Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[MCirba]

I don't think so Bryan because he goes on to say that latitude will be given to us in that respect.  Who would he need latitude from but the developer he had just entered into agreement to secure 200 of 450 available acres?
  

[DMoriarty]

Now, David is saying that the blueprint may show the first hole further north (and, thus nearer or on the clubhouse site).

I know I said this, but I don't have a high degree of confidence in this, because everything is so hard to read on the that section of the blueprint. I had originally thought that the 1st green was further north than I placed it (in orange) on the overlay, but think the location I have it makes more sense based on what I see. It does look to me that there are bunkers/features right over the current location of the clubhouse, but again on this part of the blueprint it is pretty tough to tell.  

There does not appear to be a "donut hole" on the map for a clubhouse,  though, and there are no apparent border lines in the clubhouse area carving out this piece.

[MCirba]

Mike,  Why are you circling though this same material and stale arguments yet again?  Every time we seem to be making progress you try to take us back to square one.  Again . . .

1.  CBM is quoted as saying, "the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .."   He is NOT quoted as saying they have not drawn any lines.  Surely you understand that saying that exact lines will be drawing doesn't mean that Nothing had been done?  Especially when CBM description leaves little doubt that he already had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.

2.   Your continued speculation and spinning about the supposed housing component is really ridiculous, considering the developer wrote at the end of 1906. Your theory that 3-5 acre parcels were somehow too big for building lots for CBM's founders would be kind of funny, if only you had meant it to be a joke.

3.  Despite your representations otherwise, CBM did NOT say that the Cape, Alps, Redan, and Eden were the only holes "he'd found to date at this point."  He described the Cape and Eden then indicated that there were other opportunities as well ("there are other opportunites as delightful"), and then he gives a couple of examples ("--for instance to duplicate the Redan Hole . . . . ") and mentions the Alps and the Redan.  He did NOT indicate these were the only "opportunities."

A more reasonable reading is that he chose these particular holes as examples ("for instance") because they were famous and/or spectacular, and he was hyping his course.  What better to mention if he was hyping the course, than three of the most famous holes in the world and what he thought would be a spectacular water hole?

David,

What do you think "a more reasonable reading" of this statement would be?

"Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months"

Or this one?

"The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to use in this respect, as all concerned want the golf course to be ideal."


Do you think it sounds anything like what's being described here in "Scotland's Gift"?

"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably.  It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."

"Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted."

Also, I find it interesting that over 20 years later CBM would describe finding those same exact four holes shortly after recounting how he and Whigham rode horseback over it "2 or 3 times" studying landforms and soil to determine if it was what they wanted.   Remarkable.  

Similar is the coincidence in him subsequently securing 200 acres that December just happened to match the exact amount he proposed in the Founders agreement.

Truly visionary.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,  Why are you circling though this same material and stale arguments yet again?  Every time we seem to be making progress you try to take us back to square one.  Again . . .

1.  CBM is quoted as saying, "the exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished his plans . . .."   He is NOT quoted as saying they have not drawn any lines.  Surely you understand that saying that exact lines will be drawing doesn't mean that Nothing had been done?  Especially when CBM description leaves little doubt that he already had a rough idea of how the course would fit on the land.

I agree, but believe he is talking property lines and perhaps some golf centerlines.  After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."


2.   Your continued speculation and spinning about the supposed housing component is really ridiculous, considering the developer wrote at the end of 1906. Your theory that 3-5 acre parcels were somehow too big for building lots for CBM's founders would be kind of funny, if only you had meant it to be a joke.

Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots.  Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable.  We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.


3.  Despite your representations otherwise, CBM did NOT say that the Cape, Alps, Redan, and Eden were the only holes "he'd found to date at this point."  He described the Cape and Eden then indicated that there were other opportunities as well ("there are other opportunites as delightful"), and then he gives a couple of examples ("--for instance to duplicate the Redan Hole . . . . ") and mentions the Alps and the Redan.  He did NOT indicate these were the only "opportunities."

Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes.  They are not the same.


A more reasonable reading is that he chose these particular holes as examples ("for instance") because they were famous and/or spectacular, and he was hyping his course.  What better to mention if he was hyping the course, than three of the most famous holes in the world and what he thought would be a spectacular water hole?

Agreed, and also because those were the ones he was sure would be copies, while others hadn't been selected, or selected and fit to the land.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Regarding your premise that the developer held reversion rights in some form; wouldn't the existence of a golf course satisfy the requirement and therefore extinguish those rights of reversion?

Jim,  I am going by what the developer wrote/said in late 1906, and by his description, it sounds like the developer possessed a Possibility of Reverter (or maybe a Right of Entry) the term of which was 50 years.   In other words, the land had to be used as a golf course over the next fifty years, or it would revert back to the developer (subject to return of original payment.)    So no, the developer's Possibility of Reverter (or Rt. of Entry) would not have be extingished by the existence of a golf course.   If the developer is to be believed, the developer still had an interest in the property for 50 years after the transfer.   After the 50 years was up, NGLA could have subdivided the property into real estate like Mike envisions.  

[JESII]

David,

Do you have more than that one sentence to support that interpretation?

[MCirba]

David,

It isn't me envisioning building lots for the Founders, it was Charles Blair Macdonald!  

It may help to go back and recall exactly what CBM was looking at to build his Ideal course.

Finding the correct landforms.

Finding the correct soils.

He described that as "Half the battle"

Once he located the right property "the completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience, gardening, and mathematics"

In a 1906 article in Outing Magazine, Macdonald described how important it was to find the right sort of soil and landforms.

Studying the above qualities in detail, there can be but one
opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon,
as well as the contour of the surface of the fairway green-running
as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews,
breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain
parts as at Sandwich and North Berwick.

The three courses above mentioned fulfill the ideal in this respect.
There can be no really first class golf course without such
material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than
half the battle…Having the material in hand to work upon, the
completion of an ideal course becomes a matter of experience,
gardening and mathematics.

Here’s Macdonald in December of 1906 the day he secured the land describing what lies ahead in coming months.



 
It's why I find it so fascinating that Macdonald described the property he secured in such mathematical terms (2 miles long by 4 acres) and the Shinnecock Inn being "200 to 300 yards" from his first tee, as if he hadn't decided yet how much to deduct from the 3520 yards that the two miles out and back would be "ideal".

No wonder he referred to himself as the first golf course "architect".   He was trying to turn this into a science.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I think David has a pretty reasonable interpretation.  It would still be nice to see the actual agreement and/or deeds to see if any other exceptions or conditions are noted.  It is possible they would allow other activities with permission, including some limited number of lots, or overnight accommodations just for members, but probably not 60! Or, the yacht basin, a gun club, whatever activity besides yachts.

Mike,

Every time I read those articles I see something new (or forgotten)  Again, most design is in future tense in three or four instances.  However, so is the mention of the contour model, so my earlier thoughts that Raynor did that in summer of 1906 were wrong, according to contemporary documents and quotes.  And it does say it would be used for construction purposes, which I didn't see as likely.  That makes those contour hash marks on centerlines the "earnest contour studies" CBM referred to in setting the locations of the holes, methinks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  Despite your self-righteous indignation in your latest few posts, I don't think it is all that complicated, nor do I think your interpretation is the most reasonable one.

Regarding your post 1052, I view all those quotes in the context in which they were presented.  CBM had already mentioned or provided examples of ("for instance") six hole locations (what he termed "opportunities") and the general shape of the course.  So when he wrote "distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months," he obviously did not mean that this process had not started yet.

Rather he meant that it has not been finally completed, and it had not.

Likewise regarding "the exact lines."   Obviously they already had a good idea of the lines, but the process had not yet been finalized.  For you to read it as if they hadn't started narrowing things down is ludicrous given what CBM had already told us!

And yes, I to think it sounds like what CBM described in Scotland's gift.  After the fact, CBM doesn't dwell on what happened over that winter, and I don't think that is an oversight on his part.  It was winter.  They had a very good idea on how the course fit before they secured it, and they probably put that idea into a workable form over the winter and spring while working out some of the details, and then they built the course.

I find it interesting that over 20 years later CBM would describe finding those same exact four holes shortly after recounting how he and Whigham rode horseback over it "2 or 3 times" studying landforms to determine if it was what they wanted.   Remarkable.

Not really all that remarkable if you look at the rest of Scotland's Gift. If you have read as much of the history as I have, then even you must have started to notice that many of the details in Scotland's Gift also appeared in contemporaneous newspaper accounts and/or various other reports. The details are so accurate that my guess the CBM or someone close to him kept copious notes, a scrapbook or clip book, or perhaps even a journal.  He obviously wasn't pulling all that detail from under his hat.  So it isn't remarkable to me that his account would be similar to newspaper accounts of the time.  Plus, these were all still very famous holes when he wrote his book, and key components of his design approach.  So why not mention them again?

Similar is the coincidence in him subsequently securing 200 acres that December just happened to match the exact amount he proposed in the Founders agreement.

This is a bad habit of yours. You just can't assume direct causation because you don't want to accept that something might have been a coincidence.  He needed those 200 acres for the course he invisioned.  Actually he needed 205.  And that is what he bought.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.  I think he bought what needed, just like he said he did.

If you really want to find a reason to link the 200 acres purchase to the 1904 letter, consider the finances.  He anticipated that land would not cost more than 40 or 50 thousand dollars.  He ended up spending $45,000 for "Cost of land and surveying, legal expenses, etc."  Note  that "surveying" was included in the section for purchase of the property, and not under the section including the costs of building the course.

[MCirba]

Jim,

I think David has a pretty reasonable interpretation.  It would still be nice to see the actual agreement and/or deeds to see if any other exceptions or conditions are noted.  It is possible they would allow other activities with permission, including some limited number of lots, or overnight accommodations just for members, but probably not 60! Or, the yacht basin, a gun club, whatever activity besides yachts.

Mike,

Every time I read those articles I see something new (or forgotten)  Again, most design is in future tense in three or four instances.  However, so is the mention of the contour model, so my earlier thoughts that Raynor did that in summer of 1906 were wrong, according to contemporary documents and quotes.  And it does say it would be used for construction purposes, which I didn't see as likely.  That makes those contour hash marks on centerlines the "earnest contour studies" CBM referred to in setting the locations of the holes, methinks.

Jeff,

I don't think Raynor was hired before 1907 is my read.

Here is what he wrote in "Scotland's Gift";

"Seth Raynor was born in Suffolk County in 1878 and settled in
Southampton as a surveyor. Employing him to survey our Sebonac
Neck property, I was so much impressed with his dependability
and seriousness I had him make a contour map and later gave him
my surveyor's maps which I had brought from Scotland and England,
telling him that I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to
those maps. For three to four years he worked by my side."

Here is what he wrote in his 1912 letter to the Founders;

"I cannot speak too strongly of
the work of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, civil
engineer and surveyor, of Southampton.
In the purchase of our property, in surveying
the same, in his influence with the
community on our behalf, and in every
respect, his services have been of inestimable
value, and I trust that the club
will extend to him the courtesies of the
clubhouse during his lifetime."

How do you read it?  

He first "surveyed our Sebonac Neck property", the "our" to me suggesting they had at least secured it by then.

Then CBM had him make a contour map, and then later gave him surveyor's maps from abroad with instructions to reproduce them on the ground.

The mention of "purchase" in the Founders letter makes me think it was again part of his work in determining the final boundaries before the Sales Agreement in June 1907.

[JESII]

Jeff,

Why would CBM have said the Founders had Surplus Land at their disposal in 1912 but hadn't yet decided on what to do with it? Remember, CBM never mentioned 60 homes or cottages...just the land.

According to David's interpretation they did not have any option to do anything with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, I had read it as surveying boundaries and making the contour map in 1906.  However, the newspaper passage makes clear the contour map and model was after December more for construction than planning, so I have changed my mind.

As to the phrase "In the purchase of our property" I agree with David that the 4 acres wide by 2 miles long was decided before the option was written up. And yes, I agree with you that Raynor was part of the work in determining final boundaries - most like from January-May 1907.

Unlike David, I think he and they were hardy enough to work in the winter at it.

[MCirba]

David,

It's interesting you mentioned winter and the lack of activity during that period.   Actually, I think most if not almost all of the architectural planning activity happened between mid-Dec 1906 and early May 1907 when Mortimer S. Payne was hired to commence construction.

The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well.   For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907.   Clearing of the holes was taking place over that summer and described as almost completed by late August   The construction of the greens was completed by September of 1907.   We know the course wasn't ploughed except for the greens.

Do you believe they had a detailed contour map prior to the spring?   I don't, but if they had one, couldn't Macdonald and committee kept their work going over the winter?

It also might be interesting to see what the weather was like in Southampton during late 1906 early 1907.   Most Long Island winters are generally very golf-able and recall the the committee from Ardmore came to visit in early March, as well.

[DMoriarty]

After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."

Again Jeff, these conversations would be a lot more productive and less contentious if you didn't mischaracterize my position.  The little nuances may not matter much to you, but they make a big difference to my position. I have repeatedly said that CBM had some semblance of  a rough routing in mind, and that he had a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land.  I don't think I have said that the either routing or the plan were absolutely complete and final, but if I did that isn't what I meant.

Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots.  Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable.  We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.

Because he did NOT say there were lots available on the NGLA property!  He is talking about the development.  Look at the context. Look at what he said about not wanting to get into the bed business.  Look at what he said about the Inn.  Look at what the developer said about the restricted use of the property that same month.  

Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes.  They are not the same.

Really?  Okay.  Using your terms, then, we seem to be in agreement that one can find "opportunities" for golf holes, yet still have plenty of planning left to do.  (Thus the reference to planning yet to come.)

[DMoriarty]

David,

Do you have more than that one sentence to support that interpretation?

My interpretation is based primarily on that one sentence, but also supported by my understanding of Real Property Law (however limited that may or may not be.)  It is a pretty meaty sentence, and "revert" is a pretty loaded term when it comes to real property transactions.   

My reading is also somewhat informed by the fact that during negotiations for the 2.4 acre parcel,  the developer also seems to have had a similar restriction in mind.

Why would CBM have said the Founders had Surplus Land at their disposal in 1912 but hadn't yet decided on what to do with it? Remember, CBM never mentioned 60 homes or cottages...just the land.  One possible reason might be that the original deal limited their options.

According to David's interpretation they did not have any option to do anything with it.

That's not really my position Jim.  My position is that, if what the developer said is true, they were subject to the terms of the deal with the developer.  But that doesn't mean they could not do anything with it.  For example, they could build a practice facility or use it in some other way which was consistent with NGLA's rights.

Have you stopped to consider the possible reasons why no action was taken regarding this land in the Dec. 11, 1911 Founders meeting, or why the land was never distributed to the Founders?   

[DMoriarty]

David,

It's interesting you mentioned winter and the lack of activity during that period.   Actually, I think most if not almost all of the architectural planning activity happened between mid-Dec 1906 and early May 1907 when Mortimer S. Payne was hired to commence construction.

There is a big difference between detailed architectural planning, on the one hand, and finding the green sites and considering how, generally, the course would fit on the land, on the other.  

The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well.   For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907.

I disagree with your timeline. While they probably continued to adjust the plans, articles indicate that planning was complete by late spring.  And CBM suggested the planning would be complete before the land was purchased.

Do you believe they had a detailed contour map prior to the spring?   I don't, but if they had one, couldn't Macdonald and committee kept their work going over the winter?

A detailed contour map? I prefer not to just make up facts if they aren't in the record.   CBM wouldn't have needed "a detailed contour map" to discover and mark the the green sites on the property.

As for finding the weather, knock yourself out.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Before you circled back around to rehash all these issues, I had asked you a question about your current position . . .

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?

[JESII]

I have thought about it...but to my knowledge we have no information on it. The simple fact that CBM mentions it in his 1912 letter, and the way he said something along the lines of 'it was thought and has proved true that we would have surplus land' indicates to me that he thought of that extra land as his (and the Founders) and not the developers.

The little I've read about Reversion/Possibility of Reverter/Right to Entry all discuss when a a grantee fails to meet the condition. In the case of NGLA, the condition was met almost immediately. Nothing I've seen discusses satisfying the reversion right, or the absence of that possibility.

[MCirba]

The rest of the timeline seems to fit as well.   For instance, the first news accounts describing the holes and showing the finalized routing were published in August of 1907.

I disagree with your timeline. While they probably continued to adjust the plans, articles indicate that planning was complete by late spring.  And CBM suggested the planning would be complete before the land was purchased.

Actually, I think you do agree with my timeline as I also believe the planning was completed in the late spring of 1907 in the May timeframe.

I'm simply saying that the next steps we all know happened; the hiring of Payne, the release of routing info to the press, the clearing of the property, and the building of the greens all happened subsequent to that planning between May 1907 and September 1907.

[DMoriarty]

. . . he thought of that extra land as his (and the Founders) and not the developers.

But it wasn't the developer's land in the way we usually think of it. It was NGLA's land, except NGLA was limited in what they could do with it. NGLA wasn't required to use ever square inch as golf course proper.  But that doesn't mean they could do whatever they wanted with whatever was left.  

In the case of NGLA, the condition was met almost immediately.

NGLA's "condition" continued for 50 years.  NGLA could only use the land for a golf club for 50 years, subject to losing the land if they didn't meet this condition.

If you want to find out more about how this stuff works, you could always try law school.

[Jeff_Brauer]

After all, SHPB didn't say anything about giving CBM latitude on golf holes, only property lines. He does suggest plans have been started but not finished. Hard to read that as "the routing was complete well before I bought the property."

Again Jeff, these conversations would be a lot more productive and less contentious if you didn't mischaracterize my position.  The little nuances may not matter much to you, but they make a big difference to my position. I have repeatedly said that CBM had some semblance of  a rough routing in mind, and that he had a general idea of how the golf course would fit on the land.  I don't think I have said that the either routing or the plan were absolutely complete and final, but if I did that isn't what I meant.

I don't think I mentioned your position at all. These conversations would go faster if you didn't feel the need to focus on poor misunderstood David first.

I have often thought over the years that some friction develops precisely because the though processes of a lawyer and designer vary between detail and concept.  We may never get over that natural hurdle with each other.......

Even in December 1906, after the option would have been secured, CBM says there will be opportunities for housing lots.  Why can't we accept that? At the very least, it seems reasonable.  We know it didn't work out that way, and obviously any attempt to figure out the nuance into just how CBM's thinking transformed is sure to be flawed.

Because he did NOT say there were lots available on the NGLA property!  He is talking about the development.  Look at the context. Look at what he said about not wanting to get into the bed business.  Look at what he said about the Inn.  Look at what the developer said about the restricted use of the property that same month. 

I think that is possible, but it is still an assumption on your part.  Nowhere does CBM ever mention any cooperative arrangement for SHPB to sell lots to members, but he mentions his on site surplus land early and often until 1912, and the only suggestion he ever made on it was housing.  The hash and bed biz comment is more likely rooms in the clubhouse and a restaurant, at least when the Inn was available.  The most logical reading is he is still talking about his residential component.  If not, please show me a comment I have missed regarding the realty company having adjacent lots.  In fact, they never actually did!


 

Even in December 1906, he says opportunities, not found holes.  They are not the same.

Really?  Okay.  Using your terms, then, we seem to be in agreement that one can find "opportunities" for golf holes, yet still have plenty of planning left to do.  (Thus the reference to planning yet to come.)

 Yes, really, but we are in agreement to a degree. Our only disagreement, really, over the last few years has been just how much routing did he feel was necessary early on, perhaps wasting time and money routing a course on land he didn't own. In real estate, its not a deal until everything is signed and the rug could be puled out.

And, just how comfortable he would have to be in the land to pull the trigger. I don't think the threshold is anywhere near a full routing, or even a rough routing. I think the myth of the 3 day ride completing the design is wrong, and I know you do, too.  As per above, I don’t think he would even have to be close, but just know he had enough length and width at his disposal.

To that end, lets look at some other CBM projects:

Chicago Golf (I and II) 1893 – Not really sure on the first version, but on the second, in Wheaton, he offers on 200 acres, no mention of boundary flexibility or pre-routing.  Basically a square sit (and he left a lot of land in the middle….Founders Lots?  Desire to do TOC out and back type routing, as Pat originally opines?

Canal Site – Offers on 120 acres, no mention of boundary flexibility or pre-routing. Clearly comfortable in pre-buying property. Obviously gets more sophisticated later.

Merion – Of course, I don’t bring this up to start that old battle, but our disagreements there do figure into my disagreements here.

CBM consults as to property acquisition in June 1910.  
Property acquired in Dec. 1910, when member voted on a blank map with no golf course shown. (because it hadn’t been designed….)
Club President makes statement, in the minutes, that puts design in future. (You ignore, but I can’t.)  
CBM recommended property flexibility, which turned out to be only minor changes along the road to fit 14-15.

In short, I believe he was comfortable in picking the property first, if it met some criteria he knows from experience.  In its simplest terms, that suitability stems from the fact that both legs of the Merion “L” are 4 holes wide and over 2 holes long, assuring 18 holes can be placed on the property. Sure, CBM mentioned the short 13th, and those 3 acres but that is because he realized at the clubhouse area, the width needed to be 2 holes wide.  It’s not evidence of routing.

Back to our middle project which seems eerily familiar in timeline:

NGLA –

Upon return from GBI in June, still has three sites to study.
Studies property on horseback for 2-3 days (matches the June 1910 Merion visit and follow up letter)
Acquires option to 205 Acres (with wiggle room - matches the June 1910 Merion recommendation)
Land bought in December (matches Merion)
Design Work Until May (Almost Matches Merion)

Besides the schedule, where each step fits what I believe happened later at Merion, my point is, if, in 1893 and 1905 he is comfortable pre-buying property, and in 1910, he is comfortable recommending selecting property in advance of routing for Merion, why in 1906, would he be uncomfortable when selecting 70% more property than he thinks he needs? (Especially if we buy into the theory that the founder’s lots were 100% off the table)

There are parallels in the rough property lines between Merion and NGLA property – At Merion he makes sure the recommended property is 4 holes wide at most spots.  At NGLA he makes sure it is 2+ holes wide for some flexibility.

At NGLA, the property selection is probably mostly a practical and not detailed basis. After determining the length desired clubhouse at the Inn to the desired yacht club and water holes on the Bay, he does some math (his phrase) and realizes the property needs to be about 2 holes wide.  He fits his two mile parcel in zig zag fashion to his 4-5 found holes, the Inn, and the water of the bay.  Even when it turns 90 degrees to the rest at 1 and 18, is still about the same width.  Did he arbitrarily set that width there? Mostly, but like you, I am sure he wandered up there, saw the valley that one could sit in, and set it as required to allow that hole.  

As with Merion, there are numerous quotes about how design came later, which you largely ignore, or dismiss as details. You base that entire early routing scenario by interpreting one line of Scotlands Gift as agreeing to sell the land happening way earlier, rather than reporting the signed option as an agreement.  

Wouldn't we need your corroborating source to accept and confirms that?  And second, (and sorry to be bringing up old wounds only to illustrate why I get bewildered with you from time to time) Why is it you loudly proclaimed on the Merion and Myopia threads the value of contemporary sources, but dismissed the recollection/remembrances of key players in the original construction as unreliable, but here, you rely solely on a probably drunk main participant, also writing exactly 20 years later, and ignore some contemporary sources that contradict?

I believe as strongly as you don't that he was comfortable in picking the land well before anything near a final routing was done.  I doubt a busy man would spend time routing on land he didn’t own.  I believe he was reasonably comfortable in getting the option on pretty loose fitting land and fitting in the other holes later.

Perhaps, I overstate your position.  Maybe I am finicky about wording as you are in a different way.  I have heard you say much work was left to be done, but I have also heard you say rough routing was complete (it didn’t have to be) and in some cases, it was fully routed.  If you wanted to come down from 18 holes routed, I would come up from 4-6 and we could all sing the Kumbya's.

However, to anyone who declares that the 18 holes had to be rough routed to buy the property, I still have to strongly disagree.  It is really rare that this has happened over the years, so if no smart man would do that, then a lot of dumb people have designed and built golf courses!  And the bulk of the contemporaneous record just doesn't say that.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  News accounts describing the holes were published in early May 1907.  For that matter some of the holes had already been described the December before.  

[DMoriarty]

Jeff I got to your snide comment in your second sentence and I stopped reading. If you want to argue against made up straw men, then there is no reason for me to continue.

[MCirba]

Mike Cirba,

Before you circled back around to rehash all these issues, I had asked you a question about your current position . . .

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?

Sure David,

First, we have reports in the summer of 1907 indicating that clearing was almost complete.   On a site of 200 acres I'm not sure what that would require in terms of time but the 1909 report that mentioned "planned in a general way" prior to clearing mentioned they used "axes and large mowers" in that effort.   In fact, as I re-read it, it almost sounds like a Pete Dye type operation where the golf course gets designed as part of the construction process, with only general planning prior to then!



Some here have suggested that the land was nowhere near as daunting as Macdonald, Travis, and others described but I think this process likely took some time.

Beyond that, I have a tough time finding hard evidence that the course was "rough routed" prior to December 1906.   You and I have very different interpretations of the section in "Scotland's Gift" where I believe he is describing the exact same event when he says "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres" and then a few paragraphs later says 'We obtained an option on the land in November 1906..."  

I think the phrase, "Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.",  refers to the period after December 1906, particularly the spring of 1907.

I think we can agree that he found the landforms for the Alps,  Eden, Cape, and Redan prior to December 1906 but I believe it was during the "2 or 3" initial rides on horseback with Whigham and you believe much more took place before December 1906 but I don't see the evidence of it.

So to answer your direct question, it is possible that the rough routing occurred prior to December 1906 but I don't see hard evidence of it.   Now, if you're saying a "rough routing" is finding some ideal holes (which they did) and knowing the general route that they wanted the course to traverse, skirting the bays, incorporating interesting landforms, perhaps spotting and noting some other possible greensites then I think that's likely to have happened, so we're not likely too far off.

But I do think that CBM's main focus was finding land that was suitable in terms of landforms and soils at that juncture, and I'm sure he thought he could figure out the rest later as I described earlier.  

[MCirba]

David,

Along those lines of designing while building, as well as the ongoing selection of the holes to reproduce, it's interesting to note what Walter Travis wrote towards the bottom of the second column in this article published in April 1907.   

I'm not sure when he wrote the article, but it was definitely in 1907 as he describes Macdonald's 4 month long visit abroad "the previous winter" earlier in the article.