early stages of land selection, some routing or hole selection was accomplished by October 1906.  And, it doesn't make sense (although it could be possible) that 80% of the routing was done in a month, and what you call details takes 7 more.  Or that he would order a contour map, and not wait for it until starting the routing, or that he would invest energy in final routing until he had a legal agreement that the land was his (i.e. the option)

It probably isn’t worth arguing the difference of opinion, but they do exist in how complete the routing was.  I am with Mike, I doubt any of us will change our minds, no matter how many times we type our respective positions.  

I guess all I would ask from you, if you would be so inclined is a specific fact based rebuttal as to why the October and December CBM quotes both say design is generally in the future? I could be wrong, but I don't think I have seen you do this, but my apologies if I am wrong on that point.  It has been a long thread for all of us.  (BTW, I don't consider your constant dismissal of me not understanding the design process circa early 1900's as a fact........)

Like you, I don’t think the roads, bramble height, setting sun, better land on what is now Sebonac GC, donut hole, etc. are all that relevant.  We have nuanced differences on the surplus land issue, from never to diminished in scope.

I do think we have learned some things about the property and process.  In some posts on this thread, golfclubatlas.com was working just as its founder intended.  Maybe we should give him a lot?

Believe it or not, edited for brevity shortly after posting........
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 10:40:15 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #807 on: May 28, 2015, 11:57:38 AM »
Bryan,  Sorry I missed your post this morning.


David,

Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.

The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land.  That would put it around early December 1905.

The author doesn't source the information so I can't tell from the Walker Cup article whether he is relying on different information or on CBM's reference to a few weeks. 

As for the dates of the 1906 trip, I have those somewhere.  I was just roughly bracketing out the time he was gone.  For the purposes of the chronology I don't think Spring vs. June is significant but I'll change it to be more exact when I get around to pulling up the exact dates.

I disagree with your premise that when he returned that he still hadn't begun winnowing his list of  favored holes, and I'm not sure what it has to do with what he did at NGLA.  Maybe I am missing your point?

In your description of his busy 4 or 5 months, don't forget that - if the Globe article is to be believed - he also had maps made to send to his advisors abroad.

I dont think it is a stretch at all for him to have come up with a rough idea of the routing during the Summer and Fall of 1906. It was Summer.  It makes more sense to have him in Southampton going over the land in the Summer and early Fall than it does to put him out there in the middle of Winter doing the same thing.  Southampton was a Summer colony for CBM's ilk, and your draft source has suggested that he was back in Europe over the Winter.

Don't get me wrong.  I've repeatedly said that plenty of details were left to be worked out, and certain aspects of the routing may have not yet been finally determined.  But CBM provided a pretty extensive description of the project in December, and they had been studying the land for at least a few months on before that.  It seems that they were well on their way by the time the option was secured.


Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #808 on: May 28, 2015, 12:18:46 PM »
David,

I don't agree that winter was a factor either, given CBM said they would be doing it from Dec. to May1907. Again, his words, not mine.

Your last summary of the timeline fits pretty well with my longer version just above, and admits what we all know - I don't think the historic record is detailed enough to know exactly how much was routed by the time of the option.  Obviously, enough to make him secure enough to pay for the option, but nowhere near complete. 

I guess the crux of the debate is just how the routing process did take place:

Did he route in the field, or on those topos after a few rides? 

Did he wait for the committee to weigh in after October, or did he feel it was really his job to do (I think the latter)

Just how hard was it to fit other holes around the six he found?  How hard was it to fit templates to other topo?

Was he the type to make his mind up quickly, or would he have fiddled with the routing and design of the ideal course right up until the day it was time to start construction (and maybe beyond, changing his mind after construction started, and as he reports, with bunkering, for the next couple of decades)

How and when did Raynor fit into this, since he said he gave him the Scotland maps to draw faithfully. (later than the contour map survey)

I would say we would be lucky to uncover any more articles that answer any one of those, and would be glad for it to relieve our endless speculation.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Josh Bills

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #809 on: May 28, 2015, 12:43:06 PM »
Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links.  Speculation over.


MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #810 on: May 28, 2015, 12:52:24 PM »
I think we're misreading the Globe article based on a misunderstanding by the author.  I'll explain as time permits

As an aside, this morning I chuckled at the ironic humor of David arguing for a much longer design phase and me arguing for a more condensed timeframe.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 12:56:02 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #811 on: May 28, 2015, 01:15:50 PM »
Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links.  Speculation over.



Josh,

My earlier questions were about who did the 1906 contour map, which I think is cleared up on page 203 of SG.  We knew he was hired to survey, lay out, direct construction, design drainage and sprinklers, pumps, etc. (also on 203-4 of SG)

I have also wondered just when he drew the faithful holes from Scotland for CBM.  It would seem sometime in the design process, although CBM notes it was later than the contour maps he produced.  It could be anywhere from October 1906 through the end of construction, but the earlier, the better.

Mike,

Well that would be interesting.  Look forward to it....
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #812 on: May 28, 2015, 01:20:43 PM »
Jeff Brauer,  

First, before your hiatus for "bad behavior" you were in the midst of throwing a fit in which you repeatedly and falsely accused me of misquoting Scotland's Gift so as to disingenuously manipulate the chronology.  As you well know, I did no such thing.  My chronology then was straight out of Scotland's Gift, as is my chronology now.

Are you going to do the right thing and set the record straight regarding your false accusations, or not?

Second,  I see that even in your post above you cannot resist another of your little swipes at me. You again imply that I am manipulating the historical record by "conveniently" leaving things out of my extremely brief synopsis of the October Globe article and December articles. I used the Tribune article as a template for my brief summary of the December articles (because I happened to have it handy) and the Tribune article uses slightly different wording than the Sun passages you reference.  As I said to Mike, I'll make the change to the language as the Sun article has it. As for the October article I have no idea what you are talking about.  

It is more than a little ironic that you and Mike are nitpicking the language in a couple of sentences of my synopsis and implying ill-intent, given the utter disregard the two of you regularly show toward presenting an accurate factual record.  Even in your posts complaining about my post, you get plenty of facts wrong, talking about the "second ride" for instance, as if all this one done on two horseback rides!  For another example, see your references to Raynor having been out there in 1906.  Where exactly does the record say that? Plenty more examples, but what's the point? Facts have never been your strong suit.

Third, as to answer to your request that I explain CBM's plan to continue the design process after the course was optioned, I have always acknowledged that this was the case.  According to CBM, plenty of design work left for later, including exact measures of the holes and the decision on which else of the overseas features he would incorporate where. This does nothing to diminish my point, which is that they were already earnestly studying the contours and roughly placing the golf holes before the option was signed, and that some semblance of a rough routing was in place before they optioned the property.  

Fourth, you keep saying that all he had decided on were some holes in the middle of the property. This isn't true.  He also mentioned that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, that it would start and finish near Sebonack, and that it would front Peconic Bay, and that it would fit in a two mile stretch that was only 840 feet wide. So he had already figured out quite a lot more than just the location of some holes in the middle of the property.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #813 on: May 28, 2015, 01:25:21 PM »

David,

Just two points really.  One that we should use the more exact dates where we know them.  And, the second that there had to be a whole lot of routing and design work going on in a compressed timeframe given CBM's desire to build his ideal course of template holes - whether ones with exact resemblences or that included ideal principles in some feature.  I think most everyone would agree that Macdonald was a genius in what he created at NGLA in that era.  For those that think it all happened very rapidly, that he saw a bunch of topographical features that fit his desired templates and that all he had to do was connect the dots on these found feature sites, it just seems too simplistic to me.  He was breaking new ground in architecture and design - it seems to me difficult to do that quickly.  To me, the theory that he found the one in a million piece of property in Sebonac Neck where sites for his winnowed down template list were just sitting there waiting to be connected into a coherent out and back routing seems preposterous.  I think (and can't prove it) that the routing and design process took from the summer of 1906 to at least the summer of 1907.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #814 on: May 28, 2015, 01:31:56 PM »
As an aside, this morning I chuckled at the ironic humor of David arguing for a much longer design phase and me arguing for a more condensed timeframe.

Mike Cirba,  I am long over chuckling over this "irony" because it has been haunting these conversations for years.  

I have always argued that the creation of NGLA was a long, detailed, and careful process.  Whereas you have always tried to stuff the bulk of design process into a few months in Winter and early Spring of 1907, as if CBM hadn't even bothered to considered how the golf course would fit on the land before then.  (And before you bother denying this, keep in mind that you have been recently argued that he didn't couldn't have even bothered to stake out rough property boundaries until after the property had been cleared.)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 01:34:58 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #815 on: May 28, 2015, 01:54:00 PM »
David,

I still believe nothing was either cleared, staked out, or topographically surveyed to the detail necessary for architecture by Dec 1906, correct.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #816 on: May 28, 2015, 02:07:04 PM »
Wait a minute Mike, You have suggested that you don't think they could even staked out the rough outline of the property before clearing.  Correct?   

So when did they do the clearing?  And when did they first stake out the rough borders of the property?  Have you changed your position on these?   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #817 on: May 28, 2015, 02:16:23 PM »
Don't know if this article from Brooklyn Life on March 31, 1906 has been posted before or not, but here it is.  It seems that the 1.5 acre lots idea is still alive in the reportorial minds although it has morphed into "villa" sites.

Interesting too that Macdonald's letter from London is described as a "circular" letter.  That implies to me that it was meant for publication.  One wonders why CBM would be promoting his ideal course through the press if he already had his founders and their money tied up.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #818 on: May 28, 2015, 02:29:10 PM »

David,

Just two points really.  One that we should use the more exact dates where we know them.
Sure. As I said, As I said, I'll add the exact dates when I get a chance to pull them up. If you want them sooner, then dig up the source material yourself, and I'll be glad to add them in my next draft.  

Quote
And, the second that there had to be a whole lot of routing and design work going on in a compressed timeframe given CBM's desire to build his ideal course of template holes - whether ones with exact resemblences or that included ideal principles in some feature.
I don't see it as a compressed timeframe at all.  Keep in mind that all I am suggesting was that CBM and HJW came up with a rough idea of how the holes would fit on the land so that they could roughly stake out the parcel they wanted and option the property.

Quote
I think most everyone would agree that Macdonald was a genius in what he created at NGLA in that era.  For those that think it all happened very rapidly, that he saw a bunch of topographical features that fit his desired templates and that all he had to do was connect the dots on these found feature sites, it just seems too simplistic to me.  He was breaking new ground in architecture and design - it seems to me difficult to do that quickly.  To me, the theory that he found the one in a million piece of property in Sebonac Neck where sites for his winnowed down template list were just sitting there waiting to be connected into a coherent out and back routing seems preposterous.

First Bryan, you are throwing out a lot straw men here.  Who are "those people that think it all happened very rapidly" or "quickly."  Certainly I am not one of them.  My design process stretches as far as anyone's although I see that you roughly agree with me.  

Second, I still don't know what you mean by a "winnowed down template list" and I don't think that is how CBM designed the course. I think that CBM tells us an awful lot about how the process worked, and confirms that an awful lot had happened before the option.  
   - In Scotland's Gift, CBM indicated that he "first placed the holes which were almost unanimously considered the finest in their character in Great Britain." From the description which followed, it is a safe bet he meant the Alps, Redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road. Three of these had already been singled out for praise by CBM and Whigham in the reports about the option/purchase.  CBM found the Sahara bunker/hole (which seems like an easy one,) and indicated that the Road Hole was "easy to duplicate."  
   - CBM also had indicated in December 1906 that he had found a perfect location for his new "Cape" concept.  Given that according to the blueprint much of this location was under water, on the beach, and/or in a swamp when he found it, this doesn't sound like a simplistic hole to locate to me.
   - At the same time, CBM indicated that the course would start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, would have mile of frontage on Bullsead, and the length and approximate width of the course corridor.
   - According to CBM all the rest of the holes were either "more or less composite" or "absolutely original."  

In terms of time-lining the process, once CBM got into the composite and original holes, he was not as bound to exact templates of entire golf holes, and there was more flexibility to determine how and where to use certain features.  Some probably would have been pretty obvious based on the landforms, like the punchbowl green location, the Sahara Bunker, perhaps the original the drive on what became the channel hole.   Some were probably more more complicated, and a few probably weren't worked out until some time later.  But again, all I am suggesting is that he had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.  I am not suggesting that every feature had been chosen and definitely planned.  

Quote
I think (and can't prove it) that the routing and design process took from the summer of 1906 to at least the summer of 1907.

To at least the summer of 1907?  Well they were already providing detailed descriptions of many of the holes, including hole numbers, by early May 1907, so this can't be right.  
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 02:33:24 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #819 on: May 28, 2015, 02:47:14 PM »
Bryan,

That same March 1906 Whigham called the housing component "ingenious".

Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the first offer on 120 acres happening in the winter of 1905?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:47:26 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #820 on: May 28, 2015, 03:04:00 PM »
Jeff Brauer,  

Second,  I see that even in your post above you cannot resist another of your little swipes at me. You again imply that I am manipulating the historical record by "conveniently" leaving things out of my extremely brief synopsis of the October Globe article and December articles. I used the Tribune article as a template for my brief summary of the December articles (because I happened to have it handy) and the Tribune article uses slightly different wording than the Sun passages you reference.  As I said to Mike, I'll make the change to the language as the Sun article has it.

We would appreciate it, since those points of future design work should be part of the record.  Sorry for the swipe, but let's face facts - we are all guilty to some degree selective in what we find important, even to the degree of using one PP of an article and declaring it sound, but sometimes the very next PP and somehow declaring it less important.  And again, I think you adding at least generalized months on the timeline is a great idea.

As for the October article I have no idea what you are talking about.

The parts of the October article saying: "As regards construction, nothing has yet been done, nor will active operations begin until spring, when by that time, the opinions of expert players both here and the other side will have been sifted and analyzed.”  The article also notes that only Whigham has been on property, and others invited. The December articles note most of the committee has been there.

To me, that part of the record puts most of the committee design work between those two dates.  How final could a design be if they are still analyzing in their own words?

So what part of that article saying that don’t you understand?

The December article has similar quotes.

“After a year of research and study (not design) CBM announced that he had finally purchased 200 acres of land……

”Travis, Emmet, Whigham and MacDonald WILL constitute the committee to lay out the course.  Three months have been allocated (not spent yet) for that part of the work.  Then, a miniature model of the links will be made, including exact reproduction of many famous holes that are to be copied.” (note, the words in Parentheses are mine)

I also note that SG uses the words "finds holes" before the option was obtained, but changes to "I first PLACED holes" after the option was obtained.

As I said in an earlier post, we all know that he did enough upfront work to be comfortable that this was his parcel, given his wiggle room. Maybe we just can't know more.  My opinion is driven by the words listed above, and taking them at face value, with no interpretation.

....... Even in your posts complaining about my post, you get plenty of facts wrong, talking about the "second ride" for instance, as if all this one done on two horseback rides! For another example, see your references to Raynor having been out there in 1906.  Where exactly does the record say that? Plenty more examples, but what's the point? Facts have never been your strong suit.

In mentioning a second riding, I never say there weren't more. Another example of you changing things up just a bit just to find a way to disagree with us.  Scotlands Gift, page 203 answers your second question as I just posted.

Over the years I have seen many of us use small discrepancies between words to make a point.  Certainly, the devil can be in the details and I think we are all on the look out for possible small discrepancies that can alter the true meaning of words.  In short, you are not immune to that either. ;D  


Third, as to answer to your request that I explain CBM's plan to continue the design process after the course was optioned, I have always acknowledged that this was the case.  According to CBM, plenty of design work left for later, including exact measures of the holes and the decision on which else of the overseas features he would incorporate where. This does nothing to diminish my point, which is that they were already earnestly studying the contours and roughly placing the golf holes before the option was signed, and that some semblance of a rough routing was in place before they optioned the property.  

I have always said we weren't that far apart.  To the degree you push the routing forward from late summer, then I disagree.  I do believe it is important in my understanding of the process back then.  Hate to bring it up, but I see some parallels in Merion and NGLA and in both cases, I (and many) read the record as more routing done later than you seem to believe. And, I think the written record supports that in both cases, if you take the most direct quotes and simplest explanations.

Fourth, you keep saying that all he had decided on were some holes in the middle of the property. This isn't true.  He also mentioned that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, that it would start and finish near Sebonack, and that it would front Peconic Bay, and that it would fit in a two mile stretch that was only 840 feet wide. So he had already figured out quite a lot more than just the location of some holes in the middle of the property.

If you read CBM carefully, he mentions the other stretches of land, but never attributes a specific hole to them like he repeatedly does on his five or six.  To do more is not reading CBM as he wrote, it is projecting a point of view you already hold.

By the way, in my post 425 I reposted a 1907 article which does talk about some specific holes out on the Bay and elsewhere.  I believe that they CBM would have specified those glorious holes out on the water if he knew where they were going to be.



I am not going to get into a lot of back and forth with you, but did want to point out for the last time, I hope, our slight differences. You can be quite strident even with those who agree with you 90%.  And, as I have said, we might be in near perfect agreement, depending on just what you mean by "at least a rough routing."  Obviously they narrowed down their options over time, and seemed to be close to a parcel by October and the option.

Again, not sure of your motivation, but mine is to clearly understand how classic designers worked, and from my perspective, you have it mostly right, but slightly wrong.  
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:08:06 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #821 on: May 28, 2015, 03:09:51 PM »
Does anyone really think that the guys who signed on as founding members gave a crap about 1.5 acres of land?  Go back and look at the list of names involved.

Its like trying to entice Warren Buffet to back your new company by offering him a share of stock.

Preposterous.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #822 on: May 28, 2015, 03:14:49 PM »
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #823 on: May 28, 2015, 03:16:54 PM »
I had hoped we'd make some progress before we get into this, but Bryan's line of thinking has convinced me to bring it up now. . . .

The blueprint provides some terrific hints as to how the plan took shape.  It looks like:
1.  Most of the green locations came first.  (Some physical features like the alps mound and other natural bunkers might have been on the map too, but it is hard to tell.)
2.  Then straight line elevations were added between consecutive green locations.
3.  Then tees and other features were added later
4.  A few of the green locations either were not marked on the original map or they were erased.  Others were marked in different places than where they ended up.

I'll do a more detailed analysis at some point in the future, but this gives a rough idea of how the map was created, and it may give us insight into how the course was created as well.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #824 on: May 28, 2015, 03:19:04 PM »
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...

Jim:

But it wasn't "pulled away from them."

The founders elected not to do anything with the excess land.  They didn't care about it.

Further, you could argue that the original subscription agreement was not an offer of land, merely as to what could be done if there was excess land (along with the debenture idea).  The fact that "details to be worked out later" were not worked out suggests that the Vanderbilts, Morgans, Rockefellers and everyone else of their ilk didn't really look at the project as an investment opportunity.

Sven
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:22:20 PM by Sven Nilsen »
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back