[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have looked again.  I can see what appears to be a shadow of fw outline on 18, but that isn't really what he did elsewhere, so I don't think that is what it is.  Could be wrong.  Also, not sure yet those yellow blobs in that area are bunkers, but I can see why you say that.

Of more interest, that sharp line on the right of the apparent 18th as then considered also shows up to the right of 5 tee. Not that different than the line behind 1 tee.  Haven't figured out what those might have been for.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I pointed to  George's old thread because it had his interpretation of what he saw on the original and I thought it might inform the discussion. You are of course free to disagree with George's interpretation. 

There were some other interesting (to me) points made in that thread and that I brought forward, but nobody seems to want to go there and that's OK.

Carry on the debate about the yellow blobs.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, and as depicted on that blueprint, the tee sits in the Leven Hole.  That is obviously not a settled design issue, whereas other holes have black (presumably removed and relocated bunkers) nearly full green concept plans, etc.  The Leven doesn't even have a centerline.

I hate to say this Jeff, because you are the expert (and because I am not all that interested in setting you off into one of your fits yet again) but it seems from your comments that you might be confused about what CBM has depicted on this part of the map.  

1. The tee for the 18th does NOT sit on the on the Leven hole.  The "T" is the tee for the Leven hole.  Your distance perspective on this section of the course seems to be way off.
2. The Leven hole DOES have a center line.  It is the column of numbers up the right side of the image I posted above, to the small cirle (the location of the green) at the upper right side of the image above.
3. Regarding your comments that "the partial centerline on 18 is more of a dogleg,"  I am not sure what exactly you mean but I assume you are looking at the edge of the diagonal bunker on the leven hole, not a center line on the 18th.
4. I see now you are referring to "a shadow of fw outline on 18."  Again, as near as I can tell you seem to be talking about the angled bunker in the fairway of the leven hole.
_________________________________________

Bryan,  I agree that thread is interesting, but if there is something from that thread that you feel is worth highlighting here, I'd encourage you to bring it forward.  

[DMoriarty]

Here is a very rough depiction of what we are looking at here.  Some of the features are very hard to make out, and this was just a rough and quick estimate, but you get the idea. The parts that aren't rough to make out are the center line elevation marks for the 17th, the 17th green, the 17th tee, the 17th bunker, the Sahara bunker, the Sahara center line elevations, and a few other features.

 

One thing confusing for me when lining this up, is that it looks like the green-side bunkers (and possibly the green) on the 1st hole are set further north than currently.  Not sure if this was just a transcription problem or whether it was actually intended at this early stage. 

As George had written, some of the additions don't seem to accurately placed but seem more like artistic depictions.

[MCirba]

Some interesting discussion regarding the blueprint.   

Steve,

Thanks for sharing the 1938 aerials.   I'm not sure how much of the land Sabin purchased had been cleared and/or altered from 1906 until the aerial was taken but it appears that it's really not meadowland but fairly overgrown.   Would you agree?   

In any case, I think it might be a moot point because it seems from our developing timeline that the course was "planned in a general way" before it was cleared, which would make sense with an intensive design phase happening post-option and a clearing likely happening in conjunction with construction commencing post-purchase.   

[MCirba]

Just an observation related to the 4 acre width CBM mentioned as quoted in December 1906.  

Much of the course as built still seems to stay generally within boundaries of 280 yards wide (4 acres) but I think Macdonald had to know fairly early on that his mathematical calculations were going to need revision.

I say that because the features that fall furthest outside those 4-acre wide parameters are features he found in his initial visits; the Alps hill, and the Eden green.   Compound that with finding the site for his redan almost due east of his Alps green on the same day meant from a routing standpoint that any hole paralleling the Alps coming back would need to be at least 185-200 yards away from his Alps fairway/green.

In fact, the decision to have all of his par threes run west to east while all of his par fours and fives run more or less north and south (except 1 and 18) are what stretches out the width of the course across the landscape.   In the end, I think Macdonald wanted to have it all.   He was bound to start and finish his course near the Shinnecock Inn through shear logistics, certainly wanted to use the land forms he identified in his early horseback rides, and I think there's little question he wanted his course to run out to the Peconic Bay bluffs.    Combine that with fairway widths that needed to accommodate alternate routes (with some much wider than CBM's previously stated ideal width of around 50 yards) and we have a course utilizing roughly 160-165 acres of the 205 he purchased that also includes sometimes considerable distances between parallel holes.  

Whether this was due to a restriction placed by the developer on how the land could be used or the original intent of CBM we'll likely never know without a copy of the original Sales Agreement(s).   We only know that Macdonald at most a year prior thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres near the Canal and ended up securing 67% more land at the Sebonac Neck site, eventually using about 30-35% more than his original estimate near the Canal.

[Bryan Izatt]

For those of you still trying to make sense of the 2 miles by 4 acres wide tidbit of information, I still think it was a handy metaphor CBM used to generally describe for the press and maybe his founders too that the property would be about 205 acres and would generally be a long out and back routing. There is no way that it was ever intended to describe a specific rectangular property.  Even getting the course, as it got built, to be measured at 2 miles long in a serpentine routing is difficult.

[MCirba]

Bryan,

What do you get if you roughly follow those straight line sections along the western border of the blueprint?  I recognize there are a few sections, first straight out from the Inn, then turning east towards Bullshead Bay and so on, ending up running along Peconic Bay for a stretch.  Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

As you know, Mike, I've already done that.   You get exactly two miles to the end of the property near the site of the Shinnecock Inn.



The orange line is 2 miles.  The long blue line is 1 mile.  The short blue line is a quarter mile. 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I agree that the 4 acres width was nothing more than a "handy metaphor" but the two miles fits the western edge of the golf course property, and the 1 mile of Bullshead frontage fits as well.

My guess is that CBM got the four acre figure the same way Steve Lang did a recently.  For descriptive (metaphor) purposes, he may have roughly calculated the width based on one side being two miles, as if it was a rectangle. But it isn't a rectangle, and it would measure around 180 acres or less if CBM was only working with 4 ac width from the western border.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, a few comments and questions based on your two posts above.

1. For years you have insisted that CBM definitely could not have worked out even a rough routing in 1906 because, according to you, it would have been impossible to even roughly route the course due to the "impenetrable" brush on the site.  Now you have finally come to acknowledge that the course was at least "planned in a general way" before the land was cleared.  Given that you have now conceded your main objection to the theory that the course was at least roughly routed in 1906, on what factual basis are you still insisting that the rough routing could not possibly have occurred in 1906?

2.  Regarding your "observation related to the 4 acre width, you seem to have finally acknowledged what I (and others) have been telling you throughout this thread (and before.)  Not even the features CBM had described pre-option fit in your mythical four acre strip.   (I have to say that it is a little frustrating to read you present it as if you you are the one teaching us about this fact. I've explained this exact point to you repeatedly.  It is why I have been telling you, Jeff, and others to look at the early maps since the second page of this thread!)

Also, the point you don't seem to have thought through, though, in your "observation," is that this had already been decided pre-option, just as CBM told us in Scotland's Gift. He had already decided on the holes and features which make your theory about stuffing the course into 110 acres impossible. 

You wrote,  "Whether this was due to a restriction placed by the developer on how the land could be used or the original intent of CBM we'll likely never know without a copy of the original Sales Agreement(s)."   We already know (and you just acknowledged) that before the option CBM had already decided on property which would have effectively killed any notion of a large parcel of leftover land.  We also know that the developer was not going to sell CBM land for a housing project!   So for you to say that "we'll likely never know" is misleading, at best.  We already know to a strong probability.   Sure, it would be nice to have confirmation from the records of the actual transactions, but the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that from the beginning of the planning process or before, CBM did not intend to reserve a large section of land for 60 building lots for his members. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're helping my case when you keep bringing up those enormous fairway widths. 

Go back and read Scotland's Gift regarding what he thought were ideal widths for fairways. 

I've read "Scotland's Gift" an inordinate number of times, what he thought "in general" doesn't represent what he did in specific situations.
You constantly try to force specific conclusions from generalizations.

I had previously speculatedthat one of the reasons CBM ended up using so much more acreage than his original estimates was the need to create alternate routes for the weaker players. 

Mike, he did that at NGLA.
There's a schematic that used to hang in the basement of the clubhouse that illustrates the alternate routes

For whatever reason...perhaps because the Developer restricted him from developing cottages or villas, he went hog wild in his fairway widths far beyond what he previously wrote was ideal.

Morespeculation on your part.
Would you cite, anywhere, where the developer restricted his use of the 205 acres.[

You're also misinterpreting MacDonald's reference to 50 yards, he wasn't confining fairway width to 50 yards he was addressing the minimum, not the maximum. [/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

I did and noticed that none of Bryan's roads exist.  




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

Mike, let's not forget that this is a "blueprint", not a survey.


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

Patrick,

Let's not forget that this is a "blueprint" and not a road map.

Yes, but Macdonald incorporated the only existing roads in his blueprint


To help out your tired old eyes here is a close up of the southern end of NGLA with the unimproved roads from the 1904 USGS topo superimposed.   They weren't land locked.



Now you've shifted where the roads were.
You keep changing the location of the roads.

First, you said there were no roads, then you had roads running down three or four holes, now you have the roads removed from NGLA's golf course and running all through Shinnecock Hills's golf course.  A golf course that preceded NGLA by a decade.

Why don't you just admit to ALL of your glaring mistakes and the fact that you're grasping at straws because you don't know what you're talking about.  

Over and over and over again you've made definitive statements that have been proven wrong, over and over and over again.

And there's one reason and one reason only that you continue to make these mistakes.

You're desperately trying to disprove my premise by resorting to fabricating and distorting the facts.

That shows a lack of intellectual honesty.



And, from the Walker Cup program a course map circa 1929 because I thought it was a nice piece of artwork.  you can click through for a larger version.

The Walker Cup program reinforces my position, not yours

 Is that the proshop to the right of the 1st tee.

You're the self proclaimed expert on NGLA, so you should know all the details regarding the historical location of the Proshop😜

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes...70 yards roughly Bill.  Or 280 yards wide which is huge for an out and back layout.  You could put 4 50 yard wide fairways side by side and still have 80 yards left to play with.

YOU could !

But that's NOT what Macdonald did.

Some of his fairways were 90 yards wide, including adjacents.

In addition, YOU and YOU alone have equated area with width in terms of the configuration of the land.

You continue to pursue your agenda by exchanging what you think for what Macdonald thought.

That's not legit in any quest for the truth.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The cool part about 2 miles long is that It's over 3500 yards each way. 

Remember what CBM wrote about after finding the right type of landforms and soil it then just becomes a math and engineering task.

Really ?

Then why did he need 10,000 wagon loads of soil as an additive ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable?

Yes, but I have the facts on my side

I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.

First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18.  Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows. 

I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions. 

Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits.   If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no?  Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....

[MCirba]

As you know, Mike, I've already done that.   You get exactly two miles to the end of the property near the site of the Shinnecock Inn.



The orange line is 2 miles.  The long blue line is 1 mile.  The short blue line is a quarter mile.  

Bryan,

I'm sorry but I missed when you previously posted that.  Thanks for reproducing it here.  

To David's point about it not being a rectangle and therefore being somewhat shy of 200 acres (less than 180 I believe David estimates) if an actual parallel line was run 280 yards along the western edge, do you agree that was just Macdonald ' s shorthand way of getting to and describing the desired 200 acre agreement he secured?  In other words, if some features he desired were further inland than 280 yards he knew he had some latitude there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable?

Yes, but I have the facts on my side

I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.

First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18.  Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows. 

I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions. 

Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits.   If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no?  Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....

Oy vey!

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I posted that, not Bryan.  You continue to try and spin regarding the 4ac width, but the fact is the parcel could never have been a set 4ac width, because a substantial part of the course, including the Alps (which was the starting point), doesn't fit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here is a very rough depiction of what we are looking at here.  Some of the features are very hard to make out, and this was just a rough and quick estimate, but you get the idea. The parts that aren't rough to make out are the center line elevation marks for the 17th, the 17th green, the 17th tee, the 17th bunker, the Sahara bunker, the Sahara center line elevations, and a few other features.

 

One thing confusing for me when lining this up, is that it looks like the green-side bunkers (and possibly the green) on the 1st hole are set further north than currently.  Not sure if this was just a transcription problem or whether it was actually intended at this early stage.  

As George had written, some of the additions don't seem to accurately placed but seem more like artistic depictions.

David,

Thanks for posting that. I suspected we were looking at different things, and for reasons I will try to determine, my computer screen and download simply don't show any of that hard to see area.  For instance, on the Leven, I see only the heavy yellow line I thought might be an early CL for 18.  The whole bunker etc. that you had seen looks like just a smudge on mind.  Ditto for parts or most of holes 1, 2,18,6, 10, etc., although the longer I look at it as a more finished design, the more I see blobs that might be part of the final design, like the big FW bunker on 5, etc, which I wasn't sure about.

Drat, I thought I was on to something that matched CBM's words pretty closely, but I guess it makes sense that someone would have saved something that had made it all the way through the process, rather than something from the interim.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Are you stating, unequivocally, that the design of NGLA included flanking homes on every hole ?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

So then, like your recent outburst concerning my timeline, your latest outburst (since deleted) was also without basis.  Do you suppose at some point you will accept that I am not out to get you or working from ulterior motives, but rather am just calling it as I see it?

As for the image quality, I scanned my image using the image in George's book as my source. The quality is good throughout except for the northern part of the course.  As I explained the features appear to have been there for the northern part of the course, but for whatever reason they are not legible on the scan.  You mentioned some features on the fifth hole. Those features seem pretty easy to decipher on my scan and in George's book, so perhaps your whatever source you on your computer is the problem.

[DMoriarty]

Here is an work-in-progress, NOT FOR DUPLICATION, overlay of the 1938 aerial and some of the more prominent features on the blue print which showed up in a scan for color.  The green marks match the circles depicting green locations on the blueprint. (I believe the orange circle depicts the mark for the first green, but it is difficult to say so I made it orange.)  The blue marks are the black splotches.  

Note that most of the greens are pretty close.  The one that is off is the current 9th, and I believe that George once said something about this green being moved back fairly early on.  Also, I couldn't find a mark for the 8th green so I left it off.  There are more marks that may be added later.  The red line top (north) end is my estimate of where the approximate edge might have been. I believe the foundation of the Shinnecock Inn is visible south of the course.

[DMoriarty]

At Steve's suggestion I flipped the images to put north at the top, and corrected an incorrect directional reference.
________________________________________________________

I must be doing something correct on this thread, because I got yet another nasty email from that creep TEPaul tonight, despite my repeated requests that he quit emailing me.

[Bryan Izatt]

Steve,

Thanks for the larger 1938 aerial.  I've enlarged and enhanced it to make it a little easier to see.  You can click through for a larger version.  I can now see the proshop/caddie shack immediately adjacent on the right of the 1st tee.  It sat between the current proshop/putting green and the 1st tee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()