Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike Cirba on January 18, 2011, 11:44:02 AM
-
With many thanks to Joe Bausch who found and previously posted many of the following news articles, I thought it might be interesting to have a single place for all of the contemporaneous news articles that document in considerable detail the creation of Macdonald's dream for an ideal golf links in the United States. His five year odyssey from purchase of the property to opening of the course and clubhouse to the membership is extremely well documented, and insightful in providing a unique look at how his own goals and ideas over what might be ideally accomplished in such a major undertaking were somewhat modified over time.
This first, from July 10, 1905, shows that Macdonald has not only been actively considering the undertaking, but has garnered subscribers to his dream;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5366879169_71b9a8aa55_o.jpg)
The next article, from September 15, 1905, is interesting as it entails a full discussion of opinions on what constituted great holes of golf, but also interesting to note that at this early date, Macdonald had often been called in as a "friendly advisor" when any major club in the East was doing course construction.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5362494918_e8497c4d1a_o.jpg)
This next artice, from March 5th, 1906, written by H.J. Whigham and cabled to the states from London, deals with much of the business side of the project, naming some of the very influential subscribers, as well as describes the plan to buy enough land to facilitate the "specially ingenious" plan to provide each early subscriber (founder) with an acre of the property for building purposes, which he projects will easily increase in value to their $1000 subscription rate, essentially making it a no-risk financial proposition for them.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
The following article from March 24th, 1906, which copies a letter from Macdonald (abroad studying the great courses) to Walter Travis, provides an update on his travels as well as again lays out the business aspects of the plan, which is to buy enough land to provide sites for villas/cottages for the charter members. The article also mentions the degree of skepticism he is receiving abroad to his grand plans.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5362495188_4c63d63484_o.jpg)
Three months later, Macdonald has returned and this excellent article from June 20th, 1906 is the result. He is still looking for where to buy 200 some acres for his course, but this article is noteworthy if for no other reason than it describes his inspiration for the Biarritz, even if somewhat obliquely.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
Next...Macdonald finds his 200 acres..
-
Very Cool Mike & Joe. Thanks for putting them together!
Mark
-
Sometime in the summer/fall of 1906, after a failed attempt to purchase the Shinnecock club property, Macdonald came across 450 available acres adjacent to Shinny that everyone thinks is largely wasteland, as much of it is swampy and the higher ground is covered with brambles and brush.
Too rough to cover on foot, Macdonald and Whigham on horseback cover the property in 2-3 days and are greatly excited by the prospects. Whigham discovers a hill he thinks can create a better Alps hole than his native Prestwick, and then with amazing fortuity then men turn around from the area of the Alps green and spot a perfect place for a natural redan. Other possible holes are found...a place to build an Eden requiring a water carry, a (later aborted) spot to build a hole like St. Andrews "Short" at the edge of Sheepshead Bay, and a spot for a original hole with a diagonal drive across water and a green out on a peninsula, which would become the Cape.
Finding enough to work with, Macdonald signs papers in December 1906 to purchase an as yet undetermined 205 of the 450 acres. The terms allow the boundaries of the purchase to as yet remain unfixed until such time as Macdonald and his committee of Travis, Emmet, and Whigham complete the routing over the next few months and at least at this time, it seems the idea is still to leave enough acreage, probably along the perimeters of the course, to provide the promised acres of land to the founders, although Macdonald seems to be backing off this idea slightly as seen below in the December 17th article. In fact, in Macdonald's original Founders Agreement, and reiterated somewhat in March 1906 by HJ Whgham, Macdonald projected he'd only need 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder of 90 acres would provide 1.5 acres of building lot for each of the 60 Charter Members.
It is also planned to build a scale, plasticine model of the golf holes and of the course entirely to give the workmen something to guide them. It is not mentioned here, but Seth Raynor would be hired to do that topographical survey.
June 20th, 1906;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
December 15th, 1906;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
This very good article from December 17th, 1906 suggests that Macdonald may be rethinking his plans to provide enough acreage for 1.5 acre lots for the members. This may very well be due to the fact that so much of the land he's thinking of using for golf is swampy and low-lying that his original 110 acre projection for the golf course is probably already looking problematic.
Macdonald states that "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided by the Committee over the next five months."
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
Although this January 10th, 1907 article still mentions the original plan to only use 110 acres for golf and the rest for cottages...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5362496760_54bfa8af4f_o.jpg)
Next...the Long, Slow build
-
During 1907 the course routing and selection of which of the template holes to use was determined, and construction began and although I'm not certain, it's likely that seeding was done that fall.
After what is chronicled as a Turf Failure in 1907-1908 in George Bahto's tremendous book, "The Evangelist of Golf", it seems by February 1908 things might be looking up, as evidenced in this copying of letters between Hutchinson and Macdonald.
One other item of note. At this date, it seems the bunkering is sparse, and only those that needed to be directly copied based on the holes they were modelled from seem to have been completed. Macdonald wants to dig the others after more careful observation, study, and play.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5366880889_36c3a0e1e5_o.jpg)
The club was incorporated in May of 1908, as this article mentions;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5366881057_1ef4f088f4_o.jpg)
This fabulous article from August, 1908, well past routing, layout, and construction and heavily into grow-in very surprisingly mentions that Walter Travis was still on the project at that time.
Does anyone know if that's accurate, or know when Travis actually either left or was asked to leave the project??
In CBM's book he tells us he "dropped Travis". George Bahto's book makes it appear that Travis left at some point of his own accord. Does anyone know what actually happened, and when? I believe their imbroglio over the Schnectady Putter banning wasn't until 1909 if that was the impetus.
It's also interesting that CBM was in near constant contact with Horace Hutchinson, obviously seeking and respecting his good advice and suggestions.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5363020739_ea24330320_o.jpg)
This article from September 5th, 1909 takes a skeptical, if somewhat misguided view of Whigham's contentions on penalizing bunkers. During that year, the first very tentative play on the course is begun, probably just between CBM and his closest project advisors.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5366881327_febb878dfc_o.jpg)
Finally, in May 1910, the announcement that the course is soon ready to open. It would open unofficially in July of that year with a small, three day "Tournament" among a few invited guests which was won by baseball player John Ward. The course would open officially the following year.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5367492842_f4da11d744_o.jpg)
This article from July 1910, which unfortunately is not very readable, mentions that the course is opening up for some "informal" Founder and member play.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5361885519_f1084b3ae5_o.jpg)
-
Some Footnotes;
Macdonald, in a letter to the Founders in 1912, mentions that the Formal Opening of the links took place on Saturday, September 16th, 1911, followed by a four-ball match the following day with professionals George Duncan and Gilbert Nichollas who defeated John McDermott and Alex Smith.
In that same document, Macdonald thanks "For aid in the original purchase of the land and in the laying out of the course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet. Since then Mr. James A. Stillman and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most depply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in helping to bring it to perfection." There is no mention of Walter Travis.
Macdonald also mentions that "We have also been helped by some of the most eminent men in the game of golf abroad, who have taken a most friendly interest in the undertaking, and I have to thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson, Mr. John L. Low, Mr. Harold H. Hilton, Mr. John Sutherland, Mr. W. T. Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. ALexander MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H. S. Everard, for the maps, photographs, and suggestions which they have given us.
Finally, under the heading "Surplus Land", Macdonald mentions; "You will note that in the original subscription it was stated that there would be some acres of land which would not be required for the golf course proper. This has proved true, and this land is at the disposal of the Founders, but you will note in the minutes of the Founders meeting of December 20th, 1911, that no action was taken in the matter, it being left to the wishes of the Founders, to be expressed at some future time." The letter attaches the original agreement where Macdonald estimated that only 110 of the 200 plus acres to be purchased would be used for the golf course, with the remaining land available to the Founders for cottages which would appreciate in value.
Thankfully, that part of Macdonald's grand idea was never realized.
-
Mike,
You don't think it would be cool to have cabins on NGLA like they do at Pine Valley?
Mark
-
Mark,
The original idea was to have 60 cottages, each one owned by one of the Founders, placed on 1.5 acre plots of land, although it seems that idea got compromised pretty quickly once the Sebonack property was located.
Given the gorgeous surrounds and long views from the course, and the fact that water borders two sides of the property, it probably can do without man-made interference, no matter how discreetly they were tucked in to surrounds.
-
Mike & Mark,
They had living accomodations...... in the clubhouse, where members/guests could get full services.
Cabins are a more modern accomodation, more costly and logistically more demanding than interior accomodations inthe clubhouse.
Charles Blair Macdonald's personal account of the creation of NGLA, from concept to construction is well documented in his book,
"Scotland's gift"
Where conflicts seem to appear, "Scotland's Gift" should be the guiding documentation.
-
Patrick,
As you know, Scotland's Gift was published in 1928, seventeen years after the course opened, and most of what he writes there is clearly a synopsis of events through recollections well after the fact.
I'm not sure which discrepancies or conflicts exist, exactly? Other than Macdonald incorrectly remembering the date of his first Invitational Tournament in his book as being 1909 (it was actually 1910) I didn't see anything in Scotland's Gift to call any of these reports or their contents into question.
The only remaining question I have is the one I asked which is when Travis either left or was asked to leave the project? The one article has him still on it in mid 1908.
-
Patrick,
As you know, Scotland's Gift was published in 1928, seventeen years after the course opened, and most of what he writes there is clearly a synopsis of events through recollections well after the fact.
I'm not sure which discrepancies or conflicts exist, exactly. I didn't see anything in Scotland's Gift to call any of these reports or their contents into question.
The only remaining question I have is the one I asked which is when Travis either left or was asked to leave the project? The one article has him still on it in mid 1908.
Firstly Joe, and Mike, well done with finding those articles. Thanks for posting.
Mike,
I was going to post before Patrick did and ask whether you now believed everything you read in newspaper articles out of mischief but decided that would wrongly get this thread off to a bad start it doesn't deserve. Then I read your response to Patrick which seems to infer even if it doesn't say it outright, that contemporary newspaper articles often by third parties trump a later (detailed) recollection by the main man himself. I can't help thinking that is a touch ingenious given some of the mocking comment that you have made on articles produced by Tommy Mac and David M on other threads. Is there something about these articles that makes them beyond question, other than the fact that Joe found them, or are you happy that everything in them is verified as correct ? Just asking
Niall
-
Niall,
I'm not really looking to go down that road, but you don't see a significant difference between these detailed and consistent articles that include direct quotes from Macdonald, Whigham, and others versus the oft-mistaken (ie. "two links" at Myopia) blurbs in Boston gossip columns at the very inception of the game in that city?
More importantly, I don't see anything in these articles that's really at odds with Macdonald's recollections in his book, other than the date of the first informal invitiational tournament and the question I have about when Travis left the project that I mentioned in my answer to Patrick. Do you see others?
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Jim,
I would agree strongly with your first sentence. CBM was very upfront about what he wanted to achieve and seemed to be a master at using the press to convey his message.
As far as Myopia, I think the different approaches reflect the different type of clubs each is/was, and what they were looking to achieve. I went into this recent resurrection of that thread thinking that Willie Campbell laid out the course, but after playing there this fall did some digging myself. What I found led me to believe that both stories are at least partially correct, but we'll likely never know unless someone gets to re-visit the internal documents that led both John P. May and Edward Weeks to their assertions about the member's doing the design.
The fact that those gossip column blurbs made just wholly egregious errors such as reporting the Opening Day tournament at Myopia was held at Essex CC in Manchester, or two different newspapers reporting that Myopia was opening "Two links" doesn't help to lend much credibility to their knowledge of the game or the sourcing of their information.
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Mike and Joe
Thank you for finding all these article and posting them here on GCA. It is great to see all this early information all in one place - it certainly gives perspective to the chronology of events.
Aside: someplace in my files I have (I think) copies of the original leases for two of the properties, one the original and I think the other is for the additional acreage. It’s got all the coordinates but I’ve never had the got around to figure it out - could be done pretty easy on Google Earth I suppose.
I‘m pretty busy right now but when I get a chance I’ll get together some of the articles I have that pre-dates where you fella started from.
Again great job and thank you much
gb
-
Jim,
That same article profiling Mrs. Campbell, which I beileve was written in 1903 if memory serves, also says he laid out The Country Club, which was not nearly the whole story either.
I'm not an expert in Brookline's history but I can tell you that three members did the first six holes in 1892-3, Willie Campbell apparently added three and revised six holes in 1894-5, and the most recent club history credits Alex (Nipper) Campbell and the Green Committee including H. Windeler with the expansion to 18 holes in 1898.
Let's not make this about Myopia again here, though...we've had plenty of discussion on that thread. Thanks.
George,
Thank you very much. It's an awesome story and an incredible course and I'm really happy to help put these in some order that helps chronicle it.
-
Mike Cirba,
If you don't want to this to be about Myopia then you should probably avoid trying to muddy the record there where it is clear. There is nothing ambiguous, questionable, or seemingly unreliable about the accounts of Campbell having laid out Myopia, as anyone can see by looking at this article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Myopia18940623CampbellHoles.jpg?t=1291347896)
As anyone can see, the article not only states that Campbell designed the course, it also provided detailed, accurate information about the course beyond what had been previously known, including the original names of the holes, and a description of a number of the features.
As for your conclusion both stories have equal merit, you really ought to mention that you reached that conclusion despite the complete absence of any contemporaneous source material suggesting that Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner laid out the original course, and despite a number of contemporaneous reports contradicting the accepted legend and its timing.
I have no intention of thread-jacking here, but I will not sit silently while you post an extremely one-sided and misleading view of the state of the Myopia discussion.
As for this thread, I too appreciate you putting all of Joe Bausch's articles together in chronological order, but would recommend to anyone that to make sense of the whole thing they read CBM's own account of what happened, and take your editorializing with a large grain of salt. You make a number of misleading comments, but frankly I don't see any point in even addressing them. It is all in CBM's book.
-
David,
First, the article states that the golf links at Myopia were "first used on Monday". That is incorrect as there are a number of accounts that indicate play on the course by June 1st, over two weeks prior.
Second, why the continuing need by these gossip reporters to mix Myopia and Essex? Campbell did revise and expand Essex's course probably that same month, as he started his employ there in June, that same month.
It may be accurate, but do we even know for certain what these novice writers on golf even meant by their term "laid out"? You argued it meant simply staking out the course but other reports indicate that sod was laid there for greens, so perhaps it was simply helping with construction and green building.
To pretend to know what happened at Myopia with all of the misleading and incomplete information at our disposal is really self-deceving. You and Tom MacWood spent weeks and months telling us that Edward Weeks didn't have the Run Book, didn't have the Leeds Scrapbook, at one point even ventured that it was a myth, only to find out that he actually mentioned both in his acknowledgements. Earlier similar efforts to tear down John May's sources proved to be equally futile. So let's move on...
And, for the record, I didn't bring up Myopia on this thread; Niall and Jim did and I responded to their questions/statements.
As far as this thread, it's about NGLA, so if there are misleading or inaccurate comments I've made about NGLA in describing each article or otherwise, please point them out to me and we can discuss why you think that is so.
I would agree with your recommendation that other's read CBM's book, and other than Macdonald writing the wrong date of his first informal invitational tournament (1909 when it happened in July 1910), I don't see a thing in his account that's at odds with these early news reports.
-
David,
First, the article states that the golf links at Myopia were "first used on Monday". That is incorrect as there are a number of accounts that indicate play on the course by June 1st, over two weeks prior.
Not true. S. Dacre Bush's quote, written years later, said they began playing on the course "about" June 1st.
Second, why the continuing need by these gossip reporters to mix Myopia and Essex? Campbell did revise and expand Essex's course probably that same month, as he started his employ there in June, that same month.
The article is about Myopia, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
The mention that they were also playing golf at Essex is but another detail that this report has correct. Your continuing lame attempts to muddy this article are good indication of your overall approach to these discussions.
It may be accurate, but do we even know for certain what these novice writers on golf even meant by their term "laid out"? You argued it meant simply staking out the course but other reports indicate that sod was laid there for greens, so perhaps it was simply helping with construction and green building.
This petty mischaracterization of my position should really be below you and this website. Knock it off. And knock off the desperate attempts to undermine an extremely clearcut attribution of the course to Campbell. Evidence doesn't get much better than this.
To pretend to know what happened at Myopia with all of the misleading and incomplete information at our disposal is really self-deceving. You and Tom MacWood spent weeks and months telling us that Edward Weeks didn't have the Run Book, didn't have the Leeds Scrapbook, at one point even ventured that it was a myth, only to find out that he actually mentioned both in his acknowledgements. Earlier similar efforts to tear down John May's sources proved to be equally futile. So let's move on...
You should really be ashamed of yourself Mike. I never made any such claims, and neither did Weeks. Not even Jeff Brauer will stand by you on that claim, and Jeff is a "yes" man if their ever was one. According to Forbes book, published in the 1940's, the early Run Book was lost.
And, for the record, I didn't bring up Myopia on this thread; Niall and Jim did and I responded to their questions/statements.
They brought it up to gently point out your obvious hypocrisy. They have a good point.
Rather than heed their words, you chose to make matters worse by misrepresenting that other discussion in the hopes of spreading fallacious information to a broader audience.
As far as this thread, it's about NGLA, so if there are misleading or inaccurate comments I've made about NGLA in describing each article or otherwise, please point them out to me and we can discuss why you think that is so.
No chance Mike. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You have been making misleading and mistaken comments about NGLA for years, and I am not going to repeat all those conversations just because you finally read CBM's book.
I would agree with your recommendation that other's read CBM's book, and other than Macdonald writing the wrong date of his first informal invitational tournament (1909 when it happened in July 1910), I don't see a thing in his account that's at odds with these early news reports.
Yet you make comments that are at odds with both.
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Patrick,
As you know, Scotland's Gift was published in 1928, seventeen years after the course opened, and most of what he writes there is clearly a synopsis of events through recollections well after the fact.
That's not necessarily true.
You don't know how much of "Scotland's Gift" was taken from CBM's diary/notes/documents/letters, etc., etc.
YOU are the one assuming that the entirety of "Scotland's Gift" was constructed solely from CBM's memory, some years removed, and I think that's a major flaw in terms of assumptions.
I'm not sure which discrepancies or conflicts exist, exactly? Other than Macdonald incorrectly remembering the date of his first Invitational Tournament in his book as being 1909 (it was actually 1910) I didn't see anything in Scotland's Gift to call any of these reports or their contents into question.
I didn't call ANYTHING into question, I merely stated that if the newspaper articles conflicted with accounts in "Scotland's Gift", that you'd have to default to "Scotland's Gift", lacking additional third party evidence to support the newspaper articles.
The only remaining question I have is the one I asked which is when Travis either left or was asked to leave the project? The one article has him still on it in mid 1908.
To date, it's hard to tell when he left, OFFICIALLY and UNOFFICIALLY.
And, there is a difference, we just don't know at this time whether the termination date/s coincide or are seperated by a substantive amount of time.
-
You don't know how much of "Scotland's Gift" was taken from CBM's diary/notes/documents/letters, etc., etc.
YOU are the one assuming that the entirety of "Scotland's Gift" was constructed solely from CBM's memory, some years removed, and I think that's a major flaw in terms of assumptions.
This is very true. If one carefully reads Scotland's Gift and and also looks at the source material it is remarkable how accurate he is. I have even found evidence and/or other accounts of some of his anecdotes that I had assumed were probably fiction. He didn't just throw this book together off the top of his head.
-
Jim,
Don't play games. I expect this out of David...I'm disappointed in you.
I left the Myopia thread multiple times, but you can't tell me you weren't talking about the news articles posted there.
You're better than that.
You guys have fun.
-
The following doesn't really belong on this thread, and maybe it is so general in nature that it belongs nowhere in particular; but it's not worth starting a new thread about, and it does relate to the many threads we've had recently about history and narratives.
After watching for the 2nd time Spike Lee's "Malcolm X", I went to read a little about "The Autobiography of Malcom X" (written with Alex Haley as collaborator). One of the early and perceptive commentators wrote this about it (in paraphrase):
The narrative shape crafted by Haley and Malcolm X is the result of a life account distorted and diminished by the process of selection --and yet the narrative's shape may in actuality be more revealing than the narrative itself.
I think the 'traditionalists' around here ascribe to the belief that, while the complete story and characters involved in a narrative may have been diminished in the decades-long creation of a narrative shape, that shape is itself more revealing/true than individual elements (including people, including those not mentioned) that comprise that narrative.
I think the 'revisionists" around here focus instead on the distortion and dimishing of the complete historical record that is implicit in/demanded by any process of selection, and feel that the resulting narrative shape is not as revealing as it could or should be.
THAT is a fundamental difference in approaches, and perhaps a bridge too far.
Peter
-
The only one playing games here is you, Mike.
You had already begun making self-serving statements about the Myopia threads before Jim even posted. Niall didn't mention Myopia either. And while he may have been thinking of Myopia, his comments were equally applicable to any number of threads. Regardless, it was you who started to try and sell your shoddy misinformation about Myopia here. Had you not, I would have stayed out of entirely.
_____________________________________
Peter that is a good point and it may be true, but the element that really defines these threads is that those who you refer to as "traditionalists" don't recognize or admit that their version is more legend than fact. Quite the opposite, they insist that it is fact even with ample evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, they will go to great lengths to degrade and diminish those who even try to look for the truth, and will try to impose their legend on all others as if it were fact. They are much more like religious fundamentalists that traditionalists, at least from my perspective.
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Peter Pallotta:
I think your #23 is an excellent post and thought and contribution to this thread and others like it with the same participants. Therefore, I think what you said very much does belong on this thread.
I would also suggest that you elaborate on your #23 and give us some other examples of how narrative shape and the chronicling of various and perhaps smaller historical details sometimes do run at odds with one another.
If you do, I will contribute one that it actually a current story----eg the recent movie on the life and times of the great race horse Secretariat and his owner. The movie production and presentation did not exactly make up some detail of what Secretariat actually did do but there is no question at all that in the life and times of Secretariat's owner, the movie production actually combined two horses and what they did for their owner into one horse---Secretariat. Therefore the movie is not completely historically accurate but will probably be taken to be historically accurate in the future which to some historians may seem somewhat maddening and queer since Sectretariat is arguably considered to be the greatest race horse that ever lived!
I can understand why the movie did that but it is not accurate in detail and to determine that with research is actually a remarkable easy thing to do.
-
PeterP:
Now that I thnk about it some more, there is actually a remarkable parallel and probably a remarkable analogy with the recent popular movie on Secretraiat and his owner to the history of Myopia with Willie Campbell and that original 1894 nine hole course.
Campbell was written out of Myopia's history with that nine and further he was actually written out of Myopia's history and history book altogether. In the portrayal of the life and times of Secretariat and his owner in this recent very popular movie there was a race horse and arguably a near great race horse that was completely written out of that history and story as well. Without Riva Ridge in 1972 and particularly being entered in the Kentucky Derby the world may never have seen Secretariat and his great Triple Crown year of 1973 including its culmination, the Belmont, which is still today considered to be the greatest race ever run by a thoroughbred and certainly the most awe-inspiring race ever run. What Big Red (Secretariat) did in the last 2-3 fulongs of that final Triple Crown race still makes those in the business shake their heads in wonder. When I watch the stretch run in the tape of that race it still brings tears to my eyes. We saw a race horse not just break away and win the final leg of the Triple Crown by 31 lengths, we saw a thorougbred run right up to the pinnacle of the history of that sport, past, present, and perhaps future! But without Riva Ridge who was written out of the story in the movie Secretariat's remarkable 1973 Triple Crown year may never have happened or at least not the way it did and with the owner it did!!!
-
Jim Kennedy said the following about Myopia on this thread:
"The Myopia articles, for better or worse, challenge that clubs guarded and conventional narrative. As it becomes more apparent that it might be part fact/part fiction, it causes those taking the conservative position to make the articles appear less than valuable instead of trying to sort out their proper worth."
Since some think this thread may not be the appropriate thread to discuss Myopia on I will put my response to what Jim Kennedy said above on the recent Myopia thread.
-
Mike
When it comes to the actual development of the golf course your articles jump from August 1908 to May 1910. There is one article in between, but it doesn't involve the development of the course. Why such a long gap in reports?
You know there were numerous reports on the NGLA in magazines, why did you choose to exclude them and only include newspaper reports? I'm confident adding the magazine accounts would present a more complete picture, and eliminate that big gap.
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm not looking to exclude anything from any time period and still hope this thread can be a place where others can add relevant articles from any source.
Please feel free to add whatever you like and I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.
-
Why was the creation of NGLA so public?
Just looking at some of the founders' names,I'd have guessed they would find the process unseemly.
-
"Why was the creation of NGLA so public?"
Jeff:
I would say, and I think facts and history would bear it out just about 100% that the reason the creation of NGLA was so public could be boiled down in ToTo to three words-----Charles Blair MacDonald!
That's the way he wanted to do it and that's the way he did do it!
In counterpoint to the creation of NGLA, certainly known to be a great early American golf course, is another great early American golf course and significant architect of it----Myopia and particularly Herbert C. Leeds.
As much as Macdonald was into publiciity, Leeds was not into it.
I would challenge anyone on here to find me even a single remark that Herbert C. Leeds ever made to the press or publicly, or even a letter that somehow got into the public domain. I don't believe anyone will ever find a factually attributed statement that Leeds made to a reporter or the press and public. But with Macdonald over there years there were hundreds if not thousands of them and we have found and are continuing to find them from him.
Find me a single one from Herbert C. Leed that he purposefully made public or publicly! I'll betcha a buck you won't! ;)
-
TEP,I guess I suspected CBM's ego to be the reason.
Interesting that he could cow some pretty big swinging d***s.
-
Just to clarify...I find nothing in "Scotland's Gift" to be in error, or inconsistent with the news articles presented contemporaneously, with the exception of a single date of the first informal invitational tournament, which is well documented elsewhere.
My point was simply that in Macdonald's book he summarizes some matters in a few short paragraphs that took months if not years to transpire. The book is a tremendous recapitulation of events, and I only mentioned it was published in 1928...I do not claim to know when various sections were written.
I also base my understanding not only on the news articles, but on George Bahto's seminal and well-researched book, "The Evangelist of Golf", which I heartily recommend anyone interested purchase immediately.
One question I have in looking at CBM's book again this morning. What do we know about the 120 acres that Macdonald mentions he tried to buy shortly before buying the 205 acres on the present site?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
One other question while I think of it...
Do we know if Seth Raynor was hired to do his survey of the NGLA property (and then other extended duties) before or after it was secured by Macdonald in November 1906?
George's book indicates that the property was "cleared" in conjunction with this event, so I'm thinking perhaps after, but am looking for clarification.
Thanks.
-
Jeff:
I would have to say that no one who knows much about the life and times of C.B. Macdonald would deny he had a large ego or deny that he sure did know how to use publicity and the press, but when it came to cultivating some of the biggest of the big-timers of his era in golf and in business he also was probably one of the best "net-workers" I have ever heard of.
One of the finest quick descriptions of what may've been his style and personality, in that vein, came from the really good recent history on Shinnecock by David Goddard.
In that book Goddard (who was at the time in the book concentrating on what he referred to as the "NGLA Effect on Shinnecock") said Macdonald could get his way by being alternately and in turns authoritative, dictatorial, heavy-handed, perhaps insulting, and then charming and even sentimental. And all perhaps in the course of some single issue, event or meeting.
It reminds me of another who constantly plied that combination and personality and obviously got a ton of mileage out of it during his long and probably impressive career----a man by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson who was one of the most effective Majority Leaders and politicians this nation ever had as well as becoming the Vice President and then the President of the United States. In the latter he was not so successful ultimately as Macdonald ultimately was not either towards the end of his life. Both had meteoric careers in their chosen interests and both ultimately saw more saddness and perhaps depression and even tragedy at the end of their days than either probably deserved to see or to have.
This is why I am and have been so completely interested in C.B. Macdonald and his life and times. He was an immensely complicated man and he took some very large strides across the landscape he lived and worked and played in! I like immensely complicated people, or at least I am more fascinated by them than those who seemingly are not complex and complicated; I think they are so much more interesting than many of the others who are or were fairly monotone, perhaps quieter and/or more predictable!
-
TEP,thanks for that response.
As someone who went to school in Austin and was surrounded by LBJ stuff,the CBM comparison makes some sense.I'd say LBJ was playing in a bigger ballpark,however.
Now to play a little in your ballpark,I once came within about 20 feet of running over Lady Bird as she was walking across the street from the LBJ Library.The Secret Service guys weren't particular understanding when I told them I was running late to the golf course.
Not exactly Fern/Dring level--but it's the best I've got.
-
Not quite on topic, but years ago, I added nine holes to the Lady Bird Johnson Golf Course, in Fredericksburg, TX.
I was recently recalling that, using the unfortunate phrasing of "Back when I was doing Lady Bird Johnson...." which drew a big round of laughs and guffaws.
-
Not quite on topic, but years ago, I added nine holes to the Lady Bird Johnson Golf Course, in Fredericksburg, TX.
I was recently recalling that, using the unfortunate phrasing of "Back when I was doing Lady Bird Johnson...." which drew a big round of laughs and guffaws.
Very funny--but a mental picture I could live without.
-
"Now to play a little in your ballpark,I once came within about 20 feet of running over Lady Bird as she was walking across the street from the LBJ Library.The Secret Service guys weren't particular understanding when I told them I was running late to the golf course.
Not exactly Fern/Dring level--but it's the best I've got."
Jeff:
You really like that Fern/Dring thing don't you? So you almost ran over Lady Bird, did you? Whoa, bummer----actually Big Bummer or even Double BIG Bummer with cheese and some bacon on top. Well one time down in Palm Beach I came within about 20 feet of running into JFK and I was going about sixty mph when I noticed him. I was so close and so surprised I just shut my eyes and swerved hard left and then right again when I thought I was passed his car. Frankly, even though my eyes were shut I still can't believe I missed him. But I did miss him and thank God because if I had hit him I might've killed him and me too. Both of course would've been a world class tragedy even though I'm not so sure I would say that about the guy he was with.
-
"Not quite on topic, but years ago, I added nine holes to the Lady Bird Johnson Golf Course, in Fredericksburg, TX.
I was recently recalling that, using the unfortunate phrasing of "Back when I was doing Lady Bird Johnson...." which drew a big round of laughs and guffaws."
JEEESUS, Mr. Jeffrey, you did the Lady Bird Johnson Golf Course?!?!? Well, now we know and I guess that explains everything. No wonder you get payed the big bucks and became a world famous golf course architect and the ultra famous PRESIDENT of the ASGCA.
These little "fates of history" are just so knee-slappin' fascinatin' and importuunt to know!
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm not looking to exclude anything from any time period and still hope this thread can be a place where others can add relevant articles from any source.
Please feel free to add whatever you like and I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.
Mike
There were reports in American Golfer from December 1908, April 1909, May 1909, June 1909, and March 1910; a major article written by Whigham for Scribner's May 1909; and another important article in Harper's Weekly January 1910. Those are the most glaring omissions.
-
Jim Kennedy,thanks for the explanation.
It's pretty amazing that a golf club which is now so private was started so publicly.
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
"It's pretty amazing that a golf club which is now so private was started so publicly."
Jeff:
I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say it's amazing that a golf club which is now so private was started so publicly. In other words, I don't know what you think "publicly" meant with the creation of a founding membership of NGLA. I do not know it for a fact but I would be completely surprised if Macdonald made that initial agreement (mentioned on the last few posts) public like in a newspaper or magazine. I do not think he would ever dream of doing something like that if he was after the type of founding members he seems to have been after and who he got.
An agreement like that one probably went out to a couple of hundred people at most and all of whom he probably knew somehow. One did not try to start a founding membership of clubs like that one or Pine Valley and such by putting a solicitation letter in a newspaper or magazine at least not if the originator was looking to get as founding members and other members the kinds of people they were looking for and actually got.
Macdonald's letter to generate founding members is an interesting one, just as the April 1, 1913 letter from Howard Perrin to get prospective members for Pine Valley was interesting but it most certainly did not go in the newspapers or some magazines. Those kinds of things are generally to a very carefully thought out selective group of people and that part really does take some time and effort and social net-working but again, Macdonald was very, very good at that with his social and business friends. Macdonald said he wrote that agreement in 1904 and I'm sure that may be true but it may not have actually gone out to a select group of people until he actually identified the land for the club which apparently happened in the beginning of 1906.
In Goddard's Shinnecock book he makes the point that the Shinnecock membership at that time were some pretty rich and powerful people but not compared to the membership that Macdonald generated at NGLA. Goddard said NGLA's membership was the creme de la creme, the virtual Captains of the Universe who just happened to like golf too, and that even though the founders and primary members of Shinnecock were wealthy they were more like the doctors and lawyers and people who actually ran the companies and such that much of the membership of NGLA either owned or completely controlled.
To me half the fun of figuring out clubs like these is to actually Google the histories and bios of many of the people who founded them. In the case of NGLA many of them will blow you away if you Google their histories and bios. The only club I'm aware of that may've had a concentration of Captains of the Universe more impressive than NGLA's founding members was the founding members of The Creek Club.
And who was the president of the corporation which owned the land of The Creek and leased it back to the club? Charles Blair Macdonald was at least until the end of 1926 where at The Links Club in New York at a Board meeting of The Creek Club the shit finally hit the fan and he resigned within two weeks using as his excuse that he wanted to go to Bermuda to write his book. And so he did. Within a couple of months after the feathers settled down for all concerned they actually made him an honorary member! ;)
-
TEP,I was only suggesting that,looking at it from today's perspective,I find it interesting that NGLA's membership was highlighted in the newspapers.I wouldn't think today's members would want to see the same.
I couldn't reconcile a group of very wealthy guys with the idea of CBM needing to market the sale.I would've assumed that this could've been handled with a few well placed telegrams.The idea that NGLA was to be much more than a "local" golf club was news to me (see Jim Kennedy's comments).
I think I've told you that I also find this small circle of guys pretty interesting.One name in particular since he must be a friend's great grandfather.The great grandson wouldn't know which end of a golf club to hold.
-
I don’t think CBM traded on their names in public, and I’ve never seen the 1904 agreement that was the basis for attracting them in print, outside of much later in his 1928 book. The inner workings of the club itself have never seemed to make their way into the public domain.
Jim,
For some reason the 1904 Founders Agreement that appears in Scotland's Gift is truncated.
In 1912 he sent another letter to the Founders, referring to what had been accomplished, but attaching a copy of the original agreement and referring to various sections of it.
After the sentence about proposing that each Founder would get "something" for their $1,000 investment, the last few paragraphs read, as follows;
"Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories. We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple. The ground in itself should be worth $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character.
"Further than this it is proposed that each subscriber receive a $1,000 3% debenture bond. We would issue this so as to identify the holder, and make it a debenture bond so that it would not be a fixed charge. This debenture bond must be held so long as one is a member of the Founders, and in case of selling, it can only be sold to one who would be elected a member of the Founders."
"This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."
"As to the building of the golf course, it is well known that certain holes on certain links abroad are famous as being the best considering their various lengths. It is the object of this association to model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous ones abroad, so that each hole would be representative and classic in itself."
"Mr. Charles B. Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate himself with two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme. In the meantime, you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter entirely in his hands."
On other matters...
As regards the publication of the member's names, I find it somewhat odd that the one 1906 article written by HJ Whigham does in fact "name names", while an article from the same time period quoting Macdonald says the names of the Founders are being kept confidential at present. Perhaps they were just not on the same page, or perhaps one was doing what the other wasn't able to, at least publicly.
A few other questions I'm interested in...
1) What if anything do we know about the 120 acre property next to Shinnecock that Macdonald offered to buy before procuring the 200+ acres that encloses the present course?
2) Do we know if Seth Raynor was hired to do his survey of the NGLA property (and then other extended duties) before or after it was secured by Macdonald in November 1906?
George's book indicates that the property was "cleared" in conjunction with this event, so I'm thinking perhaps after, but am looking for clarification.
Thanks for any info anyone has that might clear this up.
Tom MacWood,
Please feel free to post those, or any other articles.
The ones I've posted here weren't easily searchable through most of the standard online databases like aafla.org, or Seagle's Electronic Library that the USGA provides.
If you think they contain important information that might not be widely generally known about the origins of NGLA, I'd certainly be happy for you to even link to them here so folks can benefit.
Thanks.
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Why was the creation of NGLA so public?
Just looking at some of the founders' names,I'd have guessed they would find the process unseemly.
JME,
I think the disconnect in your perception is that you're viewing this event within a 2011 context.
1906-10 was an entirely different time.
-
Tom MacWood,
Please feel free to post those, or any other articles.
The ones I've posted here weren't easily searchable through most of the standard online databases like aafla.org, or Seagle's Electronic Library that the USGA provides.
If you think they contain important information that might not be widely generally known about the origins of NGLA, I'd certainly be happy for you to even link to them here so folks can benefit.
Perhaps your powers of observation are not once they were but since the website changed formats months ago I have not posted a single thing. I'll ask you again, is there a reason why you have only posted newspaper reports and have excluded magazine reports?
-
Tom,
Yes...primarily time and technology. Many of those sites where magazine articles are located don't make it easy to reproduce them for copying elsewhere.
In some of those cases, such as the Founders letter, I've hand typed large sections.
Are there any articles in particular you feel shed light on heretofore unclear areas or anything you'd like me to try and reproduce here for you in particular?
Or asked another way, is there something in these news articles themselves you find in error or misleading?
Thanks.
-
The only remaining question I have is the one I asked which is when Travis either left or was asked to leave the project? The one article has him still on it in mid 1908.
Mike
Your articles have a gap between August 1908 and May 1910. I would think you would want to know what was going on during that period.
You haven't read the articles in American Golfer? When it comes to digging up old info it doesn't get much easier than that, and Travis was the editor.
Why did you create this thread?
-
The only remaining question I have is the one I asked which is when Travis either left or was asked to leave the project? The one article has him still on it in mid 1908.
Mike
Your articles have a gap between August 1908 and May 1910. I would think you would want to know what was going on during that period.
You haven't read the articles in American Golfer? When it comes to digging up old info it doesn't get much easier than that, and Travis was the editor.
Why did you create this thread?
Tom,
Of course I've read the old articles in American Golfer. But, there's a big difference between reading them and taking those articles, creating .img files, sizing them, uploading them to the Internet, and making them available here. That's a lot of work, and even just posting the news articles that I have took me a few hours of time.
If it's so easy, please, Tom...be my guest.
Failing that, I've asked you if there are any in particular you feel are noteworthy or shed light on something you want to illuminate? If so, I'll do my best to get it on here if you dont' have somewhere to host it.
As far as your other questions, I'm not sure what you find objectionable or questionable? You've certainly never had any issue previously with anyone posting any historical information, much less from newspapers, which you've done quite a bit of yourself.
I decided on this thread after doing some searches recently on how the term "laid out" was used at various points in time, and came upon some articles (such as the superb December 17th, 1906 one, or the one where Macdonald returns from abroad) I hadn't seen before, recalled Joe's earlier thread, and put them together.
I think the value of the thread is very simple.
It shows in great detail the incredible painstaking process that Macdonald used to realize his long-term dream. He was amazingly meticulous in every respect and seeing the timelines of the actual events as they happened yields much greater understanding in retrospect than some of the earlier synopsis I've seen in some summary articles, whether by Macdonald in his book, or other accounts. I believe it also shows some evolution in his thinking in a number of ways, which I think is further illustrative and even enliightening to the process of creating great architecture.
I'll get into some more details of what I'm meaning as time permits.
Right now, I'd like to know if anyone has information on either 1) The 120 acres near Shinnecock that Macdonald tried to buy before the present property, 2) When Walter Travis actually left the project, and 3) When Seth Raynor came onto the job and did his survey...before or after the land was secured in November/Dec 1906?
Do you have any insight regarding any of those questions?
Thanks.
-
Mike
I don't know why you would continue to ask me if there is anything important in those articles if you had read them. IMO when they began playing golf (1909) at NGLA is important. You may also get some insight about the Travis question through his reporting of the project in American Golfer.
I don't believe your articles mention when HG Hutchinson & CB Macdonald toured some of the premier American golf courses (July-August 1910), ultimately ending at the NGLA.
Did Travis play in the innaugural tournament at NGLA?
-
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Why was the creation of NGLA so public?
Just looking at some of the founders' names,I'd have guessed they would find the process unseemly.
JME,
I think the disconnect in your perception is that you're viewing this event within a 2011 context.
1906-10 was an entirely different time.
Jim Kennedy and TEP pointed this out to me also.
So long as we're discussing NGLA,when do you plan to resume the Magical Mystery Tour?This has to be the longest backup on the 7th tee in history.
-
"3) When Seth Raynor came onto the job and did his survey...before or after the land was secured in November/Dec 1906?"
Mike:
I don't know about the NGLA land but various records from perhaps the company, town or club of Shinnecock show that in 1892 David H. Raynor (Seth's father) did a survey of the land of the Shinnecock G.C. property. Apparently young Seth helped his father with the pulling of the chains and such. On that early topo map of Shinnecock to the north and west of the clubhouse there appears a road named Raynor Road.
It is also probably important for you to know that some of the men who were the founders of Shinnecock GC were also the principles of various land development companies that owned and marketed all the land of Shinnecock Hills which was something like 3,500 acres at that time.
They were all delighted when Macdonald and his group bought those 200 acres because it significantly upped the per acre price of land in the Shinnecock Hills Development company's holdings which had not been selling well previously.
The Shinnecock Club was a bit less delighted when Macdonald apparently in negotiations with the man who controlled the LIRR, Austin Corbin, threatened to move the station from below the Shinnecock GC clubhouse to a point further west and next to what would be the Shinnecock Inn (next to what is today the 9th green of NGLA).
-
Jim,
I don't think most people use links...I prefer the immediacy of posting the articles right here for easy access, but good suggestion. Thanks also for clarifying the folks named by Whigham.
Tom MacWood,
The course didn't open in 1909. CBM tells us himself that the first tentative play (probably just him and the closest project guys) happened in 1909, but it wasn't until July 1910 that the first informal Invitational Tournament was held at NGLA as sort of a soft opening, and to solicit feedback from men CBM respected. The only mistake I've seen in CBM's book, and it was likely just a typo, was Macdonald mentioning that tournament happened in 1909. As seen below, it clearly didn't. And yes, Travis did play in that tournament.
CBM himself wrote in 1912:
"The Links were formally opened
Opening on Saturday, September i6th,
1911. On September 17th there was a
four-ball professional match, won by
George Duncan and Gilbert Nichols
against J. J. McDermott and Alex Smith.
On September 18th, 19th and 20th a
small invitation tournament was held,
which was finally won by Mr. Harold H.
Hilton, amateur champion of Great Britain
and the United States, from Mr. Charles
Evans, Jr., amateur champion of France,"
From "Scotland's Gift";
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5372530073_29de5a5c34_o.jpg)
From "American Golfer", August 1910
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5372530057_1cdd4660ca_o.jpg)
Some of the players in that first three-day "informal" Invitational tournament, July 1910. Walter Travis is seated next to Macdonald and actually beat him during the match-play portion of the competition.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5373215140_ff27a2cdff_o.jpg)
-
Mike
The fact that Travis did play in that first event (7/1910) tells me those who theorized they had a falling out which resulted in CBM dropping him are wrong. In fact CBM & Travis were partners in the four ball match at that event, which they won. Also in that American Golfer article Travis had nothing but great things to say about the golf course. That attitude changed later, post-Schenectady, when he became one of the course's most vocal critics.
It doesn't look like there was any bad blood involved in Travis being dropped or volunteering to be dropped, whatever the case may be.
PS: They began playing golf informally in 1909.
-
Tom MacWood,
From all appearances, I'd agree with you. Thanks.
-
I think the 'traditionalists' around here ascribe to the belief that, while the complete story and characters involved in a narrative may have been diminished in the decades-long creation of a narrative shape, that shape is itself more revealing/true than individual elements (including people, including those not mentioned) that comprise that narrative.
I think the 'revisionists" around here focus instead on the distortion and dimishing of the complete historical record that is implicit in/demanded by any process of selection, and feel that the resulting narrative shape is not as revealing as it could or should be.
THAT is a fundamental difference in approaches, and perhaps a bridge too far.
Peter
Peter,
Interesting thoughts, but with all due respect, I personally would reject the categorization of me as a "traditionalist".
In much of my research, as well as in collaborative efforts with Joe Bausch and others, we've come across information widely varied from what had been the "standard narrative". This even happened most tellingly in the case of my beloved Cobb's Creek.
Rather than reject, or deny that information, I embraced it, as it often told a much richer and more detailed story than was ever possible under the original traditional belief, that was often very one-dimensional.
I just think the threshold of acceptance, if you will, while not requiring "burden of proof", should come pretty close before anyone changes history. There are too many false sources of information I've come across to just accept a combination of some circumstantial evidence coupled with some admittedly talented debate tactics to accept a number of contentions we've seen here at face value.
If I have a bias, which we all do, and if I have an argument with the approach used by those you'd probably categorize as "revisionists", which I obviously do, it's that I believe the history of great architecture iin America is the history of those who put in the time, the patience, the effort, and the blood, sweat, and tears to make those early courses happen.
In 1897, C.B. Macdonald wrote the following prescient words,
"A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience."
Even at that very early date, at a time when golf courses were being designed in an afternoon, and we're told by some here, opened for play almost immediately, Macdonald knew that this was wrong.
As mentioned earlier here, the purpose of my thread was to illustrate the amazingly meticulous and time-consuming process that Macdonald used to first conceptuliaze, to study, then to locate property, then to route, then to build and shape, then to grow-in, then to further bunker and refine, and so on, all over a period of a decade and more.
That is why I reject categorizations of Macdonald that claim he routed NGLA in a day or two on horseback and then selected just the land he needed based on that quick run through.
The evidence here makes very clear that for years Macdonald wanted to buy over 200 acres, using an estimated 110 acres for golf, and the remainder for clubhouse and building plots for the founders.
In the case of NGLA, Macdonald did indeed ride with Whigham on horseback and they did locate the potential sites for a number of holes that fit some of their ideals...they found a great hill for an Alps, and nearby a natural redan landform. He also found an inlet crossing where he wanted an Eden, and the landforms and water hazard for the Cape.
But that was not routing the golf course. When Macdonald secured the land after that ride, he only promised to buy an as yet undefined 205 acres out of a larger 450 acre tract of undeveloped land. Given the low sale price, the fact many thought it to be useless wasteland, and given Macdonald wanting to wring all the best golf out of what the land could offer, it's apparent from these and other sources (like George's book) that Macdonald went through multiple iterations of tinkering with the routing, and had Raynor completely survey the land, get it cleared, and really began the painstaking process of developing the holes. And, probably due to the number of low-lying swampy areas he had to deal with, he seriously underestimated the amount of acreage he would require to build his course, although as noted in his 1912 letter to the Founders, there was still significant enough land left over from the original purchase that he left it to them to determine how best to use it.
Macdonald himself in these articles tells us that as of the time the land was secured, he hadn't even yet determined which of all the templates he would use, and would determine hole yardages later, as they scoured the land looking for the best it could offer.
So, when someone argues that a guy like CBM would have done a one-day "paper job" routing somewhere else in trying to make a rhetorical point in a situation that couldn't have been more vastly different, I reject that as not only historically inaccurate, but also more importantly, diminishing of the what it took to create great golf courses and great golf course architecture back then.
CBM was a revolution AGAINST what had come before him, and the one day approach that minimized the game he loved so much.
He knew that creating a great golf course, like creating other great art forms, did not come easy.
-
"So, when someone argues that a guy like CBM would have done a one-day "paper job" routing somewhere else in trying to make a rhetorical point in a situation that couldn't have been more vastly different, I reject that as not only historically inaccurate, but also more importantly, diminishing of the what it took to create great golf courses and great golf course architecture back then." -MCirba
It's really too bad, and quite sad, that you and your compadres can't get over Merion. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
You've strung everyone along on this thread to make a point about some previous events you see as an injustice. In essence, you've wasted everyone's time just so you could arrive at some sort of "Gotcha" moment. That type of behavior is puerile and vindictive.
You had the choice to broach the issue in a straight forward and honest fashion, but you chose incipience, and your true motive finally revealed itself after 62 posts.
The only thing diminished is your credibility. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
-
Jim Kennedy,
Unfortunately, from the very begining I thought that this thread might be a smoke screen.
Macdonald himself describes how he and Jim Whigham found those holes that he found vital to his overall concept of crafting the ideal golf course by riding around the property on ponies over a two to three day period. One must remember that the site was inhospitable and had never been surveyed, and that's why it took them two to three days. Had the site not abounded in bogs and swamps and covered with entanglements of bayberry, Huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes, they probably could have gotten the job done in a day.
Merion, on the other hand, was on a far more developed site, well established and surveyed.
-
Jim,
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I believe I've been the only one here to provide materials to this thread, despite asking others to help out. I also believe your biases are showing.
Where were you, Jim, with your stentorian, scolding approach when I've taken one personal insult after another on the Myopia thread? Where was your sense of justice and righteous indignation? Sadly, it had left the building, because rather than actually being objective and balanced, you've already chosen sides a long time ago, which is now only too evident.
Peter Palotta' question was a fair one, and one I thought deserved an honest, if perhaps unexpected answer. Frankly, as much as I love Peter's contributions here, I thought his categorizations were nuch too over-simplified, and I think his characterizations of some of us defending the status quo made it seem like we were some type of close-minded zealots, unable to accept reasonable alternatives and evidence to our blindly held viewpoints.
I'm sure Peter didn't mean it that way, but that is how it came off to me and I believed it needed a strong, well-reasoned, and civil response.
If there was indeed a "gotcha" moment, it is simply because of the obvious; the weight of contemporaneous evidence so obviously negated what has previously been presented here as unchallengeable...nay...even unmentionable, historical fact, that it was self evident to anyone and everyone. My mention of it was simply pointing to the elephant in the room.
Yet, somehow you find my having a disputed, yet civil and respectful disagreement on factual evidence as suddenly beyond the pale, yet have curiously remained mute while I've taken on a barrage of regular personal insults virtually every time I've posted over the past year.
You have a very strange sense of outrage and indignation, Jim, sad to say.
We share a common interest, and I know you come from an educational background, but if you feel the need to bring a scolding tone to this classroom, I'd expect common fairness would have you apply the ruler more equitably.
-
Pat,
When Mike moved the articles away from that other contentious thread I was hoping that he was really interested in the subject at hand, and not the 'under'handed one that was his real objective.
I didn't think that anyone had to trample through many brambles at Merion, it was a more urban site. The NGLA site was considered the boondocks, and the GCGC players were looking at it as their weekend get away club. Imagine that.
-
Mike,
How does one define stentorian on the internet, would that be in caps or bold face?(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
I think if you went back and looked at the 50 pages of the Myopia thread you'd see that I did not post a lot, I don't think I was unfair in any way, and I think I checked out early. I do remember checking back in one time as that topic progressed (or is it regressed) to jokingly tell you to give your electronic device to your wife because you were on your vacation with her and still texting to that thread, while you were stuck in traffic. As I recall you thanked me, or at least agreed with the idea.
For someone to be righteously indignant would mean they are reacting with anger or outrage to a real or perceived insult.
I'm neither angry or outraged.
-
Jim hit the nail on the head. Cirba has been chomping at the bit to pull this since he finally bothered to read the CBM book.
All I would add is that Mike's characterization - actually caricaturization is a better word - of what I guess is supposed to be my position in the Merion debates is disingenuous, to put it mildly. Perhaps instead of spending all this time and effort building this weak-knee straw-man, he should have spent a bit of time actually trying trying to understand the position he is so intent on tearing down. Not his style, obviously.
"Stentorian?" Buying a thesaurus and using it wisely are two very different things.
-
The AG article gives distances when NGLA opened. Looks like today's 2nd hole played to just 215 yards. Was there a one hundred or so yard walk from the 1st green to the 2nd tee?
Also, I'm pretty sure the AG article reports the same mini-tourney CBM talks about in Scotland's Gift. CBM says it took place in 1909. The AG article was published in August 1910, and says the tourney took place in July. i.e. it sounds like AG says the tourney was in 1910. Which is right?
Finally, it looks to me like Fred Ward shot his 74 during that tournament, and he shot 42 on the front (now the back). If so, he shot 32 on the back (today's front). Darn good golf...
-
"The AG article gives distances when NGLA opened. Looks like today's 2nd hole played to just 215 yards. Was there a one hundred or so yard walk from the 1st green to the 2nd tee?"
Jim:
Originally the 2nd tee was essentially on the back of today's 1st green and the 2nd green was considerably shorter than the present green. Macdonald moved a few greens over time.
-
Tom, thanks for the info. I'm pretty sure the 4th green and tee were always where they are now. Also, wasn't number three pretty well set, with the hill? Seems like the same issue -- a long walk from green to tee -- has to come up somewhere, if not between 1 and 2, then maybe between 2 and 3.
-
Jim:
It seems there is some pretty good evidence that the greens that Macdonald moved were #2 and #17 at least. And yes, if #2 green was considerably shorter than where it is now that would've made a pretty long walk to #3 tee if in fact #3 tee at that early time was somewhere near where it is now. But it may not have been. I do not know it but originally #3 may've been a bone fide par 5. Of course now and for many years (perhaps since #2 green was moved) it has been a par 4 for good players.
Other tees that it seems there is some pretty good evidence were changed or reiterated under Macdonald's direction include #2, #8, #12, #13, #15, #16 and #17.
Mike Cirba is absolutely right if he is implying that NGLA was essentially a continuous work in progress. It is no secret at all that Macdonald worked on it constantly most of the remainder of his life. At least he said so and so I hope no one on here is going to claim that Macdonald was in error too about what he wrote about NGLA. ;)
-
Jim Nugent,
About Ward's score, yesterday I only posted the first page of an 8 page article, simply in the interest of time. The story continues on Page 2;
by 3 up and 2 to play. The seventeenth
and eighteenth were halved in
4 and 5 respectively, although both
were on the home green on their seconds,
each taking 3 putts.
Mr. Ward's score:
Out—6 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5—42
In —2 2 4 2 5 3 5 4 5—32—74
This record will probably hold for
some time. Without doubt the 32 in
will stand for a long time to come and
the chances are that never will there
be a duplication of the sequence of 2's
on the tenth, eleventh and thirteenth
holes. It may not be out of place to
here mention that on these holes in
the qualifying round Mr. Ward registered
7, 5 and 4, and the 7 was made
without getting into any "trouble" at
all—and there's lots of it lying around.
The course opened informally with this Invitational Tournament in 1910, and opened formally in 1911. I think Macdonald made a minor typo in his book, which is the only one I've found.
Jim Kennedy,
Perhaps I simply have a vivid imagination. The word "Stentorian" was fully intended.
Your post came to me yesterday abruptly which caused me to imagine you as an instructor in the front of the room singling out and yelling loudly at the only kid in the class who is still trying to discuss actual evidence, even if he can be a smart-ass sometimes. while the rest of the class behind me is engaged in full-out fisticuffs and yelling insults. It just seemd a little one-sided.
You didn't even acknowledge that this thread was generated from a number of posts from David on both the Myopia and Shinnecock threads accusing me of wholly misrepresenting the history of NGLA, as such;
Mike Cirba,
You've come up with all sorts of crazy theories about NGLA which would rewrite portions of their history. You've claimed various individuals should be added to the credits, claimed it was part of a real estate scheme, claimed the course was 110 acres, credited Hutchinson, Travis, and Emmet with the design, disputed the date it was ready for play, disputed the opening date of the club, etc . . . So tell us about how you reached out to NGLA and examined their internal records? Tell us about you went to them first as a show of respect?
Mike Cirba
I accurately and gently portrayed some of the absurd positions you have taken regarding NGLA. Should I start a thread pulling some of them up so you can explain why you didn't go to NGLA?
I asked David not to bother, I would do so.
In that regard, I thought the best way to go about it was simply to chronologically document the history of the project as it was detailed in contemporaneous news articles. I believed that they made very clear how this progressed, what Macdonald's thinking was at various points in time, and how both his thinking and the project evolved over the course of it from inception to completion.
I also believed that timeilining it in this manner would clear up any disputes around dates, acres, participants, etc., which they clearly do.
For years we've been told that Macdonald first routed the course on horseback in 2-3 days with Whigham, and then bought exactly the property they needed for their golf course. That is clearly untrue, and George's book makes that very clear as well.
During those days, we were also told that any reference to Macdonald's estimate of 110 acres for the golf course, or any reference to having building lots for the Founders all related to a much earlier 1904 letter and was irrelevant a the time Macdonald actually secured the land for his course in late 1906. This is simply untrue.
We can see from these articles that since inception, the magic number had been slightly over 200 acres, although Macdonald himself believed that only about 110 of these acres would be needed for golf, with the rest going to building lots.
This June 20th, 1906 article, after Macdonald's return from his visit abroad that year, and just months before he found the Sebonac property shows clearly that he's still looking for the exact same slightly more than 200 acres he was looking for in the original 1904 Founders letter.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
More interestingly, sometime during these next few months, a Brooklyn Company took hold of the 2000 acres of Shinnecock land at a bargain-basement $50 an acre. Macdonald tells us that he tried to jump on this oppotunity and offered to purchase 120 acres for $200 an acre near the canal between Peconic and Shinnecock bays, which was rejected.
Possibly CBM saw this site as particularly advantageous for his golf course, and was willing to scrap his building lots plan to get it at very low prices? We're not sure, because neither his account nor George's tell us much about why he made this offer but I think one can safely assume it was for his golf course.
So, this idea that he routed the course in 2 days on horseback after finding all his holes on it is poppycock!
Instead, I think the evidence indicates that during that ride, they found some great landforms they could use for an Alps and redan, the body of water for the Cape and Eden, and enough possibilities to be enthused. They offered to buy 205 acres of the 450 tract, as yet unspecified in terms of boundaries in December 1906.
Seth Raynor was hired, the land was cleared, and over the next few months the routing and decison-making of which holes go where took place, followed by construction and seeding, which took place in the fall of 1907. George's book tells us that Macdonald was forever tinkering with the routing. CBM himself tells us in December 1906 that the exact holes to be reproduced, as well as the yardages of the holes would be decided in coming month.
Over time, probably due to the amount of swampland on the property, as well as the width necessitated by the strategic options Macdonald was trying to create, he quickly forsook the idea that the course would be 110 acres, and even though as he notes in his Founders letter there was still significant land from the original purchase left over, he and the members thankfully never used it for housing.
So, I'm really not sure which "crazy theories" about NGLA I've been supposedly propagating for months here, or which ones aren't fully supported by the contemporaneous records, news accounts, CBM's book, George Bahto's book, or any reasonable account or reading of the history?
Jim...I think I still have the right here to defend myself against these type of wild, unfounded allegations, and if I saw a way to make the thread also educational and useful to others here, all the better.
Macdonald was never the type of guy who would do a paper job in a day visit, farmland or not. In fact, his whole career was a rejection of that approach as he clearly loved and respected the game too much. In fact, by 1910 his thinking had evolved to the point that when a club approached him about 100-120 acres they were looking at for a course, his first concern was if they had enough land for a first-rate course. ;)
Also, his recommendations that they acquire a few more acres near the farmhouse near the railroad they propsed using as their clubhouse takes on a different meaning once one realizes that Macdonald estimated needing 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounding amenities for his project.
Have a good day, and if you are going to scold, don't play favorites.
-
"The AG article gives distances when NGLA opened. Looks like today's 2nd hole played to just 215 yards. Was there a one hundred or so yard walk from the 1st green to the 2nd tee?"
Jim:
Originally the 2nd tee was essentially on the back of today's 1st green and the 2nd green was considerably shorter than the present green. Macdonald moved a few greens over time.
Jim,
I believe NGLA opened with three sets of tees, perhaps the yardage cited was from a forward tee.
One of the tees to # 2 was within the footpad of the 1st green.
In the early days, I believe the longest # 2 played was at 262.
Jim & TEPaul,
David Moriarty or someone else posted a picture, taken from near the windmill, of what was described as the green at # 2
I always had an issue with that photo, or perhaps the angle it was taken from and what that depicted.
I forget the date of the picture, but, if someone could find it again, and post it, it might help, along with the date of the photo.
As to moving the 2nd green, it's current location is highly manufactured.
A tremendous amount of fill creates the footpad which falls off sharply behind and to the sides of the green.
I wonder if the photo I referenced wasn't of a green on the north side of the ridge, versus today's and 1928's green which is on the south side of the ridge.
Maybe that's where the term, "southsider" a drink near and dear to my heart, but not my liver, came from.
-
When they played that "informal" opening tournament (Macdonald and some of his best friends) both the 9th and the 18th greens were about one full green shorter than where they later ended up.
If you can remember where the bunkering is, short of the 18th hole, that was the beginning of the original 18th green - I can't remember the yardages of both those hole off the top of my head but they were about 30-40 yards shorter and for a while the original greens and the (later) greens on both those holes were in use as one huge green for a while.
If one looks closely at the model down in the maintenance barn you can see that those two greens are shown as described above. I think it shows the same in the course drawings that appeared in Golf Illustrated
Greens moved: I have buried info that the 8th was moved once, of course the 14th and the 17th. Portions of a couple greens were lopped off, like portions of the 5th and 12th.
The sixth green: a large amount of money ws spent on that green in the 20's - probably rebuilding the bunker (may have been in prep of the Walker Cup matches) - this is why there is a picture of the green with the "sleepers" holding up the front edge.
I think at one point, and certainly at the time of the informal opening - he and his friends - the 2nd green was the area on the plateau just short of the present 2nd green - whether that area or both areas were the entire second green (even though the fall of down to the present green is so steep and such a change in elevation).
I have an original scorecard (the only one I have ever seen and is shown in The Evangelist of Golf) and the yardage for the 2nd hole shows 261 - that from the original tee that was on the rear of the 1st green to the middle of the present green - however ...............................
In that NGLA article Harpers, Jan 22, 1910 by van Tassel Sutphen, he states (in part):
“The second hole, is modelled upon the famous Sahara at Sandwich. Its official length is put down at 230 yards but is really intended for a full one-shot hole; according to the direction and strength of the wind, its playing distance may be anything between 210 and 250 yards” - that puts the green (at one time) IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HILL BEFORE THE PRESENT GREEN. ..... he later states:
.......”the green itself deserves a word of mention. It is very large, and is built in THREE TERRACED SECTIONS, the fall being along the line of play and not against it.” ....... INTERESTING!
What I get out of all that is that perhaps Charlie thought it was a good idea for that green as described directly above but later found it unworkable and decided on the present green configuration.
Macdonald designed the course with three sets of tees so that different handicap players could play from THEIR appropriate tees could play against one another and not have to give "shots" to the opposing player. A nice idea in general but I'm not sure it works all the time.
One of the most interesting thing about his 3-sets of tees idea was, according to him, that the fairway to green strategies would remain pretty constant for each level of player. Now that's tricky!!
-
David Moriarty,
Can you post that old picture of the 2nd green again. Thanks
George, I think you meant the tee was in # 1 green, not # 2 green.
-
George,
Thanks for that terrific information!
Patrick,
I can post the eight page article those pictures were included in sometime this weekend. There are some other terrific photos, as well, and I've recently found one of the original Cape green that I'll try to post a link to, as well.
-
Pat - thanks - I corrected it
-
Mike Cirba,
You are misrepresenting not only my understanding of what happened at Merion, but also misrepresenting my understanding of what happened at NGLA. You've proven you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation about either, at least with me, so why don't you give it a rest?
____________________________
Patrick.
Here is the photo:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/1008-Sahara.jpg?t=1295631757)
The photo wass taken from left of bunker looking across the hole with the cameraman near (or perhaps on) the water tower that is now the windmill, so the angle is a bit disconcerting. The angle of play is from the lower left. One can see the flag of the green on the left side of the photo. Obviously the green is quite a bit shorter than now.
-
George,
I've seen that van Tassel Sutphen quote, but I think the hole was always intended to be a two shot hole, barely reachable by only the longest drivers.
The green was definitely short at the 1910 tournament, but I wonder if this wasn't a temporary measure just for this tournament, and if work wasn't ongoing on the real green?
Here is what Whigham wrote about the hole in 1909:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLASaharaWhigham1909b.jpg?t=1285564525)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLASaharaWhigham1909.jpg?t=1285564525)
Note that the hole was intended to be a two shot hole, where a big aggressive drive might just barely get to the green or edge of the green. Note also that the green is 250 yards from the tee.
Here is a photo of the plasticine model. The green is in its correct location, is it not? One can make out about where the shorter green must have been placed (at least for that tournament) near the short bunker.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/SaharaPlastiscene.jpg?t=1295633613)
Here is the link to CBM's and HJW's 1914 article on the Sahara:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi2i.pdf
For fun, here is a cool Franklin Booth rendering from the Whigham Article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLASaharaWhighamBooth1909.jpg?t=1285565990)
And the original Sahara Bunker at Sandwich, circa 1894:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1894SaharaHMWWS.jpg?t=1285564737)
And the hole at NGLA a few years ago:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA/Img1451.jpg?t=1295634083)
-
van Tassel Sutphen actuall said he thought it as a 3 1/2 hole
also:
In an article written by Charles A. Jagger, entitled “The National Golf Club” that appeared in Southampton Magazine - Autumn 1912, which gave an early hole-by-hole description of each hole, he spoke of the second hole:
“The second hole is named, ‘Sahara”, and is a modified reproduction of the famous hole by that same name at Sandwich, although a more difficult one. The green is ridged and undulating and is built on two levels. This hole, like the first, is also of the dog-leg or elbow order, requiring a drive to the right and the second shot is straight uphill over a deep sand pit; the distance is 261 yards”.
-
9th Hole 1910
∙ according to Robt. White, prior to 1914 the 9th green was moved twice!
∙ At the time of the National’s un-official opening day tournament played for three days beginning July 2nd, 1910, the original 18th hole, the course’s present 9th, measured only 440 yards and “it was proposed to increase the it to 500 to 520 yards - a new green being already laid out.”
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/origlargegreen-9.jpg)
also about the 5th:
5th Green: 1928
∙ In the fall of 1928 (Sept & Dec), 168 man days and 16 days of equipment expense, plus compost, sand and seed for a total of $2,996.50 for substantial work on the 5th green - although the yardage was not changed, it appears the green was totally redone in the very least.
-
David and George,
Thanks for the additional information that explains some of the early evolution.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/1008-Sahara.jpg?t=1295631757)
The photo wass taken from left of bunker looking across the hole with the cameraman near (or perhaps on) the water tower that is now the windmill, so the angle is a bit disconcerting.
The angle of play is from the lower left.
David, I think the angle of play is from the right.
If the picture is taken from the water tower, play has to be from the right.
I've always found that picture disconcerting as the topography doesn't match the site, especially if the photo was taken from the water tower/windmill.
One can see the flag of the green on the left side of the photo. Obviously the green is quite a bit shorter than now.
-
"I've always found that picture disconcerting as the topography doesn't match the site, especially if the photo was taken from the water tower/windmill."
Pat:
Actually it does and that's what really surprised me walking around up there early one morning after sunrise. The only reason we don't really notice that elevation or rise behind that flagpole is because there are so many trees up there now. I walked up there and it does match that rise in that of photo that has no trees up there.
-
TEPaul,
It only matches if the green in the photo is 60-80 yards short of the current green and located on the far right flank of the current fairway.
It does not match if the green was at the crest of the hill.
It has to be much lower than the crest in order for the juxtaposition of the features and surrounding terrain to match the current topography.
-
David, I think the angle of play is from the right.
If the picture is taken from the water tower, play has to be from the right.
My mistake. Meant right. Wrote left.
I agree that it is a strange angle but I am pretty sure that is the angle in the photo. I think if you look at google maps that hill across the way is about the highest point on the property. Not sure if the photo is from up in the water-tower or not, but it has to be from somewhere around there. If you look at the model you can imagine where this early (temporary?) green was.
The green used for that tournament was well short of the current green.
-
Dave,
The only way that picture makes sense is if the green was located 60-80+ yards short of the current green, into the side of the hill/ridge facing the tee and over toward the right side of the current fairway.
It also makes sense when you consider the location of the 2nd tee, on the flank of the footpad of the 1st green.
There's NO way, in 1909-10 that a golfer could carry his drive over the current bunker compled to the left.
The drive had to be up what is now the right side, and I think that's where the green was located.
-
TEPaul,
It only matches if the green in the photo is 60-80 yards short of the current green...
The hole today plays 330 yards. Back then it played 215 to 260 yards. So unless they moved the tee way up, the green must have been well short of where it is now.
The AG article lists the 3rd hole (alps) at 376. The 3rd today plays at 430. So the third tee must have been 60 or more yards further up. Making the walk from the 2nd green to the 3rd tee well over 100 yards.
I'm again struck by how many great courses underwent ongoing, substantial changes, starting shortly after they opened. That's true of most of the Doak 10s in the U.S.
-
Jim:
That's right. Macdonald did say he moved some greens and I think that was one of them. When you first see that photo it is pretty surprising. I think I first saw it about 8-10 years ago. It's in one of the albums in a drawer in the big room (there are all kinds of interesting photos in those albums and a number of them that seem to be from abroad). I was looking at them in the middle of the night some years ago and with that one it was so surprising the next morning really early I went out to the ridge on that hole and noticed how much the land rises to the right and up into the trees.
It guess it was a long walk to the 3rd tee but sometimes those kinds of things seem unavoidable at first. I guess he figured golfers were going that way anyway. Some of those early guys like Crump were pretty fixated with creating really close green to next tee commutes but sometimes a long walked seemed unavoidable depending on what the characteristics of the land forms you wanted to use next (the Alps hill).
Crump ran into the same thing with the 11th and 12th at PV. He didn't like the long walk and actually planned to move the 11th green up on the hill next to the windmill and much closer to the 12th tee.
-
From the various stories and accounts described here and in other sources, it appears the routing of the course took a few months, and that was all accommodated by the fact that CBM bought much more land than he originally thought he needed for the actual course, essentially "encircling" the parcels of the property that contained the best features for golf, while giving himself and his design associates enough land and latitide to do whatever they felt was best for their overall goals.
-
From the various stories and accounts described here and in other sources, it appears the routing of the course took a few months,
[size=12point]
Mike, that's your agenda driven conclusion, a conclusion that's nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order.
What you fail to understand is that CBM had an abundant number of specific holes that he wanted to incorporate in his golf course, whereas, with Merion, there was no preconceived plan to incorporate specific holes, thus making the routing of Merion all the easier.
Somehow, in your quest to prove that courses can't be routed with single or limited visits, you ignore the vast body of work of Donald Ross, who according to some, had one day routings as his modus operandi.
Please, please stop with your agenda driven, forced interpretations.[/b][/size]
and that was all accommodated by the fact that CBM bought much more land than he originally thought he needed for the actual course, essentially "encircling" the parcels of the property that contained the best features for golf, while giving himself and his design associates enough land and latitide to do whatever they felt was best for their overall goals.[size=12point]
Mike, one only has to look at the very confined and very limiting nature of the out and back routing at NGLA to dismiss your above conclusion.[/b][/size]
-
"Mike, that's your agenda driven conclusion, a conclusion that's nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order."
Patrick:
You call Mike Cirba's conclusion nothing more than an agenda driven attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order, while at the same time denying that Moriarty's agenda driven conclusion was nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the fact that Wilson and his committee routed Merion and not exactly in short order either!
If you disagree with particularly the latter part of the above then just cite for us one iota of evidence that CBM ever routed Merion East. There is no factual evidence that CBM did that or anything like it. All you can point to is a laundry list of unsupportable assumptions and premises in Moriarty's essay that actually have no basis in factual evidence. It is all nothing other than speculation and tortured logic and reasoning.
If you don't think so then just point to one iota or one example of actual physical or textual EVIDENCE from back then (contemporaneous) where any record indicates that Macdonald did something like route Merion East.
Frankly, the best piece of evidence about what Macdonald and Whigam did do for MCC in 1910 is that two and a half page letter Macdonald wrote to Lloyd after their June 1910 visit to Ardmore. When Moriarty wrote that essay he did not have that letter; he only had a committee and board reference to it. Some months later, Wayne Morrison on his own initiative actually found a transcription of that letter at MCC. What that letter actually said is perhaps the best evidence there is that Macdonald and Whigam did not route Merion East in 1910 or anything remotely like that and in that letter Macdonald actually even explained why he could not do something like that.
People like you, Patrick, just continue to overlook that kind of thing. Why do you do that? I think you do it because you are probably embarrassed about condoning a completely half researched and half baked essay like that one in the first place, and this is your on-going way of avoiding and denying that embarrassment. You're no historian, that's for sure. You seem to be nothing more than a pot-stirer! I bet, even at this point, you still have no idea WHAT that all-important letter from Macdonald to Lloyd in the end of June 1910 actually said. Unfortunately Moriarty had no idea what that actual letter said either (all he had was a committee and board reference to it) when he researched and produced that highly misleading essay of his entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion."
-
TEP & Mike
The reality is most golf courses built in the first decade of the 20th C. were laid out in short order, and some very good ones too. I don't think it does your credibility any good (Mike's that is because TEP has none) to deny the documented facts, or in the case of Mike, to negatively portray these early architects as itinerants. It does seem to be agenda driven, ie Merion driven.
-
Patrick,
What is silly is the idea that the process of land aquisition at the two clubs was even remotely similar, much less identical in terms of process, intent, or "pre-routing", other than the fact that they both wanted to build great golf courses and they both took a few months to route their courses before construction and seeding.
-
Tom MacWood:
I would tend not to use a word like itinerant to describe the lives and times of those early immigrant Scottish and English golf professionals who were over here in the 1890s. I would tend not to use that word not because it is inaccurate but simply because someone like you tries to put some negative connotation on it. Look up the definition of that word in any dictionary and even you should be able to see that the word is actually not one that has some negative connotation----at least not until about the sixth inclusion of its meaning.
But there is no factual or historic doubt that those early Scottish and English immigrant professionals such as the Dunns, Davis, Campbells, White etc most certainly were intinerant. To prove that one only has to chronicle their itineraries and the multitple jobs they had at multiple clubs over a fairly limited number of the years in that early time and generally including multi-tasking jobs that required them to do a whole lot more than just creating golf course architecture.
They were all early multi-taskers and that too is completely provable historically and factually. And not a single one of them stayed at any club very long in the 1890s or even the early 1900s.
I have said many times over the years on here that I do not believe the fact that they were so peripatetic (itinerant) in the things they did over here in that early time indicates that they were men that had no talent for architecture (I said that very thing on another thread yesterday and Moriarty turned it around and wrote I said the exact opposite! Will he acknowledge that? Of course not! ;) ).
Matter of fact, I have said for years now (and included in the theme of that article I wrote for the 2009 Walker Cup program) that I think it is unfair to assume and certainly to conclude that those men had no talent for golf architecture in those years simply because they were never afforded the time and the opportunity and the money to show what they may've been able to do if they were afforded those things as some of the best of the early "amateur/sportsmen" architects were.
The trouble with you, MacWood, is you are clearly trying to make something out of what they did that they just never accomplished for good and understandable historic and factual reasons. That you keep trying to do that I feel actually dishonors them and what they did do over here which frankly was a whole lot more than golf course architecture!
As even Mr Weeks said in his book and so many others have said who have chronicled those men in that time accurately, perhaps the most important thing they accomplished over here in that early time was to teach and certainly SHOW those early golfing Americans how to play good golf or certainly what the playing of good golf looked like. Other than that they also probably made golf clubs or even balls and helped those early clubs maintain their golf courses. Included in that certainly was the quick laying out of rudimentary courses but given their inablility to stay long they just were rudimentary in those years and for that that architecture failed to last or endure.
I have also said over the years and in that Walker Cup article that if those early "amateur/sportsmen" architects who ended up doing such good and lasting and respected work with architecture because they took so much time with it on their special projects, were forced to work at the pace and itineraries those early immigrant English and Scottish professionals did they would probably not have been able to even do as good and those journeymen professionals of that early time did, even though it was rapidly produced, inherently rudimentary and not significant in its architectural quality.
-
Tom,
"Itinerant" is not a disease.
It just means they moved around a lot for work, which they did.
I didn't mean to imply that not working on the second nine at Brookline diminished Campbell's rep. It's just that even today I see it sometimes referred to as a Campbell course, when it really isn't.
Do you think perhaps the 1903 news article about his wife that said he was responsible for Brookline and Myopia was responsible for that misconception?
-
Mike
The word itinerant has a negative connotation, and you and everyone knows it. Tom Dunn, has a negative image too, which is why you almost always used the word itinerant and TD in the same sentence. You were trying portray these gents as negatively as you could. Around that time you were also trying to smear CBM and Whigham.
I think you missed your calling, you should have gone into politics.
-
Michael:
There is another potential aspect of the histories of Shinnecock and NGLA that just occured to me. At this point, I cannot say with any accuracy the significance of it but it has to do with THE LAND!
Let's just call it "Shinnecock Hills." Do you or anyone else on here even know what that meant back then or what it entailed and/or particularly who it was that was selling it or more importantly who actually owned it or who owned the multiple "development companies" that controlled it over the years beginning as far back as the late 1870s and early 1880s and progressing on up until perhaps even the teens.
I think there might be a ton of cross-over significance in all that and the one who seems to chronicle it the best of all or the best ever is none other that David Goddard whose latest work for Shinnecock GC is not called "The Story of Shinnecock GC" it is actually called "The Story of Shinnecock Hills" and it chronicles the entire history of the whole thing----all 3,500 acres of it or whatever it wasa back then which now includes golf courses such as Shinnecock, NGLA, Southampton and Sebonac!
-
Tom MacWood:
The word itinerant does not have only a negative connotation. All anyone needs to do is just look up the definitions of it in any dictionary. Nevertheless, I do not mean to indicate that the word Itinerant has a negative connotation in how I use it on here and that should most certainly suffice to explain to both you and others my position of how I use it and what I intend it to mean no matter how many times you deny that or try to imply otherwise.
You should try not to incessantly claim on here that you know what other people mean to say particularly when you keep claiming what you think they mean to say is about the opposite of what they HAVE TOLD YOU ON HERE they mean to say.
This is why you have definitely marginalized yourself on here and elsewhere, MacWood. I think you should be cognizant of this and try to do something to change it so that not everyone on here will come to believe you suffer from some kinf of problems some of us have come to believe you suffer from.
-
TEP
Please don't insult our intelligence. Here is a link to the common use of the word today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itinerant
Drifters, rogues, rovers, vagabonds, vagrants, illegal aliens, nomads, gypsies, hobos, tramps, bums, derelicts, refugees, street people, paupers, squatters, and waifs don't have a negative connotation? You, Mike and Wayno have a tendency, when the facts are not going your way, to attack or tear down the interloper who invades your favorite tale/legend. Though I have admit calling someone an itinerant sure beats urinating on their grave.
-
Tom MacWood:
If I haven't been completely sure you have some kind of problem that limits you to a form of myopia (a pretty coincidental word and definition for you on here) your #101 just made me sure. You are obviously not even capable of producing something yourself that makes your point. The definition of itinerant is basically someone who travels from place to place (syn: peripatetic). Obviously some people who do travel frequently may not have much of a permanent home or fall into the category of bums, vagabonds, rogues and such, all of which have a negative connotation.
However, look again at the Wikipedia definition you just produced to try to make your point and tell me if there is some negative connotation about that group of people in that Wikipedia definition under the section labeled "Notable Itinerants." ;)
This is proof positive that you have a problem that gives you myopia or some form of fixation blindness and it is the very reason that even though you may be pretty good at some raw research you are a disasterious analyst and historian, and why it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion with you.
Thanks for that Wikipedia definition and it's too bad you didn't read the whole thing but that really is the way you are. We all know that from years of experience with you on here.
-
TEPaul,
If you think that "...it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion..." with Tom MacWood then you're guilty of being a moron by association. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
-
Jim Kennedy:
Perhaps, but hereinafter I think I will try to avoid being a moron by association by ever trying to have a conversation with you. ;)
-
TEPaul,
I appreciate that, as you rarely maintain a civil conversation without personally attacking those who hold contrary opinions.
-
"Mike, that's your agenda driven conclusion, a conclusion that's nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order."
Patrick:
You call Mike Cirba's conclusion nothing more than an agenda driven attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order, while at the same time denying that Moriarty's agenda driven conclusion was nothing more than an attempt to dispute, deny and/or diminish the fact that Wilson and his committee routed Merion and not exactly in short order either!
My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.
If you disagree with particularly the latter part of the above then just cite for us one iota of evidence that CBM ever routed Merion East. There is no factual evidence that CBM did that or anything like it. All you can point to is a laundry list of unsupportable assumptions and premises in Moriarty's essay that actually have no basis in factual evidence. It is all nothing other than speculation and tortured logic and reasoning.
Again, I was responding to MIKE CIRBA, in the sole context of his premise that it took a long while to route NGLA.
Mike Cirba was the one alluding to CBM's routing of Merion.
Perhaps your question should be addressed to him.
If you don't think so then just point to one iota or one example of actual physical or textual EVIDENCE from back then (contemporaneous) where any record indicates that Macdonald did something like route Merion East.
See my above response
Frankly, the best piece of evidence about what Macdonald and Whigam did do for MCC in 1910 is that two and a half page letter Macdonald wrote to Lloyd after their June 1910 visit to Ardmore. When Moriarty wrote that essay he did not have that letter; he only had a committee and board reference to it. Some months later, Wayne Morrison on his own initiative actually found a transcription of that letter at MCC. What that letter actually said is perhaps the best evidence there is that Macdonald and Whigam did not route Merion East in 1910 or anything remotely like that and in that letter Macdonald actually even explained why he could not do something like that.
This thread, and my response to Mike Cirba are about the routing of NGLA and Mike's attempt to lengthen the amount of time it took to route NGLA, ...... infering that Merion couldn't be routed in short order .... unless of course, Donald Ross was involved.
People like you, Patrick, just continue to overlook that kind of thing. Why do you do that?
Because it's TOTALLY irrelevant to this thread and the reason for my reply to Mike Cirba.
You may want to dredge up the ghost of Moriarty, MacWood and Merion, I don't.
Mike Cirba's conclusion was an obvious attempt to dismiss the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order.
I think you do it because you are probably embarrassed about condoning a completely half researched and half baked essay like that one in the first place, and this is your on-going way of avoiding and denying that embarrassment. You're no historian, that's for sure. You seem to be nothing more than a pot-stirer! I bet, even at this point, you still have no idea WHAT that all-important letter from Macdonald to Lloyd in the end of June 1910 actually said. Unfortunately Moriarty had no idea what that actual letter said either (all he had was a committee and board reference to it) when he researched and produced that highly misleading essay of his entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion."
I appreciate your attempt at attribution and intent, but, you're wrong.
Let's stick to this thread and not dredge up other threads.
Do you know that participants have left GCA.com because of the "Philly Mafia" ? (;;)
-
"My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site."
Pat:
Yes, it certainly is true your comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and had NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.
That is my point which is that is the problem you have had with being objective on this entire issue with Merion, Moriarty's essay and Macdonald's part in the routing of Merion East, and with Mike Cirba's point that it was highly unlikely and probably impossible for Macdonald to have routed that golf course in the day he was at Ardmore in June 1910! Not to even mention what Macdonald's letter actually said which was that he could not do something like that without a contour map in front of him. In that letter he actually even articulated that that was the problem to that MCC had before them. Of course Moriarty was not aware that Macdonald had written that when he wrote his essay because at that point Moriarty had never seen Macdonald's letter, and had only seen a MCC committee and board reference to that letter (neither of which said a thing about Macdonald routing the course).
This is Cirba's point and it is a good one, but yet of your own admission you did not and do not address it even though you do mention the possibility of CBM routing Merion East in short order.
There is also not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald did anything like that at any time in 1910 or that he was even at Ardmore between June 1910 and April 1911. That is almost ten months, not to mention that there is not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald himself had anything at all to do with the routinng of Merion East at any time.
Regarding exactly how long it took to route NGLA, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows the answer to that because when they began the routing compared to when they finalized the routing was never actually reported in detail. If it was show me where that was ever said; and I don't want to hear just a long litany of additional speculation.
-
"TEPaul,
I appreciate that, as you rarely maintain a civil conversation without personally attacking those who hold contrary opinions."
Jim Kennedy:
Again, perhaps, but it seems the same is true of you, and after-all you're the one who just initiated the remark about moronic by association, not me. ;)
And Cirba is right about you when he said you are not even-handed or objective in lecturing people about incivility on here. I don't recall you ever saying anything to Moriarty on here about that and no one on earth who has read some of his recent posts on this website could possibly miss that he is completely out of control with his incivility; constantly calling me a creep, a liar, the poorest excuse of a man, an alterer or hider of official documents and whatnot. It is so outrageous and so out of control recently it's actually funny! Not to mention what is all over the Internet that has to do with that guy's background in the last some years. I was not even aware of any of it until less than two weeks ago, but he and MacWood have been riding me to do more "INDEPENDENT" ;) research, and so I did! Damn depressing, actually, in the depth and breadth of it all, if you ask me.
-
"My comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and has NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site."
Pat:
Yes, it certainly is true your comment was limited, SOLELY, to Mike Cirba's post and had NOTHING to do with anything that David Moriarty might have posted on this site.
That is my point which is that is the problem you have had with being objective on this entire issue with Merion, Moriarty's essay and Macdonald's part in the routing of Merion East, and with Mike Cirba's point that it was highly unlikely and probably impossible for Macdonald to have routed that golf course in the day he was at Ardmore in June 1910! Not to even mention what Macdonald's letter actually said which was that he could not do something like that without a contour map in front of him. In that letter he actually even articulated that that was the problem to that MCC had before them. Of course Moriarty was not aware that Macdonald had written that when he wrote his essay because at that point Moriarty had never seen Macdonald's letter, and had only seen a MCC committee and board reference to that letter (neither of which said a thing about Macdonald routing the course).
I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course.
In "Scotland's Gift" he cites the fact that not only was a contour map not available, but that the NGLA property hadn't even been surveyed when he first toured it, yet, riding over the inhospitable site he was still able to find the topography necessary to place his holes. The contours he studied were the natural ones in the ground, and not a contour map on paper.
This is Cirba's point and it is a good one, but yet of your own admission you did not and do not address it even though you do mention the possibility of CBM routing Merion East in short order.
I did address it, you just missed it.
The sites are wildly disimilar.
NGLA's property was little known and had never been surveyed, whereas the Merion property had been well surveyed, was well known, and in use.
There is also not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald did anything like that at any time in 1910 or that he was even at Ardmore between June 1910 and April 1911. That is almost ten months, not to mention that there is not an iota of actual evidence that Macdonald himself had anything at all to do with the routinng of Merion East at any time.
There's also not an Iota of evidence that he didn't
Regarding exactly how long it took to route NGLA, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows the answer to that because when they began the routing compared to when they finalized the routing was never actually reported in detail. If it was show me where that was ever said; and I don't want to hear just a long litany of additional speculation.
He did route the course quickly, he cites how he found hole after hole after hole on the property when he toured it.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you find all of the holes you desire to place upon the land, that you've figured out the routing, if by no other process than default, like the last few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
-
"I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course."
Pat:
I think it would be best for me to take your post responses in little baby steps. So from your quote above how do we actually know or why would you say you believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course. I want to see actual and factual evidence from you and not your speculations.
Did you know, for instance, that David M. Raynor surveyed Shinnecock's land and apparently some of the surrounding land in the early 1890s and with his young son Seth pulling the rods and chains for him?
Do you even know, Patrick, anything about the history and evolution of the entire Shinnecock Hills (about 3,500 acres), the history and evolution of its development companies and who essentially owned them over time (the time being from perhaps the 1870s until perhaps the teens or even 1920s?) Something tells me you know none of this and probably have never even thought of it before! Believe me, Patrick, when it comes to history and analyzing it on these kinds of subjects that have to do with the entire inter-related history of Long Island and other places that deals with land development and golf courses and who all was involved with it, you really do need to stick with your old mentor and friend----ME! ;)
-
TEP
You were the genesis of the ‘moron by association’ remark when you said "it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion" with TMac. You've been interacting with MacWood for the past ten years on this site, ergo, I rest my case.
And please, stop playing the innocent. You and Wayno The 'Whiz' Kid have been on the attack ever since Tom MacWood wrote about Merion some 8 years ago and David Moriarty posted his recent Missing Faces piece, and you and 'The Whiz' showed a propensity to make it personal instead of measuring up to even the most casual standard of fair discussion. As for Mike Cirba, I don't when or how he let himself be dragged into the fray. Probably some perceived slight about one of the Philadelphia architects.
All one has to do is look in the last page or so of this thread to see how you operate. You malign TMac and suggest he has 'problems' that 'everyone' on this site is aware of. A few posts later and you're making abusive remarks about David Moriarty. Just recently you made such a blatantly libelous allegation about David that I was amazed you escaped a lawsuit. You should be thankful that he shows more restraint than you, although I don’t know how long that will last, especially now that you're 'searching' into his, and TMac’s, personal lives to dig up skeletons, imaginary or real. I’d say you have been a lucky man, so far.
Actually, Wayno The Whiz has been much more pleasant than you ever since it has said “Guest” under his name. (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
-
Pat,
There is plenty of evidence that CB did not route Merion and NONE that he did.
CB didn't tell us he routed hole after hole after hole. He tells us Whigham found a great hill for an Alps, they turned and saw a great natural landform for a redan, they found an inlet where they could create an Eden where you couldn't roll it up, and right next to there a waterway for the Cape.
He also mentioned a site to copy the Short hole at St. Andrews out at the point of the bay that was never built.
That's it.
Based on those excited finds, he secured an undefined 205 acres out of 450 available and then proceeded to hire Raynoe, clear and survey the land, and begin work as a committee to route the course.
George's book tells us that CBM was continually tinkering with the routing over that period prior to construction and seeding.
We also know that when the process began CBM anticipated using much less than the 205 acres and planned to give plots to the Founders with the remainder.
It's ludicrous to say he routed the golf course in a day or two.
It's a myth.
-
"TEP
You were the genesis of the ‘moron by association’ remark when you said "it is virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion" with TMac. You've been interacting with MacWood for the past ten years on this site, ergo, I rest my case."
Yes I have, Jim Kennedy, and it would probably do you well to rest your case completely and stay out of that in the future and if you must enter into it then try to be a bit more objective and even-handed about it as Mike Cirba accurately mentioned and asked you to be. ;)
You're an odd one on here, Jim Kennedy. I don't know you or who you are but you seem to want to be perceived on here as some kind of moderator or school master type who wants to keep the peace. Occasionally you actually offer some really insightful opinions, as I believe you did on this thread and then oddly you deleted most of them and replaced them with a "smiley" and preceded on with your apparently intended moderator or school master persona. I have no problem with any of that other than to reiterate what Cirba said about you----eg you just don't seem to know how to be even-handed or objective about it with the participants on this website.
I suspect that many of us on here have some form or degree of your MO on here, which is that we all have some of our own inherent biases and prejudices about certain things and believe me, with you it shows in spades to me! Apparently you seem to feel the same way in that vein towards me that I do towards you. ;)
PS:
All I said to MacWood was that I feel it has become virtually impossible for anyone of any intelligence to have a productive conversation or discussion with him on here. I didn't say a thing about association or morons----you are the one who first mentioned that Jimbo, Bimbo, Akimbo Kennedy. ;)
-
Jim,
After leaving the site for six months, I returned with the idea (and Ran's recommendation) to just have fun here.
You must have missed my public courses before the depression thread where those paragons of innocence and virtue, David and TMac basically drove that thread off the road, into the gutter, and then backed up and ran over me again.
What was my sin? Having the audacity to claim that prior to the depression, Cobbs Creek was viewed by many observers as the best public course in the country.
But I guess you missed all of that...
Ironically, I was looking at microfiche at Temple U library today with Joe, Mark MacKeever, and John Shimoney and what do we come across?
Oh, a 1928 article with 3 time US Publinks champion Carl Kaufmann stating his belief that Cobbs Creek was unsurpassed as a test of golf and the best public course he had ever seen.
Oh well...I'm sure Mr. Kaufmann will now get posthumously pounded, so I probably shouldn't have brought the poor fellow into this.
-
And Jim...what did Jeff Brauer and Phil Young ever do to deserve the constant barrage of personal insults the receive from your angelic twosome?
I guess they dared to disagree with their often preposterous theories and tortured logic, very respectfully, but one evidently must not do that here with the self-appointed keepers of the true truth.
Wayne Morrison hasn't been on this site for years, yet he gets more mentions from the three of you than Tom Doak.
Give it a rest.
-
Tom Paul,
I don't think anyone's personal life should be discussed on this website, nor their professional life unless they are involved in golf course architecture.
This shit has to stop, no matter who started what.
Please give it a rest.
-
"I believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course."
Pat:
I think it would be best for me to take your post responses in little baby steps. So from your quote above how do we actually know or why would you say you believe we know that CBM didn't need a contour map to route a golf course. I want to see actual and factual evidence from you and not your speculations.
Sure, just look at page 187 of the book I gave you, "Scotland's Gift"
CBM himself states, "This property was little known and had NEVER been surveyed"
So, if the property hadn't been surveyed, then, NO contour map could exist.
CBM then states,
"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.
We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run up on the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."
So CBM was able to blend his concepts of ideal golf holes to the land he walked/studied WITHOUT the benefit of a contour map.
Did you know, for instance, that David M. Raynor surveyed Shinnecock's land and apparently some of the surrounding land in the early 1890s and with his young son Seth pulling the rods and chains for him?
I'm not interested in the surrounding land.
I'm interested in the 450, narrowed down to 205 acres that CBM declared as unsurveyed.
Do you even know, Patrick, anything about the history and evolution of the entire Shinnecock Hills (about 3,500 acres), the history and evolution of its development companies and who essentially owned them over time (the time being from perhaps the 1870s until perhaps the teens or even 1920s?) Something tells me you know none of this and probably have never even thought of it before!
I have not invested my time in the study of Shinnecock Hills as you and Wayno have.
My focus has always been on NGLA.
If you want to start a thread on SHCC, please do so, although, I won't be able to contribute much when it comes to SHCC's history.
I can contribute a little regarding the play of SHCC dating back more than a few decades.
Believe me, Patrick, when it comes to history and analyzing it on these kinds of subjects that have to do with the entire inter-related history of Long Island and other places that deals with land development and golf courses and who all was involved with it, you really do need to stick with your old mentor and friend----ME! ;)
I'm sure you're right about SHCC.
As to other areas of Long Island, I do have some insight into history.
-
Patrick,
What is silly is the idea that the process of land aquisition at the two clubs was even remotely similar, much less identical in terms of process, intent, or "pre-routing", other than the fact that they both wanted to build great golf courses and they both took a few months to route their courses before construction and seeding.
That was my point.
But, it was far more difficult to route uncleared land, land that had never been surveyed, than it was established, surveyed land.
-
Pat:
In a real effort to be objective and fair and logically analytical with you I would sure admit that CBM may've been correct when he mentioned that as far as he knew the land he bought for NGLA in 1906 or 1907 had never been surveyed. But what if a topographical survey map is found that includes that land and that precedes the purchase and creation of NGLA and what if it is a survey done by the firm of Raynor and Co, of Southampton BEFORE NGLA? What would you say then, Patrick? What if the entire area that was then known as "Shinnecock Hills", all app. 3,500 acres of it (that now includes Shinnecock, NGLA, Southampton GC, Sebona and even well west and soutt of the RR tracks that now includes LI University Southampton had been surveyed, topographically and otherwise long before NGLA? What would you say on here then, Patrick? Would you deal with it; would you admit that CBM may've been mistaken in his 1928 book; or would you just ignore it and rationalize its meaning away somehow? ;)
-
Drexel anybody?
-
Mike and Patrick:
I think what we are going to find and will find is that the committee structure and makeup, the business aspects, land development (residential) and otherwise, the corporate entities and structure to support and effect it all are remarkably similar between the concepts and creations of NGLA and MCC in 1910 and that is what a lot of what the reason they got CBM to Ardmore was all about. The rest had more to do with agronomic potential (or lack of it) and agronomic development than golf course architecture.
The architectural development and who was responsible on both projects? I think you are going to see that is was very little different from the way both clubs have always reported it and presented it in their history and history books and otherwise. ;)
Personally, I have come to believe that all this "stuff" that goes on here on this website and has for years should be made part and parcel of the history and reportage on both of these famous and signifcant clubs but perhaps more as an example of overaching misinterpretation or perhaps even a chronicle of how not to analyze and treat history of GCA and otherwise in the future! Perhaps, even, as a wonderful example of an over-riding joke! ;)
-
The course opened informally with this Invitational Tournament in 1910, and opened formally in 1911. I think Macdonald made a minor typo in his book, which is the only one I've found.
I don't believe that's true.
CBM states that the course was first played in 1909.
Subsequent to that play, he states that "it was not until 1909 that some twenty friends played over the course in an improvised competition, our club house a tent. So perhaps the twenty friend improvised competition took place in 1910, but, prior to that, in 1909, the course had been played.
For years we've been told that Macdonald first routed the course on horseback in 2-3 days with Whigham, and then bought exactly the property they needed for their golf course. That is clearly untrue, and George's book makes that very clear as well.
I see, you accept George's book as the Gospel and dismiss Macdonald's own account in his book, "Scotland's Gift".
How convenient.
During those days, we were also told that any reference to Macdonald's estimate of 110 acres for the golf course, or any reference to having building lots for the Founders all related to a much earlier 1904 letter and was irrelevant a the time Macdonald actually secured the land for his course in late 1906. This is simply untrue.
We can see from these articles that since inception, the magic number had been slightly over 200 acres, although Macdonald himself believed that only about 110 of these acres would be needed for golf, with the rest going to building lots.
That's your misquided interpretation.
Macdonald himself states that out of the 450 acres reviewed, they chose 205 acres, and there's not a single mention of housing.
Please tell us, where, on that narrow piece of property, with an out and back routing, the housing sites were to be.
Macdonald describes that land as being worthless, abounding in bogs and swamps and infested with insects, hardly the idlyic spot for building lots. But, again, I ask you, were on that narrow strip of property, removed from the golf course, were the housing lots ?
The long narrow site, occupied by an out and back golf course, doesn't lend itself to any suitable location for housing.
This June 20th, 1906 article, after Macdonald's return from his visit abroad that year, and just months before he found the Sebonac property shows clearly that he's still looking for the exact same slightly more than 200 acres he was looking for in the original 1904 Founders letter.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
More interestingly, sometime during these next few months, a Brooklyn Company took hold of the 2000 acres of Shinnecock land at a bargain-basement $50 an acre. Macdonald tells us that he tried to jump on this oppotunity and offered to purchase 120 acres for $200 an acre near the canal between Peconic and Shinnecock bays, which was rejected.
So what, Macdonald cited same on page 186 in his book.
Possibly CBM saw this site as particularly advantageous for his golf course, and was willing to scrap his building lots plan to get it at very low prices? We're not sure, because neither his account nor George's tell us much about why he made this offer but I think one can safely assume it was for his golf course.
Again, Macdonald states that he wanted that site near the Shinnecock Canal for his golf course.
So, this idea that he routed the course in 2 days on horseback after finding all his holes on it is poppycock!
How do you draw that conclusion in the face of Macdonald stating that that's exactly what he did ?
Before answering, please take a careful look at the schematic in "Scotland's Gift".
It's obvious that the routing could have but one configuration, an out and back routing.
If you found the sites for his ideal holes, by default, the others would have to flow to and from them, making the routing a rather simple exercise.
Instead, I think the evidence indicates that during that ride, they found some great landforms they could use for an Alps and redan, the body of water for the Cape and Eden, and enough possibilities to be enthused. They offered to buy 205 acres of the 450 tract, as yet unspecified in terms of boundaries in December 1906.
Mike, please, please, please look at the schematic or google earth.
Once you understand that the holes you mentioned were established, it almost completely establishes the routing for the remainder of the holes. If you route # 3 and # 4, # 13 and # 14, don't you think you've also figured out # 1, 2, 5, 12 ,15, 16, 17, 18, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 ? Just look at that narrow site, now insert just those four holes. From that starting point, by default you come close to routing the entire golf course, save for some minor variables, especially if you've sited the clubhouse behind or near the current 9th green. Like a jigsaw puzzle, it all falls into place with those four holes and the clubhouse.
Seth Raynor was hired, the land was cleared, and over the next few months the routing and decison-making of which holes go where took place, followed by construction and seeding, which took place in the fall of 1907. George's book tells us that Macdonald was forever tinkering with the routing.
Where does George's book "tell us that Macdonald was forever tinkering with the ROUTING ?"
Why do you constantly accept George's over Macdonald's ?
CBM himself tells us in December 1906 that the exact holes to be reproduced, as well as the yardages of the holes would be decided in coming month.
Oh, so NOW you're telling us to accept Macdonald's word.
The word, "exact" should be a clue for you, if you didn't have an ulterior motive.
Exact holes ? exact yardages ? Please, you're taking fine tuning of yardage and features and trying to tell us that that equates to changing the routing, and that's sheer bullshit, or rather, wishful thinking on your part.
Over time, probably due to the amount of swampland on the property, as well as the width necessitated by the strategic options Macdonald was trying to create, he quickly forsook the idea that the course would be 110 acres, and even though as he notes in his Founders letter there was still significant land from the original purchase left over, he and the members thankfully never used it for housing.
I'll ask you again, in the confines of the property, filled with bogs and swamps and a golf course, where would the housing sites be ?
So, I'm really not sure which "crazy theories" about NGLA I've been supposedly propagating for months here, or which ones aren't fully supported by the contemporaneous records, news accounts, CBM's book, George Bahto's book, or any reasonable account or reading of the history?
Since you seem unclear on the subject, let me clarify it for you.
You're propogating the theory that Macdonald couldn't route a course in short order.
By your own admission you've stated that Merion and NGLA were disimilar, yet, you want to take the difficulties associated with routing an unsurveyed course on a site replete with bogs and swamps and equate that with a well established site.
You want to take Macdonald's mission at NGLA, namely to incorporate his ideal concept holes on a given piece of property, and the difficulty associated with that, and equate it on the creation of a golf course with NO predisposition toward individual or collective hole design. I'd say that's pretty disengenuous, and agenda driven. But, that's just my theory.
Jim...I think I still have the right here to defend myself against these type of wild, unfounded allegations, and if I saw a way to make the thread also educational and useful to others here, all the better.
My allegation is neither wild nor unfounded.
You've cast the die in your own words.
Macdonald was never the type of guy who would do a paper job in a day visit, farmland or not.
That's speculation on your part.
CBM's ego was such that I'm fairly sure that he would think he was capable of rising to such a task, if asked.
In fact, his whole career was a rejection of that approach as he clearly loved and respected the game too much.
He loved and respected himself, first and foremost.
In fact, by 1910 his thinking had evolved to the point that when a club approached him about 100-120 acres they were looking at for a course, his first concern was if they had enough land for a first-rate course. ;)
Maybe that had something to do with the configuration of the land, land that had a road running through it.
Where have we seen that before ?
Also, his recommendations that they acquire a few more acres near the farmhouse near the railroad they propsed using as their clubhouse takes on a different meaning once one realizes that Macdonald estimated needing 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounding amenities for his project.
This is clear evidence, again, of your attempt to dismiss Macdonald at Merion, which, I felt was your agenda all along.
It's unfortunate that you can't create any thread related to Macdonald, directly or indirectly, which doesn't attempt to discredit him in/and his role at Merion.
Have a good day, and if you are going to scold, don't play favorites.
Playing favorites appears to be your forte (;;)
-
Can I predict and wager anyone that we are about to see more and greater uncivil caterwalling on here from David Moriarty than we have effectively ever seen before?
If you're interested let's let Patrick handle the "Book" and the wagering. ;)
Pat, you can have some "vig" on this but you're gonna have to negotiate the percentage with me first!
-
Pat:
In a real effort to be objective and fair and logically analytical with you I would sure admit that CBM may've been correct when he mentioned that as far as he knew the land he bought for NGLA in 1906 or 1907 had never been surveyed.
I would think, if he wrote that, that he was sincere and had nothing to gain by mistating the facts.
But what if a topographical survey map is found that includes that land and that precedes the purchase and creation of NGLA and what if it is a survey done by the firm of Raynor and Co, of Southampton BEFORE NGLA? What would you say then, Patrick?
I'd say the obvious, that Macdonald NEVER knew of such a survey.
If he knew about the existance of a survey or topo, he wouldn't have said that none existed.
What if the entire area that was then known as "Shinnecock Hills", all app. 3,500 acres of it (that now includes Shinnecock, NGLA, Southampton GC, Sebona and even well west and soutt of the RR tracks that now includes LI University Southampton had been surveyed, topographically and otherwise long before NGLA?
What would you say on here then, Patrick? Would you deal with it; would you admit that CBM may've been mistaken in his 1928 book; or would you just ignore it and rationalize its meaning away somehow? ;)
No, I'd state what I stated above, that if such a survey or topo existed, Macdonald didn't know about it.
But, let me ask you this.
In your first paragraph in your reply above, you agreed that Macdonald may have been correct when he stated that the land he bought had never been surveyed.
In your following paragraphs you allude to the existance of a detailed survey and topo map which predated Macdonald's purchase of NGLA.
You're contradicting yourself.
So, I'll ask you directly.
Is there a 1906 survey and/or topo of NGLA that predates Macdonald's purchase of NGLA that you've seen ? Or, know to exist ?
A simple YES or NO will suffice.
-
TEPaul spouting off about yet another subject he knows nothing about? Who would have thought it? And again he libels me, adding to the lies he has been trying to spread for the past few years.
As for this latest smear, I will not stoop to address any of it on a public website, especially as this website has nothing to do with this latest lame attempt at character assassination. My only comment is that this latest bit is very desperate and full of false innuendo and outright lies.
But then those of us who have dealt with this creep know that this is par for the course.
___________________________
Patrick, TEPaul has shown everyone what he is all about, so why bother with this lowlife creep?
-
Mike and Patrick:
I think what we are going to find and will find is that the committee structure and makeup, the business aspects, land development (residential) and otherwise, the corporate entities and structure to support and effect it all are remarkably similar between the concepts and creations of NGLA and MCC in 1910 and that is what a lot of what the reason they got CBM to Ardmore was all about. The rest had more to do with agronomic potential (or lack of it) and agronomic development than golf course architecture.
The architectural development and who was responsible on both projects? I think you are going to see that is was very little different from the way both clubs have always reported it and presented it in their history and history books and otherwise. ;)
Personally, I have come to believe that all this "stuff" that goes on here on this website and has for years should be made part and parcel of the history and reportage on both of these famous and signifcant clubs but perhaps more as an example of overaching misinterpretation or perhaps even a chronicle of how not to analyze and treat history of GCA and otherwise in the future! Perhaps, even, as a wonderful example of an over-riding joke! ;)
I would disagree, entirely.
NGLA was Macdonald's brainchild, dating back a decade or more before a shovel hit the dirt.
He developed the concepts, A to Z.
He studied abroad on several occassions and for lengthy durations.
NGLA was not the product of a committee, it was his baby from concept to construction, inclusive of complete control.
-
David,
Name calling, when done in jest, is OK, but, it serves no purpose.
Let everyone's posts speak for themselves.
We don't need to be told who you, Tom MacWood and TEPaul are, in real life or in characterization.
Let's stick to the subject matter at hand and argue IT, to the exclusion of everything else, and especially not the author.
-
Boy, for folks who truly love the history of CBM and NGLA, before Old Macdonald came about, certainly a great number of us found this website's Discussion Group through an INTERNET search of the topic. Now, with the opening of Old Macdonald and the success it has achieved since, no doubt there are countless others who have stumbled upon GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM and this Discussion Group while doing a GOOGLE search. This thread, by virtue of the subject alone, is bound to be one for the ages, or so you would think.
Too bad readers have to wade through posts like #116 while visiting GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM. Who knows what they're going to think after reading a post like that. "YES, THEY ARE INSANE ON GCA.COM" sounds about right.
Sorry for the OT, Please continue...
-
If that's the case, Kennedy, then perhaps you should stop speculating about who I am or what I'm about on here or elsewhere!
There's no speculation on my part as to what you are.
-
Jim & TEPaul,
Forget the name calling and categorizations.
They serve no purpose.
Let the merits of the content of each reply/post speak for itself.
The more important issue is this:
TEPaul, Is there, or is there NOT, a contour and/or topo map of NGLA prior to CBM's purchase in 1906 ?
-
TEPaul,
Is there, or is there NOT, a contour and/or topo map of NGLA prior to CBM's purchase in 1906 ?
-
Mike Cirba,
Would you agree, in the context of the configuration of the land acquired, that with the site for a clubhouse determined, thus establishing where currrent holes # 9 and # 10 would be, and the finding of the location of holes # 3, # 4, # 13 and # 14, that the balance of the routing was a rather simple, if not predetermined exercise ?
-
Jim,
After leaving the site for six months, I returned with the idea (and Ran's recommendation) to just have fun here.
You must have missed my public courses before the depression thread where those paragons of innocence and virtue, David and TMac basically drove that thread off the road, into the gutter, and then backed up and ran over me again.
What was my sin? Having the audacity to claim that prior to the depression, Cobbs Creek was viewed by many observers as the best public course in the country.
But I guess you missed all of that...
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43689.0.html
Mike
Is this the thread I drove into the gutter? I thought it actually turned into one of the more interesting and informative threads.
-
Can you reasonably conclude that if TEPaul doesn't respond, NO contour map or topo existed prior to CBM's purchase of the site in 1906 ?
Was Mike Sweeney right about the Philadelphia dilema with New York ?
-
Philadelphia is the most provincial, defensive town I've ever been from...
-
Can you reasonably conclude that if TEPaul doesn't respond, NO contour map or topo existed prior to CBM's purchase of the site in 1906 ?
-Either that, or Elvis has left the building
Was Mike Sweeney right about the Philadelphia dilema with New York ?
-MS is almost always right.
-
Patrick,
Perhaps you should read George Bahto's book again if you want to know the process of how NGLA was routed over several months. I really don't want to type all that again and it's admittedly a better fantasy to believe they did it all on two days on horseback through the brambles....that's did it so exactlingly in fact they bought 205 acres to contain the 110 acres they routed that turned out to be 170 acres.
Or, perhaps you can simply ask David and Tom MacWood or Jim Kennedy? They may be able to do a quick online search and find you a newspaper article somewhere that contrasts to all those I posted above..
Sadly, that's very slim pickings, I know, but they seem to be all that's left here, so...enjoy the company! ;)
-
Mike,
I don't have access to George's book at the present time, but, I will have it in my possession next week and will reread it.
In the meantime, how do you account for the fact that Donald Ross was able to route a golf course with but a single day's viisit to the site ?
-
Mike,
In the meantime, how do you account for the fact that Donald Ross was able to route a golf course with but a single day's viisit to the site ?
Or sometimes without visiting the site at all.
-
Yes, and "Donald Ross" was a large-scale, architectural corporation with trusted, experienced onsite associates and builders at his disposal carrying out his high-level plans that he sometimes sketched on topographical maps after the sites were surveyed. He designed hundreds of courses across the country over decades, but most of his very early work in around 1910 was hands-on and detailed, such as at Pinehurst and Essex.
CB Macdonald was meticulously trying to introduce strategic concepts to show the United States what great golf holes entailed in building his ideal course and spent months and years getting all the details right onsite with the continuing help of Seth Raynor, Dev Emmet, HJ Whigham, and others, and some early help from Walter Travis, little of which is documented or known due to their apparent falling-out over the years.
Pat..I didn't realize you didn't have George's book. I'll type some relevant sections later.
-
As usual, Mike is playing fast and loose with the facts to try and make his petty points. Take, for example, the way he continues to pretend that CBM was only planning on using 110 acres for the golf course even after he secured the land adjacent to Shinnecock. I've explained to Mike repeatedly that the articles from around that time were drawing heavily on CBM's 1904 letter providing "a suggestion" of one way the deal could be structured, and that this letter explicitly states that the details would would be determined later. Yet for some reason Mike continues to try to keep this 110 acre idea in play even after the Shinnecock land was located.
But it doesn't wash. These articles were still basically parroting the old 1904 letter to give background on the project. Take for example this following article, posted above, which Mike does not properly source.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5362496760_54bfa8af4f_o.jpg)
Compare the portion following "Golfers conversant with the holes abroad . . . " with the text of the 1904 letter, a excerpt of which follows:
Any golfer conversant with the golf courses abroad and the best we have in America—which are generally conceded to be Garden City, Myopia and the Chicago Golf Club—knows that in America as yet we have no first-class golf course comparable with the classic golf courses in Great Britain and Ireland. There is no reason why this should be so, and it is the object of this association to build such a course, making it as near National as possible, and further, with the object of promoting the best interests of the game of golf in the United States.
. . .
The idea is to ask sixty men to subscribe $1,000 each for this purpose . . ..
The sixty subscribers, in order to designate them, we will call the Founders.
Besides the Founders, we would offer an associate membership to two hundred men, with an initiation fee of $100 to $200 each, and annual dues of $30 to $40 each. Besides the Founders, we would offer an associate membership to two hundred men, with an initiation fee of $100 to $200 each, and annual dues of #30 to #40 each. The associate membership would build the necessary golf clubhouse.
While the $1,000 subscription it is trusted will be made in a spirit of advancing the sport in this country, and not as an investment, at the same time it is proposed to give something for the $1,000.
Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories. We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple. This ground in itself should be worth $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character.
Obviously, the article is copying, almost verbatim, the 1904 letter, and other sources from around this time do similarly. Yet Mike acts as if all this was all a consideration in 1907, with the new land.
A more important intentional muddying of the waters can be seen in the way Mike is blurring the lines between a rough routing plan of where the holes will go and an all encompassing layout plan done in such detail so as to enable the production of the an exact scale model of the course. Obviously the latter was not done over a few days. But while work would continue on the course for decades, the general routing was not such a complicated affair.
When viewing all of this, we must keep in mind Mike's agenda here, as revealed above. This is all some crazy and convoluted attempt to make some point or another about the creation Merion. But Mike not only has to distort what happened at NGLA to make his point, he has to distort my understanding of what happened at Merion as well. This isn't about figuring out what happened, it is nothing more than his continuing attempt to win that argument.
_____________
As for Bahto's excellent book on the subject, some of his conclusions about the order in which things happened do not seem entirely consistent with what CBM wrote in his book. For one example, George wrote about how CBM brought in 10,000 truckloads of soil to re-contour and sculpt the land to fit his plans. According to CBM, this was topsoil brought in to grow grass, not for re-contouring the terrain.
For another example - the on which Mike is no doubt relying - George seems to suggest that the land was cleared and surveyed and contour maps created before CBM routed the course. He also implies that Travis and Emmett may have been involved in the process of finding these holes. But Macdonald himself directly contradicts this, as does Whigham. And as much respect as I have for George, between Macdonald and George, I'll go with Macdonald, unless of course George has some compelling information to the contrary. Mike, though, will pick and choose, ignoring Macdonald if it suits his cause.
________________________
There are interesting issues to discuss regarding NGLA, but we wont get anywhere so long as Mike keeps trying to use the history and material rhetorically.
-
Patrick,
From "The Evangelist of Golf", pages 62-64;
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 45-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
"...From the survey, Macdonald made a rough sketch of the holes he planned to build, and with Raynor, located potential sites and elevations for greens, tees, and turning points in the fairway. Macdonald tinkered endlessly with the routing plan. Finally, after months of planning, he was ready to move to the next step..."
"...C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan. Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp. Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"
"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."
"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking. Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography. They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."
"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification. The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain. The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."
"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction. Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."
"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams. A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created! It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil. Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."
David,
In 1906, before CBM purchased the Sebonac property, he made an offer on another property closer to Shinnecock.
It was 120 acres. I'm assuming that was for a golf course, no?
Earlier that year, HJ Whigham also repeated the supposed 1904 mantra of purchasing over 200 acres, presumably because of the need for building lots for the Founders.
By 1912, CBM again referred to the "Surplus Land" they had purchased, referring to the original Founders agreement, but again stating that no decision had been made on what to do with the land.
-
My comments above Mike's extensive quotation of Bahto address Mike's reliance on this portion of George's excellent book. See how predictable all this has become? I don't even need to wait for Mike to post before I reply.
Mike, Why do you choose to ignore CBM himself on these issues? Surely we should go directly to the source where possible, should we not?
-
David,
I posted what CBM wrote pages back. I'll post it again below.
I think we have a difference of opinion and I'm not sure why you have a problem with me posting directly from George's book? What you are calling a "rough routing", I'm calling a basic identification of some key features that could be used for some of the "ideal" holes CBM had in mind. They did not do the routing of 18 holes on horseback, nor did CBM ever claim he did.
They only thought they'd need about 110-120 acres, and bought enough property...205 acres...to encapsulate those good features and have land left over for building lots.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
Show me anywhere where CBM or HJW wrote that they would only need 110 acres for THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, or that they ever intended to build lots ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
-
David,
They estimating needing just over 200 acres for the combination of golf course and Founders building lots from 1904 on, including Whigham reiterating that acreage earlier in 1906.
How many acres did he end up buying?
Your idea that he only bought what he needed for the pre-routed golf course is erroneous, and he addressed the issue of the issue of the surplus land in his 1912 founders letter. Should I scan and publish that here too?
-
I understand your theory Mike, no need to repeat it.
I asked you a specific question. Care to take another shot at answering it?
-
Yes, and "Donald Ross" was a large-scale, architectural corporation with trusted, experienced onsite associates and builders at his disposal carrying out his high-level plans that he sometimes sketched on topographical maps after the sites were surveyed.
The associates and builders employed by Donald Ross are irrelevant to this issue.
This is an issue focused on ROUTING, not construction.
Ross routed courses with but one visit.
And, as cited, he also routed courses without ever having stepped on the property.
Please confine your argument to the issue, which is routing and not things which happened AFTER the routing.[/b]
He designed hundreds of courses across the country over decades, but most of his very early work in around 1910 was hands-on and detailed, such as at Pinehurst and Essex.
That's NOT TRUE.
Many of his courses were "drive by" designs, based on a one day visit.
If he was able to route a course in one day, I'm sure other talented architects could do the same thing.[/b]
CB Macdonald was meticulously trying to introduce strategic concepts to show the United States what great golf holes entailed in building his ideal course and spent months and years getting all the details right onsite with the continuing help of Seth Raynor, Dev Emmet, HJ Whigham, and others, and some early help from Walter Travis, little of which is documented or known due to their apparent falling-out over the years.
You're missing the entire point, and/or are trying to divert the discussion.
CBM ALREADY HAD THE METICULOUS DESIGNS IN HIS POCKET.
He knew what holes he wanted to reproduce.
Once he examined the land form, and found suitable locations for them, placing them within a routing was a relatively simple task.
You're trying to substitute Micro architecture for Macro architecture in an attempt to dismiss CBM's ability to route NGLA in short order, since his ability to do so would defeat your contention that he didn't route or assist in routing Merion. Yet, we know that his template holes found their way into the ground at Merion. Why then is the possibility of his routing the course so impossible to you ?
As I questioned you earlier, if holes # 3, # 4, # 13, # 14, # 9 and # 10 had been positioned, on that narrow out and back landform, how difficult do you think it was to complete the rest of the routing ? You know where # 2, # 5, # 12, # 15, # 8 have to go, and from there, the rest of the holes fall in place, with little in the way of possible variations.[/b]
Pat..I didn't realize you didn't have George's book. I'll type some relevant sections later.
I have a copy of George's book personally autographed by the author.
I just don't have it with me at the moment.[/b]
-
Patrick,
From "The Evangelist of Golf", pages 62-64;
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 45-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
Mike, The tract was 450 acres, NOT 45 acres.[/b]
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
Mike, how can you leave out the intervening passages of CBM's own account ?
Why do you choose to cite George's interpretation over CBM's ?
Doing so conveys, not what happened chronologically, but what you want to present with your agenda.[/b]
"...From the survey, Macdonald made a rough sketch of the holes he planned to build, and with Raynor, located potential sites and elevations for greens, tees, and turning points in the fairway. Macdonald tinkered endlessly with the routing plan. Finally, after months of planning, he was ready to move to the next step..."
"...C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan. Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp. Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"
"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."
"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking. Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography. They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."
"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification. The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain. The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."
This is out of chronological sequence and YOU KNOW IT.
Are you so desperate to put forth your agenda that you're willing to distort the chain of events as they happened, substituting your time frame instead ? That's disengenuous and certainly intellectually dishonest.[/b]
"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction. Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."
"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams. A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created! It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil. Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."
Mike, we know all of this, and it has NOTHING to do with the routing, it has to do with construction.
You're confusing MICRO architecture with MACRO architecture for your convenience, for your agenda.[/b]
David,
In 1906, before CBM purchased the Sebonac property, he made an offer on another property closer to Shinnecock.
NO, closer to the Shinnecock CANAL[/b]
It was 120 acres. I'm assuming that was for a golf course, no?
So what, each site is unique.
The site near the Shinnecock CANAL has nothing to do with the site eventually purchased.[/b]
Earlier that year, HJ Whigham also repeated the supposed 1904 mantra of purchasing over 200 acres, presumably because of the need for building lots for the Founders.
That's a PRESUMPTION on YOUR PART.[/b]
By 1912, CBM again referred to the "Surplus Land" they had purchased, referring to the original Founders agreement, but again stating that no decision had been made on what to do with the land.
I've asked you time and time again to point out the surplus land for the building lots you've alluded to.
Would you please locate and delineate the land for that purpose ?[/b]
-
Pat,
Let's make a deal.
I need to dig out and get to work, but I'll reply to your posts in some detail tonight, and try to get some things scanned that support my position, but in the meantime...
please at least agree to read the articles I posted at the start of this thread so we have a common point of reference for discussion.
The couple of paragraphs that CBM wrote in his book summarizing months and years of effort do not tell the whole story.
Let's start with this;
"Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee over the next five months" - CB Macdonald in December 1906, after acquiring 205 undetermined acres of a 450 acre tract.
Thanks.
-
On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date. In it, as referenced on the opening page, he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement that stems from 1904, which I've copied in full below, as well. On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to incuding the copy of the original agreement.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/5393591069_a71b835e91_o.jpg)
This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5394188438_daaaed8d87_b.jpg)
This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been purchased, as well as its disposition. Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/5393591181_236ec657a8_o.jpg)
Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
The following mentions the Official Opening Day. We know from previous documentation that a few started "tentatively" playing the course in 1909, probably CBM and his closest project associates, and that on July 2-4, 1910 they held a "soft" opening with a smaill , informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward. In CBM's 1928 book, he mistypes that date as 1909, but the second copied document from "American Golfer" shows the actual timeframe.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5393591241_c0b2809511_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5372530057_8c8a719438_b.jpg)
The following is a copy that CBM attached to his 1912 letter of the Original Founders agreement. On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course. The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_ea27f50a12_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_582e5d8dae_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5393591445_069d3581a9_o.jpg)
And finally, after acquiring the 205 acres of undetermined land out of the 450 available in December 1906, Macdonald tells us precisely what is going to be done to figure out which holes to reproduce and their yardages over the next five months, working with his committee. He is quoted directly, so there is no need for guesses or speculation.
And that's how it happened.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I had typed out a lengthy response refuting everyone of your points, some with the help of contradictory evidence you posed, but, I lost it and wanted to throw my computer through the window.
I have to go out to a meeting now, but, either later tonight or tomorrow morning I'll retype my response.
I have one question for you at the present time.
Would you identify all those that are assisting you in your efforts on this particular thread.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
The only one assisting me, is me, and it's a pain in the butt to post all of this information here, frankly.
Sorry you lost your post.
Well...Joe Bausch found the majority of the articles I posted here originally, but he's blameless if you are looking for some type of conspiracy. This is all my argument, based on the evidence, and I believe it shows Macdonald to be a detailed, tremendous planner who took this incredibly seriously, and frankly, paints a better picture of his love and devotion to the game than the 2 days on horseback routing myth that's been perpetuated here over the years.
And Patrick,
I'll leave you with this quote from Max Behr in 1915;
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
-
Patrick,
The only one assisting me, is me, and it's a pain in the butt to post all of this information here, frankly.
Sorry you lost your post. ME TOO[/b]
Well...Joe Bausch found the majority of the articles I posted here originally, but he's blameless if you are looking for some type of conspiracy.
Nope, just curious
This is all my argument, based on the evidence, and I believe it shows Macdonald to be a detailed, tremendous planner who took this incredibly seriously, and frankly, paints a better picture of his love and devotion to the game than the 2 days on horseback routing myth that's been perpetuated here over the years.
It's no myth. Macdonald in his OWN words told us how he quickly routed the golf course.
And Patrick,
I'll leave you with this quote from Max Behr in 1915;
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land.
Behr seems to refute your theory when he states that "the course really laid itself our to a large extent"
That would indicate that very little effort was necessary when routing the course.
Something I've been saying for some time
Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. [/b]And there you have the solution of the whole business.
This leads me to believe that Behr NEVER saw the golf course.
I've asked you, over and over and over again to locate for me all of the surplus land you allude to on that 205 acre site.
When Behr claims that a "CONSIDERABLE PART OF THE 205 ACRES IS NOT TOUCHED BY THE COURSE" I'd like to know WHERE that land is.
I've asked you, over and over and over again to identify and locate that surplus land, but, to date, you've failed to do so.
Why is that ?
Could it be because there ISN'T any substantive surplus land ?
If there is, could you please identify it.
And, remember, NGLA did NOT own the property behind the current 9th green until many decades after the club opened.
Please point out the surplus land you allude to.
Thanks[/b]
-
Pat,
I'll try to reply in detail later but for now can you tell me why you think CBM offered to buy 120 acres closer to Shinny earlier in 1906 if he thought he needed close to 200 acres for the golf course alone? Thanks.
P.s....regarding "help", everyone else has left the building, all believing that continued "discussion" on these matters with the usual protagonists is not only pointless, but foolish as well.
I'm hoping they aren't correct.
-
Patrick,
Following is the map of NGLA that CBM included in his January, 1912 letter to the Founders.
I will say right now that I'm not sure if the shaded areas are meant to indicate those acres that are club-owned but not developed for the golf course that CBM wrote about in his letter, but we do know that the total acreage purchased was greater than the total acreage used for the golf course...CBM himself told us there was "Surplus Land". I'm also not sure if the drawing is to scale, but I'm sure some folks here might have that ability to determine.
I'm also not sure if the original NGLA was quite as "wide" around the edges as today's version, but estimates on an earlier thread had today's course at somewhere between 160-180 acres out of the 205 acres purchased. That would leave between 13-22% of the originally purchased land for other purposes, such as building lots as CBM and Whigham outlined in previous writings.
In any case, I do think this is a terrific map, and should help also clear up some questions around the original lengths of some holes such as the Sahara 2nd, that have been discussed here prior.
Sorry about the need to scroll to see it, but I think it's worth the larger presentation.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_2a79ebbbd8_o.jpg)
-
The distances for the "Regular Course" or "Championship Length" reported on the other side are:
1 - 315 Par 4
2 - 261 Par 4
3 - 376 Par 4
4 - 185 Par 3
5 - 467 Par 5
6 - 125 Par 3
7 - 456 Par 5
8 - 380 Par 4
9 - 525 Par 5
3090 Par 37
10 - 416 Par 4
11 - 405 Par 4
12 - 385 Par 4
13 - 160 Par 3
14 - 305 Par 4
15 - 358 Par 4
16 - 410 Par 4
17 - 311 Par 4
18 - 484 Par 5
3234 Par 36
6324 - Par 73
-
Bump for Patrick relaxing in Florida while the rest of us in the northeast prepare to get creamed with an ice storm.
Get off the golf course, PatN and back to your miserable keyboard with the rest of us!
-
Patrick,
Following is the map of NGLA that CBM included in his January, 1912 letter to the Founders.
I will say right now that I'm not sure if the shaded areas are meant to indicate those acres that are club-owned but not developed for the golf course that CBM wrote about in his letter, but we do know that the total acreage purchased was greater than the total acreage used for the golf course...CBM himself told us there was "Surplus Land". I'm also not sure if the drawing is to scale, but I'm sure some folks here might have that ability to determine.[size=12point]
Mike, the line surrounding the golf course is NOT the boundary line for NGLA.
The boundary line is the outer line of the shaded portion of the schematic.
Anyone familiar with the topography in the shaded areas understands that those areas are not fit for development.
The center portion between # 5 and # 15 is the maintainance area,
One only has to look at the land to the left of # 10.
That's SHINNECOCK'S GOLF COURSE, NOT NGLA's Surplus land.
Likewise the land at the bottom, to the right of # 13 and # 14, that's BULLS HEAD BAY, not surplus land.
How could you represent that those areas were surplus lands belonging to NGLA ? ? ?[/b][/size]
I'm also not sure if the original NGLA was quite as "wide" around the edges as today's version, but estimates on an earlier thread had today's course at somewhere between 160-180 acres out of the 205 acres purchased. That would leave between 13-22% of the originally purchased land for other purposes, such as building lots as CBM and Whigham outlined in previous writings.[color=green[size=12point]
Mike, again you're pushing your agenda.... dishonestly. There is NO SURPLUS land.
Anyone remotely familiar with the topography understands that.
Take a look at Google Earth and you'll understand that your claim that 13-22 % of the land was available for development is absurd and without merit.
As to your allegation that there was "excess" land for building lots, there isn't, but, I'll get into detail on that in a subsequent post, but, what you should understand, and probably do, but have conveniently overlooked is that Whigham's statement, his "artilcle" in the papers was a FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT MADE PRIOR TO CBM AND JW EVER SEEING THE LAND AT NGLA.
So, how could JW make that statement if at the time of the statement he had never seen the final site ?
Forward looking statements have NO merit, no credibility and you know that.[/color][/size]
In any case, I do think this is a terrific map, and should help also clear up some questions around the original lengths of some holes such as the Sahara 2nd, that have been discussed here prior. [size=18point]
# 2 is listed at 262, 252 & 228 for the Championship, Regular and Short course.[/b][/size]
Sorry about the need to scroll to see it, but I think it's worth the larger presentation.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_2a79ebbbd8_o.jpg)
-
Bump for Patrick relaxing in Florida while the rest of us in the northeast prepare to get creamed with an ice storm.
Get off the golf course, PatN and back to your miserable keyboard with the rest of us![size=14point]
I was hosting our illustrious leader, golf's most beloved figure, the great Ran Morrissett himself.
-
On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date. In it, as referenced on the opening page, he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement that stems from 1904, which I've copied in full below, as well. On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to incuding the copy of the original agreement.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/5393591069_a71b835e91_o.jpg)
This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5394188438_daaaed8d87_b.jpg)
This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been purchased, as well as its disposition.
Mike, it refers to two and one half (2.5) acres behind the current 1st tee for PROTECTION (buffer), NOT DEVELOPMENT purposes.
How can you equate the purchase of that land, especially when you know how steep sloped that topography is, with land purchased for lots ?
That's disengenuous.[/b]
Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.
The land left over, not for use on the golf course is miniscule, not sufficient for development purposes.
There's the maintainance area, the superintendent's area, the staff's quarters, the range, a beach and dock, but, NO room for developing homesites, no one (1) acre parcels.
Look at any map, any schematic of the course in conjunction with a topo map or aerial and you'll see that there's NO land left over for development, Especially not an acre per subscriber as you keep alluding to.
The statement you posted below is a statement made in 1904, long before CBM ever saw the final site.
You continue to inject it as if it was a contemporaneous statement made after NGLA was sited and built.
That statement is a "FORWARD LOOKING" statement and you know what has to accompany forward looking statements since they have no merit, no credibility.[/b]
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/5393591181_236ec657a8_o.jpg)
Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.
Mike, HJ Whigham made that statement, NEVER having seen the site at NGLA.
His statement is nothing more than "Hype" a "Promo" and nothing more.
Never having seen the site at NGLA at the time he wrote the article, he was totally unqualified to make that statement.
With the purchase of 205 acres on land filled with swamps and bogs, there was NO land for development at NGLA.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.
Look at the title in the headline.
CBM hasn't found the land. Repeat, he hasn't even seen the land at NGLA.
The article is "FLUFF"
A concept absent a site.
It's remarkable how you cling to the "myth" of one acre lots for NGLA rather than the reality that the land can't accomodate them.
What you also fail to understand is ..... The MATH.
At one acre per shareholder, with 70 shareholders/founders, where are the 70+ acres needed for each of those fellows ? ? ?
I've asked you time and time and time and time and time again, to identify for us, WHERE the land for development is on the NGLA site. Where is it ? Where are the 70+acres needed for those 70 shareholders/founders ? Please answer the question.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
The following mentions the Official Opening Day. We know from previous documentation that a few started "tentatively" playing the course in 1909, probably CBM and his closest project associates, and that on July 2-4, 1910 they held a "soft" opening with a smaill , informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward. In CBM's 1928 book, he mistypes that date as 1909, but the second copied document from "American Golfer" shows the actual timeframe.
That article in the "American Golfer" dated August of 1910 states that the greens are over two and a half (2.5) years old.
That would seem to indicate that the course was playable in 1909 or earlier.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5393591241_c0b2809511_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5372530057_8c8a719438_b.jpg)
The following is a copy that CBM attached to his 1912 letter of the Original Founders agreement. On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course. The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.
Mike, once again you insert a document from 1904 and try to pawn it off as contemporaneous to 1912.
That's disengenuous.
The 1904 document is "wishfull thinking" absent ever having seen the site the golf course is to be built on.
A promotional effort to attract investors.
But, let's do the math again. With 60 original founders, 1.5 acres per founder would require 90+ acres, probably closer to 110 acres for roads, etc., etc.. So, show me, where on the 205 acres purchased, where are the 105+ acres needed for the founders who now number 70.
The three citations you list below are nothing more than assumptions made in 1904, assumptions that proved flawed in the face of the actual land found and purchased years later.
You repeatedly attempt to promote statements made in 1904 as being contemporaneous in 1912 or earlier.
That's a distortion, a disengenuous attempt to present the final site for NGLA as having the potential to fulfill the forward looking statements made in 1904, and anyone familiar with the property KNOWS that the two conflict, dramatically with one another..
[/b]
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_ea27f50a12_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_582e5d8dae_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5393591445_069d3581a9_o.jpg)
And finally, after acquiring the 205 acres of undetermined land out of the 450 available in December 1906, Macdonald tells us precisely what is going to be done to figure out which holes to reproduce and their yardages over the next five months, working with his committee. He is quoted directly, so there is no need for guesses or speculation.
Once again, you cite a newspaper article with a specific quote and attempt to expand the quote to verify the authenticity of the entire article which is deeply flawed.
As an example, could you cite for me, WHERE ON NGLA's PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN ?
Take your time, consult with others, then tell me WHERE on NGLA's property you can see the Atlantic Ocean ?
THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT THE ATLANTIC OCEAN CAN BE SEEN FROM EVERYWHERE ON THE NGLA SITE EXCEPT ON THE LOWER LYING AREAS
Could it be that the article is confusing or blending sites, perhaps the site near the Shinnecock Canal where the Atlantic Ocean can be seen.
I never cease to be amazed at how quickly you are to accept and put forth newspaper articles that agree with your position, as The GOSPEL, even when those articles contain serious flaws, yet, you're unwilling to accept CBM's own words as penned in "Scotland's Gift"
Your sole purpose for attempting to create the impression that it took CBM months to route the course is to deny the possibility that he routed Merion in short order.
Your buddy, Behr himself said that the course routed itself, fairly easily.
Lastly, would you please identify the 60, 90, 105+ acres on NGLA's site where homes could be built ?
Thanks[/b]
And that's how it happened.
NO, IT'S NOT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BELIEVE BECAUSE THAT WOULD HELP DISPELL CBM'S ROUTING MERION IN SHORT ORDER.[/B]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Methinks thou protesteth far too much! ;)
I'm really not sure why you want to get into this argument with CB Macdonald? After all, HE is the one who said that he was going to spend the next several months determining the golf holes and yardages after he secured the property in December 1906. HE is the one who said he thought he'd need 110 acres for the golf course in 1904 and 200+ overall. He is the one who was still looking for the 200+ acres in 1906. HE is the one who made an offer on 120 acres closer to Shinnecock prior to his Sebonac purchase...why would he possibly do that if he thought he needed 170 acres at that time?? HE is the one who wrote in 1912 that he had surplus land...just like he planned back in 1904, and even attached the original Founders agreement to show how prescient he was!
HE is also the one who spent the next three years working on the course prior to the soft opening in summer 1910 before a grand official opening the following year.
ALL of this is so well documented that I'm not sure whether to use Macdonald's words or Max Behr's to state my case.
I'm really not sure why you guys would want to propagate and perpetuate the MYTH that CBM routed his course in a day or two. I think that's a disservice to his approach and his commitment to the game.
If anything, CBM's approach was complete anathema and totally reactionary to the type of slam-bam-thank-you-maam one day routings that had been the style of the foreign-born professionals practicing "architecture" in this country before he build NGLA, and showed the world the correct way to do things.
Why you guys want to lump him in with the Willie and Seymour Dunn's is absolutely beyond me.
-
Patrick,
Methinks thou protesteth far too much! ;)
I was just citing the errors in your reply(;;)[/b]
I'm really not sure why you want to get into this argument with CB Macdonald?
For several reasons.
First, because you attempt to use forward looking statements, made years earlier, in the context of contemporaneous statements made years later after the golf course was built.
Second, because there are contradictions, along with serious errors in the articles you've submitted.
Third, because you use newspaper articles as if CBM wrote them, when they were clearly authored by third parties [/b]
After all, HE is the one who said that he was going to spend the next several months determining the golf holes and yardages after he secured the property in December 1906.
First, that's not what he's alleged to have said.
The article said that they'd determine which of their already inventoried holes they'd "reproduce" and the yardages.
But, that article is so flawed it's mind boggling that you'd cite it as reliable.
Oh, that's right, the article stated that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the golf course except from the lower stretches. Now I've played there more than a few times as I'm sure others have, including yourself.
Could you tell me from which of the "non lower stretches" you can see the Atlantic Ocean ?
That article has the WRONG site, but you want to claim what's printed as "The Gospel", and it's not.[/b]
HE is the one who said he thought he'd need 110 acres for the golf course in 1904 and 200+ overall.
Did he say that out of the blue, as a guestimate, or after he'd seen the site at NGLA ?[/b]
He is the one who was still looking for the 200+ acres in 1906.
We agree on that[/b]
HE is the one who made an offer on 120 acres closer to Shinnecock prior to his Sebonac purchase
...why would he possibly do that if he thought he needed 170 acres at that time??
You're contradicting yourself again.
You just told us that he was looking for 200+ acres in 1906.
You also told us that he needed 90+ acres for 60 one and a half acre building lots, in addition to acreage for the golf course.
CBM tried to buy 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal. You're the one saying he needed 170 acres. CBM thought he needed 120.
You're the one insisting that he needed additional acreage for building lots of between 1 and 1.5 acres apiece for between 60 and 70 lots, which total between 60 and 105 acres.
Obviously, the 120 acres he sought were strictly for a golf course.[/b]
HE is the one who wrote in 1912 that he had surplus land...just like he planned back in 1904, and even attached the original Founders agreement to show how prescient he was!
Mike, it's intellectually dishonest of you to equate 90+ acres mentioned in 1904, before CBM ever saw the site at NGLA, with a minimal amount of acreage left over after the golf course was built at NGLA.
I've asked you a dozen times to identify the surplus land at NGLA and to date, you've failed to do so.
I know the reason and you know the reason, it's because there is none of note.
CBM mentions the subsequent purchase of a 2.5 acre buffer on the western side of the property on Peconic Bay to protect their interests, their privacy, and you tried to pawn that purchase off as surplus land for your phantom lots.
So, I'll ask you again. Where's the surplus land on that site. 60+ to 105+ acres to be used for building lots that you allege were always intended as part of the golf course development.
And, from what location on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?[/b]
HE is also the one who spent the next three years working on the course prior to the soft opening in summer 1910 before a grand official opening the following year.
The course was opened and playable prior to 1910 and you know it, so why use that date, if not for an agenda driven purpose.
The time needed was not for routing and hole design, he knew the hole designs before he even found the land.
The time needed was for agronomic, NOT architectural purposes.
Your own exhibit said that the course was grassed in February of 1908 and CBM tells us that it was first played in 1909. So what was your purpose in trying to extend the time to construct by another year when the primary issue was grassing, not routing and/or hole design.
CBM states that they took possession of the land in the spring of 1907 and immediately commenced development.
According to your documentation, the course was grassed by February of 1908.
Play was conducted in 1909.
Time was needed, not to route or determine holes, but to import 10,000 loads of soil so that the course would be properly grassed.
That was the main problem they had, grassing, growing grass, not routing and hole design.
Even TEPaul knows that.[/b]
ALL of this is so well documented that I'm not sure whether to use Macdonald's words or Max Behr's to state my case.
"Well documented" ? ? ? OK, tell me from what locations on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
That's the documentation YOU provided. So, tell us, from where on NGLA's property can you see the Atlantic Ocean.
Remember, according to your documentation, you could see it from everywhere except the low lying stretches.
So, surely, you could see it from the crest of # 2, the 4th green, the 6th tee, the 8th green, the 9th tee, the crest of # 11, the fairway on # 16, the tee at 17 and the green at # 18. Yet, I don't recall seeing the Atlantic, but, I have poor eyesight, so I'll rely on you to tell me where you saw the Atlantic Ocean when you visited NGLA.[/b]
I'm really not sure why you guys would want to propagate and perpetuate the MYTH that CBM routed his course in a day or two. I think that's a disservice to his approach and his commitment to the game.
CBM had already selected the holes he wanted.
CBM tells us that he and HJ Whigham found WHERE TO PUT them as they were riding the property over a day or two.
Max Behr tells us that the course routed itself.
Seems pretty obvious that when CBM and Behr claimed that the course was routed in short order, the course was routed in short order.
Donald Ross must have learned from CBM as he seems to have acquired the skill to route a course in short order as well.
Sometimes with but one visit to the site, other times without ever having been to the site.
So why is it so hard for you to accept that Merion could be routed in short order, a day maybe, by men with this talent ?[/b]
If anything, CBM's approach was complete anathema and totally reactionary to the type of slam-bam-thank-you-maam one day routings that had been the style of the foreign-born professionals practicing "architecture" in this country before he build NGLA, and showed the world the correct way to do things.
That's not true.
You seem to conveniently forget that CBM had previously determined the holes he wanted to use.
He was intimately familiar with thier configuration and dimensions.
He only had to place them on a suitable piece of land, which he found and bought.
Max Behr, whom you cited, claimed that the course was "self evident" that it basically routed itself.
One look at the property, a long narrow piece of land, should have told you how easy it was to route, especially when he had located critical holes the first day, the current 9th and 10th, the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 14th, so the other holes just fell into place, as Max Behr indicated.
I don't see why you're in denial, unless you want to continue to cling to the notion that CBM couldn't route Merion in a day or two.
I wonder if Donald Ross could have routed Merion in a morning or afternoon session ?[/b]
-
Patrick,
You're not giving CBM credit. He told you exactly what he did and yet you doubt him to try and support this untenable idea that he routed Merion in one day.
Why? He certainly didn't play in those bush leagues based on anything I've learned about the man.
-
Patrick,
You're not giving CBM credit.
He told you exactly what he did
No he didn't.
You tried to take forward looking statements, made years earlier, before CBM had ever seen the site at NGLA and pass them off as contemporaneous statments made after the course had been built.
CBM did tell us what he did, in his own words when he put pen to paper and authored "Scotland's Gift"
He clearly stated that on twp days of examining the property on ponies, since the land was too inhospitable for walking, he found his "Alps" hole # 3, his "Redan", # 4, his "Eden", # 13, his "Cape", # 14. And, since he knew where his clubhouse was going, temporary and permanent, he knew where # 1 and # 18, # 9 and # 10 were going. And, as Max Behr stated, the course routed itself.
Why do you continue to attempt to refute Macdonald's own words, as memorialized in "Scotland's Gift"
We know that courses were often routed in a day.
Many early architects staked a routing in a morning or afternoon.
Donald Ross was famous for his "drive by" one day routings and his absentee routings, done without him ever seeing the site.
If Donald Ross could route a course in a day, I'm sure that CBM, who had studied for years, who knew exactly which collection of holes he wanted to replicate, could route and lay them upon the land in short order, at NGLA and at Merion, or anywhere else.[/b]
and yet you doubt him to try and support this untenable idea that he routed Merion in one day.
To the contrary, I think he could route NGLA and Merion in short order, as could Ross and other architects.
Behr even stated that the course essentially routed itself.
As I've pointed out to you time and time again, the land selected was a long narrow strip, an out and back routing.
And, when you know, immediately, where six or eight of your holes are going to go, as Behr stated, the balance of the courses completed itself.[/b]
Why? He certainly didn't play in those bush leagues based on anything I've learned about the man.
That's why he was able to route the course in short order.[/b]
I'm switching to "BLUE" for emphasis and to try to get you to answer two questions I posed.
Why do you refuse to answer them ?
I answer your questions.
Or, do the answers, which you know, blow up your argument without any help from me ?
You've again failed to identify the surplus land at NGLA, 60+ to 105+ acres for lots. Could you identify that surplus land.
Use any map you wish, or google earth.
And, you've also failed to identify from what points at NGLA you can see the Atlantic Ocean, as cited in the newspaper article YOU produced as evidence to support your argument. Yet, there's NOWHERE on the golf course at NGLA where you can see the Atlantic Ocean. Yet, your article claimed it was visible from EVERYWHERE except the low lying stretches.
Your article got the site wrong, dead wrong.
False in one, false in many.
CBM told us how quickly he found the holes he wanted, in a day or two over horrendous terrain with swamps, bogs and thick bramble bushes, unlike Merion's land, which was far more hospitable. Max Behr confirmed the ease of routing. Donald Ross proved over and over again that routings can be done in short order.
So why do you refuse to believe that CBM could have routed Merion in a day ?
Especially if he had advance help in the way of a topo
-
Patrick,
So your argument is that this entire article should be dismissed because it says the Atlantic Ocean is in view? Despite the fact that it contains a host of other contemporaneously verifiable information as well as many quotes from Macdonald himself?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
How about this one instead then?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
Or this one, Patrick...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
The quotes from CBM are exact...all published in different newspapers in December 1906 after Macdonald secured the land.
He secured the undetermined 205 acres of land out of the 450 acres available, and then routed and staked out the golf course over the next several months.
It is indiputable.
You should go play golf...me, I'm going home to shovel ice. :(
-
Patrick,
I agree that what Cirba is doing here is intellectually dishonest, but would add that the dishonesty is ongoing on more levels than just his portrayal of what happened at NGLA. He is also being intellectually dishonest about what happened at Merion and what I have portrayed as having happened at Merion.
You rightfully point out that his "sole purpose for attempting to create the impression that it took CBM months to route the course is to deny the possibility that he routed Merion in short order." And you are correct that the reason he is passing off all this nonsense about NGLA is because he thinks "THAT WOULD HELP DISPELL CBM'S ROUTING MERION IN SHORT ORDER."
Incredibly, Mike is misrepresenting both what happened at NGLA and what happened at Merion here. There was nothing "short order" about the creation of Merion. CBM and HJW were rought into the project in June 1910, and CBM remained involved in the process all the way up to the time that Merion's Board approved the final layout plan that CBM and HJW had determined in April of the next year! In between he was not only communicating with Hugh Wilson (and, according to TEPaul, with HG Lloyd) but he spent two days with Merion's committee working on the plans, and even returned to Merion to review the planning progress and choose the final layout plan. So it was hardly "a short order" job at Merion.
And no one ever claimed it was a short order job at NGLA either! That is the irony here. Cirba has spend all this time and energy to twist the history of NGLA to no avail.
This whole bit about the real estate angle is the most most transparent and revealing indicator of the level of intellectual dishonesty that Mike will stoop to here. Welcome to the seedy world of conversing with Mike Cirba.
_______________________________________________________________
Mike Cirba.
If CBM was still determined to include 90 extra acres for housing, then why did he offer to buy a 120 acre parcel of land for his golf course? You don't suppose he was going to fit the golf course on the 30 acres left over do you?
Your portray CBM's offer for 120 acres as it it somehow validated your claim that he was only planning to use 110 acres of the 205 acre site. That is preposterous and intellectually dishonest. Contrary to popular opinion CBM was not building cookie cutter courses that he could fit on any old 110 acre parcel. The site determined the golf course. Some terrain would require more land, especially if the terrain unusable portions such as swamps. Each site is different, and couldn't be evaluated simply based upon its acreage.
In fact, this is the approach CBM took at Merion as well, and from the very beginning. The land dictated the nature of the course, not the other way around. Thus he told them they needed to add the land behind the clubhouse and that they needed to use the quarry, and even then he told them that without a contour map he could not be certain that the land would work. In other words, the acreage was never the issue, it was how the holes would fit on that acreage.
And it should have been no surprise that Merion left the exact determination of the final border open until later, when the layout plan was finalized, because CBM did that at NGLA as well. But you can't confuse a general routing with a final detailed layout plan, yet here that is what you keep trying to do.
-
David,
I'm sorry, but your story about CBM and Whigham routing the course on horseback in two days and then buying the exact land they needed for their preconfigured golf course has been wholly disproven by contemporaneous evidence that is undeniable.
I know it was a convenient myth to try and perpetuate here to try and justify your also disproven contention that CBM routed Merion in a day in June 1910, but now that they are both put to rest I have no need to discuss it with you further.
You can resort to all of the personal nsults you like...it's become your sole MO, and as you have no evidence left to present, I guess I can understand why you feel it's necessary.
Have a nice day.
-
David,
I'm sorry, but your story about CBM and Whigham routing the course on horseback in two days and then buying the exact land they needed for their preconfigured golf course has been wholly disproven by contemporaneous evidence that is undeniable.
Uhh . . . Mike. That is not my story. I would say it is CBM's story, but only the part about the horseback is. You just made up the rest of this story and then attributed it to me. You have been fighting this big battle against a ghost entirely of your own creation.
Why do you think I have been only mildly interested? You are swinging away at fictitious, self-created phantoms that have nothing to do with me.
I know it was a convenient myth to try and perpetuate here to try and justify your also disproven contention that CBM routed Merion in a day in June 1910, but now that they are both put to rest I have no need to discuss it with you further.
Again, more of your foolish fiction. And it is funny. You have been fighting this entire time to prove me wrong, by trying to disprove something that I don't even believe. It is all pointless, from my perspective.
You can resort to all of the personal nsults you like...it's become your sole MO, and as you have no evidence left to present, I guess I can understand why you feel it's necessary.
What personal insults mike? I've said you are being dishonest, and you are. To say you are being dishonest when you are being dishonest, is . . . . well . . . . honest. If you are insulted by my honesty, that is your problem.
I've told you again and again that you were not accurately representing my views of NGLA or Merion, but you continue to misrepresent them. That is dishonest, isn't it? Don't I get to decide what I think happened at NGLA and Merion? You don't get to decide for me, do you?
ADDED:
I guess I did throw in the comment about the seedy world of dealing with you. Insulting yes, but that is how I feel. I feel like this whole NGLA thing with you is seed. There are so many layers of dishonest representations that I am not sure even how to respond without getting muddy myself. I agree with bits and pieces here and there, and I think there are a few interesting things that have come out in Joe's research, but you have so embedded this stuff in your mud, that it is impossible to even discuss any of it, without getting filthy.
-
Patrick,
So your argument is that this entire article should be dismissed because it says the Atlantic Ocean is in view?
No, that's not my argument.
That's your extreme position, you tend to take extreme positions and draw flawed conclusions.
As an example, while all collies are dogs, all dogs aren't collies, yet, you continually insist that they are.[/b]
Despite the fact that it contains a host of other contemporaneously verifiable information as well as many quotes from Macdonald himself?
Those are NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS.. Accounts that have proven to be wrong time and time again.
And, they are NOT quotes from Macdonald.
They are ALLEGED quotes from Macdonald
What's amazing is your refusal to accept Macdonald's own words, as memorialized in "Scotland's Gift"
What's even more amazing is your blind and zealot like support of a newspaper article that's so flawed it states that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere at NGLA except for the low lying stretches.
How do you reconcile your support of an article that is so blatantly flawed in describing the golf course and your rejection of Macdonald's own words in "Scotland's Gift". And, how do you accept everything else in the article as The Gospel, knowing how flawed the article is ? It's disengenuous of you and it's agenda driven.
Why do you continuallly REJECT Macdonald's written word, opting instead to believe seriously flawed newspaper articles ?[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
How about this one instead then?
That's even easier.
The alleged quote is also flawed.
Specifically, # 1. I guess the land at Garden City and other courses in Long Island weren't fit for golf
# 2. There ISN'T a mile of coastline on the SEA at NGLA. There's barely 500 or 600 yards at most along the north shore
of Peconic Bay
Then the article goes on to say that they'll only need about 110 acres for the golf course, leaving them with about 100 acres for building lots of 1.5 acres apiece for the 60 or 70 founders.
So, I'll ask you again, WHERE IS THAT LAND. WHERE IS THE 100 ACRES FOR BUILDING LOTS ?
You like to rely on newspaper articles to support your position, even when they are SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
And, you attribute quotes to Macdonald when you can't verify their authenticity.
Some of those quotes are in direct conflict with the physical properties of the site, yet, you ignore that and refuse to answer the two questions I've posed to you over and over again.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
Or this one, Patrick...
This one is better yet.
This one tells you that you can see the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay.
How could you cite this article as being factual when it's so blatantly flawed, so incredibly wrong ?
For one reason and one reason only, you're blind to the facts due to your agenda driven position.
Then goes on to state that there's a mile of frontage on Bulls Head Bay.
It's obvious that the author of the article has never seen the land and has probably never seen a map of the land and surrounding area as he shows incredible unfamiliarty with the NGLA site. Now, if CBM had provided this information, don't you think it would be accurante and not so wildly off base ?
Your article also says that Shinnecock is WEST of NGLA, when it's SOUTH of NGLA.
Don't you read the articles you're posting, or is Wayno, Joe, Pete or others just feeding this stuff to you without you exercising the necessary due diligence ? Didn't you read that ? Didn't you say to yourself, "hey, somethings wrong here ?" No, you didn't, you just hold out these articles as if they're right on target, accurate in every detail, and that's grossly disengenuous and intellectually dishonest of you. WHY ?[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
The quotes from CBM are exact...all published in different newspapers in December 1906 after Macdonald secured the land.
Did it ever dawn on you that the reason they're exact is because they were copied and not authentic quotes ?
If someone said that Donald Ross said that Seminole was flat, and it got quoted, exactly that way from several sources, wouldn't you begin to think that maybe, just maybe, the quote wasn't a quote, but a copy of what had been read or allegedly stated previously ?[/b]
He secured the undetermined 205 acres of land out of the 450 acres available, and then routed and staked out the golf course over the next several months.
It is indiputable.
Keep telling yourself that and maybe, with repetition you'll believe it and just maybe you'll convince some uniformed GCA buff to believe you, but, Macdonald told us, in his own words, in "Scotlands Gift" how he found the holes and routed the course in short order.
Max Behr also stated that the course routed itself, not needing much in the way of assistance.
And, you continually confuse fine tuning with routing in putting forth your seriously flawed agenda.
I'm off to dinner (;;)[/b]
You should go play golf...me, I'm going home to shovel ice. :(
-
Patrick,
I'm willing tp accept your criticism and feedback with an open mind but when you call an identical, contemporaneous quote from CBM published in multiple newspapers "alleged", then you lose me, and I think you also lose most objective, unbiased observers, and as much as I like and admire you personally, I really don't understand how you can call me "intellectually dishonest" whien I know deep-down you really aren't as obtuse and absurdly argumentative as you are being here, seemingly either for the sport of it, or just to maintain whatever mythology around CBM you want to romantically hold onto in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.
David,
One of us is not explaining himself well enough if you think I'm being disengenuous in either my opinion or my presentation.
Perhaps both of us are being less than completely candid.
In any case, I'll assume that I'm the guilty one and try to explain myself better tomorrow.
-
Mike Cirba,
If you do clarify, don't bother reposting all these articles again. They don't establish what you claim they establish. And between now and then perhaps you should consider just what exactly is your point, if you have one? Because all I see is an extremely convoluted attempt to twist NGLA's record to somehow undermine claims that you think are mine, but aren't.
Also, you might want to consider finally addressing Patrick's questions and mine.
Where are the missing 90 acres? Show us where you can fit 90 acres of housing and that golf course without going over 205 acres?
If they definitely were intent on a housing angle, then why had they just offered to purchase only 120 acres? Were they going to build a 30 acre course?
Did CBM or HJW ever say that they were planning on putting housing at this particular location? If so, let's see it.
-
Ok...I'm going to try to take this in chunks because there are a lot of pieces here.
110 acres and Building Lots for Founders
There is no question that Macdonald thought his ideal course could fit on something around 110 acres, as he clearly wrote that in his 1904 Founders Agreement. There is also no question that Macdonald was searching for slightly over 200 acres to fit both the golf course and planned building lots for the Founders.
Macdonald viewed this golf course estimate is something of a math problem. He had previously defined the necessary ideal yardages for his "Ideal Golf Course", coming in at around 6,100 yards, and extrapolated how much width he thought he needed for fairways and thus his estimate.
Specifically, CBM wrote that he would need approximately 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds, and the remaining 90 acres would be used for 1.5 acre building lots for the Founders.
In fact, six years later, 3 days before the soft Opening Day Invitational Tournament in 1910, CBM wrote to Merion (who were considering a developer's offer of "100 acres or whatever would be required for the golf course"...after CBM's one-day June 1910 visit Merion believed they would need "nearly 120 acres") that;
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
Earlier in 1906, HJ Whigham reiterated Macdonald's plan in news articles to provide building lots for the Founders, calling it "especially ingenious".
So we KNOW that was the plan well into the year 1906. That is a fact.
However, for whatever reasons, we know two things changed once Macdonald's search brought him to the land near Shinnecock.
First, he made an offer on 120 acres of land closer to Shinnecock than the present property. Obviously, at this point and for this property, Macdonald was only focused on buying enough land for the golf course. Perhaps it was water locked and no more adjacent land was available? Perhaps he thought he was so ideally suited he was willing to give up on the Founders Lots and return their extra money? Perhaps he thought he could get such a screaming deal that he couldn't pass it up?
We don't know.
What we do know is that after the owners rejected that offer, his attention turned to the land where he finally built his course and we know that once again he was looking for more than 200 acres, which is what he secured in November 1906 and purchased in the spring of 1907 (although George Bahto's book says the official purchase occurred in November 1907, so I'm not sure about that discrepancy).
We also know that the course Macdonald built opened at around 6100 yards, but was already expandable to over 6300 yards by early 1912, and was about 6600 yards long (or over 500 yards longer) by the time Macdonald wrote his book. Today's course is 6,935 yards.
We also know that the course today doesn't take up over 200 acres. In earlier threads both David Moriarty and Jim Kennedy used Planimeters to estimate the acreage of today's course and came up with a range of about 165-180 acres.
I think it's likely that a few things influenced this change. First, I think that CBM's idea of using width to create alternate strategic options for weaker players around some of the hazards created a bigger golf course than perhaps he originally estimated. I also think he underestimated the number of acres that wouldn't be usable as they were either swampy or water covered, reducing his overall land.
But, he had clearly promised the Founders "something in return" for their investment and faith in him, and he did his best to address this in his 1912 letter to them under the heading "Surplus Land".
Obviously, the approximately 25-45 acres left over wasn't going to satisfy the original promise of 1.5 acre lots for 60 Founding members, so it is likely that some other financial recompense was made after the fact, and I'm pretty sure that CBM was able to justify this quite easily to them in terms of it being all for the betterment of the golf course, and of course he was correct in that judgment.
Max Behr, writing in 1915, described the reality of Surplus Land.
And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
-
The Actual Opening Date
Strangely, CBM seems to have confused the soft Opening Date of his club by a year when he wrote his book in 1928.
It is clearly documented by contemporaneous sources that the soft opening was an informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward and played July 2, 3, & 4th in 1910.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5372530057_8c8a719438_b.jpg)
In his book, CBM mentions that the tournament happened in 1909, which is incorrect.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5372530073_14cbb3cc3e_b.jpg)
On the same page, CBM also refers to "when we first played tentatively over the course", I'm uncertain if he's simply repeated his mistaken year. Certainly from the descriptions of the very raw state of much of the conditions it's unlikely much play took place prior and other contemporaneous articles I've seen talk about the course opening in 1910, such as this one from May 1910.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5367492842_f4da11d744_o.jpg)
Incidentally, CBM actually cites the official Opening Date as being in 1911, with a formal Invitational tournament.
-
Patrick,
I'm willing tp accept your criticism and feedback with an open mind but when you call an identical, contemporaneous quote from CBM published in multiple newspapers "alleged", then you lose me, and I think you also lose most objective, unbiased observers, and as much as I like and admire you personally, I really don't understand how you can call me "intellectually dishonest" whien I know deep-down you really aren't as obtuse and absurdly argumentative as you are being here, seemingly either for the sport of it, or just to maintain whatever mythology around CBM you want to romantically hold onto in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.
Mike,
When you see the same text in several newspaper articles, AND the WRONG information repeated in those articles, YOU KNOW that they weren't sourced quotes, but copies of one another.
The alleged view of the Atlantic from is a perfect example.
There is NO view of the Atlantic from NGLA, yet, article after article that YOU cited, references that view.
You know that CBM didn't make that claim.
You know that the author of the article never set foot on NGLA
You know that the author didn't get independent confirmation.
So you know that those contemporaneous accounts are ALL FALSE, that they copied one another.
And YOU KNOW THAT.
That's why I stated that it's intellectually dishonest of you to offer those accounts as accurate, independent, knowledgeable accounts, inclusive of alleged statements by CBM.
CBM NEVER stated that you could see the Atlantic from NGLA.
Yet, you repeatedly posted these articles offering them as The Gospel and claiming that there very number was evidence enough to support their veracity when nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather than posting these articles and making wild, unassociated claims, you should read the articles and determine if they're flawed, before posting them. All of these articles were seriously flawed, incredibly inaccurate, so why would you offer them as proof positive to support your theory.. That's being intellectually dishonest.
When you posted these articles and I asked you from which vantage points on NGLA can you see the Atlantic, why did you refuse to answer ?
When I asked you where the surplus land was at NGLA, the 60+ to 105+ acreas, why did you refuse to answer.
You can't make a post, inclusive of third party information, and then refuse to answer legitimate questions about your post, the third party information and your theory.
I like you too, but, you have to take the time to read the third party info you post and then to address questions asked about that third party, to decline to do so is also intellectually dishonest.[/b]
David,
One of us is not explaining himself well enough if you think I'm being disengenuous in either my opinion or my presentation.
Perhaps both of us are being less than completely candid.
In any case, I'll assume that I'm the guilty one and try to explain myself better tomorrow.
-
The Timing and Process of the Routing
Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement. And, crazy though I may be I believe I can shed some light on this.
We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape. This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.
Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.
We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.
If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?
Because these were two different things. Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road. In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."
I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.
Here, a close reading reveals the following;
1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.
2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price. From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.
3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf. In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.
4) SUBSEQUENT to him securing the desired amount of land, "slightly more than 200 acres" as Macdonald wrote in his original Founders letter, CBM and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".
This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.
I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.
It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.
Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared. I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.
From "The Evangelist of Golf";
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
-
It might be easier to just paste this all together for easy reference...thanks.
110 acres and Building Lots for Founders
There is no question that Macdonald thought his ideal course could fit on something around 110 acres, as he clearly wrote that in his 1904 Founders Agreement. There is also no question that Macdonald was searching for slightly over 200 acres to fit both the golf course and planned building lots for the Founders.
Macdonald viewed this golf course estimate is something of a math problem. He had previously defined the necessary ideal yardages for his "Ideal Golf Course", coming in at around 6,100 yards, and extrapolated how much width he thought he needed for fairways and thus his estimate.
Specifically, CBM wrote that he would need approximately 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds, and the remaining 90 acres would be used for 1.5 acre building lots for the Founders.
In fact, six years later, 3 days before the soft Opening Day Invitational Tournament in 1910, CBM wrote to Merion (who were considering a developer's offer of "100 acres or whatever would be required for the golf course"...after CBM's one-day June 1910 visit Merion believed they would need "nearly 120 acres") that;
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
Earlier in 1906, HJ Whigham reiterated Macdonald's plan in news articles to provide building lots for the Founders, calling it "especially ingenious".
So we KNOW that was the plan well into the year 1906. That is a fact.
However, for whatever reasons, we know two things changed once Macdonald's search brought him to the land near Shinnecock.
First, he made an offer on 120 acres of land closer to Shinnecock than the present property. Obviously, at this point and for this property, Macdonald was only focused on buying enough land for the golf course. Perhaps it was water locked and no more adjacent land was available? Perhaps he thought he was so ideally suited he was willing to give up on the Founders Lots and return their extra money? Perhaps he thought he could get such a screaming deal that he couldn't pass it up?
We don't know.
What we do know is that after the owners rejected that offer, his attention turned to the land where he finally built his course and we know that once again he was looking for more than 200 acres, which is what he secured in November 1906 and purchased in the spring of 1907 (although George Bahto's book says the official purchase occurred in November 1907, so I'm not sure about that discrepancy).
We also know that the course Macdonald built opened at around 6100 yards, but was already expandable to over 6300 yards by early 1912, and was about 6600 yards long (or over 500 yards longer) by the time Macdonald wrote his book. Today's course is 6,935 yards.
We also know that the course today doesn't take up over 200 acres. In earlier threads both David Moriarty and Jim Kennedy used Planimeters to estimate the acreage of today's course and came up with a range of about 165-180 acres.
I think it's likely that a few things influenced this change. First, I think that CBM's idea of using width to create alternate strategic options for weaker players around some of the hazards created a bigger golf course than perhaps he originally estimated. I also think he underestimated the number of acres that wouldn't be usable as they were either swampy or water covered, reducing his overall land.
But, he had clearly promised the Founders "something in return" for their investment and faith in him, and he did his best to address this in his 1912 letter to them under the heading "Surplus Land".
Obviously, the approximately 25-45 acres left over wasn't going to satisfy the original promise of 1.5 acre lots for 60 Founding members, so it is likely that some other financial recompense was made after the fact, and I'm pretty sure that CBM was able to justify this quite easily to them in terms of it being all for the betterment of the golf course, and of course he was correct in that judgment.
Max Behr, writing in 1915, described the reality of Surplus Land.
And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
The Actual Opening Date
Strangely, CBM seems to have confused the soft Opening Date of his club by a year when he wrote his book in 1928.
It is clearly documented by contemporaneous sources that the soft opening was an informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward and played July 2, 3, & 4th in 1910.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5207/5372530057_8c8a719438_b.jpg)
In his book, CBM mentions that the tournament happened in 1909, which is incorrect.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5372530073_14cbb3cc3e_b.jpg)
The Timing and Process of the Routing
Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement. And, crazy though I may be I believe I can shed some light on this.
We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape. This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.
Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.
We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.
If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?
Because these were two different things. Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road. In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."
I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.
Here, a close reading reveals the following;
1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.
2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price. From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.
3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf. In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.
4) SUBSEQUENT to him securing the desired amount of land, "slightly more than 200 acres" as Macdonald wrote in his original Founders letter, CBM and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".
This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.
I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.
It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.
Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared. I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.
From "The Evangelist of Golf";
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
-
The Timing and Process of the Routing
Here's where I think we have the biggest confusion and thus, the most vigorous disagreement. And, crazy though I may be I believe I can shed some light on this.
We all know that CBM and HJ Whigham rode the property on horseback over 2 or 3 days looking for natural features for their golf holes, and we know even the December 1910 articles I posted above say that Whigham found a good site for an Alps, they located a nearby site for a redan, an inlet for an Eden hole, and the opportunity to create something original at what is today the Cape. This would seem to support the idea that the two men riding through brush and brambles routed the entire golf course in two days, and voila!, that was that.
Strangely though, those same December 1910 articles quote CBM saying how the lengths of the the holes but also the particular holes to be reproduced would be determined over the next few months working with his committee.
We also know those same articles mention that CBM has only secured 205 "undetermined" acres of 450 available and that latitude would be given to him to locate and use what was best for the golf course.
Mike, again you quote "articles" as irrefutable sources, when we know that they're grossly in error.
Yet, you continue to make those articles the foundation of your position, expanding/expounding upon the articles and drawing conclusions that fly in the face of Macdonald's own words, words he memorialized when he wrote "Scotland's Gift".
When they located the site for four or six of their ideal holes, that automatically provided the basic routing for the prior and following holes. In addition, knowing where they were going to site their temporary and future clubhouse provided the sites for the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th holes, AND therefore, the 2nd, 17th, 8th and 11th holes. When you combine that with the sites of the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 14th holes, the ideal replica holes they quickly found on their 2-3 day pony ride, that automatically provides you with the basic site of the 2nd, 5th, 12th and 15th holes.
Hence, at the get go, after finding their 4 to 6 ideal holes, the clubhouse starting and finishing holes, all of the others fall easily into place.
Holes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 were there from the get go.
The only "fillers they needed were holes 6, 7 and 16. If you know where # 17 and # 15 are, it's easy to figure out where # 16 will go., same for knowing where # 5 and # 8 are. It doesn't take much to figure out where to put # 6 and # 7.
That's why Max Behr stated that the course basically routed itself.
When you view that exercise, within the context of the land at NGLA, that narrow, long, OUT and BACK routing, it's easy to see how the process could complete itself in short order.
What I don't understand is how you won't acknowledge this, especially since you were the once to cite Max Behr and his "routing itself" statement.]/b]
If he's already routed the golf course, how could this be?
It can be because you're citing newspaper articles as producing irrefutable evidence, when we know that they're seriously flawed, in fact and conclusion. Your entire premise is based on a collection of erroneous newspaper articles. Ergo, garbage in = garbage out.
[/b]
Because these were two different things. Let's examine again in Macdonald's own words as he summarizes almost a decade's worth of effort into a few pages;
Mike, I've read these 100 times before you ever saw them.
They don't support your view, a view that's skewed by your insertion of erroneous newspaper accounts that you proclaim are infallible, when they seem to serve your purpose.[/b]
Macdonald then goes on to tell us that he closely reproduced five holes...Alps, redan, Eden, Sahara, and Road. In his words, the rest were "more or less composites", and maintained that "some are absolutely original."
For the moment, let's go with that.
So he immediately found the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th and 13th holes. We also know that he immediately found the "Cape" hole, the 14th.
We also know that he had selected the site for the temporary clubhouse and the future clubhouse.
So, from the get go we have current holes #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 18.
If you have # 7 and # 9, you obviously have # 8, which was one of his ideal holes.
If you have # 4, you certainly have # 5 and if you have # 5 and # 7, you have # 6.
So, in short order, we have today's current front nine, just as Max Behr proclaimed, it routed itself.
If you have # 10, 13, 14 and 18, on that piece of property, you certainly have # 11, # 12, # 15, # 17 and by default, # 16.
Hence, in short order the course routed itself, aided and abetted by CBM's desire to introduce some of his 18 ideal holes which he lists for us on page 184 of "Scotland's Gift"
The process was so simple that Max Behr stated that the course pretty much routed itself,
Yet, you want us to believe that after he found 5 or 6 replica holes in the first two or three days, that it took him five months or more to find the rest. Hell, even TEPaul, with or without his faithful companion, "Coorshaw" could have done that routing in a day or two.[/b]
I believe the whole source of the present day confusion lies on the second page.
Here, a close reading reveals the following;
1) The 450 swampy and bramble covered acres with a "mile frontage" on Peconic Bay were located.
2) CBM and Whigham rode across them for 2 or 3 days riding around them, "studying the contour of the ground" and determined it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price. From the timing of subsequent December news accounts, this was also apparently the time Whigham located the Alps hill and the men found the location for redan, Eden, and Cape.
3) The Company agreed to sell 205 of the 450 acres, which Macdonald also tells us happened in November 1906 (and as seen in the December news accounts I posted) and permitted Macdonald to locate it in the future as best suited his purposes for golf. In essence, he "secured" the property, but had neither specifically located it or finalized the purchase.
4) Subsequently, Macdonald and Co "AGAIN" studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in with the holes Macdonald had in mind, "after which we staked out the land we wanted".
This last piece was the routing process that I believe took place after enough land for all of the planned purposes and that incorporated all of the natural features of the property they had identified...205 acres...was secured, and before the final purchase took place several months later.
I believe all of the contemporaneous evidence, including Macdonald's own account, indicates that this is precisely what happened.
It is how CBM could simultaneously have been reported to identify some great holes over the course of a few days horseback ride, secured land, and then route the entire golf course over the next few months prior to actual final purchase.
Somewhere in that process Seth Raynor was hired to survey the land, and it was cleared. I believe it's likely that happened concurrent with the routing through spring of 1907, after the initial securing of the land.
From "The Evangelist of Golf";
Once again you choose a third party, 80 years removed, over Macdonald's written account.
Why do you constantly dismiss Macdonald's own account, and rely on unverifiable accounts from uneducated third party newspaper reporters ?[/b]
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
Macdonald himself tells us that he found them before any land was cleared, that he found them with Whigham while riding the property on Ponies the first two or three days. Why do you try to dismiss and distort Macdonald's own words ?[/b]
Once again, I think perhaps Max Behr encapsulated the entire process succinctly and accurately, although given the number of "composite" and "original" holes in the final product, I think he perhaps minimizes the level of effort that took place;
George states that Behr was on target, that the course routed itself with ease.
In terms of his assessment on the level of effort, George doesn't context that effort as being "chronological"[/b]
Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
Mike, I'll ask you again. Would you identify the considerable part of the land not touched by the golf course on that property ?
Why do you blend, in terms of the routing time line, Macdonald's determination/selection of the best holes in golf, which occured prior to Macdonald ever seeing the land, to the process of routing the golf course once he found the land ?
Why do you blend, in terms of the routing time line, the search to find the land, with the process of routing the golf course once he found the land ?
I think the real problem is as follows.
You have a predetermined or predisposed agenda.
You present grossly flawed newspaper articles, some copied from others, as bona fide and irrefutable evidence, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You accept the word of uninvolved third parties, some 80 years removed, while discounting and dismissing Macdonald's own words as penned in his account of NGLA, in "Scotland's Gift"
And all for what purpose ? To put forth your agenda that Macdonald couldn't have routed Merion in a day.
Yet, we know that Donald Ross and others could route courses in a day.
I wonder, if instead of CBM, David Moriarty produced evidence that DR did what CBM did, if you'd be making the same claim about the impossibilty of a one day routing ? How do you explain how Donald Ross could route a course with but one visit ?
How do you explain how Donald Ross could route a course with NO visits ?[/b]
-
Mike Cirba,
Would you please address and answer the questions I've asked you over and over again ?
I've addressed and answered every one of your questions.
Please address and answer mine.
I'll repeat them for you.
Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?
From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?
Thanks
P.S. No need to post the articles again, just answer the questions, they're rather simple and straight forward.
-
I have taken a bit of time to go back and reread some of the posts in the other threads, and I have got to tell you, what you are doing here is absolutely crazy. We've covered this same material again and again. You have made the same claims again and again. Sometimes you have come to the realization of where you messed up, and back away, but you always return to the same exact mistakes.
It reminds me of something I recently saw about an experiment where scientists adjusted a certain chemical in a rats' brains to impact their memory. The rats were in a maze and on portion of the maze game them a nasty shock. Those with higher levels of that chemical would avoid this area in order to avoid the shock. Those with lower levels of the chemical would return again and again to that same area despite the shock.
Like those rats you return to this same area again again, despite the inevitable and negative consequences. But you are not a rat, you are a human, and as such you really ought to be able to learn from your past mistakes.
Please go back and reread the old threads, including your "Bombshell thread," the Early NGLA Articles thread, and those various sections of the Merion Timeline thread (around page 92) where you digress into all this same garbage. I explain it to you all in those threads, as do others.
I had high hopes that since you finally bothered to get the book and actually look at his 1912 statement and his 1904 letter, you'd be able to put those articles in context. But so far you remain caught up in some "Groundhog Day" scenario, only you seem to have know idea that you are reliving the same thing over and over again.
-
I'd really like to address the question of David telling me I'm misrepresenting his Opinion Piece and views on the land purchase and routing of Merion, but had also wanted to keep this thread about NGLA as much as possible because I believe it is very revealing to what an incredibly meticulous, detailed, and grand undertaking Macdonald accomplished.
However, since both Patrick and David stated that I'm being "Intellectually Dishonest", and "disengenous" with the facts here, I might as well explain my understanding and where it is derived from and get it over with. If my understanding is mistaken, or if I'm not presenting something factually, then lets discuss and correct it here and move on.
In June 1910, Rodman Griscom of the Merion Site Committee had as his guest CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham at land in Ardmore they were considering for their new golf course, and Macdonald and Whigham were in town for the US Open at Philly Cricket Club. At the time, the Haverford Development Company had secured over 300 acres and offered Merion "100 acres or whatever would be required" for their new golf course. Given the wish to maximize land for profitable real estate, there definitely were some incentives to keep the golf course constrained to as tight an envelope as could be done while still meeting the club's goal for a top-notch, first rate golf course.
After the visit, Macdonald penned the following letter to HG Lloyd, who headed Merion's Site Committee;
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
Based on their discussions on the site with Macdonald and Whigham, as well as the contents of Macdonald's letter, a mere two days later, on July 1st, 1910, Merion's Site Committee wrote the following letter to their Board of Governors, recommending the purchase of land for their golf course, thinking that they'll need "nearly 120 acres".
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3602306390_3d87346472_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3601492895_8d9014164c_o.jpg)
Based on that exchange of information, David Moriarty's IMO piece here, "The Missing Faces of Merion" portrayed that communication and its meaning in the following manner. In fairness, David was unaware of the contents of the June 29th CBM letter when he wrote his piece. The bolding for emphasis is mine;
Merion’s Site Committee Brings in Macdonald and Whigham
Apparently not content with Barker’s routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham, to inspect the site. The Site Committee explained their qualifications to the Board of Governor’s as follows:
These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.
After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald.
The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.
"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
...
Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.
Obviously, the evidence shows that this attempt to tie in the land procurement process at NGLA to what happened at Merion is faulty, as the two processes were considerably different. At the time of CBM's visit to Ardmore, we don't even know what exact "100 acres or whatever" were considered, as a large portion of today's golf course (known at the time as the 21-acre "Dallas Estate") wasn't even in Haverford Development Company's control. In fact, all the company owned outright was the property that was known as the Johnson Farm, that had several advantages for both golf as well as access, as it adjoined a railroad and had large farm building near to those tracks that could be converted for clubhouse and storage purposes. There was also a beautiful creek and a quarry, although one member apparently complained about how much money it might require "to fill in" that blasted quarry!
In any case, it wasn't until late in 1910 that Merion was even able to secure the "nearly 120 acres", which ended up being made up from 117 acres, made up of 96 acres of Johnson Farm land as well as the adjoining 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on the southern end below Ardmore Avenue, which came under Haverford Development Company control in November of that year. They also leased a 3 acre property between the clubhouse and railroad track extending to Ardmore Avenue as CBM had suggested. In light of what we've learned about CBM's "estimates" at NGLA, and his belief that 5 acres were required for the clubhouse and surrounds, this works out quite precisely.
Much like at NGLA, after the property was secured in December 1910, Merion set about planning and routing their new golf course, forming a committee in January 1911 led by Hugh Wilson but also including men more experienced in golf course construction and even design, as both Rodman Griscom and Dr. Harry Toulmin (and possibly HG Lloyd) had been involved in the creation of early courses at Merion and Belmont (later Aronimink) respectively. Hugh Wilson had served on the Green Committee at Princeton in 1900 when that club was building a new Willie Dunn course. The fifth member, Richard Francis, had skills as an engineer and surveyor and collectively they made up five of the six best golfers of the hundreds of members at the club. The best player, Howard Perrin, was a relatively new member.
They spent the next several months trying to take a crash course in agronomy and construction, and followed Macdonald's good advice to contact Piper and Oakley in that regard. They also tried various attempts to lay out the golf course, and then had the good sense to visit Macdonald at NGLA in March of 1910 for a night of discussion about golf course architecture and spent the next day seeing Macdonald's great course.
Hugh Wilson later wrote about that visit;
We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.
After their return, internal club documents show they created five different plans, and in April of that year had CBM and HJ Whigham back down to walk the property with them and help them select the best of their proposed routings. CBM felt that the one he selected had the best seven finishing holes of any inland course he had ever seen.
“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.”
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional."….
“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”
The committee's report, with Macdonald's recommendation, was presented at the Board Meeting later in April 1910, and was approved, as was the need to purchase an additional 3 acres for the course necessitated most likely by what we today call the "Francis Swap", making the final course 123 acres...120 of purchased land and 3 acres leased.
The final land purchase was made in July 1910, construction commenced, and the course opened for play September 1912. It opened with very few man-made bunkers, the feeling that this placing of artificial hazards should be evolved over time as play is witnessed and studied. By 1915 the course still had very little bunkering, largely because it was deemed challenging enough as is to the vast majority of members. However, that year the US Amateur for 1916 was awarded to the club and Hugh Wilson with help from William Flynn began a program in earnest to make it a championship course that continued most of the next 14 years.
Now, as relates to my possibly misrepresenting David's understanding and beliefs he's communicated here, if he has changes to make, and no longer believes that CBM and Whigham laid out Merion during their one day visit in June 1910, subsequent to which Merion then made recommendations to purchase a very specific piece of pre-routed land, I would like him to tell us that clearly.
And, if he has evidence that CBM and Whigham participated in any of the further planning that happened at Merion between July 1910 and December 1910 when land was finally secured by the club then I would certainly enjoy seeing that as well.
I believe David's essay and the following argumentative discussion that took place here over any number of years did have one benefit and that was to force all of us to dig deeper in understanding what truly transpired, including to me an enhanced role for CBM and HJ Whigham in the overall planning for that course. I certainly acknowledge that. I just don't think it was to the exclusion of anyone else, much less Hugh Wilson, as the man thesis statement of David's paper argued.
Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.
If David no longer believes this to be accurate, or believes I'm misrepresenting his beliefs somehow, then he should make that clear and if it's the former, he should modify his essay on this site accordingly.
Thank you for reading and I hope we can all move past this in good accord and civil and productive discourse.
-
Mike,
Please delete the Merion stuff and post it on a Merion thread.
Don't deflect or divert this thread from discussing NGLA
-
Patrick,
With all due respect, I think I'll leave it here for now but I understand and share some of your reasons and will consider what to do with it later.
For years David and others had asked that one of us write an IMO response piece to David's essay, and I think maybe I just did, although it's admittedly not polished.
But, I think I've said everything I want to say on the matter, unless someone has specific questions.
If nothing else, it makes very clear that Merion was not routed in one-day by CBM in June of 1910 and shows clearly how that whole thing got misinterpreted and then misrepresented in David's essay based on what I'd call his "hopeful misunderstanding" of the contents of CBM's June 29th letter (which he'd never seen prior to publishing his essay) so hopefully you can acknowledge that and we can move on.
There...that feels better. ;D
Thank You.
-
For years David and others had asked that one of us write an IMO response piece to David's essay, and I think maybe I just did, although it's admittedly not polished.
That's your long awaited IMO piece? After all these years, that is what you come up with? Fascinating. You should really be proud of yourself.
Be sure to get that to Ran right away so he can get it posted and preserve it for all posterity. It really says it all.
I'd really like to address the question of David telling me I'm misrepresenting his Opinion Piece and views on the land purchase and routing of Merion, but had also wanted to keep this thread about NGLA as much as possible because I believe it is very revealing to what an incredibly meticulous, detailed, and grand undertaking Macdonald accomplished.
However, since both Patrick and David stated that I'm being "Intellectually Dishonest", and "disengenous" with the facts here, I might as well explain my understanding and where it is derived from and get it over with. If my understanding is mistaken, or if I'm not presenting something factually, then lets discuss and correct it here and move on.
In June 1910, Rodman Griscom of the Merion Site Committee had as his guest CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham at land in Ardmore they were considering for their new golf course, and Macdonald and Whigham were in town for the US Open at Philly Cricket Club. At the time, the Haverford Development Company had secured over 300 acres and offered Merion "100 acres or whatever would be required" for their new golf course. Given the wish to maximize land for profitable real estate, there definitely were some incentives to keep the golf course constrained to as tight an envelope as could be done while still meeting the club's goal for a top-notch, first rate golf course.
After the visit, Macdonald penned the following letter to HG Lloyd, who headed Merion's Site Committee;
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
Based on their discussions on the site with Macdonald and Whigham, as well as the contents of Macdonald's letter, a mere two days later, on July 1st, 1910, Merion's Site drafted the following letter to their Board of Governors, recommending the purchase of land for their golf course, thinking that they'll need "nearly 120 acres".
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3602306390_3d87346472_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3601492895_8d9014164c_o.jpg)
Based on that exchange of information, David Moriarty's IMO piece here, "The Missing Faces of Merion" portrayed that exchange and its meaning in the following manner. In fairness, David was unaware of the contents of the June 29th CBM letter when he wrote his piece. The bolding for emphasis is mine;
Merion’s Site Committee Brings in Macdonald and Whigham
Apparently not content with Barker’s routing plan, the Site Committee brought in two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham, to inspect the site. The Site Committee explained their qualifications to the Board of Governor’s as follows:
These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.
After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald.
The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres.
"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
...
Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.
Obviously, the evidence shows that this attempt to tie in the land procurement process at NGLA to what happened at Merion is faulty, as the two processes were considerably different. At the time of CBM's visit to Ardmore, we don't even know what exact "100 acres or whatever" were considered, as a large portion of today's golf course (known at the time as the 21-acre "Dallas Estate") wasn't even in Haverford Development Company's control. In fact, all the company owned outright was the property that was known as the Johnson Farm, that had several advantages for both golf as well as access, as it adjoined a railroad and had large farm building near to those tracks that could be converted for clubhouse and storage purposes. There was also a beautiful creek and a quarry, although one member apparently complained about how much money it might require "to fill in" that blasted quarry!
In any case, it wasn't until late in 1910 that Merion was even able to secure the "nearly 120 acres", which ended up being made up from 117 acres, made up of 96 acres of Johnson Farm land as well as the adjoining 21 acres of the Dallas Estate on the southern end below Ardmore Avenue, which came under Haverford Development Company control in November of that year. They also leased a 3 acre property between the clubhouse and railroad track extending to Ardmore Avenue as CBM had suggested. In light of what we've learned about CBM's "estimates" at NGLA, and his belief that 5 acres were required for the clubhouse and surrounds, this works out quite precisely.
Much like NGLA, after the property was secured in December 1910, Merion set about planning and routing their new golf course, forming a committee in January 1911 led by Hugh Wilson but also including men more experienced in golf course construction and even design, as both Rodman Griscom and Dr. Harry Toulmin (and possibly HG Lloyd) had been involved in the creation of early courses at Merion and Belmont (later Aronimink) respectively. Hugh Wilson had served on the Green Committee at Princeton in 1900 when that club was building a new Willie Dunn course. The fifth member, Richard Francis, had skills as an engineer and surveyor and collectively they made up five of the six best golfers of the hundreds of members at the club. The best player, Howard Perrin, was a relatively new member.
They spent the next several months trying to take a crash course in agronomy and construction, and followed Macdonald's good advice to contact Piper and Oakley in that regard. They also tried various attempts to lay out the golf course, and then had the good sense to visit Macdonald at NGLA in March of 1910 for a night of discussion about golf course architecture and spent the next day seeing Macdonald's great course.
Hugh Wilson later wrote about that visit;
We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.
After their return, internal club documents show they created five different plans, and in April of that year had CBM and HJ Whigham back down to walk the property with them and help them select the best of their proposed routings. CBM felt that the one he selected had the best seven finishing holes of any inland course he had ever seen.
“Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying the various holes that were copied after the famous ones abroad.”
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional."….
“Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing the proposed layout of the new golf ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of the land already purchased for other land adjoining...Resolved that the board approve the exchange.…………..and the purchase of 3 acres additional for $7,500”
The committee's report, with Macdonald's recommendation, was presented at the Board Meeting later in April 1910, and was approved, as was the need to purchase an additional 3 acres for the course necessitated most likely by what we today call the "Francis Swap", making the final course 123 acres...120 of purchased land and 3 acres leased.
The final land purchase was made in July 1910, construction commenced, and the course opened for play September 1912. It opened with very few man-made bunkers, the feeling that this placing of artificial hazards should be evolved over time as play is witnessed and studied. By 1915 the course still had very little bunkering, largely because it was deemed challenging enough as is to the vast majority of members. However, that year the US Amateur for 1916 was awarded to the club and Hugh Wilson with help from William Flynn began a program in earnest to make it a championship course that continued most of the next 14 years.
Now, as relates to my possibly misrepresenting David's understanding and beliefs he's communicated here, if he has changes to make, and no longer believes that CBM and Whigham laid out Merion during their one day visit in June 1910, subsequent to which Merion then made recommendations to purchase a very specific piece of pre-routed land, I would like him to tell us that clearly.
And, if he has evidence that CBM and Whigham participated in any of the further planning that happened at Merion between July 1910 and December 1910 when land was finally secured by the club then I would certainly enjoy seeing that as well.
I believe David's essay and the following argumentative discussion that took place here over any number of years did have one benefit and that was to force all of us to dig deeper in understanding what truly transpired, including to me an enhanced role for CBM and HJ Whigham in the overall planning for that course. I certainly acknowledge that. I just don't think it was to the exclusion of anyone else, much less Hugh Wilson, as the man thesis statement of David's paper argued.
Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course.
If David no longer believes this to be accurate, or believes I'm misrepresenting his beliefs somehow, then he should make that clear and if it's the former, he should modify his essay on this site accordingly.
Thank you for reading and I hope we can all move past this in good accord and civil and productive discourse.
Amazing.
-
Mike Cirba,
Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?
From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?
Thanks
Patrick,
Did you even read my opinion piece?
The newspaper articles are very, very accurate, and without the original deeds I can't show you exactly where the estimated 25-50 acres are that are unused by the original golf course.
David,
Thank you.
-
Mike Cirba,
Where on the NGLA property are the surplus lands, the 60+ to 105+ of acres allegedly intended for lots ?
From where on the NGLA property can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
Would you concede that the newspaper articles you cited are seriously flawed in terms of their facts about the golf course ?
Thanks
Patrick,
Did you even read my opinion piece?
The newspaper articles are very, very accurate, and without the original deeds I can't show you exactly where the estimated 25-50 acres are that are unused by the original golf course.
How can you say that the newspaper articles are very, very accurate when the proclaim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from NGLA ?
Would you cite for us, where on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
Your newspaper articles said you could see it from everywhere except the low lying stretches.
Can you see it from the 16th fairway ?
The 17th tee
The 5th tee
The 6th tee
The 9th tee,
The 11th fairway
The 1st tee
The 2nd green,
the 4th tee
All high points on the property
Can you see it from any one of those points ?
How about all of them, which the article claims, have a view of the Atlantic ?
You don't need the original deed/s. Just go to Google Earth, then tell me where the 60+ to 105+ surplus acres fit for building lots are located.
-
David,
Once again, we totally agree. It’s like we were separated at birth! That post was amazing.
Mike recalled that you presented this to us:
"It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase."
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
***
I think it is amazing that you deduced what CBM’s recommendation was to Merion before having seen that letter! That he actually recommended something else than what the committee recommended to the board is of no real import, is it?
It’s truly amazing that you twisted Merion’s actual words from “probable” and “nearly” to “required” and “specific” thinking no one would notice, and then spun your whole incorrect theory from that!
It’s even more amazing that you have spent the same amount of time looking for source material to back up that theory as, say, OJ has spent looking for the “real killer.” At the same time, you could have written “War and Peace” with all the words you have used to attempt to discredit, insult and browbeat others into submission and 100% agreement with you.
You recently stated to me that your theory is still correct about Merion, and nothing has proven you wrong, demonstrating an AMAZING ability to totally and selectively ignore things like real letters between CBM and Merion that DO exist, or for that matter, nearly any club document.
And you have told us that in amazingly delusional fashion you have done “more to clear up history” than anyone other than Tom MacWood. That part might be true, as I hear these clubs are absolutely (and amazingly) unified in what their history is now.
And even more amazing that several years later, you keep giving us this same boatload of “expert analysis, critical thinking” crap over multiple threads and expect us to buy it, all while telling us we just aren’t smart enough to deduce things as well as you, or even know what we read with our own eyes!
And the most amazing thing is, you have been able to get away with this internet flaming repeatedly on this website, when on 99% of discussion groups worldwide, you would have been banned and your threads locked.
All of that is truly amazing, it really is..........
Ummmm, that was what you were thinking was amazing, no?
-
David,
Thank you.
You are welcome, Mike, but I was being facetious. My mistake for thinking you might be able to understand that. Your IMO misrepresents the history of two great clubs, not to mention what I have written about the subject both in my IMO and repeatedly since. On the plus side, your "IMO" says quite a lot about you your inability to comprehend this material. Also I don't think I ever really understood the depth of your obsession with Hugh Wilson and Merion until now. You really should get over it.
As I skimmed your "IMO," I kept thinking of this self-serving and self-righteous statement you made a while back:
In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.
So how did that go? What was NGLA's reaction when you informed them that their course was supposed to be almost half housing? What did their internal documents say about the matter. Surely you have done "all your homework" here, including "prior outreach to the club."
_________________________________
Jeff Brauer. This thread is about NGLA, whether or not Mike knows it. Your post is obnoxious and pointless, but not surprising. Get a life.
-
I don't know what exactly was purchased, particularly when it came to space for the yacht harbor, but here is approximately what 205 acres looks like at NGLA. As you can see there is not a lot of room for the sixty 1.5 acre lots for the members.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLAPlanimeter2051.jpg?t=1296701529) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLAPlanimeter2052.jpg?t=1296701529)
Your theory about the real estate scheme on this property is an absolute joke.
-
David,
My apologies. I agree its about NGLA, and will post no more, as I haven't been following it. I am sorry I couldn't resist myself in responding to your opening. It was a cheap shot. Won't happen again.
-
David,
My apologies. I agree its about NGLA, and will post no more, as I haven't been following it. I am sorry I couldn't resist myself in responding to your opening. It was a cheap shot. Won't happen again.
If you were truly sorry you'd have already deleted it. And it will happen again. It always does with you.
-
Last time I deleted a questionable post, you reposted it to prove I was of unsuitable character. I considered it, but it seemed futile.
Your last line reminds me of a supposedly true story of a priest reciting the whole "peace be with you" mantra, and with the congregation responding "and also with you." At one point, he hears static, and interupts himself saying "There is something wrong with my microphone" but the congregation still responded "and also with you."
-
David,
Thanks for posting the "Google Earth" image.
I've been trying to get Mike to look at it and tell me where the 60+ to 105+ surplus acres were.
I think it's rather obvious that no such land existed.
And, if you zoom out, it becomes obvious that you can NOT see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except the low lying stretches. In fact, you couldn't see the Atlantic Ocean from anywhere on the property.
I think the highest elevation at NGLA may be the hill fronting the 3rd green, which I believe is at 15m.
The clubhouse ridge at Shinnecock is at 24 to 18m making a view of the Atlantic impossible, and, that's from the highest point at NGLA.
The land behind the 1st tee and 18th green was the 2.5 acres CBM alluded to for the protective buffer.
The Yacht Basin and facilities were to be North-East of the 17th green on the other side of the road in that natural harbor setting.
You should also know that the land directly behind the current 9th green was purchased in more recent times.
-
Patrick, Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that there isn't any space for Mike's housing project, but he's had to have known that all along, which is probably why he has never answered your questions or mine. But you don't really think that he will let facts stand in his way when he has a point about Merion to make, do you?
-
David,
What metes and bounds of the original purchase are you using for your determination of the total expanse of the 205 acre property that CBM puirchased in 1907 in your graphic above?
Some months back, you told us that your planimeter reading of the total acreage of the modern NGLA course was conservatively between 150-165 acres. Jim Kennedy responded to you that it was more, about 180 acres.
At the time, after I posted an aerial picture of the NGLA property you wrote;
It really depends on what one measures, but the figure looks to be 150-170 acres. Well more than the 110 you speculated. They way you have it drawn looks to be roughly 165 acres.
So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size. Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.
So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes? That's a range of unused, "Surplus Land" that Max Behr referred to, as did CBM in his 1910 letter to the Founders of the Club, of 12 to 17% of the original purchase unused for the golf course.
That's quite a bit, yes?
I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?
Where would you say those acres not used for the golf course are located when measured against the metes and bounds of the original property agreement?
Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us exactly what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.
Thanks.
-
As I wrote, I don't know the exact land purchased. My point was simply to show you and everyone else what 205 acres looks like at NGLA, and how snugly the course itself filled that 205 acres.
I believe my previous estimate went up to 170, but as I explained then, Jim's 180 was probably closer to the truth, for the course alone. Mine was an intentionally conservative measure so as to avoid the controversy of you claiming I had made it too big. No range, no basin, no road, no entry, no bordering property on the outside of the holes. Basically OB where the irrigation ends. (As NGLA has not OB, this was obviously too conservative an approach.) I guess I just delayed the inevitable.
Remember, at the time you were foolishly claiming that NGLA was only 110 yards of golf course, and so I wasn't trying to give an exact measure of the land they would have purchased, but rather was demonstrating to you that even with the most conservative measure, the course took much more land than that. I believe I said at that time that Jim's measure of 180 yards for the course only was more realistic for just the course. So we are talking about 25 acres, before the range, yacht basin, buffer, entry, etc.
In other words, this measure goes to where I think the property line would have been -- the tree line along the right of the property on the outward holes for example, and the water to the right on the inland stretch. And obviously there just isn't room for a housing project, or lots, or whatever.
But don't take my word for it. Measure it yourself.
You wrote:
So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size. Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.
It is statements like these that completely undermine your credibility. Do you think they were originally planning to put housing between the greens and the next tee? Maybe a house between the second green and the third tee, so that one would have to walk through someone's kitchen to get there? Because that is where the vast majority of the additions to length came --between the holes. While your mentor and his writing partner claim otherwise, CBM built some elasticity of into the course and intentionally so.
So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes?
Incorrect. It leaves 25 acres for a range, for a yacht basis, for the entry, and for a fairly thin buffer between the golf course and the rest of the world. "When playing golf you want to be alone with Nature."
I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?
Stop this nonsense Mike. I wrote right up front that I didn't know what they purchased. Do it yourself if you don't trust me. Where else could the borders be?
That is 205 yards. I cant make up the planimeter reading. How could I draw the lines any different than I did.
Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.
"Us" ? I thought you were all alone out there. The problems with your use of those articles are outlined in great detail in the threads I references you to above. Me explaining it again will do no good, so why don't you go back and read them and see if you can figure it out for yourself?
-
David,
Please show me where I ever claimed that NGLA was 110 acres. I said that it was originally planned to be 110 acres, and that was CBM's estimate and goal at the time he was looking for property.
His original, well documented plan was to purchase just over 200 acres, which he estimated at 110 acres for the course, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre lots for each of 60 Founding Members. That works out to 205 acres, exactly. t's extremely well documented.
When he came to Sebonac, he secured 205 acres of land, just as he planned. At what point he scrapped his idea to create building lots and use more land for the course we don't know, but up until at least mid-1906 that was the plan as mentioned that year by Whigham.
We also know he told us at the end of the day that he had "Surplus Land", just as he had planned, and left it to the Founders disposal, because we know it wasn't big enough for the housing he originally anticipated. We also know Max Behr told us the same thing..that there was land left over.
That is simply because he secured the amount of land he thought he needed, then routed the golf course, then finalized the boundaries and purchase, and then just plain ran out of room.
His math problem didn't quite fit the property, probably due to under anticipating the width some of his holes would need, as well as under anticipating how much of the course was unusable swamp.
It might be interesting to go back to his "Ideal Course" calculations and see what he had to say about ideal hole widths and see how NGLA measures up, particularly today's course, which to me seems perhaps a bit wider than what we see in that 1912 map of CBM's.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_2a79ebbbd8_o.jpg)
-
David,
What metes and bounds of the original purchase are you using for your determination of the total expanse of the 205 acre property that CBM puirchased in 1907 in your graphic above?
If you look at the 1928 schematic Macdonald provided in "Scotland's Gift", he tells you that that schematic is practically the same course as it was in 1907. The 1928, ergo 1907 schematic is practically the same as it is today, as evidenced by David's aerial.
There's been no substantive increase in acreage, save for the land behind the current 9th green.
Mike, why did you change the title of this thread so late in the discussion ?[/b]
Some months back, you told us that your planimeter reading of the total acreage of the modern NGLA course was conservatively between 150-165 acres. Jim Kennedy responded to you that it was more, about 180 acres.
At the time, after I posted an aerial picture of the NGLA property you wrote;
It really depends on what one measures, but the figure looks to be 150-170 acres. Well more than the 110 you speculated. They way you have it drawn looks to be roughly 165 acres.
So, conservatively, I'd say your respective measurements have today's 6,950 course, which is 850 yards longer than the course that soft opened in 1910, is somewhere between 165 and 180 acres in size. Of course, that also has to take into account that the original course Macdonald was talking about took up about 87% of the room of today's course, based strictly on yardage, not to mention any additional width that has taken place with modern clearing.
Mike, lengthening the golf course didn't increase the acreage of the property.
Instead of trying to constuct, vis a vis, guestimates and voodoo math, just LOOK at the aerial and tell us where the 60+ to 105+ acres of surplus land is.
What the aerial doesn't show are the steep slopes between holes, like # 5 tee and # 15 green, or # 3 and # 4 and # 15 and # 16. Or, the land to the right (east) of # 16 and # 17. So, while the aerial would seem to show open areas between the fairways and roughs, they are severely pitched in many cases, and still in play in others.
Would you agree that there's NO usable surplus land within the confines of the golf course ?[/b]
So conservatively, that leaves somewhere between 25 to 40 acres unaccounted for, yes?
NO, it doesn't.
Please look at the aerial and identify for us where the surplus acreage is.[/b]
That's a range of unused, "Surplus Land" that Max Behr referred to, as did CBM in his 1910 letter to the Founders of the Club, of 12 to 17% of the original purchase unused for the golf course.
No, it's not.
That's your predetermined conclusion.
Just look at the aerial and identify the 60+ to 105+ acres of surplus land you insisted existed.[/b]
That's quite a bit, yes?
I don't have access to the original land agreement, but if you drew that graphic you just posted you must have it, correct?
Where would you say those acres not used for the golf course are located when measured against the metes and bounds of the original property agreement?
The practice range and the steeply sloped area to the right of # 15, # 16 and # 17.[/b]
Also, since Patrick is trying to now have those very detailed contemporaneous news articles summarily dismissed on their face, please also tell us exactly what facts they report that you also believe to be in error.
Thanks.
-
It might be interesting to go back to his "Ideal Course" calculations and see what he had to say about ideal hole widths and see how NGLA measures up, particularly today's course, which to me seems perhaps a bit wider than what we see in that 1912 map of CBM's.
Better yet, take a look at the 1928, ergo 1907 schematic and compare it to today's aerial and you'll see that there isn't much difference.
As to the map below, which you posted, you should know that it is inaccurate.
When Mike Pascucci bought the Sebonack property, some at NGLA and outside of NGLA were shocked at how close to the playing corridors the property line was.
# 5 might be a good example.
NGLA had to alter the limited amount of land they had to the right of the hole to create a high berm, a containment mound, along with a trench bunker, to shield the view of the maintainance facility since the property line was so close to the land "in play".
In October of 2005, George Bahto, TEPaul and I examined that area as I pointed out a long deflection spine that ran along the right rough and bunkers to the right of that deflection spine. I told George that that spine should be mowed as fairway, not rough, such that ball hit up the "bail out" side, balls attempting to use the "turbo boost, should be punished if they went to wide, by allowing the deflection spine to direct balls into the bunkers to the right, one of which had long ago been abandoned.
NONE of those features exist today because they weren't on NGLA's property.
Hence, I wouldn't use the drawing you've posted here as being an accurate depiction of the property/property lines.
Not much has changed since 1907 with respect to the property lines.
2.5 acres was purchased behind # 1 & # 18 and additional land was purchased behind # 9.
But, the golf course is pretty much the same as it appeared in the 1928 schematic, ergo 1907.
While you may include areas between holes, behind holes, etc, etc. in your quest to find the phantom yardage you allude to, the aerial tells the story quite clearly, whereas your newspaper articles are nothing more than "fluff" from authors who never set foot on the property.
I have a 1938 aerial of NGLA, along with Shinnecock and Southampton, which is probably clearer than the aerial David posted from Google Earth since it was taken at a much lower altitude. I think you'll find the configuration of the golf course about the same, although, all courses were much more heavily bunkered.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_2a79ebbbd8_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I don't have much time right now but we should be able to figure out mathematically how CBM originally derived the presumed acreage of his "Ideal" course. We know it was about 6000 yards in length...regarding width, this is what he wrote;
The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented.
Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than
St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better
than it is now. I note that Mr. Deally, Mr. Lucas and Mr.
Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in
golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over
fifty yards.
I would give the proper width three marks, as well as two
marks for good tees in close proximity to the putting green. Walking
fifty to one hundred :and fifty yards to the tee mars the course
and delays the game. Between hole and teeing ground people sometimes
forget and commence playing some other game.
We could probably assume some number of ideal width between holes, but as seen in the letter CBM wrote to Merion, this was basically a mathematical puzzle for him.
-
It was far from a mathematical puzzle for him. The acreage needed depended upon the course they found. "Ideal" didn't mean definite and exact template of what would definitely be done. It was all contingent upon the land.
You have what happened at NGLA exactly backward. They didn't buy a piece of land and then start thinking about how they could jam a course onto it. The found a course, and bought the land on which it sat.
-
Mike,
The playing corridors at NGLA are generally wide, which may be a design factor or concession to the wind that sweeps the site, or both.
Your reliance on the sketch reflecting the short course is skewing your ability to draw accurate conclusions.
That sketch is inaccurate and shouldn't be relied on to draw any linear conclusions.
I don't know that you can take Macdonald's "rambling thoughts" his generalizations and apply them as absolutes to a specific project.
But, in viewing the 1928 (1907) schematic, the 1938 aerial and 2010 aerials, not much has changed in terms of the macro features of the golf course other than lengthening of the holes.
David Moriarty has it right.
They found the holes first and subsequently configured the purchase of the 205 out of 450 acres to suit their needs.
They did NOT buy the land first and then go about routing and designing the course.
How could you subscribe to that theory ?
Macdonald tells us that he found the holes first and then staked out the 205 acres he wanted.
David,
Could you please repost the aerials of NGLA.
Something's wrong with my computer and I can't cut & paste.
thanks
-
Technically, you're both correct that CBM purchased the land based on a staked out golf course.
However, this was months after the initial ride around the property with Whigham, and months after Macdonald secured an indeterminate 205 acres.
Over the next months when the course was routed, and the exact holes finalized, the exact lines of the property got worked out and the purchase was completed..
If you don't believe me, read CBM again. He tells the story quite chronologically, and as was his nature, quite precisely.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5216/5413438109_19fb6f0f98_z.jpg)
a·gain (-gn)
adv.
1. Once more; anew: Try again.
2. To a previous place, position, or state: left home but went back again.
3. Furthermore; moreover: Again, we need to collect more data.
4. On the other hand: She might go, and again she might not.
5. In return; in response: paid him again.
The definition used by CBM in that paragraph is #1, not #3. There is no comma.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5414087632_d0d0d2501a_z.jpg)
Those months were spent clearing and surveying the land and meticulously routing the golf course, prior to purchase, EXACTLY as CBM told us in those December 1906 articles he was going to do over the next several months.
btw...at Lido the golf course was 115 acres, for comparison.
-
You are getting closer Mike, but you are still not there.
But before we go on let's end this nonsense about the 110 acres once and for all. Can you see now why there is no way they ever contemplated putting ninety 1-1.5 acre lots on that property? Can you see now how the property lines were tailored to the golf course, and not visa versa?
Here is the incredible 1938 aerial. If anything the playing corridors were generally wider then, except perhaps in a few places.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLAAerial1938Crop.jpg?t=1296764768)
-
Mike,
Why didn't you underline the previous sentences in RED.
You have to understand that what those sentences tell you is that they found the holes first, then sought the land that would incorporate them.
They had determined the routing and the holes BEFORE they attempted to purchase the land.
Macdonald states, " ... 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" So, he knew exactly what land he wanted since he had sited his holes on the appropriate contours.
He didn't go out and buy the land and then determine the routing as you claim.
He didn't go out and buy the land and then site his individual holes as you claim.
He first sited his holes, routed the course and then bought the land that would incorporate his design.
Hence, the routing and holes had been determined prior to the purchase, not after it as you would have us believe.
They had their ideal holes all sketched out and predetermined.
They toured the land for 2 or 3 days, studying it and determined that the contours would accomodate their preconceived holes, had routed the course and then sought to buy the land upon which the course would be constructed.
It's all right there, how could you miss it ?
-
Mike Cirba,
You seem to have left this thread in the lurch. This would be fine with me, except that this is at least the forth or fifth time we have had this conversation, and I suspect it is just a matter of time before you start at square one again.
The major issues are most likely useless to pursue, but I was hoping we could at least try to get some closure on this issue of the 110 acres for the golf course. Now that you have seen the aerials, old and new, and can see how much room the course took up, do you still think that there was originally supposed to have been around 60 to 90 acres of lots on this property? Do you still believe that he was only planning on using around 110 acres for a golf course when he secured that land?
If so, how could that possibly have worked? Where were these houses going to be?
Have you found anything indicating that CBM, HJW, or anyone involved ever wrote anything about lots on this particular site. I am aware of the earlier article by Whigham, but that was before they found this property and before they made an offer on the 120 acre property near the canal, where said offer could not possibly have included housing.
Are there any about this property?
Thanks.
-
Back by popular request, and thanks to Joe Bausch, here's HJ Whigham's May 1909 article in Scribner's Magazine;
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p2.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p3.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p4.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p5.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p6.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p7.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p8.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p9.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p10.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p11.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p12.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p13.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/TIGL/AIGL_p14.jpg)
-
David,
I believe and have postulated that CBM's philosophy of what was required in terms of acreage changed dramatically during the creation of NGLA, and I believe it's because when all was said and done, his strategic holes required MUCH more in terms of overall hole width than what he originally conceived. I believe this all took place during the time he routed the course and started to look at strategic options, and how a weaker golfer might need to play his holes.
As I posted earlier, Macdonald originally believed and earlier wrote that fairways were becoming much too wide, and wrote that there was no reason for fairways to be larger than 45-60 yards in most cases, again as an average depending on the type of hole.
Here, he breaks out the "scoring" and important parameters of his "Ideal course".
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5418763041_905f05e208_b.jpg)
It's very easy to see where his earlier idea that he'd only need roughly 110 acres for the golf course came from.
Assuming a course of roughly 6,000 yards long as "Ideal", and assuming that with 50 yard wide fairways you might need setbacks of another 25 yards on each side in an out-and-back routing (very conservatively totaling 100 yards of width for each hole with 75 yards between centerpoints of adjoining fairways ) and another 500 yards to walk from one green to the next tee (although ideally, CBM felt this should be a very short walk indeed), you come up with 134 acres.
So, it's no wonder that by 1910 when coming to Ardmore and looking at roughly 120 acres of land, his cautionary reply was that it was going to be a tight fit, but recommended a course around 6000 yards and he thought they could make it.
So, then, what was different at NGLA?
Well, as mentioned, CBM broke his own rules in terms of "do as I say, don't do as I do". ;)
To create his desired strategic options, CBM created hugely wide fairways in most cases...my rough estimations of their widest points, clearly designed for maximizing strategic options using Google Earth are as follows;
1 - 60 yds
2 - 65
3 - 56
4 - 65
5 - 70
6 - 75
7 - 135
8 - 80
9 - 70
10 - 69
11 - 65
12 - 83
13 - 60
14 - 48
15 - 38 (Narrows)
16 - 86
17 - 90
18 - 82
I'm not sure at what point in his evolution that Macdonald realized he'd need much more land to build the type of holes he originally envisioned, but we know in 1906 that just before acquiring the Sebonac property he tried to buy 120 acres closer to Shinnecock, so it's unlkely he made that move without thinking he could build his ideal course there.
I think and believe the evidence shows he went into the NGLA project and Sebonac property exactly as he promised the Founders in his original agreement...needing some amount of land in the 110-130 acre range for the golf course, 5 acres needed for the clubhouse, and the remainder of his targeted 205 acres for building lots for the 60-70 Founders, which might be an acre-and-a-half as he originally wrote in 1904, or an acre as Whigham wrote in 1906, depending on the size of the course.
It's just that when they got done building the best course possible, they had used most of it up due to the increased need for width, and had to make some accommodations to the Founders for what was much less "Surplus Land" than originally projected.
His original 1904 agreement cited needing 205 acres, he secured exactly 205 acres, and the thing that changed by the time the course opened is that his golf course had grown from his original projection of 110 acres to something closer to 160-170.
It's pretty tough to divide the surplus land of 35 - 45 disjointed acres so Macdonald likely convinced the members to just accept some other compensation.
I'm also certain that his primary goal all along was to build the best golf course possible, and believe that his "giving something back" to the members in his original proposal was designed to get money to back his project, first and foremost.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't too disappointed with either the outcome or the lack of Founder's building lots. ;)
-
Patrick,
As much as you don't like those December 1906 articles, they tell us precisely what CBM and Whigham had discovered to that point in terms of golf holes...they mention the hill Whigham found for the Alps, the nearby redan, the inlet over which to create an Eden, and the waterway for their original Cape hole.
The articles then say they'll spend the next several months selecting the holes to be copied and the yardages to be utilized.
This matches almost exactly what CBM wrote in his book.
They didn't find or route the whole golf course during their horseback rides over 2 or 3 days. They found locations to build some of their Ideal Holes, found enough promise overall in the makeup and character of the land and soil, then secured their earlier projected estimate of 205 "undetermined" acres needed for golf and building lots (that were yet to be located and staked out of the 450 acres available), and then set about clearing, and surveying (hiring Seth Raynor), and then routing the holes on the land, ending up with five template "copy holes", most of them "Composite" holes, with a few "originals" over the next few months.
THEN, they purchased the exact 205 acres that encapsulated all of the golf holes they wanted.
CBM's account matches those articles almost exactly.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5419464460_ea39597281_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5418860885_28d2a74459_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5419464630_d47908eb79_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
I'm surprised you missed it! ;) ;D
-
Patrick,
As much as you don't like those December 1906 articles, they tell us precisely what CBM and Whigham had discovered to that point in terms of golf holes...they mention the hill Whigham found for the Alps, the nearby redan, the inlet over which to create an Eden, and the waterway for their original Cape hole.
Mike, they don't tell us anything with precision.
How can you state that: "they tell us PRECISELY what CBM and Whigham had discovered....."
When those same articles tell us that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except from the low lying stretches ? ? ? You can't claim that the articles provide an accurate account when they are so blatantly incorrect about critical issues.
You continue to insist that we accept those articles as accurate when it's been proven that they're highly INACCURATE.[/b]
The articles then say they'll spend the next several months selecting the holes to be copied and the yardages to be utilized.
They're WRONG on that issue as well, and in direct conflict to what CBM stated in "Scotland's Gift"
Macdonald told us, on page 187, how he found the holes first and then configured the purchase of the land to include those holes.
So there's no mistake, CBM stated, after his ride around when they found what they wanted, "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.'
It doesn't get clearer than that.
They studied the land, found the location for the classical holes he wanted, and then and only then did they stake out the land that he wanted that incorporated the entire golf course. One only has to examine the entire 450 acres and compare it to the 205 acres purchased to see that he had his specific holes incorporated into that out and back routing.
I've already explained how simple the routing process was, and, I cited Max Behr as having stated that the course basically routed itself.
Yet you continue to post flawed exhibits, over and over again, in a feeble attempt to support your tenuous position, a position without a shred of merit.
To maintain that CBM picked out the land then found the holes and routed the course makes you look like an idiot or someone who is so agenda driven that they're blind to the facts.
Please cease your foolish pursuit which is nothing more than a subterfuge to undermine David Moriarty's treatise on Merion.
[/b]
This matches almost exactly what CBM wrote in his book.
"Almost", counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in establishing a factual and chronological history.
It doesn't match exactly.
I posted "EXACTLY" what CBM stated, not what some seriously flawed newspaper articles, written by someone who had never set foot on NGLA had to say.
According to newspaper articles, headlines I might add, "Dewey beat Truman"
Do you still cling to that myth as well ?
Or do you accept that HST became the 33rd President of the U.S.[/b]
CBM's account matches those articles almost exactly.
NO, it doesn't.
I'll post CBM's account again.
"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"
It doesn't get clearer than that, they found the holes, they routed the golf course, then they staked it out, then they bought the 205 acres they staked out.
End of story.[/b]
-
Mike,
Again with articles? Might I suggest that the reason you keep posting these entire articles that when you break them down and look at the specific information contained therein, they do not support what you claim?
Earlier you wrote that CBM described the process in chronological order. Well look at what CBM wrote:
1. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the the contours of the land.
2. The company that owned that land agreed that it would sell CBM 205 acres and agreed to allowed them to locate it to best suit their purposes.
3. CBM and HJW again earnestly studied the land, and found the land which fit with what CBM had in mind.
4. CBM and HJW staked out the land they wanted.
5. CBM optioned the land they wanted in November 1906, and judging from the schedule discussed in the articles, the option period was for five months.
6. According to the articles, during the option period they were going to work up a detailed plan and create a miniature topographical model to aid in the construction. Also according to the articles, the option also included the right to alter the boundaries of the property if need be. "The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished the plans."
7. According to Scotland's Gift they took title in Spring of 1907 and began developing the property.
Now how you can try to twist this into some situation where CBM agreed to purchase this land and then got around to routing the course is beyond me!
-
David,
I thought you were the one in the Myopia thread arguing for the veracity of news articles? These aeticles are way more detailed and consistent than any of those old Boston articles and yet you selectively dismiss them? Please tell me which facts they report that are in error...my sweet lord, they even have the same direct quotes, obviously coming from a press release from the architect himself telling you exactly where they are at in the process and precisely what they are going to do next!
Yet, you and Patrick would rather believe in romantic myths and fairy tales about completing a routing on bramble-covered,swamp, unsurveyed land thatwas so thick and overgrown they couldn't walk it and had to navigate on horseback!
If that fantasy helps you both to think he was a magic man, embodied with special prescient powers, so be it...I don't want to be the one to shatter that nice illusion, but I really think it minimizes unfairly the amount of meticulous precision, planning, and effort he put into the routing and sets a bad example of how this actually happened on those first amateur-sportsman designed courses where greatness was achieved through persistent, diligent effort over a lengthy period of time.
In the case of your numbered order above, if you move your number 5 up between numbers 2 and 3 as CBM wrote in his book you'll have it exactly correct.
Go back and read what he told us in his book...he went back "again" to study the land again AFTER securing 205 acres, not before.
This is in exact agreement with what CBM told us in those Dec 1906 articles you now conveniently call poor journalism.
-
And David and Patrick...if you don't like those three news articles from different papers in Dec 1906 I'll be happy to dig up some more.
They ALL have the exact same quotes from Macdonald from what was obviously a press release emanating directly from CBM.
They all quote Macdonald as saying the next few months will be spent determining what holes to build and the yardages of the holes and staking out the property with his committee.
If that isn't routing I don't know what the heck you'd call it and perhaps Tom Doak is correct that we who aren't in the business probably should think twice before opining on these matters.
-
David,
I thought you were the one in the Myopia thread arguing for the veracity of news articles? These aeticles are way more detailed and consistent than any of those old Boston articles and yet you selectively dismiss them? Please tell me which facts they report that are in error...my sweet lord, they even have the same direct quotes, obviously coming from a press release from the architect himself telling you exactly where they are at in the process and precisely what they are going to do next!
Yet, you and Patrick would rather believe in romantic myths and fairy tales about completing a routing on bramble-covered,swamp, unsurveyed land thatwas so thick and overgrown they couldn't walk it and had to navigate on horseback!
That's actually funny. It's mind boggling that you categorize Macdonald's written words as myths and fairy tales while at the same time proclaiming the accuracy of newspaper articles that have the Atlantic Ocean visible from everywhere on the property except the low lying stretches. What a joke.
That's got to be the biggest myth and fairy tale ever told on the East End.
Your categorization of the land is disengenuous, you're attempting to portray the land as the collectivization of the individual components and we all know that's not a factual portrayal.[/b]
If that fantasy helps you both to think he was a magic man, embodied with special prescient powers, so be it...I don't want to be the one to shatter that nice illusion, but I really think it minimizes unfairly the amount of meticulous precision, planning, and effort he put into the routing and sets a bad example of how this actually happened on those first amateur-sportsman designed courses where greatness was achieved through persistent, diligent effort over a lengthy period of time.
Mike, you introduced Max Behr to support your case, yet, Max Behr stated that the routing of the course was a rather simple endeavor, that the course basically routed itself.
When you understand the fact that they quickly recognized the location of 5 or 6 or more of their ideal holes, and they knew where the starting and finishing holes were, the routing becomes a simple self completing process.[/b]
In the case of your numbered order above, if you move your number 5 up between numbers 2 and 3 as CBM wrote in his book you'll have it exactly correct.
Go back and read what he told us in his book...he went back "again" to study the land again AFTER securing 205 acres, not before.
Mike, this may be your greatest misrepresentation ever.
YOU need to go back and reread page 187.
Let me help you. Macdonald states:
"The company AGREED to sell us 205 acres, as we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."
The owner of the land agreed to sell Macdonald 205 out of 450 acres, but, they didn't know which 205 acres.
"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"
So, while the company had agreed to sell 205 undefined acres out of the 450 acre parcel, CBM hadn't determined which 205 acres would be sold/purchased until AFTER he had located and sited his ideal holes.
ONLY AFTER CBM found and located those holes did CBM define which 205 acres he wanted.
Then and ONLY then did he stake out the 205 acres he wanted for NGLA.
For you to maintain otherwise is either out of ignorance or a predetermined agenda.[/b]
This is in exact agreement with what CBM told us in those Dec 1906 articles you now conveniently call poor journalism.
Mike, that's not true.
Please don't insult our intelligence.[/b]
-
And David and Patrick...if you don't like those three news articles from different papers in Dec 1906 I'll be happy to dig up some more.
Bringing forth more articles that claim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying stretches only serves to prove the inaccuracy of those articles.[/b]
They ALL have the exact same quotes from Macdonald from what was obviously a press release emanating directly from CBM.
Once again, that's your interpretation.
Now you're telling us that these articles are based on a press release, directly from CBM.
Yet, something is puzzling.
If this was a press release, directly from CBM, don't you think he'd know that you CAN'T SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN FROM NGLA ?
I hate to say this, but, with this last allegation you've gone from being intellectually dishonest, to just flat out dishonest.
How can you state that the newspaper articles, which repeat an enormous mistake, are press releases, DIRECTLY from CBM.
You CAN'T SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN FROM EVERYWHERE ON NGLA. Forget the low lying stretches, you can't see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points.
And, you would have us believe that CBM lied about this or that he was so unfamiliar with the land he had "STUDIED EARNESTLY" that he made this calamatous mistake.
Mike, those articles are repetitive in nature, they merely repeat what another article stated.
It's obvious since they all make the same mistake, a calamatous mistake.
It's akin to an AP release which is picked up by various newspapers and reported as distributed.
The authors of those articles NEVER set foot on NGLA.
And, they wrote/printed those articles without exercising due diligence, they failed to confirm the facts.[/b]
They all quote Macdonald as saying the next few months will be spent determining what holes to build and the yardages of the holes and staking out the property with his committee.
Right, they all repeat the same mistakes, over and over again without the authors exercising any due diligence or confirmation of the facts.
"Dewey defeats Truman"
You can print/publish it in 20 newspaper articles, repitition doesn't produce veracity.
No matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it's still a falsehood.[/b]
If that isn't routing I don't know what the heck you'd call it and perhaps Tom Doak is correct that we who aren't in the business probably should think twice before opining on these matters.
I think you're confusing your threads.
If you think we should respect Tom Doak's words and not opine on Golf Course Architecture, then perhaps Ran should shut down this site and disolve GCA.com.[/b]
-
Patrick,
Two of those articles came out on the same day...pretty neat trick to plagiarize, I'd say. ;)
I'd say when you are down to telling us that multiple newspapers exactly reporting the same quote on the same day are both exactly wrong, you've clearly lost your unbiased perspective and are now simply an advocate for a position that has been proven incorrect.
It's ok...talk to Macdonald and I'm sure he'll still want credit for all of his hard work routing over that rough property instead of the myth that's been perpetuated here of a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, two-day routing of his masterpiece with Whigham on horseback! ;) ;D
He spent months and months abroad studying holes and now you guys say he routed his course over an unsurveyed, bramble covered possible 450-acreage they couldn't even walk on foot in two days.
Give me a break! ;) ;D
Read again how he describes how forbidding the property was...
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac
Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Day and lying
between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property
was little known and had never been surveyed. Everyone
thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps
and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry,
blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only
way one could get over the ground was on ponies.
-
Patrick,
Two of those articles came out on the same day...pretty neat trick to plagiarize, I'd say. ;)
Not at all, it was common.
The Associated Press was started in 1846.
In as early as 1846 different newspapers were sharing the same story.
A story NOT written by the individual newspaper's publishing the article.
You're allowing your ignorance regarding the publication of newspaper articles, circa 1906, to taint your already tainted perspective on this issue.
But, explain this for me.
How could Macdonald state that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except from the low lying areas ?
Please address that issue, that one question, DIRECTLY.[/b]
I'd say when you are down to telling us that multiple newspapers exactly reporting the same quote on the same day are both exactly wrong, you've clearly lost your unbiased perspective and are now simply an advocate for a position that has been proven incorrect.
You just don't understand newspaper reporting.
It's common for different newspapers to report the same information/article.
How can you not understand that ?
The fact that the articles are IDENTICAL tells you that they came from the same source (Not CBM) and that none of the publishers conducted independent third party confirmation (due diligence), they just ran the same story. And you think that repetition equates to veracity when nothing could be further from the truth.
Please explain, how CBM, who had studied the land earnestly, on more than a few occassions, could claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA, except for the low lying stretches ?
Please address the above question.
Thanks
-
Mike,
At the present time, you're on line, on the site, so why the extended delay in answering the simple question I posed to you ?
No need to research, no need to consult others, just answer a simple question.
Do you think Macdonald, after studying earnestly on several occassions, was so obtuse, so ignorant, so unfamiliar with the site at NGLA that he proclaimed that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except from the low lying stretches ?
You did claim that the above statement was a press release, DIRECTLY, from Macdonald.
So, a simple YES or NO will suffice.
Thanks
-
Mike, whenever these discussions go in a direction you don't like you one of your immature little fits. Can't we just discuss this like adults?
You are stretching those newspaper articles beyond all comprehension to try to muddy the waters in a situation that just isnt' that muddy.
CBM tells us what happened in Scotland's gift, and I outlined that above.
- Is their something inaccurate about what CBM wrote?
- Is there something inaccurate about the chronology I set out above?
As Patrick said, look at Behr's description of what happened. In his April 1915 column he used NGLA as a model for how to go about establishing a golf course! The reason being that, at NGLA, CBM and Whigham FOUND THE GOLF COURSE FIRST and then purchased the land upon which the golf course sat.
"The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business."
The course was roughly sketched out using all the best features. THEN enough land was bought to embrace all this.
Why do you think you know what happened better than Max Behr and CBM?
-
Mike Cirba,
It's 11:10 pm, EST and I see you're still online.
I don't understand why you haven't answered a very simple question I posed to you about 11 hours ago.
Would you please answer the question.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
The articles also talk about a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, don't they? They are obviously talking about the entire 450 acre tract that Macdonald was still considering in the placement of his golf holes, which is the land that INCLUDES today's Sebonack GC, and that runs for a lengthy stretch along Peconic Bay...I measured it and it's a mile all told between the two courses.
I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.
Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.
The articles also talk about possibly "skirting" Bullshead Bay with the course for about a mile, and then the opportunity for creating a "Short Hole" at that point.
David,
Do I think they had some "rough" idea of where they could locate holes based on their bramble-covered ride? Yes, it's clear from the articles.
In terms of percentages, I'd say they saw enough to make them excited, and enough to identify a few places for template holes, but like the mention of the obviously aborted "Short" above, they did not have a routing completed by any means. Maybe something like 20-30% and enough good land around it to give them confidence they could do the rest, especially since they were still looking to secure 205 acres as they always intended and believed they'd need considerably less for the golf course.
Guys,
More articles to come.
-
As mentioned prior, many NY newspapers contemporaneously reported the news of Macdonald securing 205 acres right after the contracts were signed and they read almost identical in terms of understanding and factual information, indicating almost certainly either a press release or a news conference. The idea that they were all erroneously reporting or copying from each other is ludicrous.
The first two published here prior were on the exact same date, December 15th 1906, in the "New York Tribune", and the "New York Sun", respectively.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5425252080_16045b9758_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5020/5424650605_21fd7a99b5_o.jpg)
Two days later, on December 17th, 1906, this article appeared in the "New York Evening Gazette".
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5425252182_2666baaff2_b.jpg)
Here's a newly found article from December 16th, 1906 from the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle", which lists some of their sources of information. It also provides more information about the original plan to create building lots for the Founders, stating, "While the matter is not settled it is likely that the bordering land not required for the links will be set apart in individual parcels for the founders who may eventually build summer cottages thereon."
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5178/5424616185_34bf188b3e_o.jpg)
Over nine months later, on August 26, 1907, the final plans for the routing and hazards of the golf course was published. What is interesting to note at this point is that the targeted width of the fairways is still at 50-55 yards, MUCH narrower than they were to become as noted previously where the average width of the fairways today is approximately 72 yards. This lends credence to the idea that it was only later in trying to create strategic avenues of play around hazards for the weaker players did the overall size of the golf course increase significantly from what was originally anticipated, effectively squashing the original plan to create building lots for the founders on the "Surplus Land".
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5424616245_133c695c66_o.jpg)
-
Mike, I do appreciate the effort and the articles (thanks Joe) but these articles say not much different that the previous ones. Some are retreads for the umpteenth time. They contain some of the old info from 1904 that is wrong, and some other info that you seem intent on twisting into something that it clearly as not. I do appreciate the article with the map, though. I hadnt seen that one.
And Mike, you have expressed frustration that we have indicated your approach is dishonest and disingenuous in the past. One of the reasons I, and I assume Patrick and others, feel that way is you habit of avoiding all reasonable questions. Or if you do answer them you twist the facts beyond recognition.
For example, Patrick has asked you rather simple questions and you refused to answer. Now that you finally do, you twist the facts to suit you with what I can only conclude is outright dishonesty on your part. The articles YOU HAVE POSTED repeatedly write that there was a mile of frontage on BULLS HEAD BAY not Peconic Bay. Yet you disingenuously ask whether the articles said there was a mile frontage on Peconic, and then jump to the ridiculous conclusion that at this point they were dealing with the entire 400+ acre parcel even though repeatedly they discuss the 205 acre parcel and EVEN DESCRIBE IT. That sort of thing is beyond bush league. It is flat out dishonest. Or you have no idea what these articles even say, even though you have been posting them again and again!
Quit playing these immature and asinine games, Mike. They should be beneath even you. If you cannot answer the question, admit it. Admit that some of the contents of these articles is just flat out wrong! It isn't the end of the world.
And how about my questions Mike? CBM told us what happened, in even what you said was chronological order. Yet you continue to ignore this. Why is that? Here was my rough summary from above:
1. CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the the contours of the land.
2. The company that owned that land agreed that it would sell CBM 205 acres and agreed to allowed them to locate it to best suit their purposes.
3. CBM and HJW again earnestly studied the land, and found the land which fit with what CBM had in mind.
4. CBM and HJW staked out the land they wanted.
5. CBM optioned the land they wanted in November 1906, and judging from the schedule discussed in the articles, the option period was for five months.
6. According to the articles, during the option period they were going to work up a detailed plan and create a miniature topographical model to aid in the construction. Also according to the articles, the option also included the right to alter the boundaries of the property if need be. "The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished the plans."
7. According to Scotland's Gift they took title in Spring of 1907 and began developing the property.
Here are the questions I asked and you ignored:
- Is their something inaccurate about what CBM wrote?
- Is there something inaccurate about the chronology I set out above?
Will you directly answer my questions?
Max Behr held CBM's process up as the ideal, because CBM found the course first, and then bought the land accordingly. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING. Here again is what Max Behr said about the process:
"The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business."
The course was roughly sketched out using all the best features. THEN enough land was bought to embrace all this.
Was Max Behr's main point entirely wrong?
Why do you think you know what happened better than Max Behr and CBM?
Answer these questions Mike. Surely you cannot avoid CBM's own account of this, can you?
-
Patrick,
The articles also talk about a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, don't they? They are obviously talking about the entire 450 acre tract that Macdonald was still considering in the placement of his golf holes, which is the land that INCLUDES today's Sebonack GC, and that runs for a lengthy stretch along Peconic Bay...I measured it and it's a mile all told between the two courses.
That's irrelevant
[/b]
I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.[
What tree and bush growth ?
Those articles claim that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from EVERYWHERE on the property EXCEPT the low lying stretches.
Everyone mildly familiar with NGLA and Sebonack knows that that's physically impossible.
Do you still insist that the newspaper accounts are accurate ?
Do you still insist that the newspaper accounts are press releases DIRECTLY from Macdonald ?
"YES" or "NO" answers will suffice.
No need to post more irrelevant and/or inaccurate newspaper articles that repeat the lie.
With Macdonald's knowledge of the property, after having STUDIED IT EARNESSTLY over several days, do you think he was a (1) a moron, (2) saw a mirage, or (3) never made that statement as part of a press release ?[/b]
Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.
No Mike, it's your failure to accept a huge, calamatous mistake.
It's your insistance that the articles are press releases directly from Macdonald.
So, I'll ask you again, do you think he was so unfamiliar with the property, after having studied it earnestly, over several days, that he could make that absurd mistake.
PLEASE answer my direct questions.
PLEASE cease trying to avoid directly addressing my questions.[/b]
The articles also talk about possibly "skirting" Bullshead Bay with the course for about a mile, and then the opportunity for creating a "Short Hole" at that point.
That's also irrelevant.
Just answer my direct questions with "YES" or "NO" answers.
They are simple, straight forward questions, only requiring a minimum of effort to answer them.
And, please, please, please don't substitute more flawed articles for your answer.
Thanks[/b]
David,
Do I think they had some "rough" idea of where they could locate holes based on their bramble-covered ride? Yes, it's clear from the articles.
In terms of percentages, I'd say they saw enough to make them excited, and enough to identify a few places for template holes, but like the mention of the obviously aborted "Short" above, they did not have a routing completed by any means. Maybe something like 20-30% and enough good land around it to give them confidence they could do the rest, especially since they were still looking to secure 205 acres as they always intended and believed they'd need considerably less for the golf course.
Of course they had the routing completed.
Do you think they were going to buy the staked out land when some holes might have been outside of those boundaries ?
Do you think he'd stake out the land for purchase not knowing where the holes/routing would be ?
Macdonald told you, directly, that they found the holes he wanted and then, and only then did he stake out the boundaries necessary to build his ideal 18 hole golf course.
Max Behr stated that the routing process was "duck soup", simple, that the course routed itself.
I showed you how simple it was to fill in any missing blanks, if there were any, once you had just a few of the ideal holes he mentioned, coupled with the starting and finishing holes.[/b]
Guys,
More articles to come.
Save your efforts, they're worthless, merely repetitious of the other flawed articles.
Haven't you figured out yet that when all of these articles repeat the same information, with a glaring mistake/s, that they're just copies of the same article and NOT the product of independent research and personal, verifiable information ?[/b]
-
I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.
EXCEPT that Macdonald tells us it was covered in bushes in 1906 so not much has changed in that regard, has it.
But, stand in the parking lot at Sebonack, an area void of trees, probably the highest point on the 450 acre property, or certainly one of the highest points on the property and tell me if you can see the Atlantic Ocean.
Do you think that the ridge at Shinnecock, upon which the 1st tee, 10th tee and 10th green reside, is a visual impediment to seeing the Atlantic Ocean from anywhere on NGLA ?
Where, on that 205 and 450 acre parcel can you see the Shinnecock Bay, Peconic Bay and the Atlantic Ocean ?
Remember, your articles, which you claim base their info on a press release, DIRECTLY from Macdonald, make this claim, over and over and over again.
But, we know it's false.
However, I know why it's false and am invoking the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privileges and will not reveal the answer at the present time.[/color
Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.
What's disengenuous is your claim that the newspaper articles are press releases DIRECTLY from Macdonald.
That's so absurd it's comical.
That mistake is not a mere "technicality", it's a huge, gross, calamatous error, one that Macdonald would NEVER make.
That mistake is a major issue.
Your claim is that CBM was so thorough and so meticulous, so how could he make that calamatous mistake.
We also know that he studied the land over days, "earnestly" so how is it possible that he would make that statement, ACCORDING TO YOU, in a press release DIRECTLY from Macdonald ?
Don't you see the insanity of your position ?
That statement could NEVER be sourced from Macdonald when describing the land at NGLA.
Remember, it's alleged that you can see the Atlantic from EVERYWHERE on the property except the low lying stretches.
And, we know, today and in 1906, that that was/is IMPOSSIBLE
In your wild attempt to tangentially discount and/or dismiss David's premise on Merion you're making yourself look stupid by promoting something that's physically impossible. [/b]
-
Patrick,
With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps. The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level. The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.
One other question for you. What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time? In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them? What would the source of that one been? At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement". Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAElevation2.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Could you look at the elevations on the Sebonack golf course property as well?
I suspect Macdonald was talking about the entire 450 acres at his disposal out of which he would carve out 205 as suited his purposes, and I also suspect he was "selling" it a little bit for the New York press, from where he hoped to get the large majority of members.
By the way...two of those articles appeared on the exact same day in competing newspapers so plagiarizing would be a magic trick. ;)
Thanks!
-
Patrick,
With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level. The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.
I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot.
In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.
The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches.
If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b]
One other question for you. What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time? In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them? What would the source of that one been? At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement". Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?
Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAElevation2.jpg)
-
Mike,
The highest point on Sebonack appears to be the clubhouse area and it's about 80 feet above sea level. Assuming that there were no trees there a hundred years ago, you could look down 30 feet to the Alps location. I have no idea whether Macdonald was referring to someplace on the 450 acres or the 205 acres when making the Atlantic statement (if, in fact he actually was the source of the statement).
I have no doubt that whoever precipitated the spate of articles was trying to sell the place and its views.
-
Brian,
The articles don't state, "from the highest elevation on the 450 acres under consideration"
They say, from everywhere on the property except the low lying stetches.
So, we know that the articles are ALL WRONG on that account.
They also say that the views are of The Atlantic Ocean, Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay.
I'd agree that to a degree, it's someone attempting to be Donald Trump 94 years ago.
In a day or two I'll explain the origin of the misinformation found in the articles.
-
Mike Cirba,
Will you answer my questions as set forth above? Surely you ought to explain your justification for ignoring CBM in Scotland's Gift as well as Max Behr on this issue.
__________________________
Bryan, That is interesting, but I am not sure that finding one point where seeing the Ocean might theoretically be possible provides much justification for the articles which stated that the Ocean can be seen from much of the property.
Also, even accepting your line and the Google measures, I am not so sure that the Ocean would have been visible. I think you'd have trouble seeing much past Shinnecock's clubhouse, range, and the area around the RR tracks, especially because in the old photos a large berm is visible where the RR passed Shinnecock. The land around there is high enough that one's viewing angle would be pretty shallow off of level anyway, and a high berm or even a high fence or bushes would have made viewing past there impossible (Keep in mind also that that the curvature of the earth will lose about two feet per mile to a straight line.)
If those familiar with the property say the Ocean is not visible, is there much reason to doubt them?
_________________________________
Mike just made up the part about the articles addressing the entire parcel. The articles say one mile of frontage on Bulls Head Bay, not the Peconic.
-
Gentlemen--
May I ask a question....
There's a hole at Winged Foot West, Number Four I believe, that is named Sound View. It was named such because you could apparantly see Long Island Sound on the hole when it first opened. Today, you would have no idea that you could see LI Sound on the hole. My question is Could it be possible that changes in certain natural features (namely construction and/or tree type foliage) make it where we would have no idea what things looked like in the 1910s?
Thank you very much in advance for your responses.
-
Patrick,
With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level. The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.
I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet. I agree.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot. I'm sure not now. It appears that there is Sebonack's maintenance building and two lines of mature trees in the way now. A hundred years ago, there certainly wasn't the barn, and maybe not the trees.
In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.
The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches. The articles don't say "EVERYWHERE except for". One says "from the hills". Another says "except for the lower stretches". So what if the lower stretches are 95% of the course. (where are those emoticons when you need them?)
If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b] If the Atlantic wasn't visible from the high points a hundred years ago then I'd say that the articles are in error on that point. It's a bit of a leap to infer that the articles in totality are grossly inaccurate because of that one point. A leap of Cirban proportions. (more emoticons missing)
One other question for you. What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time? In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them? What would the source of that one been? At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement". Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?
Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time. I can't believe you are stooping to this level. Aren't you the guy who regularly upbraided TEPaul on the Merion threads for this very thing. Hopefully you haven't bought some acreage from Happydale Farms. Or bought a dog. (some final emoticons missing)[color]
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAElevation2.jpg)
-
David,
See my reply to Patrick above.
It appears at best that the Atlantic would have been a line on the horizon. The railway berm is lower than the Alps hill. The people (Patrick) who know the area, know it now, or 20 or 40 years ago. None of us was around 100 years ago, so for me, the jury is still out. I'd put the statement down to promotional hyperbole. If I can see a sliver of Atlantic on the horizon , then I have an Atlantic view according to the promoter. Reminds me of looking at condos in our current building. One on the upper floors was advertised as having a wonderful view to the east. Turned out to be a 10* opening between two other towers. What can you say about advertising?
I guess I was just debating the leap from the Atlantic being a sliver on the horizon (or less) to the articles in totality being grossly inaccurate.
As a side thought, Google Earth measures the top of the hill as 50 feet, more or less. Mike's article says it was 56 feet. Do you suppose they lopped off 6 feet to flatten green and tee sites? Or, did they mis-measure it? Or, is Google Earth off by 6 feet?
One other thought. I agree with your measuring the site at 205 acres using the Google planimeter. There appear to be about 40 acres unused to the east of 16 and 17, but certainly not 80 acres. What's strange to me is that the developer would sell them such an irregularly shaped piece of land. I'd love to see the deed and metes and bounds. It must go on and on. But, then it was only Long Island swamp land. Maybe there was no prospect of selling that land to anybody else at the time. Or, of selling the irregularly shaped remaining piece.
-
Bryan,
The older golf courses do remain curiously un treed compared to the surrounding land. I presume it was less treed back then, and then planting or natural overgrowth in undeveloped areas took over, where as SH and NGLA actively kept theirs in links condition, perhaps clearing somewhat.
We know CBM cleared a lot of undergrowth, but was there a lot of tree clearing to build those two courses (inc. SH)? I don't recall their clearing history at the moment.
-
Jeff,
Macdonald described the land as entangled in bushes; no mention of trees at all. The 1938 aerial on the previous page seems reasonably devoid of trees. I'm guessing that sometime after 1938 somebody decided to put a tree line along each side of the course to provide some privacy. Now, this could be an interesting deforestation restoration.
-
Adam,
It is possible I guess, but I think it is unlikely in this case. Except for these repetitious articles from around the time of the purchase, there really aren't any mentions of an Ocean view at NGLA, at least not that I am aware of. Plus, some of the early articles contrast NGLA with Shinnecock Hills, by noting that while SH has views of the ocean, NGLA has views of the Bulls Head and Peconic, plus has better soil and undulations.
Bryan,
I agree with you about the irregular borders. The simple explanation is that CBM chose the land based on the golf course, not based upon the developer's ideal. CBM and HJW staked out the rough outlines of the course before they even optioned the property, and even then they kept the ability to adjust the lines if need be. (Sound familiar?) At least that is what CBM told us they did.
I am not sure where it was 56 feet elevation, but there is little flat about that green site. It looks like there was substantial movement of dirt at the green site and it could have been that it was altered enough to get rid of a few feet. The highest point I could find (and the highest point I remember) was on the little swath of fairway short and left of the green (you might have thought it was a tee, but it is fairway.) It is possible that they flattened this bit of fairway at some point between 1906 and now.
Assuming the info on the ocean view is wrong, I agree that one mistake like this does not mean everything in the articles was inaccurate. But it does suggest that where ever these articles got this information, the source was wasn't entirely reliable. One might also infer that this bit of info couldn't have come from CBM, on the theory that he knew the land and wouldn't have made such a mistake.
As for where the information came from, that is a very good question. My guess is that there was an original article which used multiple sources including a letter or press release from, as well as archived material including the 1904 letter. Then the others went with that one way or another. Sometimes when there are multiple overlapping articles like this it is because an article came out in a magazine and then everyone generously borrowed from that. Or CBM and/NGLA could have sent out a packet of information which included the new as well as old information. But some of the information is close to verbatim from that old 1904 letter.
While these articles are interesting, I don't see how anyone can read them as saying something substantially different than what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift. It is telling, I think, that Mike won't address my questions about Scotland's Gift and about Behr's main point.
-
After reading the excerpt from Scotland's Gift, I do not believe CBM said or indicated he routed the course in two or three days. While we might able to infer how long it took, I don't believe he gives any time frame at all.
Here is what CBM wrote:
"However there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...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, provided 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 purposes. 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.
"We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put an Eden hole, that would not permit a topped ball to run up onto the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."
So here is how CBM describes the sequence of events:
1. Whigham and Macdonald spend two or three days riding the land that ends up as NGLA. They determine it is what they need for their ideal golf course;
2. After that they contact the company that owns the land. The company agrees to sell them 205 acres, whose boundaries are not yet set;
3. After the company agrees to sell them the undefined 205 acres, Whigham and Macdonald go back to the land. They study the ground in more detail. This is when they discover the Alps, the Redan, the Cape and Eden. But this is not during the initial two or three days they spent riding the property. It is after the company agrees to sell them the land. It is the third step.
To quickly sum up: first they rode the land for two or three days...second they made a deal with the company that owned the land...third they went back, started laying out the course in earnest, and located the four templates.
How long did they take to find those holes? CBM does not say. He does say they bought an option on the land in November 2006. So I think they found the four templates before then. If we know when the company agreed to sell the land to CBM, then we can pinpoint the amount of time M&W needed to route the course.
I'm guessing they would not take out an option -- they would not stake out the land they needed -- unless they had a pretty good idea about the rest of the course as well. So they likely had the course mostly routed by November 2006.
-
Jim,
The two or three days bit is Mike Cirba's lame attempt at misrepresenting my position on this whole thing. That is what is so absurd about this entire thing. He is arguing against a position of his own invention.
Although I see why you would come to that conclusion, I don't necessarily agree with you about the timing of when the named holes were initially found. But honestly I really don't think it matters one way or another. Whether CBM had found those particular holes before or after the seller agreed to sell him 205 acres, CBM found the land which fit in with course he had in mind before he actually optioned the property. Even then he didn't totally lock himself in, leaving himself some leeway to adjust the boundaries if necessitated by the detailed plan.
Also when you say they "made a deal with the company" I think this was before they actually optioned the property. CBM says the Company agreed to sell them land, but the land hadn't been chosen. They staked it out after studying it again, and then they optioned it.
So I guess what I am saying is that you need a #4. They optioned the property, and then perhaps a #5. The worked up detailed plans (or were planning to) then perhaps a #6. They completed the purchase and began developing the land.
However you dissect it, what remains undeniable (I think) is that THEY FOUND THE GOLF COURSE FIRST, AND THAT DEFINED WHAT LAND THEY BOUGHT, AND NOT VISA VERSA.
-
Gentlemen--
May I ask a question....
There's a hole at Winged Foot West, Number Four I believe, that is named Sound View. It was named such because you could apparantly see Long Island Sound on the hole when it first opened.
I don't believe you're correct on this issue.
The 4th hole runs straight to the Northwest, directly away from the sound, hence the view as you play the hole, and on the flanks of the hole is away from the sound. In addition, the 4th hole is not on an elevated portion of the property, it's a rather low lying hole, lying below the 3td green. With the distance between the 4th hole and the sound, the elevation, etc. etc.. I doubt that there was ever a view of the sound from the start of the golf course.[/b]
Today, you would have no idea that you could see LI Sound on the hole. My question is Could it be possible that changes in certain natural features (namely construction and/or tree type foliage) make it where we would have no idea what things looked like in the 1910s?
NO.
-
Bryan,
Could you look at the elevations on the Sebonack golf course property as well?
I suspect Macdonald was talking about the entire 450 acres at his disposal out of which he would carve out 205 as suited his purposes, and I also suspect he was "selling" it a little bit for the New York press, from where he hoped to get the large majority of members.
By the way...two of those articles appeared on the exact same day in competing newspapers so plagiarizing would be a magic trick. ;)
But Mike, it's the same basic article with the same mistakes, not two vastly different, independent articles.
It's akin to an AP release.[/b]
-
Patrick,
With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level. The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.
I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet. I agree.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot. I'm sure not now. It appears that there is Sebonack's maintenance building and two lines of mature trees in the way now. A hundred years ago, there certainly wasn't the barn, and maybe not the trees.
Have you ever stood on that hill and taken a 360 degree look at what you can see ?
In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.
The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches. The articles don't say "EVERYWHERE except for". One says "from the hills". Another says "except for the lower stretches". So what if the lower stretches are 95% of the course. (where are those emoticons when you need them?)
Now you're getting as absurd as Mike Cirba.
now you're claiming that the low lying stretches represent 95 % of NGLA.
That's one of the most unenlightened comments you could make.
Especially when (1) you've never seen the golf course and (2) you have Google Earth at your disposal.
Based on Google earth, you already know that the course isn't 95 % comprised of low lying areas, so why would you make that absurd comment ?
When an article states, "except from the low lying stretches" that means the Atlantic Ocean is visible from EVERYWHERE else.[/b]
If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b] If the Atlantic wasn't visible from the high points a hundred years ago then I'd say that the articles are in error on that point. It's a bit of a leap to infer that the articles in totality are grossly inaccurate because of that one point. A leap of Cirban proportions. (more emoticons missing)
I didn't say that, what I said is that if the articles are so grossly wrong about that issue, you have to question their accuracy on other issues.
I also said that the articles weren't written by authors/writers famiiar with the property. I further stated that the articles are merely replicas of one another, not a dozen independent opinions. Lastly, I debunked Cirba's myth about the articles being press releases, DIRECTLY, from CBM.
I can understand Mike Cirba grasping at straws, but you ?[/b]
One other question for you. What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time? In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them? What would the source of that one been? At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement". Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?
Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time. I can't believe you are stooping to this level. Aren't you the guy who regularly upbraided TEPaul on the Merion threads for this very thing. Hopefully you haven't bought some acreage from Happydale Farms. Or bought a dog. (some final emoticons missing)[color]
No, that was David Moriarty. There's a valid reason for my defering the answer to the issue. I also announced my intention, up front, I wan't coy about not responding, I was rather direct. As to the acreage at Happydale Farms, the advertisements claim you can see the Delaware River and the Pacific Ocean from the higher elevations, so I am considering a purchase
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAElevation2.jpg)
-
David,
See my reply to Patrick above.
It appears at best that the Atlantic would have been a line on the horizon. The railway berm is lower than the Alps hill. The people (Patrick) who know the area, know it now, or 20 or 40 years ago. None of us was around 100 years ago, so for me, the jury is still out. I'd put the statement down to promotional hyperbole. If I can see a sliver of Atlantic on the horizon , then I have an Atlantic view according to the promoter. Reminds me of looking at condos in our current building. One on the upper floors was advertised as having a wonderful view to the east. Turned out to be a 10* opening between two other towers. What can you say about advertising?
I guess I was just debating the leap from the Atlantic being a sliver on the horizon (or less) to the articles in totality being grossly inaccurate.
As a side thought, Google Earth measures the top of the hill as 50 feet, more or less. Mike's article says it was 56 feet. Do you suppose they lopped off 6 feet to flatten green and tee sites? Or, did they mis-measure it? Or, is Google Earth off by 6 feet?
Bryan, the highest elevation is a hill well short of the 3rd green, not the green itself. The green is built up, artificially, above grade with a large artificial berm behind it. While the green has some manufacturing, it was built up, not cut down.[/b]
One other thought. I agree with your measuring the site at 205 acres using the Google planimeter. There appear to be about 40 acres unused to the east of 16 and 17, but certainly not 80 acres.
That land is swamp to the south, rising steeply along # 16 and descending steeply along # 17.
I wouldn't say it's useless, just not desirable[/b]
What's strange to me is that the developer would sell them such an irregularly shaped piece of land. I'd love to see the deed and metes and bounds. It must go on and on. But, then it was only Long Island swamp land. Maybe there was no prospect of selling that land to anybody else at the time. Or, of selling the irregularly shaped remaining piece.
-
After reading the excerpt from Scotland's Gift, I do not believe CBM said or indicated he routed the course in two or three days. While we might able to infer how long it took, I don't believe he gives any time frame at all.
Here is what CBM wrote:
"However there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...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, provided 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 purposes. 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.
"We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put an Eden hole, that would not permit a topped ball to run up onto the green. Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."
So here is how CBM describes the sequence of events:
1. Whigham and Macdonald spend two or three days riding the land that ends up as NGLA. They determine it is what they need for their ideal golf course;
How did they make that determination ?
Remember, it was Macdonald's intent to replicate his "ideal holes".
He was looking for a site where those ideal holes would fit.
Thus I disagree with your chronology, your order of events.
He was looking for an Alps, an Eden, A bottle, A redan.
He didn't just ride the land and think, "this is interesting land" He had a purpose, to site his "ideal holes" on the land.
He states that they spent days riding the land, "STUDYING THE CONTOURS OF THE GROUND" for the express purpose of locating his ideal holes.
He didn't just like the land, which he describes as being described as worthless.
From the get go he found the land with the contours necessary to accomodate his ideal holes.
And, he found those individual sites, he found his clubhouse site, and from there, as Max Behr tells us, contemporaneously, the course basically routed itself.
Then and only then did he stake out the land he wanted for his course at NGLA.
What supports this position is the odd shape of the parcel itself.
Who would buy a parcel so configured unless you had predetermined its every use ?[/b]
2. After that they contact the company that owns the land. The company agrees to sell them 205 acres, whose boundaries are not yet set;
3. After the company agrees to sell them the undefined 205 acres, Whigham and Macdonald go back to the land. They study the ground in more detail. This is when they discover the Alps, the Redan, the Cape and Eden. But this is not during the initial two or three days they spent riding the property. It is after the company agrees to sell them the land. It is the third step.
This is where we disagree.
On their first detailed examination of the land, for three days they studied the contours, looking for locations for CBM's ideal holes.
Having found the suitable sites they wanted for the golf holes, they went back and convinced the company to sell them 205 acres.
Now, why not 230 acres or 180 acres or 120 acres as in their previous attempt to purchase land ? ? ?
Because the 205 acres was the land necessary to route the golf course as it stands today.
That odd, long, narrow out and back routing.
They knew after studying the land for 3 days exactly where the macro architecture and a good deal of the micro architecture was going to be sited.[/b]
To quickly sum up: first they rode the land for two or three days...second they made a deal with the company that owned the land...third they went back, started laying out the course in earnest, and located the four templates.
That's not logical.
You and others are focused on page 187.
Have you read the pages that proceed page 187 ?
Especially the previous chapter.
You have to view the process of acquisition, not as a single frame, but as an entire film.
And, "Scotland's Gift" provides that film in it's entirety, not just on a single page.[/b]
How long did they take to find those holes? CBM does not say. He does say they bought an option on the land in November 2006. So I think they found the four templates before then. If we know when the company agreed to sell the land to CBM, then we can pinpoint the amount of time M&W needed to route the course.
Jim, they found more than four templates, and, they found their starting and finishing holes, on both nines, hence the configuration of the 205 acres.
The routed the course prior to approaching the company for the final purchase and they restudied the course, subsequently, then confirming their initial finding, they staked and purchased that unusual configuration.[/b]
I'm guessing they would not take out an option -- they would not stake out the land they needed -- unless they had a pretty good idea about the rest of the course as well. So they likely had the course mostly routed by November 2006.
Jim, I'd say that they had the course routed before they staked it out.
I'd also say that they had figured out the routing and the site for some, if not most of their "ideal" holes, along with the starting and finishing holes on both nines, in those first few days.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it{/color]
-
Whether CBM had found those particular holes before or after the seller agreed to sell him 205 acres, CBM found the land which fit in with course he had in mind before he actually optioned the property. Even then he didn't totally lock himself in, leaving himself some leeway to adjust the boundaries if necessitated by the detailed plan.
David,
Really? Can you be any more specific?
Honestly, David, what does that mean? How is what you've described different or unique from any golf course project at any time? What does "fit in" mean, anyway?
I thought routing a golf course was/is about the process of finding and locating actual golf holes on the ground, or on paper and forming a continuous placement and order of same for all 18 holes?
Is it your contention that the routing for NGLA was planned prior to the securing of that property or not?
Frankly, I think you're trying to have it both ways because neither what CBM says in "Scotland's Gift" or what CBM said in those news articles that came out after he secured the property in December 1906 do not support what you and Patrick have been contending in the least.
Let's go through it again and perhaps this time you'll understand my answer.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
First, CBM tells us about the previously unsurveyed 450 acre property they located for consideration, "having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay", so yes, THAT is the land they were looking at and not something I "made up".
Second, he tells us that it abounded in bogs, swamps, insects, and an entanglement of undergrowth and bushes making it unwalkable and only negotiable via horseback.
Third, he and Whigham spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground and decided that the land had enough potential that they knew it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price. We also know from those same contemporaneous articles I posted that during that time they located land for an Alps, nearby a natural redan, an inlet where they could create a forced-carry Eden, and the water along which to build the Cape hole. They also mention a Short Hole at the point at the end of Bulls Head Bay, but that was never constructed.
Fourth, the company "agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose". THIS was the SECURING of the property, and this is the point when those articles were written.
Fifth, AFTER securing the property, "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".
So, first they secured 205 acres, then as CBM clearly tells us in those articles, they spent the next several months deciding which holes to reproduce and the yardages of the holes...essentially, ROUTING the golf course. Then, later in 1907, construction began.
Also, as regards Max Behr's 1915 statement, when was he there when all this was happening? Was he involved in the project?
Bryan,
Thanks for coming to this thread and introducing some sanity. Hopefully you'll stick around once the flurry of insults starts when they don't like what you are objectively and unbiasedly pointing out here.
Frankly, I think the whole Atlantic Ocean thing is a total RED (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifeprotection/images/BluebackHerring(USFWS)-550.jpg) to distract from a message that Patrick doesn't like because it doesn't fit with his mythological view of CBM performing magic in a day or two on impassible land. ;) ;D
I have no doubt, and have heard from others who grew up on Long Island, and who have seen old pictures of the course that the Atlantic was in view from same places on the property. I'm not even going to address such attempted distractions from the real point here further except to point out that your views of the Atlantic wouldn't only be due south across Shinnecock, but also southwest across Cold Spring Bay.
One thing I did want to thank you for as well is pointing out that there are about 40 unused acres today out of the 205 acres they secured. It was never my contention that the course was 110 acres as has been misrepresented. I said that was CBM's original thought, as outlined in his 1904 Founders agreement. In it, he specified seeking 205 acres, where about 110 would be used for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder for 1.5 acre building lots for the founders.
Obviously, this changed for some reasons I've expanded on here such as the dramatic expansion of fairway widths beyond what CBM targeted even as late as August 1907 into construction. The went from a targeted 50-55 yards to today averaging about 72 yards at their widest points. Given that those lots were intended to run around the perimeter of the golf course, it's likely the fairway width increase made that plan unfeasible.
I think even if CBM had been able to keep the course to 135 acres, which seems reasonable for what was targeted at just over 6,000 yards originally, he could have met his goal to provide building lots, but once he expanded his fairway acreage by 37%, or almost 30 acres, it got into that 165 acre range you pointed out, and it's tough to split 40 remaining acres among 60-70 founders for cottages, so that idea went by the wayside and likely some other financial recompense was worked out.
Jim Nugent,
You are correct about the sequence of events but the one important thing to keep in mind is that when CBM "secured" 205 acres it was left to him to decide later which 205 acres of the 450 available to purchase.
The Securing of the land happened in December 1906 according to news reports (CBM's book says November), but the actual purchase with the defined boundaries didn't happen til the spring of 1907, after the course was routed. George Bahto's book says the purchase actually didn't happen until November 1907, so I'm not sure the reason for that difference.
All,
Here is what CBM told us AFTER he secured the 205 acres;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
One thing to consider when thinking about the routing is the fact that CBM tells us they didn't have money to build a clubhouse and instead counted on using the coming Shinnecock Inn for that purpose.
Given the fixed location of the Inn out by today's 9th green, it may give us some idea of some of the constraints and compromises CBM may possibly have had to make.
We know he surely wanted to get his course down to the waters of both Bullshead Bay and more dramatically Peconic Bay, but the Shinnecock Inn was about two miles from there. So, perhaps that's what Behr was referring to when he said that the routing sort of dictated itself.
I bring this up because last year Geoff Walsh and I were fortunate enough to play Sebonack in the morning and NGLA in the afternoon, and after viewing all of the dramatic waterfront property of Sebonack, Geoff asked me the logical question which I didn't have a good answer to, which was, "why didn't CBM take this property, or some combination of this property and NGLA?"
I think the answer is probably not straightforward, but if having that Inn as the clubhouse was something mandatory, that certainly created one very fixed point for the routing and a limitation on which of the 450 acres they could effectively use.
Here is what CBM said about that issue;
We did not have enough money to consider building
a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close
to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty
Company. 'The old saying, "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,"
is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909,
which drove us to building a club-house.
We abandoned the site near the old Shinnccock Inn and determined
to build it on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay; so
our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our
eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth. This proved
most fortunate, for to-day we have nn unexcelled site. There are no
more beautiful golfing vistas in the world than those from the National
Golf Club, unless it be those from the Mid-Ocean Club in
Bermuda.
I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously
considered the finest of their character in Great Britain. We found
a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams, fine golfers, who
were brought up in Prestwick, considered to be superior to the
original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and
find a perfect Redan whieh was absolutely natural. Ben Sayers,
well-known professional at North Berwick, told me he thought it
superior to the original.
....and then goes on to describe placement of the Eden and Cape as well, just like the articles point out. That was all that was done by the time the property was secured and the articles merely confirm what CBM later wrote in his book.
Thanks for your your interest and participation here.
-
You're trying to have it both ways because neither what CBM says in "Scotland's Gift" or what CBM said in those news articles that came out after he secured the property in December 1906 support what you and Patrick are contending in the least.
"Scotland's Gift" supports my position.[/b]
He and Whigham spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground and decided that the land had enough potential that they knew it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.
WRONG.
It didn't have potential, it had the specifica contours they were spefically searching for, contours where they could site their "ideal" holes.[/b]
We also know from those same contemporaneous articles I posted that during that time they located land for an Alps, nearby a natural redan, an inlet where they could create a forced-carry Eden, and the water along which to build the Cape hole. They also mention a Short Hole at the point at the end of Bulls Head Bay, but that was never constructed.
Fourth, the company "agreed to see us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose". THIS was the SECURING of the property, and this is the point when those articles were written.
WRONG AGAIN.
That's NOT SECURING THE LAND.
That's obtaining the right, the option to secure a portion of the land that they specifically needed for routing the course, a course with their collection of "ideal" holes, once they determined exactly where that land was[/b]
Fifth, AFTER securing the property, "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".
Mike, that's a bald faced lie and one of the reasons you've transitioned from being intellectually dishhonest to being flat out dishonest.
NEVER, does CBM state, "AFER securing the property, Again, we studied the contours earnestly......."
Your attempt at editorializing the words on page 187 to suit your purpose is disgraceful, to the degree that your credibility has fallen faster than your ethics.[/b]
So, first they secured 205 acres, then as CBM clearly tells us in those articles, they spent the next several months deciding which holes to reproduce and the yardages of the holes...essentially, ROUTING the golf course. Then, later in 1907, construction began.
That's your dishonest interpretation.[/b]
Also, as regards Max Behr's 1915 statement, when was he there when all this was happening? Was he involved in the project?
He was there at the begining, or did you forget that he played in the opening event, finishing tied for 5th ?[/b]
Frankly, I think the whole Atlantic Ocean thing is a total RED herring to distract from a message that Patrick doesn't like because it doesn't fit with his mythological view of CBM performing magic in a day or two on impassible land. ;) ;D
I have no doubt, and have heard from others who grew up on Long Island, and who have seen old pictures of the course that the Atlantic was in view from same places on the property.
Who made this claim ?
Have they ever walked the property at NGLA ?
You state that they made the claim based on old pictures of the course ?
Which old pictures ?
And from what vantage points could you see the Atlantic ?[/b]
I'm not even going to address such attempted distractions from the real point here further except to point out that your views of the Atlantic wouldn't only be due south across Shinnecock, but also southwest across Cold Spring Bay.
Mike, just because you say the Atlantic is visible from a single high point on NGLA doesn't make it visible.
That's just another wild, unfounded claim on your part.[/b]
One thing I did want to thank you for as well is pointing out that there are about 40 unused acres today out of the 205 acres they secured. It was never my contention that the course was 110 acres as has been misrepresented. I said that was CBM's original thought, as outlined in his 1904 Founders agreement. In it, he specified seeking 205 acres, where about 110 would be used for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder for 1.5 acre building lots for the founders.
The land that Byran identified, land that I previously referenced is uninhabitable. It starts as swamp and rapidly ascends, with steep slopes to the East, alongside the 15th and 16th holes, then rapidly descends, with steep slopes alongside the 17th hole. It's UNFIT for lots, let alone buildings.
So please, get familiar with the land you're referencing. Just because it's vacant doesn't mean it's fit for development.[/b]
Obviously, this changed for some reasons I've expanded on here such as the dramatic expansion of fairway widths beyond what CBM targeted even as late as August 1907 into construction. The went from a targeted 50-55 yards to today averaging about 72 yards at their widest points. Given that those lots were intended to run around the perimeter of the golf course, obviously the fairway width increase made that unfeasible.
This is just more dishonesty on your part.
Making an unfounded claim to support an untenable positoin.
But, that seems to be your modus operandi lately.[/b]
I think even if CBM had been able to keep the course to 135 acres he could have met his goal to provide building lots, but once he expanded his fairway acreage by 37%, or almost 30 acres, it got into that 165 acre range you pointed out, and it's tough to split 40 remaining acres among 60-70 founders for cottages, so that idea went by the wayside and likely some other financial recompense was worked out.
How can you make up these stories and expect to maintain the slightest degree of credibility ?
If a shift of this magnitude took place, why didn't Macdonald chronicle it ?
It's just made up B.S on your part.[/b]
Jim Nugent
You are correct about the sequence of events but the one important thing to keep in mind is that when CBM "secured" 205 acres it was left to him to decide later which 205 acres of the 450 available to purchase.
Mike, you don't secure UNDEFINED land.
You only secure DEFINED land.
Since the land wasn't defined, CBM never secured it until he had discovered his holes and routing and only then did he STAKE and SECURE that clearly DEFINED land.
When will you cease distorting and making up your own set of facts ?[/b]
The Securing of the land happened in December 1906 according to news reports (CBM's book says November), but the actual purchase with the defined, staked out holes (as well as determined metes and bounds) didn't happen til the spring of 1907, after the course was routed. George Bahto's book says the purchase actually didn't happen until November 1907, so I'm not sure the reason for that difference.
The course was defined, the holes were sited, the routing established and then and only then did Macdonald STAKE the land and subsequently buy it.[/b]
All,
Here is what CBM told us AFTER he secured the 205 acres;
Mike, that's just another lie on your part. When will you stop lying ?
That's not what Macdonald told us, that's what a newspaper account stated.
There's a world of difference between the two.[/b]
One thing to consider when thinking about the routing is the fact that CBM tells us they didn't have money to build a clubhouse and instead counted on using the coming Shinnecock Inn for that purpose.
Which means that they new where the starting and finishing holes would be.
And, when combined with the 5 or 6 ideal hole locations mentioned, allows him to route the course rather quickly and easily, or as Max Behr stated, the course basically routed itself.[/b]
Given the fixed location of the Inn out by today's 9th green, it may give us some idea of some of the constraints and compromises CBM may possibly have had to make.
What compromises and constraints ?[/b]
We know he surely wanted to get his course down to the waters of both Bullshead Bay and more dramatically Peconic Bay, but the Shinnecock Inn was about two miles from there. So, perhaps that's what Behr was referring to when he said that the routing sort of dictated itself.
What Behr was refering to was what I demonstrated to you.
With knowledge of where the 1st, 18th, 9th, 10th, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th 13th, 14th were to go, filling in the blanks became a self evident/completing process. It was as simple as could be.[/b]
I bring this up because last year Geoff Walsh and I were fortunate enough to play Sebonack in the morning and NGLA in the afternoon, and after viewing all of the dramatic waterfront property of Sebonack, Geoff asked me the logical question which I didn't have a good answer to, which was, "why didn't CBM take this property, or some combination of this property and NGLA?"
The answer is simple, because in that long, narrow configuration of land he found all of his ideal holes.[/b]
I think the answer is probably not straightforward, but if having that Inn as the clubhouse was something mandatory, that certainly created one very fixed point for the routing and a limitation on which of the 450 acres they could effectively use.
You're forgetting that the Shinnecock Inn was only a "temporary" clubhouse.
He could have started at that point and wound his way all over that 450 acre parcel.
I believe that he always had the present clubhouse site as the final site for his clubhouse.
Remember, NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green. That was a much later acquisition.
The seperation of # 1 and # 18 and the open land mass between # 1 and # 18, which is some of the best land for golf on the property, didn't happen by accident. He had to have had that location as the site for "HIS" clubhouse.
And, I doubt CBM would ever have the clubhouse at Shinnecock looking down on his clubhouse.[/b]
Here is what CBM said about that issue;
We did not have enough money to consider building
a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close
to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty
Company. 'The old saying, "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,"
is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909,
which drove us to building a club-house.
But, if he didn't "RESERVE" the site for the present clubhouse, where else could he build it.
Remember, they didn't own the land behind the 9th green[/b]
We abandoned the site near the old Shinnccock Inn and determined
to build it on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay; so
our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our
eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth. This proved
most fortunate, for to-day we have nn unexcelled site. There are no
more beautiful golfing vistas in the world than those from the National
Golf Club, unless it be those from the Mid-Ocean Club in
Bermuda.
And, how did it come about, that there was so much space between the 1st and 18th holes ?
Enough space to site an enormous clubhouse ?
It was by design.
Especially when you consider the location of the range, yacht basin and beach facilities.[/b]
I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously
considered the finest of their character in Great Britain. We found
a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams, fine golfers, who
were brought up in Prestwick, considered to be superior to the
original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and
find a perfect Redan whieh was absolutely natural. Ben Sayers,
well-known professional at North Berwick, told me he thought it
superior to the original.
....and then goes on to describe placement of the Eden and Cape as well, just like the articles point out. That was all that was done by the time the property was secured and the articles merely confirm what CBM later wrote in his book.
EXCEPT for the fact that Macdonald told us in previous passages that he found these holes during or shortly after his initial studies of the land.
At the very least try to be honest about the chronology in which Macdonald presents the history of NGLA.[/b]
-
Patrick,
I don't have time to respond in depth right now but take a look at where 18 was located and drawn (originally #9) without the clubhouse there. It was to the left of the big bunker, with a green up near today's 1st tee.
The Shinnecock Inn was intended to be used as the clubhouse until it burned to the ground in 1909 and forced the creation of the new one in th present location, and likely the moving of today's 18th hole, probably for the better.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5424616245_133c695c66_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
I don't believe they owned the land behind the 9th (18th) green.
Why do you continue to accept newspaper articles, especially with not to scale schematics, as The Gospel.
Why would they bow the 9th and 10th holes, leaving the best land for golf barren ?
-
Bryan,
Earlier you said that there looked to be about 40 acres of land East of the 15th and 16th. That sounds way too high to me. I've measured it a few times and it looks like the land between the water and the holes (which is pretty rough land) is less than 20 acres. I get less than 15 acres for the triangle of land were the range is located, north of the 17th green and the first half of the 18th fairway. Are you combining these two parcels in your measure? And maybe throwing in some of the land protruding out into the bay beyond the road?
________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
I don't even quite know where to begin with your post above, other than to say that you still haven't addressed my questions about what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift. I am not even sure that I understand the point you are trying to make, or that you do.
Perhaps you can clarify by helping me sort the following events described in Scotland's Gift? Will you please place the following events in Chronological Order . . .
A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres."
C. "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."
D. "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906."
E. "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
Thanks.
-
Mike Cirba? Are you there? Will you please put these events in chronological order? It shouldn't take but a minute.
-
David,
I'm greatly relieved to see that you don't believe that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2-3 days on horseback when it was still an unsurveyed, imposible to walk, 450 bramble-covered acreage. Perhaps we should try to break that news to Patrick together gently. ;)
I now see better the source of where we actually disagree and will try to explain more shortly.
In the meantime, could you answer a question for me...do you agree with Patrick that those quotes from CBM posted the day after he secured the property were inaccurately reported and attributed? If not, what do you think CBM meant when he said the next several months would be spent with his committee deciding what holes to reproduce and the distances of the holes?
Similarly, how long do you really think it took him to fully route the course and when do you believe that happened? Thanks.
-
David,
In your timeline above, I believe B & D are synonymous, so here's how I think it should look.
A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose." and D. "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906."
C. "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."
E. "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
Let's look at those three pages again;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
Here's why I think you are mistaken in your interpretation..
As mentioned, I think the second paragraph on page 187 (the second copied page) above summarizes the entire search for property in a nutshell. They find the 450 acre property with a mile on Peconic Bay, they trek over it with ponies studying the ground, the company agrees to sell them 205 acres (which I think is securing the property) and permitted them to locate it wherever it suited their purposes, they subsequently study it "again" for some indeterminate amount of time after which they staked out the land they wanted.
The next paragraph describes the land they decided on. No longer is it 450 acres with a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay;, instead, it's more specifically the strip that runs along BullsHead Bay for a mile with now only a quarter mile on Peconic, and also describes the remoteness of the site, yet still accessible. It describes the natural sites for the four ideal template holes they found.
As mentioned yesterday, I think that part may have been a bit pre-determined once it was decided to use the Shinnecock Inn, two miles from Peconic Bay, as the clubhouse in lieu of the expense of building their own. We can reasonably assume they wanted to get the course down near Peconic Bay with its dramatic setting, so it seems likely the selection of a somewhat narrow strip of land and an out and back routing was made in part due to some limiting factors besides selecting just the very best landforms for golf out of the 450 acres at their disposal. (which included the site of today's Sebonack with its 3/4 mile frontage along Peconic Bay.)
The next paragraph starts to tell us the timelines around construction efforts. It tells us the date the property was secured and that several months later it was purchased outright. It tells us construction started immediately after purchase, describes the need to top-dress the land, and the need to place the first hole near the Shinnecock Inn which would be used as a sort of clubhouse.
Incidentally, as accurate as CBM's book is, he seems to have much confusion around the year 1909.
As mentioned previously, he confused the date of his informal soft Opening Invitational Tournament, claiming it happened in 1909, when in fact it took place on July 2,3,4 of 1910. In that same paragraph he talks about the first tentative play happening in 1909 as well, so I'm pretty sure that's also inaccurate.
Here he mentions that the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground in 1909, but it actually happened in early April 1908.
So, if you can tell me the timeframe you think the course was actually routed and how long this actually took perhaps we'll find we aren't so far apart in our understandings after all.
-
Mike, I'd appreciate an answer to my questions before I get around to answering yours. Thanks.
-
David,
I think our posts crossed in the mail.
You have my response and I'd love to see yours. Thanks.
-
David,
By the way, if you re-read the second and third pages I just posted, you do see he's reiterating and repeating himself a bit, as he did about "agreed to sell us 205 acres" and then two paragraphs later mentioning the actual month they secured the property.
For instance, twice he tells us about finding the Alps and the Redan, etc...
He's simply leading into separate points of discussion and trying to recall as comprehensively as possible, which I think makes it a wonderful document.
-
Mike,
Here's where you go wrong.
You stated:
As mentioned, I think the second paragraph on page 187 (the second copied page) above summarizes the entire search for property in a nutshell. They find the 450 acre property with a mile on Peconic Bay, they trek over it with ponies studying the ground, the company agrees to sell them 205 acres (which I think is securing the property) and permitted them to locate it wherever it suited their purposes, they subsequently study it "again" for some indeterminate amount of time (missing critical info)[/b] after which they staked out the land they wanted.
The CRITICAL passage you deliberately and disengenuously omitted states the following:
"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."
Here Macdonald tells you that they found the location for each of the classic holes he had in mind (his ideal holes).
Macdonald tells you that they sited the holes on the appropriate contours PRIOR to staking out the land.
In other words, he positioned all of the holes he wanted, including his ideal holes, based on his assessment of the land after restudying it, which also provided him with the routing of the course, leading him to stake out the holes/routing he wanted for purchase.
He certainly wouldn't buy land where holes WEREN'T going to go, especially with a limited or finite purchase in mind, based upon his estimate of acquisition costs.
He wouldn't buy land where holes would be cut in half or partially designed/built.
No, he states, after restudy, he found the contours to site his ideal holes, and only after he found and located them did he stake the land for purchase.
These are his words, and no amount of omission or twisting can change them.
They're on page 187 for all to see, in their entirety, without disengenuous editing from you.
Now, as to the newspaper articles about being able to see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the property except the low lying areas, while you, Bryan and others tried to convince yourselves and others that you could see the Atlantic from a single location, the hill fronting the 3rd green ( you can't) you should know that in one sense the articles are 100 % correct. From the location they're referencing, you can see the Atlantic Ocean, you can see Shinnecock Bay, you can see Peconic Bay. But, not from the current site at NGLA. You can, however, see all of those features from the 120 acre site Macdonald tried to purchase near the Shinnecock Canal.
The newspaper articles were merely copies of one another, blame the AP if you like, but, they got the properties confused.
They were blending the attributes of both properties. The 120 acre property CBM tried to buy near the Shinnecock Canal and the 450 acre property he viewed, of which 205 acres became NGLA.
You can't see the Atlantic Ocean from EVERYWHERE except the low lying stretches at NGLA, but you can see it from EVERYWHERE except the low lying stretches on the 120 acre property he attempted to buy by the Shinnecock Canal. Ditto for Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay.
The newspaper articles are nothing more than a compilation of random information presented by an author/writer who had no first hand knowledge about, not only the location of the project, but, the details of the project as well.
It would be like you getting an outdated brochure from Donald Trump regarding the original (National Fairways) course at Bedminster and confusing the information with the information about the new course at Bedminster, when you've seen neither, in their planned, construction or finished states.
Hence, newspaper articles, wherein the author/writer pieced together tidbits, without exercising due diligence, no third party verification, carry little or no weight with me, especially when we have the written words of the developer to go by.
Like these articles and the three blind men examining the elephant, you and they, got it wrong.
-
Patrick, the key word in the passage you just copied is the first: AGAIN.
Again they studied the land. After those first 2 or 3 days they spent riding the 450 acres. After they got in touch with the owners, who agreed to sell them the land they needed.
CBM tells us he found those templates, not on the first trip. He found them later on. Otherwise, what does "again" mean?
-
Patrick,
Jim is absolutely right.
They studied the contours of the land "again", AFTER the company agreed to sell them 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available, and AFTER the horse ride and AFTER contracts were signed to that effect on Friday, November 14, 1906.
As CBM was quoted, they THEN spent the next several months determining the holes to build and their yardages and routing the course before final purchase of the specific land they needed in the spring of 1907. Then, construction commenced.
Let me ask you and David a related question: do you think it is more likely that they would route the course before hiring Raynor to clear and survey the land or after?
-
Correction...the contract signing that secured 205 unspecified acres of the 450 available took place Friday, December, not November 14th, although CBM in his book mentions they agreed in November, so that may have been when the deal was informally struck.
-
And guys...before you accuse me again of being "intellectually dishonest" here, I'm going to tell you right upfront that the Sebonac Neck property was not even a gleem in CBM's eye in early November 1906, so perhaps you'll understand the timing better.
-
If you look at the bottom of the first page of "Scotland's Gift" I posted above, which is continued onto the second page, CBM tells us that he didn't want to locate his golf course too close to Shinnecock, and first made an offer for 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay. That offer was ultimately rejected. He subsequently moved on to considering the 450 acres on Sebonack Neck.
The following snippet from the New York Sun from November 1st, 1906, shows that the "Canal" land was still being negotiated for at that late date. When one considers that Macdonald tells us he "secured" the property he eventuallly built on later in November, and signed the papers to formalize that securing on December 14th, 1906, we see the securiing of the NGLA property was a very quick process, probably at least partly due to the rapidly rising real estate prices on the end of Long Island at that time.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5430995113_6bf62cb39c_o.jpg)
Below see the area on a modern aerial. The site of the current NGLA course and the Shinnecock course can be seen on the upper right while the "canal" and the area of "Good Ground" can be seen well west of there, as CBM described.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5431013757_643e34b8cd_b.jpg)
-
Patrick, the key word in the passage you just copied is the first: AGAIN.
Again they studied the land. After those first 2 or 3 days they spent riding the 450 acres. After they got in touch with the owners, who agreed to sell them the land they needed.
CBM tells us he found those templates, not on the first trip. He found them later on. Otherwise, what does "again" mean?
It means ..... again, that they went back and fine tuned their previous finds
What you forget and what Mike Cirba doesn't want to remember, is the previous passages and the passage that follows.
I'll cite them for you, capitalizing the critical parts.
"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 land 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."
CBM tells us where the 205 acres was BEFORE he returned for the fine tuning process, it was the land that ADJOINED SHINNECOCK HILLS.
It wasn't on the Sebonack site, it was the current site.
He knew, before returning for fine tuning, what land he needed. It was the land adjoining Shinnecock Hills.
They then returned to complete the fine tuning process, completed that process and then and only then did they stake the defined boundaries, and subsequently bought that land.
-
Bryan,
Earlier you said that there looked to be about 40 acres of land East of the 15th and 16th. That sounds way too high to me. I've measured it a few times and it looks like the land between the water and the holes (which is pretty rough land) is less than 20 acres. I get less than 15 acres for the triangle of land were the range is located, north of the 17th green and the first half of the 18th fairway. Are you combining these two parcels in your measure? And maybe throwing in some of the land protruding out into the bay beyond the road?
________________________________________
...........................
David, my bad. I was going with a faulty memory on the 40 acres. The area east of 16 and 17 is about 17 acres. The area north of 17 and 18 is about 12 acres. Now, if you add in the the island, you could get the total up to about 56 acres :) The deed for the property would be interesting to see. I'm wondering who owned the right of way to the island.
If you were presented with an opportunity today to buy 205 acres out of the 450 acre property, what would you pick? That mile of shoreline along Peconic Bay looks might attractive. Not sure why CBM would have passed it up other than the landforms he was looking for were not there.
In any event, given how tightly the course seems to fit in the 205 acres, it's hard to imagine how they would have thought they could have fit it in there and still had usable acreage left over for acre sized cottage lots.
-
David, my bad. I was going with a faulty memory on the 40 acres. The area east of 16 and 17 is about 17 acres. The area north of 17 and 18 is about 12 acres.
Now, if you add in the the island, you could get the total up to about 56 acres :) The deed for the property would be interesting to see. I'm wondering who owned the right of way to the island.
The property east of Sebonic Inlet Road including Ram Island is private property.
Someone familiar with digging up public records could probably trace its history.
I'm 99.9 % sure that it was never incorporated in the original 205 acres CBM purchased.
If you were presented with an opportunity today to buy 205 acres out of the 450 acre property, what would you pick?
Wouldn't that depend upon your agenda ?
How do you find the holes at Sebonack that are adjacent to Peconic Bay ?
Are they outstanding ?
And, how would you route the course to utilize the water front property ?
Also remember, that the property that's south of the bay sits up on a bluff for most of the way.
That mile of shoreline along Peconic Bay looks mighty attractive.
Perhaps from the air, but, if you'll look at the elevation changes behind the 18th green at NGLA, it's not without its problems.
The other question I would ask is, how did the holes that directly border Peconic Bay at Sebonack turn out, and, how would you get back to the Shinnecock Inn, the temporary clubhouse while still incorporating the ideal holes, such as the Redan, Alps, Eden, Cape and Sahara ?
Had the project been 36 holes, I'm sure he would have incorporated the land adjoining Peconic Bay.
But CBM had specific holes in mind and he told us that he found them after his first two to three day ride-around in that long narrow strip of land that adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course .
Not sure why CBM would have passed it up other than the landforms he was looking for were not there.
I don't think CBM passed up anything.
I think he took the land/sites he needed for his ideal holes.
I'd say, judging by the results, that he picked the right land/sites and got it right.[/b]
In any event, given how tightly the course seems to fit in the 205 acres, it's hard to imagine how they would have thought they could have fit it in there and still had usable acreage left over for acre sized cottage lots.
AGREED[/b]
-
Mike,
The print on the article is fuzzy, and my eyes not too good.
What's the word after "Montauk" in the newspaper article ?
It looks like "point" or "Polol". I can't make it out.
Could you or Joe clarify it for us.
-
Mike,
The print on the article is fuzzy, and my eyes not too good.
What's the word after "Montauk" in the newspaper article ?
It looks like "point" or "Polol". I can't make it out.
Could you or Joe clarify it for us.
Here is a better version of that note from the November 1, 1906 edition of the NY Sun. It is from a larger golf article.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
-
Bryan,
There are a couple of things at play in the selection and overall usage of total acreage. The first is that the course that opened originally was just over 6000 yards while today's course is much longer. But it's really in the area of fairway width that I think the course grew larger than planned. I have an August, 1907 article here I posted previously that states the targeted fairway widths are 50-55 yards, just like CBM originally envisioned on his "Ideal Course". That was well into the start of construction.
Today's farways are conservatively 25-35 pct. wider than that, and some are enormous. I think what happened is CBM realized that creating "options" to navigate around his hazards and create safe avenues for the weaker players took much more real estate than he originally figured.
As far as limiting factors on which of the 450 acres he used, Patrick is being obstinate. CBM himself tells us that they didn't have money for a clubhouse originally so needed to locate their original first tee (today's 10th) near the existing Shinnecock Inn which would serve as the clubhouse. That was located back by today's 9th green/10th tee, about 2 miles from the shores of Peconic Bay. Obviously that highly factored into the routing, as was the desire to use what shoreline was available.
So, they "skirted" BullsHead Bay, which is a less impressive visual attraction and went down and used as much of the stretch along Peconic Bay as 205 acres would permit, with the need to trek back.
Geoff Walsh and I played Sebonack this past spring and he asked the very same question you did. The land there is amazing. But, like everyone, CBM had to play with the limitations he was given, I believe.
Patrick,
CBM was looking for landforms for a couple of "Copied" template holes...the Alps, redan, and Eden, and happened to find the Cape along the way. He had no plan by that time to create 18 copies, but instead would create "Composite" holes and original holes based on what the land provided.
Those are the landforms they were looking for and found during the first horse ride. If you don't believe me, ask David.
They did not identify and route 18 holes during those 2-3 days looking over 450 iimpassibe acres of bramble.
They did that later after hiring Raynor and clearing and surveying the land.
I know it's hard to stop believing in Santa CBM, but he did a great job anyway. ;) ;D
-
More on Mountauk Point. This from the Dec 11, 1906 edition of the NY Sun.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Dec11_1906_NYSun.jpg)
-
Joe,
Nice find...thanks for posting it as well as the clearer version of the other.
I wonder if anyone is going to answer my questions from yesterday?
I'm not sure why people are so reluctant to take Nacdonald at his word that he was going to spend the next several months working with his committee determining what holes to reproduce as well as their yardages on the then unspecified 450 acres? Especially since we now know indisputably that these direct quotes weren't taken from some marketing literature published months or years earlier as Pat suggested but instead now know they were direct quotes published contemporaneously up to the time of securing the land in Dec 1906.
I'm not sure why its easier to believe that CBM routed 18 holes on impassible 450 acres in two days than accept the reality that they needed to first hire Raynor, then clear and survey the land, and then locate their holes and construct their golf course?
It is now very clear that's exactly what happened, just as CBM told us.
-
David, my bad. I was going with a faulty memory on the 40 acres. The area east of 16 and 17 is about 17 acres. The area north of 17 and 18 is about 12 acres. Now, if you add in the the island, you could get the total up to about 56 acres :) The deed for the property would be interesting to see. I'm wondering who owned the right of way to the island.
Thanks Bryan. That is more inline with what I had come up with.
If you were presented with an opportunity today to buy 205 acres out of the 450 acre property, what would you pick? That mile of shoreline along Peconic Bay looks might attractive. Not sure why CBM would have passed it up other than the landforms he was looking for were not there.
I agree. CBM selected a strangely shaped, tight fitting property out of a much larger parcel. This in and of itself provides a very good indication that the selection of this property was a product of where he found his golf course. Why would he have drawn these particular lines and then try to jam a golf course in there? He was given had the opportunity to borders to the specific needs of the course, and I have trouble understanding why he wouldn't have done exactly that.
That his what I don't get about Mike's ever evolving understanding of what happened here. Long ago, when he first started with this pointed enquiry aimed at making some petty point regarding Merion, his claim was that CBM bought this particular land having little idea of where the holes would go. Then after locking himself into this land, he got around to coming up with a routing for the golf course. That claim was and is preposterous.
Now he has finally backed well off such a claim. Or has he? He still seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. He is playing lip service to this notion that CBM had somehow locked himself in to the land without bothering to come up with a routing, and without even bothering to check whether he could fit both a golf course and 90 acres of development on the property! Yet he also seems to be claiming that well into 1907, CBM hadn't locked himself into anything, and could have scrapped this land altogether built Sebonack instead of NGLA!
________________________________________________
Mike Cirba.
You seem to have tied yourself in knots here.
You claimed that CBM's description was chronological. Yet when the chronological reading doesn't suit you, you ditch that and claim he was hopping around as if on hot coals. I don't get it.
I think the chronology as it appears in the book (and as I have listed above) sets it out rather clearly, and makes much more sense than yours. I still don't even understand your chain of events, and I don't think you do either.
For example, here is what you wrote to Patrick just this morning:
"Jim is absolutely right.
They studied the contours of the land "again", AFTER the company agreed to sell them 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available, and AFTER the horse ride and AFTER contracts were signed to that effect on Friday, November 14, 1906."
But then you tell us that that the correct date was Friday, December 14, 1906? Well then if "Jim is absolutely right" then the night of December 14, 1906 was one hell of a night! Because by the morning of December 15, 1906, the papers not only announced the deal, they also accurately described the property, including the mile of frontage on Bulls Head Bay, the location of the starting hole (and by implication of the location of the finishing hole and much more.) and the Alps hole, the Redan, the Eden, and the Cape! How is this possible that they had done all this yet hadn't bothered to yet consider what land they actually wanted or how the holes would fit in?
Here again is C. from the above chronology I derived directly from the book:
"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."
You have that happening AFTER the land was optioned, which would mean that as of mid-December, they hadn't really done anything except spend ride over the land, and they had NOT YET DETERMINED THE LAND THEY WANTED.
There is plenty more that doesn't make sense, but lets stop for now.
________________________________________________________
Joe,
I believe mentioned tournament was the Lesley Cup matches which had taken place the week before. The same day, this article appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
Note that, according to the article, CBM claimed to have been looking "in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills." So Mike's assertion that this property wasn't even a "gleem in CBM's eye" is hyperbolic at best.
Here is an article from the Boston Journal, October 16th, 1906, announcing that CBM had purchased 250 acres, and what seems to be a derivative article from the Globe on the same day.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061016BDG.jpg?t=1297368891)
Now both these articles obviously have some details incorrect or at least confused, but they are worth seriously considering if only because CBM, HJW, and Walter Travis were all in Boston at the time for a big invitational tournament at Myopia, and therefor may have been the direct or indirect sources behind the articles. There are a number of interesting details, but lets touch on just a couple, starting with the description of the land involved:
-- 250 acres. (Much more than the 120 supposedly sought by the Canal, and a bit more than was ultimately purchased at Sebonack.)
-- Stretches along Peconic Bay to the north.
-- Is skirted by the RR to the south. (This could either mean bordered by the RR or missed the RR by a narrow margin.)
-- Adjoins Shinnecock Hills course to the East,
-- Westernly point was somewhere "near the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Hills Station."
This last bit is odd, because Good Ground is a long ways west of Shinnecock Hills golf course, and even across the canal, while the old Shinnecock Hills RR Station was not far at all. The question is, to what inlet does the article refer? "Inlet" could mean the canal itself, but as I said, that would create a rather large area for a 250 acre golf course, and why would they have called it an inlet instead of a canal? "Inlet" could also refer to Cold Spring Harbor, the inlet for which is between the RR station and Good Ground.
Anyway, the purposes of figuring out what land was involved, I am not sure it makes any difference. So far as I can tell, and so far as CBM describes, both potential sites were part of one big 2000 acre chunk of land controlled by the same interest, the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Real Estate Company. That said, latter interpretation of "inlet" makes much more sense in that context of what happened, in that it matches CBM's description of getting agreement from the seller to let CBM place his course on the 450 acres between Bulls Head Bay and Cold Spring Harbor.
What is as interesting to me is that at this point, mid-October 1906, CBM, HJW, Travis or whoever seems to think that CBM has some sort of deal which would allow him to build a golf course adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course.
Also note that at this point HJW had reportedly accompanied CBM to the site.
__________________________________________
Mike, I have been avoiding the issue because there is too much else ongoing, but you are cracked on this issue of fairway widths.
First, CBM's fairway widths described for his "ideal course" went up to 60 yards, not 55.
Second, your representation that the fairways are "conservatively 25-35% wider" than that is downright dishonest. If they were 35% wider than 60 yards they'd all be 81 yards wide. I have no idea how you could claim these fairways were over 70 yards on average, but I suggest you take another look. Obviously, with fairways with bends and changes of angles, you cannot fudge to find the furthest measure, because obviously that is not what CBM was talking about. No doubt you did though.
Third, your methodology is as suspect as your claim. CBM wasn't concerned with minimizing land use, he was concerned with the width of driving corridors, so that some little bit of accuracy was required. And if one examines driving corridors, (or layup corridors on longer holes) the course fits well within the 45 - 60 yard prescription. So you must have come up with your numbers by ignoring this reality.
-- For example, a number of holes (bottle, hogback, leven, etc.) have what amount to split driving areas defined by bunkers, but no doubt you ignored that these were discrete landing areas and measured it sll as if it was one big fairway.
-- For another example, other fairways, had natural features which obviously required wide corridors even to make them playable (like the large basin on the right side of the second hole, the depressions on the punchbowl hole and on the alps hole.) Again you likely ignored this and just measured them as if they were on flat ground.
In short, this is just another failure on your part to accurately convey information or to accurately understand what CBM was getting at. He wasn't setting down some hard and fast rule by which all courses must abide no matter what the conditions. Rather he was giving guidelines which had to be applied with intelligence to the circumstance at hand. This is what you seem to be missing throughout.
-
David,
Do you plan to answer my simple questions from yesterday?
-
David,
By the way, part of your misunderstanding is that the "Good Ground" property was owned by Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co. And the land they actually purchased was from 450 acres controlled by the Dean Alvord Syndicate.
And yes, he evidently was hopping around the over 2000 acres of the former for some time before they rejected his offer sometime in November 1906, and he moved very quickly on the Alford property once he saw it had features he could use, including the Shinnecock Inn for a clubhouse 2 miles from Peconic Bay as he noted.
I think at that point CBM was concerned about possibly getting squeezed out of a market with rapidly escalating real estate prices, as noted, and once he was comfortable that he could secure good landforms and soil for his golf course, he moved aggressively.
Also, CBM himself said he made an offer for 120 acres, not 250. Do you think he was mistaken?
-
David,
Those articles you posted are really interesting, and it should be possible to determine from the boundaries the exact land that CBM really wanted first for his Ideal Golf Course.
But, yes, that's land not owned by the Alvord Syndicate and is instead closer to "Good Ground" and stretches out to the Shinnecock Canal to the west...he evidently found the Sebonac Neck land he used after his original offer for the GG land was rejected as discussed in his book.
Interesting to note that he was so far down the road to purchase of the first that he'd already had surveyor maps sent to some of his confidants. I wonder if he hired the surveyor? Most likey the land had been previously surveyed.
As he told us, the land he eventually settled on owned by Alvord was 450 unsurveyed acres, thus begat Seth Raynor.
-
As far as limiting factors on which of the 450 acres he used, Patrick is being obstinate. CBM himself tells us that they didn't have money for a clubhouse originally so needed to locate their original first tee (today's 10th) near the existing Shinnecock Inn which would serve as the clubhouse.
Mike, you might want to reread what Macdonald stated. They didn't have the money, INITIALLY, for the clubhouse, hence, they would use the SI as their temporary. But, when one examines the huge gap, in allegedly, by you and others, the best land on the site, overlooking Peconic Bay, it could be for one purpose and one purpose only, the eventual permanent clubhouse.[/b]
That was located back by today's 9th green/10th tee, about 2 miles from the shores of Peconic Bay. Obviously that highly factored into the routing, as was the desire to use what shoreline was available.
Then why did he ONLY USE SO LITTLE of the shoreline (1/2 the 18th hole) ?
There's a simple answer, because he wasn't focused on the views, he was focused on finding the best location for his 18 ideal holes.[/b]
So, they "skirted" BullsHead Bay, which is a less impressive visual attraction and went down and used as much of the stretch along Peconic Bay as 205 acres would permit, with the need to trek back.
Again, you're being dishonest.
The visual attraction had nothing to do with it.
In the land paralleling Bullshead Bay he found his Eden, Cape, Punchbowl and Leven holes.
That's what he was searching for, sites for his ideal holes, and he found them in that location.
At least, that's what HE tells us.[/b]
Geoff Walsh and I played Sebonack this past spring and he asked the very same question you did. The land there is amazing. But, like everyone, CBM had to play with the limitations he was given, I believe.
Again, another deceitful statement.
He didn't have any limitations. he could take any configuration of the 450 acres that best suited HIS NEEDS and HIS NEEDS were the siting of the "Ideal Holes" he had identified[/b]
Patrick,
CBM was looking for landforms for a couple of "Copied" template holes...the Alps, redan, and Eden, and happened to find the Cape along the way. He had no plan by that time to create 18 copies, but instead would create "Composite" holes and original holes based on what the land provided.
Again, that's a total lie.
If you'd read the bottom of page 183 and page 184 he tells you that he had 18 ideal holes in mind and that he would site them if the ground was in harmony with each hole.
And, he describes some of them as being composites.
For you to decree that CBM only had a few holes he wanted to site is a blatant lie, contrary to what he clearly stated.
He stated he wanted an Alps, a leven, an Eden, a Redan, a Sahara, a Road, a Bottle and others, 18 in all.
So please stop misrepresenting his efforts as being limited to 3 then 4 holes, with the rest to be figured out at some point in the future.[/b]
Those are the landforms they were looking for and found during the first horse ride. If you don't believe me, ask David.
He was looking for an Alps, an Eden and a Redan, but, he was also looking for: A ROAD, A LEVEN, A BOTTLE, A SAHARA, A CAPE, A PUNCHBOWL and other composite holes that he describes in detail on page 184, along with some originals of his own crafting, based on the land and his concept of ideal holes.[/b]
They did not identify and route 18 holes during those 2-3 days looking over 450 iimpassibe acres of bramble.
First of all, it wasn't 450 acres of impassible brambles.
Much of it was swamp and bogs, unfit for golf, so that was discarded quickly, unless you'd have us believe that they rode around and studied the bogs and swamps.
I think they did route the golf course in global or macro terms, which was made easy by the discovery of land forms that perfectly fit some of his ideal holes, like the Alps, Redan, Cape, Eden and others.
They found sites to locate some of their ideal holes making the location of the others all the easier.
They knew it was the land that adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
Macdonald STATES THAT, prior to his second visit to "fine tune" their original find.
The land he wanted adjoined Shinnecock Hills, not Peconic Bay or Cold Spring Pond[/b]
They did that later after hiring Raynor and clearing and surveying the land.
That's another lie.
Would you cite where CBM makes that statement ?
Failing to provide that citation would you admit that you made this up to advance your agenda.[/b]
I know it's hard to stop believing in Santa CBM, but he did a great job anyway. ;) ;D
If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's you.
You reject CBM's own words, prefering to rely on erroneous newspaper accounts that can't even get NGLA's location right.
I have NO agenda, YOU DO ![/b]
-
Patrick,
The had no money for the clubhouse "initially" so they decided to ue the Shinnecock Inn WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY IN 1906. That was 2 miles from Sebonack Bay...That predetermined the starting and ending points for the routing. They went down to Sebonack Bay in the routing as any sane person would have for that dramatic view, but THEN THEY HAD TO GET BACK! ;)
They had to make alternative clubhouse plans in 1908 when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, but by then the die was cast.
CBM mentions redan, Alps, Road, and Eden as direct copies.
ALL the rest were either composites or originals, based on THE LANDFORMS at his disposal.
You've missed the step between his original ideal course and what he ended up with, and the evolution in his thinking from trying to create exact replicas of holes overseas to simply adapting their principles.
You should really read the articles here, Patrick. They chronicle that evolution of his thinking quite well.
And they accurately report the land he wanted to purchase first near Good Ground, as even David's recent article does, and the land he ended up securing from another real estate concern a few weeks after that first offer was rejected.
They also contain contemporaneous quotes from CBM himself in real time telling us exactly what he was going to do over the next several month. That's priceless in my book.
-
Patrick,
The had no money for the clubhouse "initially" so they decided to ue the Shinnecock Inn WHEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY IN 1906. That was 2 miles from Sebonack Bay...That predetermined the starting and ending points for the routing. They went down to Sebonack Bay in the routing as any sane person would have for that dramatic view, but THEN THEY HAD TO GET BACK! ;)
No, they didn't.
That's only a conclusion after the fact.
If they had 450 acres at their disposal, and they only needed 205, they were essentially free to roam anywhere they wanted in order to site the golf course, but, CBM had specific holes in mind, 18 of them, and he located them as best he could fit them into the natural lay of the land.
He found that land immediately adjacent to Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
I'm of the mind that he ALWAYS intended for the clubhouse to be in it's current location.
He stated that he didn't want to be close to Shinnecock Hills GC.
He was thrown out of SHGC.
The last thing in the world he would do would be to site his clubhouse beneath the stares of the members of Shinnecock, sitting high up on the ridge, looking down on him, his clubhouse and his fellow members.
In addition, there was no reason to introduce Sebonic Inlet Road, other than for siting the clubhouse, at the expense of #14.
I believe he specifically left the bowed land between # 18 and # 1 for his clubhouse site.
It was the perfect location for his bathing houses on the beach, the potential yacht basin, and, it was far removed from Shinnecock's clubhouse.
[/b]
They had to make alternative clubhouse plans in 1908 when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, but by then the die was cast.
Not really.
The SI was always intended as a temporary clubhouse, never a permanent one.
Remember, they didn't own the land behind the 9th green.
There's not a doubt in my mind that when they routed the golf course that left some of the best land on the property vacant, for the sole purpose of siting their clubhouse.[/b]
CBM mentions redan, Alps, Road, and Eden as direct copies.
First, anyone who has played # 17 at Prestwick knows that the 3rd at NGLA is far, far, far removed from being a direct copy.
# 3 is not even close to being a direct copy of # 17 at Prestwick.
The other holes were copies as well, just not mirror images of the 18 ideal holes he described.
Remember, he stated that he'd do his best to locate his set of 18 "ideal" holes as the land would best permit.
In some cases, like the Alps, Redan, Eden and Road he found those holes immediately.
BUT, in doing so, along with the 1st, 9th, 10th and 18th, he also found the Bottle, Sahara, Leven, Punchbow and Cape, and in so doing, he easily found the connector holes, # 5, # 6, # 11, # 12, and # 15.
As Max Behr clearly stated, the routing process was so easy that the course routed itself.[/b]
ALL the rest were either composites or originals, based on THE LANDFORMS at his disposal.
Once again, you got it wrong.
He describes, in detail, the ideal holes he wanted. He lists all 18 holes and describes their attributes and the holes they're fashioned after in the UK.
He didn't let the landform dictate design.
He already had the design and only need to find the appropriate natural landform that would accomodate the fit.
You have it backwards, but, being from Philly, I understand that.[/b]
You've missed the step between his original ideal course and what he ended up with, and the evolution in his thinking from trying to create exact replicas of holes overseas to simply adapting their principles.
I didn't miss a thing.
He transitions, from his list of 18 ideal holes, directly, to his search and discovery at NGLA[/b]
You should really read the articles here, Patrick. They chronicle that evolution of his thinking quite well.
They certainly inform the reader of the activity, but, I'm not prepared to accept them as "The Gospel"
They get so many facts wrong that you have to question the author's/writer's and you have to question the authenticity of quotes attributed to CBM.
I think one of the primary differences in our views is that yours is clearly agenda driven.
You hope to disprove CBM's ability to route a course in short order to bolster your view that he couldn't have done same at Merion, a highly developed and charted property in comparison to NGLA.
We know that CBM was a talented, studied man.
We know that Donald Ross routed many courses but with just one visit, sometimes mailing it in with NO visits, so the concept of routing in short order is well known, you just can't or don't want to accept it because it just might lead to additional credits flowing to CBM, to the detriment of those previously credited with designing Merion.
I don't want to have this thread devolve any further than you intended, regarding Merion, but, when Alps, Redans, Capes, Edens and the like are incorporated into Merion's design, you have to wonder about CBM's ability to site and route a course in short order, especially his ability to insert some or many of HIS ideal holes. Hence your quest to discount or dismiss CBM's short order routing and hole siting at NGLA.
I have NO such agenda.
If verifiable information is discovered which alters the history of NGLA, I'll embrace it, with but one caveat.
Namely, that CBM, conceived, sited, routed and constructed NGLA as the materialization of his vision, not a committee's vision, but his vision.
He went abroad and studied, not a committee.
He selected and sketched the ideal holes, not a committee
He searched for and found the land, not a committee and he found the individual hole locations, routed the course, staked it and bought it, without the benefit of a committee.
In short, NGLA was his baby, from concept through construction and fine tuning for years to come.
For years I argued with George Bahto with respect to the intended clubhouse site, so, it's nothing new to this thread.[/b]
And they accurately report the land he wanted to purchase first near Good Ground, as even David's recent article does, and the land he ended up securing from another real estate concern a few weeks after that first offer was rejected.
They also contain contemporaneous quotes from CBM himself in real time telling us exactly what he was going to do over the next several month.
Again, those are alleged quotes.[/b]
That's priceless in my book.
Of course it is, you wrote your book and drew your conclusions before the facts were ascertained.
You have an agenda, a predetermined or predisposed set of conclusions to support your Merion defense.
But, tell me, how did those newspaper articles you want to accept as accurate get the properties so wrong when they were describing the views of the Atlantic. Views that don't exist at NGLA, but do exist miles to the West.
And, the funny thing, the really comical thing, is that you were so desperate, so fixated on your predetermined conclusion that you tried to validate the erroneous report that the Atlantic was visible from everywhere on the property except the low lying stretches. You even got a stooge to side with you claiming that possibly, from a single point on the property, you might be able to see the Atlantic, and then arguing that 95 % of the golf course at NGLA was on low lying stretches.
But, once the truth was known, did you admit that your zealotry, your blind allegiance to the denial that CBM could have routed Merion in short order, was responsible for you errouneously subscribing to the absurdity that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying stretches. That act, the act of denying the facts in a misguided attempt to "hold the fort at Merion" showed that you were incapable of being objective, impartial and incapable of accepting facts which didn't support your cause. That's an act of intellectual dishonesty.
I have to go, but, I'll address the "Canal" site over the weekend.
-
Patrick,
Too funny! ;D
You keep supplying the insults and I'll keep supplying the facts.
You're learning here even if you'd never admit it, so that certain knowledge warms my heart. ;D
-
Mike,
I have NO agenda.
No predisposed position.
I generally accept what CBM wrote when he chronicled the creation of NGLA.
I take his written word over newspaper accounts written by uninvolved third parties.
Be honest, you do have an agenda.
You did change the title of this thread to conform to an evolving focus.
You want facts to be discovered that match a conclusion you've already drawn.
I just want facts to be discovered, irrespective of the conclusion they lead to.
And I think that's a huge distinction in our perspectives.
I don't want to read a newspaper article, one that contains glaring errors, and be told that the newspaper account is accurate, or worse yet, a press release "directly" from Macdonald.
I think you and Joe and others have put a great deal of effort into this thread.
I also think some of the conclusions you've drawn are illogical and without merit, despite how many times you claim their veracity.
So, we differ in terms of our perspective.
You've drawn a conclusion and are in search of facts that only support your conclusion.
I've drawn no conclusion, except a willingness to trust, in general, CBM's written words.
If facts are discovered, I'm willing to accept them, irrespective of where they lead.
But, to date, I haven't seen any facts presented by you or Joe that dispute CBM's written account.
I'll comment on the "canal" site this weekend.
-
Mike Cirba, I'd be glad to address your questions, but you keep piling on more nonsense, so it is bit difficult to get caught up.
David,
In the meantime, could you answer a question for me...do you agree with Patrick that those quotes from CBM posted the day after he secured the property were inaccurately reported and attributed? If not, what do you think CBM meant when he said the next several months would be spent with his committee deciding what holes to reproduce and the distances of the holes?
Quit twisting things. Patrick said that details in those articles were wrong, and he is correct about that. But many of the details did not come from quotes. As for the CBM quotes, they are likely legit. but I'd like to know the original source (s) and the timing. Looking at the quotes in their entirety, I think he is talking about working up a detailed plan, not a rough routing.
In short, they hadn't decided on the exact yardages, or the various features of the holes from abroad they would incorporate. For just one example, take the Alps. Even though they had found it, they still had to decide upon the green and the bunkering scheme (which is not the same as the original) and they also had to decide upon the exact distances. While these may thing like throw-away things to you, to CBM they were very important. CBM and HJW seem to have labored over such details throughout the construction faze and even after the course opened, even building (or planning to build) a back tee that ultimately wasn't even considered in the championship yardage. And this was on one of the holes that was supposedly a copy! On other holes which more composite there would have been even more to do even after the rough routing was in place.
Similarly, how long do you really think it took him to fully route the course and when do you believe that happened? Thanks.
It depends upon what you mean by fully routing the course. I think he would have been a fool to even roughly stake out the course until they have a very good idea of the entire routing. Judging from these articles and from Scotland's Gift, this was done before they optioned the property. Without having done a routing he would not have been able to provide the detailed description of the property that he did. And I do think he would have been well on his way with the routing after riding the property for two or three days, but that is neither here nor there. The important thing is he found the course first and then shaped the land to fit the course.
-
David,
By the way, part of your misunderstanding is that the "Good Ground" property was owned by Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co. And the land they actually purchased was from 450 acres controlled by the Dean Alvord Syndicate.
My misunderstanding? You've got a lot of nerve to write that given your track record. As usual you don't know what you are talking about. Alvord purchased the land in October of 1905 and the SHPBRC was formed soon thereafter to develop the land Alvord had purchased. It was the same plot of land.
Good Ground is west of the Canal. The SHPBRC land (the land Alvord had purchased) began east of the canal and went all the way to Southampton. It was essentially everything including Sebonack neck, except for Shinnecock's course and the private estates already established.
Yet you pretend you know what you are talking about and claim that SHPBRC controlled some other piece of land at Good Ground? On what basis did you write that? Other than wishful thinking on your part?
And yes, he evidently was hopping around the over 2000 acres of the former for some time before they rejected his offer sometime in November 1906, and he moved very quickly on the Alford property once he saw it had features he could use, including the Shinnecock Inn for a clubhouse 2 miles from Peconic Bay as he noted.
More utter nonsense on your part. He was hopping around 2000 acres around Good Ground? You just made that up. They rejected his offer sometime in November of 2006? Again, you made it up. He moved quickly? You have no idea the timing, you are just pretending to know. Discussing this with you is a waste of time.
Also, CBM himself said he made an offer for 120 acres, not 250. Do you think he was mistaken?
No. You are mistaken. They aren't talking about the first plot of land of 120 acres. They seem to be talking about the land CBM ultimately purchased.
-
David,
Those articles you posted are really interesting, and it should be possible to determine from the boundaries the exact land that CBM really wanted first for his Ideal Golf Course.
Except that those articles aren't describing the 120 acre plot. They are describing the land adjacent to Shinnecock Hills golf course. In case you didn't know that is the land that CBM purchased, so it shouldn't be much trouble for you to locate it.
But, yes, that's land not owned by the Alvord Syndicate and is instead closer to "Good Ground" and stretches out to the Shinnecock Canal to the west...he evidently found the Sebonac Neck land he used after his original offer for the GG land was rejected as discussed in his book.
Why do you write stuff like this when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? Do you think that if you say it with authority that it somehow makes it true? Did you mentor teach you that trick?
Interesting to note that he was so far down the road to purchase of the first that he'd already had surveyor maps sent to some of his confidants. I wonder if he hired the surveyor? Most likey the land had been previously surveyed.
As he told us, the land he eventually settled on owned by Alvord was 450 unsurveyed acres, thus begat Seth Raynor.
He said the land was not surveyed when they first rode over it. He doesn't say whether it had been surveyed or mapped when they finally purchased it. You pretend to know when they first rode the land, but you don't. Just like you don't know when he first began considering it. It obviously wasn't November as you have claimed.
Not much time for this stuff right now, but I will try to post a few more articles when I get the chance.
-
Except that those articles aren't describing the 120 acre plot. They are describing the land adjacent to Shinnecock Hills golf course. In case you didn't know that is the land that CBM purchased, so it shouldn't be much trouble for you to locate it.
More utter nonsense on your part. He was hopping around 2000 acres around Good Ground? You just made that up. They rejected his offer sometime in November of 2006? Again, you made it up. He moved quickly? You have no idea the timing, you are just pretending to know. Discussing this with you is a waste of time.
Following see the general area of land that CBM had been trying to secure through early November 1906, thought he had secured 250 acres of (based on descriptions in David's articles), and which was ulitimately rejected, after which he moved his sights to the 450 unsurveyed acres of the Sebonac Neck land as he mentions in his book. As noted, CBM tells us he secured what seems to have been his second choice later in November 1906, although contemporaneous news accounts place that date as Friday, December 14th, when the actual contracts were signed.
As clearly seen, it is bordered on the east by Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, on the south by the Long Island RR, to the west by the inlet, and to the north by Sebonac Bay.
David's article states the land is 250 acres...I'm thinking it's possibly a transposition of the targeted "205 acres" he drew out in his original plans, but that's speculative. In his book, he mentions making an offer for only 120 acres, but that has always seemed very odd to me based on what we know his overall plans were for the club and founders's building lots.
One can only approximate the exact land CBM evidentely thought he had secured as the total area encircled within red is about 550 acres, very roughly. It is likely that the acres Macdonald sought started at the Shinnecock Inn, hugged the shoreline north as much as possible, didn't go nearly so far south as the LIRR, and just proceeded out in the direction of the canal and Good Ground to the west. We know that the use of the Shinnecock Inn for a clubhouse was deemed very important to Macdonald at this juncture. Was there a similar structure closer to Good Ground that Macdonald was considering? We know he also didn't want to get too close to the Shinnecock GC, so that's still undetermined.
We've seen previously where CBM got a few dates and details wrong in his recollections put into book form 20 years after the fact. Perhaps like Richard Francis' account 40+ years on he is simply not so concerned about his recall of all the specific details as accurately summarizing the major events?
Use the scroll bar to slide the picture to the right...thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
-
As regards water views, the land in question, the holdings of the Realty Company, etc., the following article from April 6th, 1907 in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle is very interesting. Sorry about the need for scrolling, but it makes it easier to read the small print.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5436462374_eccc06cb8b_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_9ec4a6a6e0_o.jpg)
-
I honestly don't know at this point if there was any formal relationship between the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co., and the Dean Alvord Syndiciate, but we know CBM secured his land from the latter. It makes me wonder why the news articles wouldn't have mentioned the much larger realty company...they were certainly prominent, but I'm not sure it matters either way.
Whoever Dean Alvord was of the "Dean Alvord Syndicate", he wasn't listed among the officers of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Company.
As seen in this April 1907 blowup, one can see what looks at least to be the shaded surveyed holdings of the former company on the smaller "blowup" map insert. At the very least, those seem to be their holdings to date that had been plotted out for real estate sales purposes.
Neither the land of the NGLA course, nor the land adjoining it that made up the other 245 acres, today's Sebonack GC, look to have been shaded, and I doubt that SHAPBRC wouldn't have indicated the land ajoining NGLA on their sales map if they 1) owned it, and 2) had already surveyed it.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5435716873_e3428de1bc_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_9672249b24_o.jpg)
Here's the whole area in a modern aerial today, showing NGLA to the far northeast, Sebonack GC immediately to the southwest, and Shinnecock Hills GC to the south/southeast. The Shinnecock Inn would have been behind today's 9th green of NGLA, or almost due west halfway down Shinnecock Hills GC.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/5436473802_cca28b0356_z.jpg)
-
At this point, could someone summarize exactly what the disagreements are? And what the areas of agreement are?
Thanks
the Peanut Gallery
-
Andy,
I wouldn't want to characterize Patrick's or David's overall positions, but from what I can tell, Patrick seems to want to hold onto the romantic idea that CBM routed the entire NGLA golf course in 2 or 3 days on horseback over 450 acres of inhospitable land that was impassible on foot. Patrick is presumably trying to to hold onto the odd belief that CBM actually operated like this so he can cling to the otherwise unsupported notion that Macdonald routed Merion in a single day's visit in June 1910, although the existing physical evidence from CBM's visit directly contradicts this notion.
(Frankly, between you and me, I don't really even believe Patrick actually believes such craziness...I think he just enjoys letting Tom Paul THINK he does. ;))
I think instead the contemporaneous record at NGLA shows that CBM simply saw enough good landforms for some template holes he envisioned as well as generally advantageous sandy soil durng that ride to agree to secure 205 undetermined acres (although the location of the desired Shinnecock Inn as the clubhouse did determine fixed starting/end points for the routing) in Nov/Dec 1906 out of the 450 acres available, and then as spent the next several months working with his committee to determine which exact holes to reproduce as well as their yardages.
Once all that was completed, and the final boundaries of the desired land was determined, CBM tells us he completed the purchase in the spring of 1907.
I've been trying to pin David down on what he believes happened over what period of time, but perhaps he can use your question to tell us what he thinks the historical record indicates in terms of a timeline of events.
As for me, I'm just going where the story leads...it's a remarkable one, that's for sure.
-
The following article from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in August 10th, 1907 is not a great one, but is interesting as a peek into the construction process that seems to have begun on the course, where it seems stretches of the land were being reshaped by "engineers" and "landscape architects" to conform to specs of features from abroad the CBM wanted to directly copy.
Macdonald alludes to this in his book in his section about Seth Raynor.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5436562574_f8279c2533_z.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5436546870_b1615b3868_o.jpg)
-
From the October, 1906 news article David posted, this is the location of the land CBM originally tried to purchase and evidently thought he secured at that time;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
Here's a very possible estimate based on that description. The yellow X is/was the location of the Shinnecock Train Station. Presuming the course started at the Shinnecock Inn over to the east near Shinnecock Golf Club, it would possibly move west, probably along the water.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5098/5436659629_56c303ffcb_z.jpg)
-
Andy,
As you probably figured by Mike's lame attempt at summarizing the positions, for Mike this is all about Merion sat its core. My position on NGLA (which is only tangentially related to my position on Merion) has been pretty much the same as it has been the last half dozen or so times Mike has foisted this same conversation on us, but helps to understand where we started:
-- A few years ago, apparently in an attempt to contradict something in my IMO, Mike started insisting that at NGLA, CBM first bought NGLA's specific property, and then, after having locked himself in to this particular property, CBM had to then try to figure out how he could fit a golf course (and, according to Mike, 60-90 acres of lots!) onto that property. The reason this claim was so important to Mike is that he wanted to say that the same thing happened at Merion: Mike thinks Merion had no clue as to how they would route a golf course when they first agreed to purchase their oddly shaped property for their golf course.
-- In contrast, my position on this is rather simple. I agree with what CBM wrote in his book and what commentators such as Max Behr wrote about NGLA: CBM studied the land and found the rough outlines of the golf course he wanted first, BEFORE HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. (This is essentially what I think happened at Merion; they first roughly figured out the golf course before they agreed to purchase the land. But my Merion argument is independent of what happened at NGLA and each stands on its own merits.)
So Mike and I started off arguing essentially opposites, and that is what is at the root of all this disagreement.
But the disagreement has evolved and continues to evolve. My position is the same, but as each of Mike's successive misinterpretations of NGLA's history get shot down, he shifts a little, yet oftentimes circles back to beat dead horses. I honestly don't understand his position at this point, and I don't think he does either.
For example, when Mike tried to put the events discussed in CBM's book, he took them out of the order they came in the book and listed them essentially like this:
1. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
2. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose." And "we obtained an Option on the Land in November [really December] 1906."
3. [After we optioned the property] "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."
4. "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
This chronology goes back to Mike's original quest to portray CBM as having boxed himself into a parcel of land before he got around to planning the course. What Mike apparently fails to realize is that, if it had happened the way he lists it, then Mike has completely undermined this point and about every other point he has tried to make.
According to Mike's chronology, all that had been done at the site as of December 1906 is that CBM and HJW had ridden the land for two or three days.* They hadn't yet returned to the property to "again . . . stud[y] the contours earnestly." They hadn't selected contours "that would fit in naturally with the various" holes he had mind. And they hadn't even "staked out the land they wanted." So in Mike's version, while they hadn't yet routed the course at the time they acquired the option, they hadn't chosen the land for the course, either.
Under Mike's latest version we have CBM first finding the course, planning it in detail, and then setting the boundaries for the course. He has argued himself all the way around into agreeing with what has been my contention all along! Only he goes further. I think CBM only had a rough routing when he set the preliminary boundaries and optioned the property, while Mike's version indicates they planned the entire course before choosing the land they wanted!
Perhaps now you understand why his position confuses me and why I have suggested that he doesn't fully understand it himself.
Don't get me wrong. Despite the fact that Mike is apparently now trying to make my point for me, I still disagree with Mike's version because the evidence doesn't support it. Rather, the evidence suggests that CBM had a very good idea of the routing before he ever even optioned the property. And even then CBM left himself wiggle room to alter the borders a bit as he saw fit. But even if Mike were correct, my basic contention about how NGLA was created remains the same. They first found the course, and then fit the boundaries to the requirements of the course. Not visa versa.
So that is basically the disagreement, if you want to call it that. Mike also pretends that this is about whether NGLA and Merion were "half-day" design jobs by CBM. No one ever claimed either of them were, and I have explained this to mike repeatedly and told him to quit misrepresenting me, and it otherwise is not worth going into again.
All the rest is Mike being Mike. Futilely trying to fit round pegs into a square holes. For example he is now pretending that the evidence indicates that CBM never even considered this property until November 1906 in an apparent attempt to make it look like nothing was done before they optioned the land. It doesn't matter one way or another to my overall point, but my objection to this is that is just not factually accurate (or at least not factually supported.) Mike is just making shit up because he (wrongly) thinks it might serve him with his Merion Obsession. And that is what most of this about. Mike trying to twist facts to make points that he wrongly thinks will help him in his never ending quest regarding Merion, and our attempts to get him to stop distorting the histories of these great clubs to serve his rhetorical ends.
___________________________
*Mike can't seem to make up his mind as to whether or not CBM and MJW found any golf holes when they first rode over the property. Sometimes he caricatures their endeavor as a waste of time through bramble covered swamps, but other times he seems to think that after their ride they had already found and could describe three places to copy certain classical holes from abroad, aplace for a notable hole like no other (the Cape) the starting and finishing points for the course, and the dimensions of the land they would ultimately use. (How they could have done that and not had a routing is beyond me!) But this latter description is in direct contradiction with his professed chronology above, particularly when it comes to them finding the land they wanted. And perhaps because of this, he has recently thrown in with Jim Nugent, who thinks none of this was done initially, and that it was done when the 'again studied the contours' and Mike doesn't think that happened until AFTER they optioned the land.
This is just more indication that Mike has taken so many different positions in service of his Merion obsession that he has confused himself.
-
I honestly don't know at this point if there was any formal relationship between the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co., and the Dean Alvord Syndiciate, but we know CBM secured his land from the latter. It makes me wonder why the news articles wouldn't have mentioned the much larger realty company...they were certainly prominent, but I'm not sure it matters either way.
You honestly don't know?
- But then why were you lecturing me about my supposed "misunderstanding" of the material?
- Why were you lecturing all of us about about how SHPBRC really owned a separate 2000 acre plot of land located in Good Ground, which is not even on the map, (literally not on their own map of their property!)
- Why are you continuing to try to cast doubt on the fact that SHPBRC was developing Alvord land?
YOU ARE JUST MAKING THINGS UP TO SOUND LIKE YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND FOR RHETORICAL GAIN. This is the kind of thing that casts doubt on your honesty, sincerity, and ability.
As seen in this April 1907 blowup, one can see what looks at least to be the shaded surveyed holdings of the former company on the smaller "blowup" map insert. At the very least, those seem to be their holdings to date that had been plotted out for real estate sales purposes.
Are you kidding me? Did you bother to even look closely at the map you posted, or to read the article?
Surely you noticed "SEBONACK NECK" underlined and all caps, and the words "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company" written underneath? And did you not notice that "National Golf Course" is marked not once but twice on the map?
If so, why claim that Sebonack Neck wasn't included in SHPBRC's property when it explicitly states it is? Obviously Sebonack Neck hadn't been developed with roads and lots which is why it isn't dark on the insert map of lots available at the opening. But the description and the map leave no doubt that it was all controlled by SHPBRC.
And why claim that they did not point out that NGLA was a neighbor when they did so not only on the map but also in the article? The article and the map YOU POSTED leave no doubt!
It is really sad that you have to resort to this crap. It makes civil discussion impossible. You are so clearly agenda driven that you will just write anything you think supports your claim, even when your own information contradicts it. Pathetic.
Neither the land of the NGLA course, nor the land adjoining it that made up the other 245 acres, today's Sebonack GC, look to have been shaded, and I doubt that SHAPBRC wouldn't have indicated the land ajoining NGLA on their sales map if they 1) owned it, and 2) had already surveyed it.
More garbage on your part. SHPBRC DID INDICATE THEY OWNED IT! LOOK AT THE MAP! And read the article. They make a big deal about the proximity of NGLA! And check the date and see of you can figure out why NGLA might not have been definitely drawn in. It is an easy one.
Anyway, instead of continuing to argue about what you clearly admit you do not know. Why not just take the time and look it up. You could surely find the facts in the time it takes you to come up with this crap. That is what I did before I stated who controlled the property.
While I appreciate you saving me the trouble posting that April 6 article, you should have kept researching (or had Joe keep researching) and you would know that while Alvord purchased the property in October of 1905, the land was to be developed by SHPBRC. Reportedly SHPBRC was formed around the end of 1905 to develop the 2700+ acres of land purchased by Alvord for the newly formed company.
As I said yesterday, I was planning on posting some articles about this, but given you are still playing games here and pretending these were distinct sites, maybe I should let you (I should say Joe) discover you are wrong all by yourself. Which would you prefer?
_____________________________________________
Your attempts to pretend they were talking about the 120 acre site are laughable.
- First you miraculously convert the 120 acre site to a 205 acre site.
- YESTERDAY you were sure this site was by Good Ground, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANAL, yet today you have it miraculously jumping the canal.
- Then, once it jumped the canal, you sketch out some 700 acres nowhere near Shinnecock's course, claiming that the site must have been somewhere in there.
- Then you slip and slide the site well out of this area and over near Shinnecock, as if it never would have been mentioned that both sites bordered Shinnecock! And you just pretend it ends at an inlet which isn't all that near an inlet at all. f
It would be much less trouble to honestly assess the description.
-
David,
Nice try, but the land I just cited is exactly as described in youe article and exactly as described by CBM.
Do you simply enjoy typing or do you simply try to type enough to move your previous erroneous posts to prior pages? ;
It seems the more mistaken you are the more you type in your next post.
Are you now saying your article from October was wrong in locating the land CBM was still trying to secure in early Nov 1906?
It describes exactly the parimeters on each side, yet yesterday you said this was the land he actually purchased.
Why can't you just admit when you are wrong and maybe learn something?
As far as agreeing with you, I'm not sure if I do or not because we are well into this thread and getting you to actually tell us what you think happened is like trying to nail jello onto a wall.
That's ok...just keep helping by posting more contemporaneous material and I'm sure everyone following along will see the story is very self-expplanatory and not in need of all much interpretation..
-
David,
Actually, in thinking about it, let's cut all this crap pretending this is complicated in the least.
If you disagree with me, why don't you show us exactly where the land is that CBM tried to secure based on the October 1906 articls YOU posted yesterday.
C'mon...the article tells us EXACTLY where that land was.
Why don't you show us where you disagree with me?
Line up YOUR article with the map and have at it.
I double dare you.
-
Oh boy, I read 'double dog' dare and then stepped out, and threw down another gin and tonic.
When I came back, I noticed it was only a double dare.
That was close.
-
Mike,
I think it's accurate to state that you have changed your position, morphing it as information unfolds, to mold the newly discovered information to conform to your agenda.
As David stated, you first declared the land to be West of the canal.
Then, you insisted that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from NGLA's current property in an attempt to legitimize the seemingly erroneous article that you yourself posted.
When it became apparent that the authors/writers had confused the sites, you again chenged your tune, abandoning your previous position in favor of the "LATEST" position.
You deliberately jumbled the time line to conveniently suit your agenda driven conclusion.
I think David's position has been far more consistent, linear if you will.
The problem with Joe feeding you all of these articles is that you haven't taken the time to comprehend their content because you're in such a rush to post what you think will support your agenda.
It would be so much more productive if you could be objective.
Unfortunately, I don't think you're capable of objectivity due to the strength of your agenda and blind allegiance to your crusade to refute, discount and/or dismiss CBM''s involvement at Merion.
The routing of NGLA is pretty clear to me.
Macdonald's written word, the siting of the "ideal or template" holes, combined with the twin starting points, and the "connectors on the land immediately adjoining Shinnecock, lead, like Max Behr stated, to the course simply routing itself. When you take the individual holes that Macdonald stated he found, combine them with the fact that he stated the course adjoined Shinnecock's golf course, and the fact that the SI would be the temporary clubhouse, the routing becomes self evident to all but those clinging to a predetermined agenda bent on dismissing CBM's ability to route Merion in short order.
You've put a lot of work into this, as has Joe, and it's unfortunate that you couldn't have been objective.
-
Mike Cirba,
More nonsense. But you just go right ahead and keep making stuff up to suit your needs.
1. You keep claiming, as if it were fact, that CBM's offer for 120 acres was rejected in November of 1906. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THIS HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER? More wishful thinking/make believe on your part?
2. CBM tells us when he first became interested the land in this area, it was within a couple of weeks of when Alvord/SHPBRC first purchased the property. That was Fall of 1905. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU IGNORE CBM ON THE TIMING?
3. CBM tells us that the 120 acres was near the canal. But you place the course well away from the canal; about a mile away. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU IGNORE CBM ON THE LOCATION OF THIS COURSE?
4. CBM tells us that he offered to purchase 120 acres of land. Yet you pretend CBM attempted to buy over 200 acres? ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU IGNORE CBM AS TO THE SIZE OF THE PLOT HE ATTEMPTED TO BUY?
And then you come up with some bizarrely stretched piece of property that makes no sense whatsoever. How was he supposed to fit a golf course in that thing you have drawn? NOT TO MENTION, YOU HAVE MADE IT WAY TOO BIG. IT WAS ONLY 120 ACRES. YOURS IS A LOT BIGGER THAN THAT.
This is a joke. You just cant selectively ignore some of the facts and change some others. To come up with what you had to come up with you had to ignore CBM as to [/b]the LOCATION, ACREAGE, AND TIMING of that purchase.
Have you know intellectual dignity whatsoever?
________________________________________
As for my alternative, I've already explained it, twice. Let me take you through it step by step.
1. The Journal article is not referring to the first offer for 120 acres near the canal.
- The first offer was for 120 acres, not 250 acres.
- The first offer was for land near the canal. The description in the article said nothing about the canal and this land couldn't have been near the canal.
- CBM wrote he was first trying to avoid getting too close to Shinnecock. The land described in the Boston article was adjacent to Shinnecock.
- CBM's offer for the 120 acres was rejected, yet the article indicates that there was a deal in place for the land.
- Plus, as I explained above the timing doesn't fit with CBM's description.
2. While the description in the article is not perfect, it roughly fits the 450 acre parcel from which CBM chose NGLA.
- The article in question essentially describes the Eastern Portion of the SHPBRC land - bordering Peconic Bay, Shinnecock, the inlet (most likely Cold Springs Harbor,) and skirting the RR.
- The 450 acres bordered Peconic Bay, Cold Springs Harbor, Bullshead Bay, and Shinnecock. (And Bulls Head Bay is about as East as Shinnecock's course.)
In sum, the description in the Boston Journal article fits much better with land on Sebonack Neck than the 120 acres by the canal. It also fits CBM's narrative. CBM tells us they rode the land, and then the company agreed to sell them the land. This very well could have been in October or earlier. CBM said they then studied the land again and chose what they wanted, and then optioned the land in November (really December.) It is very plausible that the Boston article was written after the development company tentatively agreed to sell CBM the land.
You don't really need me to draw you a map of the land bordered by Peconic Bay, Shinnecock Hills Golf Course, and Cold Spring Harbor, do you?
-
Another article, similar to the Boston Journal article, but from the day before (October 15, 1906, NY Evening Telegram.) Like the others, this description notes the property was adjoining Shinnecock Hills.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
This article notes that H.J. Whigham had accompanied CGM to the site several times.
-
David, you said the Evening Telegram article is dated October 15. Did you mean December 15? Also, the article says CBM bought two hundred fifty acres. I'm guessing whoever wrote it got 205 mixed up with 250.
Macdonald said he optioned the Sebonac property in November 2006. It seems pretty likely it was December. He said the initial tournament was in 1909. It was in 1910. Just reading a few pages of SG, it's clear he got some facts wrong. Not all that surprising from a man in his 70s, recalling events that took place 20 years earlier.
That does raise the question, what else in Scotland's Gift is not accurate?
-
David,
You're proving my point.
Please look up where the Shinnecock Railway station was located at that time, and you'll see exactly what I mean.
At this late date, CBM had thought he was going to get land right in the middle of the Shinnecock Hills real estate development, and was still trying to get primo water frontage.
This land, as seen in the other maps, was already surveyed and plotted for homes, which is why the Alvord company probably didn't want to part with it, or sell it for $200 an acre when they knew it was going to be worth much more.
That was still the deal as of November, 1906...CBM thought he had it, evidently, based on the state of negotiations.
It was NOT the same land as what he purchased...not even close. Please tell me where Shinnecock lies to the East of NGLA??!!
That land was surveyed and ready to go.
Your article is an interesting one in that he already had sent survey maps to Hutchinson, et.al. of this property. THAT is how he worked and I want to get into the implications of that later as relates to the land he actually DID secure later in December, 1906.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5439007580_9f71dfe504_o.jpg)
However, CBM tell us that AFTER the owners refused his offers for land around the canal;
"However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay and lying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bulls Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it was more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way we could get over the ground was on poniies."
So, after trying to get primo land right in the heart of the Shinnecock Hills that had already been surveyed and was clear, and having been rejected some time after November 1st, 1906, CBM sought alternatives, and found the Sebonac Neck property. It seems from the looks of things, he and Whigham had been scouring that whole area between the canal and Shinnecock and had gone so far as to send contour maps to all of their friends seeking their input.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/5439004514_a7854b61a7_b.jpg)
I'm thinking he was concerned about getting squeezed out of this very appealing market in terms of land forms, soil, and water frontage, and took what he could get, no disrespect meant, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity.
But, we also know he acted extremely fast on this opportunity, telling us he secured that land later in November (papers signed December 14th, 1906), somewhat less than six weeks after evidently coming upon it.
-
Mike,
Shinnecock Hills GC lies directly east of NGLA.
When you play the 10th hole at NGLA, a harsh slice will put you in the 3rd fairway at SHGC.
The 2nd hole at SHGC is directly east of the 9th green at NGLA.
SHGC is also directly east of the first half of the 11th hole at NGLA and SE of the rest of the hole and # 12.
The land described in David's most recent article is the current site.
You'll note the reference to land similar to SHGC, rolling terrain.
No such terrain exists west of the Sebonic Neck property all the way to the canal.
While the land isn't flat as a pancake, south of RT 27, it is close, north of Rt 27 all the way to the canal.
In addition, the only spot where you can have Peconic Bay front is on the 18th hole at NGLA, the 1st, 2nd, 18th and 11th at Sebonack. As to the LIRR proximity, it's directly across the street from the Shinnecock Inn.
As to the site of the LIRR station I'd appreciate receiving your source of that info.
I'll be back to continue this post, I just have to run out on a few errands
-
Patrick,
The Shinnecock Hills Train Stop in 1906 was 1.1 miles due west from the train stop near Shinnecock Hills GC that this there today...you know, the one near Southampton College that opened termporarily for the recent US Opens.
The one at Southampton College was originally known as "Golf Grounds", and didn't open until April 1907, many months after these articles.
The articles tell us the western boundary of the golf course was between the Shinncock Hills Station, 1.1 miles west, and the inlet near Good Ground, which is further west, as you know.
The Shinnecock Hills train station in October 1906 was 1.1 miles west of today's Southampton College station (since abandoned) and 1 mile east of the Suffolk Downs station.
It was operational from the 1880s until 1932. It was later converted into a Post Office, and today, still standing, it is a private residence.
Considering that today's NGLA goes about 2 miles due north from what was the Shinnecock Inn, I would think that the original course CBM wanted went about two miles due northwest, up towards Peconic Bay, skirting Cold Spring as I drew on my map..
That would place the westerly point between the Shinnecock Station and the inlet towards Good Ground, exactly as described.
Hope that helps.
-
Jim,
The article is dated correctly, October 15, 1906, which is what makes it interesting. CBM and Whigham were apparently studying the land long before they ever optioned the property. And this makes sense in the context of the December articles, for by the time they actually acquired the option in December a number of those involved had already been over the property, including "Emmet, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others."
As for Scotland's Gift, I've been through it in whole a number of times and while there are a few mistakes it is generally remarkably accurate, at least compared to most later written accounts documenting the beginnings of these clubs. The date of that tournament is apparently wrong, but the mistake is perhaps understandable because they were golfing on the links in 1909. (There are photographs.)
Mike Cirba,
Your bias is showing once again. You can't just ignore Macdonald on the SIZE and LOCATION and TIMING of his interest in the 120 acre Canal property.
As Patrick points out, Shinnecock is directly east of NGLA, where the two "adjoin."
Also note the map you posted, and the identification of the "Cold Springs Bay INLET." The property stretches along Peconic Bay to the north and its furthest western point of the property is near the Cold Springs Bay Inlet.
The article also speaks of CBM and HJW having visited the property several times, which is consistent with them having studied the contours again and again, prior to optioning the property.
As for the bit about maps being created showing the grades, I don't know if the article is getting ahead of itself (as they did with the bit about the property already having been purchased) or whether Raynor had already been brought in. Regardless, it is disingenuous for you to ignore everything else we know and focus on only this in your lame attempt to turn the described property into something it was not.
As for the timing of the attempt to purchase the 120 acre canal property, it sounds as if it happened closer to the time that the land previously changed hands, which was fall of 1905. That is when CBM said he first determined he wanted the property. By fall of 1906 the preparations for development were likely well under way. By the time that map came out roads had been built, the hotel was being finished, and the infrastructure was well in place. Your lame attempt at inventing another site would have run right across the middle of all this, including the hotel, and skittled the entire development!
________________________________
And Mike, I know where the train station was. It was directly south of the Western point of Sebonack's course, and Sebonack Neck continues from there to the east to the Cold Springs Bay Inlet, which is north of but between the old station and Common Ground.
You ignore that this land was "stretching along Peconic Bay." It didn't say the property was absurdly stretched to even get to Peconic Bay, like your silly drawing above.
Isn't it about time you stopped trying to twist NGLA's history in service of your petty agenda?
-
David,
Have you located the Shinnecock Hills Train Station yet at the time of that October 1906 article?
That should help make things clearer.
-
The entire hamlet of Hampton Bays, seen in the map below, was known at the beginning of the 20th century as "Good Ground".
The hamlet was settled in 1740 as "Good Ground", which became the main hamlet of eleven in the immediate area. The area where Main Street, also known as Montauk Highway, is located today, was the approximate area of the original hamlet known as Good Ground.
There were ten other hamlets in the area. The other hamlets in the area were called Canoe Place, East Tiana, Newtown, Ponquogue, Rampasture, Red Creek, Squiretown, Southport, Springville, and West Tiana. Most of these hamlets were settled by one or two families and had their own school house. Many of the names from the former hamlets are still featured as local street names today, as well as Hagstroms maps and Road Atlases.
As a result of the growth of the surrounding hamlets and villages in the Hamptons and increased tourism from New York City, the eleven hamlets, although generally called "Good Ground" collectively by the early part of the 20th century, amalgamated under the name "Hampton Bays" in 1922. The motive behind the name change was for the hamlet to benefit from the "Hamptons" trade that the hamlet's neighbors were experiencing.
Here is the area that was known as "Good Ground" in the early 20th century.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5438764415_2e5a65342a_o.gif)
Back to the location of the train station, the Blue X marks the spot of the Shinnecock Hills Station on this 1907 map;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4141/5439371698_85e77d6d3a_b.jpg)
Actually, I slightly misplaced my yellow X on yesterday's map. It is almost precisely where the red DOT is indicating Shinnecock Hills below;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5098/5436659629_56c303ffcb_z.jpg)
-
This blowup of the area still known as "Good Ground" in the early part of the 20th century shows that it extended well east of the Canal to near the inlet of Cold Spring Bay coming from Great Peconic Bay.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5217/5439399474_5375a968eb_o.jpg)
-
Mike I just told you that I knew where the train station was. Can you not read? Or do you just choose not to?
If Good Ground extended west of the canal that is all the more support that the description of the article is NOT of the 120 acres. CBM DESCRIBES THAT PROPERTY AS BEING NEAR THE CANAL.
Have you read CBM's book where he describes first deciding to try and obtain 120 ACRES near the CANAL around the time the land changed hands (FALL OF 1906.)
That should help make things clearer.
Here is a map. I've marked where the land adjoins Shinnecock Hills course to the east. I've also marked where the land stretches along Peconic Bay, and stopped this line about at the Inlet. The old Shinnecock RR station is the small red dot, labeled "Shinnecock Hills" in white. One can see that the inlet is well west of the old station, thus putting it between this station and "Good Ground" to the west.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Land-Oct-1906-1.jpg?t=1297534250)
The article descriptions are rough, but they seem to be describing the Sebonack Neck section of the larger property controlled by SHPBRC. At this time this section of the property was not yet physically developed with roads and infrastructure.
Articles report that shortly after the property changed hands in 1905, Olmstead was called in to plot out the plan for the development, so this process was well underway by the fall of 1906. Surely CBM was not trying to buy land that development Company had already begun developing.
Again, Mike, you cannot just cherry pick little details and run with them. You have to keep researching and try to figure out the bigger picture. And in the bigger picture it seems that CBM first became interested in this land in or around the fall of 1905, but around that time Alvord/SHPBRC bought the land for around $50 an acre and immediately commenced planning to develop the infrastructure of the Eastern section of the property nearest to civilization. CBM offered them four times what they paid for 120 acres on the east side of this property - near the canal and away from Shinnecock Hills' course - but they rejected his offer and continued developing the property, so that by fall of 1906 the Hotel was being constructed and the physical development of the infrastructure was well on its way.
At some point after returning from abroad in 1906 CBM turned his attention to the portion of the land that had not been included in the first stage of development - the Sebonack Neck portion of the property. This property stretched out along PECONIC BAY from approximately the COLD SPRINGS BAY INLET all the way to Bulls Head Bay, and ADJOINED SHINNECOCK HILLS GOLF COURSE. It SKIRTED THE RR TO THE SOUTH, but did not actually border the RR (this was a plus for CBM, as he wanted to be "alone with nature.")
He and HJW rode the land and decided it was the place for their course. SHPBRC agreed to sell them a portion of the land, and so CBM and HJW again studied it in earnest and found their course, roughly staking out the land they needed for it. They then optioned the property in December 1906, leaving themselves time to work out the details of the plan and leeway to tweak the boundaries if necessary.
-
David,
Why don't you just grab the entire South Fork of Long Island with your enclosure? ;)
I assume you realize your enclosure is over SIX MILES from point to point to point?
Here, read the description of where the land was again. ALL of the points are clearly identifiable now that we have a better sense of what constituted "Good Ground".
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
Perhaps CBM also made an offer for the land closer to the canal...he probably did. We know he wanted good access to NYC and there was an Inn right on the Canal, as well. This article from a few weeks later on Nov 1, 1906 makes me wonder if he thought the Canal site further west was still in play at this late date, as well?
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
However, it seems from the look of things he had to keep moving further eastward to get what he needed prior to securing the land he ended up with in December 1906.
In any case, the following shows all the identified points.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
The yellow line on the bottom is the Long Island Railroad to the SOUTH.
The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.
The Green X is the site of the Inlet near what was known as Good Ground (indicated by the Orange Line) to the WEST.
The Purple Line indicates Peconic Bay to the NORTH
The light yellow enclosure is a rough estimation of the land he envisioned for the golf course.
p.s. This proposed land was simply empty, surveyed lots at the time CBM was trying to secure it. This map from seven months later shows only one lot in that whole area having been purchased to date. As noted, the land CBM eventually purchased looks to be unsurveyed to the far northeast;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
The article is dated correctly, October 15, 1906, which is what makes it interesting. CBM and Whigham were apparently studying the land long before they ever optioned the property. And this makes sense in the context of the December articles, for by the time they actually acquired the option in December a number of those involved had already been over the property, including "Emmet, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others."
It's doubly interesting. For one, this article says they bought the land in the first part of October. In Scotland's Gift CBM says November. Other contemporaneous articles suggest December, and the article Mike copied from November 1 says they had narrowed it down to two choices by then, but that cost concerns might rule out both.
It seems to me that each report conflicts with the others.
-
Jim,
As seen in my posts today, there is no way in Hades that the land in the articles from October and November 1906 is the land he ended up securing in December 1906.
The articles are accurate, except for perhaps the premature idea in October that the original site going towards Good Ground had been "purchased".
But it's not the same piece of land as what he ended up with.
THAT's what's confusing.
-
Actually, looking at that site again it looks pretty terrific.
I believe I even spy the site for a natural Cape Hole! ;) ;D
And, it certainly doesn't look flat in the least, as Patrick suggested.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
It is even stranger than that, because the property was not purchased in the fall of 1906 at all. An option was obtained. The property was not actually purchased until the next spring.
But it makes some sense when one goes back to what CBM said.
1. He says they first rode the property - the October article says that CBM and HJW had been over the property several times - and then the owner agreed to sell him the property. I don't think this was a formal transaction, but just the landowner agreeing that he would sell it, who knows what terms - if any - they had agreed upon at that point. You have to remember that his land wasn't even necessarily for sale - it had just been purchased by someone who was planning to develop it. So the first step was to get the owner to consider selling it. My guess is that this is what the October articles prematurely report. That CBM had convinced the land owner to sell him a portion of this land on Sebonack Neck.
2. They then studied the land earnestly, found land that would work for what they wanted to do, and then roughly marked off the land they wanted to purchase. I suspect that this was done between October and December 1906.
3. They optioned 205 acres in December, with the proviso that they could adjust the boundaries if need be.
4. They drew up the detailed plans and then purchased the property in the spring.
As for the November 1st articles, those are strange because it doesn't sound like CBM ever seriously considered the Montauk property because of the cost. It may have been that he was in negotiations with SHPBRC regarding the price and wanted to send a message that he was willing to walk away. Those October articles certainly did him no favors given that they did not yet have a formal deal.
___________________________________
Mike Cirba,
I keep hoping your heart is in the right place even if your mind isn't, but you repeatedly show yourself to have little or no intellectual integrity.
The property described not only adjoined Shinnecock Hills golf course it "stretched along Peconic Bay" with its furthest western point being near the Cold Springs inlet. That is a description of Sebonack Neck, which stretches along the Peconic to Cold Springs Inlet.
Your comical attempt to avoid this reality has you drawing out lines completely avoiding Peconic Bay. Then, as if an afterthought, you disingenuously grab a tiny bit of the Peconic Bay coastline west of the inlet! A rather pitiful attempt to pull in a bit of coastline, as if then the property "stretched along Peconic Bay."
This course of yours stretches for over two miles, which means that at 120 acres the width of your pencil thin plot would have had to average around a mere 160 yards for its entire length, over generally uninteresting land!
And by the time that map was produced the roads were in place and the infrastructure complete and they were advertising for someone to lease and run the hotel. Yet you pretend that in the fall of 1906 CBM was planning on putting a pencil thin course across the middle of it.
Stop this nonsense already. You are behaving like a common charlatan.
-
David,
How does NGLA "skirt the Long Island Railroad", or have a westerly point between the Shinnecock rail station and the inlet near Good Ground? My course does.
And how does today's NGLA have Shinnecock Hills to the East? It's almost due south.
And yes, on mine Peconic Bay is north and I skirt it for about as long as today's NGLA course does.
And by the way, today's NGLA course, if you start at the 9th green and go the whole route around is also actually 2.05 miles, one way.
My width may be off, I certainly didn't measure closely and was only meant to be approximate, but I'm virtually certain my general course and land is correct and completely follows the landmarks of the articles you posted. It may even be larger if indeed Macdonald was trying to buy 250 acres there and not 205.
The idea that there were roads in place is not correct. They were either proposed or dirt. Fortunately, it had been surveyed, which the NGLA/Sebonack land still had not.
By the way, what's uninteresting about the ground contours of that course?? (see Topo I just posted above)
Don't listen to Patrick...he thinks NGLA was routed on horseback in 2 days and is the epitome of the prejudicial witness. ;)
-
David,
How does NGLA "skirt the Long Island Railroad", or have a westerly point between the Shinnecock rail station and the inlet at Good Ground?
You have got to be pulling my leg.
It does not say "INLET AT GOOD GROUND." It says westerly point was "near the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station."
The inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station is COLD SPRINGS INLET. Look at the map you posted. It is labeled "COLD SPRINGS INLET" and it is between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.
The property wasn't near Shinnecock Station or Good Ground. Those were just used to describe the inlet, which was COLD SPRINGS INLET. The property bordered Shinnecock Hills golf course and stretched along Peconic Bay to a westerly point NEAR COLD SPRINGS INLET.
And yes, Peconic Bay is north.
You are a charlatan. It does not just say Peconic Bay is north. It describes the land as "stretching along Peconic Bay to the north." STRETCHING ALONG PECONIC BAY. Not a mile and a half south of Peconic bay.
And yes, today's course, if you start at the 9th green and go the whole route around is about 2 miles, one way.
Huh? It two miles only if you measure in the shore line of Peconic, Bulls Head Bay, and then from the Eden to the 9th green. But that is an absurd comparison, like comparing the diameter of a circle to half the circumference. NGLA measures must over 1 1/4 miles in a straight line. Your supposed course measures over two miles in a straight line. It would have to be pencil thin!
My width may be off, but my course and land is correct and completely follows the articles you posted.
First, it doesn't follow the articles because it isn't stretching "along Peconic Bay" and it goes past the inlet.
Second for you to claim it is correct is downright laughable. This is about your fifth attempt and still you have no clue.
The idea that there were roads in place is not correct. They were either proposed or dirt.
Again you are just making things up. Do the research before you say stuff like this. You must know by now that I don't make things up, and I wasn't just making things up when I said that reportedly Olmstead planned the place and they spent asubstantial sum of money developing the infrastructure such as the roads. And what do you think country roads were made of in 1906, anyway?
Here is the map with your supposed course converted to 121.7 acres. A joke.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLAAbcirbaty.jpg?t=1297547431)
AND MIKE, YOUR SUPPOSED COURSE RUNS RIGHT ON TOP OF THE DAMN HIGHWAY FOR LONGER THAN IT RUNS ALONG PECONIC BAY.
-
David,
You're starting my course much too close to Shinnecock. Please move it a good short par four to the west. And, c'mon..let's see it at 250 acres, I know you can do better than that!
Second, weren't there any "roads" near the Canal course? Yet, you're fine with that?
Third, is this what you call "skirting Peconic Bay to the north"?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5439900364_30fc43680f_b.jpg)
I'd say my proposed course skirts it to the north a damn sight better than that!
-
David,
You're starting my course much too close to Shinnecock. Please move it a good short par four to the west. And, c'mon..let's see it at 250 acres, I know you can do better than that!
- CBM offered to buy 120 acres by the Canal. You cannot just change this willy-nilly, and I wont change it on my map.
- This land was said to "adjoin the Shinnecock Hills course." Look up the word "adjoin" if you don't know what it means. Yours doesn't even come close to adjoining the course.
- YOUR FICTIONAL PLOT IS NOWHERE NEAR THE CANAL.
Second, weren't there any "roads" near the Canal course? Yet, you're fine with that?
- There were apparently few if any roads near the canal except for the main highway when CBM decided to try and acquire this land in the Fall of 1905! That is when SHPBRC bought the property and began planning to develop it.
- That map shows the results of their development of the infrastructure, so presumably not much of that was there initially, but it was increasingly there as they built the infrastructure.
-This is another reason why we know your timing is screwed up. I've told you this repeatedly but you ignore it.
Third, is this what you call "skirting Peconic Bay to the north"?
- CBM described the raw property as having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, which is what I'd call "stretching along Peconic Bay."
Give it up Mike. You just cant twist the facts to suit your petty aims. I wont let you.
-
Here, read the description of where the land was again. ALL of the points are clearly identifiable now that we have a better sense of what constituted "Good Ground".
Mike, your newest version of "Good Ground" differs from your earlier location of "Good Ground", lending credence to the suspicion that you make up things up, as you go along, to suit your agenda. YOU constantly CHANGE YOUR POSITION as you're either refuted, or as additional newspaper articles are discovered by Joe and/or David.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
Perhaps CBM also made an offer for the land closer to the canal...he probably did. We know he wanted good access to NYC and there was an Inn right on the Canal, as well. This article from a few weeks later on Nov 1, 1906 makes me wonder if he thought the Canal site further west was still in play at this late date, as well?
Good access to NYC ? ? ?
You've got to be an idiot, or think that we're idiots if you believe that a couple of hundred yards closer to NYC was "THE" defining factor in siting the property.
In addition, that property is so incredibly bland when compated to the property adjoining Shinnecock Hills.
There's NO COMPARISON in the land.
If both were available, noone in their right mind would pick your plot, especially with a highway, the North Highway, running right down the center of your alleged plot.[/b]
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
However, it seems from the look of things he had to keep moving further eastward to get what he needed prior to securing the land he ended up with in December 1906.
In any case, the following shows all the identified points.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
The yellow line on the bottom is the Long Island Railroad to the SOUTH.
The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.
The Green X is the site of the Inlet near what was known as Good Ground (indicated by the Orange Line) to the WEST.
The Purple Line indicates Peconic Bay to the NORTH
The light yellow enclosure is a rough estimation of the land he envisioned for the golf course.
If he did, he must have been drinking heavily because that light yellow enclosure of yours has a highway running right smack down the middle of it.[/b]
p.s. This proposed land was simply empty, surveyed lots at the time CBM was trying to secure it.
Mike, it is dishonest, not just intellectually dishonest, but flat out dishonest, when you make things up and then draw predetermined, erroneous conclusions, presenting them as factually bona fide
That land was NOT empty.
The NORTH Highway, the predecessor to the Sunrise Highway ran right through it, all the way to Amagansett.
The NORTH Highway ran right through the center of your golf course.
But, there's something else about the land you NOW declare was the original site.
It's relatively FLAT, hardly the land that Macdonald would consider in placing his ideal holes.
He was looking for land to place his Redan, his Alps, his Eden, his Cape, his Bottle, his Sahara. his Leven, his Punchbowl
The land you've outlined lacks the dramatic topograhy to site those holes.
And the land that borders Cold Spring Bay is not ideal land for golf, especially near the inlet.
What probably bothers David and others is that you accept newspaper articles as The Gospel, when they suit your purpose, and seem to ignore them when they don't. But, what's more disturbing is the quantum leaps of logic you make, leading to conclusions that suit your predetermined aganda, from the reading of two or more seperate articles, articles that have been shown to be grossly inaccurate.
Lastly, David's complaint that you're the one hopping about, conveniently changing your position based upon the latest of an evolving stream of newspaper articles, is valid. He's been consistent in his presentation, whereas your presentation changes with each refutation of your prior position and your willingness to embrace the latest newspaper article absent verification of its veracity.[/b]
This map from seven months later shows only one lot in that whole area having been purchased to date. As noted, the land CBM eventually purchased looks to be unsurveyed to the far northeast;
But, the NORTH Highway is still there, right down the center of your alleged, narrow golf course.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
One of the things that's troubling me is the following.
If the land was empty, as you say, why would you put a train station in the middle of it ?
The Southampton Station was on North Main Street in Southampton, miles to the East.
Southampton College wasn't established until 1963.
So why locate a railroad station where nobody resides ?
It doesn't make sense.
Unless, the newspaper articles are flawed ..... again.
Or, unless your source for the history and current status of the railroad station was WIKIPEDIA.
Could you tell us how you determined the site of the station ?
Is there any other source that confirms the existance, date of operation and location of a Shinnecock station ?
-
David,
How does NGLA "skirt the Long Island Railroad", or have a westerly point between the Shinnecock rail station and the inlet near Good Ground? My course does.
And how does today's NGLA have Shinnecock Hills to the East? It's almost due south.
Mike, that's just not a lie, it's a huge lie, especially in the context of the quoted articles at the time they were written.
You conveniently forget that the current 10th hole was the temporary 1st hole and that Shinnecock is DIRECTLY EAST of the first hole.
Shinnecock Hills GC is also DIRECTLY EAST of the original, temporary 18th hole (today's 9th).
Shinnecock Hills is DIRECTLY EAST of the original, temporary starting and finishing holes.
So how can you claim that Shinnecock Hills is South of NGLA ?
That's incredibly disengenuous and you know it.[/b]
And yes, on mine Peconic Bay is north and I skirt it for about as long as today's NGLA course does.
And by the way, today's NGLA course, if you start at the 9th green and go the whole route around is also actually 2.05 miles, one way.
My width may be off, I certainly didn't measure closely and was only meant to be approximate, but I'm virtually certain my general course and land is correct and completely follows the landmarks of the articles you posted. It may even be larger if indeed Macdonald was trying to buy 250 acres there and not 205.
The idea that there were roads in place is not correct. They were either proposed or dirt. Fortunately, it had been surveyed, which the NGLA/Sebonack land still had not.
NOT TRUE.
The NORTH HIGHWAY, the predecessor to the Sunrise highway ran right through your plot.
Or, is it your contention that all roads stopped at the Western side of the Shinnecock Canal ?
The Montauk Highway and the North Highway were the arteries that led to the development of the East end, along with the RR,
Unless you think that the RR came first and the roads much later.
You'll note, in the exhibits you presented, that they identify the "NORTH HIGHWAY" and not a "north dirt road"
And, if there were no roads there, how did you get to the train station ?
Or, why would they build a train station to a location VOID of roads.
This just represents more fiction on your part.
You seem to have a willingness to make up things, draw conclusions from the things you've made up, and then declare them as factually bona fide.[/b]
By the way, what's uninteresting about the ground contours of that course?? (see Topo I just posted above)
If you were familiar with the land, you'd know.
Although, having a highway running through the course would be interesting.
Compare your topo to NGLA and tell me what you think[/b]
Don't listen to Patrick...he thinks NGLA was routed on horseback in 2 days and is the epitome of the prejudicial witness. ;)
-
Mike,
You're a man who has already reached a conclusion that's desperately searching for selective facts to support that conclusion.
-
Mike Cirba,
If there were no roads, as you insist, how did people get to Shinnecock Hills ?
Helicopter ?
Yacht ?
RR then walk ?
OR
VIA THE NORTH HIGHWAY ?
Which runs right through your golf course.
-
Patrick/David,
C'mon guys...you both keep typing all sorts of insults and I guess I can understand your frustration at trying to make these facts fit your story, but neither of you have come close to showing us how the land they eventually purchased comes anywhere near "Good Ground", as those Oct/Nov articles consistently refer to as the western border, much less skirting the Long Island RR to the south.
You aren't even within several miles of Good Ground, are you?
So, although I really didn't expect this thread to take this unexpected turn, I am just sincerely trying to follow the evidence where it leads.
David,
Why couldn't CBM be trying to secure EITHER the land near the canal OR the land I drew up further west at the same time, seeing what the company was willing to sell? It seems from most accounts that CBM tried to consider any number of options.
Patrick,
Let's wave a magic wand any pretend for a second that those Oct/Nov articles were indeed talking about the land he actually purchased, preposterous as that may be based on the evidence at hand.
But pretending for a second, how in the hell do the descriptions of the activities in those articles jive with the idea of CBM routing the course in two days on horseback? ;)
Or, should the story read, CBM routed in two days on horsebaxk, 20 days of transatlantic mail, 10 days of Travis consulting, two months to hire Raynor and have him survey the land, and a partridge in a pear tree? ;). ;D
-
Patrick/David,
C'mon guys...you both keep typing all sorts of insults and I guess I can understand your frustration at trying to make these facts fit your story,
First, it is not my story. It is CBM's story, and unlike many of the fictions and legends involving some of these courses there just isn't that much mystery.
Second, our frustration is hard earned, and comes as a direct result of having to deal with your endless disingenuous and agenda driven claims and/or your inability to honestly deal with the historical record. Go back and review your posts over the past three days, for example. Again and again you state things as if they were absolute fact, and again and again it is nothing but crap. Total fiction. Total agenda driven drivel. You get more wrong in a week than Patrick or I have gotten wrong in years. You regularly produce more bullshit than a rodeo.
No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you just keep it coming, learning nothing, shamelessly stepping straight from one misrepresentation or unsupported fantastic conclusion to another. You are the Energizer Bunny of misinformation. It doesn't matter how often you are wrong, you just keep shoveling the shit into the fire, hoping to keep your agenda on the track.
Like in the post above, for example. You have shamelessly pretended that those articles were referencing the 120 acres of land near the canal, again and again, post after post, lame-ass drawing after lame-ass drawing, not suggesting but insisting - INSISTING - that you knew best and that your contrived pencil thin outline containing a highway was definitely the right land. Wasting all of our time with your bullshit. To no avail.
So what's next for you? You just segue from one smelly pile of misinformation into the next smelly pile of misinformation. This time you create an entirely new attempted transaction! Let's pretend that in additon to the other properties, CBM was also trying to buy this bizarre two mile narrow strip of property containing the highway. Never mind that there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this. Never mind that he'd have to have been an IDIOT to conceive of such a thing. Those things do not matter to you. You want it to be true, so you will not let minor details like facts get in your way. You'll just make up some more crap and pretend like you know best. And we will all waste another week of watching you try to pound your round peg into a square hole.
Why couldn't CBM be trying to secure EITHER the land near the canal OR the land I drew up further west at the same time, seeing what the company was willing to sell? It seems from most accounts that CBM tried to consider any number of options.
Bullshit. Nothing but bullshit. You just made this up. You have your conclusion, and now you are making things up to try and support your conclusion. Never mind that CBM didn't try to consider "a number of options" in this area. He considered TWO OPTIONS. The 120 acre option by the canal, and the property he purchased. Those articles from October describe the former.
It is too much, Mike. You just cannot make shit up in the hopes of supportings your predetermined, agenda driven conclusion. It is intellectually dishonest.
Quit acting like a charlatan and quit wasting our time.
-
David,
Was that highway there in 1906? I don't think so.
How did people get out to the Hamptons then? Fire up the Ford Mustang?
And exactly where that canal did the proposed highway not intersect and where were there less proposed lots drawn?? Why do you believe CBM was looking and making offers near the canal but reject out of hand what your articles tell you he was looking at closer to Shinnecock?
C'mon...that proposed drawing of what the development might look like had nothing to do with reality. Couldn't they have built the highway closer to the tracks had CBM purchased the land up near the water?? It wouldn't be the first highway in America to parallel railroad tracks, I'm sure.
There was a train going through the area, and a few stops about a mile apart. It was undeveloped land, although the part south of Cold Spring Lake along what is today Shinnecock Hills looks at least to have been surveyed. The plethora of empty proposed lots tells the story of how populated the area was at that time.
As far as whether CBM was looking at other properties in the area, what the heck do you think he was doing all of that time?
Here's what he wrote again, in a VERY brief summary 20 years after the fact;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
There are a couple of odd things here.
First, the sale from a British company to Alvord's group (yes, which spawned the Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Co. as you told me) happened in the fall of 1905, a full year prior to these events.
If CBM made an offer to them a few weeks later for 120 acres near the canal, which as we've seen is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of what was known at the time as "Good Ground", we really don't know when it was rejected, or for that matter when he actually made the offer, but we do know at some point he made an offer and it was rejected. All we know for sure is that a few weeks after the sale to Alvord, CBM determined "we should build a course there if we could secure the land", and that his subsequent offer was rejected. at some point
CBM then went abroad for several months in the first part of 1906 to further his golf course studies, returning in June 1906.
All of the news accounts at that juncture still had CBM searching for a site for this golf course. Should I repost them??
So what was he then looking at for the next five months? I'm presuming he'd be scouring the land the Alvord just purchased...it was over 2700 acres, and much of it was already surveyed as seen, except for those wild reaches up into the northeast that "everyone thought was more or less worthless", right? He also seemed to be looking way out between Amagansett and Montauk, so he was looking at a pretty broad stretch.
It wasn't until I found the article from November 1st, 1906, right after the "inter-city" matches stating that CBM had narrowed his search down to two potential sites; one out near Montauk, and one near Good Ground, which I assumed was the canal land.
Note the article makes clear that the land was on the western side of Shinnecock Hills.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
It was only when you subsequently posted your articles from October that made very clear what the parameters of the 250 acres CBM was looking for...east was Shinnecock Hills, south was the LIRR, north was Peconic Bay, and west was the inlet between the Shinnecock Hills rail station and Good Ground, which we've clearly identified as having come further east than the canal in those days.
This isn't a difficult puzzle nor are those coordinates difficult to roughly determine.
My lord, when you posted that map yesterday you'd stretched the western boundaries of NGLA some miles not only past all of today's ebonack GC, but also past the entire Cold Spring Lake to try and get it out near that inlet. There is no way on earth those articles talking about today's golf course location would cite "Good Ground" as the location...not a chance. Furthermore, today's NGLA no more skirts the Long Island RR than Pebble Beach does.
Here is the map you drew with your attempt to make the landmarks mentioned in those articles relevant to today's course drawn in red lines. I've added blue lines that show exactly where the boundaries of NGLA end, and they are nowhere near the LIRR, much less the inlet towards Good Ground to the west. The parameters of the golf course I drew running west instead of north from the Shinnecock Inn does meet those parameters, very clearly and without stretching any points for miles as you've done here.
I've also added an orange boundary to indicate the eastern boundary of the land known as "Good Ground" at the time, and I've indicated the canal in purple.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5441306519_df18e922e9_b.jpg)
So, based on the recent articles you and I have found from Oct/Nov 1906 we definitely have some new mysteries here and I'm not citing any of this as fact, other than what the article(s) state and trying to see where they lead;
There are a number of possibilities.
1) The articles were wrong and misreported what CBM said
2) CBM didn't feel that what might have been a public setback was something he wanted reported in detail in his book.
3) This was indeed the site closer to the canal and "Good Ground", but CBM got some details wrong in his book.
All are very possible, but one thing that seem impossible is for the land that is described in those articles to be the site of NGLA today.
If this conversation is getting you frustrated you don't need to participate.
I do appreciate you adding materials here, but when you post a map where you tell us the western boundary of NGLA is the inlet on the western end of Cold Spring Lake then I have to ask who is the intellectually disengenous one here and who is the one who is open to learning new information.
Consider there are more possibilities here David, than the paragraph or two CBM wrote in his book 20+ years later in his 70s that describe his activities over a period of years.
Thanks.
Patrick,
What about this land looks flat, boring, or uninteresting for golf purposes to you?
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Would you (or Joe) please provide the balance of the Olmstead Bros schematic, so that we can see more of what was East of the schematic border you posted.
Thanks
-
Patrick/David,
C'mon guys...you both keep typing all sorts of insults and I guess I can understand your frustration at trying to make these facts fit your story, but neither of you have come close to showing us how the land they eventually purchased comes anywhere near "Good Ground", as those Oct/Nov articles consistently refer to as the western border, much less skirting the Long Island RR to the south.
Mike, you change your position as each new newspaper article is discovered by Joe Bausch.
You first claimed that the site for NGLA was at "Good Ground" and that it was entirely West of the canal, and you defended that claim indicating that you were absolutely correct.
Now, you have a new claim.
Now, you're claiming that the golf course was entirely East of the Canal, in that narrow strip of land north of the Railroad tracks, hugging the north shore. The only problem is that that narrow strip of land had a major thoroughfare, the North Highway, running right through it.
And, your most recent claim refutes your earlier claim and states that NGLA was in the narrow strip East of the canal. But wait, what about your beloved articles claiming that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on the property except the low lying areas.
Are you sure that your "new" course affords those views ?[/b]
David,
Why couldn't CBM be trying to secure EITHER the land near the canal OR the land I drew up further west at the same time, seeing what the company was willing to sell? It seems from most accounts that CBM tried to consider any number of options.
Probably because the land in the narrow strip isn't exciting land, land with great undulations.
You may recall, in one of your newspaper articles, a reference to the land that was very similar to the land at Shinnecock.
There is NO land like that to the west of the Sebonic Neck Property (NGLA & Sebonack)[/b]
Patrick,
Let's wave a magic wand any pretend for a second that those Oct/Nov articles were indeed talking about the land he actually purchased, preposterous as that may be based on the evidence at hand.
But pretending for a second, how in the hell do the descriptions of the activities in those articles jive with the idea of CBM routing the course in two days on horseback? ;)
It's easy to see why you get confused.
You automatically, and without doubt, accept each newly posted newspaper article that seems to favor your predetermined conclusion, as being perfect in its factual content.
Just a short while ago you were arguing that you could see the Atlantic from NGLA, solely based on your blind belief that a newspaper article had describing the present site at NGLA, which, we now know, it didn't.
As each newspaper article comes to light, thanks to Joe Bausch, you automatically embrace it as being 100 % factual, even though, many of the articles were written by people who never saw the land, people who were distant third parties, far removed from the project who have confused their accounts time after time.
So, what do you do.
You ask me/us to reconcile faulty or erroneous newspaper accounts with CBM's written words, only you accept faulty, or at the very least, questionable newspaper articles as factual, while at the same time rejecting CBM's own written account as factual.
A perfect example is the newspaper headline that proclaimed:
"Dewey defeats Truman"
After seeing that article you would ask me to explain how it's possible that Truman beat Dewey when the contemporaneous accounts indicate just the opposite.
Well, the answer is simple. The newspaper accounts are just that, accounts. They're not factual. They are not first party information, they're merely third party reporting far removed from the actual events. And, as we've seen, time and time again, they're just repeating a previously article that was erroneous in its content. (AP)[/b]
Or, should the story read, CBM routed in two days on horsebaxk, 20 days of transatlantic mail, 10 days of Travis consulting, two months to hire Raynor and have him survey the land, and a partridge in a pear tree? ;). ;D
I'm content to generally accept Macdonald as his written word indicates.
You, on the other hand can't do that because it would destroy your attempt to reject Macdonald's abilty to route Merion in short order.
And, with Merion, he had a much easier task because the land was surveyed, I believe topos existed and the land was benign, not hostile as was the land at NGLA. If he could establish a basic routing at NGLA, over inhospitable terrain, in two or three days, he could certainly route Merion in short order, and, that's your biggest fear and the sole reason for this thread.
Desperate men do desperate things, and nowhere is that more evident than on this thread.
-
Patrick,
Here's the entire map that was posted in the news article.
I believe it was only meant to represent Shinnecock Hills, and not further east to Southampton.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
p.s. No Topographical map for Merion existed during CBM's one-day visit in June 1910. He made that point himself in his June 29th, 1910 letter.
By the way, it's you who keeps bringing up Merion here, not me. You and David desperately want to add it to the pantheon of CBM's courses, so based on that knowledge I'll consider that your "desperate" statement is completely appropo. ;)
-
This proposed land was simply empty, surveyed lots at the time CBM was trying to secure it. This map from seven months later shows only one lot in that whole area having been purchased to date. As noted, the land CBM eventually purchased looks to be unsurveyed to the far northeast;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
Mike, I believe the land you've defined in red is substantially larger than 550 acres. It's huge.
At it's western end, at the canal, it's miles from the Shinnecock Inn, perhaps David or Byran could measure it..
In post 282 where you originally produced this 1907 rendering, you stated that the course was closer to the North shore and further north of the railroad. That's not great land for golf, for CBM's ideal golf holes, especially when compared to NGLA.
But, what I don't understand is how you can claim that the North Highway didn't exist.
The Highway that runs right through your alleged golf course.
The North Highway DID EXIST as did the South Highway and the Railroad, in 1906
-
Patrick,
This map might make it clearer;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/5441705613_965bb6b7e5_b.jpg)
In Blue Outline a rough drawing of what 250 acres might look like that had Shinnecock HIlls GC to the East, skirted the LIRR to the South, had its Western boundary near the inlet between the Shinnecock Hills Train station and Good Ground and skirts Peconic Bay to the north..
In Red Outline is a rough drawing of what may have been 120 acres that you and David don't contest that CBM offered to purchase near the Canal. From the looks of it, your North Highway drawn in green runs right through it too, yet I haven't heard you tell us where you think that land may have been.
Also drawn in purple is the LIRR, with the Shinnecock Station indicated with an X.
What makes you think the North Highway existed in 1906?
btw, Patrick...that topo map makes the area look to have more undulations than either NGLA or Shinnecock HIlls. Most of the elevation changes you see up in the right hand corner on my map are at Sebonack GC, not NGLA. You should check it out.
-
Patrick,
Here's the entire map that was posted in the news article.
I believe it was only meant to represent Shinnecock Hills, and not further east to Southampton.
I just lost an incredibly long post and am trying to put my computer back together again after throwing it against the wall.
The NORTH HIGHWAY existed.
It's what the SHINNECOCK INN and SHINNECOCK CLUBHOUSE driveway clubhouse connected to.
The NORTH HIGHWAY runs right through your phantom golf course.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
p.s. No Topographical map for Merion existed during CBM's one-day visit in June 1910. He made that point himself in his June 29th, 1910 letter.
When you say that NO topo map existed during CBM's visit, are you saying that there was NO topo map in existance, or that CBM didn't have access to one ?[/b]
By the way, it's you who keeps bringing up Merion here, not me. You and David desperately want to add it to the pantheon of CBM's courses, so based on that knowledge I'll consider that your "desperate" statement is completely appropo. ;)
That's also not true.
Earlier, you alluded to a conclusion you drew, that he didn't route NGLA in short order, therefore he couldn't have routed Merion in short order.
That's been your agenda, hidden to some, all along. You want to dispute CMB's ability to route Merion in short order and this thread is your vehicle to get you from where you were to your predetermined destination.[/b]
-
Patrick,
Please show me where CBM ever said he routed NGLA on 2 or 3 days horseback ride. I've been through everything I can find on the matter and find nothing of the sort.
So, if you can find that somewhere, PLEASE post it....PLEASE, because it must be more hidden than the Holy Grail! ;D
Everything I can find indicates he secured more acreage in December 1906 than he thought he needed for the golf course, more acreage than he actually used for the golf course, and his contemporananously quoted statements have him spending the next several months with his committee determining which holes to repropduce as well as their yardages, finally staking the exact boundaries and completing the purchase outright in the spring of 1907.
Even if we make the silly assumption that these articles talking about a western point near the inlet close to Good Ground are talking about today's course, then there is EVEN LESS evidence that he routed the course in 2-3 days because he'd been riding around it for TWO MONTHS before securing 205 UNDETERMINED Acres in December 1906.
So, please...enough of this "CBM Said".
If he said he routed the golf course in 2-3 days, please show us where that is.
Thank you.
p.s. As far as Merion, we know CBM told us he didn't have a topo of the property, and without one would be unable to determine whether a first-class course would actually fit on the property.
We also know that later Richard Francis was added to Hugh Wilson's committee for his surveying/engineering skills, and we also know that Pugh & Hubbard drew a scale map of the property in the November timeframe, six months after CBM's visit.
-
Patrick,
This map might make it clearer;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/5441705613_965bb6b7e5_b.jpg)
In Blue Outline a rough drawing of what 250 acres might look like that had Shinnecock HIlls GC to the East, skirted the LIRR to the South, had its Western boundary is near the inlet between the Shinnecock Hills Train station and Good Ground.
In Red Outline is a rough drawing of what may have been 120 acres that you and David don't contest that CBM offered to purchase near the Canal.
That's not true.
Why do you distort and fabricate things to suit your agenda ?
I NEVER conceded/acknowledged that the property outlined in red was THE 120 acres CBM sought.[/b]
From the looks of it, your North Highway drawn in green runs right through it too, yet I haven't heard you tell us where you think that land may have been.
Maybe because I NEVER stated that the land in red was the 120 acres CBM looked at.
Stop trying to deflect attention from a huge, embarrassing error on your part, namely, that a major thoroughfare ran right smack down the center of your phantom golf course, thus debunking and destroying your latest theory.[/b]
Also drawn in purple is the LIRR, with the Shinnecock Station indicated with an X.
What makes you think the North Highway existed in 1906?
I know it did for several reasons.
But, you can't accept that because it destroys the newest version of your theory.
What makes you think it didn't ?
Were there no roads to service the RR station ?
You're so desperate to prove that CBM couldn't have routed NGLA, ergo Merion, in short order that you're willing to distort and fabricate the truth and facts.[/b]
btw, Patrick...that topo map makes the area look to have more undulations than either NGLA or Shinnecock HIlls.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The area you've defined inside of your blue line has NO topo north of the green line and very little south of it.
The larger map you presented shows the entirety of the East End in terms of Land between the Ocean and the Sound, but, that's not the land you defined in your blue perimeter. That land is comparitively FLAT and looks NOTHING LIKE the land at NGLA and Shinnecock.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that from first hand observations.
WHY DO YOU MAKE THINGS UP AND OFFER THEM AS FACTUAL ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[/B]
Most of the elevation changes you see up in the right hand corner on my map are at Sebonack GC, not NGLA. You should check it out.
I'm aware of that, but that's NOT the land inside your blue perimeter.
Stop trying to substitute land masses to suit your conclusions.[/b]
-
Patrick,
That's too funny...you'd have us picturing that road as a 16-Lane Super Highway! ;D
Instead, at most, it was likely a sand-dirt road with enough space for two vehicles to cross.
People got out to the Hamptons from the city, and most everywhere else, by train in those days. I thought you were around back then!? ;)
Besides, plenty of golf courses back then had roadways running through them.
There's even one in Ardmore, and CBM didn't seem to have a problem with that, did he?
Are you telling us that they couldn't have relocated that stretch and built a new dirt road south closer to the railroad tracks after CBM bought up 250 of their acres at 4 times the price they paid for it?
As far as Topography, here's roughly the land I've indicated, again encirclde in Blue. Compare it to Shinnecock next door or even NGLA to the far northeast.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/5441824463_41459c42fd_b.jpg)
-
Mike Cirba,
- The highway appears on the 1873 Long Island Atlas. Not that it matters one bit, but the atlas also places Good Ground west of the canal.
- The land described is Sebonack Neck, which stretches along the Peconic to the north, extends west to the inlet, and skirts the RR to the south, and adjoins Shinnecock's golf course.
- You know damn well that CBM had free reign to choose the course out of 450 acres- pretty much all of Sebonack Neck- yet you disingenuously mark only what he ultimately chose.
- Your drawings are jokes. And you mischaracterization of mine is equally disingenuous. I was merely highlighting the location of the RR, the Shoreline, and the Western border of Shinnecock golf course. Had I highlighted the RR back to NY would you have pretended I thought the course went to NY as well?
You are a charlatan.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
Is this where we get the idea that Macdonald routed NGLA in two or three days on horseback? If so, I don't read it that way.
I have no idea whether Macdonald could have done it, or did do it, but this passage seems to refer to two separate trips around the property -- the first one, lasting two or three days on horseback, to determine the suitability of the land for a golf course. The second, over an indeterminate amount of time, to lay out the holes after the purchase. "Again we studied the contours earnestly..." implies, to me, a later undertaking.
If this is not the passage that gives rise to the current disagreement, pardon the interruption.
(Amended to quote the relevant passage...)
-
Patrick,
Please show me where CBM ever said he routed NGLA on 2 or 3 days horseback ride. I've been through everything I can find on the matter and find nothing of the sort.
So, if you can find that somewhere, PLEASE post it....PLEASE, because it must be more hidden than the Holy Grail!
Sure.
Macdonald stated that he and Jim Whigham spent two or three days studying the land.
And that as a result of those two to three days of studying the land, he determined that the land was what he wanted for the purpose of creating an 18 hole golf course that would incorporate his ideal golf holes, that the land adjoined Shinnecock Hills.
There can be no doubt, based upon Shinnecock Hills flanking the property to the East, the location of the Shinnecock Inn, the location of the Peconic Bay and the site of his permanent clubhouse, that he elected a long, narrow strip to be his golf course, a course that traveled out and back.
Courses that travel out and back, essentially route themselves, just as Max Behr stated about NGLA.
He certainly didn't approach the company owning the land and attempt to buy land not to be used for his golf course.
He only wanted land to site his golf course, and money was an issue, so he wasn't going to buy land that couldn't be used for golf.
It's obvious, with regard to the routing, that it was essentially a default routing, a simple task once you had the starting and ending points and a flanking body of land East (SHCC) along with flanking water North and NorthEast[/b]
Everything I can find indicates he secured more acreage in December 1906 than he thought he needed for the golf course, more acreage than he actually used for the golf course,
Baloney. That's just another disengenuous attempt to divert, deflect and dismiss the facts.
We already went through that, he bought 2.5 acres for a buffer behind the current 1st tee.[/b]
and his contemporananously quoted statements have him spending the next several months with his committee determining which holes to repropduce as well as their yardages, finally staking the exact boundaries and completing the purchase outright in the spring of 1907.
I understand, You accept flawed newspaper articles as factually valid while rejecting Macdonald's written word in "Scotland's Gift"
[/b]
Even if we make the silly assumption that these articles talking about a western point near the inlet close to Good Ground are talking about today's course, then there is EVEN LESS evidence that he routed the course in 2-3 days because he'd been riding around it for TWO MONTHS before securing 205 UNDETERMINED Acres in December 1906.
Once again, these are wild conclusions that you and only you, and the rest of the "LOONEY" Philly crowd are willing to accept based on a jumbling together of erroneous newspaper articles.
When will it dawn on you that the newspaper accounts are not grounded in hard facts.
Time and time again we see the errors they report, yet, you still cling to them as "he Gospel"
You take a collection of erroneous newspaper accounts and draw flawed conclusions from them.
Garbage in = Garbage out. It's that simple.
So, please...enough of this "CBM Said".
If he said he routed the golf course in 2-3 days, please show us where that is.
It's right there on page 187.
It's amazing how you read a newspaper article and expand its meaning to suit your agenda.
But, here, CBM tells us that he studied the land for 2 - 3 days and figured out what he wanted, that it bordered Shinnecock Hills to the East, that the temporary clubhouse would be the Shinnecock Inn. He knew, right there and then where his golf course would lie. How it would be routed as an out and back golf course.
Did he have the final details for every feature of each hole ? NO, but, he didn't need to at that point. He had his land, he had his routing, all he needed to do was to get the company to sell him that land, which they did. And as a result, you have NGLA.
CBM told you that himself, why won't you take his word for it ?
p.s. As far as Merion, we know CBM told us he didn't have a topo of the property, and without one would be unable to determine whether a first-class course would actually fit on the property.
That's not true.
A man of CBM's abilties, or a man of Donald Ross's abilities would be able to tell you if you could fit a golf course on the property, or, whether you needed more property to improve it.[/b]
We also know that later Richard Francis was added to Hugh Wilson's committee for his surveying/engineering skills, and we also know that Pugh & Hubbard drew a scale map of the property in the November timeframe, six months after CBM's visit.
Blah, Blah, Blah, blah, blah.
Once a basic routing is established, the rest is easy.
[/b]
-
David,
So to indicate the 450 acres of Sebonack Neck you draw a triangular enclosure to the landmark touch-points referenced in your articles that needs to be what, 1000-1200 acres??
The irony is that that the articles you posted mention 250 acres CBM had secured, so I have no idea what you're talking about referring to all 450 acres of Sebonack Neck.
How does any 250 acres of Sebonack Neck have a western edge near the inlet between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground??!
That inlet, which according to the articles YOU posted, is supposedly right near the western edge of the golf course property CBM secured, is ONE AND A HALF MILES from the western edge of today's NGLA and EIGHT-TENTHS OF A MILE from the western edge of today's Sebonack Golf Club!!
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
So, seriously, David...how does that make any sense at all?
Call me what you will, but I just keep reminding myself that's what people do when they run out of factual evidence to support their contentions.
Rick Shefchik,
HALLELUJAH!!! Thanks for a mega-dose of sanity here. ;D ;D ;D
-
Rick Shefchik
The bit about it all being done during the horseback rides is purely a red herring created by Mike Cirba himself. It is a joke. It has nothing to do with anything I have ever written. Mike just pretends it does because making up his own straw man is as close as he can come to scoring a point around here.
Mike Cirba,
You are a charlatan. Sebonack Neck extends to and is bordered by the inlet. CBM had virtually all of Sebonack neck to choose from. You know this. Yet to continue to distort and contrive and misrepresent.
Go back and look at the map you posted. The parts that aren't slated for development or marked as SHGC are the parts that CBM had to choose from, it was basically all of Sebonack Neck from the inlet to to SHGC. That is the way the articles described it and the way CBM described it.
-
Patrick,
That's too funny...you'd have us picturing that road as a 16-Lane Super Highway! ;D
No, that's your attempt to try to minimalize a colossal error on your part.
You were the one to post the schematic, but, you never examined it thoroughly prior, you posted it in haste, thinking it supported your position when in fact it undermines and destroys your position. you never examined it looking for the truth, you were only looking to further your agenda.[/b]
Instead, at most, it was likely a sand-dirt road with enough space for two vehicles to cross.
Oh, so now you acknowledge its existance but want to minimize its significance.
Another disengenuous shift in the interest of convenience.[/b]
People got out to the Hamptons from the city, and most everywhere else, by train in those days.
They were going there by other conveniences LONG before they were going by train.
You have egg on your face, your position destroyed by your own evidence.
The joke and yoke are on you.[/b]
Besides, plenty of golf courses back then had roadways running through them.
NOT RUNNING THROUGH THEIR ENTIRE LENGTH.
Road/s may cross them, but they don't run bow to stern.
AND, that would hardly be the site CBM would select for his ideal golf course.[/b]
There's even one in Ardmore, and CBM didn't seem to have a problem with that, did he?
I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that Macdonald routed Merion.
Ardmore Ave doesn't bisect the entire golf course at Merion as the North Highway would bisect the property you outlined in Blue.
Face it, your latest version of the NGLA site as outlined in Blue is flat out wrong, just be a man and admit you're wrong.[/color
Are you telling us that they couldn't have relocated that stretch and built a new dirt road south closer to the railroad tracks after CBM bought up 250 of their acres at 4 times the price they paid for it?
WHO was going to relocate the highway ? They didn't even have money for a clubhouse.
This latest attempt to revise history in an attempt to further your agenda and reach your predetermined conclusion is the last straw.
You're dishonest. Not just intellectually dishonest, but, flat out dishonest.
You'll say anything to justify your predetermined conclusion.
You'll make up any story (they'll relocate the North Highway) just to serve your purpose, your phony agenda.
I don't mind arguing with TEPaul, Tommy Naccarato, Gib Papazian, Brad Klein, Bryan Izatt and many others because I respect their honesty, their belief in their opinions. But, after your last comment, about moving the North Highway, to serve your agenda, I've lost all respect for you.
You have not been an honorable man in these discussions, debates and exchanges, and as such, I want nothing further to do with you on this subject.[/b]
As far as Topography, here's roughly the land I've indicated, again encirclde in Blue. Compare it to Shinnecock next door or even NGLA to the far northeast.
Mike, I'm intimately familiar with that land and it's mundane in comparison to NGLA and Shinnecock.
It's comparitively flat and dead flat in many areas.
No one would opt for that land with NGLA or Shinnecocks land being available.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/5441824463_41459c42fd_b.jpg)
I always assume that the parties engaging in these discussions and debates will be genuine, intellectually honest. That their character will prevail over their opinion, position and perspective.
As I indicated above, I think you've gone to extremes, being dishonest and unethical in many phases of this discussion/debate and all to solely put forth your agenda. You have not been a man searching for the truth, irrespective of where that leads, but one resorting to fabrication and dishonesty.
Hence, I will not participate on this thread any further with you.
David,
You're on your own.
-
David,
I have not represented you as believing CBM routed NGLA in 2-3 days on horseback since you clarified the matter the other day. I completely understand your contention and believe it's fairly consistent with mine.
Patrick, on the other hand, still holds to that belief, and he's been the one arguing for it.
You should have corrected his misunderstanding in the interest of a productive discussion because you know he's not going to listen to me.
Also, the tract on Sebonac Neck that CBM had at his disposal was 450 acres, of which he secured 205 acres in December 1906.
The articles you posted talked about CBM securing 250 acres somewhere in October and then talked about the dimensions of that property on each border. There is no way that Sebonack Neck "skirts" the LIRR...the south end of NGLA is almost a third of a mile from those tracks, for instance, and there is no way that any tract of 450 acres that CBM had for consideration came anywhere near the inlet going towards Good Ground, which as mentioned is 1.5 miles away from NGLA's western border.
So, I'm sorry, call me what you will, but I will not blindly accept the contention that those articles referred to the land NGLA is on today when the 250 acres they cite require over 1000 acres to map, and we know that CBM considered at least one other site near Good Ground during the previous 12 months, and we know the Nov 1st, 1906 article I posted said he was down to two sites, the first near Montauk and the other in the western part of Shinneock Hills near Good Ground.
Patrick,
I'm sorry you feel that way but you've had your mind made up from the start.
I've provided plenty of information that would cause someone coming into this with a modicum of an open mind to consider, including CBM's own quoted words from multiple newspapers contemporaneous with events where Macdonald talked in detail about the meticulous, detailed process he was going to follow to lay out his holes, yet you choose to summarily dismiss them with some "Dewey defeats Truman" baloney that isn't even the same type of error as what you suggest here.
Did you know, for instance, that there were almost no trees in that part of the world at that time? Mark Hissey in spending 1000s of hours researching the Sebonac Neck property came across that one, yet you summarily refused to consider any information that might make views of the Atlantic possible in an effort to dismiss ALL of these articles.
Yesterday David posted the following about the "Canal" land CBM proposed buying that was rejected;
- There were apparently few if any roads near the canal except for the main highway when CBM decided to try and acquire this land in the Fall of 1905! That is when SHPBRC bought the property and began planning to develop it.
- That map shows the results of their development of the infrastructure, so presumably not much of that was there initially, but it was increasingly there as they built the infrastructure.
Where were you when David made those statements? I must have somehow missed you arguing with David about the main highway going through the site CBM proposed buying? Yet you come down on me supposedly making a "colossal mistake" because of some sandy dirt road going through his proposed acquisition?
Yet, you're the one who is supposedly being open-minded and fair here, yes?
That's ok, I know your mind is made up, has been made up, and will remain so.
Perhaps you just have a blind spot here because Macdonald is your hero, but honestly Patrick...I think the enhanced, detailed portrayal of him here has been to his credit
I hope we meet again on happier topics soon.
-
As posted by David earlier, this article is from November 1, 1906 just after the Lesley Cup Matches at Merion. On November 1st, 1906 from those same matches it was also reported in another paper that CBM said he was down to two possible sites...one near Montauk and one in Western Shinnecock near Good Ground.
If my speculation based on the coordinates in David's other article was so preposterous and outrageous to cause Patrick to leave the discussion and David to seemingly do the same, then I wonder if they could possibly tell us which other sites "in varied sections" near Shinnecock and Peconic Bay they think CBM was looking at at that late date?
Remember that he signed contracts to secure 205 acres at Sebonac Neck on December 14th, 1906.
If the land the papers reported he secured 250 acres of in October was Sebonac Neck, why didn't they say that? Surely Sebonac Neck was a known promontory...why the need to describe it as south to the LIRR, and west to the inlet between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
Boy...I guess the guy who refuses to throw childish insults back is just no fun to play with...
-
Patrick quit posting because you are a charlatan and he has no respect for you whatsoever. I agree with him. You just make shit up to muddy waters, as it suits your purpose.
Like above where you try to tie me to your ridiculous 120 acre canal plot with the highway running through its gut. You asked me about roads, and I told you that the highway was there, and from that you think I have endorsed your ridiculous plot? CBM would have had to have been and idiot to try and put his course on such a property. And you are dishonest for pretending I somehow signed off on it.
As for your latest, you are just rehashing the same old misinformation, which is another of your tricks - post and post the same sources so people think you must know what you are talking about. Bogus. You know as well as I do that CBM had all of Sebonack neck to choose from, and you know as well as I do that those articles describe the Sebonack neck property, which adjoins Shinnecock and stretches along Peconic Bay, with the inlet (Cold Springs Pond) to the west.
You aren't interested in what really happened, but only in pursuing your agenda, and discussing this stuff with you is a complete waste of time.
-
David,
You're correct that discussion is a complete waste of time.
When you magically transform CBM's documented 450-acre tract he was considering at Sebonac Neck into "all of Sebonack Neck" stretching the dimensions to over 1200 acres all the way out to the LIRR south and the Inlet near Good Ground west, then yes, we likely have little of use to discuss.
And when Patrick sits here and tells us that various contemporaneous, same-day articles in multiple papers quoting CBM directly and in depth at the time he secured 205 acres of land are all misquoted garbage, then we have similiarly lost all common points of understanding on which to base a rational discussion.
What other sites near Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills do you think your article from November 1906 is referring to?
Do you think CBM would have looked at surveyed, cleared sites first, or have ventured up into the entangled jungle of hinterlands that "everyone thought was more or less worthless"?
Speaking of agenda-driven, give me a break. Neither of you have shown the slightest interest in actually learning what happened or being open-minded about any of it so get off your high-horse.
-
More distortions and misinformation. These old newspaper articles were not providing "coordinates" as you disingenuously write above, they were providing general descriptions, based on who-knows-what information. And as I have already clarified, I am not saying this was a 1200 acre (a made up number by you) area he was choosing from, but merely tried to show you to what physical features the articles mentioned. But you just twist and misrepresent to try and muck up things that aren't that complicated.
I don't know the exact 450 acres that CBM had to choose from, but that map showing the first stage of development by SHPBRC gives us a good indication of what was NOT included in the 450 acres. Subtracting that out, we get something like this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA450acres.jpg?t=1297702093)
As you can see the property adjoins Shinnecock Hills Course, and stretches along Peconic Bay to near the inlet (which may refer to the whole pond) to the west, and skirts the RR to the south by a few hundred yards.
As for the Nov. 1 articles, I don't know exactly what they meant, but offered my best guess explanation above. You probably missed that in your haste to misrepresent something or another.
-
David,
Whatever "highway" existed on an 1873 Atlas, it seems it never was much but perhaps a dirt road back then.
Here's from a 1905 map of Long Island...it's blown up and a bit blurry but even here the area in question is very undeveloped at best and "highways", such that they were, are shown in red.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5445951028_24edc6c56d_o.jpg)
Even by 1914 it looks as though the highway to the South Fork was south of the tracks, not north of it. I also like the way the scaled map shows the exact location of each Railroad Station, giving us a better idea of how far apart the original Shinnecock Hills station was from "Golf Grounds".
Was there any development north of the track in Shinnecock at this early time?
From the looks of things here, the "inlet" between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Hills Train Station would appear to be the Canal, no?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Since a realty company was able to buy and completely plan a subdivision on that land, I would say it was mostly if not completely undeveloped at that time!
I am confused about you adding the article again in this post. I agree with David's measurements above, and that Sebonac Neck was the ultimate choice as shown and measured. But, I thought all your blue and red line maps were describing the first offer he made for 120 acres?
Is the difference of opinion here that DM thinks there were only two sites - Montauk and SH, while you think he discarded Montauk and focused on SH area, and made two offers to the Realty company there? It reads that way to me on page 186-7 in Scotland's Gift, too.
Is there any chance this article is about the final property and the author meant to write "Golf Grounds" station? A canal is a canal and an inlet is an inlet! If that was a newwriter or editor mistake, it would fit the land description perfectly.
-
Jeff,
At the risk of dragging you deeper here ;), David posted an article from October 1906 a few pages back that listed those landmarks as enclosing the 250 acres CBM said he had secured at that time.
Frankly, I'm not sure what that article is talking about, but the western limits of Sebonac Neck is hardly between Shinnecock Station and Good Ground, nor does the southern dimension "skirt the LIRR", so I doubt the land described at that time is the land of today's present course as David's most recent drawing makes clear.
This may be referring to the Canal land CBM says he tried to buy 120 acres of, I don't know. It may have been an offer for ground further east towards Shinnecock but still above the tracks as I tried to speculatively draw, but CBM never mentioned any other offers in his book 20 years hence, but we do know he looked at "various sites" around Shinnecock and the Peconic Bay according to contemporaneous sources.
But know..."Good Ground" was a well known location and that wouldn't have been confused with the "Golf Grounds" train station in my opinion.
I say that because the Golf Grounds train station did not exist in 1906. ;) ;D
Also, I think we can now be pretty sure that any proposed building that CBM would do for his course along that strip would not have interrupted the 1907 Grand Prix. ;)
-
Mike Cirba,
You have got to be f-ing kidding me? Because some 1905 map isn't accurate enough to show Cold Springs inlet, we are going to pretend it did not exist? The Shinnecock Canal existed in 1906, you know. They'd have said the canal if they meant the canal. Besides, that area was reportedly already being developed by then.
As for the highway, I have no idea if it was paved and I don't care. This was 1906! You seem to suffer with some city-slicker perception that the only real roads are paved roads, and the rest of them are just dirt tracks through a field. I grew up on gravel highways, and I can assure you that they were real roads and not just some dirt track through a field, and that even gravel roads take substantial work and effort to build, and one did not just move main roads willy-nilly.
Here is the 1873 atlas. Note the road running right up the gut of your two golf courses. Note also that this was one of only two roads into and out of the area. Note also that as usual your research is for shit. You only find enough that you can try to distort to try to sell whatever you are selling, and don't bother to go further.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1873Atlas.jpg?t=1297711643)
And by the way, it is not clear to me to which Shinnecock Station they were referring. There was the old Shinnecock Hills Station but there was also the Golf Ground station at Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. Given that they had just mentioned the golf course I suspect that they were referring to the one next to the golf grounds. As for Jeff Brauer's suggestion, could Good Ground have meant Golf Ground, which was the name of the Shinnecock station at the course? You'd be all over that if you were on this side, but I won't even bother to entertain it. Why would I? We know the inlet they were talking about is Cold Spring Pond. It is the only inlet which reasonably fits, after all.
Seriously Mike, the problem with you on this issue is that you simply refuse be reasonably look at what was going on here, and that is the same way you have been ever since this entire Merion debacle got going.
For just one example, do you remember how you spent months arguing that in 1910 NGLA didn't really exist because it hadn't officially opened, and wasn't really all that well known? And that CBM was NOT REALLY WELL-KNOWN AS AN EXPERT ON GOLF COURSE DESIGN, BUT RATHER WAS ONLY KNOWN AS A TOP GOLFER? Idiotic.
Now that you have looked into it, do you mind recanting all that previous bullshit? Surely you won't, but the absurdity of the position is self-evident. Here you have been just as sure of yourself, and just as wrong. Go back and look at how much you have gotten wrong on this issue of the the Creation of NGLA. Go back a week, go back a month, go back a year, and look at all the crappy ridiculous theories you have put forward. Every single one of them has been wrong. Yet none of it has caused you any pause whatsoever. You still seem to think that if you can imagine it and if you want it to be true, then it must be true. It is preposterous.
Step back and look at the big picture.
CBM tells us that he first determined to try and obtain land not too close to Shinnecock, but in the general area, within a few weeks of the time that the land was obtained by the Brooklyn Company, which was the fall of 1905. CBM offered to purchase 120 acres near the canal, and the offer was refused. The Brooklyn company was SHPBRC and they seemed to have other plans, because they immediately began developing the most accessible portions of their land, building roads and infrastructure soon thereafter. But SHPBRC was apparently not immediately developing the entire parcel. The map shows their development is on the Southern and Western portions which were more accessible, and not Sebonack Neck. CBM tells us there were 450 acres on Sebonack Neck, and that he rode it, found he could use it, and they agreed to sell him some of it! He went over it again and chose his land.
Rather than rewriting the entire narrative, why don't you just step back and tell us where those Oct. 1906 articles best fit in this narrative? They sure as hell don't fit with the 120 acres by the Canal. The timing, size, and locations are wrong. As is the result. The fit quite nicely into the 450 acres that CBM secured a few months later.
Yet you try to completely rewrite the entire narrative. All because you haven't yet thought of a way to spin this earlier date to fit with your undying agenda? So you keep trying to pretend that the land described in those articles was not the Sebonack Neck land. This is preposterous. The description fits, and by the fall of 1906, SHPBRC had been preparing their development on the land you claim he wanted for about a year! You just ignore these realities because you want to keep alive your fantasy that CBM didn't stumble onto this land until the winter of 1906? Absurd!
December 28, 1905. Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19051228BDE-1.jpg?t=1297710906) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19051228BDE2.jpg?t=1297710906)
-
David,
What was the exact date of that article you posted?
Its funny, but yes, Golf Grounds did apparently exist, but this article's "mistake" is listing the canal as the eastern boundary instead of the western boundary, unless there is another canal I don't see.
As to the road, it was there, but Olmstead and Vaux seemingly had no trouble rearranging it if the 1873 map is anywhere near accurate. However, it also appears that the Olmstead plan was not adopted at all. Only the western half of North Highway looks to be the same, and most of the side streets have been straighten in actual development from the initial plan.
Mike,
I am still not sure from your last post if your blue line/red line plan earlier was meant to pin down where the first 120 acre offer was? If the SHPB realty company had started planning in the western area - which makes sense since it was closer to roads, railroads and NYC, then they probably did reject CBM's offer easily, and sent him out to the unsurveyed, further from everything, harder to get utilities and roads to Sebonac Neck area. Even then, and I am only speculating here, I suspect that rather than ground contours, the final 250 acres was not completely at CBM's disposal as he wrote. Most developers would limit water frontage knowing its value.
And, as CBM says, he didn't want to build a clubhouse, which someone was nice enough to build for him! Limited water frontage, need to use the Shinnecock Inn, and an out and back routing simulating TOC seems like a match made in heaven to me.
-
December 28, 1905. Brooklyn Daily Eagle.
-
David,
Golf Grounds Train Station did not exist in October 1906 at least according to the LIRR archives. I see your article says it already existed in 1905, so they may be wrong.
They claim it opened in April 1907.
-
Mike,
That article from Dec. 1905 says it does........
-
From the June 2, 1907 edition of the NY Sun.
Is that a paved, gravel or dirt road?
Hey, I can see the ocean from that road!
Is that a windmill I see?
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
;D
-
I don't know how you can conclude that the Olmstead plan wasn't adopted. A quick overly shows that many if not most of the roads are still pretty much where they were located on that map. Definitely many more roads have been added, but the plan provides a pretty good skeleton, especially given that it is 105 yrs old. How many major highway projects have taken place between then and now? We don't know changes to the highway which took place in the 34 years between 1873 and 1907 or the 104 years since, so I don't see the basis for stating what was changed and what wasn't.
-
Joe,
Maybe Mr. Kavanaugh could weigh in on that pavement.
David,
I could be wrong, but I sure don't see any of the classic Olmstead curving roads in the way the plan developed.
-
David,
The major highway through that area at least through 1914 was south of the Railroad tracks.
Jeff,
My drawings were simply meant to try to approximate where some 250 acres that CBM may have been considering as he looked at "various sites" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills as was reported in November 1906, and possibly thought he had secured at some time around October 1906 when that article was posted.
If the southern boundaries of the land CBM said he secured skirted the LIRR, and the western boundary was between Shinnecock Hills train station and Good Ground, I have a hard time imagining that was the 450 aces available up at Sebonac Neck.
If it was Sebonac Neck, why didn't they just say that? It's not like Sebonac Neck wasn't a known landmark.
But apparently, speculative discussion based on new findings = Charlatanism here.
-
I could be wrong, but I sure don't see any of the classic Olmstead curving roads in the way the plan developed.
Maybe I don't understand. Are you saying that the 1907 map wasn't done by Olmstead, or that the roads on the 1907 map weren't built? As to the latter, most of the roads on that map exist. They have just been supplemented with a lot more roads.
______________________________________________________________
Mike Cirba.
Why must you distort everything?
- You conveniently left off the part about the property STRETCHING ALONG PECONIC BAY.
- And you misrepresented the "western boundary." There is NOTHING about a "western boundary." The article stated that THE FURTHEST POINT WEST was NEAR THE INLET.
- The references to the stations were only to give the approximate location of the inlet, yet you keep pretending like they themselves were references.
- And you left off the part about the land adjoining Shinnecock golf course!
You are a charlatan!
When you find yourself repeatedly changing the facts to suit your story, then even you ought to realize your story is for shit.
-
David,
Your insults are really ranging on hysteria at this point. You should take some yoga or something, seriously...you seem very angry for no good reason.
In any case, almost anything in that area skirts Peconic Bay, no?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
As far as what the article states, neither of us should change the wording..it's pretty self-explanatory.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
-
Not angry at all Mike. But I am incredibly frustrated with having to deal with your unwillingness and/or inability to honestly deal with the source material. I remember you in person as a nice guy and not entirely dimwitted, and so I am having trouble grasping how it is that you get everything wrong in about every post for years and years on end. Perhaps I have overestimated your abilities.
Take your latest post, for example.
You again claim the property "skirted Peconic Bay" but that is NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID. The article said that the property STRETCHED ALONG PECONIC BAY. Surely you understand the difference? The only property anywhere near Shinnecock's course that stretches along Peconic Bay is the Sebonack Neck Property!
- How many times do I have to correct you on this one single mistake before you get it right?
- Why do you keep changing it back to "skirting Peconic Bay?"
I see only two possibilities here, and both are far from flattering.
-
Here is another article mentioning the Golf Ground station, prior to its supposed opening date in 1907. The article is from late October or early November 1906 NY Evening Telegram, and is discussing improvements being made necessary by the SHPBRC development.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA190610NYET.jpg?t=1297719881)
-
David,
The major highway through that area at least through 1914 was south of the Railroad tracks.
David, Mike is once again lying to you, veiling his response so as to preclude the existance of the other MAJOR highway that ran through the South Fork, the NORTH Highway, which would become the Sunrise Highway, in almost the identical location shown in the schematic.
Today, the Long Island Expressway is the MAJOR East-West Highway in Long Island, but, that doesn't mean that the Southern State Parkway and the Northern State Parkway aren't MAJOR East-West Highways.
Mike would have you believe that there were no roads except the one shown.
How did people get from the South Shore to the North Shore on the South Fork, when according to his schematic, there were no roads running North-South.
Mike is simply incapable of being objective and telling the truth, and worse, he makes up facts to support his agenda.
The NORTH Highway and the SOUTH Highway were the two main/major thoroughfares from the Canal to Points East in 1906.
-
With all of this back and forth name-calling one thing is quite clear... not a single one of you three have any idea as to the condition and evolution of the roadways and how they impacted on both the community and the railroad in the East End of Long island in 1906-1910.
Let's go to the official "Documents of the Senate of the State of New York" "one Hundred and Thirtieth Session" "1907."
I don't think anyone of you can have a disagreement with this document.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad4.jpg)
The following is found on pages 231-233 and are the official DECISIONS as to the BUILDING and REBUILDING of the road(s) (e.g. - NORTH HIGHWAY) between the "Good Ground Station" and the "Shinnecock Hills Station."
You are about to see EXACTLY where the roads and train stations were located as of DECEMBER 4, 1906:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad2.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad3.jpg)
-
Phil,
I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks.
Right now, I need to eat some newborn puppies for dinner and then hurl some molotov cocktails at the Vatican before getting some rest but I'll be back tomorrow with more acts of treachery and mayhem.
-
I'm sorry Mike, but how can I trust the word of a "Liar?" :)
One other point about the North Highway going through the middle of that property as if that would deter anyone from building a golf course there. Take a quick look through Ed Oden's thread showing early golf course designs and see how many courses were designed with holes parallel to, playing directly across and even with as many as 1/2 a dozen streets directly involved in the course and play during the time-frame that NGLA was designed and built.
Take a good look at the Garden City Golf Club during those years. Why GCGC? Because articles already posted on this thread clearly state that many of those involved with the creation of NGLA were GCGC members! They certainly had no problem playing shots that crossed active roadways... Take a look at Merion. For whatever CBM's involvement there crossing and playing over the road certainly didn't seem to keep him from believinmg that an outstanding course would be built.
I have no idea as to whether CBM looked where you believe that he did. I do know that the above document gives the EXACT location of the railroad stations, certain streets and where they crossed the tracks as well as the type of road that it was (dirt, etc...) What I am quite certain of is that crossing roads would not have bothered he or any of the other GCGC members in the design of the golf course...
In other words, if CBM looked where you believe, then the North Highway has absolutely nothing to do with why that land was not chosen...
-
Phillip, Thanks for the information which is somewhat duplicative of my post immediately above. Frankly I'm not planning on wasting any time on the roads, because I don't see the roads as being all that crucial or relevant to any reasonable theory of what happened. Mike Cirba's theory is not reasonable. He just made up a third site because he'd like there to have been one. Wishful thinking does not a valid theory make.
As for your last post, it is inapt. Mike's fantasy land was over two miles long and would have had an average width of only 160 yards throughout, and it had a road running up much of it. Plus, if the course ran in both directions and wasn't simply an "out" it would have had to have been well over 7,000 yards long. I don't have to look at Ed Oden's thread to tell you that Mike's fantasy course was not CBM's ideal course.
______________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
No one said you were Evil. Rather, you are unable and/or unwilling to accurately and/or honestly deal with the source material. I don't know which one it is and I much care anymore.
-
Phil,
Crossing a road is one thing, having a road run through the entire stretch of the very narrow phantom layout that Mike championed is another.
We know CBM crossed a road at NGLA with his 8th and 11th holes.
Likewise his Eden hole, # 13 and the Driveway on # 18.
But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course.
Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course.
It's an absurd theory, one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda.
First Mike said that there was nothing there, then when it was pointed out that a Major Highway ran down the middle of his long narrow course, he denied its existance even though it was on the schematic he produced, the one he used as evidence to support his claim. He continued to deny its existance, then, finally admitted it was there, but that CBM would move it, then he denied its existance by producing a schematic showing only one road on the entire South Fork. And now, now it's clear that the North Highway was in full operation in 1906.
Mike changes his story daily, desperately clinging to any item in every newspaper account that Joe finds, in an effort to validate his phony theory.
Macdonald told us that he found the land adjoining Shinnecock Hills golf course.
Since he was a member there, I think it's reasonable to assume that he was familiar with where the Shinnecock Golf Course was, especially when he was playing it. (;;)
As a member of Shinnecock Hills, CBM was intimately familiar with how to get there.
He was familiar with the land East of the Canal, leading to Shinnecock, just like every member today.
As to my "liar" comment, I stand by it.
For Mike to produce a map, with just one road on it, the South (Montauk) highway, and offer it as proof, implying that the NORTH Highway didn't exist, is blatantly dishonest. It's a LIE. There's nothing he won't resort to in an attempt to justify his bogus theory, and lying, misrepresenting, omitting and twisting of the facts are just part of his SOP repertoire.
You and I may argue, passionately, even vehemently, about the play of the 3rd hole at Baltusrol, but, I think we both respect each others integrity, in that our positions are honest representations of the facts and our logic.
That's not the case with Mike.
He has shown, time and time again, that he's been disengenuous and dishonest.
I trust what you write, I view everything that Mike writes, with enlightened suspicion.
I don't trust him to be candid, and I don't trust him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Everybody makes mistakes, but to deliberately post false or misleading information, to deliberately omit or misrepresent the facts is dishonest.
And, if somebody lies, directly or through inference and/or implication, I'm going to call it as I see it.
It might not be the most diplomatic or popular thing to say, but, if I remain silent, I'll hate myself.
Never forget what olde Billy Boy stated in Hamlet, Scene I, Act iii. "This above all: ........
And now, to Quote George Burns, "Say Goodnight Gracie"
-
Pat,
I'm not intending to be part of this discussion. I posted what I did because all three of you, and that does include you, have shown that you simply do not understand what the roads were like in that time period. If there was any doubt, your comment "But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course. Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." proves my point.
First of all, the North Highway in that location at that time may have been "major" for those that lived there, but one thing is for sure, it wasn't a "MAJOR Highway" by any standard, especially in those days. It was but a small dirt road. One of the two main ones through the area yes, but small and really not all that busy. The reason for improving it wasn't heavy local traffic as the above citations from the NY State Senate records show, but to improve the crossings for safety reasons of the railroad tracks.
Secondly, I NEVER stated that I was commenting on the highlighted area that Mike showed, so why do you put those words in my mouth? "Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." You call Mike "disingenuous" and a "liar" for doing the same thing to what you and David write, so yes, finish that Shakespeare quote aND THIS TIME CONCENTRATE ON THE next THREE WORDS, "To Thine Own Self..."
As for your stating that what I said about how roads were very often incorporated into golf course designs even at major clubs where shots would often cross them, go look at a map of GCGC from that time and count the number of times that not only holes but SHOTS would have to be played across active streets.
By the way, if you believe that North Highway at that spot in Shinnecock in 1906 was truly a "major highway" then the roads impacting on GCGC back trhen would qualify as interstate super-highways. That is why, in my opinion, YOUR theory as to what North Highway was is absurd and "one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda."
Take the road out of the equation and look carefully at what I posted and you'll see WHY that area would not have been acceptable for building a golf course there DURING THAT TIME! It's because the State of New York was going to rip up all the RR crossings and roads and rebuild everything. With that going on for the next few years it certainly wouldn't have been where CBM would want to build the "Ideal golf course."
Does this mean that he DIDN'T look in that area early on as Mike believe's? No it doesn't. That area in its entirety absolutely fits in among the bounds mentioned in the early newspaper articles. Did he look at the land and then learn of the State's plans? Quite possibly. Remember, it was also mentioned in those articles that the price for the land was suddenly increasing dramatically. It is no stretch of anyone's imagination to cite this specific highway and railroad improvements as the main reason for it.
Look at the area in the TIME FRAME in which the project happened and I think you will then view Mike's motivation's differently. You still won't agree with his conclusions, but I personally can't see him as being "disingenuous," a "charlatan" or a "Liar." All of those and the other things thrown at the man for simply looking at the information that he came across differently are most undeserved.
Anyway, this is why I, also, haven't been commenting of late. Discuss, disagree and insult is just not worth it...
By the way Pat, even though I am not quite as ancient as you I, too, grew up on Long Island and have memories even predating the building of a couple of small roadways such as the Long Island Expressway. Even though I wasn't in the social circles that would allow me to play NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and any other private club, I did drive by all of them and have a pretty fair understanding of the areas in which each sit, something that both Mike and David do not. You, though, are familiar with the areas in question and should really re-think your views on them.
And you're still wrong about Baltusrol #3... :)
-
Pat/David,
So after all of that its a dirt road which I contended from the beginning? The A"?+35 63+_@ 9lvord Co. Couldn't re-route a mile or so of it if they wanted?
Where do you guys think the "various " locations were around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock that CBM was considering?
For discussion purposes, let's assume David is correct and rthat Oct 1906 article with a western point near the inlet towards Good Ground was actually 250 acres near today's NGLA.
What does that do to our understanding of the NGLA creation story?
Recall the October articles say that property was surveyed, mapped, (would they need to be cleared and made passable first?), and that those maps had been sent to various overseas luminaries for review and comment and possible contribution.
We also know that it was another two months before CBM actually secured the property and we know at that time he was quoted as saying he and his committee would spend the next several months working up plans before construction would commence later that spring.
Is this consistent with what he wrote in his book 20 years later?
-
Phil,
I love Patrick but he has a complete blind spot and closed mind when it comes to any information about CBM and NGLA that's more involved than a two day horseback ride and voila!, magic!
The irony is that Pat used to admonish all the Philly guys here to keep an open mind about Merion.
I guess its different when you have to confront your own biases and predispositions, but it is very obvious here that he hasn't followed his own advice, going so far as dismissing multiple contemporaneous news articles identically quoting CBM contemporaneously with events.
-
David/Patrick,
Do you think CBM would have paid to clear and survey a few hundred acres before securing the property, much less purchasing it outright?
Do you both actually believe that there is no way those articles weren't referring to land somewhere else...land that had previously been surveyed, likely for real estate purposes?
Which is the more likely scenario in your view?
-
Pat,
I'm not intending to be part of this discussion. I posted what I did because all three of you, and that does include you, have shown that you simply do not understand what the roads were like in that time period.
I have a far better understanding than you give me credit for.
[/b]
If there was any doubt, your comment "But, that's a far cry from having one of the two MAJOR Highways of the time running down the entire length of the golf course. Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..." proves my point.
To the contrary, that statement is right on point.
The Olmsted Bros, who were nationally reknowned landscape architects labeled that road as a "HIGHWAY".
So did the New York State Senate, so I'm content that my categorization of that road, the NORTH HIGHWAY, was precisely accurate.
Perhaps it's you who don't know the difference between a "highway", a road and a lane.[/color
First of all, the North Highway in that location at that time may have been "major" for those that lived there, but one thing is for sure, it wasn't a "MAJOR Highway" by any standard, especially in those days.
Of course it was. It was one of only two (2) major roads that traversed the South Fork in 1905 and today.
Olmsted called it a "HIGHWAY" and the New York State Senate categorized it as a HIGHWAY.
That's ample evidence for me. If you want to join Mike in claiming it was a deer path, that okay with me, but, it undermines your understanding of what those roads were in comparison to all other roads of the time.[/b]
It was but a small dirt road. One of the two main ones through the area yes, but small and really not all that busy.
That's conjecture on your part. And, it was certainly busier than all of the other "roads", it was a Highway, one of only two that traversed the South Fork from East-West.
If the NORTH HIGHWAY was a small dirt road, what were the other roads, deer paths ?
The Olmsted Bros and the New York State Senate knew the difference between a Highway, a road, a lane and a path, so stop the nonsense. The NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY were THE MAJOR EAST-WEST THOROUGHFARES ON THE SOUTH FORK, THEN, AND NOW.[/b]
The reason for improving it wasn't heavy local traffic as the above citations from the NY State Senate records show, but to improve the crossings for safety reasons of the railroad tracks.
Correct, .......and why is that ?
Because the NORTH HIGHWAY had signficant traffic on it.
If it didn't, the crossing wouldn't represent a safety hazard.[/b]
Secondly, I NEVER stated that I was commenting on the highlighted area that Mike showed, so why do you put those words in my mouth?
Because that's the sole focus of the discussion on the North Highway.
No one cares about the path of the North Highway in Queens or Nassau County.
Mike posted a schematic produced by the Nationally famous firm of Olmsted Bros, and claimed the land was barren, when in fact, one of the two Major Highways running East-West on the South Fork went right down the center the very narrow area he designated as the site of CBM's golf course. Since CBM was a member of Shinnecock pre-dating NGLA, he was keenly aware of that road and the property it bisected.
The North Highway, and discussions about it, have no relevance West of the Canal or East of Shinnecock Hills.
The entire context of the discussion pertaining to the North Highway was in the area Mike claimed was the narrow barren site East of the Canal that he claims was CBM's site for NGLA.[/b]
"Especially on a very, very, very narrow elongated golf course..."
That's correct, or didn't you see the site Mike outlined in Blue.
Do you even know what you're talking about.
Look at the area Mike outlined in Blue, his CBM site and then look at the Olmsted schematic Mike posted.
Mike's theory was that they were almost congruent.
Haven't you been paying attention.
And, in that schematic, the NORTH HIGHWAY ran right down the middle of Mike's site.
Mike's area, outlined in Blue in a long, very narrow area.
What Mike didn't realize, and I guess you don't either, is that there's a MAJOR HIGHWAY running right down the center of it.
A Highway that CBM was intimately familiar with. [/b]
You call Mike "disingenuous" and a "liar" for doing the same thing to what you and David write,
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Show me where I lied.
Show me where I deliberately misrepresented.
Show me where I omitted relevant facts
Absent your ability to produce any of the above, a retraction and appology will be accepted.[/b]
so yes, finish that Shakespeare quote aND THIS TIME CONCENTRATE ON THE next THREE WORDS, "To Thine Own Self..."
I always have been, on this thread and on the 3rd hole at Baltusrol.[/b]
As for your stating that what I said about how roads were very often incorporated into golf course designs even at major clubs where shots would often cross them, go look at a map of GCGC from that time and count the number of times that not only holes but SHOTS would have to be played across active streets.
I'm intimately familiar with GCGC and the roads (active and inactive [planned]) that cut through the property.
But, GCGC was a vastly different site than NGLA. Garden city was a vastly different area than the remote area West of the Canal on the South Fork. With NGLA, CBM had a "pick of the litter" opportunity regarding the land for his golf course. No such luxury was afforded at GCGC.[/b]
By the way, if you believe that North Highway at that spot in Shinnecock in 1906 was truly a "major highway" then the roads impacting on GCGC back trhen would qualify as interstate super-highways.
Like Mike, you've now taken to incorporating hyperbole in your posts.
Many of the roads at GCGC were planned, on schematics, but NEVER built.
Olmsted defined the road as a HIGHWAY. The New York Senate Defined the road as a HIGHWAY,
But, you along with Mike would have us believe that it was just a deer path.
Did you ever stop to consider why they built the Shinneock Inn right on/off that HIGHWAY ?
Or, was it constructed to help lost hikers in the middle of the brush/woods ?[/color
That is why, in my opinion, YOUR theory as to what North Highway was is absurd and "one that a prudent person wouldn't consider unless they had a self serving agenda."
But, it's NOT MY OPINION.
It's the OPINION OF THE OLMSTED BROS FIRM AND THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE.
That's what's so absurd about your post.
You're denying the very source your citing as the authority on this issue.[/b]
Take the road out of the equation and look carefully at what I posted and you'll see WHY that area would not have been acceptable for building a golf course there DURING THAT TIME! It's because the State of New York was going to rip up all the RR crossings and roads and rebuild everything.
If you take the road out of the equation, then, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO RIP UP THE RAILROAD CROSSINGS. THE ROAD IS AT THE CORE OF THE ISSUE. THE ROAD WAS IN SUCH USE, WITH TRAFFIC, THAT THE CROSSINGS BECAME DANGEROUS, thus the crossings would be moved and restructured. TELL ME THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.[/b]
With that going on for the next few years it certainly wouldn't have been where CBM would want to build the "Ideal golf course."
You don't get it.
The road, THE NORTH HIGHWAY had become so heavily traveled that when it crossed the RR tracks, the increased traffic, road and rail, constituted a safety hazard. IT'S THE HIGHWAY and TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY THAT'S THE ISSUE.
It's the SAME HIGHWAY THAT CUT RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER OF MIKE'S LONG, NARROW GOLF COURSE.[/b]
Does this mean that he DIDN'T look in that area early on as Mike believe's? No it doesn't.
Of course he looked at that land.
He looked at it EVERY TIME HE DROVE DOWN THAT HIGHWAY WHEN HEADING TO SHINNECOCK, WHERE HE WAS A MEMBER.
AND, HE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN, WHEN HE DROVE BACK TO NEW YORK CITY.[/b]
That area in its entirety absolutely fits in among the bounds mentioned in the early newspaper articles.
The same newspaper articles that have been wrong, time after time, on issue after issue ?
Remember, Mike initially claimed that the course was WEST of the Canal at "Good Grounds" Then he conveniently, and for his agenda, extended "Good Grounds" to EAST of the Canal, but, on the map he most recently posted, we see that "Good Grounds" is entirely WEST of the Canal[/b]
Did he look at the land and then learn of the State's plans? Quite possibly.
Highly doubtful.
And, he NEVER mentions or alludes to any such activity or consideration.
But, if you want to make up things, I can see why you'd align yourself with Mike.(;;)[/b]
Remember, it was also mentioned in those articles that the price for the land was suddenly increasing dramatically. It is no stretch of anyone's imagination to cite this specific highway and railroad improvements as the main reason for it.
That's speculation on your part.
Correction, that's wild speculation on your part.
Why do you improve a highway ?
Perhaps because the traffic on it is increasing
And, if the price of the land was increasing due to development, why would CBM want the NORTH HIGHWAY, a HIGHWAY that was getting busier, to run right smack down the center of a very narrow strip of land that Mike claims was the site he wanted ?[/b]
Look at the area in the TIME FRAME in which the project happened and I think you will then view Mike's motivation's differently.
Phil, you must be kidding. My entire perspective is circa 1905. And, the TIME FRAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MIKE'S MOTIVATION. He's agenda driven. His entire goal is to discount, diminish and dismiss the possibility that CBM routed Merion in short order. That you don't see that is mind boggling to me. But then again, you think the way to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol is with a fade, so your defense of Mike shouldn't surprise me.[/b]
You still won't agree with his conclusions, but I personally can't see him as being "disingenuous," a "charlatan" or a "Liar."
I NEVER called him a "Charlatan"[/b]
All of those and the other things thrown at the man for simply looking at the information that he came across differently are most undeserved.
Not true.
Mike has an agenda, that you don't see it surprises me. And, in the pursuit of that agenda, he's been disengenuous and lied.
Now, I like Mike. I've had him as my guest at GCGC. He's welcome to play Hidden Creek or where ever I might be a member.
But, on this thread he's had an agenda from the start. To discount, diminish and dismiss the possibility that CBM could have routed Merion in short order. And as such, I don't think he's conducted himself on a high, objective, intellectually honest basis.
We may disagree on that, but, that's my stated opinion.[/b]
Anyway, this is why I, also, haven't been commenting of late. Discuss, disagree and insult is just not worth it...
I agree, discuss and disagree. But, when people MAKE UP FACTS, are disengenuous and lie, directly, infered and/or implied, then it's no longer an honest discussion, it's an agenda driven discussion.[/b]
By the way Pat, even though I am not quite as ancient as you I, too, grew up on Long Island and have memories even predating the building of a couple of small roadways such as the Long Island Expressway. Even though I wasn't in the social circles that would allow me to play NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and any other private club, I did drive by all of them and have a pretty fair understanding of the areas in which each sit, something that both Mike and David do not. You, though, are familiar with the areas in question and should really re-think your views on them.
I would agree that David and Mike are NOT familiar with those areas, which is why they should exercise more caution BEFORE making ABSOLUTE declarations.
Mike, in his haste to prove his agenda never bothered to examine the Olmsted Bros schematic showing the North Highway, then, when his omission became glaringly evident, he declared that the highway didn't exist, even though he was the one who posted the Olmsted Bros schematic showing the Highway, as evidence to prove his point. His positions have conveniently changed time and time again, but, they've changed in but one direction, the direction of furthering his agenda that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order as he wrote in "Scotland's Gift". And why, so that he could prove that CBM didn't route Merion in short order.
I'm astounded that a guy as bright as you, hasn't connected the dots.
But, then again, I remember, you think the 3rd hole at Baltusrol should be played with a fade.(;;)
Why don't we let the third party in attendance at our "demonstration on the 3rd hole" make the deciding vote ?
[/b]
And you're still wrong about Baltusrol #3... :)
See my comment above (;;)[/b]
-
David Moriarty,
Didn't Mike tell us that there were NO TREES on the property or at that area on the South Fork ?
If he's correct. what would there be to clear ?
-
Patrick,
CBM told us in his book that the land he selected was impassible on foot and was wildly overgrown, which is why they needed to travel on horseback.
I'm not sure that is a situation where one could accurately survey hundreds of acres.
Don't do the same things you are accusing me of...I know you are well aware of what an entangled mess CBM told us that site was. Let's try to have a productive discussion.
-
David,
Apparently some aren't aware of how much easier it is to clear brush than it is to clear trees, which were often dynamited in order to clear the roots at the base of the trees. Teams of Mules and/or horses were also used to pull up the roots of trees and to remove the roots and trees or locate them at burning sites. Anyone who's ever cleared trees knows how difficult a task that can be.
Cleaning underbrush in the fall used to be very easy when burning didn't require permits.
Clearing underbrush, including Bayberry, Huckleberry and blackberry is an easy task.
Anyone who's ever harvested blackberrys, rasperrys and the like knows that it's a simple task.
I used to clean the blackberries and rasperries then pour a little milk and sugar over them.
They were quite tastey.
-
David,
Is Patrick now accusing CBM of starting a 450 acre fire on land he had neither secured nor purchased? ;)
-
Can anyone with knowledge of 1906 surveying technology and techniques weigh in on how one might complete a survey plan and maps for a 450 acre plot that was described by CBM as an impaasible (on foot) jungle of brambles, bogs, and bushes, presumably with many of those head high or over?
In other words, would you need to clear the underbrush first?
Thanks,
-
At the risk of being caught in the crossfire here's a couple of comments about roads running through golf courses. Yes, there were and indeed still are courses that play over public roads (private roads under use and ownership of golf club don't really count in this context IMO). However by the time this course was being conceived and planned, I would suggest that gca's were beginning to realise the shortcomings of playing across roads.
I also note from some of the plans posted that the general area was planned for residential (?) redevelopment so no matter the amount of traffic at the time or even the state of the road at the time you wouldn't have needed to have been a fortune teller to realise that the road in question was likely to get a lot busier and probably bigger in the near future.
Furthermore if you were planning one of the most high profile yet exclusive clubs in the world, would you even consider land where the public could drive through the middle of your planned course ?
Niall
-
David,
Would you please tell Mike that surveying that land was duck soup compared to surveying other, really hostile sites.
Would you also let Mike know that until recently a good deal of the property at Sebonack, right next door to NGLA, was in its native state. until Mike Pascucci decided to buy and develop it.
Surveying NGLA, the land West of Shinnecock, was a simple matter in terms of surveying projects.
How does he think they surveyed the Shinnecock Golf Course, the Railway, roads and all of uncharted Long Island.
He's drawn his conclusion and is now seeking any path that will lead him to it.
If he thinks surveying NGLA was difficult, he should look at how really difficult it was to survey the Everglades.(;;) and NGLA was no Everglades, despite his characterization and misrepresentation of NGLA as a "JUNGLE"
-
Niall, I agree with your take above. Mike's fantasy site is hardly ideal. And I strongly disagree with Phil's pronouncement that "in other words, if CBM looked where [Mike] believe[d], then the North Highway has absolutely nothing to do with why that land was not chosen..." How he could think that CBM would not have cared if a highway ran right up the gut of a 160 yard wide property is beyond me. But then Mike's fictional site is unreasonable for many other reasons, not the least of which is that he just made it up of whole cloth. There is no factual support for its existence whatsover. It is just something he created so he could pretend that the Sebonack Neck property was not already in play in October 1906.
______________________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
For what it is worth, I am starting to think you are purposefully mischaracterizing and exaggerating the source material just to see if you can piss me off. That sort of thing is worthy of your mentor, but it ought to be beneath you. So if you are, knock it off. If you aren't, then what gives? Could you please try to pay a bit more attention to the details. Thanks.
1. CBM didn't describe the 450 acres as a "jungle," nor did he write that the bushes were "head high or over." You just made that up. His description is harsh enough without your silly exaggerations. Your need to exaggerate everything only further undermines your credibility.
2. The main articles from October 1906 didn't say the westerly point was near the inlet "towards Good Ground." (The third snippet might, but it seems to be derivative of the larger more detailed articles.) The detailed articles said the westerly point near the inlet between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground. Once we find the inlet, the station and Good Ground have no relevance. I've explained this a handful of times at least. Will you would stop trying to stretch this description to where it obviously does not go? Thanks.
3. If you have any lingering doubt whether Cold Springs pond was the "inlet" to which they refer, I suggest you look at the 1907 SHPBRC map where it is clearly labeled "INLET." Also take a look at the road running along half of the bottom of the Cold Springs Pond which was called "Inlet Road" and still is. This was the inlet in question, and the property in question stretched along Peconic Bay to near the inlet.
4. If you have any lingering belief that the earlier articles referred to a long forgotten third site "near Good Ground," take another look at the December 15, 1906 NY Sun description of the site, particularly the part where it said:
"The location is that announced previously as the probable site. It forms part of the large tract held by the Alvord syndicate on the sand dunes between Great Peconic and Shinnecock bays."
As you may recall, the Sun had previously reported, on November 1, 1906, that CBM was interested in land in the western portion of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground, and you had taken this unequivocally to mean that they were still considering land by the Canal (even though according to you the Canal is surrounded by "Good Ground" on both sides.) Well this article ought to put your mistaken belief to rest, don't you think? It says it was the same land as reported earlier. Is their another report I am missing? Or can we finally move past this nonsense?
As for your questions about the October 1906 articles and what they mean to our understanding of what happened, that is useful area to consider, but I'd really like to put this wild goose chase stemming from you claiming, as fact, that the October articles and the November 1 articles couldn't possibly be referring to the land CBM purchased.
Do you now see that it is very likely that CBM was focusing on Sebonack Neck at least as far back as October 1906?
-
Patrick,
So you're convinced that the land cited in those October 1906 articles David posted is the same land where the course was eventually built?
You're telling us that the land that these articles state have been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?
-
David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906.
A "Highway" was a road that connected cities and lay outside of their bounds. Because it did this it was considered a "major" roadway. That designation had absolutely NOTHING to do with how wide, number of lanes, how it was constructed and especially how much "traffic" would be on it in a typical day. This designation goes back many HUNDREDS OF YEARS which is how we get the name for that particular brand of nefarious robbers called "HIGHWAYMEN." Of course, maybe you think that the "Highways" in 17th century England had a great deal of auitomobile traffic...
The information contained in the New York State records that I posted parts from show the "North Highway" to have been an unpaved road. Honestly now, how many automobiles do you think travelled down that road in 1906?
No, at that time this was a minor road especially in comparison to most roads already built on Long Island. Was it major for the residents? Yes, because it was the ONLY one to use to get to certain locations with a modicum of ease, but that doesn't make it a MAJOR road as one would have viewed it at the time on Long Island. Actually, a BETTER word would be IMPORTANT road. Importance has no bearing on size or usage, just what it connects and that is what the North Highway was in 1906. Again, look at the GCGC in 1906 and the way the course was routed and all the local roads invovled. Surely you can't believe that there was greater traffic in Shinnecock in 1906 than would be found in Garden City in 1906, yet the course crossed a number of roads and that was fine. That the new club would cross roads in how how the course was laid out was probably a given and that NGLA actually does is certainly proof of that...
This is the ultimate in silly arguments...
-
David,
I'm willing to consider that it was the same land,yes, thanks.
I'm just not sure what other "various" sites near Peconic Bay and Shinnecock he was still considering per your other Oct 1906 article. What do you think that meant?
-
At the risk of being caught in the crossfire here's a couple of comments about roads running through golf courses. Yes, there were and indeed still are courses that play over public roads (private roads under use and ownership of golf club don't really count in this context IMO). However by the time this course was being conceived and planned, I would suggest that gca's were beginning to realise the shortcomings of playing across roads.
I also note from some of the plans posted that the general area was planned for residential (?) redevelopment so no matter the amount of traffic at the time or even the state of the road at the time you wouldn't have needed to have been a fortune teller to realise that the road in question was likely to get a lot busier and probably bigger in the near future.
Niall,
This isn't just a case of hitting over some roads, this is a situation where one of the two MAJOR arteries running East-West on the South Fork of Long Island, ran right down the middle of Mike Cirba's long, narrow golf course. Look at the schematic and look at the IMPACT of the NORTH HIGHWAY on Mike's plan.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
Furthermore if you were planning one of the most high profile yet exclusive clubs in the world, would you even consider land where the public could drive through the middle of your planned course ?
-
David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906.
Phil, please don't let my dad know that I don't understand how the word "highway" was used in 1906.
He sent me to college as a Freshman, majoring in chemical engineering, but, my mother's influence had me gravitating to law school by my senior year. If they knew the money they wasted on my education they'd be turning over in their grave.
I understand the word "highway" in 1906.
I also understand the meaning of the word "road" in 1906.
Further, I understand the meaning of the word, "lane" in 1906
along with the words, "path", "trail", "Railroad" and "crossing"
I also understand their relative values in terms of traffic patterns and volume in 1906.
The NORTH HIGHWAY and SOUTH HIGHWAY were THE TWO MAIN ARTERIES running East-West on the South Fork of Long Island in 1906 and they remain so today in 2011 [/b]
A "Highway" was a road that connected cities and lay outside of their bounds. Because it did this it was considered a "major" roadway. That designation had absolutely NOTHING to do with how wide, number of lanes, how it was constructed and especially how much "traffic" would be on it in a typical day.
Phil, what cities existed on the South Fork in 1906 ?
Besides the NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY, what other roads traversed the South Fork from the Canal to Amagansett and Montauk, in 1906 and today ? There are but two (2). The NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY.[/B]
This designation goes back many HUNDREDS OF YEARS which is how we get the name for that particular brand of nefarious robbers called "HIGHWAYMEN." Of course, maybe you think that the "Highways" in 17th century England had a great deal of auitomobile traffic...
The information contained in the New York State records that I posted parts from show the "North Highway" to have been an unpaved road. Honestly now, how many automobiles do you think travelled down that road in 1906?
Plenty. And obviously the State of New York thought so too, as they declared the crossings of the RR and the NORTH HIGHWAY to be a safety hazard. If there was no volume, as you ridiculously insist, there would be no safety hazard, no need to reconstruct an underneath railway crossing at another location.[/color
No, at that time this was a minor road especially in comparison to most roads already built on Long Island. Was it major for the residents? Yes, because it was the ONLY one to use to get to certain locations with a modicum of ease, but that doesn't make it a MAJOR road as one would have viewed it at the time on Long Island.
Of course it does.
It was the ONLY ROAD on the North Shore of the South Fork that traveled directly East-West.[/b]
Actually, a BETTER word would be IMPORTANT road. Importance has no bearing on size or usage, just what it connects and that is what the North Highway was in 1906.
OK, so tell us, what other IMPORTANT road traversed the Canal and ran along the North Shore of the South Fork, from the Canal to Amagansett and Montauk ?
It was THE MAJOR ROAD ON THE NORTH SHORE. A HIGHWAY, AS DECLARED BY OLMSTEAD BROS AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK.[/B]
Again, look at the GCGC in 1906 and the way the course was routed and all the local roads invovled. Surely you can't believe that there was greater traffic in Shinnecock in 1906 than would be found in Garden City in 1906, yet the course crossed a number of roads and that was fine. That the new club would cross roads in how how the course was laid out was probably a given and that NGLA actually does is certainly proof of that...
Phil, please, look at the schematic.
This isn't a road crossed by a hole, this is a road running down the middle, down the entire length of Mike's course.
For you to compare a few crossing roads at GCGC, a populated city at the time, to a major road that ran down the entire centerline of a long, narrow golf course indicates that you're either obtuse or have allowed you ego to overcome your better judgement.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
David, would you please color in the NORTH HIGHWAY in the above schematic.
Evidently Phil hasn't located it yet and Mike still insists that it doesn't exist.
Thanks[/b]
This is the ultimate in silly arguments...
I agree, your comments are funny and foolish[/b]
-
Patrick,
So you're convinced that the land cited in those October 1906 articles David posted is the same land where the course was eventually built?
You're telling us that the land that these articles state have been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?
David Moriarty,
Why does Mike, falsely and erroneously, pretend to draw conclusions for me.
He makes a statement and then proclaims that his statment represents my view.
Why is that ? And what is that called ?
-
Phillip, I agree that it is the ultimate in silly arguments, which is why I wonder why you are bothering to make it.
I know well what a highway was and is, and I am quite familiar with non-paved highways as well as highways in rural areas including areas that would make this development seem like a metropolis. You are apparently of the belief that if a rosd isnt paved it is easily fungible and didnt really count, as if rerouting was something lightly and easily done. Then and now this was not the case, and the process undertaken regarding these crossings ought to have convinced you of that. This development was major enough to require overpasses and underpasses at the RR, and I think it unreasonable to believe that CBM would have been oblivious to these roads in the fall of 1906.
But as I have said, it is all a red herring anyway and I don't really care about the roads.
But I am confused. You indicated you wanted no part of this discussion but were just here to educate us on the roads. Yet here you are. Let me put your mind to rest. I need no education in the roads. In fact I find it somewhat patronizing for you to assume that I do. As I have said repeatedly, I don't care whether it was paved (I'd have been very surprised if it was.). It is not just a road issue, it is a number of factors together that shape my conviction about Mike's fictional property. Further lectures on the roads will not change my mind, especially if you intend in further lecturing on what i already know. See Niall's comments above. I agree with him.
----------------------------------------
Mike Cirba, I'd have hoped you would have been willing to consider my perspective from the beginning, so I'm am not sure what to make of your comment.
Do you now agree that the October articles most likely describe the Sebonack Neck Property or not?
As for your last sentence, I think you are again confusing the source material. What October article did I post mentioning various sites? I don't have any articles handy, but I dont recall those October articles saying that. Do you mean the November 1st Sun article and the Eagle article from around that time?
-
David,
Just more of your usual "I'm right and know everything and how dare you correct me and who do you think you are nonsense..."
And I guess just some more of my blather, blather, blather... And I guess what the New York State Senate stated about the North Highway in 1906 and what they planned to do with that road and others in the south fork of Long Island is also nothing more than a bunch of blather, blather, blather...
Oh well, I guess you were right, after all, why did I even begin to think I might be able to educate you in even the smalest of things...
-
David,
I think its probably 50/50 on whether it's the site they ended up with and yes, I meant the Nov 1st article if that helps advance the discussion.
If.nothing else, I think the 50 percenr chance that this was the ultimate site deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down, don't you think?
-
David,
Just more of your usual "I'm right and know everything and how dare you correct me and who do you think you are nonsense..."
Actually Phillip, you've got it exactly backward. Read your posts. Is it any wonder we haven't taken kindly to your latest attempts to "educate" us when they start with haughty, condescending, and false statements like:
"David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906."
Really? Because from where I stand it is "quite obvious" that you have no idea what we understand, and I doubt Patrick will mind if I tell you that we'd appreciate it if you will quit pretending otherwise.
Thanks.
_________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
50/50? I won't even ask how you came up with that. I'd say it is much better than 50/50 but I guess the way these conversations go, 50/50 is about as close to a concession as you've ever come, and should thus be considered progress.
You asked about the November 1, 1906 articles, in particular the reference to CBM mentioning "various 'sites'" in the Shinnecock area. I don't see much mystery here, for the following reasons.
- The November 1, 1906 Sun article does not mention "various 'sites'" near Peconic and Shinnecock. It mentions two sites, Montauk (which sounds like a non-starter from CBM's description in the book and his earlier comments) and "the westerly strip of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground." In case there is still any confusion about whether this is the Sebonack Neck site, the Sun seems to have clarified in their December 15, 1906 article by noting" "The location is that announced previously as the probable site. It forms part of the large tract held by the Alvord syndicate on the sand dunes between Great Peconic and Shinnecock bays."
- As for the November 1, 1906 Eagle article, it doesn't mention "various 'sites'" but it does mention "various sections." Nonetheless, I have trouble seeing significance where you apparently do. Here is how the article began:
A week ago last Saturday afternoon Charles B. MacDonald, in answer to a question put to him before a crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City club house, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills .
Notice two things. First, his statement was past tense; "he had inspected" various sections. Second, the article only mentioned that he had inspected. Nothing about having made multiple offers, nothing about various negotiations. Just that he had inspected various sections (not sites.)
So, his answer provided nothing to support a theory that there must have been a mystery third site. It merely stated that sometime in the past he had inspected various sections in that area. Not really earth shattering news since we know he had previously made an offer for land by the Canal, and that he was very likely in the process of buying the present site. Those two sections constitute "various sections", don't they? Plus there was the rest of Sebonack Neck which he had the option of considering.
I think a more interesting question about these articles is why they apparently digress from the October 1906 announcement that the CBM had already purchased the land. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the October announcement jumped the gun. Apparently, despite the October reports to the contrary, there was no formal agreement in place yet, so those October articles would have been murder for CBM's bargaining position. Viewed with this in mind, it is perhaps no big surprise that the reports a few weeks later backed well off this announcement, with the Eagle reporting what is essentially a non-answer, and the Sun throwing in another site (Montauk) and suggesting that CBM was willing to walk away from both if the price wasn't right.
It also may be worth considering that these two papers reported CBM saying two different things at about the same time, with the Eagle making no mention of Montauk or price or negotiations, and the Sun making no mention of CBM having inspected different sites around Shinnecock. Some of you seem to think CBM was a big whiz at using the press, so it perhaps isn't much of a leap to think he was doing some negotiation or at least damage control with these statements.
Before I move on to the other items in the October articles, do you understand what I am saying about these November 1, 1906 articles? Do you disagree with what I am saying? If so, why?
-
David,
As I said, that is certainly a possible scenario and I think for discussion purposes we should assume you're correct.
I certainly don't want to argue further about the possibility/viability of moving a mile of dirt road through undeveloped land to accommodate a large purchase (250 acres) of Alvord's land at four times the price he paid for it.
I also think on the face of it that "various sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock likely means more than the two CBM mentioned in his book, especially since you argued earlier that the Canal site offer happened 9 months or more prior, and I'd really like to hear from you and Patrick where you think that might have been if the site I suggested is so insane, idiotic, egregious, lie-ridden, and intelluctually dishonest, but I won't hold my breath waiting for either of you to suggest an alternaitve.
I also don't think the 450 acre parcel he ended up securing 205 undetermined acres from in December 1906 qualifies as multiple sections, either, and frankly it seems based on what we're now understanding that it may have been more of a last choice than a first, perhaps, but for now as mentioned, let's assume you're correct, and move on.
Let's assume your scenario is the right one and discuss from there.
-
David,
Assuming that the land mentioned in the October 1906 article is roughly the land he inevitably purchased, I'll ask you the same question Patrick earlier refused to answer;
Are you then saying that the land that those articles state had been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback for 2 or 3 days...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?
Here again is what CBM said about that land;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
and here is what those articles said;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5439007580_9f71dfe504_o.jpg)
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a thing about surveying and map-drawing, especially given 1906 technologies on what sounds like forbidding land, but if you have knowledge of the process, then I have two questions.
1) Would they have needed to clear the land to survey it? I guess just logistically I'm trying to understand how back then one would even site a tripod if the ground was covered with thiick bushes and undergrowth, or shoot with it to distant points if you couldn't see ground level. I may be mistaken, I don't know, which is why I'm asking.
2) Either way, whether needing clearing or not, how long would such a process likely take to shoot 450 or 250 acres and then create the topographical maps based on that survey?
Thanks.
-
I don't have much time, but let me throw out a few thoughts.
As for the mid-October articles, I don't know why these articles made these claims, or the extent of their accuracy. We can only speculate. We know that articles were certainly less than perfect. Most obviously, the land had not yet been purchased and the purchase would not be formalized until two months later and would not be finalized until spring. And so the announcement that CBM had purchased the land seems premature.
As for the bit about there having been maps made and sent out, I don't know. It could be that the articles (or more likely the sources of the information) got ahead of themselves with the other information as well, such as the claim that maps had been made and sent abroad for comment. This may to have been something that was planned or in the works, but had not happened. But I hesitate to just assume this sort of thing is mistaken because it is convenient to do so. I think we should at least consider the possibility that some mapping was done by this date.
It may help to reconsider these articles within the chronology of what CBM said in his book. One thing that I think we have all been assuming, perhaps wrongly so, is that the events described over that page and a half of Scotland's gift all took place in a relatively short period of time. like a few months. But CBM tells us that "the Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres . . . was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before [he] determined that [they] should build a course there if [they] could secure the land." Given that the Brooklyn company (Alvord/SHPBRC) purchased the land in the fall of 1905, I think we need to reconsider, and perhaps stretch out this timeline quite a bit.
Apparently, CBM first decided to to build a course on the Shinnecock land in the fall of 1905. He was in Europe studying courses for the first half of 1906, until June. So the events described in Scotland's gift - riding the land, getting some sort of agreement from the owner, studying the contours, hiring Raynor to survey the land - all could have realistically taken place any time after his return in June 1906. (Or some of it could have even taken place before he left, but let's set that aside for now.) And while I have no great confidence that this is what happened, I think it is entirely possible that the land was surveyed sometime after CBM and HJW first rode the land and when they secured on option in December 1906, whether by SHPBRC or at CBM's behest.
While we know from Scotland's gift is that the land was unsurveyed and uncleared when CBM and HJW first rode the property, we don't know when this first was. We also know that, by mid-October, they had reportedly visited the site several times. Recall that in Scotland's gift, CBM wrote that he first hired Raynor to survey the land, and then was so impressed he hired him to do a contour map. I guess it is debatable, but it seems like those December articles are referring to the plans to create a detailed contour map (and model.) This would suggest that land may have been already surveyed at this point. Whether or not clearing would have taken place at his point, I don't know and I don't know if it would have been necessary.
Also, keep in mind that we don't know what these maps entailed. We aren't necessarily dealing with full topographical maps here. A survey can mean many different levels of details depending on what is going on. Recall that one of the articles goes around the course and gives the yardage and elevation changes of the holes. It could be something that simple.
But realize I don't have any hard answers here, at least not yet. This is more information to consider, and this combined with the information about the previous sale, changes and stretches our timeline somewhat, and give a pretty clear indication that this land was most likely in play at least some months earlier than when it was finally optioned.
That is just some quick thoughts. I'll consider it again when I get the chance.
-
David,
I generally agree with everything you just wrote and would only say that it seems the maps were pretty detailed topos if that article is accurate.
But, as far as stretching out the timeline, I wholeheartedly agree. I think CBM knew he wanted to build around Shinnecock since 1905 as he sort of alluded in his book, and probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer.
I'm also betting he got Raynor to survey it prior to securing the land...nothing but a strong hunch based on what we're learning, but I'm thinking it would be a logical step.
-
I understand from the articles why you would think that any map must have been a detailed topo map, but I don't know if this is consistent with later articles talking about them working up plans. I don't have the articles or book in front of me so will have to look later.
-
David,
In CBM's 1912 Founders Letter, he writes;
"We have also been helped by some of the most eminent men in the game of golf abroad, who have taken a most friendly interest in the undertaking, and I have to thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson, Mr. John L. Low, Mr. Harold H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W.T. Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H. S. Everard, for the maps, photographs, and suggestions which they have given us."
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5439007580_9f71dfe504_o.jpg)
I wonder if the author of the articles has something confused around maps, or if this was back and forth exchange of maps and letters between CBM and the golf experts abroad, comparing notes related to placement of holes, and features. We'll probably never know exactly, but it's interesting to see how collaborative this project seems to have been, seemingly with CBM's encouragement and almost insistence in soliciting opinions of others.
-
David,
The notion that NGLA was the product of an international referendum is just another one of Mike's wild and unfounded efforts to prove that NGLA took nearly a half a year to design, despite what CBM told us.
Now, Mike would have you believe that NGLA was a mail in contest, with maps distributed throughout the world with CBM soliciting ideas for his golf course, [size=14point] a course that he had already routed and selected the location of the specific holes on.[/size]What a joke.
Don't ever lose sight of the fact that Mike's sole purpose is to dispute the routing of Merion in short order vis a vis disputing the routing of NGLA in short order.
What Mike fails to realize at Merion is that CBM's involvement at Merion wasn't limited to one day, but to the almost entire time of the project.
Please continue to function as a correcting inertial guidance system for Mike's deviant efforts(;;)
-
Patrick,
Deny reality all you like, it's not going to change the overwhelming weight of contemporaneous evidence that's been accumulated here.
Besides, David doesn't believe that CBM routed NGLA in 2 or 3 days on horseback either...ask him if you don't believe me. ;)
-
There is NO contemporary EVIDENCE.
Only unreliable, inaccurate newspaper accounts, relying on third party hearsay, that you falsely portray as being factual representations.
Charles Blair Macdonald told us what happened when he put pen to paper and memorialized the creation of NGLA in "Scotland's Gift".
-
Patrick,
Nonsense.
We have contemporaneous "DIRECT QUOTES" from CBM appearing in multiple newspapers the DAY AFTER HE secured the property in December 1906, telling us EXACTLY what he is going to do with the land over the next few months.
His recollections over 20 years later were a few very brief paragraphs and I've already shown where he made errors in dates and some other minor details.
The contemporaneous record is MUCH MORE detailed, much more compelling, and provides a MUCH fuller picture of what actually happened.
Now, it's possible that these quotes were from weeks or even months prior if CBM was indeed looking at the property for a few months, but in any regard, the scope of work remains the same no matter when it commenced.
Here it is, again;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
David,
One interesting quote as we think about the timing of the surveying and clearing of the land is this one from CBM in his 1912 Founders Letter;
"I cannot speak too strongly of the work of 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..."
Now, of course this isn't definitive, but it does suggest to me that Raynor may have been involved prior to securing the property. What do you think?
-
Mike Cirba,
So far as I can tell those articles are entirely consistent with CBM's descriptions in Scotland's Gift. Those articles are talking about detailed planning (as well as the creation of a detailed model of the course itself, which would be tough to do without a routing) not the initial rough routing of the course. The ground had been studied and the initial rough routing of the course seems to have been done before the option was acquired, just as CBM presents it in the book.
As to how much of the routing they figured out while on horseback for two or three days compared to how much they figured out while again carefully studying the land thereafter, it is impossible to say and largely irrelevant so far as I am concerned. Either way, they found the golf course first and then shaped the purchase to the course.
Also keep in mind that most of the information in those articles is prospective; it is about what they were apparently planning to do. Whether they did exactly what they said they would do is another matter.
As for Scotland's Gift, it is true there are a few minor errors, but for the most part the book is remarkably accurate and it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. If you continue to research these matters you will likely be surprised at how many contemporaneous accounts match what was written in Scotland's Gift exactly.
As for Raynor's involvement, I don't know for certain when he was hired or what for, but as I said it is entirely possible that it could have been when they were initially routing he course so as to determine what land to buy.
-
David,
I think we're pretty close to agreement in most areas here, and I've learned much more than I knew previously so that's always good.
There are still some open questions and of course, anyone can feel free to contribute other documents and information here as they are able, but I think it's been beneficial overall.
And I would wholeheartedly agree with you that CBM's book is remarkably accurate and well written, and I do marvel at his vision, chutzpah, fortitude, and persistence. Certainly an inspirational story.
-
David,
Macdonald's praise for Raynor borders on reverent.
Yet, he's omitted from the early planning stages by Macdonald's own account.
I believe it's not only safe, but, prudent to conclude that he wasn't involved in the routing, locating of holes and staking of the property.
Jim Whigham was.
As to the quotes Mike Cirba alludes to, those are ALLEGED quotes, some in the third party such as what was allegedly overheard in the men's locker room at GCGC. Yet, Mike claims that every statement is a bona fide, direct quote from Macdonald, when we no that nothing could be further from the truth.
-
Patrick,
I don't know when Raynor was hired, but you are probably right about Raynor not having been involved in the earliest planning stages. I've never heard mention of him riding the land with CBM and HJW, and have no reason to think he might have. There is no reason to think his initial involvement had anything to do with actually substantively planning the course. He was hired as a surveyor, and it sounds like he gained CBM's trust over time.
CBM wrote of Raynor "Employing him to survey our Sebonack Neck property, I was so much impressed with his dependability and seriousness I had him make a contour map . . .."
-
Guys,
More on Raynor's early role tomorrow...nothing earth-shattering but perhaps a little different take.
-
While the idea that CBM and Whigham rode the land for 2 or 3 days routing the golf course, finding natural settings for every hole they envisioned is a nice, minimalist's romantic dream, it doesn't seem to be very accurate.
In fact, anyone who has ever seen NGLA would be able to easily locate where signfiicant earth movement took place to shape the type of holes and features from abroad that CBM envisioned.
While some great natural features were already there, which CBM mentioned, such as the hill for the Alps, or the nearby natural ridge for the redan, or the water along which he could builid his Cape hole, much of the rest of the course had to be worked into shape to emulate features from abroad that CBM wanted to translate here.
Here is CBM himself talking about the construction process;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5455586527_1d46399ab2_o.jpg)
If they were constructing "from surveyor's maps", which we know were the drawings CBM had collected and sketched from abroad, then we also know that for many holes, particularly those CBM calls "composites" (of which he stated that most of the holes were), earth had to be moved to create the desired affect.
Who would have been responsible then for this shaping and earth moving and attempt to physically reproduce exact contours and sizes?
Here again is how CBM described Seth Raynor's role;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5455586555_74d78d9632_o.jpg)
This article, from August 10th, 1907, after construction had begun, is very interesting as it describes that the search for the site was to find something as close as possible to what CBM envisioned for his holes, with the realistic understanding that finding a piece of ground where a copy of every iideal hole CBM wanted to build was impossible, and that the land would need to be shaped for his purposes.
The last few paragraphs also describe that ongoing work, which we can assume was being done by Seth Raynor.
So, while CBM was clearly the author of NGLA, I don't think we want to minimize the role Raynor played in actually delivering CBM's vision on the ground, shaping the holes and features to CBM's wishes into shapes compatible with the features and holes of the best abroad.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5436546870_b1615b3868_o.jpg)
George Bahto, in his excellent book, "The Evangelist of Golf", described the process this way;
"C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan. Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp. Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"
"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."
"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking. Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography. They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."
"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification. The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain. The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."
"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction. Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."
"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams. A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created! It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil. Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."
-
David,
I fear that Mike is confusing the plural, "surveyor's maps" with a single surveyor's MAP.
What he doesn't understand is that the "Surveyor's maps, are of the holes he sketched, NOT NGLA.
Please enlighten him so he can discard his latest theory and develop a new one that might better lead him toward his predetermined conclusion.
-
Patrick,
No confusion.
We know CBM had surveyor's maps of the best holes abroad, and we know that Seth Raynor created a survey map of the NGLA property.
CBM tells us he had Raynor marry the two.
He says;
"I had him make a contour map and later gave him my surveyor's maps, telling him I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps. For three or four years he worked by my side."
It couldn't be clearer, could it?
-
Mike,
I don't understand the point of this digression. My guess is that you have been given some guidance that, as usual, doesn't serve you well. The main thing "that doesn't seem to be very accurate" is your depiction of what you call "the idea" of what happened while CBM and HJW were riding the land and studying the contours.
There is a big difference between determining a rough routing of a golf course and actually building it, and during the early stages they were studying the contours and finding a rough routing that fit with what they wanted to accomplish and with the holes that they had in mind. No one - not CBM, not HJW and not anyone here - ever claimed that when CBM and HJW rode the land they found every single feature and contour just lying there on the ground waiting to be grassed, and no one portrayed it as "minimalist's romantic dream." So I have trouble understanding why you have insisted on again recreating this red herring fiction here. Again you seem to be railing against demons of your own creation, or in this case perhaps of someone else's creation.
Yes they moved some dirt and overcame engineering problems (such as the swamps) and yes many of the green contours are manufactured. I don't think anyone has ever disputed this. But at the same time, in my opinion, anyone who has ever been to NGLA would be (or should be) amazed at how well CBM incorporated natural features and natural ground movement into the course. That is one of the things that most amazed me. A few of many examples are the natural valley on on the first, the hollow to the right on the second, the hog backs on the fifth and on the punchbowl hole, and of course the punchbowl itself; even the use of the land formations and higher ground on the eighth.
So if you are trying to argue that the golf course was largely manufactured from green to tee, then your argument will fail. Here again CBM is instructive. He repeatedly wrote about using the underlying classic concepts as they fit with the landscape, and one the articles you posted confirms that he had abandoned any notion of exact, manufactured copies very early on in the process, long before the land was purchased. But, notably, he also wrote about modeling greens on the great and proven greens from abroad. And to the extent that NGLA is constructed, it is at the greens. "The character of a course depends upon the building of the putting greens."
Along the same lines, I am confused why you again quote George Bahto about CBM trucking in 10,000 truckloads of dirt to contour and construct the golf holes. George's book is excellent but it is mistaken on this point. According to CBM, he brought in 10,000 truckloads of topsoil to GROW GRASS, not to re-contour the terrain. I've covered this issue repeatedly, including in this very thread. So why present it again to make the point that CBM was heavily manufacturing when he wasn't? Crump brought it loads and loads of topsoil at Pine Valley, so will you argue that this is evidence that Crump wasn't using the natural terrain but was heavily manufacturing the contours and reshaping the terrain? That'd be silly because he was just trying to grow grass. Same goes for CBM.
Bottom line is that CBM chose the site at NGLA because it conditions and contours would allow him to build a his ideal golf course. And while there was some manufacturing, especially at the greens, the routing itself brilliantly uses the natural contours and features of the land.
Don't be a shill for your Philly buddies who insist on trying to caricature CBM as something he clearly was not. They have been playing you for far too long. Their caricatures are inaccurate and unsupportable.
_______________________________
As for your last comment to Patrick, I think the confusion might stem from the fact that twice now in quoting CBM you have left out the part of the Raynor description which is perhaps most relevant to the routing of NGLA.
Again, Raynor was first hired to survey the Sebonack property. This was presumably one survey and was not a detailed contour map, because later he was asked to do a contour map, and the main purpose of this contour map (and model) seems to have been to direct the creation of the course. Later still he was given the information CBM had gathered from the holes abroad.
Those surveyor's maps were not of entire holes, but of features and greens which CBM liked and wanted to incorporate into his courses. There are no exact replicas of entire holes at NGLA, at least not that I know of.
-
David,
I'll try to reply to some of your more substantive comments this weekend, but let's drop this nonsense once and for all that I'm fronting for some nameless Philadelphia contingent.
It's beyond condescending and absolutely incorrect, so I'd appreciate it if you just deal with me because nobody else is interested in talking with you and/or Patrick about this stuff any longer, seemingly.
And that's fine, and I think there are things still worth discussing, but this idea that people in Philly are trying to turn CBM into a caricature is ridiculous, frankly.
There hasn't been a single thing I've written or pasted in this entire thread that hasn't been completely complimentary to the man and the incredible job he did putting his dream to reality at NGLA.
I just don't think the broad-brush, 2 paragraph description in his book is anywhere near the entire story and from my perspective, understanding the breadth and scope of the overall effort is much more of an accurate depiction of the greatness of the man, as well as the type of architecture he sought to propagate in the United States.
Frankly, I think you and I agree on most things here, but your conscience avoidance from directly addressing Patrick with any matters I know you disagree with him about and instead choosing to argue with me even when I try to agree with you doesn't make for a very progressive discussion.
Why don't you just tell him that his view of the creation of NGLA is overly-simplistic and overly-romanticized, because I know you believe that to be so.
Please just don't make this some continuation of a long-running disagreement with me, or with Philadelphians.
Let's have a conversation, and if you don't agree with Patrick, you shouldn't be afraid to say so.
-
Patrick,
No confusion.
We know CBM had surveyor's maps of the best holes abroad, and we know that Seth Raynor created a survey map of the NGLA property.
Except, I think you've deliberately distorted the chronology of events, you've got your timing wrong.
Macdonald tells us, well after the routing and hole placement phase, that he employed SR to survey "OUR" Sebonac Neck property, indicating that the property had already been purchased, staked or determined, then, afterwards, CBM had SR make a contour map, and AFTER that, CBM turned over CBM's surveyor's maps from Scotland and England and that he wanted the holes laid out faithfully to those maps from the UK.
It's apparent that the parcel purchase, routing and individual hole sites had previously been determined by CBM, and now, CBM wanted SR to meld the surveyor's maps of his "ideal" holes to the land.
You would have us falsely believe that SR did all of his surveyor's and contour maps before the parcel was selected, the staking accomplished, the routing completed and the individual hole locations sited. [/b]
[/color][/b]
CBM tells us he had Raynor marry the two.
That's NOT what CBM tells us.
That's what you, erroneously, tell us(;;)
[/color
He says;
"I had him make a contour map and later gave him my surveyor's maps, telling him I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps. For three or four years he worked by my side."
How could you miss the word, "LATER" ? It's critical in the chronological order of things[/b]
It couldn't be clearer, could it?
Obviously he could be since you missed it.[/b]
-
Mike Cirba,
I mentioned the possible influence of your Philly friends in my previous post because you seemed to have digressed substantially into areas already well covered, and the digressions rang familiar. Given that it was just a few sentences, I think your response might be protesting a bit much. I never said you wrote anything in your post derogatory about CBM personally. If you want to keep this about your ideas, that works for me. But if that is the case then I suggest you stay away from making excuses for your friends' absence and inability/unwillingness to make their own case and from defending the endless attempts of your pals to mock and ridicule CBM and misrepresent his work to the point of caricature. Because any such defense is, as you would say, ridiculous. Besides if you aren't getting information and emails from your pals, consider yourself lucky. As you know, I am still being regularly harassed via private email by a certain of your pals, yet I don't recall you expressing a problem with that.
But let's then stick to your ideas. Since these are your ideas, then there is no excuse for you to repeatedly return to this notion that CBM supposedly brought in 10,000 truckloads of dirt to reshape and change the contour the land. It didn't happen. CBM's book clarifies this and this has been explained to you repeatedly. So please stop with the misrepresentation.
As for Patrick, where do you get off trying to tell me what I should post to him? I am not Patrick's keeper. Besides, while I may not have put it the exact way he chooses to, I agree with much of what he has written. As Patrick has noted, CBM's book is remarkably accurate and yet you seem to be trying to repeatedly sell it short. In this regard, the only one being overly simplistic here is you. For example you keep referring to "two paragraphs" as if the creation of NGLA was only briefly covered, like an afterthought. This is your usual hyperbole, only in reverse. He devoted a chapter to the conception and development of his idea, another to the actual creation of the course, another to his ideas on golf course architecture, and a careful reading of the rest provides more insights throughout.
Most with which I disagree is not Patrick's position, but how you mis-portray his position by constantly putting words in his mouth. I don't think you understand his position and I don't think you've ever even tried to. If you had, then you would certainly know that Patrick has never portrayed NGLA is some sort of "minimalist's romantic dream." Far from it. And you'd also know that he's never underestimated the importance of the construction of the course. But none of that is all that relevant to who routed the course, who came up with the hole concepts, and who called all the shots with regard to planning and construction. While Whigham was right there with him, there is no doubt who was in charge and calling the shots. As CBM wrote at the close of his letter to potential founders in 1904; they were to "leave the matter entirely in his hands."
Patrick is obviously extremely frustrated with you regarding your transparent motivations and is calling them as he sees them in that regard. While I certainly understand his frustration, this is old hat for me and I'd prefer not to get into it a this point. Frankly, I am glad he stuck with it for as long as he did, because it is some confirmation to me that I am not crazy; my past frustrations have been well founded.
Anyway, your repeated attempts to try and divide to conquer are more rhetorical ploys than substantive points. It never worked when you repeatedly tried this tact with me and MacWood (you guys have never never quite caught on that we were never really working together) and it won't work here either. If you think Patrick is wrong, then correct him yourself.
Besides, as you suggest, I think we'd all be better off speaking for ourselves only, and leaving it to others to say what they want to say.
-
David,
Do you agree with Patrick that Raynor didn't survey the property until after it had been secured and purchased?
Do you agree with Patrick that those October articles you posted are completely erroneous in telling us about the survey maps of the property being sent to foreign golf experts?
These are simple yes/no questions.
Simply, do you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property prior to CBM securing it?
I'm trying to see where you actually stand on the evidence here and asking you to clarify your position. Thanks.
-
David,
Do you agree with Patrick that Raynor didn't survey the property until after it had been secured and purchased?
Mike, when will you stop lying and misrepresenting my position.
The one you've stated above is NOT my position.[/b]
Do you agree with Patrick that those October articles you posted are completely erroneous in telling us about the survey maps of the property being sent to foreign golf experts?
That likewise, is a misrepresentation of my position.
Maybe, just maybe, you'll get it right one of these days, even when it disproves another of your wild theories.
Your theory on the purchase, with the intent to build a golf course, on a long, narrow parcel of land with the North (Sunrise) highway running smack down the middle was one most bizarre and flawed theories ever posted on this site, yet, you defended your flawed premise, even after the discovery of the North Highway on an exhibit you posted.
To make sure that you don't continue to misrepresent my position on Raynor, my position is that he was brought in to survey the land AFTER the holes had been sited and the property STAKED.
These are simple yes/no questions.
NO they're not, they're disengenuous questions, since you completely mistated my position.
Simply, do you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property prior to CBM securing it?
That's irrelevant.
What IS RELEVANT is that Raynor staked the property AFTER the holes were sited and the property STAKED.
How long after is irrelevant.
David, please don't bother to answer a dishonest question where the choices don't represent my position.
Thanks[/b]
I'm trying to see where you actually stand on the evidence here and asking you to clarify your position. Thanks.
No, you're not.
You're trying to misrepresent my position and get David to answer a question that's structured in such a way as to guarantee a wrong answer, and that's disengenuous, but, unfortunately, that's been your modus operandi on this thread from the get go
-
Mike,
I've told you what I think repeatedly on all these issues. You rhetorically misrepresenting Patrick's position isn't at all productive.
Read my posts, it is all there.
-
To make sure that you don't continue to misrepresent my position on Raynor, my position is that he was brought in to survey the land AFTER the holes had been sited and the property STAKED.
David,
So your belief is the same as Patrick that Raynor was brought in to survey the property after the course was completely routed and the holes and property dimensions were finally staked?
I think you guys are splitting hairs and pretending there is some vague misrepresentation inherent in my questions just to keep an argument going frankly...it's not that difficult
I asked if you believed Raynor was brought in after the property was purchased. I would consider the staking of the boundaries to be synonynmous with the purchase, frankly, as we know the land secured in December the final boundaries had not been determined.
So, they brought in Raynor to survey the property AFTER that??
According to you both;
1) They found and rode the property because it was unwalkable
2) They routed the holes on that property and staked the dimensions of their purchase
3) Afterwards, they brought in Seth Raynor to survey (and presumably clear?) the land
Is that what you're both contdending? Since we know the fixed date of the securing of the property (December 1906) and one fixed date with the purchase of the property (Spring 1907), can you both give us a timeline of when you believe the other events took place, especially in light of the OCtober 1906 articles David posted here.
If I'm misrepresenting either/both of you please feel free to list the sequence and timelines you believe to be accurate..
It may help clarify matters for you to state which items you feel are accurate in this October 15th, 1906 article, and which are inaccurate. Thanks.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
-
Mike that is an absolutely absurd take on my position. I am sick of you trying to words in my mouth. I've stated what I think happened repeatedly. I don't know if you are incapable of understanding or just unwilling to try, and frankly I no longer care.
-
David,
Mike has once again, taken another flawed newspaper article, expanded what it says and draws yet another conclusion, erroneous as it may be, regarding NGLA.
First, we know that the article is flawed because it cites 250 acres as being the amount purchased.
Second, Mike once again confuses CBM's maps of the great holes in the UK, for "A" map or maps of the holes at NGLA.
Third, the flawed newspaper article states that Maps, plural, have been mailed out to all of these parties.
CBM tells us that he had SR make "A" contour map, singular, and that subsequently CBM gave SR his surveyors's maps which he brought from the UK.
Mike would have you believe that CBM mailed out detailed maps of NGLA after SR surveyed and mapped the land in August or Sept of 1906, soliciting opinions, near and far of what he was considering.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WILD THEORY ON MIKE'S PART, IN HIS ATTEMPT TO DISPARAGE CBM'S CREATION, NGLA.
Now, this is CBM who spent years abroad studying and compiling his ideal holes, and Mike would have you believe that CBM was so unsure of himself, that he sent maps detailing the holes at NGLA to ten named individuals, PLUS others, and from the "referendum" of the responses, CBM would craft and commit his holes onto the ground.
It's pure crap and wishful thinking on Mike's part.
Fourth, The amount of the project is wrong, it wasn't $ 100,000, it was originally $ 60,000 which was later increased to $ 70,000.
David, as I've told you many times, Mike has an agenda.
And that agenda is to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order in order to exclude CBM from having routed Merion in short order. Once others understand Mike's sole objective, it's easy to see how and why he distorts information and reaches incorrect conclusions, conclusions which serve but one purpose, to conform to his predetermined agenda.
Now, I've read "Scotland's Gift" more than a few times, and not once does CBM mention that he mailed detailed maps (plural) to the golfing universe in late 1906.
NOT ONCE DOES HE EVEN ALLUDE TO IT.
But, "Scotland's Gift" does mention those same names in a survey conducted by the "London Golf Illustrated" in their quest to ascertain the best holes in the UK. I fear that the flawed newspaper account has led Mike to draw another flawed conclusion, based on flawed information.
Furthermore, Horace Hutchinson, did write, in the 1910 "Metropolitan Magazine" that CBM was THE architect of NGLA and that the course was a replica and compendium of the 18 best holes in the world.
Nowhere does Mr Hutchinson claim any role in the design of NGLA, vis a vis consulting or any other manner.
Even though Mike would have you believe that he received and reviewed maps and provided councel to CBM on the holes at NGLA.
But, he does make A definitive statement:
[size=14point]
"But, the larger number, and possibly the best in character, have been planned out of the DESIGNER'S BRAIN, with such suggestions as his experience, gathered in Europe, and the natural trend of the ground he had to deal with, supplied to it."
Ben Sayers, who was probably included in "the others" had this to say after he played the course for the first time.
".... but, after visiting the National course, the links DESIGNED by Mr Macdonald, .."
Nowhere does he state that he or anyone else had a hand in the design.
Neither he nor Hutchinson allude to the receipt of any maps detailing NGLA prior to construction.
The "London Times" in September 30, 1913, in an article believed to have been written by Charles Darwin, clearly states that NGLA is solely the product of CBM's efforts. Nowhere does it allude to the design by committee that Mike Cirba NOW WANTS TO PUT FORTH AS HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT MACDONALD. One based solely on another erroneous newspaper account.
In the August 26, 1922 "Times" Darwin writes that CBM created NGLA.
Nowhere is there any mention of a collaborative effort.
Nowhere in "Scotland's Gift" is there any mention of an active collaborative effort in the determining of the ideal holes, their location on the property and the staking out of the boundary lines of the property, other than that of James Whigham.
Mike's problem is that he knowingly accepts flawed/erroneous newspaper accounts over CBM's written words, in his attempt to distort the chain of events surrounding the creation of NGLA in order to achieve his agenda/goal of dismissing CBM's ability to route a golf course, NGLA and Merion, in short order.
What's incredible about Mike's denial, is his failure to understand that CBM already had his holes designed and at the ready, he only needed reasonable land upon which to site them. The holes came first, the terrain upon which to place them second.
Hence, it was a much easier process than having no preconceived notion and having to discover random golf holes on the land.
-
Patrick
Not to seem too anal, but it would have been Bernard Darwin who wrote that piece in The Times about NGLA, and not his grandfather Charles, the naturalist, who was well and truly dead by that time :-) Bernard counted CBM as a very close friend and stayed with him during his first trip to the US in 1913.
-
Patrick,
If you have a problem with the October 1906 articles David posted here you should have taken it up with him.
Funny, I don't recall you having a single negative word to say about them when David posted them over a week ago.
Is it your contention that CBM would have sent a single survey "MAP" to mulitple people? Please don't be purposefully obtuse...you know precisely what that paragraph is saying...copies of the survey map were evidently made and sent to multiple people who CBM respected for their input.
As far as it not being a collaborative effort, Patrick, that's a load of crap.
CBM himself tells us that Emmet and Whigham helped with the design, and we know he told us Hutchinson did as well. Travis was reported to still be on the project as late as 1908 but somehow fell out of favor too, so c'mon Patrick, you really need to give up this romantic, yet wholly unsupportable idea that some one man, dictatorial God-King sprung forth everything good in golf in America.
He wrote in 1912, right after the official opening of the golf course;
"For aid in the original purchase of the land and in laying out of the course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet. Since then Mr. James A. Stillman and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in helping to bring it to perfection."
He later thanked Hutchinson, et.al., as well, for their help.
You talk about me having a preconceived notion or agenda, but talk about calling the kettle black!
No amount of contemporareneous evidence will shake your preconceptions...you aren't open to any of it, even articles conveying the exact same facts and quotes on the exact same day in competing newspapers!! :(
So don't pretend to anyone here that you have an open mind about this because it's obvious you don't.
Every single article i've posted here (and now the one's David posted here) is wrong, wrong, wrong in your eyes, and it's becoming a bit absurd, frankly.
CBM was clearly the father of NGLA, and clearly the decision-maker who deserves the lions-share of the credit for the golf course that's there. I agree with you that the man in charge is the one who should get the credit.
However, the story of the creation of NGLA is a lot more interesting than that, as evidenced in these articles.
Later today, I'm going to draw out a timeline based on what these articles convey.
If you feel that the articles are ALL inaccurate, you might just want to say that and recuse yourself because I think the problem you (and possibly David...I'm still trying to nail down exactly what he thinks happened when) have gotten yourself into with your arguments and over-simplifications is that the corners you've boxed yourselves into make no sense in the context of the contemporaneous evidence.
Perhaps you can start by telling us precisely WHEN you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property? Yesterday you said it was after the course was routed and property was staked...after purchase, in fact.
Is that what you contend? That Raynor didn't survey the property until after CBM purchased it?
When was it cleared? Before then or after??
I'm not trying to be contentious but don't just shoot bullets in some drive-by when the facts that are presented don't jive with your beliefs.
If you actually have a case to make, make it, and we'll see if it fits the facts based on what we know.
David,
I went back and read and can't seem to find where you told us when you think Raynor was employed, when he surveyed the land (pre or post purchase?), and when the unwalkable land was cleared.
As I mentioned to Patrick, I"m going to try to put together a timeline based on what was reported in these articles, and would appreciate your input, as well.
-
I think it might be useful to try to create a timeline of events based on 1) What we know as facts, and 2) What was reported in various publications as posted here over the past several weeks.
For starters, let’s review again what CBM wrote in 1928 about the process of locating the land and determining its usefulness for his purposes.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
I think the key elements which are important to understand and timeline, are;
“The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.”
Followed by;
“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.”
I think trying to get a better sense of the timing of two events requires some speculation. We KNOW as a fact that CBM secured 205 “undetermined” acres of the 450 available on December 14th, 1906.
However, is this the date that “the company agreed to sell us 205 acres”? I’m not certain, as David’s October 15th, 1906 article seems to suggest that consideration of the Sebonac Neck property was already well underway, to the point where it had already been surveyed and mapped, presumably by Seth Raynor. In fact, if the land in question in those October articles is indeed the Sebonac Neck property as David and Patrick have insisted here, then indeed those articles strongly suggest that Raynor had already done his site survey and mapping by that date.
Yet, CBM tells us when he first saw the property with Whigham it was so overgrown as to be impassible on foot, so they had to ride around for 2 or 3 days on horseback, “studying the contours of the ground”.
So what do we know for certain, and what does the timeline of the reports suggest to fill in the blanks?
Sept 1905 – FACT – Dean Alvord’s company buys over 2000 acres around Shinnecock Hills and shortly thereafter the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company is created to develop the land.
FACT – CBM tells us that a few weeks after Alvord’s purchase he “determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.”
FACT – Some undetermined time after that, CBM “offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company 200 dollars an acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.”
In September 1905, CBM is quoted as saying;
“They have nothing over there that we haven’t got here – sand, turf, hills, the sea – and as far as the reproductions go they will be limited only by the topography of the ground we get, which will be molded and shaped to the degree demanded in carrying out our plans. Moreover, it is the testing features of the best holes we want, not the absolute physical imitation of the Scotch or English models.”
“In the selection of holes I am to be a committee of one, but later on others will be appointed with me on the green committee. I shall probably go abroad this winter, and with surveyors and draftsmen visit the ‘classic’ links and plan the working model of our new course. With the topography of our tract always in mind, it will be an ordinary engineering problem to map out just the course we want. After that the fulfillment will be a matter of contract. Contractors here are up to very fast work on any conceivable undertaking, and if we can get the ground this fall we should be playing golf on it in two years, say the spring of 1907.”
The report stated, “Mr. Macdonald added the course would probably be on Long Island and as accessible from New York as possible.”
Jan-June 1906 – FACT – During this period CBM went abroad to complete his studies and had surveyors maps created and did his own sketches of features he felt worth emulation on the best golf holes abroad.
Upon his return it was reported that he was still looking for an ideal site on which to purchase 200 acres for his golf course.
A news article printed in June upon his return quotes Macdonald, making clear that his intent is NOT to create 18 replicated holes, but instead;
”In the thousands of holes I have played and studied abroad with the one idea in view, the principles that make a good hole have cropped up again and again. I found myself classifying the holes on their basic principles, forming them into groups in which the desirable features were due to the reproduction of the same characteristics. On our new course these principles will be introduced to give attractiveness to each hole, and according to the nature of the land finally selected, some three or four of the holes may be exactly resembled. In this country the monotonous cross bunkers for first and second shots bring up one principle again and again; abroad there is an infinite variety of hazards from which one may collect ideas.”
October 15th, 1906 – FACT - According to articles found and posted by David Moriarty, news articles announce that CBM has purchased 250 acres on Long Island. Based on the description of the land, David has contended that it was indeed the Sebonac Neck property, essentially proving that they were considering this land well before November and well before the December 14th formal securing of the land.
The articles mention that no construction will be done until the following spring, by which time the opinions of “expert players” in this country and abroad will be sifted and analyzed. The articles go on to state;
Maps showing all the undulations and grades in feet have been executed, and Mr. Macdonald has mailed these to such authorities as Horace Hutchinson, Harold Hilton, John Ball…”
“On this side, H.J. Whigham has accompanied Mr. Macdonald to the scene of operations, and Walter J. travis has been invited to act as consulting engineer, as it were.”
Here is how CBM described Raynor’s role and duties;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5455586555_74d78d9632_o.jpg)
November 1, 1906 – FACT - It is reported that Macdonald is down to two possible tracts for his purchase; one near Montauk and the other close to Good Ground in western Shinnecock Hills.
December 14th, 1906 – FACT – CBM signs contracts formally securing 205 “undetermined” acres of the 450 available for sale on the Sebonac Neck property.
December 15th – 17th – FACT - Various articles in the New York papers tell the story of the property acquisition with a number of them including a purported quote from CBM;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
Sometime in the first half of 1907 – FACT - Construction Commences
August 10th, 1907 – FACT – A news report states, “A vast amount of money was necessary to insure the proper construction of this unique golf course, for landscape artists have much to do in resurfacing the course to comply with the patterns brought from Europe.”
August 26th, 1907 – FACT – The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports, “It is now possible to give an official map of the course, which shows it exactly as it will appear except that several additional bunkers are to be added at points not yet determined.” The article includes a sketch of the layout “now under construction”.
Here is how CBM described the construction process;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5096/5471531354_43085cce64_o.jpg)
Macdonald himself cites the holes that are indeed meant to be replicas…the Alps, the Redan, the Eden, and the Road hole and describes the Sahara as, “In one sense, it is not a replica, but it is a mental picture of that fine hole, embodying the underlying principle – a golfer’s reward is granted t him who can negotiate the carry he is caple of accomplishing.”
Here, Macdonald describes the rest of the 13 holes that are not meant to be exact reproductions, as well as the help received from Horace Hutchinson;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5418860885_28d2a74459_b.jpg)
February 1908 – FACT - Macdonald, in an article written by Horace Hutchinson, is quoted again referring to the very few holes that are exact copies (and states that they had to be bunkered as the originals dictated), but states that the bunkering of the other holes will take time and likely be placed after play is observed on the course.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5366880889_f787669dc9_o.jpg)
August 1908 – FACT – The following article is published that describes further the ongoing construction process, Macdonald’s ongoing communications with Hutchinson, and the article reports that Walter Travis is still involved in the project.
It also again mentions which holes are meant to be replicas and which bear resemblances, as well as which are original creations.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5363020739_ea24330320_o.jpg)
-
Patrick
Not to seem too anal, but it would have been Bernard Darwin who wrote that piece in The Times about NGLA, and not his grandfather Charles, the naturalist, who was well and truly dead by that time :-) Bernard counted CBM as a very close friend and stayed with him during his first trip to the US in 1913.
It was Bernard.
-
Patrick,
If you have a problem with the October 1906 articles David posted here you should have taken it up with him.
I don't have a problem with the person posting the articles, I have a problem with the accuracy of the articles.
[/b]
Funny, I don't recall you having a single negative word to say about them when David posted them over a week ago.
I don't scrutinize David's posts as carefully as I do yours because I don't think he has an agenda regarding NGLA.[/b]
Is it your contention that CBM would have sent a single survey "MAP" to mulitple people?
I don't think CBM sent maps to anyone.
I think it's another example of erroneous reporting.
But, at the time, multiple maps didn't exist, so CBM couldn't have sent "maps" plural to anyone.
[/b]
Please don't be purposefully obtuse...you know precisely what that paragraph is saying...copies of the survey map were evidently made and sent to multiple people who CBM respected for their input.
I don't buy that.
CBM tells us that he had already sited his ideal holes. Routed and staked the boundaries of the course.
Why, at that late date would he send maps to anyone ?[/b]
As far as it not being a collaborative effort, Patrick, that's a load of crap.
No, it's not.
CBM singlehandedly went abroad, studied and determined which 18 holes he considered ideal.
He then had sketches and survey maps made of those holes.
He then searched and found the land well suited for those holes, examined the property and found the locations for those holes, sited those holes, routed and staked the golf course and then purchased the land upon which he had decided upon.[/b]
CBM himself tells us that Emmet and Whigham helped with the design,
No, he doesn't tell us that.
He tells us in no uncertain terms that Whigham was directly involved in the siting of the holes and routing and staking of the land.
He makes no such direct claim regarding Emmett's "hands on" involvement.[/b]
and we know he told us Hutchinson did as well.
That's not what he said.
I believe that Hutchinson only saw the land/course for the first time after the course was in play, and never in the development stage.
So, how, exactly, did Hutchinson help with the siting of holes and routing of the golf course ?
Typically, you'll fail to address this and many other questions I pose to you.[/b]
Travis was reported to still be on the project as late as 1908 but somehow fell out of favor too, so c'mon Patrick, you really need to give up this romantic, yet wholly unsupportable idea that some one man, dictatorial God-King sprung forth everything good in golf in America.
Conveniently, you forget that CBM himself described how he found the land, studied the land, sited the holes, routed the course and staked the land and subsequently bought the land.
Nowhere, repeat, nowhere does CBM assign credit to any of those individual proccesses, or collectively, to any individual other than Jim Whigham. So, tell us, how exactly, where these other parties involved ?[/b]
He wrote in 1912, right after the official opening of the golf course;
"For aid in the original purchase of the land and in laying out of the course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet.
Whigham's direct role, in each of the processes has been clearly documented by CBM in "Scotland's Gift".
No such credit appears for Emmett, although we do know he was scheduled to be a committee member.
Could you provide the citations specifically describing Emmett's role ?[/b]
Since then Mr. James A. Stillman and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in helping to bring it to perfection."
"Interested" in the development ?
"Bringing it to perfection" sounds like fine tuning after the fact.
Certainly, they were never involved in the siting of the holes, routing and staking of the golf course[/b]
He later thanked Hutchinson, et.al., as well, for their help.
If Hutchinson NEVER set foot on the course until after it was in play, how did he help him ?
Did he ride with Whigham and CBM, locate the sites for the ideal holes, route and stake the course ?
NO, he didn't.
Whatever aid he supplied, which might have been moral support, wasn't in the process of studying the land, siting the holes, routing and staking the golf course.[/b]
You talk about me having a preconceived notion or agenda, but talk about calling the kettle black!
I have no preconceived notion or agenda, I'm merely supporting, in general, what CBM wrote when he authored "Scotland's Gift"[/b]
No amount of contemporareneous evidence will shake your preconceptions...you aren't open to any of it, even articles conveying the exact same facts and quotes on the exact same day in competing newspapers!! :(
Newspaper articles, especially newspaper articles that have the wrong set/s of facts, hardly qualify as contemporaneous evidence.
They are flawed, which has led you to support flawed conclusions.[/b]
So don't pretend to anyone here that you have an open mind about this because it's obvious you don't.
I do have an open mind.
I showed you how wrong your were about the visual, the claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere but the low lying areas, which your newspaper account claimed was true at the current site, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Then, I showed you that a major highway ran right smack down the middle of your phantom golf course.
You have been the one presenting these wild claims, all newspaper based, that when subjected to scrutiny, fail miserably.[/b]
Every single article i've posted here (and now the one's David posted here) is wrong, wrong, wrong in your eyes, and it's becoming a bit absurd, frankly.
The are wrong.
The most recent one claiming that 250 acres is dead wrong and you know it.
False in one, false in many.[/b]
CBM was clearly the father of NGLA, and clearly the decision-maker who deserves the lions-share of the credit for the golf course that's there. I agree with you that the man in charge is the one who should get the credit.
However, the story of the creation of NGLA is a lot more interesting than that, as evidenced in these articles.
So is "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"
The articles are full of incorrect information.
Yet, you cling to them as authoritarian, factual, when nothing could be further from the truth.[/b]
Later today, I'm going to draw out a timeline based on what these articles convey.
If you feel that the articles are ALL inaccurate, you might just want to say that and recuse yourself because I think the problem you (and possibly David...I'm still trying to nail down exactly what he thinks happened when) have gotten yourself into with your arguments and over-simplifications is that the corners you've boxed yourselves into make no sense in the context of the contemporaneous evidence.
Mike, those flawed articles are NOT evidence.
They fail miserably.
They're inaccurate, and the authors far removed from that actual events.
They're just "folklore"[/color
Perhaps you can start by telling us precisely WHEN you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property? Yesterday you said it was after the course was routed and property was staked...after purchase, in fact.
That's a LIE.
First, it was you that claimed that the staking of the land and the purchase of the land occured simultaneously, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I stated that Raynor surveyed the land after it was staked.
But, let me be even clearer and tell you what happened.
CBM and JW studied the land, found the land upon which to site their ideal holes, routed and staked the land they wanted.
Then, they approached the company with the intent of purchasing the staked land, provided the price was right.
When the company agreed in principle, THEN and ONLY THEN did Raynor survey the land.
He had to survey the land at that point in order to define the boundaries for the purchase.
Once he surveyed the land, CBM purchased the land surveyed..[/color
Is that what you contend? That Raynor didn't survey the property until after CBM purchased it?
NO, again, that's YOUR CONVOLUTED conclusion.
I NEVER stated what you stated above.
WHY do you continually, intentionally, MISTATE my position, even after I've typed it out.
RAYNOR surveyed the land immediately prior to the purchase of the land, but, after CBM had staked it out.[/b]
When was it cleared? Before then or after??
That's immaterial.
You don't need to clear land in order to survey it.
And, if you recall, you claimed that there were no trees, so they only had to get rid of underbrush, which is a rather simple task.[/b]
I'm not trying to be contentious but don't just shoot bullets in some drive-by when the facts that are presented don't jive with your beliefs.
That's the heart of the problem.
You present flawed newspaper accounts as accurately representing the facts when nothing could be further from the truth.
You see, you have to believe those articles because those flawed accounts help you rationalize your erroneous conclusions.
But, I don't have to accept obviously, if not flagrantly flawed newspaper accounts as being factual.[/b]
If you actually have a case to make, make it, and we'll see if it fits the facts based on what we know.
I guess you haven't been reading any of my replies.
Remember the case I made that a major highway went through your phantom course which you mislocated.
Do you remember how I presented my case that you couldn't see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying areas ?
Time and time again I make my case and destroy your latest premise.
But, you just change your premise/s as each one gets shot down with the facts.[/b]
David,
I went back and read and can't seem to find where you told us when you think Raynor was employed, when he surveyed the land (pre or post purchase?), and when the unwalkable land was cleared.
As I mentioned to Patrick, I"m going to try to put together a timeline based on what was reported in these articles, and would appreciate your input, as well.
I think you'll find that the REALITY time line has CBM staking the property, negotiating the purchased, Raynor Surveying the land, and CBM executing the purchase.
But, all of that is a subterfuge, an attempt to divert the reader away from the facts.
Namely, that CBM and JW studied the land, sited the holes, routed the holes, staked the property, negotiated the sale, surveyed the property to be purchased and THEN and ONLY THEN, PURCHASED THE LAND.[/B]
-
Mike, You timeline of "FACTS" is woefully inaccurate, incomplete, and overly selective. You continue to ignore information you don't like and highlight information you like, even when they appear within the same sentence!
I am done with you, but I will give one example so any others who still might be reading can see just how disingenuous you really are. You claim to provide CBM's description of "Seth Raynor's role," yet you AGAIN leave out the critical component of his role which directly addresses the issue at hand. WHY HAVE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY MISREPRESENTED "RAYNOR'S ROLE?"
RAYNOR WAS FIRST HIRED TO SURVEY THE PROPERTY. CBM was so impressed by his work that he THEN hired Raynor to create a contour map. Yet you continue to quote only the part about creating the contour map.
I've described it exactly as set out in the book, and I have pointed this out to you repeatedly. Yet you continue to twist and misrepresent it to serve your petty agenda. Despicable.
If you cannot even honestly set out facts you deserve no place in this conversation. You are a waste of time.
-
Patrick, you wrote that...
"The "London Times" in September 30, 1913, in an article believed to have been written by Charles Darwin, clearly states that NGLA is solely the product of CBM's efforts. "
And...
"He (CBM) tells us in no uncertain terms that Whigham was directly involved in the siting of the holes and routing and staking of the land."
The second statement shows the first is not right. NGLA was not solely the product of CBM's efforts. As you said, Whigham was directly involved in siting, routing and staking the course. He also helped choose the property, and I think he helped find it too.
At the very least, NGLA was the product of a committee of two. Obviously CBM was the head of the committee.
-
David,
No intent to deceive anyone about Raynor....I think surveying the land and producing a contour map were probably the same assignment, but if you think they could have been separate assignments I guess that's possible.
In any case, here's the full two pages....it just gets to be a pain to be the only one producing material here.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5473096003_8fc3fcccb0_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5455586555_74d78d9632_o.jpg)
In any case, at what point do you think CBM had Raynor 1) Survey the land and 2) Produce a contour map?
Was it prior to the October article you cited?
Was it after then but prior to the December 14th 1906 securing of the land
Or was it after then, but prior to the spring 1907 final sale of the property?
Or after the spring 1907 sale?
If you think they were separate tasks you can feel free to answer for each one, thanks.
Patrick,
Thanks for clarifying your position, but all of the articles that came out right after CBM secured 205 acres in December 1906 stated that those acres were as yet "undetermined", meaning that the final boundaries of the property had yet to be staked out to completion, and that CBM would be given latitude in the final determination.
I appreciate you laying out the order of events as you see them as follows;
First, it was you that claimed that the staking of the land and the purchase of the land occured simultaneously, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I stated that Raynor surveyed the land after it was staked.
But, let me be even clearer and tell you what happened.
CBM and JW studied the land, found the land upon which to site their ideal holes, routed and staked the land they wanted.
Then, they approached the company with the intent of purchasing the staked land, provided the price was right.
When the company agreed in principle, THEN and ONLY THEN did Raynor survey the land.
He had to survey the land at that point in order to define the boundaries for the purchase.
Once he surveyed the land, CBM purchased the land surveyed..
Patrick...I'd point out that CBM himself told us that he and Whigham examined the land AGAIN, AFTER the company agreed to sell them the land, and AFTER which they staked out the land they wanted. Please read again what he says;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
So, I'd ask you the same questions I just asked David. Can you put a timeline to the events as you see them based on what we DO know?
If we consider that the company formally AGREED to sell them 205 unsecured acres in December 1906, then CBM himself is telling us that sometime AFTER that "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." (caps emphasis mine)
I would concede that there may have been some informal agreement prior to December, which is why I'm asking you to tell us what you think the timeline was, and when you think Raynor was employed.
To me, "staking out the land we wanted" is akin to creating the final terms of the sale...determining those previously "undetermined" borders, which would place it again closer to the actual sales date in spring of 1907, which is precisly the timeline that the article from December 1906 reporting on the terms of the agreement indicate.
So, please, put some proposed months to it, and maybe you or I will learn something.
btw...Hutchinson came while the course was still under development. CBM tells us that he was responsible for the idea of creating some of the more unique green contours and the two men were in constant contact prior and through the project.
-
Patrick/David,
In looking at this again, it could not be any more elementary, straight-forward, and clear.
With the only exception being not telling us when exactly Seth Raynor surveyed the property, this one paragraph tells us the entire story in chronological order. From this, it should be easy to derive a timeline.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5473919019_e1d66f4e0b_o.jpg)
1) CBM tells us about 450 acres of Sebonac Neck that everyone thought was worthless. It abounded in bogs, swamps, and an entanglement of bushes.
2) CBM tells us that the 450 acres had never been surveyed.
3) CBM tells us that the only way that they could get the ground was with ponies.
4) CBM tells us that he and Jim Whigham “spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.”
5) CBM and Whigham determine that it’s what they wanted, provided they can get it reasonably.
6) The Company (referred to previously as the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co.) agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.
7) AGAIN (for some undetermined amount of time) CBM and Whigham studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind.
8) THEN CBM and Whigham staked out the land they wanted.
I’m not sure why this is even a point of argument it’s so blatantly obvious as CBM himself is telling us exactly what happened in the order of events?
Given what else we know…that the contracts for securing the property were executed on December 14th, 1906…that the property at that time was reported, in a quote in CBM’s own words, still “undetermined”….that CBM himself tells us that the actual determination of which specific 205 acres and the final purchase didn’t happen until some months later in “Spring 1907”, all point to an unmistakable conclusion.
The articles I’ve posted on this thread are remarkably consistent with exactly what CBM wrote in his book, with a very few exceptions around specific years which CBM seems to have mistaken over 20 years later.
Still, I’m not even sure what is being debated here? What could possibly be at issue when CBM’s own book ties to the contemporaneous news accounts to a tee?
-
Mike Cirba
You claim that "surveying the land and creating a contour map were probably the same assignment" and use this as your excuse for repeatedly having misrepresented Raynor's role? This despite the fact that I have explained it to you repeatedly and CBM tells us that he hired Raynor for the LATTER because he was so impressed with Raynor's dependability and seriousness in carrying out the FORMER.
But you don't care what CBM wrote. You've got a petty agenda to support so you will just ignore and twist what you don't like.
In any case, here's the full two pages....it just gets to be a pain to be the only one producing material here.
You selectively and annoyingly post the same crap over and over again, and you have the nerve to claim that you are the only one producing material here? You are delusional. Repeatedly posting the same stuff detracts from the conversation, it doesn't add to it.
________________________________________
As for your last post, while you have been dismissing CBM's book as some sort of inaccurate and idealized fantasy/fiction, while you have been dismissing his book as some sort of inaccurate and idealized fantasy/fiction, we've been telling you for years that it is all set out in CBM's book Still now you have quit reading and start twisting a bit too early. All of what you say happened, and THEN, after staking out the land they wanted, including (but not limited to) the land for the Alps, Redan, Cape, Eden, and start and finishing holes, they acquired an option.
We obtained an option on the land in November[sic?], 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907. Immediately we commenced development. In many places the land was impoverished. These had to be top dressed. . . .
-
Just out of curiosity, is accepted by both sides that the course routing was complete, in basic form prior to step 8 in Mikes last post?
I haven't read enough to see what exactly you guys are arguing about.
-
Mike,
My position couldn't be clearer.
Here it is again.
Your creative/misguided/disengenous reading and interpretation of CBM's own words speak to your motive.
Here's what I stated:
First, it was you that claimed that the staking of the land and the purchase of the land occured simultaneously, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I stated that Raynor surveyed the land after it was staked.
But, let me be even clearer and tell you what happened.
CBM and JW studied the land, found the land upon which to site their ideal holes, routed and staked the land they wanted.
Then, they approached the company with the intent of purchasing the staked land, provided the price was right.
When the company agreed in principle, THEN and ONLY THEN did Raynor survey the land.
He had to survey the land at that point in order to define the boundaries for the purchase.
Once he surveyed the land, CBM purchased the land surveyed..
CBM is clear, he states, JIM WHIGHAM and MYSELF.
He doesn't include Raynor.
In the same paragraph, in the next sentences, he states, "WE", meaning CBM and JW, NOT anyone else.
He continually uses "WE" referencing CBM and JW, and noone else.
Including the passage that "WE" staked out the land we wanted.
That's CBM and JW. NOT Seth Raynor.
He goes on to say that "WE" found an Alps, .... "WE" found an ideal Redan, "WE" discovered", "WE" found, etc.,etc..
CBM's recollections couldn't be clearer, it was CBM and JW, and NOT ANYONE ELSE.
As to the sale, the company wasn't going to sell some vague plot, they needed to establish, precisely the size of the plot and it's boundaries. Since it had never been surveyed, ENTER SETH RAYNOR, who surveyed it after it had been staked, for the purposes of defining the perameters of the sale.
Do you think CBM just said, I'll take 205 undefined acres and I'm not sure where the boundaries are ?
That you don't see this, or rather don't want to see this, speaks to your agenda.
The boundaries were rather simple if you examine the land bordered by Peconic Bay, Shinnecock and the Shinnecock Inn property.
You continue to use a shotgun approach, hoping, praying that some newspaper snippet will help you in your goal of undermining CBM's abilty to route a course in short order, NGLA and/or Merion.
You continue to accept seriously flawed newspaper articles as factual, while at the same time rejecting CBM's written words.
I understand your modus operandi, desperate men do desperate things and sadly, you've resorted to desperate, if not dishonest methods and reasoning.
-
Jim Sullivan,
As I understand the facts, CBM and HJW staked out the land they wanted based on a preliminary routing. I've been maintaining this for years, and everything that has been brought forward either supports or is consistent with this notion.
As for Mike's position, he has been all over the map on this issue. His initial position was that CBM and HJW locked themselves into the land before they ever even routed anything. That is so absurd that he doesnt claim it much anymore, but he still seems to be trying to twist the facts to support some sort of version of that. In the mean time the direct contradictions and about-faces multiply by the day.
For example, he has adamantly and repeatedly declared that there is no way they did any real routing or planning while on horseback for those few days, yet he now he seems to want to claim that at the time they optioned the land (December 1906) all they had done was ride the rough property on horseback and from that ride they determined not only the location of the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape, but that they had also determined the location of the first and last holes and the shape and general dimensions of the property to be obtained. Still more contradictorily, he seems to be claiming that despite all this, that they had not really yet began routing the course or determined even the rough boundary.
So as far as what Mike thinks at this point, I have no idea. It just doesn't make sense, probably not even to him. He is just flailing around trying everything under the sun to try and push his agenda. When it comes to CBM he has changed his basic position more often than his underwear, and every time has claimed that there was no doubt that he was absolutely correct. All we know for sure is that whatever Mike comes up with this time it will ultimately be something driven not by the real facts but by the result he wants to reach.
-
Patrick, you wrote that...
"The "London Times" in September 30, 1913, in an article believed to have been written by Charles Darwin, clearly states that NGLA is solely the product of CBM's efforts. "
And...
"He (CBM) tells us in no uncertain terms that Whigham was directly involved in the siting of the holes and routing and staking of the land."
The second statement shows the first is not right. NGLA was not solely the product of CBM's efforts. As you said, Whigham was directly involved in siting, routing and staking the course. He also helped choose the property, and I think he helped find it too.
At the very least, NGLA was the product of a committee of two. Obviously CBM was the head of the committee.
Jim, you can't be that obtuse, can you ?
NGLA was SOLELY the Product of CBM's efforts.
Take CBM out of the equation and there's NO NGLA.
NO concept, no study, no land purchase, no golf course.
CBM and CBM alone was responsible for the creation of NGLA.
Much the same as Bandon is SOLELY the PRODUCT of Mike Keiser's efforts,
Atlantic, SOLELY the Product of Lowell Schulman's efforts,
Friar's Head, SOLELY the Product of Ken Bakst's efforts and
Hidden Creek, SOLELY the Product of Roger Hansen's efforts.
Please tell me you understand the contextual reference.
-
Just out of curiosity, is accepted by both sides that the course routing was complete, in basic form prior to step 8 in Mikes last post?
I haven't read enough to see what exactly you guys are arguing about.
Jim,
Yes, the course was routed by Step 8 and the final purchase of the land in the spring of 1907, no question about it.
The issue is whether it was routed before Step 6, which was the agreement by the company to accept CBM's offer to secure 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available, and CBM clearly tells us there was no routing at that time.
David and Pat,
Rather than ranting again against me personally, as is your wont when running out of facts, why don't you just tell us what I've misinterpreted, or how you'd change the following sequence of events (see below) described by CBM in his book?
This isn't about Raynor, who simply did CBM's bidding, although one does need to consider when he might have done his survey and maps prior to construction in the whole timeline.
Instead, it's about the land aquistion and routing process, and the time it took from inception to purchase, and what it entailed.
Thanks. Here it is again...this should not be a difficult assignment.
Pllease change it according to your interpretation, but I think this is exactly what CBM wrote.
1) CBM tells us about 450 acres of Sebonac Neck that everyone thought was worthless. It abounded in bogs, swamps, and an entanglement of bushes.
2) CBM tells us that the 450 acres had never been surveyed.
3) CBM tells us that the only way that they could get around the property was with ponies.
4) CBM tells us that he and Jim Whigham “spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.”
5) CBM tellus us that he and Whigham determined that it’s what they wanted, provided they can get it reasonably.
6) CBM tells us that The Company (referred to previously as the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co.) agreed to sell him ("us") 205 acres and "we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes".
7) CBM tells us that, AGAIN (for some undetermined amount of time) he and Whigham studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind.
8) CBM tellus us that THEN and ONLY THEN he and Whigham staked out the land they wanted.
-
So it's the Golf House Road debate all over again...except without the other supposedly fixed boundaries.
Fair enough, just checking. Thanks guys.
-
Jim,
Feel free to take a shot at it, as well. Sanity is in very short supply here. ;)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5473919019_e1d66f4e0b_o.jpg)
1) CBM tells us about 450 acres of Sebonac Neck that everyone thought was worthless. It abounded in bogs, swamps, and an entanglement of bushes.
2) CBM tells us that the 450 acres had never been surveyed.
3) CBM tells us that the only way that they could get around the property was with ponies.
4) CBM tells us that he and Jim Whigham “spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.”
5) CBM tellus us that he and Whigham determined that it’s what they wanted, provided they can get it reasonably.
6) CBM tells us that The Company (referred to previously as the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co.) agreed to sell him ("us") 205 acres and "we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes".
7) CBM tells us that, AGAIN (for some undetermined amount of time) he and Whigham studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind.
8) CBM tellus us that THEN and ONLY THEN he and Whigham staked out the land they wanted.
-
So it's the Golf House Road debate all over again...except without the other supposedly fixed boundaries.
Fair enough, just checking. Thanks guys.
You got it. But it is actually a bit worse than that. To Mike, this is the Merion discussion. He wants to try to prove that CBM locked himself into land at NGLA before routing the course so Mike can try to support his foolish claim that they did the same thing at Merion. And like with the Merion discussion, Mike is willing to distort or leave out whatever it takes to support his rhetoric.
Mike's latest ploy is typical, especially when viewed in context of this conversation. As usual, Mike has twisted what he calls the "issue" beyond recognition. They may well have been still routing the course at the time the company initially agreed that it would sell them the land, BUT MIKE IS MISREPRESENTING THE TIMING THAT THE FORMAL OPTION/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS REACHED. A few weeks ago I provided this chronology taken straight from CBM's book:
A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres [and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.]"
C. "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."
D. "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906."
E. "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
Notice that Mike's list is essentially the same, only he drops the last two items, pretending as though his list covers it all when, in his list, CBM mentioned NOTHING about having optioned the property.
Mike is trying to bury "D" within "B," so that he can pretend that CBM had already optioned the land before they "again 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." But in so doing Mike has again painted himself into a ridiculous corner, where all that had been done prior to mid-December 1906 was that CBM and Whigham had ridden the property a few times. Mike tries this even though Mike himself has repeatedly claimed that they couldn't have possibly done much of anything during these rides, and even though their are multiple reports of plenty having been done before mid-December 1906.
So, as you figured, like with the Merion situation Mike is pretending that the option to slightly adjust "exact" boundaries means that there were no boundaries or no routing even considered. That is as foolish here as it was with the Merion discussion.
-
David,
What I think Mike misses, intentionally or unintentionally, is the following:
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres [and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.]"[/b]
That's a critical point.
It tells us that while they had located the site for CBM's ideal 18 holes on their initial inspection of the land, that they decided that was the land they wanted if they could get it, and in negotiating for the 205 acres, the Company gave them some latitude with respect to defining the boundaries, so, they returned to the site, determined the boundaries they wanted, and staked them.
However, since the land had never been surveyed, according to CBM, at that time, it HAD to be surveyed, since the sale, and the deed for the sale would have to clearly define the exact parcel of land sold/bought. Then and only then was Raynor retained to survey the property that CBM had staked and refined.
That staked and subsequently surveyed land already had the holes sited and the routing determined.
CBM states that clearly.
Mike's sole purpose is to find anything that will discredit CBM's personal account, thus, he relies on flawed newspaper accounts and faulty reasoning toward that end.
No one, in 1906, 2006 or 1806 would sell or buy undefined land.
Boundaries had to be established, and CBM established those boundaries, he staked them out preliminarily, subsequent to siting the holes and routing the golf course. It's all there in "Scotland's Gift", but, Mike would rather rely on seriously flawed newspaper articles in his attempt to discredit CBM's own account.
When either you or Tom MacWood put forth a premise that CBM might have designed Merion, or at least had a hand in a good number of holes at Merion, I doubted/discounted your premise.
But, when I saw contemporaneous photos of the original 10th hole at Merion, the Alps hole, along with the other CBM template holes at Merion, I had NO DOUBT that CBM played a larger role than he was previously credited with.
There can be little doubt that he had a significant impact on the design of those holes, if he didn't design them himself.
And, when you consider that the Merion Committee came to NGLA, saw the holes in the ground, saw the sketches and survey maps of those holes, that they were destined to find their way into the design of Merion.
-
David/Patrick,
When did I ever say that CBM locked himself into buying specific land before routing the course? I never said that at all.
In fact, if you look at the eight items above I clearly note both explicitiy and implicitly in both items 7 and 8 that AFTER the company AGREED to sell them 205 acres, these steps describe the routing process which determined the exact boundaries and preceeded the actual purchase that took place months later in spring 1907.
What I said was that this process took a considerable amount of time to accomplish. Frankly, ALL of the evidence here, including CBM's own account from his book tells us this routing process took MONTHS.
The 2 or 3 days on horseback was not the routing process, although Patrick continues to insist that it was. Even David would tell you that's lunacy if he were honest about it after a few beers. ;)
Those two or three days were to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical "205 acres" within it.
It's important to remember at this point that virtually every article, as well as the Founders Agreement from 1904, has CBM trying to locate just over 200 acres to accomplish his plans that included one acre building lots for the sixty Founders, so to believe that magically this 205 acres just again popped up because they had already routed the golf course and voila!, it just happened to come out to 205 acres is hogwash.
After that horse ride, CBM tells us they were satisfied that there was enough possibility in the land for his goals. He NEVER says he routed the golf course at that point.
No, instead he says at that point that the Company AGREED to sell them 205 of the acres, and that the lines of that purchase were UNDETERMINED. They could locate it over the term of the secure agreement to best serve their purposes for a golf course.
Based on the articles produced on this thread, and knowing the date of the contractual securing of 205 acres (December 14th 1906) and especially David's article from mid-October (if as he argues, it was the Sebonac Neck property being discussed), then we know there was a lot more involved in routing the golf course than 2 or 3 days on horseback.
In fact, the December articles after the papers for securing 205 "undetermined" acres were signed quote CBM as saying that he and his committee were going to determine which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages over the next several months.
But, we can also safely assume that they had already located good spots for a number of holes at that point, and the articles tell us the same thing CBM's book tells us. The holes located at the time of the securing of the property included the Alps, the Eden, the Redan, possibly the Sahara, and the Cape.
If CBM had already routed the course during the 2-3 days on horseback, a myth that Patrick seems to have made up out of thin air to suit his CBM God/King dreams and Merion delusions, then why would he have needed to go back and "AGAIN" study the contours EARNESTLY, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the classical golf holes he had in mind...??!
No, instead he secured 205 "undetermined" acres in December, and then purchased the property several months later in sprng of 1907 AFTER studying the contours earnestly and selecting those that would fit in naturally with the classical golf holes he had in mind AFTER which he staked out the property and completed his purchase.
And David, are you saying that an accurate reading of page 187 is that CBM first staked out THE EXACT 205 acres of his purchase BEFORE getting the seller's commitment to sell him 205 acres and securing the property?? And this is after his previous offer for other land from this same seller was rejected?
Why on earth would he ever do that? Especially when ALL of the reports tell us that the 205 acres CBM secured in December 1906 had undetermined boundaries??
CBM tells us that they first got AGREEMENT from the company to sell them 205 acres and permitted them to locate it as best to serve their purposes.
It was ONLY THEN that they AGAIN studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would best fit in naturally with the various holes CBM had in mind, AFTER WHICH THEY STAKED OUT THE LAND they wanted.
ALL of that happened AFTER the agreement to secure the land, NOT BEFORE.
Here are the pages again. You are misreading this if you think the last sentence on page 187, which clearly is meant to start a new idea (giving the timeframes of purchase and start of construction) is a mere sequential follow-on to the complete encapsulated paragraph two above it, that tells us the entire deal.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5419464460_ea39597281_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5418860885_28d2a74459_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5419464630_d47908eb79_z.jpg)
I think you guys should re-read these passages based on what we've learned here through the articles that have been posted.
While i'm a bit fearful that CBM may come back from the grave to sue me for plagiarism, I think it's more likely that he'll come back to sue the both of you for gross misrepresentation of his book! ;) ;D
-
David,
I"m off to work, but the quote below sums up Mike's intent.
From the begining his sole agenda was to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order.
Here's his quote:
What I said was that this process took a considerable amount of time to accomplish.
The 2 or 3 days on horseback was not the routing process, although Patrick continues to insist that it was. Even David would tell you that's lunacy if he were honest about it after a few beers.
[/b]
Yet, CBM tells us, in his own words, that in short order, he and JW studied the land LOOKING to site CBM's 18 ideal golf holes, they found the land in short order, a very unique configuration I might add, returned for a quick revisit, confirmed the sites and routing and bought the land.
Had the land not been covered in sticker bushes, instead of 2 or 3 days, CBM and JW probably could have completed the task in 1 day.
I'll be back tonight.
-
Patrick (and/or David)
Please show us anywhere in CBM's own words, or in any contemporaneous articles during the years from 1906-1910 that ANY of what you've just written about CBM routing NGLA in short order is evidenced.
It simply is not and not even David would argue that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2-3 days on horseback.
Would you David?
And while you're at it, why not tell us if you agree with Patrick that CBM's direct quotes in all of those December 1906 newspapers were misattributed or not reported accurately when he told us he'd spend the next several months with his committee determining which holes to reproduce as well as the yardages of the holes because I know you don't buy that one either.
Patrick,
You wrote;
From the begining his sole agenda was to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order.
Actually, that's where you're most wrong.
If I have an agenda, it's not to show that CBM could not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him.
That's an absurd proposition...you or I could route a course in a day if pressed, although the results would almost surely betray our puny efforts.
So you're misunderstanding me, and perhaps that's my fault.
Instead, my agenda has been to show that CBM WOULD not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him. That is very much to his credit, and a fundamental reason why NGLA is so monumentally great.
"A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience." - Charles Blair Macdonald, 1897
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
-
This is a farce. Cirba has made so many different arguments and taken so many different positions that he has apparently made himself dizzy. He is essentially arguing against himself in every post, but he doesn't even realize it.
Mike Cirba.
Where exactly in your timeline does the December 15, 1906, fall? At what point in your timeline did CBM formally option the property?
You have been arguing that this was your No. 6. Is this still your position, or have you abandoned this position as well?
And Mike, openly scanning and posting page after page of a copyrighted work is not plagiarism, but it may well be copyright infringement. Classy.
-
Mike,
Where you premise fails completely is in the distinct difference between routing a course from scratch and routing a course where you already have each of the holes pre-designed.
Unfortunately, your argument demands that you assign equal efforts to both tasks when one is infinitely easier than the other..
The tasks are substantively different.
Taking pre-designed holes and placing them on the land is infinitely easier, infinitely less time consuming than having to start from scratch with no preconception as to what the holes will be.
My belief is that CBM, SR and CB were able to route courses in short order because a great deal of the creative process had already been done, they already knew the configuration of the holes and merely needed to lay them upon the land.
That's a task that talented architects should be able to do in very short order.
CBM tells us how quickly they found a half a dozen of their holes.
We also know, from the location of the club houses, that four more holes were quickly established.
Thus, with ten holes sited, filling in the rest was a quick exercise.
We've seen, on other courses, how nicely these templates are integrated with the ground.
Yale, Piping Rock, The Creek, St Louis, Sleepy Hollow, Westhampton, CC of Fairfield, Everglades, Mountain Lake, Hackensack, Fishers Island, Essex County, Forsgate, The Knoll, Rock Spring and perhaps even Merion and many others, with diverse topography, easily accomodated CBM's, SR's and CB's templates.
Armed with 18 pre-designed holes, routing them at NGLA wasn't a complicaed matter, it was done in short order.
You can post all of the accounts you want about taking your time to design and fine tune holes.
CBM took years to do that, he studied abroad for years, he had survey maps, sketches, etc., etc.
He knew exactly what he wanted.
He was the first to create holes that were "shelf products" in golf course architecture.
And, at NGLA, in short order he placed his shelf products upon the land.
And, as the record shows, he, SR and CB did it time and time and time again, on totally different topography.
It's not as complex as you're trying to get eveyone to believe.
-
David,
Good question, and it's hard to say exactly.
Here are the last three again;
6) CBM tells us that The Company (referred to previously as the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co.) agreed to sell him ("us") 205 acres and "we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes".
7) CBM tells us that, AGAIN (for some undetermined amount of time) he and Whigham studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind.
8) CBM tellus us that THEN and ONLY THEN he and Whigham staked out the land they wanted.
Theoretically, number six could have happened as early as those October 15th, 1906 articles you posted. If the land in those articles was the land of Sebonac Neck, as you've argued, it seems at that fairly early time CBM may have already been looking at the property, and thinking he had agreement to buy "250 acres", as was reported.
However, I'm still not certain that was the land in question, and moreso, those articles telling us the land had already been surveyed, mapped, and those maps having been copied and sent to luminaries abroad certainly confuses the issue.
If accurate, that would mean that Raynor was on the scene much earlier than any of us knew previously, and that the work of looking at that property probably started in late summer, probably with the horse ride.
CBM does tell us in other chapters that his mode of operation was to first have a topo map created, so it's possible David that they were looking at the land well in advance of the securing.
There are a few reasons I think this is unlikely, however.
First, I'm not sure that CBM would go to the expense of having land surveyed and maps drawn without some agreement with the seller to purchase the land. Second, it would seem a very lengthy time of looking at the property prior to securing the land in December and purchasing it the next spring.
I realize there were 450 acres to wade through to try and determine the scope of their purchase, and that takes some time, but that seems a bit exorbitant, especially as we know that real estate prices on LI were rising and CBM had previously been shut out on a proposed purchase.
So, I think it's more likely that those October articles were a PR ploy by CBM meant as some type of negotiating tool. I'm not sure what he was hoping to accomplish there, but the articles in entirety and timing don't seem to ring true.
Ditto the November 1 articles I found that said he was down to two choices on Montauk and near Good Ground.
So, I think the most likely scenario is the simplest and most straight-forward.
I think that CBM likely rode with Whigham around the property for 2 or 3 days in October, and determined it was what they wanted in terms of soil and landforms if they could get it for a good price. They also probably found the Alps hill and redan ridge and the water for the Eden and Cape during those rides.
I think as CBM told us in his book he secured agreement with the company to buy 205 "undetermined" acres in November and the formal papers to that effect were drawn up and signed a few weeks later, on December 14th, 1906.
I think as those December articles point out, the next few months were spent routing the course, deciding which holes to create, which features to copy, getting the survey done and topo maps completed that aided their routing and designing of the course, and once that was completed, they staked the exact holes and dimensions of the property they wanted and signed the purchase papers and began construction.
What do you think?
Patrick,
Actually, I think finding spots for exact replica holes is a tougher and more time-consuminig task than just using natural landforms to create original holes.
By definition, you either need to get really lucky and find a close approximation, or you have to find a landform that will allow you to shape it and build from scratch to get what you need.
Fortunately for CBM, he only actually tried to replicate five holes, four and a half really, and instead created mostly composite and original holes based on what the land gave him to work with at NGLA.
You're right in the sense that he had a fixed starting and ending point with his decision to use the Shinnecock Inn for his clubhouse, and it's logical to assume he'd want some of his course to go down to the beautiful Peconic Bay, but let's not forget that he had at his disposal all of the terrific land of today's Sebonack GC, as well as land on the Shinnecock course where today's holes 4, 5, 8, and thereabouts are located, as that club didn't own that land yet, nor was it part of their golf course at the time.
So, he had a huge canvas to try and narrow down contiguous golf holes, AND he had to make them work in concert with those holes where natural landforms dictated placement of a template hole, such as the Alps/Redan combo.
This was not a 2 or 3 day job.
At one time CBM thought of creating 18 specific holes, but his thinking changed over the years, such that by the time he built NGLA, there really were only one handful of that type.
I'll provide other accounts of that evolution in his thinking if you want more substantiation.
-
What do I think?
I think that, just maybe, it is finally beginning to dawn on you that what you have been doing regarding NGLA for the past several years has been absolutely bogus. A complete farce. But that is probably wishful thinking on my part.
I think that despite your half dozen (minimum) threads, and your tens of dozens of false declarations about what happened, your thousands of posts, and your hundreds of agenda driven pages on the matter, that one of two things are happening. Either you still have no clue whatsoever, or you are just finally starting to get an inkling that what happened at NGLA is just as it appears in CBM's book and just as has been explained to you repeated and for years now.
I also think that if it is the latter you will never be man enough to admit that your agenda has lead you to foolishly and selfishly waste our time for years now, but you will instead pretend as if you have made some monumental discovery and that this is exactly what you have been saying all along.
That what I honestly think.
Very recently, you were steadfast and certain that the CBM optioned the land as your No. 6. Finally it seems to have dawned on you just how ridiculous that is. But rather than admitting you were wrong and facing the consequences you've posted an absurd laundry list that when read carefully says absolutely nothing. Care to try again?
As for when I think the land was optioned. My answer is the same as it has always been, and as appears in CBM's book-- after they had completed the rough routing and chosen the land they wanted. After your step No. 8. That is where CBM puts it, and as you used to argue before it didn't serve you, CBM described what happened in chronological order.
Here again is the same old basis outline I have provided numerous times in many different forms over the years.
A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres [and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.]"
C. "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."
D. "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906."
E. "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
-
CBM's Chapter X, HISTORY OF NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA, provides paragraph by paragraph chronology of searching for, finding, studying, routing, securing, and then developing NGLA.
1. The first paragraph tied in to to the last chapter, briefly referring to his studies abroad, etc.
2. The next three paragraphs discussed the consideration of three alternate sites and the reasons those sites were not used: Cape Cod; land between Amagansett and Montauk; and portion of the Shinnecock property by the canal, well away from SHGC.
3. The next paragraph discussed the Sebonack Neck property and finding the rough outlines of the course on that property:
A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.
B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres [and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.]"
C. "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."
4. The next paragraph described the specific land they had chosen for their golf course, the land they had staked out, and included some (but not all) of the holes they had found and a general description of the land.
A. We found and Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put an Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run up onto the green. We found a wonderful water hole, now the Cape.
B. We had a little more than a quarter mile of frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bulls Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us --a much-desired situation.
C. When playing golf you want to be alone with nature.
5. The next paragraph discussed securing the land, dealing with the impoverished topsoil, and the idea behind the original starting point [and finishing point] of the course.
A. "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906 and took title to the property in the spring of 1907."
B. Some of the land was impoverished . . . they needed 10,000 truckloads of topsoil.
C. Didn't have money for immediate clubhouse, so they were planning to put first [and last] hole near Shinnecock Inn, until it burned down.
6. The next paragraph discussed the development and advantages of the clubhouse overlooking Peconic Bay. Ninth and tenth overlooking Peconic would became last and first hole after clubhouse burned down. This provided unrivaled vistas (other than perhaps at CBM's mid-Ocean.
7. The next four paragraphs described the holes based most directly on particular holes abroad and why those holes were were actually better than those upon which they were based. (Note that this is not a repeat of the previous discussion of finding a few of these holes. This is a discussion of the actual holes as built, and how they ended up being superior to the similar holes abroad. The Cape is not mentioned because it was not based on holes abroad. The Sahara and Road Hole are discussed because they were.)
A. Alps and Redan were the first holes placed, and they both ended up better than the originals, according to Whigham's and Sayers, respectively, and they should know.
B. Eden was just built to match the original, only improved by 75 yard carry over water and meadow grass.
C. Sahara was described. Rather that being a copy, it was a mental picture embodying [and improving upon] the principle.
D. CBM's Road Hole was built to match original, except for a few changes that CBM thought made it better.
8. The next paragraph briefly mentions the other holes as either being composite or entirely original, and then CBM discussed adding bunkers and going over the course with Hutchinson in 1910 (after the course was built.)
9. The next twenty years of tweaking the course are lumped into the next paragraph.
10. The next paragraph brings us up to current, 1927, with CBM only striving to make the bunkers more natural, and not harder but more interesting.
And that is it for the chronology. Many of the next chapters are devoted to the opinions, criticisms, and praise of others about NGLA, then an incidental mention of yacht basin, then a few paragraphs on the success of NGLA's mission and legacy, then a tribute and description of the importance of Raynor to CBM, including a brief description of other courses CBM and Raynor, and then Raynor alone, built.
Frankly, I have no idea why this has been so difficult for you, Mike. As you have argued, it is all in chronological order. So quit trying to make it something that it is not.
-
Quote, Mike Cirba,
Actually, I think finding spots for exact replica holes is a tougher and more time-consuminig task than just using natural landforms to create original holes.
Of course you do because it furthers your agenda.
But, in reality, armed with the 18 holes one wants to include in one's golf course, putting them on the land is a simple task, requiring very little time.
The fact of the matter is that CBM could probably have chosen any configuration, and, in 1906, noone would know the difference.
It's only upon retrospective analysis and comparison with other template holes that you judge the quality of the template holes at NGLA. But, when they were layed upon the land there was no basis for comparison.
CBM knew what holes he wanted incorporated and quickly found his Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape, Sahara, Road, Leven, Bottle, coupled with the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th. When you view the border property, Shinnecock hills and the water, along with the starting and finishing points for his two clubhouses, the routing, as Behr declared, completed itself.
Now Behr, who you cited, was there, he played the course in its infancy, and he declared that it routed itself, so how difficult, complex or time consuming could that be ? Essentially, it was a "drive-by" routing, accomplished in very short order.
All of the leg work had been done previously with CBM's trips abroad, his studies, his play, his survey maps, his sketches, all that preliminary work that might take one a long time, CBM had already completed when he first set foot on NGLA.
So, he knew what he wanted, he had already crafted the individual holes and had only to lay his ideal holes upon a long narrow stretch of land. It was a turnkey project.
It doesn't get any easier than that.[/b]
By definition, you either need to get really lucky and find a close approximation, or you have to find a landform that will allow you to shape it and build from scratch to get what you need.
What "definition" ? Oh, you mean your definition.
Nah, he had the holes and he understood their topography, all he had to do was lay them on reasonably resembling land, which he did in short order. Max Behr declared that the course "routed itself", which confirms what I've stated.[/b]
Fortunately for CBM, he only actually tried to replicate five holes, four and a half really, and instead created mostly composite and original holes based on what the land gave him to work with at NGLA.
That's NOT TRUE and is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Alps, Eden, Cape, Redan, Sahara, Leven, Bottle, Road were just 8 of the 18 holes he wanted to replicate.
He also wanted to replicate individual holes like Cartgate (# 3) at TOC, the 4th at Sandwich, the 5th at Brancaster, the 9th at Brancaster, the 3rd at Prestwick, the 14th at TOC, the 8th at New St Andrews and others which were combination holes.
So, please don't lie to everyone and insist that CBM only intended to replicate 4.5 holes.
He wanted to try to replicate the 18 holes he deemed his ideal holes.[/b]
You're right in the sense that he had a fixed starting and ending point with his decision to use the Shinnecock Inn for his clubhouse, and it's logical to assume he'd want some of his course to go down to the beautiful Peconic Bay, but let's not forget that he had at his disposal all of the terrific land of today's Sebonack GC
I think you may have made a major mistake in your disengenuous quest to discredit CBM's ability to route a course, especially NGLA.
A mistake equal to the North (Sunrise) highway fiasco your tried to scam us with.
CBM tells us that he found his perfect Eden, and right after it, his Cape. Which, have the critical element he needs, WATER.
He also told us that the land he wanted also adjoined Shinnecock. He goes on to tell us how the land he wanted skirted Bulls Head Bay, then Peconic Bay.
Take a look at Google Earth. You can't start from the Shinnecock in, play adjacent to Shinnecock hills, down to the WATER for # 13 (Eden), # 14 (Cape), # 17 (Leven), # 2 Sahara, # 3 Alps, # 4 Redan, by going west, further inland, into today's Sebonack golf course.
It's impossible, and just another one of your wild and desperate, disengenuous attempt to discredit Macdonald's ability to route a golf course in short order.
Quite simply, you can't avail yourself of the land at Sebonack once you've committed to Bulls Head Bay (Eden, Cape, Leven) and, I also believe that some, to a good deal of the land immediately adjacent to NGLA on the Sebonack property might have been the swamps and bogs CBM was refering to, making it undesirable for hole locations.
I maintain that the land between current # 18 and # 1 was always intended as the site for the final clubhouse, thus establishing CBM's 9th and 10th holes. With each of the individual components:
1 Starting and finishing holes/Shinnecock Inn
2 Course running adjactent to Shinnecock Hills Golf course
3 Use of Bulls Head Bay for his Eden, Cape and Leven
4 Future clubhouse site
5 His 9th and 10th holes.
6 His 11th, 12th and 13th holes, Sahara, Alps and Redan,
7 His 16th and 17th holes, Road and Bottle,
One routing and only one routing could be established.
Even with numbers, 1, 3 and 6, the die is cast.
The course, as Max Behr clearly stated, routed itself.
There was NEVER any consideration to go west, through wetlands onto the Sebonack Property.
Next, you'll tell us that he took an option for Shinnecock and Southampton Golf Courses.
CBM also speaks of the Yacht Basin, and the water frontage of Bullshead bay.
Certainly he couldn't go inland, onto the Sebonack property, away from his Yacht basin.
When you add up all the facts, not your phantom fantasies, it's obvious that the course was located, quickly and easily, as CBM stated, on its current site.[/b]
, as well as land on the Shinnecock course where today's holes 4, 5, 8, and thereabouts are located, as that club didn't own that land yet, nor was it part of their golf course at the time.
But, Mike, that would mean that the course went EAST, away from the Sebonack property, which you just claimed was terrific land, ignoring the wetlands (bogs and swamps) that reside there. You're so desperate, so confused that you contradict yourself, from one sentence to the next.
The fact is that you're desperate, grasping at straws, grasping at anything that might help you move toward your goal of discrediting CBM's ability to route a golf course that basically routed itself, on the present site.[/b]
So, he had a huge canvas to try and narrow down contiguous golf holes,
NO, HE DID NOT HAVE A HUGE CANVAS.
He had a long, narrow split of land that adjoined Shinnecock Hills, adjacent to Bulls Head Bay, fronting Peconic Bay.
CBM tells us this in his own words, yet, you ignore his written word, prefering instead to direct hiim West, into wetlands and away from Shinnecock, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay.
Your theory on the land at his disposal rivals your North Highway land in terms of absurdity.
But, I'm sure that being wildly incorrect will not deter you and the others helping you, from your goal of discrediting CBM's abilities.[/b]
AND he had to make them work in concert with those holes where natural landforms dictated placement of a template hole, such as the Alps/Redan combo.
Thanks for the admission that your Sebonack property theory is a farce.
If he found the Alps/Redan, along with the Eden/Cape and he played adjoining Shinnecock Hills, Starting and finishing at the Shinnecock in, didn't the course therefore route itself ?
Please don't try to dodge that question.
AND, when you add the Bottle hole, The Road Hole, The Sahara, The Leven, VIOLA, the routing is complete, the course has routed itself in short order.[/b]
This was not a 2 or 3 day job.
YOU'RE RIGHT..... IT WAS A ONE DAY JOB.
The only reason it took 2 or 3 days was because of the sticker bushes on the property.[/b]
At one time CBM thought of creating 18 specific holes, but his thinking changed over the years, such that by the time he built NGLA, there really were only one handful of that type.
NO HE DIDN'T.
THAT'S ANOTHER LIE
Unless you call 15 holes a handful.[/b]
I'll provide other accounts of that evolution in his thinking if you want more substantiation.
You keep thinking that the sheer volume of your erroneous facts and fallacious thinking will somehow convince us to abandon the facts and prudent thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I've demonstrated, with geometric like logic, that each and every one of your wild premises are merely the flawed presentations of a desperate man who will go to any length to discredit CBM.
-
Patrick,
I haven't really been following this, but I would like to say that I don't think trying to fit 18 existing templates in a routing is any easier than trying to route a course from scratch. Nor do I think the time it takes at one routing or site has anything to do with how long it takes to route a course at another site. I have done two projects more or less simultaneously, with similar sites, and one was done quickly and the other took weeks.
I say that from experience, and what is YOUR basis for making a whopper of an assumption that you KNOW how long CBM took? We do know from one of the articles Mike posted that he anticipated taking five months, even if we don't know how long he actually took. For that matter, I wonder if that five months has anything to do with the six month time frame between option and purchase?
Given how much of these historic debates have been centered on using actual facts and data, I don't think it right for you to chastise Mike, or determine what his agenda is, on the basis of your assumptions, regardless of the merits of the rest of his argument.
-
I haven't really been following this,
Then you really shouldn't comment on the exchanges until you''ve read them all.[/b]
but I would like to say that I don't think trying to fit 18 existing templates in a routing is any easier than trying to route a course from scratch. Nor do I think the time it takes at one routing or site has anything to do with how long it takes to route a course at another site. I have done two projects more or less simultaneously, with similar sites, and one was done quickly and the other took weeks.
Jeff, you're forgetting that the routing process is only part of the project.
The individual hole designs take a good deal of time and crafting.
But, CBM didn't have to concern himself with that part of the project because he had pre-determined how his individual holes and features had been configured, so that part of the project was done, before he put a spade in the ground.
Like a simple 18 piece jigsaw puzzle, once you have some of the key pieces in place, the others simply fall into place, and that was what happened at NGLA.[/b]
I say that from experience, and what is YOUR basis for making a whopper of an assumption that you KNOW how long CBM took?
From the combination of what CBM tells us, the configuration of the property, the location of certain features, and rudimentary logic.
Max Behr, no slouch himself, also told us that the routing was simplistic, that the course routed itself.
If I have sited the initial starting and finishing holes, along with the final starting and finishing holes and 8 specialty holes that incorporated site specific features, the linkage of the other holes becomes inherent.
Under the current hole numbers, he had found/sited # 9 and # 10, # 13 and # 14, # 2. # 3, and # 4, # 17, # 18 and # 1, # 7 and # 8, thus establishing the foundation or skeleton of his routing.
So how hard was it to locate/route # 5 and # 6, # 11, and # 12, # 15 and # 16 ?
The above six holes were simple connectors.
Again, Max Behr, who was there at the begining, has stated that the routing was a self evident project, a self completing project.
Are we to take his word, or Mike Cirba's word ?[/b]
We do know from one of the articles Mike posted that he anticipated taking five months, even if we don't know how long he actually took. For that matter, I wonder if that five months has anything to do with the six month time frame between option and purchase?
Is it your position that CBM staked out a parcel of land with no idea as to the template hole locations and routing ?
[/b]
Given how much of these historic debates have been centered on using actual facts and data, I don't think it right for you to chastise Mike, or determine what his agenda is, on the basis of your assumptions, regardless of the merits of the rest of his argument.
Well Jeff, let me be clear. Mike has deliberately misreprensented the facts, he's omitted relevant facts and he's drawn faulty conclussions.
You're apparently uninformed as to what's driving him to do this.
He's got an agenda, with a pre-determined goal, which skews his presentation, since it, his presentation can never be objective.
Should I have praised him or chastized him ?
If you don't want to praise or chastize Mike, that's your business, but don't tell me how to respond to his posts, especially if you haven't read all of the posts.
Thanks
-
Jeff Brauer,
Your post is misleading, at best.
There is no article stating that routing the course would take five months. The December 15, 1906 article from the NY Sun stated that the committee to lay out the course would have five months (until spring) to plan the holes "in detail" and create a topographical model of the the course in miniature to guide the workmen who would begin in the spring. The same article included a description of exact land to to be used and of a number of the golf holes. While the detailed planning was not yet complete, the land for the course had already been chosen and the general routing in place.
-
David,
Mike didn't label the date of the last article he posted, although I know it has been posted before. I presume we are both talking about the same article, but if not, I apologize.
If so, I certainly take the phrase "distances and the best holes we can concieve" to include routing. If figuring out what distance holes go where isn't routing, then what is? And given that they apparently haven't decided at that point what holes to reproduce, and those templates and concepts are closely tied to the land, especially the Alps and a few others, I think he is referring to routing after taking the option in November, and then finalizing the deal the next spring after knowing where the holes would go.
If I am not mistaken, that would be your position, that he only finalized the deal after knowing the final routing in a fair amount of detail.
I still disagree with Pat that routing of this type could be done in a day or two. Or to be more precise, I believe it was unlikely, but not impossible. As Mike says, if a guy is going out of his way to build a world class course, I just cannot see him taking it that lightly and not examining every possibility.
And, I seriously doubt there is a uncontested parallel between any two golf courses, much less NGLA and MCC, but can't really know who is arguing about what in this case.......every course is unique in how it comes togther. If that is Mike's agenda, I agree its sort of obtuse, but I don't see anything other than from you two saying it is. Of course, I am not included in every back room, off line series of emails on golfclubatlas.com, so I must be out of the loop, and gladly so!
-
Jeff,
You dont know what you are talking about. Why do you butt into these things without even bothering to read the articles? Research matters. Details matter. Your opinion means nothing unless you actually know the facts.
And you have no idea what my position is or isn't. Yet you hop into these threads and spout off regardless.
-
Jeff,
CBM had already determined the distances for his ideal holes.
He lists them, along with a summary of his ideal holes.
The notion that CBM bought land and then embarked upon the routing and individual hole design is contrary to what CBM wrote.
He stated, chronologically, that they found the holes first, then staked the land that would accomodate them.
That's pretty clear.
As to "fine tuning" CBM never stopped "fine tuning" NGLA as long as he retained any degree of influence at NGLA, which was for decades.
I fear that you've looked at a few fraames, rather than having watched the entire movie.(;;)
-
David and Patrick,
Patrick,
Nowhere do I say that I believe CBM bought the property first and then embarked on routing and yet you imply that I do and then correct me. Talk about annoying! I find myself wondering when you became so combative with Mike C (and me) and why.
My only major disagreement is the contention that the whole shebang was routed quickly in a day or on the first pony ride. It doesn’t make sense when proposing to build the world’s best golf course, nor does it fit the CBM description of his timeline. It reads to me like CBM was working on that routing and its details right up to the day they signed on to an exact boundary. (Well, probably a month short, because it takes time to survey that boundary for the legal agreement, etc.)
Perhaps I under represented how much I have read on this thread. I have read through this whole thing and have CBM's Scotland's Gift in front of me. The only thing I haven't done is try to figure out exactly what you guys are each arguing, all three main combatants write a lot without really saying much! So, I probably don't know your positions, and don't know if the course was routed chronologically Mike's point 6 or 8, etc.
The only thing I know for sure is that it doesn’t sound to me like CBM routed this course quickly.
David,
The Dec 1906 article says that they will be determining distance and hole types in the next five months. Most of it is in future tense, although some is in past tense. So, I basically agree that some of the routing was probably fixed in their minds – IMHO, probably the most favored template holes - even if not with a legal boundary, even before the option was taken, but who can know exactly?
I am not as certain as you appear to be that Scotland’s Gift gives anyone a completely firm timeline. He jumps back and forth a little bit, mostly because design with templates, routing, and acquiring land is so interrelated that some parts of it can easily be told at different points of the story.
It is only certain that the final routing and details were accomplished from November to May 1907, in the option period. However, my interest is in imagining the thought process going on in CBM's mind and how that affected what is one of the great courses of America. If someone can tell me with certainty that the Alps hole was routed on X-XX-1906 or X-XX-1907, that would just be a bonus trivia fact that would be fun to know.
-
David and Patrick,
Patrick,
Nowhere do I say that I believe CBM bought the property first and then embarked on routing and yet you imply that I do and then correct me. Talk about annoying! I find myself wondering when you became so combative with Mike C (and me) and why.
It's probably an overreaction to my chastizing you for not having taken the time to read every reply.
Mike has been intentionally dishonest in some of his replies. But, you wouldn't know that unless you read them all.
Mike didn't start this thread to be objective. He started it as part of his attempt to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order and therefore couldn't have routed Merion in short order.
This entire thread is about MERION, NOT NGLA, but, you wouldn't know that because you didn't bother the read this thread in its entirety.
Granted, it's no small task, but, you can't jump into the middle, completely uninformed and lacking any historical perspective (thread wise) and criticize David and me. Actually, you can, but, it diminishes your credibility.
We know that many old architects routed courses in a day, from the early 18 stakes to Donald Ross.
We understand that Mike won't be objective, that's a given, but, what David and I are dismayed by is the lack of intellectual honesty on Mike's part.
If you would go back and read all of the replies from the beginning, you'll see the emerging pattern.
Since Mike has not been intellectually honest and since he's shifted his position time after time when his latest premise is shot down, his credibility has been undermined and David and I don't trust the conclusions he draws.
What's been frustrating to David and to me, is that he'll post a newspaper article and then provide HIS interpretive summary that differs from the facts in the report, ...... then he jumps to conclusions not borne out by the article, but are based on his intrepretive summary, presenting that false conclusion as fact.
As an example, Mike initially insisted that the land was purchased and then the routing and hole location was done, despite CBM telling us just the opposite. Mike dismissed CBM's own account, and attributed 100 % accuracy to newspaper articles that were seriously flawed.
Time after time he postured that the flawed articles were factually correct and that CBM's own words were incorrect.
Mike posted a newspaper article that claimed that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the NGLA site, except the low lying areas. If you're familiar with NGLA you know that statement is completely false, in 1906, 1938, 1956, 2006 and today.
Yet, when I refuted the article, he continued to maintain its authenticity and accuracy.
Finally, after I let him go on and on, I explained that the newspaper article had confused the current NGLA location with the location near the Shinnecock Canal, and that you could see the ocean from everywhere on that property, but not from NGLA.
Then, he posted a map and maintained that the golf course ran on a narrow strip between the RR tracks to the south and the Cold Spring Harbor to the North. I then pointed out that the North Highway (Sunrise) highway ran right smack down the middle of his entire, long, narrow, phantom golf course.
Mike had again mistaken the location of the land, yet, he insisted that his location was correct, until once again, he understood the error of his ways.
So, it's clear, Mike's not searching for the truth, he's searching for any snippet that would dismiss CBM routing NGLA in short order.
He's been underhanded and intellectually dishonest from the get go, but, you wouldn't know that because you're uninformed due to the fact that you haven't read all of the replies.[/b]
My only major disagreement is the contention that the whole shebang was routed quickly in a day or on the first pony ride. It doesn’t make sense when proposing to build the world’s best golf course, nor does it fit the CBM description of his timeline.
I think you're viewing the creation of the course in the context of how you'd build a course today, and the two just aren't comparable.
First, CBM had designed his course before he even looked for the land.
He knew the configuration of each of his 18 holes and had only to find land suitable to place them on.
The land was unimportant.
We know that because he would have sited the entire golf course near the Shinnecock Canal had the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company accepted his original offer.
You and others are viewing this issue with 20-20 hindsight, because you're familiar with his Redan, Alps, Eden, Cape, Sahara, Bottle, Leven and other holes, but, had the SHPBC sold him the land near the canal, the course would be configured differently, topographically, sequentially, etc., ett.
He just lucked out with the land.
The best thing that ever happened was the SHPBC refusing to sell the 120 acres he wanted.
So, again, the site was NOT the critical factor, his IDEAL 18 HOLES was the critical factor and he would have sited and constructed them according to the land he had.[/b]
It reads to me like CBM was working on that routing and its details right up to the day they signed on to an exact boundary. (Well, probably a month short, because it takes time to survey that boundary for the legal agreement, etc.)
I'll ask you again.
Do you think he had the basic routing for the course and the holes basically configured when he initially staked the land ?[/b]
Perhaps I under represented how much I have read on this thread. I have read through this whole thing and have CBM's Scotland's Gift in front of me. The only thing I haven't done is try to figure out exactly what you guys are each arguing, all three main combatants write a lot without really saying much! So, I probably don't know your positions, and don't know if the course was routed chronologically Mike's point 6 or 8, etc.
If you DON'T KNOW our respective positions, I'd recommend rereading this thread.
I think they're fairly obvious.(;;)[/b]
The only thing I know for sure is that it doesn’t sound to me like CBM routed this course quickly.
We disagree.
Give anyone 18 complete holes and 205 acres and I'll guarantee you that anyone could route a course within a day, if not half a day.[/b]
David,
The Dec 1906 article says that they will be determining distance and hole types in the next five months.
So now you too are going to take the article as being 100 % correct.
Just about every article has been flawed, why do you attribute 100 % accuracy to this article.[/b]
Most of it is in future tense, although some is in past tense. So, I basically agree that some of the routing was probably fixed in their minds – IMHO, probably the most favored template holes - even if not with a legal boundary, even before the option was taken, but who can know exactly?
The legal boundary is irrelevant.
CBM stated that he KNEW the land he wanted and staked it.
Surveying and legal document would follow.
It's not like CBM was in a bidding war with Keiser and Trump.
NOBODY wanted this land.
The key is that CBM tells us, he had his course, he had his hole locations and he staked the land he NEEDED for that course.
If you take the 8 popular templates referenced, along with the initial and final starting and finishing holes, the routing becomes a self completing exercise. Even Max Behr, a contemporaneous architectural source, states that the course routed itself.
[/b]
I am not as certain as you appear to be that Scotland’s Gift gives anyone a completely firm timeline. He jumps back and forth a little bit, mostly because design with templates, routing, and acquiring land is so interrelated that some parts of it can easily be told at different points of the story.
"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 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
It doesn't get clearer that than.
He tells you that they found the sites for the hole locations of his ideal/classical holes, routing the course in the process, and then STAKING out the boundaries. He had his routing, he had his classical holes, he had his boundaries, which he staked. Where you and others get confused is in the reading of the next paragraph, thinking that that's the first time he references his classic holes, but, it isn't, he told you that he found the natural settings for his classic holes, the next paragraph merely identifies them by name, and NOT as the first introduction to his classical holes, in the chronological formation of his golf course.[/b]
It is only certain that the final routing and details were accomplished from November to May 1907, in the option period. However, my interest is in imagining the thought process going on in CBM's mind and how that affected what is one of the great courses of America. If someone can tell me with certainty that the Alps hole was routed on X-XX-1906 or X-XX-1907, that would just be a bonus trivia fact that would be fun to know.
NOT TRUE.
Again, where you and others have gone wrong is by MISSING his reference to finding the natural sites for his classical holes before he goes in to describe some of them by name.
He made it as clear as can be, he had his classical holes located/sited BEFORE he staked the land, NOT AFTERWARD.
Now, if you choose to be obtuse, as Mike has, well, that's your perogative, but, a third grader with any semblance of reading comprehension skills understands what's written on the entirety of page 187. Some have chose to read the last paragraph on that page while ignoring the previous paragraph, but, you can't disconnect the two.
CBM had the holes sited/located and the course routed BEFORE he staked the land.
What follows is irrelevant, or, a hippopotamus if you like.[/b]
-
Patrick,
My browser hasn't allowed posting options for a long time now on this site, so I am not going to give you colored answers on a point by point basis.
And, there is no need to repeat myself endlessly, but we will have to disagree that anyone could route one of the best golf courses in the world in a half a day. Whew. Just don't see how you can make that argument with a straight face in any case, and especially when CBM told us it was a multi part process. I do believe my experience in routing courses is germain, as not all that much has changed in routing good courses (as opposed to Bendelow's one day jobs which were never intended to be great) so yours is a false comparison. For that matter, looking at the land plan for the realty company, reading about the land options and purchases, in truth, I doubt much has changed on the legal side of puttin together a golf course either, at least one of quality. We still need 18 holes, right?
I will have to say again that I have read and reread many parts of this thread. Your repeating that the course was routed quickly was the one thing that just read really, really wrong to me. It was frankly kind of insulting to the field of gca to dismiss routing that easily, multiple times.
And, BTW, tell me again how you know for certain what Mike's "agenda" is? I know why you think it, but wonder what I am missing that allows you to "know" what he is thinking. For that matter, while not wanting this to really turn back to discussing Merion, I wonder what the connection is. There are similarities in the two processes, with both leaving wiggle room, and there are differences (site size and the amount to be devoted to golf, differing developers, etc.) But, we would expect that as no two projects are alike.
Even if you happen to believe CBM routed Merion alone, which I don't, you have to believe he routed it from June 29-Nov 15, 1910 or Jan-April 1911. Both time frames are several months. Either way, Merion wasn't routed in a day, other than by Barker who was paid a nominal fee to provide an opinion and report to the developer, but that plan was never used and never close to being finalized. Or, are you saying that he routed it in one day on June 29 (?) 1910, even though he wrote a letter back telling him he didn't have the topos in front of him?
So, how do you figure you are proving anything by postulating that CBM could route a course in a day?
-
Jeff,
These guys are both lying through their teeth and playing fast and loose with the facts.
NOWHERE does it say a general routing was completed by the time CBM optioned the land. NOWHERE.
Ask David and Patrcik to produce it here and you'll hear the whooshing of running feet in the other direction.
The articles I posted, multiple ones quotng CBM on the same day (December 15, 1906) after he signed contracts to option the land, have him saying "DISTANCES, AND THE HOLES TO BE REPRODUCED WILL BE DECIDED BY THE COMMITTEE iN THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS."
David's plays fast and loose with the facts with his contention that those five months only included "DETAILED PLANNING" when he KNOWS but conveniently and purposefully OMITS CBM's own DIRECT QUOTE OTHERWISE IN THE SAME ARTICLE.
Ask to see where CBM says that the five months only include "detailed planning of the holes" and you'll be ignored and likely insulted.
HOW ABOUT PATRICK's FAST AND LOOSE INTERPRETATION...nay, WHOLESALE HERO-WORSHIPPING MYTH-MAKING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE in the least of CBM routing NGLA in TWO DAYS!
Ask to see where CBM said that and you'll be told you don't know what your talking about but no evidence will ever be forthcoming.
These guys can't accept CBM as he's quoted, either in news articles or in his book and have an AGENDA.
Ask them to show you where either of the above statements they continually fabricate here are ever mentioned by CBM or in the contemporaneous sources during the creation of NGLA.
Ask them for their proof and you'll never see it.
It doesn't exist.
Actually, David believes CBM but it doesn't fit his agenda.
That is why he has refused to answer my repeated questions as to whether he believes Patrick's assertion that CBM laid out NGLA in 2 or 3 days on horseback. It is why he refuses to answer my repeated question as to whether he believes Patrick's assertion that ALL of these newspapers misquoted CBM.
He won't answer because he knows the truth but it doesn't serve his agenda.
Patrick, on the other hand, has to simply twist the facts to fit his fantasy and his belief that only having a one man God-King decide everything is the right way to run a club in America.
Either way, you get a twisted version of history, and these guys are arguing with CBM, not with me. I'm just the messenger.
And then these guys have the nerve to tell me I'm misrepresenting history...what a joke!
It's time to call BULLSHIT, and ask these guys to put up or shut up. They don't have a single fact on their side.
Ask them to produce their facts, to pull out the McCarthy-esque letter supposedly hidden in their jacket pockets behind mountains of green ink and torrents of personal spewed insults filling every page here that supposedly speaks truth to the NGLA creation story.
Ask them to show us their proof that CBM was only doing "detailed planning of the holes" after December 1906, or wherever in blazes it is written that CBM routed the course in two days.
I'm calling their bluff because they are both lying and twisting facts.
Let's see it guys.
They talk about me having an agenda.
You wonder why they are both so combative, no matter how civil I try to keep the discourse here?
It's because I've systematically taken apart their ridiculous arguments over the years that CBM routed Merion during his one-day visit in June 1910 and neither one of them is ready to accept that fact and let go of that childish, silly argument and agenda-driven fantasy.
One because he arrogantly and incorrectly believes he's smarter than everyone else here and the other because he simply enjoys arguing.
December 15, 1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
-
Jeff,
CBM had already determined the distances for his ideal holes.
He lists them, along with a summary of his ideal holes.
The notion that CBM bought land and then embarked upon the routing and individual hole design is contrary to what CBM wrote.
He stated, chronologically, that they found the holes first, then staked the land that would accomodate them.
That's pretty clear.
As to "fine tuning" CBM never stopped "fine tuning" NGLA as long as he retained any degree of influence at NGLA, which was for decades.
I fear that you've looked at a few fraames, rather than having watched the entire movie.(;;)
Patrick,
You really, really need to read CBM's book again.
Really.
The list of "Ideal Holes" in CBM's book he produced years before NGLA is NOT the list of ideal holes he created at NGLA.
Don't believe me...try Horace Hutchinson;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5485526962_9420ba80ee_o.jpg)
Or, Bernard Darwin;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5484931557_1685d67832_o.jpg)
And nobody here said he "bought the land" and then routed the course. Yet, you constantly misrepresent that I've said that...Why?
He secured 205 "undetermined" acres and then routed the course over the next few months.
He tells us that in articles and he tells us in his book that after getting agreement from the company to sell hiim 205 undetermined acres, he and Whigham studied the land "EARNESTLY" looking for the landforms for their holes...THEN they staked out the dimensions of the property and then bought the land.
WHy do you refuse to believe CBM??
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5473919019_e1d66f4e0b_o.jpg)
-
Jeff Brauer,
Your post is misleading, at best.
There is no article stating that routing the course would take five months. The December 15, 1906 article from the NY Sun stated that the committee to lay out the course would have five months (until spring) to plan the holes "in detail" and create a topographical model of the the course in miniature to guide the workmen who would begin in the spring. The same article included a description of exact land to to be used and of a number of the golf holes. While the detailed planning was not yet complete, the land for the course had already been chosen and the general routing in place.
Jeff,
You dont know what you are talking about. Why do you butt into these things without even bothering to read the articles? Research matters. Details matter. Your opinion means nothing unless you actually know the facts.
And you have no idea what my position is or isn't. Yet you hop into these threads and spout off regardless.
Jeff,
Here is the December 15th, 1906 article that elicited David's infantile, insulting responses to you, as well as his bizarre, outlandish interpretation of what the article stated. You'll note that CBM is quoted, at length, yet David seems to neglect that section, mysteriously.
Is he going to tell us his flagrant omission of factual information wasn't knowing and purposefully misleading??
Yet, "Resarch Matters"? "Details Matter"??
Do you see anything written here about a "general routing" already in place?
Hmm...yes, I must have missed that too.
Any idea why he would neglect to mention the four paragraphs in the same article quoting CBM directly?
Is that Quality Research? Is that Attention to Details??
Yet he has the nerve to insult you??
I'm done wasting my time arguing with these guys.
I've presented the facts and they speak for themselves.
If others want to wait for facts from David and Patrick, they will wait til hell freezes over, because there ain't no beef behind all their bluster and bullshit.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
-
Jeff,
David also conveniently and knowingly forgets to mention the other articles from December 15th and 17th that tell us how those five months are going to be spent, and what the Committee will be doing.
It's interesting that CBM himself tell us in his book that after the Company agreed to sell them 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available, they again studied the land earnestly, selecting only those parts that fit in with the various classical holes they had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted.
Yet here, again, we have proof of exactly when that happened...in the months AFTER securing the 205 undetermined acres exactly as CBM told us, yet David pretends the articles don't say that.
Both of the following articles talk about "Staking out the course" over the next few months...NOT just the "detailed planning" of the holes as David would like everyone to believe.
That is ROUTING, under any description, and under any twisting and attempted distortion of facts or purposeful omission of them.
He knows the facts yet won't honestly present or acknowledge them...why is that?
Instead, he tells us that ALL those articles simply said that CBM would be involved with "Detailed planning".
Why is that??
Patrick, God bless him, just is in complete 100% denial and tells us these articles are all WRONG WRONG WRONG because he doesn't like what they say and they don't fit in with his man-myth of Macdonald.
But David knows the truth, yet seeks to hide it. Why is that?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
It's all exactly as CBM wrote in his book;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5473919019_e1d66f4e0b_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Probably time to let this one die. All the facts have been presented, as usual. A few mistakes made on all sides, mountains made of molehills.....well, you know the drill by now!
I appreciate the info and all I can say for sure is that the thread has increased my knowledge of how NGLA was developed, and I am satisfied (despite not being able to read past a third grade level, apparently) as to how it came together. I had read Scotland's Gift several times, the first time in 1977 when researching my senior theme paper on gca, and having found a copy in the U of Illinois "stacks." I recall reading it on the floor between the shelves, because it was not material you could check out, but it was certainly quizzical given my knowledge at the time, and subsequent readings, and facts filled in from participants here have certainly helped my understanding.
Of course, that and $4 will get me some coffee at Starbucks, but for some reason, I just like history, despite my not being able to read past a third grade level, and appparently also being really lousy (and unintereseted) at history, according to some. I wonder who among us had read Scotland's Gift at either age 22 or as far back as 1977, however. Or, who took the effort to parse it out with only a third grade reading level comprehension!
As you can tell, the biggest dissapointment I have on this thread is the apparent transfer of the esteemed Mr. Mucci over to the dark side of insults, wild statement ("the land doesn't matter") and general bullying instead of discussion. To me, that was a sad day and/or realization.
-
Jeff,
In fact, one has to forget other details as well to pretend that CBM was only going to be focusing on the "internals" of the holes for five months during his supposed "detailed planning".
Especially since by August of 1908, almost 20 months after securing the land, CBM had placed very few bunkers on his hole internals, but David already knew that as I've already posted the article.
He only added the pre-prescribed bunkers of those few holes that were exact copies, because they needed to be there for reproduction purposes, but most of the rest were going to wait until after observing play, as was the desired approach at that time.
So, what would David have us believe happened in those five months? What was the "Detailed Planning" that was involved if only looking at the hole internals, and not staking out the routing itself as those contemporanous articles tell us he did??
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5166/5366880889_f787669dc9_o.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I completely agree and am very saddened as well by Patrick's approach here.
He's much better than that, and I can honestly say that I'm very disappointed in him and the approach he's chosen.
-
Mike,
Preaching to the choir there! As to routing, I just think, even without exact dates in Scotland's Gift, that CBM tells us what happened and the simplest explanation is usually right:
After being rejected on his canal offer, he was directed to the current site.
He and Whigham rode it for three days and determined they could find 18 holes out there, probably noting the Cape and Alp holes specifically among other....
He optioned the property in 11-06 (secured it as written in SG)
The rode it, mapped it, and routed it from then until final closing next spring and started construction when he had the title clear.
I do think that David is correct that they likely picked out some holes before the option, explaining the past tense references to the cape hole, etc. They probably knew they were going to use the big hill for the Alps hole somehow, but did they have the holes strung together to know which direction they were going to play over the hill? We can't know, but we do know that they had the opportunity to fix and tweak it after the option, and the article tells us they did that, which is all a part of routing.
So, it is quite possible that some of the routing took place before the option. Perhaps part of our problem is in trying to define it by certain dates (the option in particular) when in reality, it starts in some sense the minute you step on the land with the intent of finding golf holes. But, CBM tells us they visited at least twice, and once seems certain to have been after securing the property, if we take the literal reading of his account.
I do wonder why stating the obvious (that the routing took place during the option period for the most part and certainly took more than one day, because CBM told us it did) is cause for insults to my ownself, but I guess that goes with the territory.
And not to berate Patrick here, but on what basis does he make his one day claim? I find nothing anywhere but his own "logic" that says it happened that way. I find his comparison of CBM and his methods to Bendelow to be false. While Ross is credited with many "paper jobs" I don't recall anyone saying that he routed courses in a day, even if on paper without seeing the site, although certainly some did. As I mentioned to Patrick, while many mistakes have been made by all on this thread, those routing statements of his really seemed to come from left field to me, while I can at least partially understand the rest of the debate.
-
Jeff,
You're exactly correct on every count of your previous post.
Why stating the obvious facts and truths is cause for having personal insults hurled your way is simply because the truth doesn't fit either of their erroneous personalized agendas and they have no actual facts of their own to respond with.
David tried to equate what CBM did at NGLA with what happened at Merion and Patrick in his blind idolatry of CBM tried to support David and now that the truth is out and doesn't support their theories, neither of them like it one bit.
So grab a shield, because I'm sure more poo will be flung shortly because it's all they have left.
You just won't find any facts or verifiable evidence among the cartloads of crap.
Not a one.
-
Jeff,
These guys are both lying through their teeth and playing fast and loose with the facts.
I'm not lying, I'm merely relying on Macdonald's written words.[/b]
NOWHERE does it say a general routing was completed by the time CBM optioned the land. NOWHERE.
Of course it does.
CBM stated that he found the natural sites for his classic holes.
He listed his classic holes
After he found the sites for his classic holes, he staked the boundaries for his golf course.
If you take just 8 of his classic holes, and there were more, the sahara, alps, redan, road, bottle, eden, cape and leven
and you add them to his initial and final starting holes, the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th, AND, you know where his starting point at the Shinnecock Inn is, and that the land he wanted bordered Shinnecock Hills Golf course to the East, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, it's a self completing 18 piece jigsaw puzzle, just as Max Behr stated.
I don't have the graphic capabilities, but, perhaps David can post a blank configuration of the land with just 8 of the classic holes and the starting and finishing holes, you'll clearly see that the routing was done right after he found the natural sites for his classic holes.
The only missing holes were # 5, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 16.
If you look at the land, the above holes get filled in by default as connectors to the classic holes already sited.
Anyone, examining the site, can see this for themselves, that's why Max Behr stated that the golf course routed itself.
Why would he make such an apparently bold statement if it wasn't true ?[/b]
Ask David and Patrcik to produce it here and you'll hear the whooshing of running feet in the other direction.
I just did.
The problem is that you're in denial on any issue, factual or reasoned, that supports CBM's ability to route NGLA or Merion in short order.
That's your agenda, even if Jeff Brauer doesn't get it.[/b]
The articles I posted, multiple ones quotng CBM on the same day (December 15, 1906) after he signed contracts to option the land, have him saying "DISTANCES, AND THE HOLES TO BE REPRODUCED WILL BE DECIDED BY THE COMMITTEE iN THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS."
Mike, CBM told us that he found the sites for his classic holes on his second tour of the property.
CBM told us the distances of his ideal or classic holes.
IF he FOUND the sites for his classic holes on his second visit, WHY would he need the committee to decide which holes to reproduce 5+ months later ? Don't you see the conflict in the newspaper articles and Macdonald's written words ?
NO, you don't, because you're in denial due to your agenda.[/b]
David's plays fast and loose with the facts with his mention of five months only including "DETAILED PLANNING", when he KNOWS but conveniently and purposefully OMITS CBM's own DIRECT QUOTE OTHERWISE IN THE SAME ARTICLE.
Mike, it's not a direct quote, it's an alleged quote.
And, we've seen, time and time again, how your newspaper articles were factually wrong.
Yet, you again cling to flawed articles, while ignoring CBM's written word.
How do you explain that ?[/b]
Ask to see where CBM says that the five months only include "detailed planning of the holes" and you'll be ignored and likely insulted.
The answer is so obvious that it's embarrassing.
Macdonald told his he found the sites for his classic holes. That's the MACRO architecture, the bones of the course and the routing.
He spent the next 22 years fine tuning them, that's the MICRO architecture. Unfortunately, Mike doesn't know the difference between the two.[/b]
HOW ABOUT PATRICK's FAST AND LOOSE INTERPRETATION...nay, WHOLESALE HERO-WORSHIPPING MYTH-MAKING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE in the least of CBM routing NGLA in TWO DAYS!
CBM studied for years, knew the holes he wanted, had physical constraints (East, North and South) in terms of the property, knew his starting and finishing points. Given those components, routing the course in short order was no myth, CBM tells us how he did it, Mike just won't accept CBM's written word.[/b]
Ask to see where CBM said that and you'll be told you don't know what your talking about but no evidence will ever be forthcoming.
It's all there on page 187 in "Scotland's Gift"
CBM tells how he found the sites for his classic holes, and subsequently staked the boundary lines for his golf course.
He certainly wouldn't stake the boundaries for a golf course without knowing the location of the individual holes and how they connected.
People have to understand that Mike doesn't want to accept that, not based on NGLA, but based on his desire to refute David Moriarty on Merion.[/b]
These guys can't accept CBM as he's quoted, either in news articles or in his book and have an AGENDA.
Mike, you don't know if that's a direct quote from CBM.
We know that some of those alleged quotes were factually wrong.
Do you think that CBM was so unfamiliar with his golf course that he got his facts wrong ?
So stop claiming that the newspaper articles are direct quotes from Macdonald, especially since you don't know that.
Just reference them as alleged quotes.
But, we DO KNOW that Macdonald WROTE "SCOTLAND'S GIFT"[/B]
Ask them to show you where either of the above statements they continually fabricate here are ever mentioned by CBM or in the contemporaneous sources during the creation of NGLA.
I keep showing you page 187, written in CBM's own hand, but, you won't accept his word.[/b]
Ask them for their proof and you'll never see it.
That's because you've chosen not to accept page 184 and page 187 of "Scotland's Gift"
Now, those are just two pages, but, if you read just those chapters in their entirety, anyone with an open mind can see how CBM was able to site and route NGLA in short order. Much of the work had been done before he even saw the land on the East End.
CBM had surveyors maps and sketches of his ideal/classic holes, he had studied extensively, and, the site was almost irrelevant.
He was going to place those 18 ideal/classic holes on WHATEVER land he could find.
Proof of this was the 120 acres he almost acquired to the West.
Had he bought it, he would have placed his 18 ideal/classic holes on that site.
Had he bought land in Cape Cod, or Mid-Long Island he would have done the same.
The site was secondary, his focus was on designing a golf course that contained the ideal holes in golf..
He just lucked out at NGLA and was able to marry the land to his 18 ideal/classic holes brilliantly.[/b]
It doesn't exist.
I've cited the proof, page 184 and 187, just for starters.[/b]
Actually, David believes CBM but it doesn't fit his agenda.
That is why he has refused to answer my repeated questions as to whether he believes Patrick's assertion that CBM laid out NGLA in 2 or 3 days on horseback. It is why he refuses to answer my repeated question as to whether he believes Patrick's assertion that ALL of these newspapers misquoted CBM.
Sure they did, and I cited the misquotes and how and why they occurred.
The FACT that they got the same information wrong proves that they didn't independently come into possession of the information, but, merely parroted the first report. You want us to believe that making the same mistake, over and over and over again, reinforces what CBM is alleged to have said. It's just the opposite. CBM would never make the mistakes cited, ergo, they're not quotes from him, but rather, third party representations, representations that are factually INCORRECT.[/b]
He won't answer because he knows the truth but it doesn't serve his agenda.
Patrick, on the other hand, has to simply twist the facts to fit his fantasy and his belief that only having a one man God-King decide everything is the right way to run a club in America.
Wow, you're starting to sound like Charlie Sheen.
Leaping from accepting what CBM wrote in "Scotland's Gift" to the right way to run a golf course in America ? ? ?
Now that I've quoted you, you won't be able to erase/edit that baby. That's really funny and an indication of how desperate you are.
Now, my motive, my agenda for my position on this thread is to reinforce my belief that a dictatorship is the best way to run a golf club ?
Even Charlie Sheen couldn't get away with that one.[/b]
Either way, you get a twisted version of history, and these guys are arguing with CBM, not with me.
The history is clear, CBM wrote it in "Scotland's Gift"
You just won't accept his written word, prefering flawed newspaper articles instead.[/b]
I'm just the messenger.
That's also funny.
Messenger's usually don't editorialize the message.
Nor do they present flawed/false documents to support an agenda.
Messengers don't have agendas, YOU DO.[/b]
And then these guys have the nerve to tell me I'm misrepresenting history...what a joke!
Sadly, the jokes on you.[/b]
It's time to call BULLSHIT, and ask these guys to put up or shut up. They don't have a single fact on their side.
Time after time I destroyed your false, "alleged" facts and showed them to be untrue.
Time after time you presented absurd premises for but one purpose, to show that CBM couldn't route a course in short order.
And, time after time, your flawed, devious premises were shot down.
If an outsider takes a view of this debate, on one hand, you have people supporting what CBM wrote about the creation of NGLA in "Scotland's Gift"
On the other hand, we have you, trying desperately to present anything and everything to dispute CBM's own account.
Why is that ?
For one reason and one reason only, to discount and dismiss CBM's ability to route a golf course in short order[/b]
Ask them to produce their facts, to pull out the McCarthy-esque letter supposedly hidden in their jacket pockets behind mountains of green ink and torrents of personal spewed insults filling every page here that supposedly speaks truth to the NGLA creation story.
The facts were produced, in CBM's own words.
You chosen to ignore them.
You dispute them, choosing instead to cite seriously flawed newspaper articles.
And, all for one purpose, to discount/dismiss CBM's abilty to route a golf course in short order, so that you can dispute David Moriarty's premise.
Isn't it interesting that all the help you've received is from Phillyphiles.
Davie lives in California, I live in Metropolitan New York.
Thus, we have no regional bias, no agenda.
The same can't be said for you and your comrades.
Objective you're not.[/b]
Ask them to show us their proof that CBM was only doing "detailed planning of the holes" after December 1906, or wherever in blazes it is written that CBM routed the course in two days.
We have, over and over and over again.
CBM told you, on page 187 that he found the sites for his classic holes.
On page 184 he lists his classic holes and their characteristics.
Then, after he found the sites for his classic holes, knew where his starting and finishing holes were, knew his boundaries of Shinnecock, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, he had his course, his routing, and THEN and ONLY then did he stake the boundary lines so that he could purchase the land.
You cited Max Behr as stating that the golf course routed itself.
If you would take the blinders off, locate the sites for his classic holes, know where the starting and finishing holes will be, know where Shinnecock, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay are, filling in the six or fewer holes is kid's play. A jigsaw puzzle that completed itself by default. Even Max Behr agrees with that.
You can't come to terms with the ease of routing because it strikes at the very core of your agenda, which is to prove that CBM couldn't route Merion in a day.
If anyone's been dishonest, in their goal, presentation of the facts and reasoning, it's you. not David and/or myself.[/b]
I'm calling their bluff because they are both lying and twisting facts.
I find that comical because time after time you put forth absurd theories that got shot down.
David and I have been consistent in our position, while yours has changed as each prior position gets refuted.
It's you who have waivered, changing course, changing tactics, presenting allegations and/or third party accounts as facts when you know they're not facts.
You're blinded by an agenda.
I have no agenda.
CBM had already formulated and crafted the design of his ideal/classic holes.
He had survey maps of them, sketches and I think contour maps of them.
He only needed to find the right soil upon which to place them.
He almost placed them a few miles west of NGLA, he considered placing them in other locations, but, lucked out with the land at NGLA.
Placing those holes on the land wasn't a complicated process.
He tells us that he found the natural locations for his ideal/classic holes on his second visit, and, as a result sited them, routed the course and staked the property line.
Answer me this.
If he had detailed, really detailed survey maps, contour maps and sketches of the holes he wanted.
Why would it take him 5 months or longer to design those holes ?
What was there to design ?
He had done the individual hole design work, starting years earlier.[/b]
Let's see it guys.
Reread the above.
[/b]
They talk about me having an agenda.
You do, and many have IM'd and emailed me stating same.
It's obvious to everyone.[/b]
You wonder why they are both so combative, no matter how civil I try to keep the discourse here?
Paging Charlie Sheen[/b]
It's because I've systematically taken apart their ridiculous arguments over the years that CBM routed Merion during his one-day visit in June 1910 and neither one of them is ready to accept that fact and let go of that childish, silly argument and agenda-driven fantasy.
Paging Charlie Sheen.
White courtesy phone please.[/b]
One because he arrogantly and incorrectly believes he's smarter than everyone else here and the other because he simply enjoys arguing.
When one has the facts on his side, it's been easy to put forth my position.
But, when you knowingly put forth seriously flawed newspaper articles and claim they're factually correct, one has to wonder, why would you do that, unless you had an ulterior motive, an agenda, that would cause you to be intellectually dishonest, since that's the only way to attempt to prove your point.
And, the funny thing is, that despite articles you presented being factually wrong, you defended their errors when no prudent man would do that, UNLESS he had an agenda.
Me thinks Brutus doth protest too much[/b]
-
Preaching to the choir there! As to routing, I just think, even without exact dates in Scotland's Gift, that CBM tells us what happened and the simplest explanation is usually right:
After being rejected on his canal offer, he was directed to the current site.
He and Whigham rode it for three days and determined they could find 18 holes out there, probably noting the Cape and Alp holes specifically among other....
He optioned the property in 11-06 (secured it as written in SG)
The rode it, mapped it, and routed it from then until final closing next spring and started construction when he had the title clear.
Jeff, how could you possibly draw that time line after reading "Scotland's Gift" ? ? ?
You need to go back and reread page 187.
It's states the opposite of what you claim above.
CBM states that on his second visit, before optioning the land, he found the locations for his ideal/classic holes.
He lists those holes on Page 184.
Only after he located the sites for his ideal/classic holes did he stake the property lines that he wanted and I suspect those property lines were to the West because the property lines South, East and North were already determined.
He tells us of the natural boundaries, South, East and North, leaving only the Western boundary to be established.
Unless of course, you feel that he was going to site certain holes on Shinnecock Hills Golf Course, the road and railroad tracks or underwater on Bulls Head and Peconic Bay.[/b]
I do think that David is correct that they likely picked out some holes before the option,
Some holes ?
CBM states, on page 187:
"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 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."
It doesn't get clearer than that.
If you have doubts, go to page 184 and review the list of CBM's ideal/classic holes.
The Sahara, the Alps, Redan, Road, Bottle, Eden, Cape, Leven and others.
He found them, he clearly states that.
Your error is in placing the chronology of the first sentence in the third paragraph ahead of the last sentences of the second paragraph.
In the second paragraph, he tells you that he found the locations for his ideal holes.
In the third paragraph he merely tells you some of the names.
He also tells you the additional natural boundaries in conjunction with Shinnecock Hills Golf course, namely Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay.
Thus, he tells you that he had routed his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th, 8th and 9th holes in addition to his 11th, 12th, 13th, 16th, 17th and 18th holes.
The connector 10th is obvious, as are the connector 14th, ergo 15th.
As Max Behr stated, the course routed itself in short order.[/b]
explaining the past tense references to the cape hole, etc.
It's NOT a past tense reference.
Why do you ignore the previous sentence in the preceding paragraph wherein he tells you he found the locations of his ideal/classic holes ?
The Alps, Redan, Eden and Cape amongst them.
He then tells you that he took the option AFTER the above occured, NOT BEFORE.[/b]
They probably knew they were going to use the big hill for the Alps hole somehow, but did they have the holes strung together to know which direction they were going to play over the hill?
Jeff, have you ever been to NGLA ?
If he had his Sahara, and his Redan, as he said he did, how would you reverse design his Alps ?[/b]
We can't know, but we do know that they had the opportunity to fix and tweak it after the option, and the article tells us they did that, which is all a part of routing.
Nonsense.
Again, you assume the article is completely factual.
CBM had detailed plans of the holes he wanted.
Survey maps, sketches, contour maps.
He didn't need to tweak much.
And, he told us that he found his ideal/classic holes, which he listed for us on page 184.
I won't say this was a cookie cutter project, but, it's darn close.
Jeff, out of curiosity, have you ever played or walked NGLA ?
[/b]
So, it is quite possible that some of the routing took place before the option.
Your contention is that just some of the holes were located prior to the staking ?
Why would you stake a grand property, 450 acres, and confine yourself to that staked area if you hadn't located all of your hole sites ?
Especially when your Southern, Eastern and Northern borders were established.
OR, as Max Behr stated, was the routing so self evident because of the boundary confines, natural and established, that the routing and Western border were inherently fixed ?[/b]
Perhaps part of our problem is in trying to define it by certain dates (the option in particular) when in reality, it starts in some sense the minute you step on the land with the intent of finding golf holes. But, CBM tells us they visited at least twice, and once seems certain to have been after securing the property, if we take the literal reading of his account.
Jeff, that's Mike's logic, flawed and convenient.
CBM tells us that he didn't option the land until AFTER he had staked it.
And, he only staked it AFTER he had found the locations for his ideal/classic holes.
You can't ignore that passage on page 187.
You can't refute that passage on page 187.
And, you can't conveniently flip the chain of events, chronologically to suit your purpose.[/b]
I do wonder why stating the obvious (that the routing took place during the option period for the most part and certainly took more than one day, because CBM told us it did) is cause for insults to my ownself, but I guess that goes with the territory.
History tells us that other architects routed/staked courses in one day.
Donald Ross is said to have routed many courses with just a days visit.
Maybe, just maybe, CBM's extensive study, coupled with his predetermined "cookie cutter" holes, combined with his talent, allowed him to route the course in short order.
I'm reminded of Mozart and Solieri.
What Solieri labored on for weeks, months, Mozart mastered almost instantaneously.[/b]
And not to berate Patrick here, but on what basis does he make his one day claim? I find nothing anywhere but his own "logic" that says it happened that way. I find his comparison of CBM and his methods to Bendelow to be false. While Ross is credited with many "paper jobs" I don't recall anyone saying that he routed courses in a day, even if on paper without seeing the site, although certainly some did. As I mentioned to Patrick, while many mistakes have been made by all on this thread, those routing statements of his really seemed to come from left field to me, while I can at least partially understand the rest of the debate.
Jeff, have you ever been to NGLA ?
It's an OUT and BACK layout.
CBM defines that layout, physically, by telling us the borders to the South, East and North, leaving only the Western border to be defined.
But, CBM also tells us he found many, many holes in his out and back routing, including the current 11nd, 12rd and 13th.
When you have already estabished the 1st, 4th, 5th 8th, 9th, in addition to the 11th, 12th and 13th, the 10th becomes a default connector.
When you have found the 18th, 17th and 16th, the 15th and 14th become default connectors, especially when you already have the 13th.
Please, do yourself a favor and look at NGLA on Google Earth.
Do you not see, once you have located the sites for the ideal/classic holes, know your starting and finishing holes, your boundaries, natural and defined, how the course, as Max Behr stated, routed itself ?
It's so obvious that I'm shocked you don't see it.
-
Patrick,
As I have said, I can see where you and David might be coming from, depending on the reading in Scotlands Gift from 187-191, as posted above.
Mike posts the correct chronology as presented on page 186-7. At least, I have always taken the phrase in pg 187, pp2, "the company agreed to sell us 205 acres" as the option itself. If someone produces some sort of interim "letter of intent" or similar, before the option document (which seems redundant, but which isn't impossible) then I would agree that routing started before November 1906 and obtaining the option.
But, as it reads, they rode the land once to determine if it was suitable, decided to buy it if possible, and then secured the land (most likely obtained the option) and then started finding golf holes. No doubt in my mind they did find some of the obvious ones on the first ride, though.
Have you noticed that this passage reads as if CBM gives us a summary of the process over 186-7, and at the bottom of page 187 begins the story in more detail, with the dates of option and final purchase included? As you note on 188, he again goes over placing the template holes first, etc. even though he has already discussed construction details like 10,000 loads of topsoil.
It is his writing that leads to different interpretations. Quite simply, why did he choose to elaborate a bit on the design characteristics, go away from it, even talking of the future clubhouse fire, and then come back to how he found the holes? He certainly didn't design them twice.
If you go strictly by page 187, its fair to equate the agreement to sell with the option, is it not? If you consider the last line of 187 as part of the chronology, then yes, it appears as if the routing took place before the option was executed. It could be either one. We just don't know.
The kicker for me is the idea that in the newspaper article, he still thinks after obtaining the option that there will be room for members lots, but those never occurred, for reasons unknown. In any event, the idea of selecting distances, and of configuring the routing to allow pockets of land both fall under "routing" in my book, which is why I say much if not most of the routing was done after the option and before the final staking, which of course, makes loads of sense.
I am perfectly willing to admit I might be reading his passages wrong, and even that the routing certainly started in some ways the minute the ponies hit the ground running, which is why I can agree with David at least conditionally on this one.
That said, the account says that they rode for three days, and then studied earnestly, and of course, we know there were major changes, such as the elimination of housing. So, once again, I am at a total loss as to how you can say that CBM words tell us that he routed the course in short order. His words tell us he was out there on multiple occaisions and many days, and yet you say that means it was done in a day. He says the studied the contours earnestly to fit the proposed holes to the land and you tell us the land didn't matter. Frankly, unless he had a lot of earthmoving at his disposal, its hard to see how the land wouldn't matter in fitting in his template holes. But he didn't even have money for a clubhouse.
As mentioned earlier, I am satisfied as to how it happened, and see no need to respond at least to you, since you are bringing less than nothing to this discussion. It seems that we mostly agree on everything but exact timing, which we probably will never know. If it turns out that some routing was done pre option, rather than all post option, it doesn't really affect the process of what happened and how it turned out as far as I can see. I would be more interested in knowing where the first 120 acre offer was made, out of curiosity, and things like why the lots never materialized, because those factoids could tell us more about why what is out there is out there.
There is no real need, IMHO, to continue a debate about whether routing was macro or mini, started in October or November, etc. I am sure some element of routing continued right up to seeding, maybe beyond. You might consider that some semantics, and thats okay, too.
PS- Pat, yes I have been to NGLA and I have studied it often on Google. I think I know the place fairly well, although another trip around would certainly always help.
-
Patrick,
As I have said, I can see where you and David might be coming from, depending on the reading in Scotlands Gift from 187-191, as posted above.
Mike posts the correct chronology as presented on page 186-7. At least, I have always taken the phrase in pg 187, pp2, "the company agreed to sell us 205 acres" as the option itself. If someone produces some sort of interim "letter of intent" or similar, before the option document (which seems redundant, but which isn't impossible) then I would agree that routing started before November 1906 and obtaining the option.
Jeff, I read it differently.
I view the sentence,
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres as we were permitted to locate it best to serve our purpose."
Not, as you do, but, solely in the context of PRICE, cost per acre.
In order to understand that, you have to read the passage two sentences prior to the above sentence, where Macdonald states:
"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground."
Then he states:
"Finally we determined it was what we wanted, PROVIDING WE COULD GET IT REASONABLY. It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course."
My read is that on their first inspection they studied the land, determined that it was what they wanted, but were worried that the Company would not sell it to them for the right price.
Remember, they had just been refused a nearby 120 acre parcel of land for $ 200 per acre, from the same company, so there was ample fear that they might not be able to obtain this parcel for the price they had in mind, which I believe was budgeted at $ 200 per acre.
Hence, the company's agreementment to sell them the land was their FIRST and FOREMOST concern.
From the company's perspective, this land was not as valuable as the land to the West.
The site was 450 acres. Little known, unsurveyed and thought to be worthless, so it would seem that the company wouldn't care which of the 450 acres they could dump for $ 200 per acre. They were about to make $ 41,000.
Second, you don't option an unidentified or undefined parcel of land.
By your's and Mike's read, CBM could have taken 5 seperate 41 acre parcels, gerrymandering the remaining land in such a fashion that it would be unsaleable or unaccessable.
Hence, I think the first hurdle was getting the land they rode at $ 200 per acre.
Once the company agreed to the price, they returned for fine tuning, to locate/site their 18 ideal/classic holes, route the course and define the Western boundary, which they did in the staking process.
Then and only then did that option the staked parcel.[/b]
But, as it reads, they rode the land once to determine if it was suitable, decided to buy it if possible, and then secured the land (most likely obtained the option) and then started finding golf holes.
No, that's absolutely contradictory to what Macdonald writes.
He's clear, they found the location for his ideal holes FIRST, then staked the land, then optioned the land.
Why would you contradict what he wrote ?[/b]
No doubt in my mind they did find some of the obvious ones on the first ride, though.
Agreed, and they found even more on their second study, they located their ideal/classic holes, then staked the defined property line, then optioned the land, then surveyed the land, then bought the land.[/b]
Have you noticed that this passage reads as if CBM gives us a summary of the process over 186-7, and at the bottom of page 187 begins the story in more detail, with the dates of option and final purchase included?
I've certainly noticed the sequence and Macdonald returning in paragraph three to further explain/identify what ideal/classic holes they found on their first and second rides, before they staked the land.[/b]
As you note on 188, he again goes over placing the template holes first, etc. even though he has already discussed construction details like 10,000 loads of topsoil.
If you read further, after the top-soil reference, which is clearly a construction reference, he goes back again to talk about the ideal/classic holes they discovered. The Road Hole, the Sahara, The Eden, etc., etc.. But, I think you have to view his initial overview as the time table for the chain of events.
Examining the property, he didn't just choose a random 205 acres, he states that he studied the CONTOURS of the land, obviously looking for the perfect sites for his ideal/classic holes.
I think he got lucky.
Had he been able to buy the land to the West, flatter land, I doubt that many of his stunning holes would have received the accolades garnered over the last 100+ years
Climbing from the huge punchbowl amphtheatre to the 17th tee reveals one of the spectacular views in golf.
The Leven hole that unfolds before you is incredible.
As is the 18th hole that ascends up above the bluff.
I don't know if The Cape, Eden, Bottle, Alps, Sahara and Redan would have been nearly as spectacular had they been sited to the West.
While 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, I think, through luck that the site was begging to be married to the ideal/classic holes and that many, if not most studied students of architecture would have found the Eden, the Cape, The Redan, The Sahara, The Leven and the Punchbowl and current 18th hole quickly.
The OUT and BACK nature of the property, along with the "natural" and "defined" boundaries to the East, North and South, made the task of routing even easier. [/b]
It is his writing that leads to different interpretations. Quite simply, why did he choose to elaborate a bit on the design characteristics, go away from it, even talking of the future clubhouse fire, and then come back to how he found the holes? He certainly didn't design them twice.
"Building Sebonack" is a wonderful contemparneous account of NGLA's neighbor.
But, Professionals were retained to tell Sebonack's story.
"The Miracle on Breeze Hill" another wonderful contemporaneous account of nearby Atlantic, also employed Professionals to tell the story.
CBM wrote the book on his own.
He wrote the book, not as National was being built, but subsequent to the course being in play for years.
It would be great to have the details we seek, but, we're lucky to have what we have.
How many other great, early American courses have their history documented by their architect.
Yes, we can fault his writing style, but, when you combine his written words with practicality, I think it provides a fairly accurate account.[/b]
If you go strictly by page 187, its fair to equate the agreement to sell with the option, is it not?
I disagree completely.
I don't think it has anything to do with the option, I think it has to do with the price.
He just got turned down for $ 200 an acre, so his biggest hurdle, his biggest fear after determining that the land was right, was, would they sell it to him for the budgeted amount of $ 200 per acre ?
Remember, he had a budget of $ 60,000 to create his golf course.
At $ 200/acre if $ 41,000 could be used for the purchase, he had money left over for construction.
If the cost of the land was $ 300/acre, he had NO money to build a golf course.
Hence, his first concern, once he found suitable land, was being able to acquire it at a reasonable price (within his budget)[/b]
If you consider the last line of 187 as part of the chronology, then yes, it appears as if the routing took place before the option was executed.
He states, "We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906, and took title to the property in the spring of 1907.
Again, it doesn't get clearer than that.
The reason that they didn't take possession until the Spring of 1907 is that Raynor had to survey the staked land which legally and deed wise defined NGLA's boundaries and the sale/purchase.[/b]
It could be either one. We just don't know.
I think we do.
I think CBM states the time table correctly.
I think he knows what an option is, what staking is, what locating is, what purchasing is, and he clearly spells out each of those steps.
It's only Mike and you and perhaps the Phillyphiles who want to rearrange the chain of events and reinterpret the events that CBM lists.
[/b]
The kicker for me is the idea that in the newspaper article, he still thinks after obtaining the option that there will be room for members lots, but those never occurred, for reasons unknown.
See, you're falling into the same trap, the trap created by accepting inaccurate newspaper articles as factual.
David went over the land issue in detail with Bryan. Surely you remember that.
It's clear, that the lots at NGLA are a fiction.
The lots at NGLA are a myth, or at the very least a vestigial or deceased concept.
It's also interesting that Mike managed to forget about his insistance that 60-70 one to one and a half acre lots were part of the package golf course and residences when he postured that the site for NGLA was in the narrow strip between the RR and Cold Spring Harbor Pond, with the North Highway running right down the Middle, unless the rights to the lots were riparian rights.(;;)
[/b]
In any event, the idea of selecting distances, and of configuring the routing to allow pockets of land both fall under "routing" in my book, which is why I say much if not most of the routing was done after the option and before the final staking, which of course, makes loads of sense.
Jeff, once again you've reversed the order of things, you've put the cart before the horse.
CBM states that the holes were located first, then the boundaries staked.
The option came in November of 1906, the sale in the Spring of 1907
You wouldn't option land before determining which land you wanted.
You wouldn't say, "I'll take that land" And the seller says, "What land ?" And you say, "I don't know. but, I'll figure it out."
The seller would say, "Go figure it out, THEN get back to me and I'll tell you whether or not I'll grant you the option"
Just think, would anyone sell 205 out of 45o acres of land to CBM if CBM optioned a 205 acre parcel of land that prevented the seller from gaining access to the remaining 245 acres of land ? ? C'mon, think about what your saying. No way would a seller, who had just previously refused to sell a 120 acre parcel of nearby land, grant an option on an undefined 205 acres out of 450 acres, especially if that option could compromise the value of the remaining 245 acres.
Common sense tells you otherwise.[/b]
I am perfectly willing to admit I might be reading his passages wrong, and even that the routing certainly started in some ways the minute the ponies hit the ground running, which is why I can agree with David at least conditionally on this one.
CBM had already designed his holes, in his mind and on paper. He only needed a place for them to reside.
He just lost 120 acres down the road that he deemed suitable. Save for the quality of the soil, he also deemed the land between Amagansett and Montauk to be suitable.
There's no doubt, that when inspecting the land he was also looking where to site his ideal/classic holes.
The hole locations and routing started the moment they mounted their ponies.[/b]
That said, the account says that they rode for three days, and then studied earnestly, and of course, we know there were major changes, such as the elimination of housing.
Jeff, the housing issue was eliminated before they found the land at NGLA.
The 120 nearby acres they found precluded that concept, a concept perpetuated by the media, not the reality of the situation.
[/b]
So, once again, I am at a total loss as to how you can say that CBM words tell us that he routed the course in short order.
His words tell us he was out there on multiple occaisions and many days, and yet you say that means it was done in a day.
That's not what I said, please go back and reread all of my replies pertaining to the time of routing.
There's no doubt in my mind that the hole locations and routing were done within the timeframe of the two seperate visits cited on page 187[/color
He says the studied the contours earnestly to fit the proposed holes to the land and you tell us the land didn't matter.
That's correct.
If the Company had agreed to sell him the 120 acres to the West, would the land at NGLA matter ?
Answer: NO, it wouldn't.
The land wasn't the key. It was important, but not the key.
His PREDESIGNED holes were the key.
He just needed a place for them to reside.
He tried to acquire 120 acres to the West, he looked at land to the East.
He was looking for any suitable land where his 18 ideal/classic golf holes could reside.
Tell me you understand that quest and how the precise land at NGLA was unimportant had his earlier attempts to purchase been successful.[/b]
Frankly, unless he had a lot of earthmoving at his disposal,
NGLA is highly manufactured.
If you've been there, how could you not know that ?[/b]
its hard to see how the land wouldn't matter in fitting in his template holes.
Then tell me, how would the land at NGLA matters if the company sold him the 120 acres to the West ?
I can't believe that you're not getting this.
Think globally.[/b]
But he didn't even have money for a clubhouse.
Well, I guess there's no clubhouse at NGLA
What has that got to do with anything ?[/b]
As mentioned earlier, I am satisfied as to how it happened, and see no need to respond at least to you, since you are bringing less than nothing to this discussion. It seems that we mostly agree on everything but exact timing, which we probably will never know. If it turns out that some routing was done pre option, rather than all post option, it doesn't really affect the process of what happened and how it turned out as far as I can see. I would be more interested in knowing where the first 120 acre offer was made, out of curiosity, and things like why the lots never materialized, because those factoids could tell us more about why what is out there is out there.
I can understand why you don't want to listen to a position that refutes your view.
But, I've presented facts, Macdonald's written words and prudent man logic.
You want to move the option date up, ahead of the staking date, ahead of the siting of the hole locations, when CBM tells us just the opposite.
And, I think CBM understood what a tacit agreement, option and sale are.
I couldn't care less about the houses.
That ship sailed with the cost of land and/or the amount of land available and a budget of $ 60,000
If you want to cling to erroneous, shoddy newspaper accounts, you're free to do so.
I don't put much stock in them as they've been shown to be consistently wrong.[/b]
There is no real need, IMHO, to continue a debate about whether routing was macro or mini, started in October or November, etc. I am sure some element of routing continued right up to seeding, maybe beyond.
Wait a second.
Now you're maintaining that they didn't know the routing even after they bought the property and were building the holes.
That's a new take, wild speculation. Actually, it's beyond wild.[/b]
You might consider that some semantics, and thats okay, too.
PS- Pat, yes I have been to NGLA and I have studied it often on Google. I think I know the place fairly well, although another trip around would certainly always help.
Then how can you not understand the long, narrow nature of the property, the limits of a routing on that property on an OUT and BACK routing ?
How can you not understand how the placing of 8 to 12 key holes pre-determines/pre-destines the location of the remaiing holes ?
How can you not understand Max Behr's comment that the course basically routed itself ?
-
Pat,
In the early part of the last post, there is much to agree on, but our understanding is much different in some areas.:
that CBM wrote about both the price (providing we can obtain it reasonably) and what parcels to get (we were permitted to use it to best serve our purposes) When he writes specifically about both, how can you interpret it as only cost?
But, basically we agree they first rode the property to see if was suitable for golf at all, for if it wasn't, then price wouldn't matter much, would it? Then they negotiated a favorable/acceptable price. Then they spent an undetermined amount of time studying it earnestly to site the holes. No problems so far, other than me thinking he wouldn’t have spent a lot of time routing on land he wasn’t sure he was going to buy yet, and you moving the staking process way up in the order of things and generally gasbagging on and on about a point we agree on as if we don’t.
We start to disagree on the option. My understanding is that you take an option on land specifically in order to secure your rights while seeking to determine if it can meet your needs (or be zoned, permitted, or in this case, fit 18 holes to your liking, etc.) An option would be the perfect vehicle for CBM to buy time to study the property. It would also stop potential rivals (other developers or maybe even Shinny itself to stop his project) from buying the property out from under him while he made his studies.
I agree that the realty company still had to agree to the parcel created, but that could easily be written in as a condition to the option. If you look at many standardized option forms, there are spaces for such conditions, so your example is extreme and probably wouldn’t happen among reasonable men who wanted to make a deal. And, how would CBM make a golf course work on our checkerboard example anyway? As you must know, conditional land sales are quite common, and CBM told us in his words that the realty company did agree to let him configure it.
On one hand you say you CBM is telling us what we need to know, and on the other, you are substituting your wild theoretical situations as “proof” that the realty company wouldn’t allow CBM to configure the land. Patrick, the mere existence of NGLA in its current configuration is proof enough that CBM was able to configure the land and your argument is a complete red herring.
I agree that there may have been some kind of interim agreement before the option, but it would reduce its need to CBM. Why have two legal documents (one, so far never mentioned) when one would do it? We can conjecture that it might be to make sure his subscriptions all came back in or to gain other concessions from the company (i.e, building of the Shinnecock Inn to save him clubhouse monies) Yes, that is possible, maybe even likely.
I disagree with your contentions about the housing. If land cost was an issue, and no housing was contemplated, why did CBM offer to buy 205 acres, when he offered only on 120 acres on the canal site? When he later told Merion that 120 acres was all that was necessary for golf? What do you suppose the reason for offering on 205 acres was? And, given we are told by David Moriarity that contemporaneous articles that quote participants are the gold standard of historic documentation, why do you insist that CBM saying in that article (or giving that info to the reporter first hand) is inaccurate? As of December 1906, housing was in the Sebonak plan, but we agree it was taken out later, for reasons unknown.
You again spend much time telling me I have the order of things mixed up when I have done no such thing. I understand that he routed the course and then staked the ground (meaning boundaries to set the final land purchase. To me, the ONLY issue is whether it happened largely before November or after. And, as stated, I doubt it has made one iota difference to the final product! So, I guess I don’t even really care that much.
I concede it’s quite possible that the course was routed fairly quickly, as that happens sometimes. But it’s clear to me from your posts that you have no idea how that might come together. And, I do think I understand the process of routing with templates. I also note that the newspaper article of December notes that not all the holes had been picked yet, further suggesting the November time frame.
But really, Patrick, you can stop the gasbagging on some of your other points. In these historical threads, the likes of Mike and I get thrashed by DM and TMac for even a hint of supposition, while you are running rampant discussing how you think the golf course routed itself, etc. It sure seems fair to have you play by the same rules.
-
By all accounts, including CBM's in his book, the "Option" was for an "undetermined' 205 acres out of the 450 available, which would be determined AFTER CBM routed the course and staked out the holes and the exact boundary lines of the property.
Even if we assume that the "Company agreed to sell us 205 acres" line was something informal that happened PRIOR to the actual signing of a contract on December 14th, 1906 to secure the 205 "undetermined" acres, all that does is stretch out the routing period even longer!
Let's say they started looking at the property in October, as those articles David posted suggest.
That would mean they looked at the property October, November, and then half of December before even signing a contract to secure 205 "undetermined" acres, and then spent many more months before actually determining the boundaries and completing their purchase in Spring of 1907.
So, for Patrick's "Single Bullet Routing Theory" to have any hope, he'd better hope that he's misreading page 187 as though the "Agreement" and the "Securing" were two different events, because if they are different, that just means it took much longer than we even knew prior.
Before these recent articles from David, and before this strange (mis)interepretation of CBM's book that both Patrick and David insist is correct, all we really knew is that CBM optioned 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available on December 14th, 1906 and purchased the land in Spring of 1907. We've also learned that CBM had been looking for a theoretical "205 acres" from 1904 on, of which some portion would be used for the golf course, another five acres for the clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder to serve as building lots for the 60 or so Founders of his club.
But, David and Patrick insist they are right, and they insist only they know how to read the Great Scrolls of CBM accurately, so their interpretation of page 187 actually really extends the timeline for the routing process which I'm pretty sure isn't their desired outcome but is the inescapable reality they've boxed themselves into with their arguments.
If they are correct that they "agreement" and securing" referred to on Page 187 were two separate events, then a logical timeline would stretch out probably over six, seven months for the land study, informal agreement, preliminary routing efforts, formal securing, earnest routing efforts, site survey, clearing efforts, detailed hole planning, and final purchase, which seems about right to me.
Perhaps I don't give them enough credit! ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
-
Mike,
I think the disagreement is quite simply over the definition of the word "UNDETERMINED".
In this context you are defining it as: not yet contemplated. David and Patrick (and a mostly uninformed me as well) are defining it as not yet totally complete.
I would ask this...as I did during the Merion threads...why would CBM lock himself in to an area he wasn't sure he could use when he had the opportunity to take the time to become sure he was going to use it, and how he was going to use it?
-
Jim Sullivan,
I think we are all saying undetermined meant “boundary TBD”. The whole project was obviously contemplated already, so I am not sure what you mean. For that matter, I can’t conceive that there is any interpretation of those words that would say CBM was locked into anything. Again, a land option simply reserves the right to purchase for the buyer, pending his determination that the land is suitable. It only obligates the seller to sell to him first, but the buyer can back out at any time, for the price of his deposit.
I think we are imagining these events in completely different ways based on our understandings of things.
Mike,
Good points on Patrick’s short order routing theory, which simply makes no sense whatsoever.
My interest in just how NGLA might have been, and I woke up wondering about the whole timeline again. I think we know from Whigham that CBM was back from Scotland in June, no?
I wonder how long it took him to make an offer and be rejected on the canal site? Also, he doesn't mention it, but did he do routings on that 120 acres before making the offer? If so, that due diligence would have taken at least a month or more, IMHO.
As mentioned in my previous post, why did he offer to buy only 120 acres on the canal and then 205 acres at Sebonac Neck site? Especially if he was short of money? Lots of swamps that couldn't be used (although I think they filled in some)? Housing? A desire to really space out the golf holes for a grand scale? Simply the need to stretch from the Shinny Inn to the Ocean? (Maybe after settling on that basic practical out and back he realized he would need more than the minimum 120 acres on this site?
Why didn’t CBM take more ocean frontage and make NGLA more like Pebble Beach with a fine stretch of waterfront holes? I think the practical considerations of the Inn raised their head. Why would he offer the same $200 per acre for swampy, useless land as for prime land near the canal?
Back to housing, Alvord would know that NGLA would be a boon to their real estate, but why would they allow CBM to compete with their lot sales with his golf course? Maybe they had no idea of that plan until they read the same Dec 1906 article! For that matter, as Patrick suggests, Alvord would want some input, and I think they agreed that his parcel would have to be fairly regular and leave Alvord reasonable access to the rest, but had CBM used what became Sebonac, it would have left them a much more valuable parcel in between NGLA and Shinny and allowed CBM to get further away from Shinny as he desired.
Speculation, yes, but as my interest is in how it came to be, and just think of how different NGLA MIGHT have been with more ocean frontage, on the Sebonac property, or narrower on account of proposed housing, just to name a few.
-
Jim,
I'd disagree with your assessment that our disagreement here can be boiled down to single word interpretation.
Especially when multiple reports directly quote after CBM he formally signed papers to "secure" 205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available on December 14th, 1906 as saying that the next several months would be spent determining which holes to reproduce and the yardages of the holes. The articles also make clear that the staking out of the holes and the property are future events in coming months.
To answer your direct question, the answer is, he didn't lock himself into anything undesirable as your question implies.
He and Jim Whigham first rode around the property and found enough natural features, good soil, and overall spaciousness to feel comfortable that it would meet their needs. During that time they likely found the big hill for an Alps, and CBM himself tells us they found the natural landform for the Redan nearby. All of his accounts also talk about him finding the inlet for an Eden hole as well as the water for a Cape hole. They also probably became aware of the Shinnecock Inn and it's suitability for a clubhouse at that time, which gave them logical start and ending points. We can also assume that they would want to get the course down near the beautiful Peconic Bay at some point.
'
We also know that CBM thought it would take much less than 205 acres to create his course...heck, at Merion four years later he still believed an "ideal course" could be laid out on some 120 acres, and we know he planned for building lots for his Founders.
So yes, the general sections of the overall 450 acres were somewhat self-determined by a few of his early observations/decisions, but that is far, far, far from routing the 18 holes of the golf course, which all contemporaneous accounts tell us happened over the next few months after securing the land.
Once the routing was complete, and the land surveyed and cleared, and the overall land to be purchased determined based on that routing, CBM purchased the specific 205 acres in the spring of 1907.
So no, he didn't lock himself into anything by agreeing to sign papers to the effect that he could find 205 good acres for golf on the 450 that today makes up NGLA, Sebonack, and part of Shinnecock, so he wasn't exactly taking a daring risk. ;)
-
Jeff,
Gotta run, but a few points.
CBM sought a mythical "205 acres" from 1904 on for his combo of golf course, building lots, and clubhouse.
Why he only offered for the 120 near the Canal is a mystery, but clear evidence he thought he could route a course on much less than 205.
Also, I believe his decision that they didn't have enough money for a clubhouse and the determination to use the Shinnecock Inn shaped the general dimensions of his purchase, because he would certainly want to take the course down to Peconic Bay.
The problem is that he was over a mile away (1.43 miles as the crow flies) with his clubhouse, so instead of using a lot of that beautiful frontage, much of which today is Sebonack GC, he was only able to "skirt" Peconic Bay for a 1/4 mile.
I think that decision more than anything shaped the general dimensions of the 205 acres of the 450 available.
I know we all want it to be about the golf holes, but...sometimes, practical considerations take precedence, as I'm sure you know too well.
As far as using more than 120 acres for NGLA, I believe that a number of factors were involved, including fairways much wider than CBM had originally planned, but also some probably unanticipated site construction realities as seen in this August 1908 article;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5363020739_ea24330320_o.jpg)]
-
Mike,
I think you are right on all counts. In any event, if Alvord had houses planned near the Canal already, via their land plan, he probably conceded right away he didn't need lots there. Its still difficult to imagine that the Realty company would be thrilled with him building lots in competition, so is it just a coincidence that he picked 205 acres at the final property?
Yes, this is a good illustration (as is Merion) of how the practical considerations shaped even some of our greatest golf courses.
-
Jeff,
That's a great point I hadn't considered.
If the 120 acres near the Canal adjoined land already sub-divided into building lots, perhaps CBM figured he only needed to purchase land for the golf course and could work with Alvord to have Founders notified as to which existing plots may be available for purchase directly from the Company.
It would certainly save CBM a lot of time having building lots surveyed, plotted, etc., allowing him to focus on the golf course which was his primary goal.
-
Mike,
I will also note, in the spirit of providing real new info, that TePaul and I discussed this a bit last night. He says that he has info that Alvord actually filled those low areas for NGLA as part of the land deal, agreed to build the Inn, and agreed to move the RR station for their benefit. So, CBM's $200 per acre investment apparently came with some perks.
Of course, we cannot know right now if that was part of the give and take that led to elimination of lots, or if it was just too darn expensive to get any utility service up there anyway, and the whole plan wasn't well thought out in terms of what it would take to get lots there. For that matter, maybe his members simply weren't willing to build second homes out there and told him they would prefer to stay at the Inn when they went, so he scrapped the idea because there were no takers.
At any rate, he ended up with probably the world's first 200 acre plus golf course, and plenty of width, for reasons that may have had nothing to do with golf design......
-
Pat,
In the early part of the last post, there is much to agree on, but our understanding is much different in some areas.:
that CBM wrote about both the price (providing we can obtain it reasonably) and what parcels to get (we were permitted to use it to best serve our purposes) When he writes specifically about both, how can you interpret it as only cost? [color=green[
Because the events occured sequentially, not simultaneously.
One followed the other.
The agreement to sell at a reasonable prices was the first and primary concern.
Without a sale at a reasonable price, nothing occurs.[/color
But, basically we agree they first rode the property to see if was suitable for golf at all, for if it wasn't, then price wouldn't matter much, would it? Then they negotiated a favorable/acceptable price. Then they spent an undetermined amount of time studying it earnestly to site the holes.
No problems so far, other than me thinking he wouldn’t have spent a lot of time routing on land he wasn’t sure he was going to buy yet, and you moving the staking process way up in the order of things and generally gasbagging on and on about a point we agree on as if we don’t.
I didn't move the staking process up, I quoted Macdonald directly. You're the one gasbagging on this issue.[/b]
We start to disagree on the option. My understanding is that you take an option on land specifically in order to secure your rights while seeking to determine if it can meet your needs (or be zoned, permitted, or in this case, fit 18 holes to your liking, etc.) An option would be the perfect vehicle for CBM to buy time to study the property. It would also stop potential rivals (other developers or maybe even Shinny itself to stop his project) from buying the property out from under him while he made his studies.
Please, that's a riduculous interpretation and premise, put forth to justify your position.
There was no zoning so why introduce that element ?
Rivals ? Macdonald states that the land was little known, never surveyed and worthless, so why are you introducing these absurd elements, if not for the sole purpose of support your flawed premise ?
On a 450 acre waterfront property, you don't grant someone carte blanche, undefined options, especially if those options could compromise your ability to develop the remaining parcel of 245 acres. If the company granted an open ended option, CBM could have blocked off the remaining 245 acres making it inaccessible, uncapable of future development and worthless. Does that sound like a prudent business decision ?
No one, repeat no one grants an option on an undefined parcel of land that is part of a larger parcel of land that can be used for future development.
Remember, the same company thought that the 120 parcel was more valueable than $ 200/acre, so they apparently understood real estate values and development potential.[/b]
I agree that the realty company still had to agree to the parcel created, but that could easily be written in as a condition to the option.
How could you write that in if the boundaries of the option hadn't been established ?
Please, start thinking rationally.[/b]
If you look at many standardized option forms, there are spaces for such conditions, so your example is extreme and probably wouldn’t happen among reasonable men who wanted to make a deal.
You can look at all of the 2011 standardized option forms you want.
Unless you define the land, you can't option it.
And, in 1906, my money says that one's word and a handshake, especially from CBM, and especially knowing who his backers were, was sufficient.[/b]
And, how would CBM make a golf course work on our checkerboard example anyway?
It's not a checkerboard, it's a linear excercise, akin to a chain, where each link represents a hole, that goes out, then loops back in to the starting point. Just because you can't visualize it, doesn't mean that others couldn't.[/b]
As you must know, conditional land sales are quite common, and CBM told us in his words that the realty company did agree to let him configure it.
Do you really think that the company would let him configure his course such that the company's remaining 245 acres was landlocked, inaccessible, and therefore incapable of being developed, thereby turning an asset worth $ 49,000 into $ 0 ?
Your either obtuse or have become almost as agenda driven as Mike.(;;)[/b]
On one hand you say you CBM is telling us what we need to know, and on the other, you are substituting your wild theoretical situations as “proof” that the realty company wouldn’t allow CBM to configure the land.
That's not true, my premise isn't wild, it's the reflection of prudent business practices.
You would have us believe that the realty company was going to commit financial suicide by letting CBM site his parcel anyway he saw fit, irrespective of the damage it might do to the remaining 245 acres. That wasn't going to happen. No prudent businessman would paint themselves into that corner. You know it and I know it, yet you continue with your charade.
You're starting to sound desperate.[/b]
Patrick, the mere existence of NGLA in its current configuration is proof enough that CBM was able to configure the land and your argument is a complete red herring.
That's one of the dumbest statements that I've seen posted on this site, from anyone, let alone an architect.
How you draw the connection that the existance of NGLA is proof that my argument is a red herring is quite a leap, absent a modicum of logic.[/b]
I agree that there may have been some kind of interim agreement before the option, but it would reduce its need to CBM.
OK, I'm starting to make progress with you.
I don't see how there's any reduction in need inurring to CBM.[/b]
Why have two legal documents (one, so far never mentioned) when one would do it?
Why do you make the assumption that there was a legal document on the price ?
Wouldn't a handshake suffice ? A Macdonald handshake, considering those backing this project ?
I think CBM went back to the company and said, "I'd like to buy some land on Sebonack Neck if you'll sell it to me for $ 200/acre.
Knowing the land, I think they said, $ 200/acre sounds reasonable, how much do you want to buy and where is it located.
Then, I think he said, let me study it a little more and I'll get back to you.
Enter the second visit where he locates his holes, stakes his boundaries, has Seth Raynor Survey the land, and then enters into a legal option on that parcel.[/b]
We can conjecture that it might be to make sure his subscriptions all came back in or to gain other concessions from the company (i.e, building of the Shinnecock Inn to save him clubhouse monies) Yes, that is possible, maybe even likely.
I disagree with your contentions about the housing. If land cost was an issue, and no housing was contemplated, why did CBM offer to buy 205 acres, when he offered only on 120 acres on the canal site?
Because that's the amount of land he needed for that specific site, a site which was almost on the North Highway to the South, bordering Shinnecock Hills to the East, Bulls Head Bay to the East and Peconic Bay to the North.
As to the canal site, he felt he only needed 120 for his golf course.
If you'll go back and look at David Moriarty's and Bryan's measurements of the property you'll see that he needed almost all of the 205 acres, especially given the topography. Are you sure that you've read this entire thread ?[/b]
When he later told Merion that 120 acres was all that was necessary for golf? What do you suppose the reason for offering on 205 acres was? And, given we are told by David Moriarity that contemporaneous articles that quote participants are the gold standard of historic documentation, why do you insist that CBM saying in that article (or giving that info to the reporter first hand) is inaccurate? As of December 1906, housing was in the Sebonak plan, but we agree it was taken out later, for reasons unknown.
Jeff, that you of all people don't understand site specifics is quite shocking.
If he told Merion that 120 acres was all that was necessary for golf, perhaps, at Merion, that was true.
But, it wasn't true at NGLA.
As to housing being in the 1906 Sebonack plan, could you tell me what page in "Scotland's Gift" that appears on ?[/b]
You again spend much time telling me I have the order of things mixed up when I have done no such thing.
I understand that he routed the course and then staked the ground (meaning boundaries to set the final land purchase.
That's a surprise.
It seems like you've been contesting that position, a position I've advocated all along.
I'm glad to know that you finally agree with me.[/b]
To me, the ONLY issue is whether it happened largely before November or after.
And, as stated, I doubt it has made one iota difference to the final product! So, I guess I don’t even really care that much.
When CBM chronicles the chain of events, and he places the reference to the obtaining of an option after the process of routing and staking the golf course, I think you have to agree that the option occured after the routing and staking.
The order of the chronicling of events, and the logical order of the process of obtaining an option on land are in harmony.
Thus, it seems prudent to conclude that the option obtained in November of 1906 followed the locating of holes, routing and staking of the property to be bought.[/b]
I concede it’s quite possible that the course was routed fairly quickly, as that happens sometimes. But it’s clear to me from your posts that you have no idea how that might come together.
And, I do think I understand the process of routing with templates.
I also note that the newspaper article of December notes that not all the holes had been picked yet, further suggesting the November time frame.
But really, Patrick, you can stop the gasbagging on some of your other points. In these historical threads, the likes of Mike and I get thrashed by DM and TMac for even a hint of supposition,
I'm not responsible for posts made by David Moriarty and Tom MacWood, they can and do speak for themselves.[/color
while you are running rampant discussing how you think the golf course routed itself, etc. It sure seems fair to have you play by the same rules.
Jeff, this is where I really have a problem with your presentation and your reasoning.
I didn't make the statement that the golf course routed itself. MAX BEHR DID.
He was there, he is eminenlty qualified, he made the statement, I merely quoted him.
I think Max Behr's credentials qualify him to make that judgement, don't you ?
Max Behr declared that the course routed itself.
Understanding the OUT and BACK nature of the course, the starting and finishing points, the location of the ideal/classic holes, the boundaries, natural (water) and defined (Shinnecock Hills GC) I can see why Max Behr made that statement. A statement I agree with despite your opinion to the contrary. WHY do you doubt and challenge Max Behr's assessment ?[/b]
-
Pat,
Your answers are so fricking delusional or obtuse, its not funny.
CBM told us he took an option in his own words, and it is you arguing that he didn't because it wouldn't be prudent. Or you are arguing he took it after the land was decided upon. What reason would there be to do that? Why not just buy it directly then?
Obviously, I can't see the option agreement from 1906, nor am I a NY real estate lawyer or broker, but I don't believe the basic premise of an option has changed a lot, but it might vary.
While I would like to believe that CBM and Alvord might work on a handshake "back in the good old days" in some ways business was more informal, and in others, it was more formal than today. But why speculate on how they did business when CBM told us he took an option?
As to Max, I have no doubt in his abilities. The only question is your definition of short order. CBM tells us how many days he spent on an intial visit, tells us he followed up, and contemporaneous accounts tell us he had five months to finish it up, including that he started with the idea of 60 lots on the Sebonack site. While I trust Scotland's Gift as a nice source, I don't think interpration of history is served by using only that, when other sources with more detail are available. At the same time, relying on a second hand observation of Behr to make your points isn't as strong as using newspaper articles that quote CBM directly.
In reality, I just don't see that big a difference in our opinions of what CBM wrote. Its just that I see more than a few days in routing, especially if you include tweaking, and at a longer time frame than you want to imagine for your own agenda. And I think you are trying to argue away the option for reasons of your own, when CBM told us that is exactly what he did. If he says it, why do you insist he did it on a handshake?
-
"Why not just buy it directly then?"
Jeff,
Isn't one potential answer to this that he needed to line up investors?
You guys have described a hell of alot of fixed points on the golf course as being identified by the end of the 2 or 3 days on horseback but refuse to agree that the routing was determined enough to take an option based on it. I wonder what I'm missing.
-
Pat,
Did you just state that Max Behr was there WHEN the course was being routed? That is the apparent meaning of your statement "Jeff, this is where I really have a problem with your presentation and your reasoning. I didn't make the statement that the golf course routed itself. MAX BEHR DID. He was there, he is eminenlty qualified, he made the statement, I merely quoted him.
I think Max Behr's credentials qualify him to make that judgement, don't you ? Max Behr declared that the course routed itself."
Of course he wasn't there when the course was routed and please show me exactly when he was on the course even during the building process. What he wrote wasn't anywhere near as contemporaneous as the newspaper articles that Mike has produced in which CBM is quoted giving details of what was being done at that time.
When did Behr make the statement?
-
Pat,
To be honest, the differences in our interpretations still lie in whether the bottom of page 187 is a retelling of the story, or a continuation of the timeline, after an odd insertion of wanting to play golf in nature, which seems totally out of place.
As usual, I think most of this discussion is semantics based on that difference of opinion, although I still will believe the option existed until proven otherwise.
Just in case I am reading things wrong on that, I would appreciate your interpretation of just why taking an option AFTER determining the specific land would be necessary. Why do you say they cannot take an option for an undetermined parcel of 205 acres within a specific 450 acre parcel? What do you think the purpose of the option was?
Jim,
I did offer that potential to line up investors in a post above. I think he had his promises for $60K in subscriptions, but not the money in hand. I found it odd that CBM would use that Dec. article to tell subscribers to send their money in. The other article sounds more like he is just starting to go out and find subscribers, but I don't believe that was the case.
But, if existing subscribers hadn't actually sent in money, then the option could have solely been for the purpose of providing time for the collecting funds to pay off the $40K. Also, the article notes that CBM was forming a temporary holding company until the final one was in place, so that could be a legal requirement to transfer the land to the final corporation.
However, both those articles say that as of Dec. 1906, the land boundary was not yet firmly settled, even though it had been “purchased” which we know is having been optioned for purchase.
Given this direct evidence from two different newspaper sources, both quoting CBM and going into great detail (and probably able to access the land purchase records from the county recorder of deeds, too) I find it hard to believe anyone would seriously argue that the boundaries were completely fixed, and justify it by ignoring contemporaneous accounts, or quoting third party observers like Behr. I don't know where or when Behr wrote of NGLA, but I agree with Phil, that it couldn't have been contemporaneous, and he was not a direct participant.
So, to answer your question about when the routing was fixed, it could still be a work in progress, with unknown finality at the time of purchase. As I said before, I have no doubt that they picked up on the land for the Alps, Cape and Redan holes on an early pony ride, and even reference those. But, the contemporary articles also sound like they hadn't connected the dots yet with the non template holes by December 1906, at least to me.
Given CB had been working with the realty company since about June on another parcel, and that they directed him to the next site, he might have been riding that site on ponies many times and for many months, firming up his ideas substantially each time. His account in Scotlands Gift doesn't give exact dates for the pony rides, subsequent visits, etc., so its all an assumption as to exactly when those were made. As I said, the first telling makes it sound like the decision to buy came between the initial tours and the earnest study to finalize the routing. I am just not sure that the dates mentioned for the option and purchase are perfectly chronological in SG, and supplement that with the newspaper articles, which tell us the routing had not been finalized as of Dec 1906.
And, again, I am not sure it really matters that much to how the project turned out whether he routed most of it pre option or most of it post option, or if he only made minor tweaks post option. No doubt it was an ongoing process, as routing always is, and that the insertion of the "legal" dates of option and final purchase had any effect on what was in essence an continous period of refinement from the day CBM decided to buy that particular parcel. The other factors that drove the design didn't change - the Inn, being the biggest example.
-
Jeff,
I admit to not being fully informed on details and writings, but I thought Max Behr was named by CBM as being on the design committee...yea or nay?
Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're saying in your last three paragraphs...the position I'm taking is that CBM optioned the 205 and retained the rights to tweak the exact property line as the holes came into shape.
-
Jim,
Sorry and I was editing my own post, but I looked at the committee listed in the articles above, and Behr's name is not listed.
I am also saying he optioned 205 acres of the 450 for the purpose of tweaking the exact property lines. I have no doubt that at that time, he had some of the basics in place, but we just don't know if it was 5 to 8 templates or all 18 holes, just needing to be wiggled around. I doubt he had a blank slate of paper in his mind at that point, since he had ID'd the Alps, Redan, Cape, etc.
Maybe Patrick is saying the exact same thing, too, but seems to insist all 18 were routed on that first ride or very soon thereafter. I agree with Mike that short time frames for routing are sort of mythical, when you look at the practical aspects non related to golf that have to be considered, like deciding where the clubhouse goes, how to fill swamps, etc.
I think Patrick has kind of a man crush on CBM, and secretly believes that he slipped into phone booths and wore a cape.
-
Guys, guys...some housekeeping, please.
First,
Max Behr was SO NOT INVOLVED WITH NGLA THAT HIS NAME DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR in "Scotland's Gift".
What he wrote in 1915 has been COMPLETELY MISCONSTRUED and COMPLETELY MISINTERPETED on this and other threads.
More on that later.
Next,
CBM already had ALL 60 Investors (and later 70) lined up and fully paid months prior to securing, much less purchasing the Sebonac Neck property.
He had cash in hand and was ready to make a deal from the time he met Alvord.
Finally,
Fixed Points?? Indicative of a routing??
My lord, then we can essentially say that any course where the location of the clubhouse is known, and where a few desirable features are found that can be incorporated for golf purposes is completely routed.
Jeff Brauer...better find yourself a new line of work.
I think we've got this whole routing process down here on GolfClubAtlas so we don't need you any longer. ;) ;D
-
My bad on Max Behr, I haven't taken the time to read all the facts presented so I should back out or catch up...we'll see.
Re: the investors, interesting that he had the money in hand...I can't think of another reason he would hold off other than to make sure he had the exact width desired...which leads to the final/formal step...
On the rest Mike, yep I'm sorry but I can't see why a guy with that many fixed points in place wouldn't be able to fill in the blanks in short order and therefore select the location of the property boundaries down to a pretty tight margin of error...
-
Mike,
I wonder why that article gave specific instructions to subscribers as to how and where to send their money, then? Well, reading it again, it could be information for new subscribers who wanted in on the hottest deal in town. Or, maybe just more inaccurate gossip column stuff. Maybe an early version of those emails from Africa asking for help in getting money out of the country?
Jim,
Mike hints at my anger with Pat....next guy to say you can route a course in short order gets it!
-
Jim,
Hang around...I have MUCH MORE STUFF coming on that whole issue of buying land versus the routing process very shortly.
AUTHORITATIVE stuff of how this whole process works...no more of this interpretive BS.
Jeff,
Cash in hand was overstatement on my part, sorry....he already had signed, contractual, promissory notes from all the investors he needed in hand.
Given their names and wallet sizes, he had cash in hand essentially.
-
Jeff,
If I showed you 450 acres and gave you a clubhouse location and 4 or 5 land forms you were absolutely going to use (including the direction you were going to approach them from) and three days to ride around the property do you think you could sketch out IN PENCIL the 205 acres you would want to buy?
I am sure I don't know 1% of what there is to know about routing a golf course but I have to believe this task is very possible for a professional.
-
Jim,
Hang around...I have MUCH MORE STUFF coming on that whole issue of buying land versus the routing process very shortly.
AUTHORITATIVE stuff of how this whole process works...no more of this interpretive BS.
Jeff,
Cash in hand was overstatement on my part, sorry....he already had signed, contractual, promissory notes from all the investors he needed in hand.
Given their names and wallet sizes, he had cash in hand essentially.
Mike,
On the first, great. I look forward to it.
On the stuff you just wrote to Jeff...are you kidding?
-
Ok...the problem with quotes, while useful, is that they often are missing context.
Here, from 1915, is the ENTIRE Max Behr article where somehow a meaning is being derived that CBM routed the course in 2 days on horseback.
Examine what Behr wrote in proper context and ask yourself if it differs from anything I've presented.
Behr is not talking about routing the course at all when he talks about the course "laid itself out", but about the construction process.
He tells us,
1) First, the right sort of territory was found.
2) Then, the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the property. I contend and believe ALL of the contemporaneous documents and CBM's own words show that this took place between securing of an "undetermined" 205 acres and the purchase of same.
3) Then, enough land was bought to embrace all the necessary features.
4) Then, in laying out the course (construction), no concession was made to economy in the use of land.
5) Even with that, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not used by the golf course.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_8c3fe941c0_o.jpg)
-
p.s. to Jim...
It's also the reason that the artificial decapitation/truncation of the northern boundary of the Johnson Farm just 100 yards north of the quarry makes absolutely no sense at all, ESPECIALLY after CBM told already told them back on July 29th, 1910 that much could be made of that natural feature for golf.
btw..
Have you seen the list of names of the original founders? $1,000 was chump change to them.
-
Mike,
Thanks for the article. I don't make much of it, but see below.
Jim,
Perhaps this is where Patrick and I would disagree. No doubt that under the circumstances listed I could come up with 'A" routing for the property. In fact, after noting the best features, I would probably come up with at least three potential quick routings, attacking all those features from every way imaginable, and connecting the dots.
But, I wouldn't stop there, esp. if building what I had already advertised as the worlds top course! I would refine each, study them, eliminate two, but combine the best features of all, etc. and keep studying it until it was time to stop. From time to time, like a test, the first routing is the best answer. Most times, its a long trial and error routine, often with some painful choices as to which holes to keep and which to leave out.
So, could I do a quick routing? Sure. Would I? Probably not. Of course, I can't speak for CBM or others. But, I think his words do, in the form of his writings and in what he told those reporters contemporaneously. Now that I have read (I think I had seen that in the past) Behr quote again, I place even less stock in it as historical evidence, because he is writing on the topic of how much land, and is merely using NGLA as an example of ideal, which it was.
I hate to word parse it too much, but you will note Behr does say that land was bought to encompass all the features. Then he mentions the laying out as a separate operation. That suggests his understand was also that it was a two part process - finding the land generally (by picking the best landforms) - to buy the land, and then routing in a second operation. And we know, CBM had his out even after taking the option, in the form of being able to tweak boundaries.
But, enough gasbagging from me. I am glad Mike will be able to post more info of the real variety soon.
-
Mike,
I'm baffled that the words "the course was roughly sketched out" do not convey the routing process.
-
Jim,
Here is the original Founders agreement, pledged by the sixty (the seventy) original subscribers;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5393591445_f821ba036a_b.jpg)
-
Thanks Mike,
Jeff,
Thanks for some insight into the process, I do appreciate it as it's the most baffling part of your profession to me. Baffling in the sense that I can't get my hands around how I would start and work through it if given the task so first hand insight is great. In the scenario I asked you about, would make any difference in your ability to generate a routing in short order if in addition to the features and fixed points I previously discussed you also knew the direction and length of holes deemed ideal for each feature located?
Also, Behr said CBM had "roughly sketched out the course" before acquiring the 205 acre option. Doesn;t this imply a great deal of the routing process was complete?
-
Jim,
Where does it say that they sketched out the course before optioning the 205 undetermined acres?
It says they completed it prior to purchase, is all, which is true.
-
Jim,
The quickest type of course to route is a flat site. You can do what you want.
When you have features, sometimes they lay out in the "right places" and you can do it quickly. In other cases, there are tricky corners (not an issue at NGLA), or a combination of features you want to use, but can't because they are too close or too far from the last hole you placed. I can't imagine that trying to place holes with specific features and ideal lengths would make that process any easier than if you didn't really care if your Alps hole was any particular length.
But, in all cases, how do I know if I have the best routing, if I haven't tested a bunch of different options? In a sense, its almost like buying the first house you look at. I suppose there are cases where you see it, fall in love with it, etc. but most of us look around a little before settling on a house, at least if its important to us.
And, as "his course" I think it was very important to him, as compared to Bendelow, whose main interest was getting up any course to further the game (at least early when he worked for Spaulding) or even Ross, who had a variety of commissions from Pinehurst to one day jobs. If a client hired him for one day, he gave them a day.
Would CBM do that in this case? I doubt it. As to what the sketching means, we just don't know. I have finished golf courses and can go in my file and find literally dozens of tracing papers sketches of routings that never got incorporated in the final. Are those the sketches he is talking about? I have prepared up to 30 test routings for a golf course before deciding on one. Granted, some are variations on a theme, as it were and in some semantic sense they could have honed in on general hole locations as Patrick suggests, and had to only figure out the details of connecting the dots.
I don't have that sense, but then, I have bias based on my experiences as well. Great courses depend on great routings, and generally, great routings take some time.
Interesting side topic, but how many of the top 100 or whatever courses are one day paper jobs by Ross, Bendelow, or others?
-
Jima,
It is also important to recall that at the time CBM rode the property it had never been surveyed and was an inpenetrable mess of brambles and thickets and bogs.
Not exactly a routing dream scenario yet CBm tells us that he and Whigham saw enough good stuff to try to secure 205 acres if they could get a good price.
Still, at that time it was simply 205 out of 450 available.
-
Mike,
Again, this is my experience, and not at all what may have happened, but on that type of property, they would see more in a final routing phase IF they were going round it in winter when some of the trees had dropped their leaves. Whether that entered their minds, I do not know. I do know that going through the brambles hurts just as much winter or summer, so maybe not.
I also recall knowing sites, that I have sent more than one associate to flag the clearing down on the low side, where I am pretty sure the rose bushes are going to be while I take the high side, under the guise of "taking the harder walking as a favor to you." But walking centerlines is always a bit easier in winter up north.
-
Jim,
I have a question for you.
CBM himself is quoted in multiple NY papers as saying that he was going to spend the next several months working with his committe to determine which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages and this happened after he secured the 205 undetermined acres.
Why don't you believe him?
It's very clear that he's talking about the property he had just secured at Sebonac Neck...205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available and he tells us exactly what his plans are in real time.
What is possibly unclear??
Max Behr's article talks about the process back then of securing enough land and then figuring out how to best fit 18 good golf holes on it as being the regular drill. Why is that so preposterous that you can't buy a direct quote from CBM himself that this is what he was going to do?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
-
Jeff, Jim, et. al.,
I have a serious question for you.
Have you noticed that all of the DIFFERENT newspaper articles that Mike has posted say the exact same thing ?
They are NOT seperate articles, written by different, informed authors, they are merely COPIES of an original flawed article.
Mike likes to cite the12-15-06 article as his linchpin.
But, that article, claiming to quote Macdonald is so flawed that you can' believe that Macdonald was so unfamiliar with his site at NGLA that he mispoke.
As an example, that article claims that Macdonald stated that the turf at NGLA was exceptional.
Another that "fine turf" existed, another that the soil was better than that on the Atlantic side.
We KNOW that to be COMPLETELY FALSE.
HOW ?
Macdonald tells us on page 188 that the land was IMPOVERISHED, that he had to import TEN THOUSAND (10,000) LOADS OF SOIL.
NOT 10,000 pounds, not 10,000 yards, but 10,000 LOADS of soil.
So how can you continue to accept these horrendously flawed newspaper articles as fact ?
Especially, when they're obvious, almost exact copies of previous, flawed newspaper articles.
Please reread the newspaper articles and you'll see that they're NOT contemporaneous accounts, merely one flawed account that gets published over and over again, where NO ONE corrects the obvious errors.
Jeff, you yourself pointed out a horrendous error in a newspaper article Mike had posted in your reply # 347.
All Mike does is report the same article that appears in different newspapers, but, it's the SAME article, not an additional article.
The use of the term, "contemporaneous accounts" is a farce, a deliberate attempt to mislead those reading this thread.
But, don't take my word for it, read all of the newspaper articles Mike's posted and you'll see that they're just the same version, with the same errors, the same language, published on different dates by different papers.
-
Pat,
I guess I just have trouble keeping up with the standards here!
On the Myopia thread, if David told us once he told us a thousand times that similar newspaper articles that said the same thing from inside sources were "as good as it gets" as far as historical documentation, and remembrances from participants decades later shouldn't count for anything because they might have forgotten details. We got beat up for even suggesting they be used or mentioned.
Now, both you and David cite CBM as the only source that counts, and you in particular are saying to dismiss those newspapers completely are a farce.
When someone figures out what standard I am supposed to use when deciding what to post, then please let me know. The only thing that seems consistent is that one of you will argue that one mistake in a source completetly invalidates everything written in that source, rather than being a single mistake (in our opinions) which I always found to be a false premise.
Oh, the other thing that is consistent is that I get the snot beat out of me by someone no matter what I say......and never seem to take the right position according to some, no matter how logical it seems to me.(insert smiley)
-
Pat,
Did you just state that Max Behr was there WHEN the course was being routed?
NO, I DIDN'T.
What I said was that Behr was a contemporary, he played the course shortly after it opened, he was there.
And, he commented on the routing being self completing.
I think MIKE DELIBERATELY DELETED THE BEHR REFERENCE, that he originally posted
And now he claims the following:
What he wrote in 1915 has been COMPLETELY MISCONSTRUED and COMPLETELY MISINTERPETED on this and other threads.
Ok...the problem with quotes, while useful, is that they often are missing context.[/u]
Mike, after posting all of those alleged quotes by CBM and others, now tells us, when those quotes don't suit his purpose, that they're often "taken out of context, completely misconstrued and completely misinterpreted"
It does't get more disengenuous than that.[/b]
That is the apparent meaning of your statement
"Apparent meaning" ?[/b]
"Jeff, this is where I really have a problem with your presentation and your reasoning. I didn't make the statement that the golf course routed itself. MAX BEHR DID. He was there, he is eminenlty qualified, he made the statement, I merely quoted him.
I think Max Behr's credentials qualify him to make that judgement, don't you ? Max Behr declared that the course routed itself."
He was there, he played the course shortly after it opened, he spoke to Macdonald, he knew what he was talking about.
And, he wrote about it[/b]
Of course he wasn't there when the course was routed and please show me exactly when he was on the course even during the building process. What he wrote wasn't anywhere near as contemporaneous as the newspaper articles that Mike has produced in which CBM is quoted giving details of what was being done at that time.
When did Behr make the statement?
NO ONE, neither Mike or myself, stated that Behr was there when the course was routed.
I don't know how you come to that reading or conclusion.
Unless you're not reading the posts sequentially.
Mike posted the Behr citation. Ask him.
But, I think he deleted the original citation, hence, unless he reposts it in its original form, it may be lost forever.
I'll try to find it..
-
This site is really educational. I didn't even know "disengenuous" was a word until these history threads started......nor did I know how common a trait it must be among us humans.
-
Mike,
I think the disagreement is quite simply over the definition of the word "UNDETERMINED".
In this context you are defining it as: not yet contemplated. David and Patrick (and a mostly uninformed me as well) are defining it as not yet totally complete.
I would ask this...as I did during the Merion threads...why would CBM lock himself in to an area he wasn't sure he could use when he had the opportunity to take the time to become sure he was going to use it, and how he was going to use it?
Jim,
You've got it essentially, but I'd like to clarify one thing. The source material makes no mention of the land for the golf course having been "undetermined" at the time the option was signed. And it certainly makes no mention that "CBM [] formally signed papers to "secure" 205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available" as Mike Cirba falsely claims. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source material, as is this:
"By all accounts, including CBM's in his book, the "Option" was for an "undetermined' 205 acres out of the 450 available, which would be determined AFTER CBM routed the course and staked out the holes and the exact boundary lines of the property."
By all accounts? Complete b.s. Mike Cirba is just making things up. Again.
NONE of the various accounts we've discussed say anything about CBM obtaining an option for an "undetermined" 205 acres out of 450 acres. To the contrary, the land optioned is described with some degree of specificity. Here is some of what CBM is quoted as saying about the land at the time the option was signed:
"We have a stretch at out disposal of four acres in width and two miles long. The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."
He is talking about a two mile stretch of property which was four acres wide.* The land was also described in the articles a "strip." He isn't talking about all 450 acres! And CBM does not say that the option allowed him to choose any acres he wanted. All he said was that the "exact lines" would not be staked out until they done planning. It sounds like he could adjust the boundaries, but there is nothing about him being able to choose any 205 acres out of the entire parcel! He doesn't say that he had yet to determine the location or stake it out. Only that it would not be finalized with exact lines until later.
Moreover, this wasn't just any two mile strip of land to be chosen anwhere in the 450 acres. It was a specific strip of land.
- "Bullshead bay will be skirted for about one mile, and at the end of the point there is an opportunity to reproduce the famous short at St. Andrews." But there are other opportunities as delightful --for instance, to duplicate the Redan hole at North Berwick." When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me he cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick.
- A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by modern interests.
- At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard, to be arranged of varying widths so that while a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will be possible to take a shorter angle to the fairgreen and get home in two.'
Yet these guys claim that, at this point, CBM hadn't gotten around to figuring out which 205 decided which of the 450 acres he would chose? Impossible.
According to these guys all that had happened before the option was that Whigham and CBM had ridden the property for a couple of days. If so, then it was a hell of a few days! At the very least they found the Cape, found the Alps, found the Eden, found the Redan, figured out that their first was close to the new Inn, knew the course was two miles long with about four acres width, knew it bordered Bullshead Bay for a mile. Doing all that on the horseback ride sure doesn't jibe with Mike Cirba's continued claims that the land was impenetrable, and that ll they had done on the horseback ride as look at the soil and determine that the 450 acres would generally be sufficient!
Indeed, this is one of the places Mike has painted himself into a corner. He claims that when they rode the property, all they did was examine the soil and look at the general suitability of the land for golf. Nothing about routing. And he also claims that riding the property was all that happened before they optioned the land. Taken together, these two claims are ridiculous, given the articles above. These articles were written at the time they optioned the property, and they not only describe a substantial portion of the routing, they also describe the land they had optioned, and it was NOT an "undetermined" 205 acres out of the entire 450!
Also, if all that had happened was that CBM and HJW had ridden the property, then why do the articles state that "Emmett, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others" had already been over the land? Why do the October articles state that CBM and HJW had already been over the site several times?
A more reasonable explanation is that Cirba and Company are misreading Scotland's Gift. There is no justification for pretending the chronology ends with "after which we staked out the land we wanted." From there the chronology continues, with CBM first describing the land they had chosen, then writing that they optioned the property in November (really December) and purchased the property the following spring? What would come after purchasing the property? Developing the property, and that is precisely what CBM covers next. They began developing the property.They needed topsoil for the impoverished soil. At first they would try to do without a club house but after the fire they needed one and it turned out great.
CBM then turned to the golf holes, and while he does again mention having found the Alps and Redan, this time he is focused on describing the actual golf holes, how he built them, and how they ended up better than there models. This is not a rehash of the routing discussion, but a discussion of the actual holes as built. And he discussed all of the golf holes based largely on the holes abroad and mentions all the others as either composites or originals. It isn't just a rehash of the first few he found. It isn't a routing discussion at all.
Go back to Mike's outline. He readily agreed that the routing took place when CBM and Whigham again studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind. Well read those articles. This had already taken place by the time of the option. They had studied the land and described the land they wanted.
Compare his description of the land he found in Scotland's gift to his description of the land in those December articles. It is THE SAME LAND:
- They found a place for the Alps, Redan, and Eden.
- They "skirted Bull Head Bay for about a mile."
- The first hole was to be near the Inn.
This description appears in both those articles at the time of the option and Scotland's gift. So how can these guys argue that the land wasn't chosen at the time CBM acquired the option. The articles were written at the time the option was obtained!
___________________________________
[*One confusing aspect of CBM's description is that the property was two miles long by four acres wide. The two miles makes sense. Measuring along Peconic Bay, and then along Bullshead, and then to the first tee is almost exactly two miles. But the width of the strip varies from around 200 yards to around 400 yards. Acreage is a measure of area, not distance, so it makes no sense to speak of four acres length. Rather than try to give an exact width of an inexact strip, he seems to have done some simple math based on the total acreage. Were the land an actual rectangle two miles long and 205 acres total, the width would equal very close to four times the length of one side of one square acre (about 281 yards to about 278 yards.) Not sure if this is right but it would perhaps explain the thought process. Anyway this doesn't quite work because the land is not a true rectangle, and the two miles is measured along the coast.]
-
Pat,
Your answers are so fricking delusional or obtuse, its not funny.
CBM told us he took an option in his own words, and it is you arguing that he didn't because it wouldn't be prudent.
That's not true, on two accounts.
I clearly stated that CBM took an option in November 1906.
You want us to believe that he took the option before he located his holes and staked the property.
I maintain he took the option after he located the holes and staked the property.
Please, either read my replies more carefully, or, have someone read my posts to you.[/b]
Or you are arguing he took it after the land was decided upon.
After he staked the property.[/b]
What reason would there be to do that?
Because, only after it was staked and subsequently surveyed could it be defined and quantified, which in turn determined the acreage and lump sum purchase price.[/b]
Why not just buy it directly then?
Because the exact size (acreage) hadn't been determined.
Only AFTER it was staked, and subsequently surveyed, could the acreage be quantified, which in turn determined the lump sum purchase price at $ 200/acre[/b]
Obviously, I can't see the option agreement from 1906, nor am I a NY real estate lawyer or broker, but I don't believe the basic premise of an option has changed a lot, but it might vary.
Jeff, when you option land, you option a defined parcel, not some vague, undefined area.
If you don't know what land is specifically contained in the option, you can't option it.
The land has to be defined, and since that land had never been surveyed, they couldn't define the bounds, nor the exact size of the parcel, which would determine the final lump sum purchase price. Once it was staked, Raynor surveyed it, which allowed them to option a precise tract, leading to the purchase of that exact tract.[/b]
While I would like to believe that CBM and Alvord might work on a handshake "back in the good old days" in some ways business was more informal, and in others, it was more formal than today. But why speculate on how they did business when CBM told us he took an option?
I'll repeat this again because you either don't understand it, or don't want to understand it.
You can't option land that isn't defined, quantified and identified.
You option a specific parcel, not phantom acreage with undefined boundaries.
How do you determine the purchase price of a parcel of land if you can't determine the acreage of that parcel.
An option gives you the ability to purchase a specific parcel of land for a set amount of money.
It doesn't give you the abiliity to purchase an unknown quantity of land in an unknown location[/b]
As to Max, I have no doubt in his abilities. The only question is your definition of short order. CBM tells us how many days he spent on an intial visit, tells us he followed up,
and contemporaneous accounts tell us he had five months to finish it up, including that he started with the idea of 60 lots on the Sebonack site. While I trust Scotland's Gift as a nice source, I don't think interpration of history is served by using only that, when other sources with more detail are available. At the same time, relying on a second hand observation of Behr to make your points isn't as strong as using newspaper articles that quote CBM directly.
Contemporaneous accounts DO NOT tell us that.
The allege that. Please tell me you understand the difference.
They are distant, third party accounts, flawed accounts that merely get repeated yet you, like Mike, attribute infallibility to them, despite the fact they they've been shown to be incorrect, time after time after time. And, you yourself pointed out glaring mistakes in your reply # 347.
I'm content to rely on Macdonald's account rather than flawed, plagerized newspaper accounts.[/b]
In reality, I just don't see that big a difference in our opinions of what CBM wrote. Its just that I see more than a few days in routing, especially if you include tweaking, and at a longer time frame than you want to imagine for your own agenda.
And I think you are trying to argue away the option for reasons of your own, when CBM told us that is exactly what he did.
If he says it, why do you insist he did it on a handshake?
Because they couldn't reduce an undefined parcel of land to a legal agreement, which is what an option is.
It gives one party the right to purchase a specified parcel of land/building that's legally defined.
How would Macdonald know he needed 205 acres if the land had never been surveyed ?
How would he know how much land he needed prior to staking the boundaries ?
How would he know how much land he needed BEFORE he located the sites for his ideal/classic holes ?
Remember, he had limited funds, $ 60,000.
Not even enough money to build a clubhouse, so money was at a premium.
Do you think he'd option and buy land he didn't need, depriving him of funds to build the golf course and a clubhouse ?
-
Pat,
I guess I just have trouble keeping up with the standards here!
On the Myopia thread, if David told us once he told us a thousand times that similar newspaper articles that said the same thing from inside sources were "as good as it gets" as far as historical documentation, and remembrances from participants decades later shouldn't count for anything because they might have forgotten details. We got beat up for even suggesting they be used or mentioned.
Jeff, you'll have to take that up with David.
But, you yourself, pointed out in your reply # 347 that the newspaper article was seriously flawed.
The newspaper articles Mike posts, repetitively, are the same article, not independent articles, and, they contain the same errors.
You can't accept seriously flawed articles as "The Gospel" just for convenience, as Mike does.
Now, both you and David cite CBM as the only source that counts, and you in particular are saying to dismiss those newspapers completely are a farce.
Jeff, that's not true. I'm starting to question your motives or your memory.
I'm apt to dismiss them because one is merely a copy of another and they contain glaring errors.
You and especially Mike seem ready to embrace them, irrespective of their errors.
David doesn't claim CBM as the only source and has cited the newspaper articles, proving his point that the land was already determined, based on the descriptions in the articles which coincide with NGLA's boundaries.
David's response to Jim Sullivan is well reasoned and proves that the routing occured early on, using the very articles that Mike has posted ad naseum.
When someone figures out what standard I am supposed to use when deciding what to post, then please let me know.
The only thing that seems consistent is that one of you will argue that one mistake in a source completetly invalidates everything written in that source, rather than being a single mistake (in our opinions) which I always found to be a false premise.
Jeff, you can't claim that the newspaper articles are blatantly wrong, as you did in your reply $ 347, and then, in the next breath, cling to their infallibility. You can't have it both ways.[/b]
Oh, the other thing that is consistent is that I get the snot beat out of me by someone no matter what I say......and never seem to take the right position according to some, no matter how logical it seems to me.(insert smiley)
Consider yourself lucky.
I know guys who say that about the way they bet/gamble, and worse yet, I know guys who say that about their home life/marriage.
Be happy it's amongst the guys on this website, where there are no real life repercussions (sp?)(;;)[/b]
-
Here is the Aerial of NGLA. The red line is one mile. This was one mile of Bullshead Bay frontage mentioned in both the book and the articles. The blue lines and red lines together equal just over two miles (2.1) which corresponds with the "two miles long" stretch mentioned in the newspaper articles. Throw in all the holes mentioned, the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape and the start and finish the course at the current 10th tee and 11th green, and tell me that they hadn't yet even begun to route the course yet! Tell me they were still considering the all 450 acres. Tell me that they had no idea of the routing at this point.
In Mike's outline the option was obtained BEFORE they had begun studying the contours and placing the holes! All they supposedly knew was that they could fit a course on 205 acres somewhere within the 450. Yet they could describe the property and many of the holes? Impossible.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-air.jpg?t=1299039546)
-
Jim,
I have a question for you.
CBM himself is quoted in multiple NY papers as saying that he was going to spend the next several months working with his committe to determine which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages and this happened after he secured the 205 undetermined acres.
Mike, it's the same article, printed over and over again.
It's NOT different accounts printed in multiple NY papers.
You're being intellectually dishonest AGAIN.
You offer the same article, printed multiple times, as independent contemporaneous articles when nothing could be further from the truth,
AND, those articles contain the same info, including the same mistakes, the same ERRORS IN FACT.
How can you continue the charade of claiming that these are indepedent reports when they're identical copies merely reprinted ?[/b]
Why don't you believe him?
Because these are ALLEGED quotes. And, the quotes contain glaring errors that Macdonald would never make.
And, the quote you cited claims that the turf is fine, when we know it was horrible.
Macdonald tells us the land was impovershed and needed 10,000 loads of soil.
Yet, the articles (same article merely reprinted) claims the soil/turf was excellent.
[/b]
It's very clear that he's talking about the property he had just secured at Sebonac Neck...205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available and he tells us exactly what his plans are in real time.
If it was undetermined, how would he know he needed 205 acres ?
Why not 120 ? 160 ? 180 ?
The land had never been surveyed, he had to ride ponies on it, so how did he ordane that he needed 205 acres as opposed to any other amount ?
[/b]
What is possibly unclear??
Max Behr's article talks about the process back then of securing enough land and then figuring out how to best fit 18 good golf holes on it as being the regular drill. Why is that so preposterous that you can't buy a direct quote from CBM himself that this is what he was going to do?
What direct quote ?
Why did you erase the Behr quote you posted ?
-
David,
Wow.
At the time of securing an undetermined 205 acres out of 450 available, CBM had it nailed down to a strip 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.
He had even identified his clubhouse, as well as features to use on 4 holes.
Sure sounds like a completed golf course routing to me! ;)
Bam...I'm sure from that exacting specificity the precise locations of all the eighteen greens and tees just spring like magic from CBM's fingertips.
I guess Pacific Dunes was completely routed when Mike Keiser told Tom Doak that he could have that stretch along the Pacific, and Riviera's routing was determined as soon as George Thomas decided to build within the canyon's confines??
CBM roughly knew his start and end points when he selected the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, but so does EVERY GOLF COURSE EVER BUILT once a clubhouse site is determined.
He would have had to be foolish not to want to take his course down to the beauty of Peconic Bay, but that was 1.43 miles away, which dictated a longer, narrow swath.
Along the way, he had located a great hill for an Alps, a ridge for a redan nearby, and the inlet near Bulls Head Bay.
Big Fat Frigging Deal. That's a golf course routing???
Thanks for proving my point, David.
Patrick,
Do you even read my posts, or the articles I've posted here?
They aren't the same articles in the least. Of course, sometimes when someone is EXACTLY QuOTED it does come out the same!! ;)
Here's two appearing in separate newspapers from December 15th.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
These appeared on the Saturday following the Friday CBM signed the papers to secure the 205 acres. On Monday this appeared in another paper;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
Jim,
CBM originally approximated that he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course.
The Max Behr article confirms the thinking of the time that somewhere in the range of 110 acres was suffificent for an ideal course if it was properly configured.
CBM's previous rejected offer for 120 acres near the real estate component near the cancal PROVES that's what he thought he needed.
How does his securing 205 "undetermined" acres out of a 450 acre tract "box himself in"?
And how exactly does that equate to buying just the land you need for the golf course??
There hasn't been a more ridiculous attempt to equate some precise "hand in glove" fitting since OJ Simpson. ;) ;D
-
Patrick,
What do you mean I erased the Behr quote?
Unlike others who posted it completely out of context here, yesterday I produced the entire article on which you and David are trying to base some assumption of CBM routing the course during a two-day horseback ride when it says nothing of the sort.
Here it is again.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_8c3fe941c0_o.jpg)
And Patrick...have you even read the articles on this thread?? Or CBM's book??? Seriously??
Because if you had, you'd KNOW that CBM had been looking for 205 acres since 1904!!!
You should go back and read them instead of just assuming you know everything there is to know about CBM and NGLA and just taking a contentious, combative approach to everything written here because you're starting to appear very biased and a bit foolish at times and you're better than that.
Here's how it worked.
110 estimated acres for the golf course
5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds
1.5 acre lots for each of the 60 Founders
Voila...205 acres.
It is repeated in the Founders Agreement, and in article after article. Whigham himself repeated the plan to include Founders lots in article HE WROTE in 1906.
They thought they had it down to a science....
Course around 6100 yards
Fairways average 50-55 yards
etc., etc. etc...
-
Jim,
This article from March 1906 shows why I said CBM had "cash in hand".
If he had already completed a routing for the golf course he wouldn't have had to "secure" 205 "undetermined" acres in December 1906.
He could have just proceeded to purchase and not had to wait several months until sometime in Spring of 1907 to complete the deal.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5362495188_4c63d63484_o.jpg)
-
David,
Wow.
At the time of securing an undetermined 205 acres out of 450 available, CBM had it nailed down to a strip 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.
He had even identified his clubhouse, as well as features to use on 4 holes.
Sure sounds like a completed golf course routing to me! ;)
If you understood the error in the measurement of width, and the long narrow strip, with it's border constraints, and the siting of various holes, you would realize that on an OUT and BACK routing, by default, the routing was complete.
If you take a chain, with 18 links and you configure it out and back, with the 9th and 10th links being at the extreme end of the OUT and BACK configuration, the holes naturally fall into place. And, when you site some of the individual links, like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th,10th, 11th, 12th and 13th, the routing is pretty much set in stone. Then, when you add the 8th, 16th and 17th, all his primary template holes, the routing is done.
With his fixed starting and finishing points, his defined boudary to the East, his water boundaries to the East and North, and just four (4) holes, the 4th, 5th, 12th and 13th, the routing is complete.[/b]
Bam...I'm sure from that exacting specificity the precise locations of all the eighteen greens and tees just spring like magic from CBM's fingertips.
The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing.
We know that greens and tees were moved subsequently.
But, the routing is clearly there. That a hole was 340 or 350 or 360 is of little significance to the overall routing.[/b]
I guess Pacific Dunes was completely routed when Mike Keiser told Tom Doak that he could have that stretch along the Pacific, and Riviera's routing was determined as soon as George Thomas decided to build within the canyon's confines??
I can understand your desire to create a false/flawed analogy. You're getting desperate again.
Your own newspaper articles prove the existance of a quick and early routing.
Doak and Thomas had a different task, they were burdened with individual hole designs on a far different piece of property.
CBM had no such constraint. He had already designed his holes, he had only to place them on the land, which wasn't a diffucult task.
As to the property, NGLA was a long, very narrow, OUT and BACK strip of land, where the routing completed itself.
It started about 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn, hugged the Shinnecock Golf Course property, then Bulls Head Bay, then Peconic Bay, and then returned to the starting point. It was self completing, especially with the location of just 4 ideal/classic holes.[/b]
CBM roughly knew his start and end points when he selected the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, but so does EVERY GOLF COURSE EVER BUILT once a clubhouse site is determined.
CBM had an even greater advantage, he knew where both his clubhouses would be.
And, he knew that his holes were going to hug the Eastern border of his property until they reached Peconic Bay, and then simpley return to his starting point. As Behr stated, the course routed itself.[/color
He would have had to be foolish not to want to take his course down to the beauty of Peconic Bay, but that was 1.43 miles away, which dictated a longer, narrow swath.
I'm glad you finally agree, 9 holes out to Peconic Bay, 9 holes back to the Shinnecock Inn.
The course routed itself.
You're just about the only one who doesn't understand that.
Let me correct myself, you're the only one who does NOT want to understand that because, as you stated, your agenda is:[/b]
Mike Cirba
Instead, my agenda has been to show that CBM WOULD not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him. That is very much to his credit, and a fundamental reason why NGLA is so monumentally great.
Along the way, he had located a great hill for an Alps, a ridge for a redan nearby, and the inlet near Bulls Head Bay.
Big Fat Frigging Deal. That's a golf course routing???
It is when you have an 18 link chain that goes OUT and BACK and you've cited just four (4) holes, # 4, # 5, # 13 and # 14.
Take a chain, of any length, lay it out so that both ends are located at the same spot, then stretch it out as far as it will go, AND, You have your routing. It's that easy. And, it's made even easier when four of the links are sited.[/b]
Patrick,
Do you even read my posts, or the articles I've posted here?
Every one[/b]
They aren't the same articles in the least.
Of course, sometimes when someone is EXACTLY QuOTED it does come out the same!! ;)
First you tell us that they're not the same articles in the least.
Then you tell us they're exactly the same.
And, you don't know if Macdonald was quoted, you can ONLY allege that he's quoted.
Further, why would Macdonald state that the land had "fine turf" when in fact Macdonald himself wrote that the land was impoverished and needed 10,000 LOADS of soil.
Obviously, the article is seriously flawed, and, Macdonald, knowing full well that the land was lousy, wouldn't misrepresent such a critical issue.
So, your newspaper articles, which are the same artilce, parroted over and over and over again, aren't multiple sources, they're merely copies of a flawed article.[/b]
Here's two appearing in separate newspapers from December 15th.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5204/5366880303_2da37bcbbb_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/5367491808_eae7d2455b_o.jpg)
These appeared on the Saturday following the Friday CBM signed the papers to secure the 205 acres.
Once again, you're wrong, and the articles are wrong.
You state that the articles indicate that CBM signed for 205 acres, but, the articles claim he signed for 200 acres.
AND, both articles state that, proving what I've said to you all along, that these artlcles are seriously flawed when it comes to the facts, and that these articles are merely reprints of one another, not independent articles crafted by independent, first party research.
You continually present repetitive, seriously flawed articles and try to pawn them off as legitimate representations of the facts, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Now, my question to you, don't you even read your own articles, or do you just post whatever Joe and others supply you without exercising a modicum of due diligence ?[/b]
On Monday this appeared in another paper;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
Jim,
CBM originally approximated that he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course.
The Max Behr article confirms the thinking of the time that somewhere in the range of 110 acres was suffificent for an ideal course if it was properly configured.
CBM's previous rejected offer for 120 acres near the real estate component near the cancal PROVES that's what he thought he needed.
How does his securing 205 "undetermined" acres out of a 450 acre tract "box himself in"?
And how exactly does that equate to buying just the land you need for the golf course??
There hasn't been a more ridiculous attempt to equate some precise "hand in glove" fitting since OJ Simpson. ;) ;D
If you understood the configuration of the property, and if you paid attention to Bryan Izatt's and David Moriarty's measurements, you would understand why he needed 205 acres.
The problem is, you do NOT want to understand because it undermines your stated agenda which I posted above[/b]
-
Patrick,
I'm sorry, but 4 = 18 does not compute. ;)
In fact, he doesn't even tell us he's found four complete holes end-to-end...just a big hill for the Alps, an adjacent redan hole, an inlet for an Eden, and the Cape.
I'm glad that retrospectively you see his task as so easy as to be almost self-evident, but I don't think you are giving CBM nearly enough credit for what he did there.
As regards your earlier contention that CBM's quote about the "good turf" and "sandy sub-soil" showing that the articles must be flawed, your argument is with Macdonald, not with me.
Why do you think CBM started construction in spring of 1907 and the course didn't open "informally" until OVER THREE YEARS LATER in summer 1910??
It's because CBM miscalculated.
He thought he had great sandy soil for growing grass, just like in the Old Country.
Unfortunately, that was not the case.
As described in George Bahto's "The Evangellist of Golf" on page 66, "Disaster on the Green 1907-1908";
"He discovered there was far less loam in the sandy soil of Long Island than there was in "similarly situated areas of Scotland and England." A seedbed needed to be established to properly germinate rather than just dispersing seed on the ground. The light sandy soil on Long Island was "ideal for playing the game", but was much more difficult for growing fine grasses than that of similar situations in the British Isles."
It's a great book, Patrick...you should definitely get a copy.
-
In the map David posted with the red and blue lines, where would the Shinnecock Inn have been located exactly?
-
"The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing." - Patrick Mucci
Patrick,
If that is your definition of a golf course routing, then it's no wonder that Jeff Brauer and I don't agree with you in the least.
It's ALL about the exact specificity of the greens and tees.
It's ALL about locating 18 of each at specific points on the property that make sense individually and collectively.
It's ALL about how they flow together, complement each other, and create a diverse yet consistent, contiguous challenge that captures the golfer's imagination, spirit, and interest.
It's ALL about how they utilize the best natural features of the property, and tie into the overall surrounds and aesthetic of the individual site.
No wonder we can't agree here.
As regards the amount of land CBM was looking to purchase for his dual goals of golf course and Founders Lots, please see the following;
CBM's 1904 Founders Agreement Letter;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_b.jpg)
HJ Whigham writing about the plan in March 1906;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
CBM's return from abroad in June 1906;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
Patrick...he wanted just over 200 acres before he even found the Sebonac Neck property.
This couldn't be clearer.
-
Andy,
Slightly above the "E" in "Google" in the lower right portion of the aerial.
-
Mike,
Yeah, it is sometimes difficult to comprehend all the time frames from way back then, as we tend to compress things. In essence, the article was quoting CBM at the time, who was mistaken, so the article was mistaken.
Going back to a point I made earler, if CBM got back in June, and took a month or more to find and make the canal site offer, it would be August 1 or so before he even started looking at the Neck. Assuming David and Patrick are right, and that most of the work (and I think some of it was done, as you just noted) then it was still a 4 month period of work until the option was taken. If it was done in days, what exactly would take so long to secure the option?
And, if any issues were still left that occupied the Nov-May time frame, then there were nine months of potential routing time, although we have no idea how much of it was actually used on the routing issues, and how much on other practical and related issues.
And, for that matter, look at Merion - from June 1910 until April 1911 to approve the final routing with CBM, totaling about 10 months from first looking at the property and deciding what parts to use to starting construction. Funny, but June 1906 to May 1907 sounds like the exact same time frame to me!
But I agree that I think Patrick and I (and you) look at routing differently. He may draw the line of a completed routing at a rough sketch form, with tees moving several yard to achieve distances, exact green sites still subject to wiggle, etc. While all those things can happen right up until grass seed is dropped, I tend to fix the end of routing after about 90-95% of the wiggle is taken out. And, none of us knows when or even if CBM gave a horses petute about defining the end of routing and the beginning of detail design. IMHO, given the link to specific yardages of his ideal holes, it would be further down the line than Patrick's terminology, but then again, its not worth arguing about among friends, either.
-
(thanks Mike)
-
Jeff,
In CBM's book he makes it sound like he made an offer on the Canal site a few weeks after Alvord bought the property from a British concern, which would have been in the late 1905 timeframe.
I'm not sure if his recollection is correct, but this would have been BEFORE he made his last trip abroad for several months to study holes and draw sketches and have surveyor's maps made.
In either case, your correct that this process, by definition, took much longer than the 2-3 days on horseback and CBM himself tells us that in his book.
It's a ridiculous argument at this point, where solid, detailed, quote-filled, concurrent, contemporaneous news articles are being challenged as meaningless.
CBM himself told us how this process happened, as it was happening, and consistent with what he later wrote in his book.
These guys just don't like his message because it doesn't fit their agenda that CBM would route a course in a day in their desperate, illogical attempts to credit him with authorship of Merion.
He was the antithesis of that approach, and frankly, it's an insult to his meticulous, calculated, detailed, careful, painstaking style to suggest otherwise.
-
Mike,
Now that you mention it, I think you are right on that time frame. My bad.
As I mentioned above, IF CBM routed Merion, it didn't happen in a day, because his letter to Gates tells us he didn't have the topo in front of him. I never had the impression that this was David's contention anyway, just that he had it routed before Nov. 15, 1910 site plan presented to the members. Again, that is a five month time period, IF it happened that way, nine if we count his known involement in selecting the final routing in April 1911, just before construction (or just after if we count some of the land clearing going on)
I think its only Patrick that is really saying the one day theory, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves him, unless he is saying CBM routed it while at the NGLA site visit by the committee over the weekend, or in the one day when he came back to select from among five committee plans. But, since we know he considered it in both March and April, that is still a month time frame. Maybe he is from Venus and I am from Mars or some such, bu it all makes no sense to me.
Either way, one project does not necessarily equate to another, so any similarities or differences can be easily explained by detailed circumstances different among each.
On the other hand, I can see exactly where DM comes from on his logic tree, and his reasons for thinking it was probably done before those newspaper articles, but as usual, there are just enough conflicting reports that we are back to the old "which one is more reliable" arguments, and we all seem to value them a bit differently.
-
Jeff,
If David doesn't agree with Patrick on his 2-day horseback ride routing over an unsurveyed site only navigable via pony, which I know he doesn't, he should simply say so in the interest of advancing the discussion.
In fact, he won't answer that question.
Ask him yourself...I have...multiple times here but he ducks it every time.
And since I know he doesn't beieve it he should simply stop trying to defend Patrick's argument with the type of nonsense he posted last night where he tries to equate the mention of a few natural features for template holes into a completed routing.
While you're at it, ask him if he agrees with Patrick that those news articles misquoted CBM when he said he was going to spend the next five months deciding on the holes to reproduce as well as their yardages.
All that had been decided by the time that CBM secured 205 "undetermined" acres in December 1906 was;
1) The vague general outlines of the purchase, stretching from Shinnecock Inn to Peconic Bay and back
2) Natural features for an Alps, an adjacent Redan, and Eden, and a Cape.
The rest of the holes, their placement, which templates would fit...their yardages...ALL of that was to be worked out later.
You know it, David knows it, I know it....only Patrick remains convinced by mythology of his own making.
It would just make it much easier to continue discussion if David would finally just tell Patrick he's wrong, because I know David believes it.
-
It's always difficult to jump back in to these conversations after 20 hours because alot gets posted in the interim so I'll just jump in where you are now.
For the purposes of this discussion, why is it not obvious that neither Pat or I are arguing that every detail of the course was identified and planned at the time of the December option purchase? All we are saying is that he knew well enough where each hole would go to draw a line around the perimeter. This may diminish your interpretations of the term routing, but that's it. I've read numerous times on here of architects routing a course from a topo map prior to seeing the property...how could spending 2 or 3 days on the property be less informative?
Another question...what about the site NGLA currently occupies would need to be surveyed in order to determine if golf could be played there? The lack of it being surveyed is held up as a major impediment to their efforts, why would that slow him down from identifying whether or not a course could be developed?
-
Jim,
The short answer is, why don't you believe what CBM himself said he was going to do as a routing process AFTER he secured the 205 acres? He said the next several months would be spent determining which holes to reproduce and the yardages of those holes.
How is that not routing??
Determining land is viable for a golf course is not routing a golf course on that land.
That's why he left himself plenty of room, latitude, and undetermined boundaries.
-
Let me go find his exact quote to dissect it for you.
I believe his words, as with Behr's, indicate alot had been done prior to the option...although I agree it's an interpretation difference you and I are sure to have.
Be back...
-
Jim and Mike,
The best argument for the routing being pretty well set is the comment about seeing the Alps and turning around to find a natural Redan. I believe those comments refer to actions before Nov 1906, don't they? The Cape hole would be obvious, too, and is mentioned in the articles. That is why I can see David contending that with the east boundary naturally defined, and the west mid boundary roughed out because of those holes, and the out and back nature of the rest, a lot of the boundary had to be close by the time of the option. I get it, I really do.
So, again, its semantics as to what is routing, and a question of just how close those holes were to being located finally, etc. Thus, my contention that those template holes were found, and in sufficient number for CBM to know this site was workable. I have to reread the articles again, but I believe there is some mention of finding the non template holes yet to be done. Again, while fascinating, I don't doubt that the routing was a continuous process and some of the legal things, like options, may or may not have had an effect on the actual design and design process, which of course is our biggest area of concern.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5411056004_62c2a1e675_z.jpg)
Mike,
Is there any chance the verbal agreement between CBM and the land owners to buy 205 acres predated the contractual option to buy the land?
That big paragraph on page 187 here certainly implies they were two different events. I say this because it's wholly apparent that they staked out the land they wanted prior to executing the option, would you disagree?
-
Jim,
Here's the quote for you below;
As regards Max Behr, I think his whole article is simply about the process of finding enough acreage of the right configuration.
He suggests that National had it right because by definition, they purchased way more land than the roughly 110 or so that is generally needed for the golf course, and because by definition, an out and back routing is most efficient in terms of non-wasted space.
However, his mention of the steps and timing of the specific project steps is second-hand at best, as he wasn't there when it was routed, he wasn't a founding member, and he was writing his article that tangentially mentioned National ten years after the fact.
December 15th, 1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
That is specifically where I believe we disagree.
ALL of the articles written after CBM executed the option tell us that the 205 acres were undetermined, and that latitude would be given to him to locate it as best as served his purposes for the golf course.
So, it was a contract of intent...to buy 205 acres, not 205 specific acres.
It's even possible...very probable actually, that the land was still unsurveyed at that point, so it would have been impossible to execute a contract with specific metes and bounds.
That was to be determined later, and would be written into the final purchase agreement that was executed months later in the spring of 1907.
Is it possible they were two different events, as you suggest?
Yes, it's possible, but that extends the timeline for doing the routing even further back.
For instance, let's say they got some informal "agreement" to sell them 205 acres at $200 an acre back in October after looking at the site the first time.
Why then would they still need to sign a contract to "secure" some 'undetermined" 205 acres two months later, before then proceeding to spend the next five months doing what?? prior to signing an actual purchase contract in Spring of 1907?
-
Mike,
Do we know the dates of the horseback rides?
Wouldn't that have been the natural starting point of the routing process? I'm not sure where you're going with the comment about moving back the starting point to October.
-
Jim,
All we know about the horseback rides is;
1) It was 2 or 3 days
2) They had to take horses because the property was unwalkable due to overgrowth of brambles and bogs.
3) They studied the contours of the land and presumably the soil types
4) They decided that it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price
5) Afterwards the Company "agreed" to sell them an unspecified 205 acres out of the 450 available and they could locate it to best serve their purposes for the course.
AFTER that agreement, CBM tell us;
"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.
CBM, writing 20 years after the fact, boils down the whole years-long effort into a couple of sentences/paragraphs, but this last sentence is important because nowhere does CBM tell us how long this took and we know it happened AFTER he got agreement from the company to sell them 205 unspecified acres.
My contention, and I believe the contemporaneous materials including CBM's own quote at the time support this, is that his work happened AFTER December 1910, and the staking out of the land preceded the actual purchase in the spring of 1907.
-
Jeff,
Sometimes a picture is worth...
Taking David's aerial, I've made some changes that I think illustrate our differences.
In light green I've roughly approximated the location of the entire 450 acre tract that CBM was considering.
In purple in the lower right corner I've drawn a blob meant to indicate the location of the Shinneock Inn.
Circled in purples heading northwest is the area we know CBM wanted to build his Eden and Cape, along the little inlet from Bulls Head Bay, so by definition we know he had to somehow get from his proposed clubhouse to there during the routing.
Heading slightly southwest from there, I've encircled the location of the Alps hill and the adjoining site for the Redan.
In December 1906, those were ALL the natural features mentioned by CBM that he found and wanted to include.
We can also presume that he wanted to head over to Peconic Bay for at least some of the routing.
We also know he needed to get back to the clubhouse.
That's it.
I believe this is what he knew when he optioned the 205 undetermined acres, it's what he told us in both is book and in news accounts, and he figured out the rest later over the next several months as he told us he was going to do, with final staking of the holes, the property, and the final purchase taking place by Spring 1907.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5491773089_c26ca800bf_o.jpg)
-
It's amazing how much debate can follow on the back of so little real information.
As with the Merion debates, I find it amazing that the guiding forces of these projects, with no financial constraints and more or less unlimited land opportunity (I know what the Merion guys said about land being bought up, but don't buy it...) would agree to purchase a piece of land just barely large enough for their purposes without knowing full well what they were going to do with it.
I guess that's all I have to say about it...for now...
-
Jim,
How is 205 acres barely enough for their purposes when CBM thought his golf course would take 110 acres?
I don't understand that at all...he had plenty of land at his disposal when he signed an OPTION on an undetermined 205 acres out of a much larger available parcel.
An OPTION wasn't a final sales contract, in either the case of NGLA or Merion.
It didn't include metes and bounds.
-
Mike,
Regarding your analysis of the aerial I think it''s vital to note the direction each of those features would be approached from. This goes another step towards the routing "laying itself out"...
-
Jim,
An OPTION wasn't a final sales contract, in either the case of NGLA or Merion.
It didn't include metes and bounds.
Whether or not it included the metes and bounds, doesn't the option contract need to represent the specific asset to be purchased? I would imagine there could be a side agreement which allows for flexibility within reason and at no charge.
-
Jim,
In gross terms, yes...I'm sure the contract said something about the undeveloped, unsurveyed Sebonac Neck property in the original agreement securing 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available.
But if the land hadn't been surveyed prior, how would the contract possibly indicate a specific section that was being secured?
You have to recall that this was wasteland...no one thought it had value and it had never been surveyed by the owner or anyone else.
-
You have to recall that this was wasteland...no one thought it had value and it had never been surveyed by the owner or anyone else.
Prior to the horseride...which may have happened as early as June, correct?
-
The main thing is, do you think a formal option can be executed without the metes and bounds? I don't know for sure, but would not expect it could. Assuming it cannot, then we know it was surveyed by November.
-
Jim,
Patrick has contended that an option needs a specific parcel, but I see no reason that it would have to, if the thing that needs to be studied is a boundary within a boundary. Not a lawyer, could be wrong.
I disagree with you on two points-
That Alps hill might have been approached from two different directions, maybe more with similar results, and that would be determined by how the holes before and after worked out. It didn't route itself.
Also, I think there were financial constraints at both NGLA and Merion. CBM didn't have the money for the clubhouse, and thus had to persuade the Realty Co to build a hotel that would double as his clubhouse. Merion had a budget for land purchase, which they had to stay within, but eventually went over by three acres, costing them, I think, $85K, much more than the origina 120 acres they had agreed to. Just because some of the members were wealthy, MCC had to consider costs for all members, and its clear from the subscription agreement that CBM wasn't going to front his dream project with his own money! Rich folks rarely do.....
And, as I mentioned to your similar comments on the Merion thread, of the 50 courses I have designed, I may have had parcel flexibility on 4. Both these courses were lucky and ideal in the fact that they built in some flexibility with the landowners. That Behr devotes an entire 1915 article to that ideal suggests that many courses back in those days didn't consider parcel size and shape before hiring the gca or forming the committee either, doesn't it?
-
I think one of two things is true here;
Either CBM had a loose option without metes and bounds by December and did the surveying/routing/clearing of the property in the months after that as was reported contemporaneously, or;
If indeed an "Option" by definition (as Patrick contends and Jim seems to support) was for a very specific piece of land, down to metes and bounds, then;
A whole bunch of things including the horse ride, the hiring of Seth Raynor, and the surveying, mapping, and routing of the property all had to happen in the months prior to December, sometime after June 1906.
But then..
Why would he have to wait another five months til Spring 1907 to actually complete the purchase when we know his subscriber monies were all lined up? And, what was he doing during that time?
And why would all the December 1906 newspaper articles claim that the land was "undetermined" and state that CBM was going to do all of that activity in the next five months?
-
Jim and Mike,
I believe, but am not really sure about NY law back in those days, that they could secure an option for a specific amount of land. Perhaps they even had a boundary for a specific 205 acres, but a side agreement that they could swap it to another firm parcel at the time of sale, if agreed to by both parties.
Having been involved in projects that have had friendly land swaps, I am fairly certain that the parties can find a techincality to get around the law, if it says it has to be a specific parcel.
I really think the whole discussion on limitations of options is kind of moot, at least from my experience. Yours may vary.
-
Jeff,
Considering Gates and the boys bought the land for Merion and then asked who else wanted in, I think we can agree limited money was of little concern. He could have done it a hundred different ways to get a similar result, financially, for the rest of the membership.
At NGLA, sure, the budget was what the budget was, and if he felt a piece of land were going to cost triple what he paid and be worth the expese he could have scrounged up the money. The ultimatum style ending to the subscription letter makes that quite clear. They weren't out begging on street corners to fill the bucket.
I'll concede on the various directions to approach the Alps if you give me the other three...
-
Jeff,
I would certainly agree that the parties can negotiate any flexibility they want on top of an option, but in the context of CBM saying they agreed to buy 205 acres then staked out the land they wanted then took an option in November I think it's reasonable to think these may have been two agreements: A verbal agreement on 205 acres followed by a formal Option. Page 187 posted above with the paragraph beginning "However" being most important to me.
Any room to budge on this?
-
Jim,
Besides simply his reiteration of facts in that section, the other reason I believe that both the "agreement" and "securing" of the property on Page 187 refer essentially to the same Nov/December 1906 event is that the same company rejected a prior offer of CBM's for land near the canal.
Why in the world would CBM go back and first "earnestly" study the contours again, then essentially pick out the land and routing he wanted for this golf course, and then stake out the property if all he had was a handshake "agreement" that wasn't binding on the seller??!?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
To make it clear exactly what land he wanted.
I read "stake out" to me boundary stakes, as opposed to staking out the golf holes...agree or no?
What difference does it make that this sae firm declined a previous offer?
-
Jim,
Recall that to do what you've just suggested, whether it was golf holes OR just the overall land boundaries, Seth Raynor would have already had to have been hired to survey the property.
Exactly what would they have put in the contract to determine the boundaries of the land without it having been surveyed?
-
Mike,
When was Seth Raynor hired? I'll admit ignorance.
-
Jim,
We don't know, to be honest.
But, we do know that CBM says in Scotland's Gift that he "hired him to survey our Sebonac Neck property", and "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."
and we also know that CBM in 1912 wrote about Raynor;
"In the purchase of our property, in surveying the same, in his influence with the community on our behalf..etc." in thanking him.
-
Jim,
Taking a little lunch break here and had this thought:
Which do we think is more likely?
CBM writing in precise chronological order 22 years later, even knowing that he makes the first and second offer sound consecutive when separated by over a year, jumps back and forth between design, topsoil, design, etc., not to mention only giving us two exact dates?
Or,
The common sense logic of finding generally suitable property, taking an option to determine if it was truly suitable (using lawyers as necessary to make sure the transaction met all legal requirments), finalizing what he wanted, and then finalizing the purchase? Or in not incurring survey and other expense with Raynor until he had the property secured with an option?
Sometimes, when I read these threads, I am amazed at what convoluted hoops we go through to fit the pieces together, often in strange ways. I have found , doing similar historic research that the simplest answer is usually the right one. The twists and turns are more Hollywood plot than historic research and reality.
Just my thoughts.
-
Jeff,
Bingo.
-
Mike,
"We don't know"? Is there nothing in your evidence to suggest he was hired in 1907? Anything? If so, great. If not, then why would you ask me a few posts ago..."Recall that to do what you've just suggested, whether it was golf holes OR just the overall land boundaries, Seth Raynor would have already had to have been hired to survey the property.
-
Jim,
Because it's an EXPENSE, and because I questioned earlier whether Raynor could do such as survey with 1906 equipment on the impassible on foot acreage as it was described or whether it would have to be largely cleared prior, meaning possibly additional expense.
If all CBM had was a handshake from a guy who shot him down prior, why would he do this?
-
Jeff,
Your either/or is a bit ridiculous.
What do you suppose happened with regards to NGLA in the time between the two offers he made? Assuming it's nothing, why wouldn't he write those two events consecutively.
Regarding hiring Raynor versus paying an Option Deposit...why would he pay the Option Deposit before knowing full well he wanted the property when the owner was letting have full reign to walk it for free?
-
Mike,
Are you implying that CBM had a bad professional relationship with the real estate company because they didn't accept a bid he made for a different piece of land?
-
Just out of curiosity, what difference does it make when exactly any of this happened? I slept through that part of the thread.
-
Jim,
No, I'm implying he'd be careful and want to lock the seller in.
-
Before hiring Raynor?
So you're sticking with the Option of November 1906 being done without the land surveyed by anyone? No metes and bounds?
-
Jim,
ALL of the December 1906 news reports about securing the 205 acres said that the boundaries of the purchase were still undetermined, so no, no metes and bounds at that point.
Why don't you believe them?
-
Jim,
If its true that he made it in 1905, then we know that he spent a lot of time in Europe surveying his golf holes. There is an article that tells us that, and that he will return about June 1906. It does seem odd that he wasn't in that much of a hurry, but maybe being rejected was a blessing in disguise, as he realized that maybe just any old 120 acres would do.
As to paying the option deposit, if he knew full well he was going to buy it, then he doesn't lose a dime, does he? I don't know if he was with a strained relationship with the realty company, but we do know he had some strained relations with others because of his dominant personality. Or, its just more likely that this is the way large land purchases are done.
And, maybe he was just being prudent in taking the option knowing they may back out. We don't know how close he came to buying the first parcel or what the negotiations were like, but again, its a large chunk of money, and not too many people would make it on a handshake basis, in some cases, even if dealing with family.
The reasons options exist is to let buyers do more study without fear of others buying (not too likely in this case) or the seller backing out, changing terms, etc. We know roads and railroads were being extended at this same time, and it is quite possible that the real estate company could figure the land was more valuble than originally agreed to. Speculation, but it happens, and options are there for just that purpose.
Like you, I don't think the exact nature of the legal aspect of the acquistion process had much to do with the final form, although those articles do tell us that CBM did know that the Realty guys had agreed to build a hotel that would be handy for him, as part of the deal. If that part of the agreement wasn't legally formalized until the option of Nov 1906, I would suspect CBM would not even start the routing and couldn't know that he had to start and end at that point, while others seem to think he knew that months earlier. That would be another big money outlay that might affect whether the deal moved forward or not, and I doubt it would be done by either side on a handshake, do you?
We also know (if you believe TePaul) that Alvord Co. made other concessions - like filling some of the swamps.
-
Are you sure the Inn was being built as part of this agreement? I thought it was an independent effort, and possibly already underway at the time of the land purchase.
-
Speaking of the Inn, CBM got the date of the fire wrong in his book as well.
It burned to the ground in April, 1908, not 1909.
CBM tells us that he had agreement to use it for his clubhouse. I'm not sure when that was formalized but we do know he knew it was/was being built at the time he did the routing, otherwise, how could he say he was going to locate his first hole near there?
-
Well, I have been called dingenuous again in a private email, so I thought I would provide the official definition, given that around here, it seems to be the new "awesome" or "superstar" (i.e. overused word):
"lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"
Thanks, Pat, for basically calling us all liars. Real classy, when in truth, we are all quite earnest, and none of us really knows a damn thing about what happened, least of all you.
Jim,
On the Inn, my info came from the one conversation I had off line with TePaul, and he says he got it from Goddard, who is writing a history of Long Island/Shinnecock Hills area. I have not corroborated it, and you can take it for what its worth. If you want to believe that TePaul is disingenuous and not to be trusted, I understand that you won't consider that information, and it could be wrong.
The articles really only say that the Realty Co. is building it, but we wouldn't expect them to tell us necessarily that it was part of their agreement with NGLA and CBM. That said, given their main focus was on building their first lots way west near the canal, and the NGLA land was said to be worthless, what other reasons could they have to select that site for the Inn? It was near the railway station, that they also moved (according to tepaul) for the benefit of NGLA as well. With so little development out there, golfers going to Shinny and NGLA would be the only real source of traffic. Its not like it was on the beach.....
And if it burned down in 1908 after CBM had trouble getting the golf course open, reducing traffic even further? I smell arson, but, I digress. (add smiley, as I am just kidding)
-
March 19th, 1907.
Note the parts about views of the Atlantic, as well as the opening timeframe for the Inn.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5492806818_434b30243d_b.jpg)
-
For the "Option" to have this flexibility (no metes and bounds etc...) CBM would seem to hold all the downside risk...do you think he would take that risk at this stage of developing his dream course?
In other words, for the "Option" to be so informal that CBM had a minimal deposit cost (less than the cost of a surveyor apparently) and enable the boundaries to be moved for either sides benefit he really didn't seem all that committed to the land he was advertising as holding the potential for the greatest golf course in the world.
Might be a stretch, but I have a hard time seeing him "purchasing" the land without a survey.
-
Well, that seems to counter what Tom told Jeff, unless it only took a couple months to conceive and build...
-
Jim,
Whether by letter of intent earlier, or option in November, the risk of the Realty Company getting nuttier than a squirrel turd would be about the same, no? It would all depend on what was written in whatever instrument they used.
My understanding is that a letter of intent is less formal and binding on the seller than an option. But again, I am not sure the exact mechanics are a big issue, as these kinds of deals get done all the time. Merion is another example. I don't recall us discussing the legal mechanics of the wiggle room on golf house road, and maybe that was a true gentlemans agreement (although dollar figures for extra land were written in) as many people were on both sides of the deal.
At NGLA, CBM building a golf course of that caliber on land they didn't have plans for was a huge boon for the Real Estate in that area and hastened sales, which had been slow to that point. I think we can assume that both sides were working in good faith. I mean, the deal did get done to CBM's satisfaction didn't it? Lets not overlook the truly obvious when postulating here!
BTW, nice catch on the dates of the Inn there. VERY ingenuous! To be done, they would have had to have started at the time the option was executed, not just after they sold CBM the land in spring.
-
A few pages ago, I made the case that the land had already been chosen and planning was well under way at the time CBM took the option, and his response was that I "made his point for him."
Which point is that, exactly? He has changed his "point" more than Lady Gaga changes her outfits, and frankly even her outfits make more sense than most of Mike's points.
Is he referring to his his fictional alternative site, 2.3 miles long by 120 yards wide stretching from Shinnecock Hills GC almost to the Canal, with the North Highway running entirely up its gut? Or how his point about how CBM had also tried to buy land west of the Canal, in "Good Ground," and that this attempted transaction involved land NOT related to or connected with the Sebonack Property.
Or his point about how at the time CBM optioned and purchased the 205 acres, he was planning on putting a golf course, range, and infrastructure on only only 115 acres, and that the other 90 acres of the property would be turned over to the founders for estates?
Or his point aobut how even as planned the 205 acres left plenty of room for these supposed estate parcels. Or his point in repeatedly misrepresenting what Raynor was hired to do, even though CBM clearly address this.
Or is he referring to his REAL point about Merion, where he blatantly misrepresents my views regarding both Merion and NGLA, and yet his claims still make no sense?
These are just a few of his recent "points," but probably not the ones he had in mind. For far from making thessa points for him, I explained how his points were erroneous, only to see him kick and fight and get indignant and then silently and obliviously skip to his next agenda driven point as if he had always agreed with me on the previous issue, maybe to return and fight the same battle again a bit later. Might I suggest that whenever Mike claims I made his point for him, what it really means is that he is trying to drop or hide something and change the focus to his next misrepresentation.
But I am not quite ready to "make" a few of his points "for him," and would like to explore them a bit further, inconsistencies, contradictions, and all.
Rather than all this crazy speculation, can we please return for a few moments to what Mike Cirba has claimed, and whether it makes any sense whatsoever GIVEN THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE? I promise that I will provide a breakdown of where we agree and disagree, and provide some suggestion of how to determine which is the more likely interpretation.
Thanks.
-
Jim,
According to those articles, CBM had NONE of the downside risk.
It was up to HIM to determine the final boundaries of his purchase.
It was reported;
"The holding has not as yet been definitely settled, as the owners of the property have allowed the golfers the privilege of determining LATER the exact boundaries of their purchase.
Why don't you believe the news articles, Jim?
I know Patrick has to try to say they lied because he's biased, but what's your problem with them?
They tell us exactly what happened and when.
-
Jeff,
My suspicion is that the land company knew the land was at least as valuable as the $200 CBM had agreed to pay. Leaving the door open on the "Option" would be weighted heavily to their advantage as compared to CBM who was clearly eager to get started and had announced publicly that he bought the land. I'm not suggesting that was their intent so much as asking why on earth CBM would expose himself to that risk just to avoid paying an engineer to survey the land.
Forget the newspapers for a second and lets poke holes in CBM's exposure as I just laid it out.
-
Mike,
Let's explore that as well.
What do you suppose CBM gave up to gain that consideration?
-
David,
Having identified some key features they wanted to incorporate as well as deciding to use the Shinnecock Inn as a clubhouse at the time the optioned the property does not equate to routing the golf course prior to optioning 205 unspecified acres in December 1906.
Your argument has been that they routed the golf course, determined it's boundary lines, and then secured the exact land they needed for the golf course, and that is NOT what happened.
Don't go drifting again here.
Stick to the facts.
-
Mike,
Let's explore that as well.
What do you suppose CBM gave up to gain that consideration?
Jim,
I don't think he gave up anything actually.
CBM tells us everyone thought the land in question was worthless, and that included the Realty Co. presumably.
His deciding to add significant value to that land, and to the region, had to be a wet dream for Alvord's company.
THAT is why they were so amenable to leaving it open-ended....to create as great a golf course as CBM could deliver.
Why don't you believe the news articles?
-
Mike,
At Merion, we know that the Western boundary of the Northern half of the property changed locations to some extent during the routing process. Do you have any suggestions as to how these flexible boundaries may have been impacted at NGLA during the routing process?
-
Why don't you believe the news articles?
Which news articles? The ones that say the land was worthless? Or the ones that say Alvrod had just paid $125,000 ($50/acre) for it?
-
Jim,
I think it was even looser than that.
In other words, at Merion we know the boundaries had to be land under the control of the Haverford Development Company, so by definiton, we know the eastern, northern, and southern boundaries were fixed (the holdings of the Dallas Estate and the widely contiguous portions of the Johnson Farm).
Under those constraints, the ONLY place you could move was the western boundary.
Ironically, at Merion you also had the case of some predetermination, as it was determined from the beginning that the old farmhouse near the railroad tracks would serve as the clubhouse. We also know from CBM's visit that he told them the quarry and the creek could be made use of as good features, so they'd want to be sure to incorporate enough land in their purchase to include those.
At NGLA, Alvord's company owned virutally everything in that section of Long Island, and the 450 acres known as Sebonack Neck included land north, west, and south of the Shinnecock Inn.
The northern border seems fixed at the Bullshead Bay and far west at Peconic Bay, but otherwise, I think CBM could have located wherever he wanted within those 450 acres.
In other words, they couldn't "move" a boundary, because none had yet been determined.
-
Jim,
CBM tells us that "everyone thought it was worthless" (i.e. The 450 acre tract of Sebonac Neck), not the newspapers.
Alvord's purchase was for the whole shooting match...2700 acres in all.
I'm talking about the December 1906 news articles where CBM is quoted as saying the next five months would be spent working with his committee determining which holes to reproduce and their yardages.
I'm talking about the December 1906 news articles where CBM tells us that the specifics of the land he secured is still undetermined.
Why don't you believe them?
-
Mike,
You sound a bit insane repeatedly asking the question "why don't you believe the newspaper articles?"
Are you suggesting every newspaper article is correct at all times? Or that I should believe every item written in a newspaper?
-
Jim,
I'm repeating the question because I don't understand why you choose to ignore multiple contemporaneous news articles where CBM is quoted directly that were printed in the days immediately after CBM signed the papers to secure 205 "undetermined" acres.
They clearly spell out what CBM says he's going to do.
Is there a reason you feel they inaccurately reported events or misquoted CBM?
Why is ignoring the best, most contemporaneous source of information at our disposal something you feel is appropriate?
No negativity meant here...I just can't accept you ignoring it without some cause or explanation, Jim.
I've been doing my best to answer all of your questions sincerely and would appreciate the same courtesy.
-
Mike,
As I've said, I think the course was 95% planned by November 1906 simply because they made the decision to buy it at that time and I don't believe they would buy it without knowing what they were going to do with it.
I think the newspapers account of what still needed to be done fits well within that understanding.
I think it's perfectly logical that they would get an agreement to move the property lines small amounts as needed off a clear and distinct starting point. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to think the hole lengths would be tweaked a bit at that phase.
-
Jim,
Then we just disagree on how things were done back then, and that's ok.
I think Max Behr's 1915 article is pretty illustrative to my point that most projects purchased available land first, and then tried to fit the best golf holes to that land.
You can't imagine that someone would secure and/or buy 100+ acres without having a golf course already routed and planned on it, but I don't think that is historically accurate, and I don't know too many cases where I've heard that to be true.
So, we can probably go around again and again, and still arrive at the same place, but I understand your position and simply don't agree that it's supported by historical evidence.
Thanks for the discussion.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_8c3fe941c0_o.jpg)
-
Sticking to the facts and to NGLA, here are a few of Mike's recent "points" that seem to be at the heart of the disagreement.
1. The Horseback Ride.
Mike claims that by mid-December all that CBM and HJW had been done was ride over the 450 acre site for a couple of days, a site which Mike calls "impenetrable" site and a "jungle." More importantly, he claims that about all they accomplished was to determine the general suitability of the 450 acres and of the soil.
The December articles directly contradict this. By mid-December, not only had substantial planning taken place, a number of individuals besides HJW and CBM had been over the land, including including "Emmett, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others."
The October articles, written two months before CBM acquired the Option, contradict this as well. They report that by mid-October CBM and HJW were already well into the project and had already been over the site several times, and they may have even already had surveys of the property!
Looking more closely at this Mike's point, we see that, ironically, Mike has argued on both sides of his red herring notion of the routing having been done over the two or three days on horseback! In fact he has argued for this understanding much more than I ever have. But will he now abandon one side of his "point" as well? Let's see . . .
Mike Cirba, As I understand it, you have made both of the following contradictory claims. Which of these two is correct?:
-- Option 1: By the end of the inspection on horseback had they only generally studied the 450 acre parcel "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical "205 acres" within it. OR . . .
-- Option 2: By the end of the inspection on horseback (all that had supposedly happened as of mid-December) CBM had they already placed the course on 205 acres configured on a two mile strip along a quarter mile of Peconic, a mile of Bullshead Bay, and then three-quarters of a mile to within a few hundred yards of the future site of the Shinnecock Inn, and by then CBM was ready to describe the starting and finishing point and spotlight a number of highlights of the course, including the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape, and had Emmett, Travis, Watson, Chauncey and others join them on their horseback inspection.
Mike can't have it both ways. Were CBM and HJW routing the course on horseback for those 2 or 3 days, or not? In this version they only had a general idea of whether a course would work somewhere on the 450 acre parcel! Yet by mid-December the papers indicate that CBM had studied the contours so earnestly that they could already select the land that would fit best with the various classical holes they had in mind. All before they took the Option on the land.
2. The Timing of the Option. (A related and partially overlapping "point" to the one above.)
Mike claims that at the time of the option, CBM had neither begun routing the course, nor even begun choosing the 205 acres out of the the 450 acre parcel! According to Mike, the location of the course was "undetermined" as of mid-December 1906, and they were still considering all of the 450 acres! In other words, he claims that CBM hadn't really done much at all by mid-December 1906 and he just as easily could have planned and built a course on Sebonack's site instead of NGLA. Is that really what those articles say? I don't think so.
Again the October articles indicate they were well into the project by mid-October, and may have even had some semblance of written plans, maps, or surveys.
It is probably worth mentioning that when I first brought the October articles to Mike's attention, it got him going on his fictional third site theory. He argued that at this fictional site CBM was so far along with the planning that he had mapped out the course and mailed off the maps all over the World for comments. Never mind the cost of the survey. Never mind that this had never been mentioned. Never mind that the fictional site made no sense. Mike took the article as proof that CBM was far along in planning a fictional course of Mike's invention. Yet when it turns out those articles were about the real site, he ignores them and continues to claim that NO PLANNING HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE MID-DECEMBER. How does that work, anyway? How can he interpret the October articles to mean that they were well along in the planning on his fictional site, yet when the articles apply to the actual site, they mean no such thing?
The December articles also contradict this "point." They indicate that substantial internal planning had already taken place. The course location had been specifically chosen and described, the start and finish had been determined, and a number of outstanding holes highlighted.
By the way, Mike has mistakenly concluded that because CBM mentioned the location of only 6 holes, that he had NO CLUE about remainder of the course. In Scotland's Gift CBM only discussed five finished holes in detail, so should we assume that CBM only built a five hole course? Ridiculous. In those articles CBM was doing the same thing he later did in Scotland's Gift; he was spotlighting some features which placed the course in the best light and corresponded to his "ideal course" goals --great contours, great soil, along the water, accessible from NY, an Inn nearby, and he had not only found perfect sites for the three most famous holes anywhere, he had even found a site for a water hole that sounds impressive and that thinks will be truly outstanding. He is talking in terms of highlights, not providing a detailed list of everything he had planned up to this point. Mike's conclusion to the contrary is unfounded.
3. The Chronology in Scotland's Gift.
A third point of Mike's involves how Scotland's Gift should be read. There is a point of agreement about Scotland's Gift, so let's start there. While Mike continues to make dishonest claims to the contrary, I have written repeatedly and for years now that while the routing likely began during the initial inspection of the land on horseback, it continued on into the period that CBM described as follows: "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."
Similarly Mike has stated that CBM routed the course during this same period, and the routing was complete before he chose the land they wanted.
So we finally have a basis for agreement (at least in overlap) as to when the routing occurred and was completed. CBM described the routing process in that sentence. He routed the course and chose the land based where the holes fit. Really that has been my main point for years now, so for me the rest is just the details.
The question remains, though, at what point the land was optioned. Mike claims it was in the sentence before, where CBM indicated that the Company agreed to sell them the land. I think it came right after CBM chose and described "the land wanted," where CBM wrote, "We obtained an Option on the land on November 1906 . . . ." And this brings us to Mike's next untenable "point."
Mike has repeatedly claimed that Scotland's Gift states that the land was optioned after the inspection on horseback but before they again studied the contours. But just as it does not state that the land was "undetermined," it does not claim that the option was taken after the first inspection. These are just Mike's tenuous interpretations; and his record on such interpretations is abysmal. Without any real explanation, he simply reads the formal Option agreement into the statement about the Company agreeing to sell them acreage from the from Sebonack Neck portion of the property. But of course a willingness to sell does not an Option agreement make.
I understand why some might do this --the articles mention that the borders could be adjusted so it is easy to make the jump to thinking that the mention of letting CBM choose the acreage as being the actual option agreement. It is a possible interpretation of those words if read in the context of the articles. But it is by no means the only interepretation nor is it the best interpretation, nor is it the one that makes sense in the context of the Chapter itself, nor does it make sense given what else we know from people like Beher about how NGLA was created. It is a logical leap, that is in my mind unjustified.
The reasons are simple. 1) As explained in the sections above, putting the option here creates all sorts of contradictions that just don't make sense. 2) The story of the creation of NGLA is in chronological order, and the option is covered a few paragraphs down, later in time. I can see no interpretive reason to mess with the order other than an outcome driven reading.
To me, the most obvious and straightforward way to read these sections is as a chronology. Much of the book is a chronology. He does vary the chronology somewhat by topic (for example seperating the USGA discussion from the NGLA discussion) but for the most part it is chronological, starting with the beginning of golf, moving through the dark ages, into the conception of the ideal course, into the creation of NGLA and onto the next courses. More importantly, the chapter on the creation of NGLA is itself chronological. Even Mike agreed with me before it no longer suited his needs to read it chronologically! But despite his change of heart and Jeff's claims, it makes sense as a chronology. Briefly . . .
1. First CBM tried to buy 120 acres on the other side of the property, but the Company shot them down, and commenced with plans to develop this site.
2. CBM and HJW inspected land on Sebonack Neck, studying the contours on horseback.
3. They liked very much liked what they saw, so they went back to the Company to see if they could get it for the right price.
4. UNLIKE WITH THE OTHER LAND CBM HAD ATTEMPTED TO BUY, the Company agreed to sell them acreage out of this portion of land for a reasonable price (the same per acre price he had offered for land on the other side of their holding.)
5. Again CBM studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted.
6. Then, in the book, CBM then described "the land [they] wanted." It had great locations for an Alps, a Redan, an Eden and a new type of hole eventually to be called a Cape. It had a bit of frontage on Peconic Bay and a mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay. It had a place for the first tee (and last green) a few hundred yards from the Shinnecock Inn, so they wouldn't immediately need a clubhouse. It was accessible to NY yet out of the way, so the golfer could be alone with nature.
7. CBM optioned 205 acres of land they wanted in November 1906. [According to the articles they had some some flexibility to adjust the exact boundaries to best fit the exact plans.]
8. They finalized the purchase of the land in the Spring of 1907.
9. Then . . . "immediately they commenced development." Soil brought in . . . clubhouse plan had to change . .
[I've written out a much more complete timeline of the entire chapter above a few pages.]
It is all in chronological order, and it makes sense in chronological order. CBM wrote about finding the land they wanted, then described this land, then wrote that they optioned it and then purchased it, then wrote that they developed it, then described the golf holes, then wrote about changes up to when he wrote the book. It is linear. Straight forward. The "land we wanted" is described right where CBM mentions studying the contours and finding the "land we wanted."
This business about it circling and repeating itself is just another red herring. The later of the holes is not a repeat. It is about the actual golf holes themselves as built, it is not a discussion of just their locations. The Alps and the Redan, Eden, Sahara, Road turned out better than the models. The holes were built.
Reading it Mike's way the describe what happened then describe property that wasn't chosen at the time of the option, then backtrack for a half a sentence to mention that the date of the option was in December without clarifying that the option had come earlier in the sequence of events (and essentially splitting that sentence into two parts - optioning the land and purchasing the land - that according to Mike's reading were no where near each other in the sequence of events, then picking up with the chronology again when it says they began developing the property.
Does CBM seem like someone who had little grasp of how to set out a linear chronology to you? He doesn't to me. Yet we have two interpretations.
-- On the one hand we have an interpretation that makes sense by itself in chronological order without any leaps of logic or faith or reading anything else into it.
-- On the other hand we have an interpretation that has CBM jumping around and repeating himself, splitting sentences in half and moving part of the sentence to somewhere else in the sequence. And the only way to make this interpretation work is to read things in that aren't in the language or the even in the book for that matter.
A few asides about understanding the book-
Remember that this same Company had already turned down CBM's offer to buy acreage at the same price on the other side of the parcel, so it was unknown whether this land was even for sale at what CBM thought was a reasonable price. Given the Company's previous refusal to sell, it is no wonder that CBM went to them fairly early on to inquire whether they would even be willing to sell the land at his price.
- Note that as of mid-October the CBM was reportedly buying 250 acres of land. Mike has dismissed this as a typo, but that may be just more wishful thinking on Mike's part. If CBM was really at 250 acres in October, that would suggest a substantial amount of planning went into the course between then and mid-December.
- Remember that by October, HJW and CBM had reportedly been over the land several times, but Travis had not. By mid-December Travis, Emmett, Chauncey, Watson, and others had all been over the land, again suggesting that substantial planning had taken place before mid-December.
Yet Mike claims that none of this had been done by the time of the option? Impossible.
-
"The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing." - Patrick Mucci
Patrick,
If that is your definition of a golf course routing, then it's no wonder that Jeff Brauer and I don't agree with you in the least.
Then you and Jeff are morons.(;;)[/b]
It's ALL about the exact specificity of the greens and tees.
No, it's not, it's about the approximate location of the greens and the tees.[/b]
It's ALL about locating 18 of each at specific points on the property that make sense individually and collectively.
No, it's not.
That's the micro architecture, the fine tuning.
The MACRO architecture is approximating the location of the greens, tees and internal features.[/b]
It's ALL about how they flow together, complement each other, and create a diverse yet consistent, contiguous challenge that captures the golfer's imagination, spirit, and interest.
You just don't get it[/b]
It's ALL about how they utilize the best natural features of the property, and tie into the overall surrounds and aesthetic of the individual site.
Again, you don't understand the process..
As an example, on the 16th hole at NGLA, you might craft your basic routing with a tee to the right of the 15th green.
But then, upon reflection and construction, you might shift that tee to the left side of the 15th green.
Your notion that in order to do a routing, each hole has to be in its precise and final locatioin and configuration is the perspective of a rank amateur, someone totally unfamiliar with what happens in the field during and even after the construction process has begun. [/b]
No wonder we can't agree here.
You're right, you're totally uneducated and uninformed in this area.[/b]
As regards the amount of land CBM was looking to purchase for his dual goals of golf course and Founders Lots, please see the following;
Mike, how can you insert a document from 1904, years before the land at NGLA was even on the radar screen.
David Moriarty and Bryan Izatt went through the measurement of the property with you.
They showed you how it was impossible to insert building lots on the NGLA property.
Yet, you once again, insert a document irrelevant to the actual site, claiming it has some type of authority over what occured at NGLA.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're being intellectually dishonest, a trait you've repeated often on this thread.
HJ Whigham writing about the plan in March 1906;
In March 1906 Whigham had NEVER seen or set foot on the land at NGLA.
And, Whigham classifies the concept as a "UNIQUE SCHEME"
It's a marketing ploy.
Tell us if you can, and I doubt you can. How this "unique scheme" was going to be a reality if the Peconic Bay Company had sold CBM the 120 acres by the canal ? ? ? ? ?
Answer, you can't because it was a pipe dream, a marketing ploy
CBM's return from abroad in June 1906;
You've presented just another flawed newspaper article, claiming that the site is on Montauk Point.[/b]
Patrick...he wanted just over 200 acres before he even found the Sebonac Neck property.
Then why did he bid on 120 acres by the canal, shortly thereafter, before he even found the Sebonac Neck Property ? ? ?
[/b]
This couldn't be clearer.
You're right, almost every, if not every newspaper article is flawed.
You say, according to your newspaper article and Macdonald that CBM was searching for 200 acres.
If so, why did he, shortly after this article was published, attempt to buy 120 acres to build his dream course ? ? ?
It's obvious that the newspaper article you cite, is dead wrong, in more than one way and in complete disagreement with CBM's actual actions.
"Dewey defeats Truman"
I can see why that's your motto.
But, I should know better.
You're not seeking the facts or the truth.
You told us, in your own words, your agenda was to prove that Macdonald didn't route NGLA in short order.
And, you'll present anything, no matter how unreliable or intellectually dishonest, to attain that goal. [/b]
-
Patrick,
I'm sorry, but 4 = 18 does not compute. ;)
Of course it does when you have 9 out and 9 back and you know where four of the critical holes, plus the starting and finishing holes, which you conveniently, or dishonestly, omitted[/b]
In fact, he doesn't even tell us he's found four complete holes end-to-end...just a big hill for the Alps, an adjacent redan hole, an inlet for an Eden, and the Cape.
END TO END ? ? ?
Where did anyone make that statement.
How stupid can you be ?
The four holes, in ADDITION to the starting and finishing holes which you forgot, are the old 4th, 5th, 12th and 13th.
If you had any modicum of understanding on the property, you would see that those four holes, in an OUT and BACK routing, when combined with the starting and finishing holes, provide the entire routing for you.
I know I stated it earlier, but, I have to tell you again, you're being dishonest.
YOU know it and I know it.
You claim familiarity with the property at NGLA, yet you feign ignorance regarding Macdonad's description in "Scotland's Gift" your own newspaper articles which describe and locate the property, the routing from the starting and finishing points, the Shinnecock Inn, the 4th and 5th holes and the Peconic Bay hole/s, the 12th and 13th holes. A MORON, could complete that routing, it's self evident, self completing. Even Max Behr told you that.[/b]
I'm glad that retrospectively you see his task as so easy as to be almost self-evident, but I don't think you are giving CBM nearly enough credit for what he did there.
He got lucky.
If the company hadn't refused to sell him the 120 acres, NGLA would be down the road.
He had his 18 ideal/classic holes. They were prepackaged.
Again, he got lucky, the land form at NGLA was perfect for a number of them.
All he did was lay his predesigned holes on the property as the contours best suited them.
It was a relatively easy process, especially when certain location popped out at him, like a red flag.
The routing was predetermined.
If you start at the Shinnecock Inn, skirt Shinnecock Hills, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, on the way out, the routing on the way in is done.
It's a self completing narrow loop, out and back, where the outbound and inbound holes run parallel to one another.
You're so agenda driven that you can't bring yourself to this simple reality of physics and/or linear order.[/b]
As regards your earlier contention that CBM's quote about the "good turf" and "sandy sub-soil" showing that the articles must be flawed, your argument is with Macdonald, not with me.
It's with you secondarily.
It's primarily with YOUR newspaper articles, the ones YOU posted.
They are inaccurate, their facts are wrong.
Yet you posted them, claiming that they're proof positive of what took place.
You didn't even bother to read them.
Telling us they recount the purchase of 205 when the articles claim 200 acres was purchased.
Claiming that the soil was great when it was horrible.
And, all the while you tell us, over and over again, that these are direct quotes from CBM, when CBM himself wrote that the soil was horrible and that he purchased 205 acres, not 200 acres.
That you don't see the enormous number of seriously flawed accounts you've posted, repeatedly, claiming they were accurate, is an indication that you can't be objective, that you're not to be taken at your word.[/b]
Why do you think CBM started construction in spring of 1907 and the course didn't open "informally" until OVER THREE YEARS LATER in summer 1910??
OK, I see, you've lost those arguments, so in your continued shotgun approach, you'll try to open up new arguments.
Let's see, Spring of 1907 lasted until June 20th. The course was first played upon in 1909. It was 1907, not 2011, so, with, according to you, no way to get to NGLA because, as you stated, the North Highway was a dirt road, I'd imagine that they'd have a hard time getting men and materials to the site. Secondly, they didn't have the equipment, nor the funds to build an instant golf course. If construction, and we know there was plenty of construction, took the summer and fall, they wouldn't grass the course until 1908 at the earliest. Then, they played it in 1909.
Sounds about right to me.
But, out of desperation, I'm sure you'll now pursue this path in your agenda driven attempts to discredit Macdonald.
It's because CBM miscalculated.
He thought he had great sandy soil for growing grass, just like in the Old Country.
Unfortunately, that was not the case.
As described in George Bahto's "The Evangellist of Golf" on page 66, "Disaster on the Green 1907-1908";
"He discovered there was far less loam in the sandy soil of Long Island than there was in "similarly situated areas of Scotland and England." A seedbed needed to be established to properly germinate rather than just dispersing seed on the ground. The light sandy soil on Long Island was "ideal for playing the game", but was much more difficult for growing fine grasses than that of similar situations in the British Isles."
But it was YOUR newspaper articles that declared the land was great, fine turf.
YOUR newspaper articles that decreed the land was better than the land closer to the Atlantic.
Again, like the global warming folks, it doesn't matter what occurs, the answer is the same from youi, Macdonald couldn't have routed the course in short order. But, we know he did, it was a relatively simple exercise because he already had designed the 18 holes and merely had to locate them.
Once he located a long narrow piece of land, the holes essentially routed themselves, just like Max Behr stated.[/b]
It's a great book, Patrick...you should definitely get a copy.
I had and read a personalized copy before you even knew the book existed.
But, the construction end, which you'd now like us to focus on, had nothing to do with the routing.
This course was a lay-up, a slam dunk.
18 predesigned holes, a long narrow slit of land, perfect locations for a good number of his holes, starting and finishing points, creating an OUT and BACK routing that completed itself.
-
Mike Cirba,
Why don't you post the Max Behr quote and let people decide what he's saying instead of you telling us what YOU think he's saying
Mike Cirba
As regards Max Behr, I think his whole article is simply about the process of finding enough acreage of the right configuration.
He suggests that National had it right because by definition, they purchased way more land than the roughly 110 or so that is generally needed for the golf course, and because by definition, an out and back routing is most efficient in terms of non-wasted space.
However, his mention of the steps and timing of the specific project steps is second-hand at best, as he wasn't there when it was routed, he wasn't a founding member, and he was writing his article that tangentially mentioned National ten years after the fact.
[/u]
-
Patrick,
So how do you square your own "short order", lying, disingenuous, based on assumptions, delusional in thinking you know something about routing a golf course despite never having routed one, moronic agenda against David's fairly well thought out and mostly docmented factual presentation above that shows documentation that CBM had been out there before October with Whigham, and then at least by December with Travis, et. al.? And then still had five more months to tweak it from whatever state it was in by the time he took his option?
That seems to makes it at least a three month routing process, doesn't it? And more like six-nine months, although granted, I doubt they used all that time on pure routing. I will admit that it is "possible" that CBM did the routing in a day (even though he mentions two trips and David actually confirms more with various articles) and then spent all the other time out there taking a victory lap, showing all those others what he had done, asking him their opinions under the guise of really showing how frikking brilliant he really was to do it in a day.
If that makes you feel better, then fine. It just doesn't seem right to me, nor does it seem to further any truthful fact finding on the creation of NGLA, as much as it does to just tweak Mike, because he doesn't think CBM had as much to do with Merion as you do. Its clear you are here only to do that from your last post, because Mike has posted that Behr quote at least twice, and you act as if he hasn't.
So, who has the agenda? Who is working had to obscure the truth for no particular reason? (or at least no obvious one to anyone here?) Mike, Jim, David and I all agree the routing took months, and have been guessing/theorizing about when the bulk of the work was done by piecing together from our different perspectives all the documents available, some of which are contradictory. Obviously, two of us will be more wrong than right, and I don't particularly care if I am one of the two.
-
Just had a thought,
If Pat is right on options (and he probably is, at least substantially) how could the entire property have been transferred to Alvord from the British syndicate if the outer boundary of even that 450 acre portion of the property they bought had not been surveyed?
How did they know that partial portion of it was 450 acres if metes and bounds had not been established in that area?
Did CBM really mean getting the contour survey?
-
I mentioned the point of agreement and disagreement but I almost forgot that I was going to suggest a simple way of figuring out the timing of the option for yourself. As I said, Mike and I agree that CBM described the routing process as follows:
"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."
Let's not forget that, because it is to me the key point in all of this. Just as Behr described, CBM found the golf course first and fit the purchase of land to the golf course. And while he argued against this notion for years, even Mike apparently now agrees with this.
The point of disagreement involves the timing of the option, yet even here we have some agreement. We agree that, reportedly, CBM acquired the option in mid-December 1906. We also agree that CBM's depiction in Scotland's Gift is accurate, although we disagree on the interpretation. So we can narrow the disagreement down even further.
We disagree about where mid-December 1906 falls within the chain of events described by CBM in Scotland's Gift. So resolve our disagreement we need only figure out where mid-December 1906 falls in the chain of events.
1. Compare and contrast my version and Mike's version of what happened before mid-December 1906.
- According to Mike, when CBM acquired the opption, CBM hadn't yet studied the contours in earnest to figure out whether the land would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind. All that had happened before mid-December 1906 was that CBM and HJW had ridden the property for two days "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical '205 acres' within it."
- In contrast, I think that before CBM took the option in mid-December 1906, he and HJW had not only ridden the property, they had again studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind and chose the land they waned.
2. Now keeping those in mind, carefully read the newspaper accounts of everything that had reportedly happened BEFORE mid-December 1906, when CBM reportedly took an option on the property. This includes what CBM reportedly said about finding land perfect for what they wanted to accomplish, a two mile by four acre stretch starting and finishing near the Inn, where the first tee would be located, the mile stretch Bullshead Bay from the Peconic Bay to the Eden Hole. The description of the locations of most famous holes (Redan, Alps, Eden) and one CBM thought was destined to become famous. The site visits by Travis, Emmett, Chauncey, Watson and others. The exact acreage determined (down from a reported 250 a few months before.) The October reports indicating that that they were already busy on the project by mid-October and that they already had surveys to send abroad.
Reportedly, all this occurred BEFORE CBM TOOK AN OPTION ON THE PROPERTY.
3. So ask yourself the following questions.
-- According to the articles, does it seem like all they had done at the time of the option was to ride the property for two days "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical '205 acres' within it."
-- Or does it it sound like they had been again studying contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, and choosing the land they wanted?
4. Your answer places the date of the option in the chain of events in CBM's book.
-
Just had a thought,
If Pat is right on options (and he probably is, at least substantially) how could the entire property have been transferred to Alvord from the British syndicate if the outer boundary of even that 450 acre portion of the property they bought had not been surveyed?
How did they know that partial portion of it was 450 acres if metes and bounds had not been established in that area?
Did CBM really mean getting the contour survey?
Jeff,
I explained that to you in an email.
Unfortunately, all of those emails should have been posted on this thread as a lot of good info passed between a limited number of parties.
I have another pressing project I have to attend to, but, basically I'll summarize what I told you.
I doubt that the 450 acres was measured prior to CBM staking the property.
I think that when Raynor surveyed the staked land, coming up with 205 acres, that he also staked the entire property.
As to the 450 acres itself, I believe it was part of a larger parcel of 2,000 to 2,800+ acres.
If that's correct, you wouldn't measure smaller random parcels within the 2,000-2,800+ acres.
You'd only measure the subdivision when you were about to sell, option or develop that portion.
I think the measurements provided, 450 and 205 acres, were retro-measurements, taken after the staking and then reported on page 187,
At the time of their ride, with the land they were riding on, having been unsurveyed, I doubt CBM knew that the Sebonac Neck property was 450 acres and that the property he desired, 205 acres.
-
Patrick,
So how do you square your own "short order", lying, disingenuous, based on assumptions, delusional in thinking you know something about routing a golf course despite never having routed one, moronic agenda against David's fairly well thought out and mostly docmented factual presentation above that shows documentation that CBM had been out there before October with Whigham, and then at least by December with Travis, et. al.? And then still had five more months to tweak it from whatever state it was in by the time he took his option?
Mostly from the facts provided by CBM. the newspaper articles Mike posted and the physical attibutes of the property.
You also know the starting POINTS.
You know that the course starts within 200 yards of the Shinnecock Inn.
You know that the course runs along Shinnecock Hills. (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
You know the course, in the form of the 4th hole, crosses the inlet on Bulls Head Bay.
You know the course, in the form of the 5th hole, crosses the inlet and runs along Bulls Head Bay.
You know the course runs along Peconic Bay (9th)
You know the course now has to turn and return to its starting point.
And, you know that in doing so, it has to incorporate the 12th hole (Alps)
And, that it now has to turn to become the 13th hole (redan)
And now, it has to continue it's return to the 18th hole.
But, along the way, we know that the Sahara hole, # 11 was discovered early on.
Ergo, the conntecting 10th hole.
We know that the Leven hole was discovered # 8,
We know that the Road Hole, # 16 and Bottle Hole # 17 were discovered early.
So, we have a long, narrow slit of land, bordered on the South by the Shinnecock Inn and the first tee and 18th green.
We have the 4th and 5th holes.
And, you can't figure out the connecting 2nd and 3rd holes running parallel to Shinnecock Hills GC.
The connectors between the Cape, # 5 and the Leven, # 8
There's nowhere for the 14th hole to go, except, parallel to # 6..
If there was a tricky part, # 15 might have been it
If you view the routing process as an 18 link chain, stretching from a starting point to the most distant point and then back again, and, you've sited # 1 and # 18 and four key holes (# 4, 5, 12 and 13) the balance of the routing becomes self evident, self completing, just as Max Behr declared.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what has to be one of the most basic, simplest routings in golf.[/b]
That seems to makes it at least a three month routing process, doesn't it? And more like six-nine months, although granted, I doubt they used all that time on pure routing.
Jeff, what you and others miss is that the holes were already fashioned.
CBM had only to place them upon the land.
He would have done it at Montauk.
He would have done it by the canal,
But, as luck would have it, he did it at the current site.
A site which predetermined, preordained the routing.
It could only go OUT and BACK and once you had the starting and finishing points, and just four (4) critical holes, the rest simply fell into place. It had to if you believe in the laws of physics.[/b]
I will admit that it is "possible" that CBM did the routing in a day (even though he mentions two trips and David actually confirms more with various articles) and then spent all the other time out there taking a victory lap, showing all those others what he had done, asking him their opinions under the guise of really showing how frikking brilliant he really was to do it in a day.
A day, two days, three days. Who knows how their time and focus was occupied on their ride/s ?
How much time was wasted navigating the hostile vegetation ? Having lunch ?
What I'm saying is that the confines of the property, combined with the OUT and BACK nature of the layout forced the general routing upon them. As to the hole locations, the contours of the ground dictated siting. The 4th, 5th, 12th, 13th, 1st, 18th, probably 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th and 17th.
Hence, once they determined that the course would stretch from the SI to the Peconic Bay and back to the SI, the die was cast.
The routing established.
Then, as the critical ideal/classic holes were located, it cemented the routing for all time.
If that makes you feel better, then fine. It just doesn't seem right to me, nor does it seem to further any truthful fact finding on the creation of NGLA, as much as it does to just tweak Mike, because he doesn't think CBM had as much to do with Merion as you do.
That's purely because you're looking at this from an emotional perspective, not a physical or mathematical perspective.
Once you take a step back examine the confines of that long narrow slit of property, bordered on three sides, with the siting of critical holes in the mid-body of the routing, along with the starting and finishing points, both of them, the routing becomes so obvious. He had NO CHOICE. The 18 link chain is a perfect example. If you start it and finish it at the same point, doubling the chain over, in a narrow configuration, there's but one routing, OUT and BACK with the furthest links being the 9th and 10th holes.
Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
With time, you'll see how obvious, how preordained the routing was.[/b]
Its clear you are here only to do that from your last post, because Mike has posted that Behr quote at least twice, and you act as if he hasn't.
I had serious surgery on my left eye 13 days ago.
I can't see out of it.
The vision in my right eye is not 20-20.
If small print was posted, I missed it, not intentionally, but, because it's difficult to see and if I strain to see, the pain and loss of focus interupts my attempt.
So, your assigning of motives is well off base.[/b]
So, who has the agenda? Who is working had to obscure the truth for no particular reason? (or at least no obvious one to anyone here?)
Not me.
I haven't posted erroneous articles claiming their validity.
I haven't misrepresented, omitted or tainted the facts.
You may not like my reasoning, but, I'm comfortable that it's prudent.[/b]
Mike, Jim, David and I all agree the routing took months, and have been guessing/theorizing about when the bulk of the work was done by piecing together from our different perspectives all the documents available, some of which are contradictory. Obviously, two of us will be more wrong than right, and I don't particularly care if I am one of the two.
I don't think the routing took months.
When they rode the property for the first time, and declared what they wanted, starting with the Shinnecock Inn, running alongside Shinnecock Hills GC, then along Bulls Head Bay, then along Peconic Bay, and then back to the Shinnecock Inn, the die and routing were cast. It was preordained, there was no alternative, especially once they found # 4, # 5, # 12 and # 13, along with # 1 and # 18.
Thus, the routing was conceived of, if not forced, the moment they opted for that long, narrow slit of land, bordered on three sides.
The ONLY thing left to do, was stake the Western boundary and try to marry the ideal/classic holes with the contours.
This didn't take months, it took 2 or 3 days of riding on hostile property.[/b]
-
David,
You're right.
The initial ride determined the routing.
CBM says that they found the land they wanted.
He defines it by its boundaries, natural and defined.
He defines the starting and finishing points.
At that juncture, the routing has been established, it an go nowhere else.
When the first four holes are found, in conjunction with the 1st and 18th, it's a done deal.
The corridor of holes can go nowhere else.
It's an 18 piece jigsaw puzzle that Ray Charles would solve in 5 minutes.
You're explanation, combining "Scotland's Gift" with Mike's newspaper articles was good, but, the fact is, the physical properties of the land, its borders and configuration from south to north, preordained the routing from the first 2 or 3 days.
-
Patrick,
While I agree with you that CBM and HJW likely began routing during the three day ride, I don't claim (and have never claimed) that the entire routing was absolutely finished during these rides. As I wrote above, I think that CBM was still describing the routing process when he wrote that, "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." It sure sounds to me like he was still studying the contours and working on the placement of the golf holes at this point.
But the reality may be that it is a distinction without a difference. Whether on the initial ride, or after, when they again studied the contours, they figured out the routing before the chose the particularly property. Even Cirba agrees that they routed before choosing the land. And then once CBM had routed the course and chosen the land, he optioned the property. Just as he says in Scotland's Gift. The articles confirm this. He had quite obviously chosen the land prior to optioning the property.
-
Pat,
Sorry to hear about the eye surgery, and certainly, being in good health trumps a silly argument over how many days or months it took to route NGLA. I hope you recover nicely, and without long term issues.
As to how long it took to route, lets just drop it. I disagree that the contemporary articles are erroneous and that this interpretation allows anyone to substitute their reasoning in place to form a theory, but that is what you have done.
I do understand what you are saying about the length of the property and always have. Developers being developers, we know that neither party was going to want checkerboard parcels, as you once suggested was a possibility. Its easy to imagine, since CBM was going to take just less than half their property, that a mutually cooperative discussion was had that he could basically take it starting on the east boundary and working in, or the west boundary and working in. Going straight up the center or zig zagging would have left a bunch of unusable parcels for future development or sale.
Because he had found the Redan, Alps and Cape during his ride, he obviously chose to start working from the east boundary. And, as you said, if he wanted both the Inn and the Bay property, he quickly was forced into an out and back. We probably have never been so far apart on those issues.
So, we agree that the basic pattern came early because of those predetermined factors by CBM and the developer. I know that sometimes, a long narrow property can present some problems in routing, and I view it as those early decisions took him from a nearly unrestricted situation to restricting himself very much. Even knowing he needed three holes along the east boundary doesn't mean he didn't have to figure out which combo of lengths and angles fit the topo the best. The tighter the dimension, the less likely it is that the contours fall "just right" and each parcel is different contour wise, so I just don't consider that it was necessarily to be easy to get to a final routing, nor do I see any historical support for the notion that it was done quickly.
Nuff said on that.
-
David,
I didn't say finished, but, once you configure the land as CBM did, from south to north along an eastern border, from the SI to the Peconic Bay, the die is pretty much cast.
And, when you site 4 to 6 to 8 holes/links in the chain, the routing is essentially set in stone.
On the aerial you posted, if you could outline current holes, 9 and 10, 13, 14, 3 and 4 in red, 2, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 1 in pink, I think that visual will demonstrate how the routing of the course was preordained and the siting of the remainder holes essentially by default.
Thanks
-
Jeff Brauer,
You seem to be skipping back and forth over quite a bit of terrain here but maybe I am not understanding.
- Do you think that by mid-December, CBM had been studying the contours and selecting those which best fit with the classical holes he had in mind?
- Do you think that by mid-December, CBM had determined the location of his 205 acre golf course within the location of the 450 acre property?
________________________________________
Patrick,
I don't see any reason to highlight those holes because I don't believe that those holes represent all that had been done at that point. Those are just the holes CBM saw fit to mention, and I don't think it coincidence that he happened to mention his versions of probably the three most famous holes in the world, as well as one hole he thought was bound for fame. These were highlights, not a complete inventory of all he had done. After describing the location of the Eden, CBM reportedly said "But there are other opportunities as delightful --for instance . . . " and then he described finding the location for the Redan and Alps. "For instance" does not mean "this is all I have done at this point." It means that these are the ones I want to highlight.
So I don't buy Mike's unsupported claims that these were the only holes yet found.
-
David,
I agree that more than just those four were found early on.
However, with a routing that starts at the SI, skirts along SHGC, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, inclusive of today's holes # 13 and # 14, and then returns to SI, vis a vis, current holes # 3 (Alps) and # 4 (redan), the die is cast, the bones of the routing are complete.
He now has to go from # 4 green to # 9 tee.
But we also know that he has found Hole # 7 as his Road Hole and Hole # 8 as his Bottle hole.
So now he just has to get from # 4 green to # 7 tee
The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place rather easily.
The only boundary CBM had to stake was the western boundary all the others already existed, naturally and legally.
When you look at the outbound nine, which was described by CBM and all of Mike's newspaper accounts from the very begining, the default routing for the inbound nine become predetermined once the Alps (# 12) and Redan (# 13) are found, which happened almost immediately.
I can see how someone not familiar with the land couldn't understand this, but, one glimpse of NGLA on Google Earth illustrates just how simple and straight forward the routing process was, once the Eastern border (front nine) had been determined.
And, CBM and JW determined it on their first ride around the property in 2 or 3 days.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/golf%20courses/NGLA-air.jpg?t=1299039546)
-
Here is the Aerial of NGLA. The red line is one mile. This was one mile of Bullshead Bay frontage mentioned in both the book and the articles. The blue lines and red lines together equal just over two miles (2.1) which corresponds with the "two miles long" stretch mentioned in the newspaper articles. Throw in all the holes mentioned, the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape and the start and finish the course at the current 10th tee and 11th green, and tell me that they hadn't yet even begun to route the course yet! Tell me they were still considering the all 450 acres. Tell me that they had no idea of the routing at this point.
David,
I agree that more than just those four were found early on.
However, with a routing that starts at the SI, skirts along SHGC, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, inclusive of today's holes # 13 and # 14, and then returns to SI, vis a vis, current holes # 3 (Alps) and # 4 (redan), the die is cast, the bones of the routing are complete.
He now has to go from # 4 green to # 9 tee.
But we also know that he has found Hole # 7 as his Road Hole and Hole # 8 as his Bottle hole.
So now he just has to get from # 4 green to # 7 tee
The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place rather easily.
The only boundary CBM had to stake was the western boundary all the others already existed, naturally and legally.
When you look at the outbound nine, which was described by CBM and all of Mike's newspaper accounts from the very begining, the default routing for the inbound nine become predetermined once the Alps (# 12) and Redan (# 13) are found, which happened almost immediately.
I can see how someone not familiar with the land couldn't understand this, but, one glimpse of NGLA on Google Earth illustrates just how simple and straight forward the routing process was, once the Eastern border (front nine) had been determined.
And, CBM and JW determined it on their first ride around the property in 2 or 3 days.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-air.jpg?t=1299039546)
[/quote]
-
David,
Starting at the Shinnecock Inn you have holes # 1 and # 18.
On the Eastern boundary you have holes # 4 and # 5.
You have holes # 8 (leven) and # 9 along Peconic Bay.
Returning to the 18th hole (green at the Shinnecock Inn)
You have holes # 12 and # 13.
But you also have hole # 11 (Sahara) and holes # 17 (Bottle) and # 16 Road)
As Max Behr indicated, this course routed itself.
In addition, I've always believed that the Shinnecock Inn was a temporary clubhouse and that the site between CBM's 9th and 10th holes was always destined to be the clubhouse, ergo, his 9th and 10th holes were known from the get go.
That's why his 9th hole was the completion of his outbound journey, because it would become th 18th hole, with the 10th hole becoming the 1st hole.
Given the dual starting and finishing points, # 1, # 18, # 9 and # 10, in conjunction with just four of his eight or more ideal/classic holes, the course as Max Behr stated, routed itself.
One just has to study the OUT and BACK nature of the course, understanding the starting and finishing points to understand how easily this course routed itself once they defined the Eastern border, which they did on their first visit.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-air.jpg?t=1299039546)
-
I think the major area of disagreement I have with David is that I believe the agreement to buy 205 undetermined acres referred to on page 187 of CBMs book is the same event he later refers to as "securing" the property.
I say this because the events described in the Dec 1906 articles talking about the boundaries being undetermined line up exactly with CBMs own description in his book.
-
Ironically, because of the sequence of events and timing I believe happened, I agree with Pat that they found the Alps, redan, and cape inlet during that 2 to 3 day ride.
I just don't believe any of the rest of it was nearly as clearcut and self evident as he portrays it and I think he likely wrestled with the routing for weeks if not month as there are any number of possible variations left after those hfew holes were found.
-
Mike,
No one has an agreement to buy undefined acreage in an undefined location.
OR put another way, nobody in their right mind, let alone a real estate development company, would agree to sell undefined acreage in an undefined location.
That's pure insanity.
They didn't know the acreage they needed when they rode the property so how could they form an agreement to purchase an unknown amount of land.
They ONLY knew the acreage they needed AFTER they staked it and Raynor surveyed it.
Nobody, especially a real estate development company, grants a perspective buyer to right to purchase an unknown amount of land in an unknown location, especially if that prospective purchase could leave them landlocked without access to the remaining parcel.
You're so desperate to cling to your theory that you've forgotten about practical applications and the real world.
-
Mike,
Starting at # 1, skirting SHGC, going to # 4 (eden), # 5 (Cape), # 8 (leven) all along Bulls Head Bay, then up on # 9 along Peconic Bay, the front nine was established on the first ride. CBM and contemporaneous accounts you posted confirm this.
Now, he has to get back to the 18th tee.
But, he has to do so by going through the 12th (Alps) and 13th (Redan) holes.
The puzzle is completing itself.
Now, he has to get from # 14 tee to # 18 tee.
But, he has his 16th (road) and 17th (bottle) holes.
So, now he just has to get from the 14th tee to the 16th tee.
And, he has nowhere to go on # 14 but directly south, toward the 16th hole.
Max Behr was right, once the Eastern and Northern Boundary was established on the first ride, and the Starting and finishing points established at the Shinnecock Inn, along with the moment he found the Alps and the Redan, the routing of the returning nine was simply a default process, not something that needed to be analyzed for weeks or months.
You just can't let go of the notion that the course routed itself because that undermines your Merion issue/s
Look at the aerial.
Study the aerial.
Fill in the Eastern border, fill in his ideal/classic holes along with the dual starting and finishing points and you'll see that the routing of the course was predetermined by the Southern, Eastern and Northern boundaries in conjunction with the long narrow nature of the land.
-
A question for the architects. Have you ever ridden over new land you had never seen before, that was heavily covered with bushes and undergrowth, that consisted of 450 or so acres, and routed a course there -- all in two or three days?
A question for anyone: in Scotland's Gift, CBM first says he did not want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. A few paragraphs later, he says he found land adjoining Shinnecock Hills Golf Course that would work well for the course. This is the land he ended up buying and building NGLA on. Did he change his mind about being close to Shinnie, or is he talking about two different things?
-
Pat/Jim,
In 906 those Shinny holes adjacent to NGLA were not there, were not owned by Shinny, and were part of the 450 acre parcel that CBM was considering for purchase.
Jim,
I'd eat my hat if that ever actually happened, anywhere. Its a myth.p
-
Was the Shinnecock Inn built where it was built because CBM wanted it there and that was the agreement? Or was it built there because of the railroad, and CBM had to make do with that spot? Or something else?
Pat, did CBM actually have 18 specific holes he wanted to build regardless of the site? Or did he have a smaller collection of holes he wanted to build (i.e. templates such as the Redan) and some other more general concepts he wished to incorporate into holes?
Was the Cape hole actually an original or a copy of a hole like the 1st at Machrihanish? If it was an original, did he already have the concept thought out or did he see the pond up in the corner and have a Eureka! moment?
-
Jim,
Actually, its a myth made up entirely by Pat on this thread.
CBM never said it...contemporaneous accounts never said it...in fact they both say quite the opposite.
Pat just wants to believe CB was superhuman, and wants to promote his one-day-wonder Merion agenda, even tho there is proof to the contrary for that myth as well.
-
Jim,
Actually, its a myth made up entirely by Pat on this thread.
CBM never said it...contemporaneous accounts never said it...in fact they both say quite the opposite.
Pat just wants to believe CB was superhuman, and wants to promote his one-day-wonder Merion agenda, even tho there is proof to the contrary for that myth as well.
Mike
CBM routing a course in one day, be it at NGLA or Merion, may well be a myth but do you really think that its not possible to determine firstly the suitability of a piece of ground for 18 holes or select a piece of ground for 18 holes, and secondly working out a rough routing while doing so, all in one day ? I seem to recall MacKenzie doing that on one course and Braid and many others seemed to make a careers out of it. What makes you think that CBM was incapable ? Is it because NGLA was so famous and is acknowledged as a quality course, CBM was inexperienced or what ?
Niall
-
Niall,
A few reasons, but mostly because CBM had 450 inpenetrable acres to traverse.
Most of the archies you mentined were working primarily with open linksland, for one thing. But honestly, how many of those original one-day routings have stood the tests of time, greatness, and remain essentially unchanged 100 years later?
I do believe that CBM and Whigham found some nice natural features they could utilize as well as determined the general to be sitable overall for their needs during their ride, exactly as CBM told us in his book.
-
Mike,
Re CBM at NGLA, as I understand it he was on horseback which would make things easier in terms of getting around. It would also give him a better perspective for getting a lay of the land. Now I've not been to NGLA, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the features of the course aren't exactly subtle, the alps for instance. Certainly not the features that might determine a routing. Those sorts of large features would have been readily identifiable irrespective of the amount of scrub or brush that was on the ground. I'm not arguing that CBM did actually do it all in a day, I'm just suggesting its not the impossible feat you suggest.
With regards to other golden age courses I'll bet quite a few of them were designed with an original routing worked out quite quickly and quite early. I've got no specific examples either one way or another to quote but I doubt these golden age guys didn't get to design hundreds of courses by spending weeks and multiple visits to each site just to get a basic routing.
Niall
-
Niall,
I'm not saying CBM couldn't do it but that he wouldn't do a one or two day routing.
NGLA was too important to him.
Also, he TELLS us he didn't do it, in both his book as well as contemporaneous news accounts.
-
Mike,
Was the area really "inpenetrable"? Really?
More specifically, forget the one or two or three days, the argument is whether or not he knew exactly were he was going to go prior to taking the option for the land in November 1906. If he and Wigham did their work in October that gives them some period of time to sketch it out...if they did it in July it goves them substantially more time.
The real debate here is the structure of the option on the land. You're relying on the newspaper articles, without source I believe, to declare that the property lines were not identified and that CBM could have taken any 205 of the whole 450. I disagree that either side would like that informal of an agreement.
If that were the case, CBM has all the downside risk in that his interest in the site is largely driven by factors outside of his control that all presented themselves on this location:
Easy access to the Southampton Inn so he didn't need a clubhouse initially.
The presence of a handful of vital features to place his templates upon
Transportation infrastructure being built simultaneously
Why on earth would he agree to an open/loose option as you've described it at the risk of losing this location if Alvrod got a better offer? He's using the term "purchased". I don't think it was a handshake. If it was in paper I think they also identified what the asset was.
-
Jim,
CBM tells us on page 187 that the 450 acre tract was so covered with brambles and bushes that the only way he and Whigham could get around it was on ponies.
ALL of the articles are attributed, including a quote from CBM.
ALL of the answers to your questions can be found in the articles on page 1 and elsewhere.
I'm not sure how many times I can post them if people aren't going to read them.
CBM TELLS US that the property lines were undetermined, and open to his needs. He tells us in Scotland's Gift, and he tell us in the December 15th news article.
Here again is what he said THEN;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5428089430_42da0f4a4f_b.jpg)
Here's what he said 20 years later;
That's why I said the "Agreement" CBM talks about in his book on page 187 is the exact same thing as "securing" the land later on that page, and happened in December, per these articles;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
I just thnk you can't get over the fact that someone would buy 205 acres without a routing. However, I would contend that we should believe CBM as he was quoted contemporaneously, and what he wrote 20 years later.
He simply bought enough property that he knew he could get or shape 18 good holes in there based on his initial surveys, and belieinvg he'd actually need much less of that land for the golf course at that time.
-
Mike,
I questioned your use of inpenetrable because clearly they penetrated it, that's all.
-
Jim,
If they only way they could get over the ground was on ponies, doesn't it beg a lot of questions about how they could survey or route the course?
Do you see the direct quotes above and their timing specific to the "agreement" to secure the land on undetermined borders?
-
Sure.
Do you think Alvrod paid the clearing expense in hopes of these guys coming back in to have their closer look to see if they wanted to buy it?
Seems alot of expense without knowing what was going to come of it...considering the land was deemed "worthless".
When do you think it was cleared in comparison to the November option agreement?
Actually, do you think there even was a formal option agreement? I agree that the option can easily carry an ammendment to allow moving boundaries. As Pat says, it's going to identify a specific plot, but the ammendment will allow flexibility. But for their to be a formal option (with or without a flexibility ammendment) the land would need to be surveyed, don't you think?
That's really the crux of our issue, the technicalities dictate the timeline as opposed to the other way around.
-
Jim,
Unlike others here, I don't pretend to know the answers to those questions. ;)
But, I do agree that they are very germane and could be illustrative and enlightening if we did.
For instance, would CBM really route a golf course on land he couldn't get across except on horseback? I mean, seriously...how the hell would you see any ground contours less than say four feet high or low?
You've seen plant growth near swampy areas...some of the reeds go up way over your head. How about the kind of thick, prickly berry bushes that grow to 4-5 feet tall in the wild?
Pat would have use believe that someone just swiped these away in a day or two but it sounds like he had 450 acres of this stuff to deal with. WHat was he going to clear it with, bulldozers?! ;) ;D
I'd love to know when Seth Raynor was brought on board to survey the site and create a topo map of the ground contours, for instance.
-
"I just thnk you can't get over the fact that someone would buy 205 acres without a routing."
Mike, I think I have the same problem. Somehow it doesn't make sense--clearly CBM believed a top-flight course could be built with much less than 205 acres as he had just made an offer for 120 acres. So this 205 acres must have been intentional, no? It can't have been a randon number or the minimum he thought he would need. He made a similar comment to the Merion folks as well I recall.
I gather (but am not all clear on the details) he knew where the Shinnecock Inn was going to be so the start and end points apparently were decided by that. So starting at the Inn, going to the Cape hole, 'skirting Bullshead Bay for about a mile' (by the way, does anyone find it odd that the newspaper article and CBM's book years later both talk about 'skirting Bullshead Bay'?), incorporating the Alps and Redan, getting back to the Inn. While the specific details of the holes may have come later there doesn't seem to be much doubt about which chunk of land he wanted and that much of the 450 acres would have been excluded fairly quickly, no? Must have been a bit painful to have to pass up all that waterfront land though!
-
There really is a strange language barrier here that carries over from one conversation to another.
I don't think CBM routed the course in the final detail you and Jeff say constitutes a "Routing". Period. Just as I don't think Tom Doak includes each inor ground contour when he talks about routing a course from a topo as he's flying to a site for his first visit. I would guess both assume there will be enough of that natural stuff to use on top of the bones the establish as the routing.
In the instance of CBM at NGLA, I'm arguing only that he knew the exact direction he was going to follow around the property before he optioned the 205 acres. If he negotiated for the ability to move a fence line here or there in the course of designing up the holes, great. But there was no mystery in December 1906 as to the specific site he was going to use and how he was going to use it.
Do you think the 205 acres was determined strictly because of his budget? Or would you allow for the actual land he was buying to factor in?
-
Doesn't anybody care about the poor ponies?
-
Doesn't anybody care about the poor ponies?
That was the point of me asking Mike about the land being actually "inpenetrable"? His answer was that these ponies were invincable...
-
I can't even begin to keep up with all this speculation and back and forth, not to mention Mike's continuing arguments against himself (he agrees with patrick that much was done on horseback, and then continues arguing that little or nothing could have been done because of the "impenetrable" land? How does that work? Oh well.) Rather than engage in the banter, I am going to continue try and a few specific points at a time, in detail, in the hopes of getting past some of the false rhetoric. I will use a quote of Mike's from earlier as a jumping off point.
I think the major area of disagreement I have with David is that I believe the agreement to buy 205 undetermined acres referred to on page 187 of CBMs book is the same event he later refers to as "securing" the property.
Mike needs to quit providing false quotes from the book and the articles. CBM doesn't later refer to "'securing'" the property. He wrote "we obtained an option on the land in November . . . " Obtaining an option obligating the seller to convey of real property upon exercise of the option is an entirely different animal than a landowner simply indicating that he was willing to sell 200 out of his 450 acres. I haven't sold my house by putting it on the market, and I haven't sold it if you and I discuss a price for it, and I am not even obligated to sell it if you are willing to give me the list price. Transactions involving real property involve a hell of a lot more than the seller agreeing that he is willing to sell some undefined portion of his property.
I say this because the events described in the Dec 1906 articles talking about the boundaries being undetermined line up exactly with CBMs own description in his book.
1. Do the articles "line up exactly with CBM's own description in his book"?
Not even close. At least not with Mike's reading of the book.
For the articles to "line up exactly" with Mike's reading of the book, then the articles would say that all that had happened so far was that CBM and Whigham had ridden the property for a few days and determined what they wanted, and then optioned the property. Except for the horseback ride, they hadn't even earnestly studied contours.
But according to the articles, a hell of a lot more happened before they optioned the property. Some examples . . .
-- According to the articles, by mid-December they had been working on the project for months, and had studied the contours and routed the course at least to the extent that they could accurately describe the property and highlight the locations of CBM's version of the three most famous holes in the world along with an original hole bound for fame (and mention that there were other possibilities.)
-- Not only that but according to the October articles, by mid-October they had already created detailed maps showing the elevation changes to five feet have been drawn up and other provided to experts around the world for discussion! a
-- Not only that but the others reportedly involved - Travis, and Emmett - had already been over the property, along with Watson, Chauncey, and others!
So for Mike to say the articles "line up exactly" with his tenuous reading of CBM's book is ridiculous. They don't line up at all. But the articles do line up with a linear, chronological reading of the book.
A linear, chronological reading tells us that before the option, they had not only ridden the property for two or three days, but they had "again [] studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [CBM] had in mind, after which [they] staked out the land we wanted."
- This chronological reading of Scotland's Gift lines up with the articles which describe the land they had chosen and highlight how "various classical holes" fit in the contours they had had studied and chosen.
- This chronological reading of Scotland's Gift also lines up with the articles that indicate that by the time of the option they were well into the project. Recall that in the October article only CBM and HJW are mentioned as having seen it, and the article states that Travis had not yet seen it. By the time of the option, not only had Travis been over the land, but Emmett, Chauncey, Watson, and others had been over it as well.
- This chronological reading of Scotland's Gift also lines up with the reports from October that they were very far along in studying the contours.
- And the description of the "the land we wanted" in Scotland's Gift lines up with the land described in those December articles.
So it sure looks like those articles line up with a linear, chronological reading of Scotland's Gift, doesn't it?
Mike Cirba, given that you put so much value on these articles, which reading of Scotland's Gift will you go with? Mine, which is consistent with the articles. Or yours, which is not?
And, Mike, if all that had happened was that CBM and HJW had ridden the property, then how come the articles say that Emmett, Travis, Watson, Chauncey, and others had been over the property? Was it a mini-calvary? Was it a Posse, perhaps? Were they planning on trampling the bushes and brambles into oblivion?
___________________________________________________________
2. Do the articles say that the land and boundaries were "undetermined?"
According to Mike, CBM signed an option to choose any "205 acres out of the 450 acre plot." That is what he has consistently claimed the articles say. Here are just a few more of dozens of examples of Mike stating the same thing:
-- "It's very clear that he's talking about the property he had just secured at Sebonac Neck...205 'undetermined' acres out of 450 available."
-- CBM optioned "an undetermined 205 acres out of a much larger available plot."
-- "I'm sure the contract said something about the undeveloped, unsurveyed Sebonac Neck property in the original agreement securing 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available."
-- "CBM tells us that the specifics of the land he secured is still undetermined."
-- "How does his securing 205 'undetermined' acres out of a 450 acre tract 'box himself in?'"
As you can see, Mike is using the term "undetermined" to argue that, at the time of the option, CBM had not yet gotten around to choosing the land he needed for the golf course. As Jim Sullivan pointed out pages ago, Mike is presenting a situation where CBM optioned the property without even contemplating the location of the course within the 450 acres.
Trouble is, Mike has repeatedly and dishonestly quoted the articles as stating the property was "'undetermined'" at the time of the option. This is false. The articles don't use the term "undetermined" and they certainly don't describe a scenario like Mike would have us believe-- that the location of the land had not yet been chosen. In fact, contrary to Mike's claims, the articles not only describe the location of the 205 acres and shape of the 205, they highlight a number of details about the routing itself, including three famous models, another hole destined to be famous, and the location of the first and last tee. So this notion that the location of the course had not yet been determined at the time of the option is nonsense.
So what do the articles say that has lead to Mike's fixation on the term "'undetermined?'" During the detailed description of the property and many of its features, the articles add that "the exact lines will not be staked out" until the the committee has finished its plans. That's it.
-- Nothing about the location of the course being as yet "undetermined" or even the boundaries being as yet "undetermined."
-- Nothing about waiting to find a location for the course until later, during the option period.
-- Nothing that would even suggest that the routing process had not yet begun.
-- Nothing to suggest that working borders were not already in place.
The articles say is that the "exact lines" will wait until the plan is finished. Big deal. CBM reportedly left himself some wiggle room to adjust part of the boundary (he couldn't move Peconic Bay or Bullshead or the Inn) in case he needed to. This was an astute good move on his part, given that with this elongated strangely shaped property even a change on the western boundary would be enough to substantially impact the acreage. He was covering all his options.
Even the term "exact lines" strongly suggests that there are already lines drawn, although they may have been "inexact." But inexact is a far cry from the "undetermined" Mike has pretended is in the article.
So the articles DO NOT say or even imply that the land and boundaries were "undetermined." In fact the describe the property. How can you describe an "undetermined" property? The leap Mike makes from CBM having the option to adjust the boundaries later to Mike's conclusion that the course had not yet been routed is untenable, at best, especially given the ample evidence that the location and many of the holes were already in place.
I do agree that articles indicate that the planning was not yet complete, but we've known that that all along.
_________________________________________
Also, you East Coast guys can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that by mid-December and for a few months after New York sometimes experienced something called 'Winter.' You guys ever hear of that?
Accordingly, some of the articles indicate that work would not begin on the course until spring. Are we really to believe that CBM was traipsing around out there all Winter through the brambles and bushes (because mike insists they would not have been cleared yet,) freezing his ass off while trying to study the contours and route the course?
Give us a break.
-
The one winter I spent in New York, January to March, there wasn't a flake of snow. I was doing some student teaching and we took our class of 5th graders to Coney Island. Not only could you have worked on routing a golf course that winter, you could have played.
On the other hand, if 1906-07 had been like this winter, the only golf-related activity possible would have been cleaning the grooves on your mashie-niblick.
I can already sense somebody going to a historical weather site to see what the snowfall was for the winter of 1906-07. But it won't be me.
-
I can already sense somebody going to a historical weather site to see what the snowfall was for the winter of 1906-07. But it won't be me.
I would guess that the newspapers of the time reported weather developments with somewhat more reliability than the every twist and turn of a golf-course development.
Of course, I'm just guessing....
-
Guys,
Your argument is with CBM, not me.
HE is the one who said "the only way we could get over the ground was on ponies."
HE is the one who said the land was thought to be useless.
HE is the one who wrote that it "abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of...bushes and was infested with insects."
Sounds like just the place to do a 2 day routing across 450 acres! ;) ;D
Routing....man how loosely can we define the term?
I would think at minimm one would define routjng as locating 18 specific, contiguous tee and green locations on a property.
Is that some crazy, unrealistic definition?
I'm not talking bunkers, green sizes and configurations, fairway lines, etc.
Just simple tee and green locations...18 of them, as that's how many we need.
THAT was not done in 2 or 3 days, it wasn't done at the time CBM got "agreement" to buy 205 undetermined acres, and he tells us so both in contemporaneous articles as well as 20 years later in his book.
Andy...he wanted 205 acres since 1904, in his original Founders Letter Agreement.
It included;
110 acres for the golf course
5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds
1.5 acre lots for each of the 60 Founding members.
Here is the founders letter....
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_b.jpg)
That number had NOTHING to do with having a completely routed course in December 1906. There was NO completely routed course in December 1906.
Why you guys don't believe CBM is beyond me?
-
Mike,
Perhaps you should quit posting the same material over and over again and instead answer my questions?
-
Rick, I don't think it matters whether or not it was a bad winter. CBM would have no way of knowing that beforehand when he was figuring a schedule.
But I do scoff at the notion of him scheduling himself to wait until Winter to route the course when he could have been out there since October or earlier!
-
Thanks Mike. I am not saying the course was completely routed as you define it, but that the outlines of the desired property had to be pretty well defined at that point because of the Inn, the 'skirting of Bullshead Bay', the Redan/Alps and the Cape hole.
Do you believe the 200 acres mentioned in the Founders letter (he wrote 200 acres, not 205 acres, though his math adds up to 205 acres) may just have been a coincidence? After all, he did previously try to purchase 120 acres.
-
Jeff, and in October it was reported that he was actually buying 250 acres.
-
Andy,
In June 1906 after his return from Europe he again said he was looking for around 200 acres.
It was consistent throughout from 1904 on, and he intended to build lots.
The only deviation was his offer for 120 acres near the canal, but that was in an area already being subdivided with building lots, so he may not have needed his own. It also shows what he thought he'd need for his golf course.
David,
I'll try to read your stuff and answer later...thanks.
btw...I think the "250 acres" was a transposition.
-
Andy,
In June 1906 after his return from Europe he again said he was looking for around 200 acres.
It was consistent throughout, and he intended to build lots.
David,
I'll try to read your stuff and answer later...thanks.
Nonsense. This has been Mike's dead horse for years now, and it looks like he is getting ready to circle back to the carcass yet again. Those December 1906 articles described the land on which the course would be located, and there is no place for 90 acres of lots! The described swath of land wasn't anywhere near wide enough for both a golf course and lots. Mike pretends that this could be resolved by making the holes narrower, but look at the map.
For example, the location of the Alps was contemplated from the very beginning, as was the use of a mile of Bullshead Bay for a mile. But the Alps feature defines the widest point of the property. Was CBM planning on physically moving the Alps feature closer to Bullshead Bay to make room for a strip of 1-1.5 acre estates? Or was CBM planning on pushing the course to the outside and building these lots right up the middle of the course, just like he had the north highway running up the middle of his last fantasy course?
It's origin 90 acres of lots red herring comes from a hypothetical scenario in the 1904 letter. Unfortunately, the reason it is "consistent throughout" is that many of the newspapers were still repeating substantial portions of the 1904 letter years later. But Mike seems to think that every time this stuff gets repeated, that CBM said it anew. Some of the articles on which Mike is relying reprint the old letter almost verbatim, yet Mike treats it as if it is fresh material.
____________________________________________
And of course Mike thinks the 250 acre figure in the October articles was a transposition. But how the hell would he know that? Interesting research approach; if you don't want to deal with it, just assume it is a mistake!
-
David,
Whigham wrote in 1906 that the plan included founders building lots, as you know.
CBM said on his return in 1906 that he was looking for 200 acres.
He also planned on 50-55 yard wide avg fairways.
He also didn't reealize how much of his purchase was truly worthless.
The building plan got scraPped.
Read the articlees and argue with them, not me.
-
Wasn't the Founders plan a concept? An Ideal?
-
David,
Cb could have located his boundary adjacent to alps hill anywhere he wanted within the 450 acres, including up on today's Sebonack GC.
As regards the article from Oct you posted, I believe it was you who said it contained all sorts of errors and misconceptions.
You KNOW CBM wanted 200 or so acres from the beginning for his plan, and you know what that plan consistently entailed.
Are you trying to win a personalized debate with me or actually trying to figure out what really happened?
-
Jim,
You're kidding, yes?
Cbm asks pledges of money from the sixty or so wealthiest golf men in the country, telling them he's buying 200 or so acres of which 110 would be used for golf, 5 for clubhouse, and the rest for 1.5 acre building lots for each of them that were sure to greatly appreciate in value and he was just kidding?!?!
-
Sorry Mike, I was talking about the 1904 version.
And by "concept/ideal" I didn't mean joke. I meant ideal/blueprint.
-
Mike changes his mind so much that it is impossible to address his posts in one single entry.
A few posts above he added that the 120 acre offer was some sort of an exception:
The only deviation was his offer for 120 acres near the canal, but that was in an area already being subdivided with building lots, so he may not have needed his own. It also shows what he thought he'd need for his golf course.
The only deviation? It was the only other offer! All the rest was just repeats from newspaper columns! Actions speak louder than words. And there was CBM in action, buying land based on his needs for the golf course, not for some estate distribution system.
Mike, would you please list for us all of the many offers that CBM made for parcels of land which were large enough for a 90 acres of real estate? If the offer for 120 acres was a "deviation" then there must be a bunch more.
And Mike disingenuously claims that the reason they didn't try to buy more was because the area had already been subdivided with building lots. MIKE IS JUST MAKING STUFF UP. CBM supposedly made his offer for the 120 acre parcel within a few weeks of the time the developer obtained the property. Does he think it was developed during those few weeks?
And the same developer owned both parcels, so the same argument ought to apply as well to the property on Sebonack Neck! Yet Mike artificially insists that on one side of the property CBM only wanted enough for the course yet on the other side he is planning on giving out 60 lots?
- Mike, would you please explain your justification for stating that the land had already been developed by the Canal?
- And why wouldn't the same argument about the founders buying off property apply on the Neck?
- And isn't more likely that in both cases CBM was just buying for the course, and that because of the nature of the sites CBM just needed a lot more land for the golf course on the Neck?
This is what Mike does. He just squirms and slithers and hopes no one notices that most of the stuff he is writing makes no sense. If he gets caught he slithers away but then circles back later and makes the same claims again.
______________________________________________
As for your next post(s) you are again misrepresenting some of the information and cherry picking other information. The Founder's agreement doesn't say that was going to buy 205 acres, it gives a hypothetical of what might happen if they bought 200 acres. It was only a "suggestion." And I don't see where CBM said he needed two hundred acres upon his return. An article wrote that he would need 200 acres, but it isn't in the CBM quote. You are picking and choosing as you see fit. Besides, the acreage was at least in part a function of the cost and the amount of money it would take to develop the golf course.
Giving excess land back to the founders was mentioned as a possibility in the Founders Agreement, and it is mentioned as an "ingenious" financial mechanism in an article that seems aimed a drumming up interest, but for you to continue to claim buying an extra 90 acres of land to then hand it back to the founders is too much. The main point you seem to be missing is that he was looking for a perfect site for a golf course. If it had a place for estates, fine, but the goal was to find land for a course.
Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are from an old letter and one marketing blurb. And when it came time for action, CBM attempted to buy a 120 acre parcel. Unless you think he was going to design a 30 acre golf course, then your theory about his priorities is shot pieces.
Next he bought 205 acres in a long oddly shaped strip with no place for a golf course. He could have scrunched a golf course into half of it I suppose, but he was out to build an ideal golf course and so he bought land on which that course would fit with NO CONSIDERATION FOR 90 ACRES OF LOTS.
If YOU don't agree then why don't YOU take it up with Macdonald. As you keeps pointing out he was quoted extensively in those articles about the project. He described the long, thin, irregularly shaped swath land, described many of the locations for golf holes, described the proximity to the hotel, the starting point of the course, the water frontage, etc. He even described the yacht accessibility for goodness sakes! NO MENTION THAT HE WAS PLANNING ON USING ALMOST HALF THE LAND FOR ESTATES. NO MENTION OF USING ANY OF THE LAND FOR ESTATES WHATSOEVER.
Do you know why there was no mention of the 90 acre set-Aside for the estates? Because he only bought enough land for his golf course, and he wasn't planning on having 60 estates crammed onto the same thin strip of property!
He did write the members could expect in two years, though, when the course was finished:
It will take two years to perfect the course. Then our members will find a golf house ready, also lockers and baths. We are not going into the bed and hash business. A modern inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Peconic Bay.
Did you get that. He wasn't going into the bed and hash business. He was building a golf course. No mention of them finding their 1.5 acre estates ready to be developed. If they wanted a place to sleep there was an inn nearby and plenty of sites for houses.
And there were plenty of sites for houses, given that SHPBRC was to developing hundreds of acres for real estate right next to the course, and they had another 250 acres as well. But why would he mention that "there were plenty of sites for houses," if all of his founders were going to be building their palatial estates on narrow swath CBM had just described as a golf course?
Let me guess? You will try to claim that CBM is referring to "plenty of sites for houses" on the NGLA property itself? Would you really? Probably. Even though he had just described the property as a golf course? And even though you don't even think he has bothered to yet consider where the golf course will go, much less the "plenty of room for the houses?" I wouldn't be surprised, but you know as well as I do that this is not what was referring to.
__________________________
Jeez Mike, I cannot keep up with your fibs and absurd claims.
You are misrepresenting what I said about those October articles. Knock it off.
CBM couldn't have gone anywhere on Sebonack Neck with the property because he had already chosen the land from the Inn to Peconic Bay with a mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay. DO THE MATH. That greatly limits where he can go and how wide his course could be!
-
Jim,
That letter was still valid in 1905 and 1906 and in 06 Whigham was still talking bout acre sized founders lots and CB was still seeking 200 acres, so no, I don't think it was ideal.
Behr's article also mentions what was needed for a golf course (around 110 acres), CB said Merion could prob do on 12120,and CB offered for 120 where he thought he had built in real estate, so no, it was practical and not idealiatic.
-
David, whixh parts of the oct articles do you believe are in error?
As regards width, we all think CB HAD to go to Peconic Bay but that's an assumption on our parts. Truly not much of tthe course even adjoins today so I don't know that it was mandatory.
He also could have shortened/straightened his route by usong avail land of today's Shinnecock course, so he definitely had options.
Do you think CB had located 18 tees and greens by the time he secured the property in Dec 06?
-
Jim,
Mike's attempt to convert this acreage-for-housing scheme into some sort of binding contractual term is entirely bogus. It wasn't a term, and it wasn't even a blueprint, concept, or goal. It was a "suggestion." CBM wrote "This is simply a suggestion" and left it to be worked out later. Had CBM known that someone like Mike would be twisting it for his own purposes 100 years later, he might have left it out all together.
In fact the entire thing is from a hypothetical. It starts "Assuming that we buy 200 acres . . ." It is a hypothetical suggesting what could happen if there was extra land.
While they always contemplated the possibility that there would be excess land and the founders might benefit, CBM was quite clear that this was not at all the purpose of the project, and joining was not an investment:
While the $1,000 subscription it is trusted will be made in a spirit of advancing the sport in this country, and not as an investment, at the same time it is proposed to give something for the $1,000.
He also makes clear that the purpose of the endeavor is to find the land best suited for golf which was also accessible. He is originally looking for 200 or more acres, but that seems to somewhat a factor of cost, and how much was necessary to build the course. Any left over land could be given back to the founders, or something else could be worked out later.
-
Dsavid,
Just read your longer post about sites.
Phew...that's a humdinger!
I don't even know where to start.
Wasn't it Behr who rightly said that an out and back routing was the most efficient in terms of space utilization?
What was he going to do on the other 120 acre site...build a mini golf course?
Please also show us the land plan for where the developer wsas going to build houses next to NGLA.
Wow
-
David,
You know that isn't what CB wrote as a suggestion in that letter.
Instead of parsing and omitting and twisting, why not just repost the letter in its entirety and let people make up their own minds what it says.
We don't really need you to interpret. Thanks
-
David,
Do you think they had located eighteen tees and greens by Dec 1906?
What parts of the Oct 06 articles do you believe to be in error and why?
Thanks
-
David, whixh parts of the oct articles do you believe are in error?
You just claimed that I wrote that the article contains "all sorts of errors and misconceptions" and now you have the nerve to ask me to recite that for you?
You've got some nerve. You cannot just make shit up and wrongfully attribute it to me and then expect me to set the record straight. That is dishonest. And sleazy. But that is what you do, again and again.
I am tired of having to suffer and scramble because you just make shit up and because you are unwilling and/or unable to follow the argument. I explained my thoughts on these articles well back. Look it up. And next time look it up before you start indiscriminately misrepresenting my position.
As regards width, we all think CB HAD to go to Peconic Bay but that's an assumption on our parts. Truly not much of tthe course even adjoins today so I don't know that it was mandatory.
He also could have shortened/straightened his route by usong avail land of today's Shinnecock course, so he definitely had options.
I don't give a damn what he "could have" done. I care what he did. And he described the land he optioned and it is as the land is now.
You keep pretending that the property was an open book at this point, but it wasn't. He described the land. It was the same as it is now. So all this speculation on your part about how he could have fit housing is malarky. He already had chosen the land. A two miles strip starting near the inn. A mile on Bullshead. Etc.
Do you think CB had located 18 tees and greens by the time he secured the property in Dec 06?
I am not answering any of your questions until you start answering mine, current and past.
Here are a few simple ones.
If in mid-December 1906 CBM was still planning on eventually distributing 90 acres for lots after the course was routed, then why didn't he mention it when describing the project? And why then why did he announce that there were already sites for houses in the area?
-
A question for the architects. Have you ever ridden over new land you had never seen before, that was heavily covered with bushes and undergrowth, that consisted of 450 or so acres, and routed a course there -- all in two or three days?
A question for anyone: in Scotland's Gift, CBM first says he did not want to get too close to Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. A few paragraphs later, he says he found land adjoining Shinnecock Hills Golf Course that would work well for the course. This is the land he ended up buying and building NGLA on. Did he change his mind about being close to Shinnie, or is he talking about two different things?
Jim,
I think CBM had a love/hate relationship with SHGC.
I believe he was a member, then not a member due to a clubhouse incident.
I don't know the date of that incident offhand, but, it would certainly motivate him to "remove" himself from being under SHGC's eyes.
I can't imagine him siting his clubhouse behind the current 9th green for a number of reasons.
1 They didn't own that land
2 I can't imagine him feeling looked down upon from SHGC's clubhouse perched high above him.
3 The site between # 1 and # 18 overlooking Peconic Bay is better than spectacular,
-
Pat/Jim,
In 906 those Shinny holes adjacent to NGLA were not there, were not owned by Shinny, and were part of the 450 acre parcel that CBM was considering for purchase.
Mike,
NO ONE ever referenced holes at SHGC, so I don't know why you'd bring them up other than to create another diversion.
As to the land, I'm not so sure you're correct about that.
CBM himself states that the land he wanted ADJOINED SHGC.
That sounds like it bordered SHGC's property to me.
-
Was the Shinnecock Inn built where it was built because CBM wanted it there and that was the agreement?
Not to my knowledge.
[/b]
Or was it built there because of the railroad, and CBM had to make do with that spot? Or something else?
I believe the SI was originally, slightly SE of the site behind his 1st tee.
The site behind the first tee was right on the North Highway, the main East-West thoroughfare on the North side of the South Fork.[/b]
Pat, did CBM actually have 18 specific holes he wanted to build regardless of the site?
Yes, he did.
The list appears on page 184 of "Scotland's Gift"
The concept of the ideal/classic 18 holes had its origins with a contest started in 1901 in the London "Golf Illustrated", in an article entitled, "Best Hole Discussion" wherein they asked the top golfers of the day to list the most testing holes in the UK.
From there, CBM began his own pursuit[/b]
Or did he have a smaller collection of holes he wanted to build (i.e. templates such as the Redan) and some other more general concepts he wished to incorporate into holes?
No, he listed his collection of all 18 holes and provided a brief summary of each one, including the course of origin.
[/b]
Was the Cape hole actually an original or a copy of a hole like the 1st at Machrihanish?
I'm not sure whether the concept came from a par 4 or a par 5 like the 16th at Littlestone, or a combination of holes[/b]
If it was an original, did he already have the concept thought out or did he see the pond up in the corner and have a Eureka! moment?
He apparently found his Eden quickly.
When you stand behind the Eden, but with only a northern direction to follow along Bulls Head Bay, the Cape concept seems to unfold in front of you, naturally. He states the sequential nature of the routing. After he explains locating and formulating his Eden, he states, "Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape." So, I think that in finding one setting for one of his template holes, the Eden, by default, he found the next, the Cape. A Eureka moment as you declared.[/b]
-
If they only way they could get over the ground was on ponies, doesn't it beg a lot of questions about how they could survey or route the course?
Do you see the direct quotes above and their timing specific to the "agreement" to secure the land on undetermined borders?
Mike,
You told us in a previous post that there were no trees on the property.
Absent trees, and with just low lying berry bushes, they could see every contour.
You continue to misrepresent, now telling us that the reeds were over their head, obstructing their vision.
You're being disingenuous, and I don't care what Jeff Brauer thinks about the use of the word, your actions fit the definition perfectly.
Jeff Brauer,
Mike stated the following:
A few reasons, but mostly because CBM had 450 inpenetrable acres to traverse.
You know and I know and Mike knows, that that statement is a blatant lie.
Now do you want to discuss the definition of disengenuous ?
Or, how about this quote:
You've seen plant growth near swampy areas...some of the reeds go up way over your head.
Mike is now posturing that the visibility was so impaired by the reeds that you couldn't see anything on foot
The truth is, they could see everything on foot.
The reason for the ponies was to get through the berry bushes with little or no effor on their part.
They were't riding around on step ladders or cherry pickers, the ponies were to minimalize the effort, not enhance the view.
Mike is being disingenuous...... again.
But, if you want to defend him, go ahead, be my guest.
I know when someone is being honest, and he ain't it
-
David,
Cb could have located his boundary adjacent to alps hill anywhere he wanted within the 450 acres, including up on today's Sebonack GC.
No he couldn't.
After his Alps, he had to reverse course, heading North East, and from there, he had to head south on his next hole.
With the 18th hole established, with the green finishing at the SI, the die was cast, especially with the introduction of two of his famous template holes, which he claimed to have routed first, the Road and the Bottle, thus, from the 14th tee, he had to get to the 16th tee, and the only way to do that was to head directly south.[/b]
As regards the article from Oct you posted, I believe it was you who said it contained all sorts of errors and misconceptions.
You KNOW CBM wanted 200 or so acres from the beginning for his plan, and you know what that plan consistently entailed.
If that's what he wanted, why did he bid on just 120 acres just down the road, shortly before he explored NGLA ?[/b]
Are you trying to win a personalized debate with me or actually trying to figure out what really happened?
I'd say that we pretty much know what happened, you're the one who's agenda driven to prove it didn't for the sake of your Merion argument.
-
Jim Sullivan,
Knowing the two starting points, the 1st, 18th, 9th and 10th, the hugging of the Eastern boundary to the 4th and 5th, then up to the 8th, (leven) and down to the 9th, the front nine was routed.
Macdonald tells us that he first placed the holes which were almost unamimously considered the finest of their character in Great Britain.
That would include the above holes, and, the 11th, the Sahara, then the 12th Alps, and 13th Redan.
Macdonald goes on to describe the 16th, his Road hole. And, the 17th, his Bottle hole is another of the "finest holes.
So, in his 18 link, OUT and BACK chain of holes, he has established holes #'s 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18.
Twelve holes, only missing six holes, his 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th 14th and 15th.
Please take a look at the aerial posted. fill in those hole and you'll notice that' there's only one way to get from # 1 green to # 4 tee, you have to go NNE, which is where # 's 2 and 3 route themselves.
Then, once you leave # 5 green, you have to get to # 8 tee, and there's only one way to go along Bulls Head Bay, and that's NW, hence, #'s 6 and 7 route themselves.
Leaving you behind the Alps green at # 13 with only one direction to go to get to the 16th tee, SE, so # 14 routes itself, leaving only # 15 as the final piece of the puzzle.
Take a look at the aerial. Fill in the 12 holes CBM alluded to and see if the other six don't fall into place on a default basis.
One other item.
In a discussion with George Bahto, years ago, we were discussing the current 7th and 12th holes (old 16th & 3rd) and the shared fairway they enjod along with the shared fairway bunkers they enjoyed, bunkers meant to capture errant tee shots at both holes.
Hence, when you examine these two holes carefully, you see that they're not just holes in isolation, but rather, siamese holes, joined at the hip (fairway)
This too leads me to believe that CBM wanted to duplicate the narrow out and back configuration he had seen in the UK.
But, he had also seen elements of that same basic configuration closer to home, closer to NGLA.
Where ?
At Garden City where he was a member.
And, it appears that the 6th and 7th fairways at GCGC just might have enjoyed shared fairways with shared fairway bunkers off their tee shots.
As David stated, from the begining the configuration of the land was a long narrow slit, starting at the SI and ending at the flank/shore of Peconic Bay.
From the very begining, the routing was preordained, self completing as Max Behr declared.
Look and study NLGA on Google Earth and I think you and any prudent person will reach the same conclusion.
-
The following is a copy of the original Founders Agreement. CBM attached this copy in his 1912 project letter to the Founders, some of which I will refer to shortly.
On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course. The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.
Please judge for yourselves whether CBM is referring to the entire plan as a "suggestion", or merely the details of the proposed bond offerings. I'll trust you won't need David to interpret it for you.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_ea27f50a12_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_582e5d8dae_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5393591445_069d3581a9_o.jpg)
On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date. In it, as referenced on the opening page (and as I've copied above), he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement which I've copied in full above, as well. On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to his enclosure of a copy of the original agreement.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/5393591069_a71b835e91_o.jpg)
This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5394188438_daaaed8d87_b.jpg)
This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been INTENTIONALLY purchased, as well as its disposition. Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/5393591181_236ec657a8_o.jpg)
Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
Even Max Behr recognized that CBM had purposefully purchased more land than he anticipated for golf in an article I reprinted in full a few pages back;
"Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business."
I'm not sure why David and Patrick are growing increasingly hysterical here and both refuse to answer direct questions, but it may be that they have no facts or actual verifiable evidence to support their wild claims.
-
If in mid-December 1906 CBM was still planning on eventually distributing 90 acres for lots after the course was routed, then why didn't he mention it when describing the project? And why then why did he announce that there were already sites for houses in the area?
OH but David...he DOES mention his plans for home building sites it in December 1906.
When he refers to not being in the "beds and hash business" he is talking about not building a clubhouse or a hotel on the site as they already have decided they are going to use the Shinnecock Inn for their purposes.
BUT when he mentions home sites, CBM is talking about his OWN plans for Home sites...the proposed Building plots for his Founders.
Recall that this entire 450 acre stretch was consider wasteland and had never been surveyed.
There were NO plans by Alvord's company at that time or later for subdivisions. In fact, this land was NEVER sub-divided, which is why Sebonack GC could get built 100 years later!
If you know of some land plan for the sites next to NGLA, David, please produce it here for our review.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5496291889_a01cf4c64c_o.jpg)
Now, will you please answer my questions?
Do you think they had located eighteen tees and greens by Dec 1906?
What parts of the Oct 06 articles do you believe to be in error and why?
The first question goes to the issue of whether the golf course was actually routed prior to securing the 205 acres.
The second question is not meant to be insulting but to get your understanding of those articles. On the face of them, articles proclaiming that CBM purchased 250 acres of land in mid-October 1906 ARE inaccurate. In fact, the whole premise of the article is inaccurate by definition.
Further, they define his purchase as going to the inlet at Cold Spring, which is over a mile from the western border of NGLA, so yes, they are rife with inaccuracies and errors, by definition.
What I'd like to know is your take on them...especially the part about sending surveyors maps to golf experts abroad.
-
Patrick would have us believe that in 1906 CBM had selected 18 Ideal holes that he wanted to reproduce at NGLA.
Amazingly, he further argues that the land was so perfect that all of these 18 specific ideal holes just magically fell into the landscape, end to end like dominoes, and that the course just created itself, as if by God-ordained intervention.
The truth?
Well, as you might imagine...
First, here's CBM's list of 18 Ideal Holes from an article he penned in the 1906 Outing Magazine, as reproduced in his book. Does this look like NGLA to you?
No, of course not. Some of his holes were in there, but most were not reproductions, nor were they intended to be, as CBM's own thinking on this issue had evolved over the years, as noted by Horace Hutchinson and others.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5496905562_74fbeb0edb_b.jpg)
Now, here's CBM ACTUALLY telling us what he created at NGLA, and how they did it.
Only 5 of the holes were meant to be copies...the rest were either composites of various features he liked from holes abroad, or they were originals.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5496909782_5ecccc11ed_o.jpg)
Here's Horace Hutchinson on the matter;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5485526962_9420ba80ee_o.jpg)
and Mr. Darwin;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5484931557_1685d67832_o.jpg)
And if the hole just so perfectly fit the ground that the routing just routed itself, then why did he need Seth Raynor to do this?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5455586555_74d78d9632_o.jpg)
I'm not sure why Patrick would want to minimize the effort it took for CBM to lay out such a complex undertaking.
Can it be that he wants to give him authorship of a one-day routing at Merion so badly that he has lost all objective reason and judgment here?
-
In The Evangelist, George says that CBM made an offer for Shinnecock's golf course. Is this claim in error?
Mike, do you have any ideas where the Founders' lots were to be located? I have never been to NGLA, but looking at the aerial that has been posted here it is hard to see the extra land, or at least anything remotely approaching 90 acres. Also, it seems to me awfully hard to get around the fact that CBM's one prior attempt to purchase land (assuming George was in error regarding Shinnecock Hills GC) certainly did not include any land at all for Founders' lots. That suggests to me that if it was a priority at all it was a small one.
How many Founders were there? I have read 60 and 100.
When you stand behind the Eden, but with only a northern direction to follow along Bulls Head Bay, the Cape concept seems to unfold in front of you, naturally. He states the sequential nature of the routing. After he explains locating and formulating his Eden, he states, "Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape." So, I think that in finding one setting for one of his template holes, the Eden, by default, he found the next, the Cape. A Eureka moment as you declared
Thanks Pat. But if it was found that way, doesn't that suggest that he did not really have 18 predetermined holes and these holes were then draped over the 205 acres? Never having been to NGLA, how well do you believe the list Mike reproduced below (I am assuming that is the same list you said was on page 184) matches with what CBM created at NGLA?
-
Andy,
As David Moriarty pointed out, Mike continues to reference a "concept" that was at odds with reality.
One only has to look at the attempted purchase of the 120 acres located just West of NGLA to understand that the concept had been abandoned prior to CBM ever setting foot on NGLA.
The abandonment of that concept continued when CBM examined NGLA for the first time.
CBM only took as much land as he needed for his golf course, which turned out to be 205 acres.
BUT, he could have purchased an additional 245 acres for lots/homes if that concept had any merit with him,, but he didn't, he deliberately chose NOT to purchase any land for lots, despite the fact that he had a huge parcel at his disposal.
Why ?
Because now that he had found the land to place his ideal golf course upon, he didn't need the "marketing sizzle" of member lots to attract investors/members.
If the "concept" had been a serious one, CBM would have gobbled up additional acreage, but, we know he didn't.
You'll also note, in "Scotland's Gift", in the chapter dedicated to NGLA, that land for lots/housing was NEVER mentioned.
Even when he was going to buy the 120 acres to the West, 2,000 acres were available, yet he never made any offer for any land other than that land dedicated to the golf course.
Furthermore, once NGLA was built and being played, neither CBM or NGLA bought any additional land for the purpose of siting lots/homes.
The notion of member lots was a concept, even a marketing ploy, meant to attract prospective members.
But, when it came time to buy land for the golf course CBM never attempted to buy surplus land for lots, despite the fact that ample land was available for that purpose..
Mike continues to flail and strike out in desperation, fueled, aided and abetted by the "phillyphiles" (;;)
-
Andy,
CBM ended up using much more than 110 acres for NGLA over time, probably close to 160-170 acres of the 205 he purchased. I have never claimed that NGLA ended up being 110 acres...that's just how my position has been misrepresented, but it's clear from all of the evidence that he went into the securing of that property with that general estimate in mind.
This shouldn't be surprising or shocking. We've seen in 1915 where Max Behr writes that the average ideal course takes up about 100-110 acres. We've seen where in 1910 CBM told Merion that he thought they "could" put an ideal course down on roughly 120 acres, and we've seen where CBM made an offer to the real estate company for 120 acres for his golf course prior.
We've also seen Mr. Behr tell us that the most efficient routing in terms of land usage was an out and back routing, so it had nothing at all to do with the site, the routing strategy, or anything else but consistency with his overall plan goals that led CBM to once again purchase his magic number of 205 acres at Sebonac Neck.
My assumption is that CBM would have located his building lots around the perimeter of the course, in specific places as his routing progressed, but that's just supposition on my part. Whether the course he built was as "wide" as we see in today's aerials is unclear, but we know that even in early development he wanted what he termed to be "ideal" 50-55 yard wide fairways, on average.
However, we know he built bigger. The course he built has gigantic fairways, averaging over 70 yards at their widest points, with some over 100 yards wide.
Once again, I'm guessing, but I think that reality overcame theory once CBM started building his course, and he realized that to create avenues of play for the weaker golfer "around" his intimidating hazards meant that he had to really significantly widen his holes.
In the preceding years he had railed against the idea that fairways needed to be wider than 50-55 yards, but when it came down to it, CBM was the worst offender, not that it was a bad thing.
I also think that more of the land down near Bullshead Bay than CBM anticipated was indeed worthless for any purpose. He wrote that his course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile, but besides the litle bit down by the Eden and the Cape, the course really turns inland from there and the Bay is not even in view on the next two holes. 1908 articles on the construction talk about the unexpected number of areas that were swampy, or that had to be filled, and I think the combination of increasing hole widths, evolutions in his routing plan, and land discovered to be unfit for golf or housing eventually chipped away at his ideas for building lots.
Not that I think CBM minded a whole bunch...he had what he needed...money in hand from the Founders, and his focus was clearly on golf.
This 1912 map shows the areas shaded that were not golf course but still fell within the property boundaries. I'm not sure if it is meant to represent all 205 acres;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_2a79ebbbd8_o.jpg)
If CBM had indeed already routed his course in December 1906, it is unlikely he'd still be talking much about building lots, but it's clear that as the project progressed, and the routing using the best land forms got fleshed out, that idea for building lots got pushed to the wayside.
Patrick mentions a personal anecdote with George Bahto in what is an obviously transpoarent to make it appear that our friend George agrees with his theories that NGLA was routed in a day or two on horseback.
However, I wonder how that could be as here is what George wrote about the routing of NGLA;
From "The Evangelist of Golf", pages 62-64;
"Undaunted, Macdonald uncovered a 450-acre tract adjacent to the Shinnecock Hills course. The property had been looked upon as wholly ill-suited for any development - a worthless mess of brambles, swampy areas, and murky bogs. In fact, so little of the land could be explored on foot it was necessary to use ponies."
"It was here that Macdonald, who had no background in surveying or construction, first hired a local surveyor/engineer named Seth Raynor to produce a detailed map of the property. To say the least, the land was by no means perfect, but it was almost entirely sand based. Macdonald envisioned that once the swamps were drained and the underbrush cleared, they would find a site with natural undulations perfect for building his ideal course..."
"...From the survey, Macdonald made a rough sketch of the holes he planned to build, and with Raynor, located potential sites and elevations for greens, tees, and turning points in the fairway. Macdonald tinkered endlessly with the routing plan. Finally, after months of planning, he was ready to move to the next step..."
"...C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan. Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp. Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"
"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."
"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking. Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography. They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."
"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification. The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain. The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."
"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction. Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."
"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams. A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created! It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil. Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."
p.s. I just read Patrick's response to you.
As you can see from the map I just posted, as well as all of the associated documentation earlier this morning, CBM did NOT buy just the land he needed for the golf course.
Patrick also mentions the previous offer for 120 acres that CBM made to the developer. That land was down by the canal connecting Shinnecok and Peconic Bays, an area where subdivisions for housing existed by 1906, and were certainly planned in concept by the time CBM made his offer.
In the following map, you can see the canal on the far left, as well as the general area that had been already surveyed and subdivided.
There would have been NO NEED for CBM to buy additional land for housing there.
The land he ended up with, land that everyone thought was "worthless", and which was NEVER subdivided, is in the upper right.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
-
(bring back the stymie gauge!)
-
Andy,
Perhaps we can all agree on that one! ;) ;D
-
Andy,
From that larger map here's a blow-up of the region, and I have the 450 acres that made up the "worthless" land of Sebonac Neck encircled in red. The shaded areas around it represent all of the already sub-divided lands of Shinnecock Hills available for purchase.
It's clear that the area of Sebonac Neck had not been sub-divided...hell, it hadn't even been surveyed according to CBM. As we know as well, it was NEVER subdivided and most of the remainder is today Sebonack GC.
Yet David and Patrick are trying to make it seem that it was the same type of deal as down by the canal.
Why do you think they need to fudge stuff like that?
Also..you were asking earlier about the location of the Shinnecock Inn....this should give you a pretty good sense. Hope it helps.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
-
Was looking at the development map and particularly at the two locations marked "National Golf Course."
1. Those locations, particularly the bottom one, speak to the absurdity of Mike's claim that there were no sites for houses near NGLA. "National Golf Course" almost appears to be part of "Block 97." The Inn was built by SHPBRC to get people out to look at lots, but I suppose that the Inn isn't near the lots either?
2. Wasn't this map first published in the early spring 1907? If so, then that would still be within the option period, would it not? Then why is "National Golf Course" marked where it is currently located yet the rest of Sebonack Neck is marked "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company?" According to Mike, CBM should not even had definitely chosen his land yet. It was "undetermined." Sure looks like the location is determined to me.
-
Mike, There are probably a dozen questions you haven't answered, yet you again insist I continue to answer your endless questions? You are a piece of work.
1. The routing.
According to your previous posts, you and I are in agreement that CBM described routing the course when he wrote that they "studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [CBM] had in mind." In Scotland's Gift that occurred before CBM optioned the property. Those articles also indicate that this had taken place before CBM took an option on the property. So I believe that CBM had, at the very least, a rough routing of the course in place before CBM took an option on the property.
Unlike you, I am not going to blindly speculate as to exactly what features had been placed and what hadn't at this point. He doesn't tell us that. As I said before and have maintained from the beginning, the planning of the course was ongoing at this point so obviously not every single feature was in place.
And I am not going to buy into your oversimplified version of exactly what must have been in place for us to consider it a "routing." For one, such a discussion is a waste of time in that none of us have the information to meaningfully say exactly what was in place one way or another. For another, your definitions fall apart when applied to a unique course like NGLA. Take your all-18-tees-and-greens-in-place requirement. Sounds simple, but CBM wasn't as simple or formulaic in the way you apparently think he was.
- For example, the location and hole concept of the Alps hole was obviously in place from the very beginning. Yet it seems that even in 1909 through 1911 (when they were already playing the course) they were still grappling with the proper location of the tees to create the "ideal" length for this hole. So by your oversimplified logic, the routing was not yet in place even after they were playing on the course, including this hole.
- For another example, on the green end, the location and hole concept of the Sahara was also reportedly in place early, yet even after they were actually playing the course there was some discrepancy and hesitancy about the exact size and location the green, and therefore the length of the hole itself. So by your oversimplified logic, the routing was not yet in place even after they were playing on this hole as well.
To me, saying that CBM had a rough routing in place means that CBM had a good idea of the "route," path, or "course" the golfer would take from beginning to end, and that CBM had a good idea where each individual golf hole would fall along this path, meaning he had a good idea of each hole's general location amongst the natural features, and each hole's approximate distance and direction. But if you want to pretend like you know exactly when he placed all of the tees and greens, be my guest.
_______________________________________________________
2. The October Articles.
You carelessly misrepresented my position and now you are demanding I set the record straight even though it is all right there in a previous post. Classy again. You seem to think that I am here to correct your misrepresentations, and I guess I understand why --I have had to correct hundreds of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations over the years. But I wish you'd start doing a little self-correcting, at least when it comes to your misrepresentations of my positions from past posts. They are as available to you as they are to me.
This situation is a perfect example of how you operate. Let's review . . .
1. You have a point to make --that very little was done prior to the mid-December option agreement.
2. The October articles (which report that they were already busy with the site in October and that they had already created and distributed maps) directly contradict your point.
3. Rather than consider how this information impacts your point, you simply ignore the information and/or dismiss it as inaccurate and unreliable
4. To this end, you simply make crap up about what I think without even bothering to go back and check what I had actually wrote about the articles.
5. When I call you on it, you still don't bother to go and look at what I wrote. Instead you demand I tell you about the "errors" in the articles.
That is how you operate. Again and again. And yet you wonder why we get frustrated with you and your intentions?
Rather than slamming and discarding these articles as you suggest I did, I actually tried to consider the impact of the articles on the state of our knowledge at the time. And unlike you, I didn't hastily jump to agenda driven conclusions. Among other things . . .
- I cautioned against dismissing the articles as mistaken just "because it is convenient to do so," yet this is exactly what you are doing.
- I wrote, "we should at least consider the possibility that some mapping was done by this date."
- I noted, the articles require us to reconsider our assumed timeframe and "perhaps stretch it out quite a bit."
- I noted, "it is entirely possible that the land was surveyed sometime after CBM and HJW first rode the land and when they secured on option in December 1906, whether by SHPBRC or at CBM's behest."
- I noted, according to the articles, "we also know that, by mid-October, they had reportedly visited the site several times" and that the "land may have been already surveyed at this point" and that maps, even if simple, might have been created.
The only mention I made of possible errors was to note that the announcement that CBM had purchased the property was "premature" and that we could only speculate about the accuracy of the rest, but even here I cautioned against dismissing it out of convenience!
In other words, Mike, you blatantly misrepresented my position and unjustifiably discarded these articles to try and make your point. What you ought to discard is your theory rather than the source material undermining it.
______________________
So Mike, now that you can see that I don't believe the articles were riddled with errors, here are a few related questions for you--
1. If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?
2. And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?
3. And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?
4. And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?
-
David,
I have to run, but, did you notice, on the map, the two roads that would cut right through the Sebonack Neck property, the road that cuts right through # 8 and # 11.
It must not have been as undeveloped as Mike indicates.
-
David,
You and Pat need to get your stories straight on those Oct articles.
Pat isn't going to like the fact you believe they had the property surveyed, mapped, and were seeking design assistance from foreigners months prior to even securing the property.
How the heck will that jive with his Instant Routing theory?
I'll reply in detail early next week.
-
Mike,
Whether the property was surveyed before or after their initial ride is immaterial.
It was the initial ride that determined the routing vis a vis the configuration of the land they wanted, which has been described/defined numerous times.
When you look at the entirety of the 450 acres and consider that they chose a very long, very narrow strip, bordered on three sides by natural and defined boundaries, the routing was immediately preordained. It had to be an out and back routing.
The only thing needed was to locate CBM's 18 ideal/classical holes within the framework of that long, narrow strip of land.
CBM tells us that the holes just "popped" out to him.
As to the newspaper articles, you know that I've always doubted their accuracy.
We know that the "foreignors" you allude to didn't examine the property prior to CBM's initial ride, because you told us it was inpenetrable. CBM himself states that only he and JW examined it on ponies for 2-3 days, and that only he and JW determined it was what they wanted, so I don't see anyone assisting CBM and JW with the initial study of the land, the study that resulted in them determining what land they wanted for their golf course. Once they selected that long, narrow strip, bordered on three sides, the basic routing was done. It was preordained as an OUT and BACK routing.
If "foreignors" were consulted with, it wasn't on the initial ride to determine the land needed to route the golf course.
And, as I stated, once CBM and JW selected that long, narrow strip, bordered on three sides, the basic routing was done.
CBM had to make sure that the company would sell them this land for the right price, since they had just previously rejected CBM's offer on land, West, just down the North Highway.
Once the company agreed to sell the land, CBM and JW returned to locate his ideal/classic holes on the long, narrow strip of land, bordered on three sides, that they had selected earlier.
CBM tells us that was an easy task, that some of the holes immediately identified themselves, and that he placed the most famous holes first, thereby placing the remaining holes in the gaps within the routing.
The 18 link chain provides the easiest analogy.
I think David and I are in complete harmony in that the initial ride determined which parcel of land they wanted, and that once they selected the Eastern most parcel, a long, narrow parcel, bordered on three sides, the die was cast as to the routing.
It would be an OUT and BACK routing where the course essentially routed itself, just as Max Behr stated.
-
Pat,
Do you really believe those October articles are accurate?
Which parts?
-
Pat,
Can you show me where CB says the holes just "poPped"? And where Behr said the routing laid iself out?
-
Mike Cirba,
I asked you a few straightforward questions. You failed to answer. Again. Why is it that you are incapable of defending your own position without deflecting, changing the subject, going off on a tangent, muddying the waters, or some other bush league avoidance tactic?
Patrick and I don't need to get our stories straight on anything. We can and do each think for ourselves and are each responsible for our own ideas. Neither of us has a drunken peacock whispering in our ear. Quit trying to deflect attention for the failings of your own theories by saddling him with my ideas or me with his.
I answered your questions. Now start answering mine.
1. If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?
2. And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?
3. And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?
4. And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?
-
Pat,
Can you show me where CB says the holes just "poPped"?
Since you want to be in denial about this, I'd be happy to cite where CBM states this.
After finding the setting for his Alps green, CBM stated:
"Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutely natural."
It doesn't pop out any more quickly than that does it Mike ?
How is it that I answer all of your questions, but that you NEVER answer David's or my questions ?[/b]
And where Behr said the routing laid iself out?
I NEVER used the term "laid" itself out. Why would you deliberately misquote me ?[/b]
-
David,
I'm on a blackberry and you and Patrick's questions are beyond stupid and insulting.
Still, I'll do ny best to discuss such ridiculous matters as the golf course routing itself when I get back to a computer later in the weekend.
In the meantime, don't let me delay your ongoing search for the truth here. ;)
-
David,
I'm on a blackberry and you and Patrick's questions are beyond stupid and insulting.
Still, I'll do ny best to discuss such ridiculous matters as the golf course routing itself when I get back to a computer later in the weekend.
In the meantime, don't let me delay your ongoing search for the truth here. ;)
My questions are stupid and insulting? What a strange way of saying that you don't really have satisfying answers to those questions.
Don't bother regaling us with your further insights into golf course routing. I didn't ask you about that and am not interested in the least. I answered your questions as a courtesy and now I am ready to move on to the questions I asked you. Just answer the questions. There are at least a dozen you haven't answered, but let's start with these:
1. If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?
2. And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?
3. And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?
4. And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?
-
Time for a little housekeeping.
First, the location of the proposed golf course in the October 1906 article posted by David a few weeks back.
Here again is the description of the location;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
Now, the first thing to understand, which I'm surprised with David's recent research on Shinnecock he didn't point out, is that in 1906 Shinnecock was as east of NGLA as Delaware is east of Pennsylvania.
That is, it's not, or wasn't, and you'll note than NONE of the later articles noting the optioning of the Sebonac Neck land mentions that Shinnecock is to the east.
Here, encircle in red, is the land occupied by Shinnecock GC in 1906. If anything, I have the northern boundary drawn a bit too far north, as you'll see in my next post that the Olmstead Bros. proposed building a super highway between Shinnecock and NGLA right at Shinny's northern boundary at the time!! ;)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5055/5506535882_b797ebbd1d_b.jpg)
The following picture shows a little more information. I've blacked out the land of today's Sebonack GC, as well as those portions of Shinnecock GC not in use at that time, which helps to show the scenario a bit more like it's being described.
Most of the landmarks are indicated in yellow, and include Peconic Bay to the north, the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) running along the south, the Shinnecock Station (SS) and Inlet from Peconic Bay clearly indicated.
Once again, in red you can also see the boundaries of Shinnecock Hills GC.
In purple nearby I've drawn the location of the Shinnecock Inn, and out to the west draw the border of what was known at the time as "Good Ground".
You'll note that the western boundary of today's NGLA is 1.5 miles away from that inlet, and the southern end is .35 miles from the Long Island Railroad.
Whatever land those articles David posted from October 15th, 1906 that said the golf course was within those bounds certainly wasn't talking about the Sebonac Neck property where the course was built.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5018/5506535946_5544fe281e_b.jpg)
-
We were also told that CBM would have never considered land below Cold Spring Bay, even though that's where the boundaries of the purchase reported in those October 1906 articles clearly locate the specific landmarks, and even though multiple articles mention he was looking at "VARIOUS" sites around Peconic and Shinnecock Bays.
Why?
Well, we were told that CBM would NEVER locate his course where there was already a HIGHWAY going through it.
Even though that supposed super-highway which is seen as proposed on the Olmstead Bros. Land Plan from April 1907 isn't identified on Highway maps of Long Island into the teens, we were told by Patrick and assured by David that it existed, and was very busy as it was the main route to Southampton.
Even though Phil Young showed us that these transportation avenues in the newly developing stretch of LI were very fluid, primitive, temporary and transient though the next years and beyond, we were told that this road was locked in place and it was preposterous to consider that anyone would ever move it for a golf course!
Well, whatever.
What both of those guys evidently didn't notice is that this supposed existing 8-lane Super Highway cuts right through the land separating Shinnecock and NGLA!
Here, drawn in Red, is the supposedly existing "North Highway".
If you look very closely, you can see an 18-wheeler running across today's 2nd green at Shinnecock. ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_b.jpg)
That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5445347569_bb2d0267f6_o.jpg)
-
Was looking at the development map and particularly at the two locations marked "National Golf Course."
1. Those locations, particularly the bottom one, speak to the absurdity of Mike's claim that there were no sites for houses near NGLA. "National Golf Course" almost appears to be part of "Block 97." The Inn was built by SHPBRC to get people out to look at lots, but I suppose that the Inn isn't near the lots either?
2. Wasn't this map first published in the early spring 1907? If so, then that would still be within the option period, would it not? Then why is "National Golf Course" marked where it is currently located yet the rest of Sebonack Neck is marked "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company?" According to Mike, CBM should not even had definitely chosen his land yet. It was "undetermined." Sure looks like the location is determined to me.
David,
I've blown up that map every which way and God bless you if you can read that small print just above the Super Highway cutting through the boundary with Shinnecock Hills there and tell us without hesitation that it says "National Golf Course". I can see it clear up near Bulls Head Bay but I wouldn't bet you 20 cents that I can tell you it says that down near the proposed highway.
Actually, not sure that's the border at all, because it looks to me just below that highway and above where "Shinnecock Hills Golf Club" is noted that it says "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company"....kind of like it does up above, where it seems to note that ALL of what is known as "Sebonac Neck" is owned by the "Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company".
So, although the proposed Land Plan and proposed subdivisions, and proposed roads that was drawn up by the Olmstead Brothers and which appear in a April 1907 Advertisement for Shinnecock Hills is interesting, I'm not sure it tells us much about the actual boundaries of NGLA at that time, much less the state of the routing at that time, do you?
We know that CBM tells us when he and Whigham found the property it had never been surveyed. Are you telling us CBM was wrong?
Or, are you simply stating the obvious, noting that the property had certainly been surveyed (by Seth Raynor) in the intervening months, and certainly by April 1907 when this map was published which was close to the time CBM tells us he signed the actual purchase contract ("Spring 1907") after he had optioned the property a number of months prior?
Aren't we trying to determine the state of the land when CBM optioned it in Nov/Dec 1906 and not later after what was likely six months of surveying, mapping, clearing, routing, and planning, prior to signing the final purchase?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
-
I've been informed that my western boundary of the 1906 Shinnecock Hills course may extend a bit too far west.
So be it...it's a rough estimation and if someone wants to map via Google, or whatever, the exact coordinates, I'm quite confident that the larger point remains the same, especially if they remember to take a little off the top, as I believe I've been overly-generous to the northern boundary as well..
-
Mike,
There's no other way for me to say this.
You're lying through your teeth and you know it.
To post the map/schematic above, and offer it as proof that no other roads existed in 1914 goes beyond dishonest.
If desperate men do desperate things, then you've sacrificed your character, your integrity through dishonesty
Quite simply, if anyone has a GPS system in their car, they know that the resolution can be adjusted.
You can take the resolution down to 150 feet and see everything, or you can take the resolution up to where the minor/smaller roads and arteries disappear from that scale, leaving only the interstates on the map.
David Moriarty called you a "charlatan", and now, unfortunately, I have to agree with him.
You are not a man to be trusted to be candid.
You stated the following:
That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
That's such an incredible lie, such a blatantly dishonest, disengenuous statement that it's an insult to everyone reading this thread.
You KNOW, from Phil Young's post # 360 that the road was in existance in 1914.
It existed in 1907, and much earlier, as evidenced by the documents from the Senate of the State of New York dated 1907.
It was THE MAJOR artery on the North side of the South Fork.
The documents appear below.
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad4.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad2.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad3.jpg)
You should also know that, TODAY, there are roads that run through both NGLA and Shinnecock.
How can you deliberately lie ?
You know the North Highway was there, it's been documented with irrefutable source documentation, documentation which you acknowledged in reply # 361, yet, you stated:
That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
I'm afraid that I can't trust anything you post, that I'll have to look at all of your future, and past posts with a high degree of enlightened suspicion.
I think it's terrible that you've resorted to such underhanded tactics in your desperate attempt to further your Merion agenda.
Shame on you.
-
Phil,
I'll check that out tomorrow, thanks.
Right now, I need to eat some newborn puppies for dinner and then hurl some molotov cocktails at the Vatican before getting some rest but I'll be back tomorrow with more acts of treachery and mayhem.
Mike, just so you don't go back and edit your reply # 361, acknowledging's Phil's production of the 1907 New York Senate documents regarding the North Highway, I've quoted your response.
When you speak of acts of treachery, one has to believe that you're speaking from experience.
-
Pat and Mike,
Since the two of you have now referred to my previous postings of the records of the New York State Senate of 1906 I feel that someone who has actually read the document, and it is far more than those two brief pages I posted, should comment.
Pat, yes there is the reference to the "North Highway" but what YOU Have CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND and did so when arguing over my post was that the "North Highway" in 1906, according to these records, was a DIRT ROAD that needed to be completely paved over and expanded to a proper two-line highway! This would not happen for quite a while.
The document from 1906 is the debate about WHICH ROADS AND RAILROAD CROSSINGS would get funded for that very work, including the "North Highway." Maybe if you had taken the time to research exactly when the "North Highway" was actually worked on you wouldn't be so quick to call Mike a liar on this. He didn't and I think you owe him an apology on this. There is a VERY GOOD reason why the "North Highway" is not shown on that map.
If you have some time take a ride over to Hofstra University and visit the Long Island Studies Institute. There you will find an enormous archive including maps, documents and copies of all the old East End newspapers that can be found nowhere else. There is a wealth of information there that can shed a great deal of light on this discussion.
If you go ask for Deborah and tell her I say hello. She is relentless in researching good questions.
What has also been missed in the discussion of the "roads" in the Senate document is a POSSIBLE pretty good reason as to actually WHY CBM didn't choose the other property. Might it have been that while he was looking at it the State Senate was debating how to actually put in roads and railroad crossings on that site and develop it which would mean that he would have been buying property that he actually COULDN'T build a golf course on and that he only learned about it later?
-
Phil,
I understand completely.
But, why would you or Mike draw a distinction between the North Highway and the South Highway ?
The North Highway crossed what's now the LIRR.
Remnants of the North Highway, just North of the Sunrise Highway, East of the Shinnecock Canal exist today.
There was sufficient traffic on that roadway, the North Highway, circa 1906-1907, to create a safety hazard, thus prompting a relocation and reconfiguration of the crossing.
What you don't understand is that the North Highway was the MAJOR East-West road on the North shore of the South Fork, extending from the Shinnecock Canal to the Eastern end of LI . It remains THE MAJOR East-West Road for the entire South Fork, East of the Shinnecock Canal.
But, this is irrelevant.
What's relevant is Mike's disengenuous, deliberate, declaration, wherein he stated that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914, when he knew it existed, vis a vis your reply # 360.
You can't get more dishonest than that.
Please don't sidetrack the issue by trying to dismiss THE MAJOR East-West thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork , as a isolated deer path that connected New York City to Montauk, that just happened to accomodate a cars. An accomodation that became a safety hazard due to traffic and an RR crossing.
Thanks
Mike's claim that the South Highway, today, County Road # 80, was the main thoroughfare, to the exclusion of the North Highway, is absurd.
I stand by all of my comments.
As to the North Highway not showing up on that 1914 rendering, why do you suppose that no other roads show up on that map ?
Were there NO ROADS on the entire East end of LI in 1914.
Mike's a big boy, let him speak for himself.
Out of curiosity, why would you build a train station where there were no roads to service it ?
-
Pat,
You've GOT to be flippin' kidding me!
You accuse me of being disengenous while looking at a Land Plan that has a freaking North Highway drawn right between Shinnecock and NGLA, about right behind today's 9th green at NGLA, and across the 2nd green at Shinnecock, and you tell me I'm being disengenous.
Please point out for us when and where that highway ever existed that ran through the golf courses.
For that matter you don't have any idea if what is drawn as the "North Highway" on that 1907 plan was actual or proposed, do you?
Yet, for pages you argued that CBM would never have selected the land below Cold Spring Bay because the North Highway ran through it.
At best, the "North Highway" was a dirt road, as Phil mentioned. The map I posted from 1914 was a HIGHWAY map, and YES, the only road deemed a HIGHWAY at that date was the one BELOW the LIRR.
Here you have a land developer who just bought 2700 freaking acres of property to develop, you have a consortium that CBM put together of millionaires and captains of industry in America who are looking to build a golf course playground retreat, and you are seriously and genuinely telling us that they're plans are hosed because of a freaking dirt road??!?! They couldn't move it, or re-route it for a mile or so closer to the tracks perhaps? All of their dreams and plans get washed down the drain because of that damn dirt-road that isn't even included on a map of highways on Long Island in 1914!
And you tell me I'm being disengenous??
We have a self-professed expert on early Shinnecock on this thread, who for weeks now has been telling us that his October 1906 articles MUST have been talking about the land CBM found on Sebonac Neck, because it mentions that Shinnecock Golf Club borders adjacent on the East, even though the western border of the supposed 250 acre purchase is ONE AND A HALF MILES AWAY from today's NGLA western border.
Now, suddenly, it takes me to point out that NO PART OF 1906 SHINNECOCK EXTENDED NORTH ENOUGH TO EVEN REACH SEBONACK NECK OR ANY PART OF NGLA.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
How then could it be predomoninatly EAST when ALL PARTS of the course lay SOUTH of ALL PARTS OF NGLA AND SEBONAC NECK?!?!
WHY DID IT TAKE ME TO DISCOVER THAT FACT and POST IT HERE??
It's sad Pat...you've lost all ability to be objective, balanced, and fair on this issue.
-
Can we now move onto a discussion of what land those October 15th, 1906 article were talking about, because it's clear there was NO highway in the way just south of Cold Spring Bay?
Pat...I'll not take offense because I really respect, like, and admire you a great deal, but I do hope out of common decency you'll think twice before calling me a liar here again.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Again, I'm not nearly well enough read on this stuff but if that little newspaper snippet describing where CBM had found his land is all we have to go on at that time, regarding this exact purpose I don't understand how we can try to Google Map locate it. The article doesn't give a single measurement in relation to any of the landmarks you're measuring it from.
Guessing how far skirting and adjoining imply is a tough one...
-
Jim,
No one is looking for an exact Google Map location, but an approximate generality, which shouldn't be difficult.
If the southern boundary "skirts the Long Island Railroad"...
If the "eastern limits ADJOIN Shinnecock Hills Golf"...
If the "most western point is near the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station",
I'm not sure how others argue with absolute certainly that the "250 acres" in question reported to have been secured by CBM on October 15th, 1906 is the land of today's NGLA.
For starters, NONE of NGLA's property ADJOINED Shinnecock Hills GC to its East in 1906.
The west edge of NGLA is 1.5 MILES from the inlet.
The southernmost point of NGLA is .35 miles from the Long Island Railroad.
-
Jim,
Good point. I never felt like those newspaper descriptions were doing anything other than generally locating the parcel for the readers with some known landmarks.
Mike,
Now the newest mystery is the 1905 map showing some dirt roads (dashed lines) up to what would become the NGLA clubhouse.....for that matter, those dirt roads criss cross the area coverd by the Ohlmstead plan, and obviously were changed at some point, although FLO may have used some of the paths, which were probably pretty logical, since they often followed old Indian trails and the like and were the easiest routes.
I wonder what was on those dirt roads that became the NGLA parcel? Were there scattered houses (perhaps of native Indians?) on those roads when the Realty Co. bought the land? Maybe NGLA got located to the eastern part of that property because those paths made it easier to survey than the western part, with no roads, and presumably more brush?
BTW, I can buy David's theory that the work started well before October and was more than a few pony rides. If CBM and JW rode it several times, as reported, and then Travis and the rest of the committee saw the property before December, all that would fit the process descriptions and your time line. I think we are wrong in thinking it was "only pony rides" as these things take longer than we think.
BWT, you note that the Olmstead plan appeared in April 1907. Do you know if it was prepared earlier? I ask because it shows roads stubbed out to the future Bayberry Estate/Sebonack. These are usually shown to indicate future development, even if unplanned. If prepared before the NGLA routing, it would be an indication that CBM was forced to the east side of the property available (assuming they rejected his earlier bid based on existing land planning ideas) but if just current to AFTER the CBM option, they may have drawn the roads AFTER CBM chose his land.
Lastly, like Phil, I wonder if there was any connection to the Dec. RR Xing ruling and CBM's option? I am still trying to figure out why, if the routing was settled in October, he would feel the need to take an option (for protection should he need to back out for some unknown reason) in December. I have postulated it was for time to finalize his corporation, gather fees, have Raynor survey, but maybe, get land and road issues sorted out would also be a good reason, other than the most obvious one - that he still hadn't finalized his routing.
Patrick,
I have stopped following this thread to a large degree because its too painful to see you guys argue to the degree you are. Based on your name calling, I would gather that most readers would peg you as the most desparate party on here at this moment.
-
Jeff,
I'll try to mock something up later, but I believe most of those indicated roads were on the Shinnecock GC side of things and did not extend up into today's NGLA land, with the exception of the one going out to Peconic Bay.
I also tend to agree with your other premises, with the only point I'd make is that there is no way at all to tell if those October 1906 articles were talking about today's NGLA land and lots of reason to assume they weren't.
Whether CBM was simply floating a story as a negotiating tactic is something I wouldn't be surprised about.
I just think people here who claim to speak with certainty on either the timing or the timeline or the time-involved of CBM's property acquistion and routing of the golf course are only fooling themselves.
-
Mike,
I'm happy to use, or not use any piece of collateral you all want to since I rarely make the effort to find any of it myself. But that little snippet clearly says CBM "secured" the area. Are we to assume he just made it up? Or is it a bit more realistic to think the exact location secured (by contract a couple months later) wasn't viewed by the writer either in person or on a map?
For what it's worth, that word "secured" could indicate the three step process I was talking about a few pages ago. CBM and HJW ride the land in the late summer and decide it's just what they want and get a handshake agreement to buy it. During the fall they look at it in more detail and agree on a price and take their option that was reported on in December.
-
Jim,
Here's one of the original October 1906 articles. I also have one from November 1st, 1906 that says he's down to two choices...one near Montauk and one in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground. Be back later...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
-
I apologize for asking this at this point, but how, or when, was this article discredited?
-
Pat,
Only because I respect you that I'll give you an answer for your question, "Out of curiosity, why would you build a train station where there were no roads to service it ?"
They wouldn't. The problem with the question and answer is that neither takes into account the QUALITY, SIZE and TYPE of road that was servicing it. I'll try and locate the website that details exactly when ecery station on the different lines of the railways serving Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island were built. Off the top of my head the Shinnecock station was built in the very early 1880's, well BEFORE there were any automobiles. the roadway system in the first decade of the 20th century on the Eastern end of Long Island was mostl;y built BEFORE there were automobiles out there which is why the "North Highway" was a DIRT road and not the major thoroughfare you are convinced existed.
Once again, the Senate report of 1906 is germane because it refers to the very POOR quality of the roads with MOST of them being dirt roads. The need for better crossings went part and parcel with the need for better roads including the "North Highway" which in 1906 was NOT a MAJOR thoroughfare as you keep portraying it. It might have been the major LOCAL thoroughfare, yet all that does is help one to realize just how quaint and not built up that portion of the Island was during those years.
Again, the only import of these facts on the NGLA question has to do with two questions. WHY did CBM look at that section for his course? Why did he end up NOT building the course there?
-
Phil,
I think you are right that the original Shinny station dates to the creation of the golf course, maybe earlier, and golfers probably took a horse carriage to the clubhouse. I think Peconic agreed to move it to better serve the Inn and two golf courses, most likely at the chagrin of Shinny, who had their private station.
BTW, the mention of the maps being made in the Oct article strikes me as those GBI hole topos that CBM had drawn up, not a survey of the exact property at the Neck.
-
I don't know Jeff, the paragraph begins..."Maps showing all the undulations and grades in feet have been executed".
-
I think he would mail his concept and template holes to his experts for reviews as to which to include, no? Not sure they could all read a topo, or that he even had one at that point. However, its just my reading of it and as always, I could be wrong.
-
Jim,
I think the major thing to consider is that these articles from October 1910 do not jive with what is reported in the days after CBM secured the land two months later in December 1906, nor do they jive with what we know factually to be true.
For instance, in the article I just posted.
CBM actually paid $40,000 for the 205 acres, not $100,000 as is reported here.
CBM actually secured and later purchased 205 acres, not 250 acres as is reported there.
The supposed general description of the 250 acres if read literally is well south and west of today's course. If read to simply be a general description, it includes well over 1,000 acres.
CBM thanks many of the expert golfers abroad in his book for their help with providing him maps and other info related to the ideal holes. If he sent each of them a copy of a topo to elicit their suggestions prior to October 1906 then I find it surprising that the boundaries of the course is still "undetermined" and the holes to be reproduced and their yardages was still largely unknown 2 months later, at which time CBM is quoted as saying that would happen over the next several months. I mean, I know I've argued that the guy was meticulous, but...
Add to this that it was reported 2 weeks later that CBM was down to two sites; one near Montauk and one in western Shinnecock near Good Ground, and I think that anyone who can tell us they know what happened and when is...a charl...er...char...
Is Charles B. Macdonald, and I think he did tell us in those December articles, as well as in his book. ;) ;D
-
Mike,
That December article mentions that the land purchased is as previously reported. I don't know why or how the word leaked out before Charlie wanted it to, but that is how I read the Oct. article. Maybe he floated the Montauk idea after the Peconic Co saw the October article, just for negotiating power?
There is always the possibilities in these real estate deals of some kind of hiccup. This all suggests he was close in October, but then something happened, and it took until December. Still don't understand the option, unless some things were up in the air still.
BTW, I take the $100K to be his total budget, and it doesn't say that is the purchase price.
-
Jeff,
I think that's all very possible.
Even so, the total money he had raised for the project was still $1000 per Founder, with 60 Founders, so that article is wrong in that respect.
I also wonder if the writer wasn't covering their butt a little bit in saying it's the land previously reported because the descriptions of the location as well as the details are quite different.
-
Mike is trying to circle the conversation back to ground already well covered so as to avoid answering a few straightforward questions. His convoluted theories about these October articles or a mysterious third parcel didn't make any sense the last time we discussed them and they make even less sense now. I'll not bother to respond and of Mike's misrepresentations of my position and of the record, so as to avoid derailing the conversation.
Let's just say that I agree with Jim Sullivan and Jeff Brauer that the description in the articles was a general location and that it refers to the Sebonack Neck property. That is unlikely to change no matter how many times Mike scribbles on the aerials.
Mike, please answer my questions. I have plenty, but let's start with the ones you recently described as "beyond stupid and insulting." The last one isn't even about these October articles, so you will need to come up with a different song and dance to avoid answering that one.
1. If all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that they were well into the project by mid-October?
2. And why was it reported that they already had maps of the property?
3. And (assuming you'll claim that these articles referred to the horseback rides) why don't you think they did anything at all between for two months after this?
4. And if all CBM and HJW had done before optioning the property was ride it for a few days, then why was it reported that Travis, Emmett, Watson, and Chauncey, and others had all been over the land before CBM took an option?
-
Pat,
You've GOT to be flippin' kidding me!
NO, I"m not.
You're not being disengenuous, you're outright lying.
You know the North Highway existed, the 1907-06 New York State Senate documents acknowledge its existance, you acknowledged knowing that in your reply # 361, yet, in spite of that prior knowledge, you blatantly lied by stating that the North Highway didn't even exist in 1914.
You can't get more dishonest than that.[/b]
You accuse me of being disengenous while looking at a Land Plan that has a freaking North Highway drawn right between Shinnecock and NGLA, about right behind today's 9th green at NGLA, and across the 2nd green at Shinnecock, and you tell me I'm being disengenous.
Yep, you're dishonest.
The North Highway went right behind today's 9th green at NGLA in 1907 and it goes right behind the 9th green at NGLA today.
Not much has changed.
They sited the Shinnecock Inn on the North Highway, just 200 yards from the old 1st tee at NGLA.
Please point out for us when and where that highway ever existed that ran through the golf courses.
It went behind the current 9th green in 1907 and remains there today.[/b]
For that matter you don't have any idea if what is drawn as the "North Highway" on that 1907 plan was actual or proposed, do you?
You're wrong again.
The North Highway was actual, not proposed.[/b]
Yet, for pages you argued that CBM would never have selected the land below Cold Spring Bay because the North Highway ran through it.
That's another LIE on your part. I've come to accept that you're incapable of telling the truth.
What I stated was that CBM would never have selected the narrow strip of land that YOU originally declared, (and now have since changed your mind)
was the site of the golf course since the North highway didn't just cross it, but, ran right smack down the entire middle of your phantom, ridiculous site for the golf course.[/b]
At best, the "North Highway" was a dirt road, as Phil mentioned.
Horseshit.
The North Highway was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ROAD ON THE NORTH SHORE OF THE SOUTH FORK.
It was such a major road in 1906-7, that the New York State Senate had to act to change the location and configuration of it's crossing the Railroad tracks because the traffic on that road was at risk, a serious safety risk from train traffic.[/b]
The map I posted from 1914 was a HIGHWAY map, and YES, the only road deemed a HIGHWAY at that date was the one BELOW the LIRR.
How can you LIE about these things ? How can you be so disengenuous, so untrust worthy ?
You're telling us it wasn't a highway in 1914, yet, in 1906-07
The New York State Senate DECLARED THE NORTH HIGHWAY A HIGHWAY.
Don't you have any scrupples, any ethics ?
[/b]
Here you have a land developer who just bought 2700 freaking acres of property to develop, you have a consortium that CBM put together of millionaires and captains of industry in America who are looking to build a golf course playground retreat, and you are seriously and genuinely telling us that they're plans are hosed because of a freaking dirt road??!?!
No, that's not what I'm telling you.
I'm telling you that NO ONE in their right mind would consider the parcel of land that you insisted was the long, narrow track south of cold spring harbor, with a highway, the major highway on the north shore of the South Fork, running all the way through it.
The North Highway was there first, that's how people traveled to the East End and Sag Harbor.
But, you bring up something of interest.
Do you think, that the consortium that CBM put together, millionairres and captains of industry, would buy 60-70- 90 1 acre to 1.5 acre lots scrunched together ? Not in a million years. One of the early members, Sabin, bought the balance of Sebonack Neck, approximately 245 acres.
Yet, you've continued with your insistance that NGLA was going to have 60+ lots available to those millionairres and captains of industry.
They wouldn't be caught dead on those lots.
They couldn't move it, or re-route it for a mile or so closer to the tracks perhaps?
Another wild speculation absent any supporting documentation.
Please, heed Shakespeare's words in Hamlet I, iii.[/b
All of their dreams and plans get washed down the drain because of that damn dirt-road that isn't even included on a map of highways on Long Island in 1914!
You know the North Highway was there.
The 1906-07 New York State Senate documents prove it was there
The 1914 map you posted doesn't show one other road on the entire South Fork of the East End of Long Island.
Is there no limit to your dishonesty ??
Don't you have any pride in your reputation as a man of principle, of character ? [/b]
And you tell me I'm being disengenous??
You're God Damn right I am ![/b]
We have a self-professed expert on early Shinnecock on this thread, who for weeks now has been telling us that his October 1906 articles MUST have been talking about the land CBM found on Sebonac Neck, because it mentions that Shinnecock Golf Club borders adjacent on the East, even though the western border of the supposed 250 acre purchase is ONE AND A HALF MILES AWAY from today's NGLA western border.
Don't try to divert my response to the blatant lie you posted by shifting the topic to third parties.[/b]
Now, suddenly, it takes me to point out that NO PART OF 1906 SHINNECOCK EXTENDED NORTH ENOUGH TO EVEN REACH SEBONACK NECK OR ANY PART OF NGLA.
I think you're confusing Shinnecock's property lines with the Shinnecock golf holes in existance at the time.
Macdonald wrote, rather clearly, that the Sebonack Neck property he wanted ADJOINED Shinnecock.[/b].
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
How then could it be predomoninatly EAST when ALL PARTS of the course lay SOUTH of ALL PARTS OF NGLA AND SEBONAC NECK?!?!
Because NGLA's land, adjoined Shinnecock's LAND, not its golf holes.
No one, repeat, no one maintained that the Sebonack Neck parcel that CBM wanted, adjoined golf holes at Shinnecock, only that the property CBM wanted, adjoined the property at Shinnecock.[/b]
WHY DID IT TAKE ME TO DISCOVER THAT FACT and POST IT HERE??
I doubt that YOU made that discovery. I've seen the recent emails from TEPaul and others.
But, again, I think you're confusing the golf holes in 1906-07 with the property lines in 1906-07[/b]
It's sad Pat...you've lost all ability to be objective, balanced, and fair on this issue.
I think I've been extremely objective, balanced and fair.
I have no agenda. Oh, that's right, you declared that my agenda was to support my advocating dictatorships as the best form of club governance.
You have an agenda. You stated it. To prove that CBM couldn't have routed NGLA in short order.
You haven't searched for the truth, rather you've searched, desperately, to find anything to cling to to support your agenda.
But, worse, you've lied, blatantly lied and misrepresented, all to promote your agenda.
I can assure you, as much as I love NGLA, I'm not about to lose my reputation, principles and character over the advocacy of any position.
[/b]
-
Mike,
You should also know that the location of the Shinnecock Inn in your graphic is NOT the location of the Shinnecock Inn that was located 200 yards from the old 1st tee at NGLA.
I believe that the Shinnecock Inn was moved, to the North Highway.
But, you knew that, didn't you ?
-
Can we now move onto a discussion of what land those October 15th, 1906 article were talking about, because it's clear there was NO highway in the way just south of Cold Spring Bay?
It's not clear and you'd have to be blind to make that statement.
The North Highway runs just north and parallel to the Railroad Tracks.
Are you sure that map is accurate ?
We know how far the railroad tracks are from the Shinnecock Inn, Shinnecock and NGLA, yet, in the map you've presented, the RR tracks appear well south of their location.
Pat...I'll not take offense because I really respect, like, and admire you a great deal, but I do hope out of common decency you'll think twice before calling me a liar here again.
Mike, I have to call it as I see it.
You declared that in 1914 the North Highway wasn't there.
Yet, you KNEW it was there in 1906-07.
That's lying.
Even your 1905 Suffolk County map shows the road, a road you insisted, didn't exist.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
The North Highway is clearly illustrated, running parallel and North of the Railroad tracks.
-
If the 1905 map below is accurate than the original 5th hole at NGLA could never be a "Cape" hole over the water.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
We were told that the original 5th, which appears as a schematic on page 123 of George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf" had no road intervening between the tee and green, and that after the course was built, the green had to be moved to the left, to accomodate the access road to the club's new front entrance after the Shinnecock Inn burned down.
-
Patrick,
THese were sandy, DIRT roads, no more than cart paths.
You're in serious denial, and your supposed North "Highway" is also a dirt road here, and NOT in the location you claimed it was when you said CBM would not have tried to buy land south of Cold Spring Lake because the North Highway was there.
David,
Your first three questions assume the October 1906 articles were accurate and speaking about the Sebonic Neck property and I've already told you I don't believe either to be the case, so they are moot.
As far as your last question, is it really that hard to fathom that CBM and Whigham would have invitied a few of their closest friends over to view the property before deciding that they wanted to option it? Wow...that must have been an incredible, time-consuming challenge for them!
As I said prior, the question is both stupid and insulting.
Besides, your argument is with CBM, not me. HE is the one who wrote that he and Whigham decided to option the property based on the 2-3 day horseback ride.
YOU and Patrick are the ones who keep telling us it's ALL in Scotland's Gift, in those 2 or 3 paragraphs that encapsulate years of activity, so I don't know why you're arguing with me.
Tell HIM!
-
Mike,
Is there a reason why SOME of the roads on the map that Patrick posted are drawn with dashed lines while others are drawn with solid lines? I wonder if Patrick can shed some light on that especially as one of the "dashed-line" roads is the "North Highway." I would expect that there is a legend in the publication from which it was taken that explains the different line types used and what that means about the roads.
Interestingly, the "South Highway" is drawn with SOLID lines...
-
Phil,
Perhaps you can tell us how people accessed the North Shore of the South Fork before 1906 ?
How did they get to Sag Harbor before 1906?
How did they get to Shinnecock Hills to play golf before 1906 ?
How did they get to the Shinnecock Inn before 1906 ?
Hint: It's called the "North Highway"
If it was such a little used dirt road, as you maintained, remember, Mike Cirba denied its existance in 1914, then why did it take the New York State Senate to reroute the highway ?
Why couldn't the locals, the town or a few concerned citizens just move this little used, barely a dirt road, deer path ?
If it was just a little bitty dirt road, hardly used, as you would have us believe, how could it present a safety hazard to the cars crossing the railroad tracks in 1906 ?
But, no, the highway was such a significant artery that it had to be moved by nothing less than an official act of the New York State Senate.
That tells you all you need to know.
We also know from Mike's disengenuous comments when he posted his 1914 map and denied the very existance of the North Highway,claiming that it didn't exist because it wasn't on the map, a map that didn't show one additional road in the entirey of the East end of the South Fork in 1914, that a map does not a fact make.
I'd like to take you at your word, but, any man who claims that the best way to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol Lower, is with a fade off the tee, can't be taken too seriously, as there's obviously a disconnect between theory and reality that he doesn't grasp (;;)
-
Patrick,
THese were sandy, DIRT roads, no more than cart paths.
Mike, you just can't tell the truth.
If you ever want to regain your credibility, please try to start now.[/b]
You're in serious denial, and your supposed North "Highway" is also a dirt road here, and NOT in the location you claimed it was when you said CBM would not have tried to buy land south of Cold Spring Lake because the North Highway was there.
Mike, it was you map of the Olmstead plan that YOU posted that showed the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom golf course site, not mine. It's right there, running East to West, right down the middle of your absurd claim regarding the golf course site.
So, don't tell me it's not in the location "I" claimed. YOU posted that plan, it was right down the middle of your golf course location, a location which you subsequently abandoned, in favor of your newest location.
This is what I mean by you being disengenuous and lying.
You do it repeatedly, and Jeff Brauer, sits there like a bump on a log ignoring your misrepresentations and lies.
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
Mike, here are the maps and aerials you posted.
The North Highway runs smack down the middle of the phantom golf course you insisted was CBM's choice.
Now, you refute your own opinion, claiming instead that the golf course wasn't in the area you marked, which is what I had stated all along.
If you're going to make outrageous claims and misrepresent the facts along with what others have stated, you'd better erase/edit all of your previous posts because they clearly contradict your most recent claims.
YOU posted the Olmstead plan with the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom, delusional golf course.
-
This may be common knowledge to you guys but it isn't to me---were people going out to the end of LI back then? Were there many people living there or just a few scattered potato farmers? How did people get out there--I assume via the LIRR? I can't imagine there was any car traffic to speak of at this point, was there, as there couldn't have been many cars yet. Pat, those playing SHGC then would have taken the train from the City, yes? There was no Shinnecock Inn yet--where did they stay? How did they get around? Was Montauk yet a destination?
-
Andy,
Your correct on every count. Patrick is blowing smoke over a dirt road and he's calling me disengenous.
Priceless.
Patrick,
Thanks for reposting that aerial of the land the October 1906 articles obviously refers to that CBM was considering.
It gives me the opportunity to show folks exactly where Shinnecock Golf Club was located at that time.
ALL of Shinneock GC was south of ALL of Sebonac Neck, and I'm really surprised that you and David didn't note that before trying to make it appear as though the articles in question were talking about the site of today's golf course. :-/
Of course, when the western point of the proposed purchase in the articles is 1.5 miles away from the western point of NGLA, we all should have known you both were blowing smoke up our keisters in continually representing it as today's property.
We shouldn't have needed to figure out the Shinnecock ruse to get to the right answer, but I guess that's the game you guys want to play.
Whatever...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5509396282_66542b1421_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
-
David,
Did you forget that all of the 1906 Shinnecock Hills Golf Club was south of Sebonac Neck in 1906 and couldn't possibly have been due east to CBM's proposed purchase on that site?
You spent a lot of time recently in studying early Shinnecock and the progression of that course so i'm sure it's not something you wouldn't have realized.
How could any of that course be due east of any of Sebonac Neck when it is ALL south of it? There is no way then for it's "eastern limits to adjoin the Shinnecock Hills course", is there? Not ONE FOOT of the Shinnecock Golf Course in 1906 was east of the entire two miles of the Sebonac Neck property, was it?
Even the Olmstead Bros. 1907 Land Plan had the proposed North Highway running north above all of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and south of the land of National and Sebonac Neck.
Did you notice that and realize that the "highway" had to be merely proposed, and not an existing one?
I'm guessing you didn't notice, because otherwise, why would you let Patrick continue in his unproductive tirade about CBM building a course right along an existing highway?
-
Phil,
I looked at the map and the only mention on the key is that "red dotted roads indicate "poor roads".
I would assume the black dotted roads mean exactly what they mean on maps today.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
-
Mike, was the area covered in black owned by SHGC?
The brief newspaper article you are quoting below, is that talking about the 120 acres that CBM tried to initially buy, or something else?
-
Mike--
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your black area is part of the land that Shinnecock President Lucien Tyng owned when he contracted Flynn to design the current Shinnecock Hills course.
-
Andy,
To my knowledge, that area was purchased later by Shinnecock.
The area in question is from an October 15th, 1906 article David posted earlier in this thread.
Whether it is the same proposed area as what CBM referred to in his book I'm not sure.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
-
Andy/Adam,
That land was NOT owned by Shinnecock in 1906. I just looked it up as I wasn't sure when I responded earlier. Macdonald had revised the Shinnecock course later in the mid-teens to remove the holes south of the railroad and reconfigure others on some new land, as well, but it wasn't the land in question.
From Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul's "The Nature Faker";
"Lucien Tyng, an important figure in the annals of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, learned
that a new highway was to be built along the southern holes of the Macdonald design. The
highway, paralleling the Long Island Railroad was eventually built in 1933. So in 1927, in
anticipation of this eventuality, Tyng purchased three lots totaling 108 acres north and east
of the clubhouse. Land on which current holes four, five, six, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and
seventeen are situated one one of the three tracts, part of a sixty-acre tract obtained by Tyng
for use by the club. Holes ten and eleven and the fairways of holes twelve and thirteen are
situated on a separate tract of 38 acres. The green on hole twelve and the tees on thirteen
and fifteen are on a third tract comprising ten acres. Tyng was elected president of the
club in 1928 and was integral figure during the next comprehensive redesign of the golf
course."
-
Mike, maybe I am missing the obvious but the article says that the land (250 acres) was actually purchased--if the parcel that you have encircled is correct then don't we know that can't possibly be correct? Or do you believe they purchased this land AND then bought the actual land NGLA was built on? Or are you saying this article has the landmarks flat-out wrong, as well as the acreage purchased?
I guess I am baffled what you are getting at?
-
Andy,
Please see my response #689 to Jim Sullivan from yesterday.
If the articles were accurate, they weren't talking about the Sebonac Neck property.
Personally, I think they were leaked to the press as some type of ploy by either CBM or the seller, although I'm speculating.
-
Lucien Tyng, an important figure in the annals of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, learned
that a new highway was to be built along the southern holes of the Macdonald design. The
highway, paralleling the Long Island Railroad was eventually built in 1933. So in 1927, in
anticipation of this eventuality, Tyng purchased three lots totaling 108 acres north and east
of the clubhouse. Land on which current holes four, five, six, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen and
seventeen are situated one one of the three tracts, part of a sixty-acre tract obtained by Tyng
for use by the club. Holes ten and eleven and the fairways of holes twelve and thirteen are
situated on a separate tract of 38 acres. The green on hole twelve and the tees on thirteen
and fifteen are on a third tract comprising ten acres. Tyng was elected president of the
club in 1928 and was integral figure during the next comprehensive redesign of the golf
course."
Thanks Mike.
In George's book, he says that CBM first tried to buy SHGC--have you seen anything that supports that?
-
Pat,
You are so hung up on the word "HIGHWAY" that you simply won't even believe the New York State Senate when it stated in 1906 that it wanted to PAVE THE ROAD! It was a DIRT road! Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?
You asked, "Perhaps you can tell us how people accessed the North Shore of the South Fork before 1906 ? How did they get to Sag Harbor before 1906?" Many ways INCLUDING HORSE and BUGGY. Heck Pat, in the 1940's golfers were ferried by horse and buggy from the two train stations serving BETHPAGE to the clubhouse. You can see photographs of this in the book Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses. That is 40 miles closer to Manhattan and forty years AFTER the South Fork after the turn of the century. It wasn't exactly over-populated nor was it built up.
"How did they get to Shinnecock Hills to play golf before 1906 ? How did they get to the Shinnecock Inn before 1906 ?" A number of ways including by HORSE and BUGGY.
"Hint: It's called the "North Highway"" That's correct... HINT, what road do you think those HORSE and BUGGIES drove on? Answer, the "NORTH HIGHWAY!"
You asked "If it was such a little used dirt road, as you maintained, remember, Mike Cirba denied its existance in 1914, then why did it take the New York State Senate to reroute the highway ?" Do I call you a LIAR now for mischaracterizing what I wrote? I don't care what Mike wrote as I've corrected him on this topic as well. The REASON that the New York State Senate REROUTED and PAVED the "North Highway" and NOT the LOCAL towns or county is because IT WAS AND REMAINS a NEW YORK STATE ROAD! The State of New York was and is responsible for it. You would know this if you had examined the State documents that I referred to just as you would learned that this was but a small part of the entire document and that it dealt with railroad crossings and roads THROUGHOUT LONG ISLAND and defined which were owned by whom and WHO would therefor PAY FOR THE WORK.
"Why couldn't the locals, the town or a few concerned citizens just move this little used, barely a dirt road, deer path ? If it was just a little bitty dirt road, hardly used, as you would have us believe, how could it present a safety hazard to the cars crossing the railroad tracks in 1906 ?" Once again you use Mucci reasoning rather than actually look into EXACTLY what happened. The "locals" couldn't because THEY DIDN'T OWN IT! It wasn't that the "North Highway" presented a "safety hazard" to cars crossing the railroad tracks on the South Fork but, and once again if you had read the document you would have learned that this was for EVERY RR CROSSING in BROOKLYN, QUEENS and LONG ISLAND! EVERY ONE OF THEM!
"But, no, the highway was such a significant artery that it had to be moved by nothing less than an official act of the New York State Senate. That tells you all you need to know." No Patrick, that tells everyone else all they obviously need to know about your understanding of this small bit of Long island history... You absolutely do not even begin to udnerstand it.
"We also know from Mike's disengenuous comments when he posted his 1914 map and denied the very existance of the North Highway,claiming that it didn't exist because it wasn't on the map, a map that didn't show one additional road in the entirey of the East end of the South Fork in 1914, that a map does not a fact make." Pat, with all of YOUR ridiculas blather on this subject should I say that YOU have been disingenuous? Or can it simply be that you either didn't know or misunderstood? If that is the case, why can't it be so for Mike? Maybe you just decided what must be his beliefs in this and have based everything upon that?
"I'd like to take you at your word, but, any man who claims that the best way to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol Lower, is with a fade off the tee, can't be taken too seriously, as there's obviously a disconnect between theory and reality that he doesn't grasp (;" Now here especially I must say that you are a disingenuous liar! :) :0 :) I have never stated that. I stated in agreement with Rick that one could use the ground in front of the opening into the green to play the approach shot. As far as the fade, after seeing my swing you must be in need of some serious medication if you think that I could ever move a ball from right to left!
-
Andy,
Please see my response #689 to Jim Sullivan from yesterday.
If the articles were accurate, they weren't talking about the Sebonac Neck property.
Personally, I think they were leaked to the press as some type of ploy by either CBM or the seller, although I'm speculating.
Mike, so you are suggesting this article is not accurate and not to be trusted.
-
Andy,
The October 1906 articles were presented here as supposed strong evidence, even proof, that CBM had identified and had been working at the site of today's NGLA for months prior to securing the actual property on December 14th, 1906.
Given the description of a number of items in that specific article, I would say it's likely related to another piece of property that CBM may have been interested in purchasing, which I've surmised is roughly the location on the map I posted above.
What we do know for certain is that CBM had been looking at property on Long Island in "VARIOUS SECTIONS around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills", from the canal at the west end to likely Southampton for over a year.
In CBM's book he refers to making a prior offer on land near that Canal that was rejected, and he tells us that happened weeks after the land of Shinnecock Hills was sold by a British Company. That took place in the autumn of 1905.
From certain evidence, it seems that the land he settled on was surely not his first choice, and led to the fact that when he eventually secured the land in December 1906, the boundaries of the purchase had yet to be exactly determined, possibly due to the fact that the land had never been surveyed to that point as CBM mentions in his book.
The Brooklyn Eagle reported it this way;
"The exact boundaries of the links have not been determined, but they will probably be Bulls Head, Peconic, and Cold Spring Bays, the land being on what is known as Sebonac Neck."
Now, if indeed these October articles were talking about the Sebonac Neck property, and refer to maps and surveys already having been drawn and sent to foreign experts, then why was so little planned, and why were the boundaries reported to have been undrawn two months later?
Also, why didn't those October articles simply refer to the land known as Sebonac Neck, or Bull's Head Bay? Instead, as seen, they talk about the eastern border reaching Shinnecock GC, the south skirting the LIRR, and the west going out near the Inlet toward Good Ground.
That is clearly not the land they ended up with.
***EDIT*** Andy...I haven't seen evidence that CBM actually tried to buy the land of Shinnecock GC, but it's certainly possible he did.
-
Andy,
For instance, two weeks later Macdonald offered this, which was printed November 1, 1906.
Six weeks later he signed the papers to secure an undetermined 205 of the 450 acres available on Sebonac Neck, which is nowhere near the western end of Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5430995113_6bf62cb39c_o.jpg)
-
Just to verify Mike's reporting of the legend on the map, here it is below. I would infer from this limited legend that red roads were good for automobiles, dotted red roads were poor for autos, solid black would be worse and dotted black would be worse still. I'd guess that the dotted black "roads" were nothing more than a two rut carriage track, unpassable by the cars of 1906. Given that paving of streets only began in NYC in the late 1890's, it seems likely that only the main roads on LI might have been paved by 1906. How many cars could there have been in New York and Long Island in 1906?
The automobile club map below does seem to have Sebonac neck co-located with Cow Neck. That's incorrect isn't it?
In surfing about I came across rare U.S.G.S. topo maps from 1904 of quadrangles of LI, one as close as Moriches . Is it likely that the U.S.G.S. had topo maps in 1904 of all of LI, including the NGLA site.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1905RoadAtlasLegend.jpg)
Phil,
I looked at the map and the only mention on the key is that "red dotted roads indicate "poor roads".
I would assume the black dotted roads mean exactly what they mean on maps today.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
-
Does anyone know the exact site of the Shinnecock Inn?
On November 16, 1906, it was reported that it was going to be a three-story hotel termed "immense" built at a location overlooking the Peconic and Shinnecock Bays, 1/4 mile west of the Shinnecock Hills GC grounds.
Thanks
-
Does anyone know the exact site of the Shinnecock Inn?
On November 16, 1906, it was reported that it was going to be a three-story hotel termed "immense" built at a location overlooking the Peconic and Shinnecock Bays, 1/4 mile west of the Shinnecock Hills GC grounds.
Thanks
Around here. Both the burned and the rebuilt.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ShinnecockInnMap.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Thanks...what year is that map from?
Much appreciated!
-
Andy and others,
You've got to view all of these past few pages in the context of the point Mike is trying to make, because Mike argues from the end. His desired conclusion shapes his understanding of the facts. Where they conflict, the facts are reworked, never the conclusions. That is how he can jump from one sinking ship to another so quickly. His conclusion is the only solid ground.
Here, Mike's point is that at the time the land was formally optioned in mid-December 1906 all that had been done was that HJW and CBM had ridden the land for a few days. They hadn't begun routing the course and choosing the 205 acres of land he wanted out of the 450 acre parcel. The October articles (among much other evidence) contradict his point, so he must shape the articles to fit the conclusion.
But in this case, we've already been through all of this before, when I first posted these October articles way back on page 8, post 270. Between there and the bottom of page 11 Mike pulled out all the stops. I won't go through it all but it involved trying to pretend this was all on the other side of the Canal, then that it was the 120 acre article discussed in CBM's book, then that it was a third, never before known or discussed parcel right in the middle of the land being developed with roads and infrastructure for housing, and part of the same very same project where from which THE DEVELOPER HAD ALREADY REFUSED TO SELL CBM LAND. It is all a waste of time, but if you want to see how Mike jumps from ship to ship as each one sinks it is worth a look.
Finally, near the bottom of page 11, all of Mike's ships had sunk and Mike seemed willing to concede the point: I asked, "Do you now see that it is very likely that CBM was focusing on Sebonack Neck at least as far back as October 1906?" His response: "I'm willing to consider that it was the same land,yes, thanks." Knowing that Mike was likely to reverse course as soon as it suited him, I pressed him and he wrote, "I think its probably 50/50 on whether it's the site they ended up with and yes, I meant the Nov 1st article if that helps advance the discussion. . . . If nothing else, I think the 50 percenr chance that this was the ultimate site deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down, don't you think?" So while not totally conceding, he thought it was was as likely as not and wanted to proceed as if it had been conceded. So we finally moved on!
Mike then asked about what I thought about the details of the October articles. In post 370 I explained why I am unwilling to dismiss the articles as inaccurate out of convenience and explain many of the things I think we can learn from them, including that CBM and HJW were involved in this property much earlier than we expected. At this point, did Mike tell me I was crazy to give these articles some credence? Did he call my reading "beyond stupid and insulting?" Did he say that my reading was hopelessly flawed? No. He largely agreed with me.
"I generally agree with everything you just wrote and would only say that it seems the maps were pretty detailed topos if that article is accurate. []But, as far as stretching out the timeline, I wholeheartedly agree. I think CBM knew he wanted to build around Shinnecock since 1905 as he sort of alluded in his book, and probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer. []I'm also betting he got Raynor to survey it prior to securing the land...nothing but a strong hunch based on what we're learning, but I'm thinking it would be a logical step.
That doesn't sound like what Mike has been saying for the past few pages, does it? But knowing Mike it is easy to explain the about face. All that changed was that I asked Mike to reconsider his main point in the context of these October articles. Apparently, until I pressed him on it, Mike had not considered that HIS OWN READING of the October articles completely undermines his point about nothing really having happened until after mid-December 1906. Trying to get him to reconsider his position even based on evidence he accepted might be impossible. He'd rather just mischaracterize the evidence.
- First he tried a shortcut, falsely claiming that I had dismissed the articles as unreliable.
- After I set the record straight, he tried to throw the discussion off track by trying to play Patrick and I against each other.
- When we don't fall for it, he turned to haughty insults and pretended the answer is obvious, calling my questions "beyond stupid and insulting." When I I kept pressing, and he is ready to come full circle.
- In Post 668 he announced, "Time for a little housekeeping." In Mike-speak, this means it is time for a full-scale retreat; time to erase all progress and return to blatantly misrepresenting the record to force the facts to fit with his conclusions.
And that is all that has gone on since that Post 668, with the same tired argument, modified slightlyonly here and there. Suddenly, despite his past representations, reading the October articles as referring to the Sebonack Neck property no longer "deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down."[/i]
He'll try and rewrite the entire history before he will reconsider his point. But Mike can blackout all the land he likes and draw whatever lines he wants, and he can argue about railroad stations and plans and over passes and roads until the cows come home. But none of his various scenarios even come close to fitting with the description in the articles. He is intentionally misreading the the main descriptor. The land stretched along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.
I am not moved by Mike's blacked out areas or his lines or his apparent argument that rather than being directly east of the land CBM finally settled upon, it is actually slightly south-east. This is especially so because we don't know for certain at this point whether CBM had narrowed down his course to just the final 200 acres chosen. And I am not sure he has drawn Shinnecock accurately either.
_______________________________
I see now that he has even resurrected the position that this must be some mystery third location, apart from the 120 acre Canal property or the Sebonack Neck property. It has been discussed to death, but perhaps it is worth again noting that:
1. This mystery land was supposedly on land that was already in the process of being developed by SHPBRC and they were already reportedly constructing roads and infrastructure.
2. Perhaps more importantly, CBM had already tried to buy 120 acres of land from the same parcel of land on which this development was taking place, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAD SHOT HIM DOWN, presumably because of their development plans.
3. This land does not stretch along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs Inlet.
Mike is just making up this hole third parcel because he does not want to face the facts. The project was well underway long before mid-December 1906! Even Mike admitted that they had likely been working on it since summer and probably already had it surveyed. That is before he realized that this contradicted his point.
-
Bryan,
Thanks...what year is that map from?
Much appreciated!
You're welcome. 1916. The Inn appears to be at the intersection of what is St Andrews Rd and Hwy 27 today.
-
As far as your last question, is it really that hard to fathom that CBM and Whigham would have invitied a few of their closest friends over to view the property before deciding that they wanted to option it? Wow...that must have been an incredible, time-consuming challenge for them!
It is nearly impossible to fathom the scenario you describe:
- You claim that all they had done was ride the property, yet the two others who were to be directly involved -Emmett and Travis- had already gone over the land and expressed their approval. Plus others had been over the land as well.
- You've described the land as "a jungle" and "impenetrable" except by horseback, so this would have put these guys right there with CBM and HJW on at least one of those horseback rides. There is no evidence to support this, and abundant evidence refuting it.
- You claim that at this point they had not even narrowed the property down beyond the 450 acres, so for the six of them to get over this 'impenetrable jungle' would indeed have been been quite time consuming and challenging.
It is fascinating how all the facts are malleable to you. When you want to argue that they couldn't have routed it quickly, you pretend it was so overgrown that they could barely get around, yet when it comes to for others (including two who were to be directly involved with the planning) you act as if it was as simple as taking a cart out and doing a quick tour around the 18.
As I said prior, the question is both stupid and insulting.
Say it some more and confirm for everyone just who acting in the manner described.
Besides, your argument is with CBM, not me. HE is the one who wrote that he and Whigham decided to option the property based on the 2-3 day horseback ride.
Not so. In Scotland's Gift there is no mention of the property CBM optioning the property until after CBM described routing it and even described the land he had chosen based on that routing.
You should really stop misrepresenting Scotland's gift.
YOU and Patrick are the ones who keep telling us it's ALL in Scotland's Gift, in those 2 or 3 paragraphs that encapsulate years of activity, so I don't know why you're arguing with me.
Another misrepresentation of my position? Really Mike. Stop.
-
Mike,
As I just reviewed above, some pages ago you were not nearly so dismissive of these October articles.
1. Rather than dismissing them, you admitted that, as likely as not, they referred to the Sebonack Neck property.
2. You also suggested that we continue on as if this were the case, because, as you said, this "deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down."
3. After I explained to you my take on the articles you wrote, "I generally agree with everything you just wrote and added:
-- You "wholeheartedly agree[d]" that the articles stretch out the timeline.
-- You thought that CBM "probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer."
-- You even thought that Raynor had been hired to survey the land "prior to securing the land."
-- Your only expressed disagreement was that, while I had suggested that any mentioned maps might have been pretty simple, you thought they would have been "pretty detailed topos."
Yet when I asked you some questions aimed at exploring how these articles impacted your understanding of what happened, you not only failed to answer, you repeatedly insulting me by describing my questions as "beyond stupid and insulting."
Here is one of your recent non-answers.
Your first three questions assume the October 1906 articles were accurate and speaking about the Sebonic Neck property and I've already told you I don't believe either to be the case, so they are moot.
You told me that, as likely as not, the articles described the Sebonack Neck property, and that you wanted to proceed as if that was the case. So the questions are hardly moot.
If you want to again backtrack and switch your position to suit your rhetorical needs, I won't stop you, but let's at least back up and consider the questions under YOUR previous understanding.
You know as well as I do that if these articles actually described the Sebonack Neck parcel, then they directly undermine your claims.
-
Andy,
What David isn't aware of is the Aha! moment I had two days ago in reading "America's Linksland", which has a 1915 copy of a Shinnecock Hills routing in it.
Some time back, as David mentioned, in an effort to explore what it would mean to our understanding of the origins of NGLA if indeed those articles were talking about the Sebonac Neck land I relented after days of debate to go down that road (no pun intended ;)).
Although it's clear that the articles speak to the specific purchase of 250 acres, and then go on to describe the boundaries of that purchase being the Shinny Golf club to the east, the Long Island RR tracks to the south, Peconic Bay to the north, and the inlet between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Station to the west, and even though that western point is precisely 1.5 miles west of today's NGLA's westernmost point, and even though the RR tracks are .35 miles south of the most southern point of NGLA, and even though I had very serious reservations about the validity and accuracy of both the articles as well as the dubious premise that they were talking about the Sebonac Neck property that CBM eventually secured and purchased , I agreed to explore it for four main reasons;
1) It's possible the writer was completely lost and had described the land incorrectly.
2) If true, this wouldn't be at all inconsistent with my main premise that the planning effort as well as the routing took weeks, if not months.
3) Unlike others here, I could be wrong.
4) I was tired of arguing about dirt roads for horse and buggies that others saw as "highways".
So, in looking up other information in that book I come across the 1915 Shinnecock Map and all of a sudden, VOILA!, it hits me that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Shinnecock Hills GC to be adjacent EAST to any part of the Sebonac Neck Property, including the eventual NGLA purchase, BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SHINNECOCK GC IN 1906 IS/WAS SOUTH OF THE ENTIRE SEBONACK NECK PROPERTY. Go figure! ;D
Then, I started digging a little deeper...
Next thing I knew I had found maps of the area that made very clear that the 1907 Land Plan that I'd published previously was clearly simply that...a proposal, and bore nothing on reality. The supposed "North Highway" cutting right through the area the article suggests CBM was interested in buying was not there at all...NADA....
Instead, it existed in the form of what looks to be a cart parth/dirt road down closer to the Railroad tracks.
So, considering all of this, I went back and said....guys...WTH? (actually, I used a slightly differnt acronym) How could they be talking about Sebonac Neck having Shinny to the east when the entirety of that property is north of the Shinny GC at that time?!?
Now...had I been an expert on early Shinnecock Hills GC I perhaps should have realized all of that prior and brought it to everyone's attention at that time, but I'm not.
I never knew til just the other day that the entire Shinny GC was south of Sebonac Neck, but that's just me.
I'm still waiting to hear now that we know that how indeed any of those articles could talk about the purchase of 250 acres adjoining Shinnecock Hills GC to the east and yet be on Sebonac Neck, because it's impossible.
But, I'm sure we'll hear some explanation...
-
David Moriarty,
Would you tell all of the morons debating the use of the North Highway, and Mike Cirba who stated that it didn't exist in 1914, let alone 1906, that the automobile in America only went into large scale production in 1902.
There were no automobiles even produced in America prior to 1893.
And that, believe it or not, commerce, travel and development existed on Long Island long before 1902.
How did golfers get to Shinnecock, if not by the North Highway ?
Why was the Shinnecock Inn sited on the North Highway ?
According to Mike it was a cart path. Why would you site a hotel on a cart path ?
Mike, Phil and others have chosen to ignore the realities of 1906, only four years after cars began being produced in large numbers in the U.S.
Mike Cirba remains disengenuous, first claiming that the North Highway, which appeared in his posting of the 1907 Olmstead plan, didn't exist. Then, he acknowledged its existance, then he backtracked and stated that it didn't exist in 1914, now he's stated that it existed, but, was a cart path.
The fact is that the North Highway was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The proof to that statement would be in the evolutionary development of the North Highway as THE MAIN EAST-WEST ARTERY east of the Shinnecock Canal, as contrasted with the diminishment of the South Highway as a major artery.
The fact that the North Highway paralleled the RR probably aided in its becoming THE Major East-West Artery.
Mike has no shame and will continue to misrepresent and lie, yes lie, in an attempt to promote his agenda.
Mike's posted the maps, schematics and google earth aerials of the area, not me and not David.
The North Highway ran right smack down the middle of the golf course he insisted was CBM's.
Others, (not you David) are content to let him misrepresent and lie, without so much as the slightest admonition.
I guess it's the age we live in.
-
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ShinnecockInnMap.jpg)
Bryan,
That's an interesting map.
What's its date ?
-
Andy,
Your correct on every count. Patrick is blowing smoke over a dirt road and he's calling me disengenous.
Seeing as how cars only went into large scale production in 1902 in America, yes, I'm calling you disengenuous.
You told us the highway didn't even exist in 1914, despite seeing documents from the New York State Senate dated 1906-7 proving its existance.
That's disengenuous by any standard.
Priceless.
No, I'd say it's SOP for you.
Patrick,
Thanks for reposting that aerial of the land the October 1906 articles obviously refers to that CBM was considering.
Mike, first you argued and argued and argued that the land CBM was considering was inside the yellow lines you drew.
Now, you've abandoned that location, conceding that you were WRONG.
I've never seen anything like it in my life.
Time after time you come up with a hair brained premise, arguing and swearing that your position is infallible, yet, time after time you're proven wrong. Now, there's a reason for that. It's because you're not searching for the truth. Instead, you're searching for anything that will promote your stated agenda. Thus, I don't consider anything you post as being posted objectively. [/b]
It gives me the opportunity to show folks exactly where Shinnecock Golf Club was located at that time.
You already told us where it was, you told us it was in the yellow rectangle west of Shinnecock and NGLA.
You vehemently argued for that location. Now, do you admit that you were WRONG.
How many more times will you abandon your position to adopt another ?[/b]
ALL of Shinneock GC was south of ALL of Sebonac Neck, and I'm really surprised that you and David didn't note that before trying to make it appear as though the articles in question were talking about the site of today's golf course. :-/
I don't agree with your latest conclusion, just as I didn't agree with your prior conclusion, as you outlined in Yellow.[/b]
Of course, when the western point of the proposed purchase in the articles is 1.5 miles away from the western point of NGLA, we all should have known you both were blowing smoke up our keisters in continually representing it as today's property.
Mike, again you reference questionable articles, articles that have been proven wrong over and over again.
But, it was YOU who insisted that the course was within the rectangular area you outlined in Yellow, not me, and not David.
YOU and YOU alone INSISTED that that was the location. Did you ever state that you were WRONG about that ?[/b]
We shouldn't have needed to figure out the Shinnecock ruse to get to the right answer, but I guess that's the game you guys want to play.
Mike, if anyone is guilty of a ruse, it's you. YOU insisted that NGLA was located within the yellow rectangle.
Now, suddenly you want to accuse David and myself of perpetuating a ruse.
How dishonest can you get ?
YOU were the one perpetuating and arguing that NGLA was located within that yellow rectangle.
YOU and YOU alone are guilty of a ruse.
I repeat myself when I say, have you no shame ?
Fortunately, you can't erase of edit what you've posted, when it's quoted.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5509396282_66542b1421_b.jpg)
-
David, Mike, Wayno, TEPaul, Joe, Steve, et. al.
In 1904-1906 who owned the land shaded in black in my post above ?
-
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ShinnecockInnMap.jpg)
Bryan,
That's an interesting map.
What's its date ?
As I replied to Mike above, it was 1916. Here's a larger segment of it extending up into Sebonac Neck. Interesting that they labeled it NGLA and covered a fairly extensive area in doing so. At that time Shinnecock was still a small property and there's no indication of who owned the land that would become the current SH. By comparing this map to the current Google aerial, one could infer that today's north highway is a bit south of where it was in 1916. There was room for out and back holes between the LIRR tracks and the north highway near Tuckahoe Rd in 1916. Today, no such room.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NGLAMap.jpg)
-
As usual, not wanting to be counted amongst the morons, but ...........
David Moriarty,
Would you tell all of the morons debating the use of the North Highway, and Mike Cirba who stated that it didn't exist in 1914, let alone 1906, that the automobile in America only went into large scale production in 1902. So, how many cars do you suppose there were in America in 1906? How many in NYC and LI? How many paved roads to accommodate them? In 1906, many of the streets in NYC were still cobblestone and the major mode of transportation was train and horse and carriage. But, then maybe cars and paved roads came earlier to the Shinnecock Hills than they did to NYC. :) The Automobile Club map of 1905 indicates that the North Highway was a tertiary road at best. Hardly seems likely it was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY.
There were no automobiles even produced in America prior to 1893.
And that, believe it or not, commerce, travel and development existed on Long Island long before 1902.
How did golfers get to Shinnecock, if not by the North Highway ? By train and then carriage up Tuckahoe Rd?
Why was the Shinnecock Inn sited on the North Highway ? Maybe it was a pretty site? Secluded? Anticipating future development of the road?
According to Mike it was a cart path. Why would you site a hotel on a cart path ? See above.
Mike, Phil and others have chosen to ignore the realities of 1906, only four years after cars began being produced in large numbers in the U.S.
Mike Cirba remains disengenuous, first claiming that the North Highway, which appeared in his posting of the 1907 Olmstead plan, didn't exist. Then, he acknowledged its existance, then he backtracked and stated that it didn't exist in 1914, now he's stated that it existed, but, was a cart path.
The fact is that the North Highway was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY on the North Shore of the South Fork. When was it "THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY"? 1906? 1916? Later? How do you know? What is the source for your following statement about evolutionary development and diminishment. Over what time frame was that evolution? Are you saying it was completely evolved by 1906?
The proof to that statement would be in the evolutionary development of the North Highway as THE MAIN EAST-WEST ARTERY east of the Shinnecock Canal, as contrasted with the diminishment of the South Highway as a major artery.
The fact that the North Highway paralleled the RR probably aided in its becoming THE Major East-West Artery.
Mike has no shame and will continue to misrepresent and lie, yes lie, in an attempt to promote his agenda.
Mike's posted the maps, schematics and google earth aerials of the area, not me and not David.
The North Highway ran right smack down the middle of the golf course he insisted was CBM's.
Others, (not you David) are content to let him misrepresent and lie, without so much as the slightest admonition.
I guess it's the age we live in.
-
For further debate, the property in question below could be interpreted to fall inside the purple line. The purple star is the location of the Shinnecock Inn.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUnknownProperty.jpg)
-
David, Mike, Wayno, TEPaul, Joe, Steve, et. al.
In 1904-1906 who owned the land shaded in black in my post above ?
Patrick,
Good to see with this question that you're finally realizing that there is little chance that those October 1906 articles David posted was speaking about the Sebonac Neck property of today's NGLA golf course.
Frankly, you should be doing jumping-jacks and rejoicing.
That would have stretched out the timeline for studying and routing and planning the course another two months, at minimum.
Factor in the maps sent to foreign experts abroad and waiting for their collective replies and pretty soon you have....heavens forbid!...a collaboration! ;)
So you should be thrilled, frankly, that I've taken the time to prove that there is no way that Shinnecock Hills could have been EAST of the property in 1906, since the entire golf course was SOUTH of ALL of Sebonac Neck, and ALL of the land CBM eventually bought for NGLA.
Now, you can just go back to arguing that CBM routed the course over unsurveyed land on horseback in 2 days and that all of those December 1906 news articles were either lying or wrong when they quoted CBM saying he'd spend the next several months working with his committee determining which holes to reproduce and their yardages.
You should be thanking me, and wondering why someone who has studied Shinnecock's evolution didn't point that out to you sooner.
Patrick...by the way...do you even READ what I write?
Please show me where I EVER said that NGLA was located within the yellow rectangle I drew on the map above.
I know where NGLA is located, Pat.
What I said and now believe more than ever is that the October articles referred to a different piece of property that CBM was interested in prior to his Sebonac Neck purchase. I believe the descriptiion of the location, especially since we now KNOW the dimensions of Shinnecock HIlls at the time, places it roughly within that rectangle.
News reports of the time mentioned that CBM was looking at "Various Settings" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills.
I believe this was one of them. I know it's not NGLA nor would I ever have said such a stupid thing.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for your updates on the roads and for providing some unbiased input here.
As regards your last post, I believe that this is the article you wanted to post...not the subsequent one from November 1st, 1906.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
I would disagree slightly with your drawing of the purple lines on two counts.
NGLA never owned, and CBM never purchased, land beyond today's 9th green extending down to the Shinnecock Inn. Further, land that far south was NEVER known as part of Sebonac Neck if we believe David's original argument that the author was simply describing the large land mass of Sebonac Neck.
THe southern boundary of CBM's purchase was north of ALL of Shinnecock Hills GC, not just the portion on the peninsula to the west.
It wasn't until a month later in mid-November 1906 that it was reported that an Inn would be built. When that was determined is unclear, but assuming that CBM already knew it was in the works it would have been only natural for him to have closely examined the land I've drawn, especially since it was surveyed prior and clearly more evolved than the unexplored land up to the northeast.
Also, the article mentions that the land CBM purchased skirted the LIRR to the south...your southern boundary is still probably a good .15 mile away, but we're likely within range of reasonability there.
Also, the article says that property "stretches along Peconic Bay to the north", which I don't see as necessarily adjacent. The rectangle map as I drew does stretch along Peconic Bay to the north, in fact, particularly as Cold Spring Bay is serviced directly from the larger bay.
Further, it locates the western point as "near" the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, which means it could have extended directly on the shores of Peconic Bay for a bit at it's furthermost point, exactly as today's course does. I don't read the article to mean that it ended precisely at the inlet, as you have drawn, and believe that CBM would have certainly wanted to stretch it out along as much of Peconic Bay as his routing permitted, given a fixed start/end point (Shinnecock Inn), much like he did at Sebonac Neck.
Finally, the larger article makes clear that it's decribing the specific land CBM is supposedly going to purchase, and that land is described as 250 acres. Please read the first paragraph of this one, for instance.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
It is very, very unlikely that the article was talking about a land mass as big as drawn.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUnknownProperty.jpg)
-
Mike,
Your theory makes some sense geographically, in that I imagine CBM would have looked all the way around the Cold Springs bay for his ideal course site, and one near the proposed Shinnecock Inn, but probably got directed to the area not yet land planned, at least eventually. That inlet may have been perfect for the Biarritz and/or Cape!
But wasn't the first offer by the canal made before he left for Europe, and just a few weeks after the Realty Co acquired the land in 1905? I am just not sure somewhere within your yellow parcel wasn't the first offer, and that when he returned, perhaps he already knew he would have to go to the Neck area.
Just a guess.
-
Bryan,
Who created this map ?
In looking at it, it's clear that CBM's account in Scotland's gift is correct.
That the land he wanted for NGLA adjoined Shinnecock Hills.
He stated that his 1st tee was 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn, placing Shinnecock's Golf Course directly to his East.
We also know that the 9th green is even closer to the Shinnecock Inn.
The property line in 1916 remains as it is today with Shinnecock Hills adjoining NGLA along the old 1st hole and further
Hence, it appears that CBM's account on page 187 is accurate, despite Mike Cirba's decree that it wasn't.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NGLAMap.jpg)
-
As usual, not wanting to be counted amongst the morons, but ...........
Bryan, you know what they say about the shoe fitting .....[/b]
David Moriarty,
Would you tell all of the morons debating the use of the North Highway, and Mike Cirba who stated that it didn't exist in 1914, let alone 1906, that the automobile in America only went into large scale production in 1902.
So, how many cars do you suppose there were in America in 1906?
Not many
How many in NYC and LI? How many paved roads to accommodate them?
Not many
In 1906, many of the streets in NYC were still cobblestone and the major mode of transportation was train and horse and carriage.
But, then maybe cars and paved roads came earlier to the Shinnecock Hills than they did to NYC. :)
Or maybe, as you and Mike would have us believe, there was no civilization East of the Shinnecock Canal.
No roads, no residences, no businesses, just a recent railroad, Shinnecock Hills Golf Course, the Shinnecock Inn and a railroad station for the golf course.
The Automobile Club map of 1905 indicates that the North Highway was a tertiary road at best.
Seems like it was the ONLY East-West Road on the North Shore of the South Fork.
How does the North Highway appear in your 1916 map ?
Hardly seems likely it was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY.
Really ? How's it look in the 1916 map you posted ? THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY ?
That road was the only East-West road on the North Shore of the South Fork.[/b]
There were no automobiles even produced in America prior to 1893.
And that, believe it or not, commerce, travel and development existed on Long Island long before 1902.
How did golfers get to Shinnecock, if not by the North Highway ? By train and then carriage up Tuckahoe Rd?
Tell us, how did the carriages get out to Shinnecock ?
Were they airlifted ?
Or, did they get there vis a vis, the North Highway.
Why was the Shinnecock Inn sited on the North Highway ?
Maybe it was a pretty site? Secluded? Anticipating future development of the road?
Bryan, I could expect that reply from Mike, but you ?
You know why the Shinnecock Inn was sited there.
Because that location was on the main thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork.
According to Mike it was a cart path. Why would you site a hotel on a cart path ? See above.
Ditto
Mike, Phil and others have chosen to ignore the realities of 1906, only four years after cars began being produced in large numbers in the U.S.
Mike Cirba remains disengenuous, first claiming that the North Highway, which appeared in his posting of the 1907 Olmstead plan, didn't exist. Then, he acknowledged its existance, then he backtracked and stated that it didn't exist in 1914, now he's stated that it existed, but, was a cart path.
The fact is that the North Highway was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY on the North Shore of the South Fork. When was it "THE
MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY"? 1906? 1916? Later? How do you know? What is the source for your following statement about evolutionary development and diminishment. Over what time frame was that evolution? Are you saying it was completely evolved by 1906?
It was a major artery in 1906, 1916 and today.
One of the proofs is in the 1916 map you posted.
Another in the 1907 Olmstead map.
Another is the siting of the Shinnecock Inn.
Another is the siting of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
Another is the siting of the Railroad Station on the North Highway.
You don't site those items in an unaccessable, remote area.
The proof to that statement would be in the evolutionary development of the North Highway as THE MAIN EAST-WEST ARTERY east of the Shinnecock Canal, as contrasted with the diminishment of the South Highway as a major artery.
The fact that the North Highway paralleled the RR probably aided in its becoming THE Major East-West Artery.
Mike has no shame and will continue to misrepresent and lie, yes lie, in an attempt to promote his agenda.
Mike's posted the maps, schematics and google earth aerials of the area, not me and not David.
The North Highway ran right smack down the middle of the golf course he insisted was CBM's.
Others, (not you David) are content to let him misrepresent and lie, without so much as the slightest admonition.
I guess it's the age we live in.
-
There was a Shinnecock Inn in the 1890s--is this a different inn then the one we keep talking about?
Finally, the larger article makes clear that it's decribing the specific land CBM is supposedly going to purchase, and that land is described as 250 acres.
Actually Mike, the article makes clear that CBM had ALREADY purchased those 250 acres. I really question how literally everyone should take these articles...
-
If you read the snippet that Phil posted, the decision on the RR overhead crossings was delayed because they were not sure that it was even a public road. It was called Cherry Tree Road, and the state called it the north highway. The state had to confirm that they were willing to take it over before the board would rule it needed to be made into an overhead crossing. In other words, they were planning ahead, which has never been uncommon. As we saw in a post above, that highway as Pat knows it didn't actually get built until 1933.
It seems as if the Realty company planned it, maybe even graded the dirt road, and then tried to get the state of NY to build and maintain it, which is pretty typical for developers and states, especially when an area is set for growth in the near future, as LI was back then.
But, its pretty clear from Pat's questions this morning that he rarely reads others posts on this thread before offering his opinions. I am just a casual reader, and I have seen the answers to his questions asked, and picked up on most of the things he seems intent on ignoring.
I also note that those dirt roads up in Sebonack Neck shown in 1905 pre NGLA are gone in the 1916 map, demonstrating that they weren't hard to remove, if a higher and better land use came up. Whatever Patrick thinks those dashed lines on the 1905 map show, its clear that those roads DID NOT have an affect on the layout of NGLA.
Lastly, Patrick seems to be having some time compression issues. Routing in a day, highways just four years after mass production of the Model T, etc.
OT, but I recall a grade school teacher making the point that development of the road system was slow, and even held back the number of autos for a while. I recall this because it was the only time I got sent to the principal's office. When he asked what held up mass production of the auto, I raised my hand and replied "no parking lots" which in combination with some other silly comments I had made, was all he needed to hear from me that day......
-
Mike,
It's interesting to me that the directional description the author of that snippet wrote is what put you over the top in completely ignoring its credibility.
The two sites were undenialby Northwest and Southeast of each other by any reasonable standard and the fact that the author implied directly East-West is almost irrelevant. He said 250 acres. If we were to take each word literally, that alone would discount the story.
In addition, attempting to put a strict mileage definition on the words "skirted", "adjoined", and "near" makes the entire exercise fruitless.
Lets focus on the word "secured".
You may dismiss it as a negotiating ploy by Macdonald, I'd like to give him more credit than that. In your opinion, is there any possibility it was something other than a negotiating ploy?
-
Jeff/Andy,
The precise date of CBM's other offer that got rejected he references in Scotland's Gift is unknown, and I've not been able to find any hint of it in newspapers.
In his book, he wrote;
Shinnecock Hills also was very attractive. but I preferred not
getting too close to the Shinnecoek Hills Golf Course. The Shinnecock
Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a
London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn
company a few weeks before I determined that we should build
a course there if we could secure the land.
I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some
120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnccock Bay with the Great
Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac
Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Day and lying
between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property
was little known and had never been surveyed. Everyone
thought it more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs :md swamps...etc..
So, in re-reading this I'm not sure we can exactly determine WHEN CBM made the first offer. It seems he decided that he should build a course "there", which I think refers to somewhere on the 2,000+ acres within a few weeks after the initial purchase in late 1905.
But, it sounds as though he made his two offers closer together contiguously, probably after his return from many months in Europe in 1906.
He almost makes the Sebonac Neck property sound like the consolation prize, or at least not his first choice.
I think he made both offers in 1906...I think he simply decided that his course was somewhere in those 2700 acres in 1905.
What do you think?
Jim,
I do think it's possibly credible. I'm beginning to think it was the first offer.
-
Bryan,
Who created this map ?
In looking at it, it's clear that CBM's account in Scotland's gift is correct.
That the land he wanted for NGLA adjoined Shinnecock Hills.
He stated that his 1st tee was 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn, placing Shinnecock's Golf Course directly to his East.
We also know that the 9th green is even closer to the Shinnecock Inn.
The property line in 1916 remains as it is today with Shinnecock Hills adjoining NGLA along the old 1st hole and further
Hence, it appears that CBM's account on page 187 is accurate, despite Mike Cirba's decree that it wasn't.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NGLAMap.jpg)
Patrick,
You're starting to worry me.
The Shinnecock course in 1916 was not the same as the Shinnecock course in 1906, particularly along its northern boundary. If you want me to prove that to you I will, as well.
Where does CBM say that the Shinnecock Inn is "200 yard" from his first tee? I may have missed that, but it is irrespective of the point, truly.
ALL of the land of the Shinnecock Golf Club was south of ALL of the land of NGLA in 1906 when the property was secured/purchased.
Shinnecock GC did "adjoin" the land CBM secured/purchased for NGLA. It adjoined it to the SOUTH.
It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to adjoin to its EAST as all of the course was south of the NGLA property.
And you know, Pat...the funny thing here is that you're so used to arguing with everything I say that you don't even realize when you're arguing against your own main point...that CBM routed the course in 2 days on horseback.
Suddenly, because David posted an article and not me, you have no problem with it.
Suddenly, it no longer matters if the land was surveyed or not before it was secured, and it doesn't matter if maps were sent to foreign experts, and it no longer matters that it says 250 acres, and it no longer matters that the purchase described is far from today's NGLA course...
And it no longer matters that this stretches out the planning, routing period for another 2+ months...
You're so focused on this supposed Merion thing and arguing with everything I write between personally insulting me that you've lost complete touch here.
Bryan,
What's the N/S orientation on that map? Thanks again.
-
In his book, he wrote;
I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some
120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnccock Bay with the Great
Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.
Jim,
I do think it's possibly credible. I'm beginning to think it was the first offer.
Mike,
The article uses the word "secured". CBM uses the term "the owners refusedit"...
Please help???
-
Jim,
I think CBM may have made some assumptions and spoke too soon is my presumption.
It's speculative, of course.
-
MIke,
Too me, its possible. I don't think there is enough evidence for either you or David to conclusivly prove your points. I hadn't considered the difference between decide to build there and offer on the land. By the time he wrote Scotland's Gift, he could tell it like it is, and no need for deflection with the possible Montauk site, etc.
It does seem strange that he would make an offer, take a year to go to GBI, among other things, and then come back, so making both offers after his June 1906 return is certainly plausible to me.
-
Jim,
I think CBM may have made some assumptions and spoke too soon is my presumption.
It's speculative, of course.
I guess what impresses me most is that you are willing to assume that of CBM (reckless of him) but not willing to take the article's location as a loose generality...especially when the author made no attempt to be specific.
-
Jim,
Hang on a second...
I'm not assuming anything about CBM other than he was very good at using the press, and perhaps he was floating a trial balloon.
As far as the exact boundaries location, I'm not sure how that is less specific than what was reported in December, which was that CBM had secured some 205 "undetermined" acres between Cold Spring Bay, Bullshead Bay, and Peconic Bay. THAT is pretty non-specific, as well.
Here, at least you have some fixed points....an eastern end adjoining Shinny, a southern end skirting the tracks, a western end out near the inlet, all stretching along Peconic Bay to the north.
If CBM had already determined that he wanted to use the coming Shinnecock Inn as a clubhouse, tell me why he would NOT have strongly considered that territory as a preference to going up into the uncharted territories to his northeast where he ended up?
I've posted the topo here...it looks pretty, pretty good to me.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
-
So what do we know for certain, and what does the timeline of the reports suggest to fill in the blanks?
Sept 1905 – FACT – Dean Alvord’s company buys over 2000 acres around Shinnecock Hills and shortly thereafter the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company is created to develop the land.
How is it CBM would confuse a couple of weeks with a full year?
-
Mike,
That last post wasn't meant as a response to your questions, it just took me a while to produce it so I posted it.
Let me look at yours
-
Jim,
CBM tells us he determined that the 2700 acres of Shinnecock Hills was his spot some weeks after Alvord's purchase.
He then went abroad in early 1906 and returned in June and started searching with a vengeance.
I think we've collectively mis-read what he tells us about the first offer...I think he made his first offer sometime after June, 1906.
-
Some images of Shinnecock Hills in the years just prior to CBM's purchase (paintings by William Merritt Chase). I don't get the sense the area was nearly as impenetrable as CBM implied. Or maybe those women and kids were made of sterner stuff than CBM and Whigham :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/William_Merritt_Chase_-_Near_the_beach%2C_Shinnecock.jpg/800px-William_Merritt_Chase_-_Near_the_beach%2C_Shinnecock.jpg)
(http://www.william-merritt-chase.org/Shinnecock-Hills-I.jpg)
(http://artists.parrishart.org/media/east_end_stories/images/9/81044_object_representations_media_983_600pix.jpg)
(http://www.fineart-china.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new20/William%20Merritt%20Chase-687235.jpg)
-
Mike,
That could be, but it would mean that CBM left his ideal location unprotected for 9 months or more...from the fall of 1905 to at least June 1906.
Why would that be?
-
Jim,
His "ideal location" at Shinnecock Hills was somewhere within over 2,000 undeveloped acres.
I think he had some time to consider things.
Andy,
CBM gives us the impression that things got a little bit hairier further northeast, but those are lovely paintings..thanks for sharing them.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
by the way...Where's the highway? ;) ;D
-
Priceless!
Did he bother to look at the 2,000+ acres before deciding it was to be his location?
-
Jim,
There were numerous factors that led to the decision that this new real-estate venture in Shinnecock Hills was going to be his ultimate location.
For years he talked about the sandy soil of Long Island being ideal, for years he talked about it needing to be close enough to NYC...
-
Jim,
This might help...it discusses and clarifies a LOT of things that have been debated here.
Incidentally, "the place" expected since "last spring" was on Long Island, specifically in the Shinnecock Hills region.
So, from the Brooklyn Daily Eage, on December 16th, 1906;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5512548922_5e2a89f5d8_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Pretty amazing that I have to read that article several times to really get it, but that certainly seems to spell out the time frame we are all guessing at.
The first offer was rejected (probably in 1906) because prices had gone up too much to sell for golf course. He moved to the distant neck, which they were willing to offer him at the original low price of $200 per acre because they had no immediate plans for it.
Not sure if he made an offer until 1906, but it sounds like he had some discussions in 1905 (a few weeks after Alvord bought the land, as reported)
I think we tend to suffer from time compression when looking at the old days. Most land deals take a while to put together, not just days or weeks. Even if starting in, say June 1906 when CBM returned, it took until April the next year to start construction, the EXACT same time frame that Merion took 4 years later. Even some of the intermediate target dates - completing the land deal in December and presumably having the committee starting the routing in January (smiley) seem to be very, very similar. I think the Merion committee really was channeling CBM!
Not to bring up a sore point with Patrick, but that seems to confirm that there was no highway there either, and no tunnel yet from NY that would even allow much NYC traffic out there. Even then, train=2hours and car= 3 hours. I bet many took the train for a long, long time.
-
Jeff,
I think we're very copasetic here. Thanks for your insight.
-
Mike,
This guy writes like a real insider who has been following it all along, even talking of suppressing information until an English paper leaked some stuff. Was that the Whigham article?
As such, please note that he mentions Cold Springs Bay as a possible border, even at this late date. It would seem from this that the land parcel really had NOT been identified down past the 450 acres, because NGLA ended up being all along the east boundary, and never touched CS Bay.
And, it once again puts to rest the issue of whether houses were planned on club land.
In a non related discussion last night with friends, they mentioned a mutual friend who just liked to argue, an old philosophy major in college. One person noted that the arguments usually consisted of a historic figure writing "X" and the arguers then telling everyone that "he didn't mean X". Does that sound familiar here?
Here is the most likely timeline - CBM finds conditions for the project become favorable in 1905. He approaches Alvord, who agrees to sell some of his 2100 acres at bulk prices of $200 per acre. There is so much land and water frontage, CBM feels there is no rush, and heads off to England.
When he returns in June 1906, he offers to buy some land on the south side of Cold Springs Bay he had eyed. Alvord tells him that the area is getting hot and the price has gone up. However, he says he is still willing to sell the distant land of the neck at the same price they had agreed to.
-
Jeff,
In that last hypothetical there, I'm curious...do you also envision CBM holding his ankles? Or did this happen over a fallen tree like in Deliverence? Seriously!
As I asked Mike, why would CBM let the best land sit for a year if he had an agreement to purchase 200 acres at a good price? All that can happen is he loses the best land for a variety of reasons. Do you think he really needed to go back to GB to select the exact plot within the greater 2,000 acres?
-
Jim,
I read your last post as you having a few things mixed up. And no, you exagerate. It was all just business.
After getting the property in 1905, it also had to take Alvord some time to survey, hire Olmstead, plan, market, get the process of development going, with all that entails.
I actually get the impression that CBM, who concieved the idea for the ideal course around then, approached Alvord in 1905 and they sort of had a general agreement on land, because there was plenty of it, and it would take more than a year to develop out. I have to believe that after purchasing 2100 acres, they would want to get some cash flow going with a large parcel quick land sale that didn't compete with their own plans, and would even enhance it. The practice of a developer buying a large parcel, and then selling off a distant chunk for immediate cash flow is still common.
How do you say he let his land sit a year? I think he did general studies of the whole area in 1905, went to Britain, and came back and narrowed it down in June 1906 when he returned, as the newspaper article says. (Unless you interpret "last spring" as written in Dec 1906 to be, say, March 1905?)
He offered to buy some land along Cold Springs Bay in June 1906, based on earlier discussions, but was told that plans were too far along, real estate was heating up, etc. Not held over a barrel, because I am sure they wanted NGLA as the premier course, right in their back yard. If values had gone up, I think it was a nice offer to still sell at $200 per acre a year later, as long as they worked together mutually for benefit - using unplatted land, preserving access, etc.
I know that waiting a year and going to GBI seems a bit odd, but again, he wanted to study the holes first, and there were over 2000 acres of very slow selling (when he left) land, and miles of water frontage. Given it would take ten years even today to develop that much land, he had little risk in losing out, not to mention maybe Montauk and southern CT would still be options.
This article just confirms CBM's cryptic remarks about wanting the land only if it could be obtained reasonably. There was at least some doubt in his mind in June 1906 that it would be possible. I think both parties wanted NGLA there, if it could be worked out.
-
I would love to read that article in better print because yes, I think we have significantly different interpretations on what was said there.
For starters, it implies there are real estate negotiations going on by June 1906.
Also, the increasing real estate values referred to in that article are those closer to New York City, hence the statement..."a distant location for the links was imperative".
-
Does anyone remember the protracted discussions about whether Hugh Wilson's study trip was before or after he laid out Merion according to the plan chosen by CBM? I had explained the correct timing of the trip and offered evidence of this a long time ago, sometime in or around 1906. But rather than reconsidering Merion's history in light of this new information, Mike and his buddies stuck to their guns and refused to accept the new paradigm. For YEARS Mike tried to rewrite the factual record. The records were hopelessly flawed and mistaken and illegible, he said. "Hugh I. Wilson" of the same age from Philadelphia couldn't possibly be our Hugh Wilson. The letter "I" was no longer the letter "I" and "H" not "H." Hugh Wilson was a British businessman on a world tour. Hugh Wilson traveled abroad to study architecture via Argentina. Hugh Wilson's friends were to rich and powerful for his name to appear on a manifest. He would say anything to avoid honestly considering the facts.
When it had finally become impossible for even him to deny that Wilson traveled abroad in 1912, Mike abandoned one sinking ship for the next. This time he and his buddies simply created a fictional second trip out of whole cloth. If Wilson traveled abroad in 1912, then there must have been an earlier trip. The real trip. Never mind that absolutely zero evidence existed of a second trip. Never mind that nothing in the record even suggested one. Never mind that, if timelined, Wilson's own statement confirmed that his study trip couldn't have occurred until 1912. Mike was not going to let little things like the facts get in the way of his beliefs. So he circled back rehashed all the same stuff and again began finding his Hugh Wilson's everywhere but where he was.
Why am I reminding you all of Mike's time consuming and pointless efforts to mold the factual record to his liking? Because he is doing the exact same thing here.
The October articles aren't that difficult to understand but because they don't fit in with Mike's preconceptions he will scour the earth and try every avenue to misrepresent them. They are positively unreliable, he claimed. They refer to the 120 acre offer, he explained. They involved an offer for land on the other side of he canal, he guessed. And when all this failed he simply created a fictional scenario of another site where CBM was so far along that he maps created and had sent them abroad for comment!
Never mind that no evidence exists that such a site was ever considered.
- Never mind that the property was STRETCHING ALONG PECONIC BAY.
- Never mind that Mikes fantasy plot is in the same active development where CBM had already tried to buy land, but was rejected.
- Never mind that while CBM discussed the other possibilities for the course he didn't mention this one.
- Never mind that this was announced in the papers as purchased and they were far enough along to have maps sent out, yet CBM didn't bother to mention it.
This is the same game as before. Obfuscate and confuse the record. Pursue every tangental line of reasoning but ignore the obvious interpretation. Anything to avoid honestly considering the impact of the October articles on his beliefs.
MIKE ALREADY HAD ACCEPTED THE OCT. ARTICLES WERE ABOUT THE SEBONACK POINT PROPERTY, but then he realized this would kill his claim so he circled back. Unfortunately, once Mike finally accepts that these October articles are referring to the Sebonack Neck site ,he will undoubtedly figure out a way try to jump to the next sinking ship. Anything to avoid honestly reconsidering his position.
_______________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
It really doesn't matter, but if you read the above article in the context of the other articles addressing the same subject, you might come to different conclusions. While Mike doesn't do us the courtesy of saying so, I believe this article is from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, from a day or so after the deal had been announced in the Sun. So December 16th or 17th, 1906.
It looks to me that the author gleaned his basic information from the previous NY Sun article, and then filled in a bunch of stuff that the Eagle had previously reported. Some of it comes directly out of the 1904 letter (as did a substantial portion of the Sun article.
In a few related articles the reporter (or reporters) from the Eagle seem very intent on presenting himself as an insider. Judging from the fact that he was obviously scooped on this one, I have my doubts that this was the case.
________________________________________
Also Jeff, you described the land as stretching along Cold Springs Bay. I know you hate these little details, but that is not what the articles said. It STRETCHED ALONG PECONIC BAY TO A WESTERLY POINT NEAR THE INLET. This fictional site of Mike's certainly does not stretch along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near the inlet.
_________________________________________________
Plus, by Mike's convoluted logic, this Eagle article could not possibly have been about the actual NGLA site!.
- It describes deal as involving 200 acres, not 205.
- It describes the property as out there on Sebonic Neck. Part of NGLA isn't really on Sebonack Neck.
Applying Cirbaian logic, this means that this article could not possibly be the actual NGLA deal! There must have been different land with an Alps and Cape somewhere. A fourth site!
-
David,
As to the first parcel offer, its just sort of a historical tidbit, since it has nothing to do with the eventual property selected and developed. I do disagree with him that there was some third parcel.
In some ways, Mikes last yellow post makes sense as the first offer because of the water frontage, train station location and, because it could use the Shinny Inn. I did notice that it says Peconic Bay in Scotland's Gift and some articles, which would put it well west of the canal, and away from other assets, and I don't recall the exact borders of the Peconic Realty land.
As usual with these types of things, it seems as if whichever theory you go with, there are some unexplained descrepancies (often explained away as flawed articles, unless we happen to support the position, in which case articles are golden and memories of participants are flawed). At least in this case, history doesn't suffer because its a what if.
I really don't know how much the Eagle article plagarized, but the mention of an inside discussion with the secretary, and agreement to keep it silent seems like he had some special inside info, AND, almost all the article came to pass. If the boundaries weren't set, at the time the deal might have been for 200 acres at $200 for $40K and only later expanded to 205 after the routing was set. Even if a mistake, I am not one who says one mistake invalidates the whole article.
As to Merion, no one denies you blew the lid off the Wilson trip occurring later than most believed or reported. It, too is one of those things that is at odds with other well known facts concerning that situation, but which is not a part of this thread.
To be honest, the only thing that truly offends me on this thread is Patrick's ideas that either course was routed in a day, because there is nothing to suggest they routed themselves. Not only that, but if word gets out that courses route themselves, I fear present day gca's will have to lower fees even more.......
-
Jeff,
I'll hold my hand up to picking up on something Mike wrote which to me suggested that he didn't believe CBM could have routed the course in a day. I'm not saying he did one way or not, I suggested that it was possible. Are you saying that it wasn't possible or likely that he came up with something basic in a day ? Something that no doubt got tweaked or even materially redone but would have at least established the general routing and allowed them to work out roughly what parcel of land they wanted ?
Not trying to suggest your job is easy (insert smiley) but do you not think a basic routing would have been possible ?
Niall
-
How was all of this affected by the Panic of '07 ?
-
David,
I do find it very funny that you use the one fact you did get right in your Merion essay as supposed proof that I'm always wrong. :D
As to the rest of what you just wrote there, I have no idea what you're saying or why you won't answer any of the questions put to you over the course of the past few weeks. I've already told you why I've come full circle...it was from finding information on the boundaries of Shinnecock GC at that time that would have made it physically IMPOSSIBLE to be located EAST of the NGLA purchase, which is something I'm very surprised you didn't know.
Instead of sticking to the topic at hand, which evidently everyone else but Patrick seems to find interesting and worthy of disucssion and exploration, you come in here shooting at me personally again from the hip. Why not just stick to the facts and evidence under review and try a more helpful approach?
And for kicks, exactly what information do you think the Eagle reporter stole from The Sun? Please, enlighten us.
My....for someone who says others are speculating, you sure are the Pot calling the Kettle black and it's getting really old.
-
Niall,
Based on my experiences of routing hundreds of courses (only 50 of which have been built) I would say possible, but not likely.
Based on the historic record saying they rode if for three days, and then went back and earnestly studied the contours, or the actual timeline from June 1906 return from GBI to April 1907 construction, I simply fail to find anything that says that happened.
In fact, when CBM says "Strange as it may seem, we looked back to find the Redan" it doesn't tell me that holes are discovered quickly, it tells me that "Holy Cow, we got lucky on that one hole and found it quickly." How do you read that?
-
Mike, do you have page 186 of Scotland's Gift handy?
-
Niall,
Besides, CBM tells us in Dec 1906 he was going to spend the next several months at it....not sure why some don't believe him.
-
Andy,
This one? What about it?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
-
Nothing in particular, just wanted to see it and don't have my book here. Thanks.
PS There is a Dean Alvord/Devereaux Emmett connection!
-
Andy,
Please don't get me started down that road. I know you're just trying to tempt me and I'm....going to resi....re....resist..
Lord knows humor is ill-tolerated here these days. ;) ;D
-
OK, not related to NGLA but interesting nonetheless: http://www.belleterre.us/History/DeanAlvordandtheGloriousYears/tabid/97/Default.aspx
-
Andy,
Patrick will be greatly heartened to see the picture of an automobile.
Thanks.
-
Mike,
But not so much by what appears to be a dirt or gravel road that is under it.
-
Mike, are you saying that is not Patrick in the back seat? I thought I had made a real find.
-
Mike, are you saying that is not Patrick in the back seat? I thought I had made a real find.
My Lord....I don't believe it!
I think that's CBM and Whigham in the back seat, routing the course while getting chauffered around the site by two comely lasses!
Those bastards!! And here they told us they did the whole thing on horseback! :(
(http://www.belleterre.us/Portals/0/Images/BelleTerre/History/Motoring%20to%20Belle%20Terre.jpg)
Oh wait...is that Whigham and Emmet??
Where's my glasses???
-
"Those bastards!! And here they told us they did the whole thing on horseback!"
The one in front, closest to us, looks like she could pull the Budweiser Wagon with the clydesdale team...
-
David, Mike, Wayno, TEPaul, Joe, Steve, et. al.
In 1904-1906 who owned the land shaded in black in my post above ?
Patrick,
I am sure that this will not surprise you, but Mike's drawing is wrong. The SH Golf Club land extended further north than Mike's drawing indicates. Mike apparently fudged the drawing to make it seem that no part of the SHGC land was directly west of the clubhouse. Either that or he didn't bother to figure it out for sure before he presented it as fact. Probably it is both.
So, to partly answer your question, some of the blacked out land was controlled by Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
Even if Mike's drawing was accurate (and it is not) his logic would still fail him. The developer controlled the land to the west of the land Mike designated as SHGC. We don't know the exact shape of the 450 acres of land CBM was considering, and it very easily could have extended down to a point directly west.
__________________________________
Mike Cirba,
1. Please quit misrepresenting the December articles by claiming that they described the land as " 'undetermined.' " As I have pointed out repeatedly, the articles do not even use the term. Yet you keep quoting them as if they do, which is another indication of your willingness to distort the articles even when you know otherwise. How is that not dishonest?
2. As for questions, you have yet to answer the ones you called "beyond stupid and insulting." Why don't you go back and answer them, assuming your previous position on these October articles was the correct one? That might save us some time once your latest song and dance routine ends.
3. You indicated to Patrick you could prove that your representations about the SH Golf Course land were correct. So please prove that the SH Golf Course land extended no further north than you have represented.
4. When I refer to the Sebonack Neck parcel, I mean the land from which CBM eventually chose the real site. The one he refers to as being 450 acres. This land obviously extended a bit south of what was actually Sebonack Neck. Yet you ridiculously and repeatedly portray my position as somehow confining CBM only to land actually on Sebonack Neck. Bush league.
5. Your Hugh Wilson debacle was but one example in a sea of instances where you have done similarly. It just happened to be the one that popped to mind, and because it went on for years I thought others might recall it as well. The only reason I brought it up was to remind others the lengths to which you will go to muddle something that really isn't that complicated, and to point out that this is exactly what you are doing here. You have proven time and again that you are unwilling and unable to honestly consider facts which contradict your preconceptions, and will circle back repeatedly through all your old and tired theories rather than face the obvious. We need to call you out on this garbage so the conversation can move forward.
6. Your claims about my essay are laughable and not worth addressing, especially given your track record.
-
Do the Oct. Articles Describe the 120 Acre Parcel Near the Canal?
Jeff Brauer has suggested that the October articles could be describing the 120 acres near the Canal, discussed in Scotland's Gift. I don't think so for the following reasons and maybe more:
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way.
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had secured the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. Liwewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected.
Also, later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed.
4. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal.
5. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property.
When considering this, look to the text itself and not to Mike's representation of the text in post 741. Rather than posting images of the pages as usual, there Mike actually typed out THREE paragraphs from Scotland's Gift. But in Scotland's Gift, there are only two. CBM had devoted one paragraph to describing the pluses and minuses of the sites he did not use, so one paragraph explains CBM's attempt to buy 120 acres near the Canal. Inexplicably, Mike separated out the bit about the offer from the explanation, as if the offer was somehow unrelated context explaining the offer.
But we cannot disassociate CBM's wish to be a distance from SH Golf Club from his offer for the Canal land. If we consider the offer back in the context of his desire not to crowd Shinnecock, it helps helps explain the appeal of the site near the Canal and that the October articles had nothing to do it.
Was Mike again intentionally "fudging" the record? This may be too sophisticated a deception to attribute to Mike, but with all his recent practice I wouldn't necessarily put it past him. Besides, whether or not intentional, the point remains the same. The sentence must be read in context, and in context we can see that early in the process CBM did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course.
-
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905.
David, how do you know that?
-
David,
CBM tells us he decided he wanted to buy land within Shinnecock Hills within a few weeks of the developer's purchase of 2700 acres in late 1905.
He says absoutely nothing about the timing of the Canal offer, although we can reasonably assume it was between late 1905 and December 1906 when he made his offer that was accepted for 205 undetermined acres out of the 450 available on the tract of land known as Sebonac Neck.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Just skim read the last two pages.
You stated:
Not to bring up a sore point with Patrick, but that seems to confirm that there was no highway there either
So the New York State Senate documents are a forgery ? ? ?
Jeff, how you can make the above statement.
The 1904 and 1905 Automobile club Maps show the North Highway existed.
The 1906 New York State Senate Minutes show that the North Highway existed.
The 1907 Olmstead Bros map clearly shows the North Highway existed.
The 1916 Map Bryan posted shows it existed.
In addition, in Nov 1906, the Shinnecock Inn was being rebuilt on the North Highway.
But, you and Mike are going to insist that the North Highway didn't exist, despite the overwhelming source documentation.
Have you been hanging out with Charlie Sheen ?
How many times do I have to tell you that many, if not most or all of those newspaper articles are seriously flawed.
Even TEPaul, today, warned you not to rely on them.
?
-
Jim,
Hang on a second...
I'm not assuming anything about CBM other than he was very good at using the press, and perhaps he was floating a trial balloon.
As far as the exact boundaries location, I'm not sure how that is less specific than what was reported in December, which was that CBM had secured some 205 "undetermined" acres between Cold Spring Bay, Bullshead Bay, and Peconic Bay. THAT is pretty non-specific, as well.
Not when he tells you that his first tee was 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn and that the golf course property adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
And, not when he cites his locations for his 4th, 5th 12th and 13th holes, along with the 1st, 18, 9th and 10th.
That clearly defines a long, narrow strip of land, bordered at the south, east and North.
Only the fine tuning of the Western border had to be established.[/b]
Here, at least you have some fixed points....an eastern end adjoining Shinny, a southern end skirting the tracks, a western end out near the inlet, all stretching along Peconic Bay to the north.
If CBM had already determined that he wanted to use the coming Shinnecock Inn as a clubhouse, tell me why he would NOT have strongly considered that territory as a preference to going up into the uncharted territories to his northeast where he ended up?
Because he knew that the ultimate location for his clubhouse was going to be at its present location.
The Shinnecock Inn was a temporary site.[/b]
I've posted the topo here...it looks pretty, pretty good to me.
Tell us, what looks good about it ?
Are you familiar with that land ?[/b]
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I haven't read the replies for the last few days carefully, because it's difficult to read, but, you can be rest assured, when tomorrow is over and I have the time and focus, I'll scour them for every mistake you've made (;;)
-
Andy,
How do I know what, specifically?
Here is the paragraph from Scotland Gift where CBM discussed the canal site.
Shinnecock Hills also was very attractive. but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land. I offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.
It seems fairly straight forward. Right before CBM determined he should try the secure "the land," the entire parcel changed hands, and even at a premium the new owner wouldn't sell.
1. I don't buy Mike's latest notion that CBM had only decided to eventually try buy some land he hadn't yet bothered to look for. CBM didn't write "if we could secure some land" or "if we could secure land." He wrote "if we could secure THE land."
2. CBM presented it as if he had just missed getting the land. This would not have been the case had CBM still been about a year away from being ready to make an offer.
3. t was no secret that the new owner was ramping up to develop the land, it was in the papers, and was what SHPBRC was created to do (and what Alvord did.) It is hard to imagine that CBM would have waited to make his offer until the developer ramped up the project and invest in infrastructure. There is nothing in the record suggesting that this was the case.
-
Patrick,
Great news on you correcting me....I didn't have anything fun planned for tomorrow and now I do!
-
Bryan,
Thanks for your updates on the roads and for providing some unbiased input here.
..............................
I would disagree slightly with your drawing of the purple lines on two counts.
NGLA never owned, and CBM never purchased, land beyond today's 9th green extending down to the Shinnecock Inn. Further, land that far south was NEVER known as part of Sebonac Neck if we believe David's original argument that the author was simply describing the large land mass of Sebonac Neck.
THe southern boundary of CBM's purchase was north of ALL of Shinnecock Hills GC, not just the portion on the peninsula to the west. The SE corner of NGLA would abut the NW corner of where Shinnecock was in 1916. The article says it "adjoins" SH. Scotland's Gift on page 187 states that the land they actually purchased for the course "adjoins" SH. See the highlighted pic below. I think that the October "adjoins" is used in the same sense as CBM's book. The article doesn't say that the entire eastern boundary adjoins SH as you've drawn. Nor did the actual purchase only adjoin the western boundary of SH. I think your visionary moment of yesterday is flawed.
It wasn't until a month later in mid-November 1906 that it was reported that an Inn would be built. When that was determined is unclear, but assuming that CBM already knew it was in the works it would have been only natural for him to have closely examined the land I've drawn, especially since it was surveyed prior and clearly more evolved than the unexplored land up to the northeast. Why would it have been more natural. Why would he be interested in more "evolved" land? What do you mean by surveyed? Do you mean topo'ed?
Also, the article mentions that the land CBM purchased skirted the LIRR to the south...your southern boundary is still probably a good .15 mile away, but we're likely within range of reasonability there. I think any reasonable person would consider .15 miles to be skirting.
Also, the article says that property "stretches along Peconic Bay to the north", which I don't see as necessarily adjacent. The rectangle map as I drew does stretch along Peconic Bay to the north, in fact, particularly as Cold Spring Bay is serviced directly from the larger bay. This is a stretch of a different sort on your part, I think. Dictionaries suggest that stretched along means covered an expansive area. That's an expansive area along Peconic Bay. You'd think that if they meant that it stretched along Cold Spring Bay, they would have said so.
Further, it locates the western point as "near" the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, which means it could have extended directly on the shores of Peconic Bay for a bit at it's furthermost point, exactly as today's course does. I don't read the article to mean that it ended precisely at the inlet, as you have drawn, and believe that CBM would have certainly wanted to stretch it out along as much of Peconic Bay as his routing permitted, given a fixed start/end point (Shinnecock Inn), much like he did at Sebonac Neck. But, your area doesn't stretch out along any of Peconic Bay.
Finally, the larger article makes clear that it's decribing the specific land CBM is supposedly going to purchase, and that land is described as 250 acres. Please read the first paragraph of this one, for instance.
...................................
It is very, very unlikely that the article was talking about a land mass as big as drawn. It's an article in a newspaper, not a deed. I think they are trying to position it's location where there was little development and few landmarks. How else would you have described the eastern boundary. Apart from SH there are no other landmarks on the east side of it. The LIRR and Peconic Bay would have been obvious landmarks. Presumably in October when they hadn't really purchased it yet and were still looking at 450 acres, the western boundary would also be amorphous. There were no real landmarks over that side either. I think I'll stick with my rendering. It's less stretched than yours. ;)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUnknownProperty.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/CBMPg187.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Who created this map ? It is from an Atlas of Suffolk County published by E. Belcher Hyde Map Co.
In looking at it, it's clear that CBM's account in Scotland's gift is correct.
That the land he wanted for NGLA adjoined Shinnecock Hills.
He stated that his 1st tee was 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn, placing Shinnecock's Golf Course directly to his East.
We also know that the 9th green is even closer to the Shinnecock Inn.
The property line in 1916 remains as it is today with Shinnecock Hills adjoining NGLA along the old 1st hole and further
Hence, it appears that CBM's account on page 187 is accurate, despite Mike Cirba's decree that it wasn't.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NGLAMap.jpg)
-
............................
David Moriarty,
Would you tell all of the morons debating the use of the North Highway, and Mike Cirba who stated that it didn't exist in 1914, let alone 1906, that the automobile in America only went into large scale production in 1902.
So, how many cars do you suppose there were in America in 1906?
Not many
How many in NYC and LI? How many paved roads to accommodate them?
Not many
In 1906, many of the streets in NYC were still cobblestone and the major mode of transportation was train and horse and carriage.
But, then maybe cars and paved roads came earlier to the Shinnecock Hills than they did to NYC. :)
Or maybe, as you and Mike would have us believe, there was no civilization East of the Shinnecock Canal.
No roads, no residences, no businesses, just a recent railroad, Shinnecock Hills Golf Course, the Shinnecock Inn and a railroad station for the golf course.
How many people lived east of the Shinnecock Canal in the 1900's. The 1900 census has only 75,000 people in all of Suffolk County. In1905, in the netherworld of eastern LI, how many do you suppose there were?
How many businesses? Wasn't that area primarily a summer retreat area back then?
Who said there were no roads?
On the 2700 acre Shinnecock Hills property there were about 25 buildings in 1903. Pretty dense population. ;) Probably at least 25 horses and carriages to go with them.
The Automobile Club map of 1905 indicates that the North Highway was a tertiary road at best.
Seems like it was the ONLY East-West Road on the North Shore of the South Fork.
How does the North Highway appear in your 1916 map ?
Why are you dwelling on the North Shore of the South Fork? The North and South highways were 4 miles long and separated by maybe a half mile. Surely the 25 folks living there could make the half mile side trip off the South highway if they needed to go to the north shore. Although why they would is a mystery since there was nothing there in that 4 mile stretch at the time.
It was there in 1916 and appears to be the same quality as the south highway. In 1905 it was a tertiary road. In 1903 it was a tertiary road (see the next post).
Hardly seems likely it was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY.
Really ? How's it look in the 1916 map you posted ? THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY ?
That road was the only East-West road on the North Shore of the South Fork.[/b]
See the comments above. A major 4 mile ARTERY in 1906 - I think not.
There were no automobiles even produced in America prior to 1893.
And that, believe it or not, commerce, travel and development existed on Long Island long before 1902.
How did golfers get to Shinnecock, if not by the North Highway ? By train and then carriage up Tuckahoe Rd?
Tell us, how did the carriages get out to Shinnecock ?
Were they airlifted ?
Or, did they get there vis a vis, the North Highway.
Perhaps the servants took the 8 hour drive out in horse and carriage. When do you suppose that members began to use cars to get to Shinnecock? 1906? 1910? Later? It was still at least a two hour drive in an automobile from NYC in those days.
Why was the Shinnecock Inn sited on the North Highway ?
Maybe it was a pretty site? Secluded? Anticipating future development of the road?
Bryan, I could expect that reply from Mike, but you ?
You know why the Shinnecock Inn was sited there.
Because that location was on the main thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork.
According to Mike it was a cart path. Why would you site a hotel on a cart path ? See above.
Ditto
Build it there on the dirt road and develop NGLA and develop the 2700 acres and the roads will come
Mike, Phil and others have chosen to ignore the realities of 1906, only four years after cars began being produced in large numbers in the U.S.
Mike Cirba remains disengenuous, first claiming that the North Highway, which appeared in his posting of the 1907 Olmstead plan, didn't exist. Then, he acknowledged its existance, then he backtracked and stated that it didn't exist in 1914, now he's stated that it existed, but, was a cart path.
The fact is that the North Highway was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY on the North Shore of the South Fork. When was it "THE
MAJOR EAST-WEST ARTERY"? 1906? 1916? Later? How do you know? What is the source for your following statement about evolutionary development and diminishment. Over what time frame was that evolution? Are you saying it was completely evolved by 1906?
It was a major artery in 1906, 1916 and today. 1906 - Nonsense! 1916 - maybe.
One of the proofs is in the 1916 map you posted.
Another in the 1907 Olmstead map. That map is useless advertising bumpf.
Another is the siting of the Shinnecock Inn.
Another is the siting of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
Another is the siting of the Railroad Station on the North Highway.[All of these are reasons it might have become an ARTERY in 1916, but it wasn't in 1906.
You don't site those items in an unaccessable, remote area.[/color] Build it and they will come. Ooops, that was a baseball field in in a corn field in Iowa
The proof to that statement would be in the evolutionary development of the North Highway as THE MAIN EAST-WEST ARTERY east of the Shinnecock Canal, as contrasted with the diminishment of the South Highway as a major artery.
The fact that the North Highway paralleled the RR probably aided in its becoming THE Major East-West Artery.
Mike has no shame and will continue to misrepresent and lie, yes lie, in an attempt to promote his agenda.
Mike's posted the maps, schematics and google earth aerials of the area, not me and not David.
The North Highway ran right smack down the middle of the golf course he insisted was CBM's.
Others, (not you David) are content to let him misrepresent and lie, without so much as the slightest admonition.
I guess it's the age we live in. That's a little harsh. Part of a discussion board is to present hypotheses and then defend them. Mike does that, but then so do you and David and many others. Not many are so dogged and emotional as you three are when you can't persuade the other side.
-
One more map for the mix; from the 1903 U.S.G.S. - State of New York survey. I guess that CBM was wrong that it was never surveyed. Maybe 20 foot contours weren't good enough for his purposes. Note that there are maybe 25 buildings on the whole 2700 acres. Anybody want to try to place the 2700 acres on the map? And those annoying dashed-line ARTERIES went up into Sebonac neck even in the early days of 1903. Must have been hard to get the ponies up the ARTERY.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Very cool map, thanks for sharing.
As regards you land mass interpretation, I 'd respectfully disagree. Shinnecock Hills did in fact, "adjoin" to NGLA's purchase, just as CBM said, but it adjoins to the south, not the east. If the writer was looking for major landmarks to the east he'd have to be pretty blind not to see that the property they bought skirted Bulls Head Bay for a mile.
He certainly wasn't imprecise about mentioning that the land of the purchase ran as far east as Shinnecock GC, skirted the railroad tracks to the south (the land CBM bought was over 1/3 mile from those tracks), and had its westernmost poiint "near the inlet between" Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.
I don't see that as a general description at all, and yes, if the writer considered Cold Spring and it's inlet to be part of a larger Peconic Bay to the north than I think that description locates the attempted purchase where I placed it.
I also think it would be very, very odd for CBM not to have considered that land very strongly for the reasons I mentioned previously. He could use the Shinnecock Inn to serve as a clubhouse, have long stretches along the water, etc...
We know accounts said he was looking at "Various Sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills and I'd frankly be shocked to learn that this wasn't one of them.
Back to your map...
Probably Jeff can best tell us if 20 foot elevation changes were good enough for field work, but it certainly does cast some doubt on CBM's claim that it had never been surveyed prior.
Thanks again for sharing.
David,
Please show us precisely what land of the Shinnecock HIlls Golf Course was north of the NGLA southern border in 1906.
I have found no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm asking you to please show us.
Also, I'm not sure why you insist on hand-typing just snippets from source documents out of context when I've made it all available here. Don't you trust that people here on GCA can read for themselves without your selective interpretations of the evidence?
For instance, you just re-typed the part about CBM deciding shortly after Alvord's purchase that he wanted to buy in the Shinnecock Hills, followed by the sentence that made his offer for land near the canal, all seemingly in the same timeframe.
However, you then neglect to post the next sentence, and paragraph, which ALSO makes the finding of the Sebonac Neck property and the associated agreement by the developer to sell them 205 acres at 20,000 ALSO seem to fall in quick sequential order, as well, when we KNOW that the whole thing took about a year.
So please just make your point about the evidence, or enter new evidence, but please quit pulling evidence out of context and reshaping it for your purposes. Thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
The fact is, all we know from this is that CBM determined to build his course somewhere in the Shinnecock Hills a few weeks after Alvord's purchase, which was in late 1905.
We also know CBM went abroad for almost six months in early 1906.
We don't know when he made his offer for the canal prooerty, and we don't know when he subsequently found the land at Sebonac Neck.
We do know that after the company agreed to sell him 205 acres at $200 an acre that "we" went back and studied the contours earnestly to see how the land fit best to the holes they had in mind.
We don't know how long that took, or when it happened.
We know that CBM signed papers formalizing that agreement on December 14th, 1906, at which time he was quoted as saying that he and his committee would spend the next several months determining which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages.
We know that CBM bought more land than he thought he needed for just golf.
That's what we know so far.
-
David,
Would you prefer going forward that I write "have not yet been determined", or "undetermined" when referring to the boundaries of the land that CBM secured in December 1906?
Also, I have not claimed that the land of the October articles was the canal purchase or not. It's very confusing on multiple fronts, I'm still trying to determine what is accurate and relevant and collaborated or not in those Oct. articles you posted, but I also think we're finding more and more minor details that CBM got wrong over 20 years later when he wrote his summary of events.
For instance, we know from Bryan's recent post that the land had indeed been surveyed prior, we know CBM got the date wrong for when his course opened, and for when his first Invitational Tournament was held, and we know he omitted the pieces about the golf course size and building lots from his 1904 agreement, so whether the course was located near the canal or not, or whether this was one of the "various sections" CBM was reported to have been considering in those 2700 acres we probably will never know.
I'm just not convinced in the least that the October articles refer to the Sebonac Neck property....I think it's very unlikely matter of fact.
Please show us what portions of the 1906 Shinnecock Hills GC went further north than the NGLA southern boundary. Thanks.
-
The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905.
David, sorry, it was crystal clear to me what I meant! I was asking how you/we know SHPBRC purchased the land in the Fall of 1905. Not doubting it just curious where that came from.
-
Andy,
That large purchase. Bof 2700 acres by Alvord was reported pretty widely in the latter part of 05. I can. Get specifics. If you need.
-
Mike,
Please refresh my memory on when CBM started his subscription to NGLA, if you can.
It occurs to me that had he made an formal offer on the canal site in 1905, he would have had to be ready to pay for it if they said yes! Did he have his sixty members by then?
-
Mike, it's not critical, I am just curious to read it if you have a link or something similar easily accessible.
-
Jeff,
David said that those Subscription letters date from 1904, but I'm not sure his source.
I do find it odd that in 1912, CBM wrote that this idea germinated about six years ago, but I do have 1905 articles where he is obviously enamored with the idea himself and I know he was transfixed on it for some years prior.
Here's what he wrote in early 1912 in his letter to the Founding members of the club...bottom line is I don't think CBM was very good with dates. ;) ;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/5393591069_a71b835e91_o.jpg)
-
Andy,
Here you go...October 29th, 1905
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5514438097_326b87cd60_z.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/5514438163_1c65275727_z.jpg)
Jeff,
Here's some more info from July 10, 1905
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5045/5366879169_71b9a8aa55_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
In re-reading your snippet from Scotland's Gift posted above (page 186) it clearly says he has the sketches in front of him before "continuing" his search for land. He goes into detail on various sites and then mentions the Canal site offer. This implies he was searching after the trip to GBI, and thus, perhaps that the first offer was in June 1906?
-
Jeff,
That's a terrific observation.
I think the timeline is starting to come more into focus.
There are still a number of outstanding questions, such as the relevance and location of the October articles, but overall I think we have a much greater collecive understanding of the origins of NGLA than we did prior.
-
Mike,
Is it possible that the October articles were either premature, and/or reported a basic outline deal, with the paperwork taking another month and a half to complete finally? It wouldn't surprise me. As I have mentioned, I think we all have "time compression" issues when looking at the detailed issues of history.
For example, we know the Civil War occurred from 1861-5, but there were a lot of lead up issues well before that. While that is not the perfectly correlated example, things just take longer to develop than the final dates reported in contemporaneous accounts or history later.
-
Mike, thanks. So Dean Alvord=Shinneck Hills and Peconic Bay Realty? It was created to handle the 2600 acre parcel?
-
Andy,
Precisely.
Jeff,
Its possible, but something still isn't ringing true to me and I'm trying to put my finger on it.
-
Mike,
Is it possible that the October articles were either premature, and/or reported a basic outline deal, with the paperwork taking another month and a half to complete finally? It wouldn't surprise me. As I have mentioned, I think we all have "time compression" issues when looking at the detailed issues of history.
Jeff,
I think I know what's bugging me about that explanation, and possibly why I'm having a hard time believing those October 15th, 1906 accounts were about the land of Sebonac Neck at all, and it's this;
In his book, CBM almost describes the land of Sebonac Neck as something of a consolation prize, and clearly not his first choice, although it may very well have been superior in the long run to whatever he was looking at initially. After all, the proof in the pudding is pretty powerful in that regard.
Nevertheless, one of the things he tells us rather specifically in terms of timeframe is that he and Whigham rode over the course for 2-3 days on horseback and decided that it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price. He doesn't state if those 2-3 days were concurrent, but one might imagine that's likely.
Then, he tells us the seller agreed to let them purchase 205 of the 450 acres and left open the exact placement, as CBM was given the opportunity to place it to best serve his purposes.
Then, he tells us they went back to "earnestly study" the land, looking for places where his classically derived holes might best fit, and so on, prior to actual purchase.
Sooo....for those October stories to be about the course on Sebonac Neck, they would have had to do a lot more prior to seller agreement than just 2 days of horseback rides.
The articles tell us the property had been mapped and then maps sent out to various foreign golf luminaries, and all sorts of planning activities had already taken place, all seemingly prior to getting seller approval.
Do we think CBM romanticized his own story a bit about the horseback ride? I really don't. That part to me sounds like it's pretty concise.
And let's not forget that a full two months later, CBM now is securing the Sebonac Neck property where the exact boundaries were still not secure.
That December activity sounds much more like what CBM describes in his book as the seller agreeing to sell him the property under the assumption that he could place it wherever best suited his needs.
***EDIT*** A bit of housecleaning on an earlier question. CBM tells us he originally drafted his Founders Agreement in 1904 in SG, so that's the source.
-
Jeff,
1. I've wondered about that first sentence/paragraph as well. One thing it accomplishes is a smooth transistion from the previous chapter in which CBM discussed the inception and preparation of the concept, including his 1906 trip abroad. But your reading would be much more plausible of the sentence said that he "began" or "started" his search to find the property. "Continued" indicates that he had already been searching before the trip, and that he was picking up the search after. So I don't think that it is safe to assume that he is refering only to events that occurred after the trip.
For example, the first site he mentions is the Cape Cod site. I don't think we can assume that he considered and rejected the Cape Cod site AFTER the trip abroad. In fact, the 1904 letter mentioned that the site would be on Long Island, so the Cape Cod site had apparently already been rejected long before the 1906 trip.
Likewise, I don't think we can assume the Canal site WAS not considered and offer made until after the trip, especially since CBM told us that he decided to try and purchase the land within a few weeks of it having changed hands.
2. Also Jeff, as for your question to Mike, there is even some textual support for the notion that what was reported in October may correspond with CBM's description in Scotland's Gift of the developer agreeing that it would sell CBM any 205 acres out of the 450 acre parcel.
-- In both descriptions CBM and HJW had been over the land several times. (Assumiing that riding it on horseback for two or three days counts as several times.)
-- In both descriptions the land is described similarly. For example, the articles described the land stretching along Peconic Bay to a westerly point near Cold Springs inlet, and CBM described the land having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay between Cold Spring Bay to the west and Bullshead Bay to the east. Both also described the land as adjoining Shinnecock Hills, with the articles indicating that the land adjoined Shinnecock to the east and CBM not specifying. The articles described the land as adjoining the SH Golf course land to the East; CBM described the property as adjoining SH Golf Course.
Yet in Mike's answer to your question he would rather try to change the focus on even the possibility that this was the same land. I can't say I blame him given that his entire argument about the land hinges on his UNSUPPORTED claim that no part of the SH Golf Club property was directly east of the land, even though he agrees that the land was adjoining! ____________________________________________________________________________
Mike Cirba, You seem to be suffering under the notion that you can just present anything you want as fact without support or basis, and it is my job to correct you if you are mistaken. Not so. You need to back up your claims.
You have repeatedly claimed that no part of the SH Golf Course land was east of the land CBM was considering. You even posted a graphic on which you supposedly represented the SH Golf Course land. Surely you didn't just it make it up to suit your argument, did you? If not, then what is the basis for your repeatly stating this as if it were a fact?
-
David,
Glad you brought that back up.
What is your source for contending that some portion of Shinnecock GC was north of the southern border of NGLA? Thanks.
-
As I said Mike, you cannot just make up whatever you want and leave it to me to clean up your messes. You've claimed that no part of SH the Golf Club land was east of the land CBM was considering. Back it up. You indicated to Patrick you could prove your claims about the land. So prove it.
I really want to understand how your process works. Did you just make this up, or are you relying on erronious information? If so, what information is that?
-
Bryan,
Very cool map, thanks for sharing.
As regards you land mass interpretation, I 'd respectfully disagree. Shinnecock Hills did in fact, "adjoin" to NGLA's purchase, just as CBM said, but it adjoins to the south, not the east. If the writer was looking for major landmarks to the east he'd have to be pretty blind not to see that the property they bought skirted Bulls Head Bay for a mile.
You've asked David several times to show where NGLA and SH were relative to each other in 1906. Could you draw it out for us, since you seem convinced that you know that SH is south of NGLA. My attempt is below, based on the 1916 map. Was the 1906 northern boundary of SH significantly different than it was in 1916? Based on my overlay drawing I'd still contend that NGLA could be considered to the west of of SH. So, we'll respectfully continue to disagree.
He certainly wasn't imprecise about mentioning that the land of the purchase ran as far east as Shinnecock GC, skirted the railroad tracks to the south (the land CBM bought was over 1/3 mile from those tracks), and had its westernmost poiint "near the inlet between" Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.
All of these are imprecise. Skirting is imprecise. Near the inlet between to stations. Did you know that the inlet reguularly moved around due to tides and winds.
I don't see that as a general description at all, and yes, if the writer considered Cold Spring and it's inlet to be part of a larger Peconic Bay to the north than I think that description locates the attempted purchase where I placed it.
IF the writer considered that, then maybe your interpretation could be right. But it's a stretch to assume that. Cold Springs Pond is pretty big; it would be a pretty obvious landmark in its own right. And, the writer was a reporter, presumably reporting what he was told. Or, do you think he was creatively writing the description of the location based on his own knowledge of the area.
I also think it would be very, very odd for CBM not to have considered that land very strongly for the reasons I mentioned previously. He could use the Shinnecock Inn to serve as a clubhouse, have long stretches along the water, etc...
Maybe he did consider it; that doesn't mean that he bought it in October.
We know accounts said he was looking at "Various Sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills and I'd frankly be shocked to learn that this wasn't one of them.
Back to your map...
Probably Jeff can best tell us if 20 foot elevation changes were good enough for field work, but it certainly does cast some doubt on CBM's claim that it had never been surveyed prior.
Thanks again for sharing.
David,
Please show us precisely what land of the Shinnecock HIlls Golf Course was north of the NGLA southern border in 1906.
I have found no evidence of that whatsoever, so I'm asking you to please show us.
While we wait on David's response, where does your evidence show that that they were? Mine is below.
.........................................
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLASHOverlay1903.jpg)
-
David,
I figured as much when you replied to Patrick the Shinny controlled land north of NGLA's southern border in 1906...its a baseless claim, correct?
-
You guys are ridiculous...post your ideas and let the conversation move along...
-
You guys are ridiculous...post your ideas and let the conversation move along...
You have a very strange way of defining "conversation".
-
And, Mike, speaking of descriptions of locations, how about the one in the following that you posted. Where do you suppose Canoe Place Creek was? The Shinnecok Canal was finished in 1892, so it presumably wasn't that.
Did it really adjoin Southampton to the east. Any idea where the 2600 acres was. Could you draw it?
And, what about the reporting of the size? It's reported as 3000 acres, 2600 above water and 500 below water. Which is right, 3000 or 3100? Other reports say 2700 acres or 2000 acres.
In my surfing I came across this quote from the Hamptons history:
"Bayles in his Sketches of Suffolk County describes Canoe Place:
"low, sandy hills, overlooking bays north and south, and affording an unobstructed view of the bleak waste of Shinnecock Hills on the east."19
He goes on further to describe Shinnecock Hills:
"Here and there a patch of some low growing shrub…are the only representatives of vegetation that dare venture an existence upon these hills…There are no trees here. Scarcely an apology for one is seen in the whole region. Nor do we see any evidence to support the conclusion that it was ever wooded, though it is possible that some parts of it were once…"20
These hills were such a desolate wasteland in early times that travelers thought twice about crossing them alone. Bayles tells of a popular tale of the 1870's concerning earlier times:
"a traveler who challenged all the spirits to cross the hills on a stormy night…some found lying dead without a sign of violence except his tongue was pulled out and hung on a nearby bush".21"
Seems to match the oil paintings previously posted, and to be at odds with Macdonald's entangled view. Not to mention that there was a "road" up into the property.
Can we believe anything we read.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5514438097_326b87cd60_z.jpg)
-
David,
I figured as much when you replied to Patrick the Shinny controlled land north of NGLA's southern border in 1906...its a baseless claim, correct?
Of course I had a basis. I don't make baseless claims. That is your bailiwick.
But let's pretend I hadn't yet told you that. What is your basis for insisting that no part of the SH Golf Club property was directly east of the land CBM was considering?
It is your claim.
__________________________________________________________________
Bryan, thanks for posting that. Remember though that we aren't necessarily talking about NGLA, we may be talking the larger parcel of land on which CBM eventually placed NGLA. The land CBM was considering could well have continued further south than the actual land he chose.
____________________________________________________________________
Jim,
I cannot post any support right now because it is inaccessible at the moment, and I don't feel like wasting my time reinventing the wheel to access it again just because Mike threw something out there that he is unwilling to support. As foolish as his theory may be, Mike's entire theory about the land is based upon this claim. This was supposedly what lead to his epiphany causing him to do an about face on this issue. Surely he must have had some legitimate reason for believing as he does.
Is it really too much to ask this guy to back up his claims?
-
David,
The whole premise of your explanation is flawed.
Those articles you posted from Oct 06 aren't talking about some large land mass that CBM was "considering" that included the entire 450 acres of Sebonac Bay.
Those articles talk about a specific, supposed land "purchased/secured" of 250 acres, and goes on to describe the landmark boundaries of that purchase.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
You then try to take that article and tell us that the land in question is some massive land mass which includes well over 1,000 acres, with a western point 1.5 miles west of where they built NGLA.
That makes no sense if it's talking about the same property. None.
-
Bryan,
The Shinnecock Hills Golf Club course in 1916 was not the same golf course as Shinnecock Hills in 1906.
Here's a clue.
Do you think the proposed "North Highway" running across the south fork to Southampton would have cut right though either the existing Shinnecock Hills GC or the newly purchased NGLA?
Yet it splits right between them in this April 1907 publication.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
-
Mike, Quit the nonsense and provide your basis for your claims.
-
Bryan,
You're great with this type of thing...my drawings suck.
Here's two images...note Patrick's famed "North Highway" and where Olmstead proposed it to go in 1907.
You may need to turn the drawing about 10 degrees to get true north/south orientation.
Thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_9ec4a6a6e0_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5515470273_3f143bb405_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I'm mystified by your last two posts. I don't get the clue in the first one. Is the red rectangle on the inset supposed to indicate that that is the SH course property? How would you infer that?
What's the second post about. Are A and B on the Google map relevant to anything?
If the shaded area of the inset map is supposed to represent the 2700 acres mentioned in the puff piece, do you suppose it measures to 2700 acres? Here's a clue - it doesn't. It doesn't measure to 2495 acres either, after you take out the 205 acres bought by NGLA. Why would they have not shaded some of Sebonac Neck. They must have known by then which parts CBM wanted.
If you're suggesting that I overlay the Olmstead Map on the topo, no thanks. It doesn't show where the boundary of SH is, and it's not to scale. Reminds me of a certain drawing from Merion. And, that didn't turn out.
Should I infer from these two posts that you don't have any supporting documentation of where the SH boundaries were in 1906?
-
Mike,
Are you really trying to get Bryan to chase your wild geese for you? Surely you aren't basing all this on eyeballing that 1907 plan, are you?
What is your basis for stating as fact that none of the land controlled by SHGC was east of the land CBM was considering?
___________________________________________________________________
Bryan,
Don't waste time with that overlay. (Or if you do it, at least put it on a DVD and sell it to him.) Somewhere I have a rough overlay and that road marked North Hwy runs right across the 9th and 10th holes at NGLA.
Sorry. didn't read your post. I hope Mike answers your last question so we can move on.
Also, not that it matters, but that is not a puff piece. It is an advertisement.
-
Mike,
The Olmstead Bros had no authority on the location of the North Highway.
It was already in existance prior to 1906.
The Olmstead Bros rendering is in 1907 long after the North Highway traversed the South Fork.
-
Bryan,
The Shinnecock Hills Golf Club course in 1916 was not the same golf course as Shinnecock Hills in 1906.
Here's a clue.
Do you think the proposed "North Highway" running across the south fork to Southampton would have cut right though either the existing Shinnecock Hills GC or the newly purchased NGLA?
Why not ?
Today, both NGLA and Shinnecock are split by roads, and GCGC was split by roads.
For you to draw a conclusion based upon the speculation that a road couldn't cut through the golf course is absurd.[/b]
Yet it splits right between them in this April 1907 publication.
So what ?
GCGC was split by roads, as are NLGA and Shinnecock today.[/b]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Hope your eyes are OK and you'll see the pic below clearly. It's from the Vanderbilt Cup race of 1906. Winning average speed was just over 50 m.p.h. Note that the race was over dirt roads, even though the road course was near Lake Success, much closer to NYC and civilization than the wilds of the Shinnecock Hills. Good to know that the race drivers could have made it from NYC to SH in 1906 in under 2 dusty hours (if the car didn't break down). Not to mention the lack of gas stations out that way.
I'll bet the North Highway was a real race track in those days. No annoying cops and radar traps either, I'll bet.
(http://races.pmhclients.com/vcrsys/Images/Then/Image1-691_edited-1.jpg)
-
Mike,
One other question when you resurface. The October article supposedly locates the 250 acres CBM supposedly bought. If I recall correctly somebody showed that the current NGLA layout is pretty tight to 205 acres. Where do you suppose the extra 45 acres to make up the 250 acres might have been situated relative to the current course? Maybe just west of SH?
-
Mike,
One other question when you resurface. The October article supposedly locates the 250 acres CBM supposedly bought. If I recall correctly somebody showed that the current NGLA layout is pretty tight to 205 acres. Where do you suppose the extra 45 acres to make up the 250 acres might have been situated relative to the current course? Maybe just west of SH?
When I saw this, I thought maybe someone reversed the 0 and 5 from 205 to create the mistaken 250.
-
Jim,
I assumed it was a transposition, as well.
Bryan,
Why the hard edge to your questions?
I'll get to the others by weekend but as far as your last one I already stated that I don't believe the land in question was the land CBM later purchased.
Also, that road marked North Highway didn't exist in that location in 1906 or 1907...it was a proposed road on the Olmstead Bros. Land Plan and a proposed major artery that if built would have run right between NGLA and Shinny. Do you really believe they would have run that thru an existing golf course?
-
Do you really believe they would have run that thru an existing golf course?
Mike, you mentioned that earlier--not sure why you believe that to be so unlikely when so many courses have roads through them. Oakmont had the turnpike slice through it, and even mighty Glenbrook has several holes bisected by roads :)
Or are you saying that with available, vacant land nearby, why would they have gone through an existing course when they didn't have to?
-
Andy,
These guys were planning their ideal community.
This was a plan, not a reality.
Not much existed out there yet, except Shinny and now CB had just secured land adjacent.
Alvord was trying to get people out there to the Inn and golf courses.
Why would he risk destroying/diminishing the one that had been there for fifteen years...this was going to be a major artery through Shinnecock out to Southampton, not a side road.
This wasn't something planned by some govt. agency without regard for the golf course...these guys were planning their own roads, etc.
-
(http://races.pmhclients.com/vcrsys/Images/Then/Image1-691_edited-1.jpg)
Way OT, but I wonder if any auto mfg these days would take any styling cues from this era?
-
Bryan,
Here's Shinnecock Hills in 1915.
You might want to compare with whatever you used for your drawing from 1916 so if you could share that here it would be helpful.
I've edited your map a little bit to show where the boundaries roughly were a year prior. I also filled in the rest of NGLA so that the distinct north-south orientation of both course properties is more obvious.
Thanks!
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5517247595_62eeb592be_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5178/5517827786_1987227872_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
The geographical relationship of the courses in your interpretation there is THE reason you think the October articles were talking about CBM having bought a different piece of land?
-
Here's a good resolution view of the NGLA course from 1915 as it sits on the 205 acres of land (shadowed) that was purchased.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5517268239_503090053c_o.jpg)
-
Jim,
Along with the huge geographical discrepancies of the article versus reality (i.e. Inlet to the west was 1.5 MILES from NGLA's western border, railroad was .35 MI from southern border, Shinnecock clearly south, not east), please see my response #806 to Jeff which outlines my other issues.
Thanks.
-
Jim,
I assumed it was a transposition, as well. So, that makes two errors in the article. I'm just not sure why if this was a transposition error and if the purchase was misreported that you take a such a literal interpretation of the location as absolutely correct?
Bryan,
Why the hard edge to your questions? There was no hard edge intended. I can't get the emoticons to work, so how about calming pink for my in-line responses?
I'll get to the others by weekend but as far as your last one I already stated that I don't believe the land in question was the land CBM later purchased. So, you believe that the 250 acres is correct, but that it wasn't actually purchased as reported, but that the location is accurate? Just seems to be a stretch to me.
Also, that road marked North Highway didn't exist in that location in 1906 or 1907...it was a proposed road on the Olmstead Bros. Land Plan and a proposed major artery that if built would have run right between NGLA and Shinny. Do you really believe they would have run that thru an existing golf course? I'm confused as to your point here. There were roads already running through SH. Look at the layout you posted and the topo map from 1903. Building courses with "highways" through them was not that unusual in those days (Merion comes to mind). And, the Olmstead map stops short of SH, so there's no way to know where the proposed roads would go. Are you suggesting that Peconic Bay also owned the SH land and that they could determine where the roads through that existing course could go. Do you have any other source of the precise location of the 2700 acres. The article you posted with the Olmstead map is not persuasive to me.
-
Mike,
My source was the Suffolk County Atlas map that I posted a few pages ago. The shape of the property matches the shape your drawing shows, with the exception that yours shows the 10th tee across the road on the western edge. Yours is an unscaled drawing and mine is from a scaled atlas. I overlaid the Atlas map of SH and the current Google aerial of NGLA onto the topo map so I'm confident of the boundaries. I think mine is a more accurate representation than yours.
If you draw a line due north through the middle of SH, you'll see that NGLA is west of that line, and hence SH is east of NGLA. I'm not sure why you take such a narrow interpretation of "adjoin". CBM said the courses adjoined when they don't in the narrow literal sense you're taking. The adjoining if there is any literal adjoining, is of the southeast corner of NGLA and the northwest corner of the northern segment of SH at the time. Just the corners, there was no common boundaries that adjoined.
Bryan,
Here's Shinnecock Hills in 1915.
You might want to compare with whatever you used for your drawing from 1916 so if you could share that here it would be helpful.
I've edited your map a little bit to show where the boundaries roughly were a year prior. I also filled in the rest of NGLA so that the distinct north-south orientation of both course properties is more obvious.
Thanks!
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5517247595_62eeb592be_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5178/5517827786_1987227872_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
This may help.
In 1906 the "North Highway", dirt road as it was, ran much further south than where it's drawn/proposed on the 1907 Olmstead map.
I've cropped the whole Land Plan and marked the proposed path of the North Highway in red.
As you can see, it runs along the North boundary of Shinnecock Hills GC over on the right. National is north of there.
Again, this is what was proposed AFTER NGLA had secured their 205 acres, so it would be virtually unthinkable that someone/Alvord would draw his major highway through his area THRU a well-established golf course that had existed for 15 years to that point.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_z.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Our posts crossed.
Other than still waiting for David to show us where the North Highway cuts through the 9th and 10th holes of NGLA I think we can agree that we're both picking nits to a degree.
I'll concede that the predominant part of Shinny lay southeast of NGLA if you agree that at least 99% of Shinnecock property was south of at least 99% of NGLA property. ;) ;D
I find it odd that anyone would describe the property (as the Oct articles do) as running to SH to the east in the Oct articles, when the property that was purchased stretched along Bulls Head Bay for a mile to the east.
If anything, they should have mentioned it as running to Shinny at the Southern Border, not the Long Island Rail tracks as they did.
-
Bryan,
This may help.
In 1906 the "North Highway", dirt road as it was, ran much further south than where it's drawn/proposed on the 1907 Olmstead map. Not sure which 1906 North Highway you're referring to. Is it not the one that runs below the Shinnecock Inn. I can't read the legend on the one you've marked in red. Is that what you're calling the proposed North highway and that you assume it was going to replace the then existing North Highway?
I've cropped the whole Land Plan and marked the proposed path of the North Highway in red.
As you can see, it runs along the North boundary of Shinnecock Hills GC over on the right. National is north of there. I assume they thought it would run between the two course properties in the gap between where the two corners that almost adjoin. :)
Again, this is what was proposed AFTER NGLA had secured their 205 acres, so it would be virtually unthinkable that someone/Alvord would draw his major highway through his area THRU a well-established golf course that had existed for 15 years to that point. Since there is no scale on that map, it's hard to know exactly where it would run relative to SH. It could easily be interpreted as running along the northern edge of the SH property. In any event, is there any evidence that Alvord/Peconic Bay bought SH as part of their 2700 acres? If they didn't then how could they propose to run a road through property they didn't own. Or, was eminent domain in use even then? In any event, there is no road there on the 1916 map so that road didn't get built as proposed.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_z.jpg)
-
Mike,
The article is erroneous in a couple of way. Not hard to conceive that the description of the location was either erroneous or just general in nature too. I'm guessing that whoever was the source for the reporter was just giving a broad brush location. I can't imagine that the reporter had been on-site or knew the area from having been there. So, I'd guess that the source would have stated it in most general terms according to major landmarks in this completely undeveloped area. It's hard to fathom that the source meant to say that the eastern boundary literally adjoined the west boundary of SH and only that boundary, as you have drawn it in previous posts.
Although your drawing of the 250 acres is possible, it is not plausible in the context of subsequent events and other articles and books on the subject.
So, I'd say, give up the idea of a third site, but I know that that's probably not possible for you to do. :)
-
Bryan,
Love and appreciate the warm, fuzzy, pink print, thanks. Perhaps we can convince Patrick to convert to that. Thanks. ;) ;D
Would appreciate your thoughts on my post #806 re: those articles versus other related facts that we know to be true.
btw...the proposed "North Highway" ran North of the Shinnecock Inn, not South, and along the North boundary of Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. You can see where the words "HIghway" continue on that route, and a little further along it says "To Southampton".
Perhaps we should wait to see David's overlay where the North Highway intersects the 9th and 10th holes at NGLA? ;)
-
Mike,
I don't know what you think #806 says, but there isn't much meat there.
For that post to mean anything we're back to the debate about the December option being formal or informal.
Why is it more likely that he signed an informal option than for him to have gotten his informal agreement for 205 acres anywhere in that 450 in September or October and then spent the following few months exactly locating it?
Let's forget Shinnecock for a second and think about the fact that there is an article or articles that say he "purchased" or "secured" land prior to mid-October and we have an Option agreement in December. In CBM's own words, that describes the chain of events perfectly.
I'm not arguing that he completely routed the course in 3 days either.
-
Mike Cirba's most recent drawing may be worse than his first. Look at his own "1915" map he recently posted. The fifteenth hole started from a point north of the clubhouse and was listed at 464 yards, and the 16th tee was north of that. Look at the location of the clubhouse on his latest drawing relative to the northern border. What is there, about 75 yards for this 15th hole? Mike needs to learn that if he has to twist the facts to make his point, then his point is not worth making.
__________________________________
Briefly and roughly: Shinnecock's original 9 hole course (Davis) was laid out before Shinnecock even owned their land. When they purchased land (reportedly 80 acres,) the existing course did not fit on the purchased. Rather, the course extended well south of the RR tracks and south of the southern boundary, and Davis' women's course was reportedly south of the men's course. Below is the men's course in 1891. Note that a small portion of the course was north of the clubhouse (first tee, eighth green, and the entire 9th hole.)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinnecock18910815Map-1.png?t=1299867702)
In early 1893, Dunn redesigned much of the men's course. creating a 12 hole course that only used about 10 or 11 acres south of the RR, but extended further north of the clubhouse. He also moved the women's course to North of the men's course. Note that the land extends north of the clubhouse and that a substantial portion of the women's course is north of the interesection of the intersection of Cold Spring and Raynor Roads, both still marked on the 1915 map. [Mike's latest drawing may not even extend this far north.]
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1893Shinnecockwcontours.jpg?t=1299868038)
In 1895 Dunn converted the course to 18 holes by adding a western extension of six holes on about 30 acres of land the club had leased (and would later purchase.)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/ShinnecockMap1895.jpg?t=1299868430)
By 1898 the women golfer's (some of whom were extremely accomplished) were reportedly tired of their short "beginners" course and wanted a real course, and they began to usurp the Men's course. (Reportedly they played the course as a twelve hole course, skipping the loop to the west.) So in 1898/1899 the club reportedly purchased 20 acres of land to the north of the current course and extended the women's nine into one the longest nine hole courses in the nation. Below is a early rough rendering of the layout from 1899. Note that the from a point about even with the clubhouse the 2nd and 3rd run close to straight north and measure a combined 800 yards, and the 4th tee is beyond this.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinne189902BDEmap.jpg?t=1299856912)
Between 1900 and 1906 there was reportedly at least one other small land purchase of 5 to 8 acres well north of the clubhouse, toward Bullshead Bay.
So far as I can tell from the maps and various reports, changes which took place between 1900 and the major redo by CBM and Raynor in or around 1917 all took place on the land north of the clubhouse, which was originally laid out as the women's course. For example, Shinnecock substantially lengthened their course and made other changes in or around 1913 (after NGLA and after Hutchinson had criticized their course) using the land purchased in 1898/1899 for the women's course.
So while it may be true that the the men's course had undergone changes between 1915 as compared to fall of 1906, SHGC already owned the land. And by 1906 SHGC's land reportedly extended well north of the the clubhouse; judging from the hole distances on the schematic, close to a half mile north, at least. And, as mentioned above, Shinnecock had acquired additional land to the north prior to 1906.
In contrast, the 9th green at NGLA is only about 220 yards north of Shinnecock's clubhouse. (In other words, about 220 yards north, from a point directly east of Shinnecock's clubhouse.)
So, despite Mike's adamant claims and his deceptive drawings, a portion of the SHGC land was directly east of the SHGC land. And the land CBM was considering may have even extended further south than this.
-
Let's see if I can simply sum up the issue before us. It is whether the October articles are discussing:
1. The original offer that was rejected as described in Scotland’s Gift, but later than we presumed it happened, given the few dates mentioned for it:
a. November 1905, which would be a few weeks after Alvord gained control (as he reports in Scotland’s Gift)
b. June 1906, right after CBM got back with his sketches of the great holes he wanted to build (as he also reports in Scotland’s Gift)
2. Mike is correct and it is some intermediate parcel that was being negotiated, but not mentioned in Scotland’s Gift, based on:
a. Reports the original offer was 120 acres not 250 and other mistakes in that October article.
3. Or the final parcel either:
a. Prematurely reported based on rumor or preliminary reports
b. Bought, but put off for some glitch, and finally concluded as reported in the December articles.
Frankly, option 3 makes most sense to me. Glitches happen all the time in deals of this magnitude. And, it was noted in December that there was general knowledge of the deal, but the Eagle, at least, held off reporting certain items in a gentlemen's agreement, while other papers did leak it. Leaking from secondary inside sources, like the secretary typing up the agreement, might explain:
* the 205-250 transposition,
* the vague description (maybe they really didn't know where the land was because the principals weren't talking openly about it)
* the option in December, as perhaps whatever glitch or some other aspect of the deal made CBM nervous, and he wanted the safety of knowing he could back out (even more than the ability to move borders around to suit him)
But, its just my guess against others.....
Damn, David made a detailed post before this got posted. I hope I am not confusing the issue with the above, since each of us seems to be arguing way different things, often going past each other.
While I am trying to decide when the offers were made by CBM for the land, others are debating where the heck Shinny was located, presumably to establish the same points I lay out above?
-
Mike, I am getting a bit tired of you expecting me and others to do all your work for you. These things take time and I shouldn't have to waste my time addressing claims made with no real support in the first place. Posts like the above take quite a lot of time and I am tired having to deal with every fantastic and unsupported scenario you create. Do the damn research before you start stating things as fact.
I see you expect me to post my overlay. What a surprise. Your skills with graphics are on par with your skills in historical analysis.
Here is part of my overlay. Hopefully it puts your latest digression back in the trash bin where it belongs.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-Overlay-1907crop.jpg?t=1299873957)
-
Bryan,
The Shinnecock Hills Golf Club course in 1916 was not the same golf course as Shinnecock Hills in 1906.
Here's a clue.
Do you think the proposed "North Highway" running across the south fork to Southampton would have cut right though either the existing Shinnecock Hills GC or the newly purchased NGLA?
Yet it splits right between them in this April 1907 publication.
Macdonald stated, in unequivacal terms that his NGLA site ADJOINED Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
CBM was a member of Shinnecock Hills, therefore it's my belief that he knew where it was located, despite your claims to the contrary.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
I have to agree you are making a bit much of the north and east descriptions here.
One question. If anyone other than an Olmstead draftsman contemplated the north highway to go in your redmarked location, would there have been any hearings in the legislature in the same time period regarding whether or not there had to be a grade separated crossing with the railroad? Despite its depiction on that map, those hearings and its subsequent location make clear it wasn't supposed to go where you imagine, don't they?
-
Bryan & Mike,
Now we have another reliable source map, an independent map showing the existence of the North Highway.
The 1903 U.S.G.S. - State of New York survey.
You might notice that it's the ONLY EAST-WEST Road on the North Shore of the South Fork, extending East of the Canal.
The canal was created only a few years earlier, and, I suspect the North Highway and the creation of the Canal are directly related
The body of evidence supporting the existance of the North Highway continues to increase as does your absurdly stubborn refusal to acknowledge its existance.
As to your reference that it's a dirt road, almost every road was a dirt road in 1903.
Cars were just being mass produced in 1902.
Just because a highway wasn't paved doesn't negate it's being a major thoroughfare in 1903, which the North Highway was.
In addition, there was such a high volume of traffic on the North Highway that in 1906 the New York State Senate legislated moving and reconfiguring the intersection/crossing of the North Highway with the railroad tracks for safety reasons.[/b]
[/color][/b]
I guess that CBM was wrong that it was never surveyed.
I'm not so sure about that.
A topo and a survey map are two distinctly different documents.
I have several surveys of the land I own. I"ve never seen a topo of the land I own.
And, I had to pay an engineering firm for the surveys.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
[/quote]
-
.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
Jeff Brauer,
You're forgetting that the Olmstead Bros sketch, is just that a sketch, a rendering, NOT A DRAWN TO SCALE BONA FIDE MAP.
Mike's reliance on a sketch as the foundation for any argument is ............. disingenuous ?(;;)
-
Patrick
I am pretty sure that Olmstead was working to scale on that plan. It would be the nature of landscape architects to do so. It is however, a concept plan. although as David's overlay and aerials show, the road pattern was followed to a large degree, which also proves it was drawn to scale.
You will note that on the 1903 map you just posted, the "North Highway" if it was that, and before the Olmstead plan was draw, mostly paralleled the railway (which would be pretty typical) and Olmstead, famous for curving roads, proposed it move away from the RR, and most likely through the commerical center of the area, but also away from straight to curved.
You will also note that today's road and probably the way it was built originally doesn't follow David's red line, and it DOES and probably did always go just south of the SI.
I will guess that while Alvord's planned community was to feature curving roads, right after that, other littler thinkers were probably thinking a "good road" should be straighter!
One map shows the burned out SI in the same location. Why do you think the SI moved? I may have missed that one.
To be honest, I am still having trouble connecting the dots as to why all this is so important. The October articles could be suggesting only one of three things, as I outline above. Which is it?
-
3. Or the final parcel either:
a. Prematurely reported based on rumor or preliminary reports
b. Bought, but put off for some glitch, and finally concluded as reported in the December articles.
Frankly, option 3 makes most sense to me. Glitches happen all the time in deals of this magnitude. And, it was noted in December that there was general knowledge of the deal, but the Eagle, at least, held off reporting certain items in a gentlemen's agreement, while other papers did leak it. Leaking from secondary inside sources, like the secretary typing up the agreement, might explain:
* the 205-250 transposition,
* the vague description (maybe they really didn't know where the land was because the principals weren't talking openly about it)
* the option in December, as perhaps whatever glitch or some other aspect of the deal made CBM nervous, and he wanted the safety of knowing he could back out (even more than the ability to move borders around to suit him)
But, its just my guess against others.....
This one Jeff...but regarding your use of "glitch"...isn't it possible this was the period between "they agreed to sell us 205 etc..." and "we could locate it as best we could"?
The "locate it as best we could" would not have required exact tee/green and bunker placement, but a really firm outside border that could be moved slightly on a handshake or ammendment to the option if something came up to require it.
-
Jim,
Even though we have discussed it, I don't think there is anything such as an "informal" option, nor do I think the paper would report a lesser binding "letter of intent" as "securing the property" although, who knows?
In my mind, the most likely (and supported) glitch was the Realty Co. realizing that CBM wasn't going to write a check that day out of his own pocket. (Remember that in Dec. the article posted instructions for sending in the subscriptions already pledged. I know his subsribers were wealthy, but we don't know if he had collected any money in hand from them, do we? ) Maybe they had an agreement, gave CBM a month or so to get the money together (as is typical), and when he couldn't, they reopened the contract and decided to give him a formal option to extend his time frame.
I say this because the December article also states that the land hadn't been determined yet, so that isn't likely the reason. Besides, I think this group focuses too much on the architectural element. The mechanics of the land deal had to be more centered on price, terms, etc.
The other option is 1 - it was actually the first offer CBM made and that Alvord got CBM to the table and started to raise the prices (thus "providing we could get it reasonably") and it was from before October to After December that they started looking at the Sebonack Neck land and then finally consumated a deal.
Of course, we would have to assume that CBM at some point REDUCED his scope from 205 back to 120 acres, to allow Alvord to sell the lots or to stay in his land purchase budget. But, that is all speculation, too, before anyone mentions it!
I still doubt Mikes mystery third site, or CBM would have reported it, IMHO. All we know is that there is an erroneous article in October 2005 and/or it reported a deal much like the "Dewey Beats Truman" headline, and Google doesn't have records of page 29 where the retraction was printed!
-
Jeff,
It would appear that the North Highway fell under the jurisdiction of New York State.
Hence, I don't know how the Olmstead Bros would have re-aligned the North Highway.
If it took an act of the New York State Senate to relocate and reconfigure the North Highway at the railroad crossing in 1906, I would think it would take the sam action on the part of the New York State Senate to re-align the North Highway to conform to the Olmstead Bros. plan.
That's akin to purchasing/developing a parcel of property, contingent upon rezoning, which is far from guaranteed.
With all of the official maps from government agencies, I don't see why anyone would rely on the Olmstead Bros. sketch of a proposed development plan.
I
-
Jim,
That would make a lot of sense if any of the December articles said anything remotely like that, but they don't.
They say the boundaries have been left undetermined at that point, which would have been two full months later, and that CBM and his committee would spend the next several months determining which holes to replicate and their yardages.
-
Jim,
That would make a lot of sense if any of the December articles said anything remotely like that, but they don't.
They say the boundaries have been left undetermined at that point, which would have been two full months later, and that CBM and his committee would spend the next several months determining which holes to replicate and their yardages.
Except that Mike is again misrepresenting what CBM was quoted as saying. According to the quotes, he described the location of the property and even provided a number of highlights relating to features on the property including the starting and finishing point of the course, the locations of the holes modeled after probably the three most famous holes in the world and the location of another CBM thought would probably be famous.
As for Mike's oft repeated claim that the location of the had been left undermined at that point, what CBM was actually quoted as saying was, "The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans . . . ." Given that CBM described not only total acreage, but also a large chunk of the border (the land along the water,) and also the location of a number of holes along the border (Alps, Eden, and Cape) and also the inland starting and finishing point near the Inn, and also how far the course stretched (2 miles,) the reasonable interpretation of this language was that the location HAD BEEN DETERMINED, but that CBM had left himself some flexibility to adjust "the exact lines" if the final plan so dictated.
-
"but that CBM had left himself some flexibility to adjust "the exact lines" if the final plan so dictated."
With Alvord's obvious welcome agreement.
-
Patrick,
I am not sure if anyone is relying on the Olmstead plan for anything.
However, I know you have had eye troubles, but that state document that Phil posted said they delayed their decision on the railway crossing solely due to the fact that they weren't sure it was even a public road. It also had a local road name. Once the highway dept told the commission that they had agreed to take the road over, only then did they decide they needed the separated crossing.
It appears to me that Alvord plotted the road (using Olmstead to design, but as an LA, I note there are some changes even to the curving roads, most likely an engineer giving them proper geometry) and donated it to the state, which then put it in their plans for the road system.
I am not sure that tecnicality means much in terms of the bigger debate. Frankly, I have lost track of what the current debate is all about, other than most of us don't seem to think there was a mysterious third parcel depicted in those October articles, and we are trying to figure out best we can why the purchase/securing of the land was mentioned in two varying time periods. Leak to the press? First offer CBM made and a glitch? Last offer made by CBM and a glitch?
If it is the last option, which I think it is, then we have the question of what glitch. We also have the almost unknowable question of just how much work did by October vs how much he did after December. If I am right that the glitch was in some lawyer objecting to the terms, or Alvord raising the price, or CBM needing time to get money, then its most likely that he had much of the routing work done previous to October, and certainly Dec.
This actually seems to fit what we know and the assumptions I have made in the last few posts. I meant to say, "theories proffered".
-
Jim,
You know, the more I think about it in terms of my experience in sitting in on a few similar deals, its quite possible that they were very close to agreement, but decided to put off the final until CBM narrowed down his property choice a little more precisely. That would be just the kind of thing a real estate lawyer reviewing the contracts for Alvord would probably recommend before he signed any kind of agreement.
Still not sure why there would be an option in December if he spent October and November just with minor tweaks, unless CBM just wanted the ability to tweak even further once settling on the basic parcel, or took the interim to tweak, but needed time to set up his corporation, get funds, etc.
-
Jeff,
I don't know that there was a glitch or even if it matters. But as I have said before, there is a big difference between the developer agreeing to sell CBM some land, on the one hand, and CBM and the developer actually coming to a formal agreement as to the conveyance of real property, on the other. My guess is that after having figured out that the land was good, CBM went to the developer to see if this time the developer would be willing to sell him land out on the more remote section of the property not scheduled for development, and the developer agreed, generally, that he would sell him acreage for the price ($200) and that he didn't much care what acreage CBM wanted. If that is the case then they would still have been a long ways away from anything resembling the formal agreement for the conveyance of real property. But if CBM or someone started bragging that he had found his land it would explain why the papers reported it. I don't think it was unusual for these land deals to have been reported before they were finalized and formalized. Merion is a good example.
-
"but that CBM had left himself some flexibility to adjust "the exact lines" if the final plan so dictated."
With Alvord's obvious welcome agreement.
Jim, that was almost guaranteed since the "exact lines" were the Western border.
Three of the border lines on the long, narrow out and back routing had been established by natural and documented boundaries.
Only the Western line needed to be "fine tuned" to the exact lines.
That was an easy exercise.
-
Jeff,
The Olmstead plan is dated 1907.
We know from the 1903 US GST map that the North Highway existed before the Olmstead plan existed and before Alvord purchased the 2,000-2,700 acres.
We also know that it was common for roads to cut through golf courses.
Garden City, where Macdonald was a member, had roads cutting through the course.
Today, both NGLA and Shinnecock have roads cutting through the course.
-
David,
I think our understandings/theories of NGLA and how it came together are similar.
I agree there may have been no glitch at all, and that Merion is a good example. If I recall, papers reported that MCC had "secured" the land around the Nov-Dec 1910 time frame, when there was only an exchange of letters, and the final deal was signed the next April. It just took (and may still take) that long to put together land sale contracts, and I am a victim of my own time compression concept.
Patrick,
Our understandings of the North Highway are not similar at all, but its of no real import to me.
I will also continue to disagree that anything to do with designing a golf course or routing it is an easy excersise.
-
Patrick,
Here are the three maps in sequence:
1903 USGS
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
1905 Automobile Club Map
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
1916 Suffolk County Atlas Map
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NorthHighwayMap.jpg)
If you'll agree that the North Highway is as defined by the yellow line on the 1916 Map, then it didn't exist on the 1903 map or the 1905 map. Look closely. The only part of it that is on the 1903 and 1905 maps is the short segment from the Shinnecock Inn and through SH Golf Club and a little bit to the east of it. The majority of the highway - the portion from the canal to the Shinnecock Inn was not there in 1903 or 1905. It must have been built sometime between 1905 and 1916.
The canal was finished in 1892. The highway after 1905. I don't think they are related.
I may be absurd on this, but you're just wrong. What was there in 1906 was a dirt tertiary road paralleling the tracks. It could not have been a major thoroughfare in 1903 as you claim since it didn't exist in 1903. There were only 25 buildings on the 2700 acres in 1903. Good Ground to the west was a hamlet. Southampton to the east not much more. At most the whole area was a summer resort area. Where would all this road traffic that you see on this thoroughfare come from? All the cottagers from NYC making the 8 hour trek by horse and carriage in the summer of '03?
I understand that there is a difference between a topo map and a survey. Do you suppose that CBM wanted a survey so that he'd know where the iron posts were defining the 2700 acres? I assumed that he meant a topo map. That'd be more relevant to the design process.
Bryan & Mike,
Now we have another reliable source map, an independent map showing the existence of the North Highway.
The 1903 U.S.G.S. - State of New York survey.
You might notice that it's the ONLY EAST-WEST Road on the North Shore of the South Fork, extending East of the Canal.
The canal was created only a few years earlier, and, I suspect the North Highway and the creation of the Canal are directly related
The body of evidence supporting the existance of the North Highway continues to increase as does your absurdly stubborn refusal to acknowledge its existance.
As to your reference that it's a dirt road, almost every road was a dirt road in 1903.
Cars were just being mass produced in 1902.
Just because a highway wasn't paved doesn't negate it's being a major thoroughfare in 1903, which the North Highway was.
In addition, there was such a high volume of traffic on the North Highway that in 1906 the New York State Senate legislated moving and reconfiguring the intersection/crossing of the North Highway with the railroad tracks for safety reasons.[/b]
[/color][/b]
I guess that CBM was wrong that it was never surveyed.
I'm not so sure about that.
A topo and a survey map are two distinctly different documents.
I have several surveys of the land I own. I"ve never seen a topo of the land I own.
And, I had to pay an engineering firm for the surveys.
...................................
[/quote]
-
Bryan,
Thanks for posting those maps in order. They certainly make it clear what the succession of the road is, and hopefully, Pat will stop calling us all liars! However, in the future, I think we should move the discussion of the north highway ober to EarlyroadsofLongIsland.com.
Back on point, the topo map included in 1903 is interesting for a few reasons. First, it does show that at least a bit of topo work had been done by the USGS, but no, 20 foot contours probably aren't enough to plan a golf course then or now. Of more interest is the swamp designation and lack of contour lines on the SW corner of the neck, just east of Cold Springs Bay, both of which are evidence of very low lying land.
This swampy area has to be what CBM referred to as the worthless land, and his pony rides provided a "eureka" moment that not all the land was worthless. It is clear from this 1903 topo map that the ONLY place that NGLA could have been placed topographically was on the eastern border, at least economically and under a budget. It definitely had the best topo in the property, and as it happened, connected well with the SI.
TePaul has said privately that records show that Alvord actually did fill some of the low areas that were on the NGLA property, and it is also evident that sometime later, some fill work was done because there are some homes in the lowest areas (obviously, pre wetland laws)
OT, but I wonder how looking at that land may have played out later in the design of Lido.
-
Jeff/Mike,
Thanks for replying to my question of a couple of pages ago on whether CBM COULD have routed the course in a day. To be clear I'm not suggesting for one second that CBM did in fact do it in one day, just suggesting that it is capable of creating a ROUGH routing which would allow you to determine the extent of the land holding required for the course.
To my mind it would be a two stage process of firstly establishing what generally you could do and then secondly refining the routing to what you want to do. Before you start the second stage you would need to be fairly sure of stage 1, which would mean you would also need to have decided on what land you were using. Kind of looking at it on a macro level initially I suppose.
If on your travels you also spot a couple of likely locations for model holes that you are looking to build, then that would quickly narrow the focus would it not ? To reiterate, not saying that CBM did an intial routing in one day at NGLA, there may be good reasons to say he didn't including his own testimonial, but generically speaking I suggest he could have.
Now since I've nothing at all to add on the specifics of NGLA I'll leave you all to it.
Cheers
Niall
-
Niall,
The routing process defies easy description, and is different every time out. That said, yes, I often think of it broadly in terms of two phases - basic pattern and details.
The basic pattern phase often starts with just seeing if I can fit 18 holes on the property! (using my super handy plastic golf hole templates) but I doubt CBM had these, and the property wasn't tight, so I doubt he needed them here.
Phase 1-A, as it were, is to explore how to best use the property, in terms of getting out and back from the Clubhouse, where to put the range, etc. It includes using the best natural features (most can be attacked a few ways) and also using the perimeters of the property, at least on most sites where land isn't too abundant and all of it must be used. In the case of NGLA, the east side of the land embodied both perimeter and natural feature use.
Once its established on a general pattern, then yes, we go back and tweak. Some holes can work at any length, others only at one length, etc. We tweak the routing usually for max or ideal length, shortening the walks from greens to tee, etc. etc. etc.
As to narrowing the focus, I have always said that many routing mistakes are made by focusing in too closely on one signature or must have hole and making the others suffer a bit to incorporate it. It is always a delicate balance between the good of the hole and the good of the whole!
-
Jeff
Thanks for that and I note what you say in your final line. I wonder therefore how CBM's desire to build model holes actually hampered him in his routing. I would imaging just because you find the ground to build the hole you want doesn't mean its going to fit in easily into a routing.
Niall
-
Niall,
As I noted to Pat earlier, to me, the fact that he said "Strange as it may seem, all I had to do was look back to find a natural Redan" implies that this was a one time unusually easy occurrence of finding a golf hole, not the norm. To me, its harder to route using pre-defined design ideas than it would be to have an open pallette as regards final golf hole design.
But, there are smarter guys than me!
-
Jeff,
The whole road thing came out of Mike's hypothesis that the October article indicated that there was a third property that CBM was looking at. Then, Patrick asserted that the North Highway was a major thoroughfare in 1906. It seems that Mike is the only believer in the third property, and Pat is the only one who thinks the North Highway existed in 1906, let alone that it was a major thoroughfare, and neither are prone to giving up their hypotheses, I'm happy to consign it to EarlyroadsofLongIsland.com.
It did however lead to the three maps which I think are useful pieces of information.
As to your latest comments about the low lying areas of Sebonac Neck, why do you suppose he would have passed up all that water front property along Peconic Bay? Would it be that he saw the landforms he wanted along Bullhead Bay? Otherwise the long narrow strip he picked seems like an odd configuration.
-
Bryan!
CBM tells us they didn't have money for a clubhouse so they were then locked into the Shinnecock Inn, 1.45 milees away from the Peconic Bay.
That as much as anything dictated what land he would choose of the 450 available.
-
Mike Cirba,
Before you hop to next set of misrepresentations, perhaps it is "time for a little housekeeping." Now that we know you simply made up the bit about the relative location of SHGC to suit your desired conclusion, don't you agree that your mystery third site belongs in the trash heap? And that the October articles generally described the Sebonack Neck area?
After all, wasn't it your "aha moment" about the supposed location of SHGC land which lead you abandon our previous agreement on the issue and circle back over this particular dead carcass in the first place?
______________________________________________________
Bryan,
I really think this entire bit about the roads is a red herring, but for completeness sake here is the relevant portion of the 1873 Atlas.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1873Atlas.jpg?t=1297711643)
I find it interesting how much variance there is in all these maps not only with the locations of the roads but also even with the shapes and locations of natural features.
Also, generally I think we should keep in mind that many of the roads around this time were not yet state roads as we think of them, but were private, and I am not sure how these maps would have marked such roads.
Also, I haven't been following your 'discussion with Patrick about the roads (nor do I plan to if it continues) but I was under the impression that Patrick thought there was a east-west road running north of the railroad tracks and south of the area directly under Cold Spring Bay. Setting aside the conjecture and speculation about major vs. minor and public vs. private, it looks to me as if there was such a road on all of the maps above (including the 1873 map.)
That said, I have no interest in getting into this map discussion at all. It is a just a distraction, and I don't much care whether there were any such roads or not. It doesn't change the general description in those Oct. articles or the similar yet more specific descriptions in both Scotland's Gift in the December articles, nor does the issue of the roads have anything to do with the lack of factual support for Mike's theory.
-
Bryan and Mike,
My interst in this whole thing is to just be able to picture how it all played out to create a great golf course.
No doubt water frontage, high ground and topo features vs swamps, and the desire to use the Inn all played into a pretty logical decision to locate NGLA where it got located. (In this, I agree with Patrick, but don't think the fact that it looks so logical to me in hindsight means that it was entirely self evident in a day or two back then)
I have no doubt he tried to get more water frontage along Great Peconic Bay , and if he could have built 22 or 26 holes, he probably would have taken more! It is probably a bit more attractive than Sebonac Bay and my impression is that not having Peconic frontage was a practical compromise.
Once the clubhouse site set the routing, he just couldn't stretch the course far enough to make more use of Great Peconic Bay. He does lament the burning of SI just a few years later, and had he either gotten more money, thought to use a temporary clubhouse (as would be done today) or forseen that fire, I am sure there would be a few more holes along the water than ended up occurring.
BTW, Tom Doak could answer better, but from those 20 foot contours, it does appear that the land selected for the NGLA course had more ups and downs for golf features, whereas what is now Sebonac appears to be mostly a domed hill, with the old estate house up on top. Not bad, of course, but the NGLA property does look to have more golf features on it overall.
-
David,
I agree roads are not my thing either. That said, I did notice this morning that some of the Olmstead Roads in the 1907 plan appeared to follow earlier roads, which I believe were just roads to the residences of the dozens of British Realty Co people who lived on the land then. Nonetheless, its quite possible (I have seen it elsewhere) that their roads were quite logical use of the topo and/or Olmstead simply used what was there to save his client money, even if they were just dirt roads.
The north road on that 1973 map is a new revelation. It was probably little more than an Indian trail, at least at one time. Again, many current day roads follow what started as Indian trails for the same reason - they were pretty savvy about laying them out to the easiest to walk or ride on horse routes, i.e. level!
-
I have no doubt he tried to get more water frontage along Great Peconic Bay , and if he could have built 22 or 26 holes, he probably would have taken more! It is probably a bit more attractive than Sebonac Bay and my impression is that not having Peconic frontage was a practical compromise.
Once the clubhouse site set the routing, he just couldn't stretch the course far enough to make more use of Great Peconic Bay. He does lament the burning of SI just a few years later, and had he either gotten more money, thought to use a temporary clubhouse (as would be done today) or forseen that fire, I am sure there would be a few more holes along the water than ended up occurring.
However these decisions might have been worked out given today's sensibilities, for CBM the quality of the golf course was the main criteria, not the scenery. In this regard, while views were nice, a seaside location was a necessity because only a seaside (or sea-approximate) location could provide the proper conditions (such as the proper soil, undulations, winds, etc.) for ideal golf. So while views were undoubtedly a bonus, they were not a driving consideration.
Also, while the location of the Shinnecock Inn was obviously a factor that CBM considered, I think we are kidding ourselves if we pretend he would have have had no other option but to utilize the Inn. CBM was reportedly an extremely successful and wealthy man around this time, and most of his founders were as wealthy or wealthier. Had utilizing all of the Peconic Bay frontage been the best move for golf, do you really think that CBM and his millionaire crowd could not have worked it out? After all, once they decided to to build the clubhouse they managed to work it out, did the not? Were building along as much water-view property as possible what was really driving CBM, it seems that with his recourses and friends he could have probably worked that out.
I think a more likely scenario is that the land running south along Bullshead Bay best suite what he had in mind especially given some of the features he identified, and the land extending toward the Inn not only worked very for the course he had in mind, it also allowed him to put off dealing with a clubhouse and let him focus on his main priority --creating his ideal course.
Or it could be that the developer was reluctant to part with all of the Peconic Bay front property, and thought it might someday have a high value for development.
_____________________
I had posted that 1873 Atlas before, but I understand why you didn't realize this. It was about a month ago, the first time Mike took us through the wild goose chase about his mystery third site. Between then and this time he agreed that the October articles referred to the Sebonack Neck area, before circling back again after after I challenged him to consider how that impacted his main claims.
That is the problem with Mike's methodology of adamantly pursuing a claim, then jumping away from it when it doesn't go his way, then returning to it later. People forget the facts and how Mike's fantasies didn't line up with them, and we have the same discussions over and over again.
For example, here is another article, this one from the December 28, 1905 Brookly Eagle, describing the land and development plans. Note that according to the article the "main highroad" to Southhampton and SHGC also ran through the property, and the Golf Grounds station already existed. Yet we've wasted our time debating these very same issues.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19051228BDE-1.jpg?t=1297710906)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19051228BDE2.jpg?t=1297710906)
Obviously, Mike has been wasting or time. We've covered all this ground - whether Good Ground or Golf Ground - before.
Oh! I'll take the highroad and
Ye'll take the lowroad,
And I'll be in Shinnecock afore ye;
But Mike'll be back te Good Ground
He'll never leave the sand
O' the bonnie, bonnie banks of the Canal.
-
David,
I feel very very sad for you.
-
David,
I feel very very sad for you.
Further proof that about everything you come up with is baseless, misguided, and just plain ridiculous.
-
Maybe I should have read that article earlier in the thread, assuming it was posted, because it sure makes it clear that the plan was to ramp up the developing of this area immidiately. Under these circumstances I see no reason why CBM would think he had all the time in the world to travel overseas before locking up his preferred location.
When he references his motives a few weeks after Alvord and Co. bought the land, there's no way to separate the 120 acre purchase offer. It must have been simultaneous.
-
It was posted earlier in the thread, about a month ago. As I said, we have gone through all the same information twice, which is why I was reluctant to get into all this again, and why I find Mike's insistence on circling back over the same dead carcasses so frustrating.
-
Jim,
So much has been posted. I think I read it and forgot it in the information overload.
I am inclined to believe you on the early offer. That said, here we have another case - exactly a year earlier than the CBM purchase of a part of this land - where the deal is announced in both October and December. Also note the Dec article just above says construction might start as soon as "the legal forms are gone through with." I am not sure what that means, but it implies that the deal, while in the papers the second time, still isn't final in legal terms.
Presuming they couldn't sell CBM land until they legally owned it themselves, perhaps that "few weeks after I decided to build there" comment from CBM could have been in early 1906, just before CBM took his Scottish trip, not 1905 as I would have presumed from the October article. It could have been after. But we really don't know from any first hand information.
It could still have been after that trip that he made the offer, though. In design terms it makes sense to flesh out your template holes before looking for land, doesn't it? And, if we trust his account, where he made an offer, but was directed to some land they had little use for, wouldn't that easily two sides of the coin in the same event, rather than months apart?
The longer planning had been active for the subdivision - i.e., the Olmstead land plans - the more likely it is that they would reject an offer for a parcel in the middle of it, especially given that Alvord had already planned a nine hole golf course in a previous LI project. It is certainly possible that Alvord was happy to give CBM 120 acres for golf, providing he mingled it with housing! He may have rejected them as much as they rejected his offer. For his purposes, it would be much better to be out and secluded.
BTW, while development plans were STARTING with a flourish, the buildout period for 2600 acres would be at least ten years. The only thing that would have kept them from carving land out of their subdivison would have been a committment to the plan they had started with.
Again, all speculation. We may never know the exact timing, what different discussions the parties had, etc. We do know from CBM's brief description that he actually favored long island early, that the purchase of the land by Alvord was deemed as favorable to his project, and that whatever they said, he ended up using the parcel now known as NGLA.
-
Jeff,
Understood about the 10 year build out, but I think we can agree that CBM wouldn't have casually assumed his desired land would be around at whatever time he wanted it.
Regarding this comment of yours..."That said, here we have another case - exactly a year earlier than the CBM purchase of a part of this land - where the deal is announced in both October and December. Also note the Dec article just above says construction might start as soon as "the legal forms are gone through with." I am not sure what that means, but it implies that the deal, while in the papers the second time, still isn't final in legal terms."
I don't know if you're presuming that had anything to do with CBM, but I don't think it did. It was simply speaking of the real estate development..."Five of the directors have already selected site for their homes...". Don't you think?
David,
Pertaining to this article, and none of the maps, "the main highroad" could be either the North or the South, couldn't it?
-
Jim,
I wasn't implying that it had anything to do with CBM. The only similarities are that this deal was reported in the papers in both Oct and Dec 1905, and in Dec. it still wasn't a final purchase.
A year later, the sale of 205 (250 or whatever) from Alvord to CBM was reported in Oct 1906, and again in Dec 1906, but even then, the option was in place and that deal wasn't finalized.
All I think we can glean from that is that land deals got reported in the local papers before actual finalization. And, in most likely, the October 1906 report of CBM acquiring land was simply another example of this and refers to the final land purchase he made on Sebonac Neck, and not some mysterious third parcel. In fact, I think the Dec 1906 article says the land "is that which was reported earlier" which is what got me thinking originally that there may have been some glitch. Now I think that these papers simply reported the announcement of the deal by the parties, and then the final deal as a matter of practice.
-
Jim,
In trying to parse this all out via only newspaper article, we forget personalities are in play here, too. Not too difficult to imagine that when Alvord told CBM "no" that he went away to sulk for a while, given what we know about his ego. For all we know, consideration of those other properties may have been CBM temporarily deciding he wasn't going to put his golf course on Alvord's property, until he realized it still made the most sense for him.
And he wouldn't write "so I through a hissy fit and stormed out of the room" in Scotland's Gift, would he?
Again, I don't know, but I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall in those negotiations!
-
that Alvord had already planned a nine hole golf course in a previous LI project.
No, I believe Alvord actually HAD a full 18 hole course at Belle Terre.
-
Jim,
High-road (or "high-line") was sometimes used to connote a northern east-west route as that is how it appears on maps. (for example US 2, the northernmost US highway, is called the highline.) So I was thinking that "main highroad" meant the main northern route, especially since (unlike the southern route) it went to SHGC. I suppose that highroad could be taken as meaning "main road" (as was the usage in G.B.) but then "main highroad" would be redundant, wouldn't it?
________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
The article refers to features within the property which were "owned by the company" so I presumed the developer owned the land at this point. I assumed the "legal forms" related to developing the property and not to buying it. Note they had apparently already hired Olmstead and Vaux.
You also wrote:
In trying to parse this all out via only newspaper article, we forget personalities are in play here, too. Not too difficult to imagine that when Alvord told CBM "no" that he went away to sulk for a while, given what we know about his ego. For all we know, consideration of those other properties may have been CBM temporarily deciding he wasn't going to put his golf course on Alvord's property, until he realized it still made the most sense for him.
And he wouldn't write "so I through a hissy fit and stormed out of the room" in Scotland's Gift, would he?
Again, I don't know, but I would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall in those negotiations!
Unfortunately much of what people think they know about CBM's ego has been born of petty gossip and misinformation posted by those who would rather piss on CBM's grave (metaphorically at the very least) than honestly deal with who he was. Not that CBM had no ego. Most great men did, but to always couch everything as about nothing but his ego seems to me to be pop psychology at its worse.
If CBM's first offer was rejected in late 1905 or early 1906, then instead of going off and sulking he went off to study the great courses overseas for 6 months on a well publicized trip to prepare for his trip abroad, and according to him, when he returned he resumed his search.
-
Andy,
Well then, my bad. For some reason, and I just read it the other day, I thought I remembered nine holes, at least at first. Information overload I guess.
To all,
My apologies to all for inadvertantly allowing David to take another rude and classless shot at forum members past and present. Yeah, I should know better.
And here's the best news - we all need to set clocks ahead so we can be insulted by DM on this board an hour earlier tomorrow!
-
My apologies to all for inadvertantly allowing David to take another rude and classless shot at forum members past and present. Yeah, I should know better.
Jeff, I don't blame you for being embarrassed by your post, but let's not take it out on me. My response was accurate and on point and you know it. Besides, what better image to convey how these guys have treated CBM than the the one they themselves created? It doesn't get any more rude and classless than that, does it?
-
Wow...step away from the computer for a few days and so much piles up to correct I'm not sure where to start.
First, the obvious.
Of course the main highway to Southampton ran through the 2700 acres that Alvord bought. His land stretched from northern bay to southern bay.
It was the South Highway. It's all very clear on the maps Bryan presented.
The objection David and Patrick originally raised that there couldn't have been a golf course built along the southern stretches of Cold Spring Bay going westward from Shinnecock Hills because a highway ran through it has been thoroughly debunked with clear historical documentation.
We should move on from that point.
-
A lot of maps of Shinnecock and the surrounding areas have been posted over the past few days, some useful and some misleading, but none quite so illustrative as the 1916 map by Bryan Izatt.
The wonderful thing about this map is that it's scaled, and includes the scale.
From it, we can determine that in 1916, the northernmost point of Shinnecock Golf Club was approximately 2100 feet, or 700 yards north of the Long Island Railroad Tracks.
Those skeptics playing along at home can measure for themselves. ;)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NorthHighwayMap.jpg)
This would place the northern boundary of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club in 1916 virtually adjacent to today's 10th tee (original 1st tee) of the National Golf Links, and approximately 110 yards north of the southern border of that course.
On a modern aerial I've drawn a line 700 yard from the railroad tracks to approximate the northern most point of Shinecock GC in 1916, seen as follows.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5522485183_b2cbe20268_b.jpg)
As mentioned, that point is nearly adjacent to the original 1st tee at NGLA, today's 10th.
It should be noted that today's 9th green at NGLA (originally the 18th) is one of those that was moved further back (south) by CBM over the years, as evidenced in this 1912 drawing where it was nearly adjacent to the original 1st tee.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_18337047cf_b.jpg)
It does appear that CBM's original purchase included enough land behind there to move it back, so no biggie.
At this point, and without a similar 1906 scale map of the property lines a decade prior when CBM was buying his land, I would unequivocally state the following.
By 1916, it appear that the northern most point of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club extended north approximately 110 yards beyond the southern border of NGLA, whose land purchased for golf in 1906 ran in a north/south orientation for approximately 1.45 miles, or 2,552 yards.
On a related note, and since CBM is no longer around to argue with David, something I'm sure he'd be loathe to waste his time doing, I will do the next best thing and simply quote CBM again on his reason for selecting the location of his 1st and 18th holes, a decision that largely dictated what parts of the 450 acres at his disposal he could route his golf course over.
I would futher state that anyone who has actually seen the wonderful land forms along Peconic Bay of today's Sebonack GC and actually believes CBM would have preferred using the low-lying, flattish, often wet areas down along Bulls Head Bay is either insane or completely disengenous, and I would say that quite unequivocally, as well. ;) ;D
We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty Company.
-
Mike Cirba's most recent drawing may be worse than his first. Look at his own "1915" map he recently posted. The fifteenth hole started from a point north of the clubhouse and was listed at 464 yards, and the 16th tee was north of that. Look at the location of the clubhouse on his latest drawing relative to the northern border. What is there, about 75 yards for this 15th hole?
Mike needs to learn that if he has to twist the facts to make his point, then his point is not worth making.
By 1898 the women golfer's (some of whom were extremely accomplished) were reportedly tired of their short "beginners" course and wanted a real course, and they began to usurp the Men's course. (Reportedly they played the course as a twelve hole course, skipping the loop to the west.) So in 1898/1899 the club reportedly purchased 20 acres of land to the north of the current course and extended the women's nine into one the longest nine hole courses in the nation. Below is a early rough rendering of the layout from 1899. Note that the from a point about even with the clubhouse the 2nd and 3rd run close to straight north and measure a combined 800 yards, and the 4th tee is beyond this.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinne189902BDEmap.jpg?t=1299856912)
Between 1900 and 1906 there was reportedly at least one other small land purchase of 5 to 8 acres well north of the clubhouse, toward Bullshead Bay.
So far as I can tell from the maps and various reports, changes which took place between 1900 and the major redo by CBM and Raynor in or around 1917 all took place on the land north of the clubhouse, which was originally laid out as the women's course. For example, Shinnecock substantially lengthened their course and made other changes in or around 1913 (after NGLA and after Hutchinson had criticized their course) using the land purchased in 1898/1899 for the women's course.
So while it may be true that the the men's course had undergone changes between 1915 as compared to fall of 1906, SHGC already owned the land. And by 1906 SHGC's land reportedly extended well north of the the clubhouse; judging from the hole distances on the schematic, close to a half mile north, at least. And, as mentioned above, Shinnecock had acquired additional land to the north prior to 1906.
So, despite Mike's adamant claims and his deceptive drawings, a portion of the SHGC land was directly east of the SHGC land. And the land CBM was considering may have even extended further south than this.
This is a very interesting post by David, large portions of which I've re-copied above.
My lord, how many qualifiers such as "reportedly", and "so far as I can tell" can be placed in one post, which supposedly is about bringing facts to the table in some effort to set me straight?
Let's examine this, shall we?
Someone please ask David if the proposed expansion to the Woman's course was ever built. It wasn't.
Nor was land purchased at that time for the purpose.
The 1916 Map shows clearly what land was owned by Shinnecock Hills over a decade later. It also clearly shows the north/south orientation of the two properties.
It should be now very obvious to everyone why those October 1906 articles would claim that the land that CBM was considering had as its eastern border the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, since Sebonac Neck is so obviously west of that course. ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5523283212_e828065681_b.jpg)
David's maps are produced so teeny-tiny that it's difficult to read anything, but the following 1896 map, reproduced from the William Flynn book, "The Nature Faker" that does show the land of the actual Women's course has some adjacent holes from the Men's "White" course that have yardages listed and give one a good idea of how far north the course ACTUALLY went from the clubhouse in the early days, which looks to be roughly 300 yards, although it's difficult to tell as the map isn't scaled.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5136/5523277126_7034f0222f_b.jpg)
-
And finally, my favorite.
It is now April, 1907.
According to David's interpretation of the October 1906 articles, CBM has already been at work on the land at Sebonac Neck for months at that time, having it surveyed down to the foot, and having those maps sent to foreign golf luminaries for review.
He has already apparently found his Alps, his redan, his cape, and his Eden.
He and his team have scrupulously studied the land...earnestly, in fact...and have placed their holes in a routing.
In fact, to hear Patrick tell it, by this time the routing had already laid itself out in 2 days.
Then, on December 14th, 1906 CBM secures 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available, and signs contracts to that effect. He is quoted in multiple newspapers over that weekeng that he's going to spend the next several months with his committee figuring out which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages.
Now, it's April 1907, and the Olmstead Brothers are already aware that CBM has secured land that Patrick and David tell us had specific boundaries...in fact, contractually, they tell us that it HAD to have had those boundaries specified on the December contract, even though CBM tell us that he didn't make the actual purchase until spring of 1907.
So what do our friends the Olmstead Brothers do?
They propose the building of the major highway, the "North Hilghway", RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF CBM's FIRST TEE of his supposedly pre-routed golf course where he secured the land to fit it like a glove!
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5522785403_14c6b7ee0d_o.jpg)
-
Time compression Mike. Time compression.
I know it took Olmstead just as long, if not longer, to produce that master plan. He probably started in Jan 1906, not long after Alvord secured the land, maybe later, since he would also need some topo work done.
I presume the plans were prepared simultaneously, more or less, even if we don't see them in that ad until April 1907.
-
Jeff,
I get that, and generally agree, but let's remember that NGLA is identified on that Olmstead map, and that the signing of papers securing that deal happened in Dec 1906, only about three months prior to the publishing of that map.
If the whole land dimensions and boundaries (and presumably the routing)were determined months prior as some would have us believe, do we think Olmstead would have run the Long Island Motor Race over the first tee of NGLA. ? ;)
-
We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty Company.
When was the inn built?
-
Andy,
It was announced in the press in Nov 1906 and opened in the spring of 07.
-
Mike
Is there any point in these posts of yours which remotely relate to this NGLA discussion? Or are you just spinning your wheels trying to kick up mud in the hopes that something will stick somewhere?
1. Most of your complaints are too petty to take seriously. You don't like the size of my maps? Then find them yourself and post them in any size you wish. You don't like that I identify when I am relying on information reported elsewhere? Goes to show how little you understand about this process in general.
2. You claim that the contemplated women's course to the north was never built and that land was not purchased for this purpose. You personally have no idea whether or not this was the case and are getting your information from elsewhere. What is the basis for these latest claims?
3. As for the bit about the Olmstead Map, I don't get your point and I am pretty sure that you don't either. Parts of Shinnecock were directly east of the land CBM was considering, and by now even you must know this to have been the case. So what is your point?
-
Andy,
That's a really great catch.
How could CBM have possibly routed his golf course months earlier...sometime before Oct 1906 accordiding to the fantasy fables of the new Grimm Brothers...Pat and Dave...when CBM himself tells us he decided to locate his first hole near the recently built Shinnecock Inn which was planned in the late fall of 06 and opened sometime in spring of 1907?
-
Patrick and Dave,
Really sorry to bring this news to you, but Andy has insightfully realized that CBM hiimself tells us that the very fundamental, FIRST hole of his routing was based on the location of the newly opened Shinnecock Inn, which opened in the spring of 1907.
We did not have enough money to consider building a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty Company.
-
Mike,
Was there more than one Shinnecock Inn? The article below from the NY Times dated September 6, 1893, talks about a Shinnecock Inn near Southampton. Maybe there was already an existing Inn on the spot, and it was razed and rebuilt by Peconic Bay Realty? CBM presumably knew the site of the old Inn. Maybe he compressed the time schedule for the book. If all this is in the back pages, I missed it.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NYTimes1893.jpg)
-
Andy,
You see how things work around here? You ask a well-meaning question without any apparent rhetorical agenda, yet even that is enough to send Mike into his latest fit of unsupported logical leaps and misinformation.
1. Contrary to Mike's ridiculous assertion, I NEVER claimed CBM had finished routing the course by October 1905. Mike knows this, yet facts won't get in the way when he is trying to make his point.
2. Mike's latest fantasy relies on the assumption the developer had not determined even the location of the the Shinnecock Inn by mid December 1906. I don't recall any support for such a claim and Mike clearly hasn't presented any.
So what is this anyway, except the origins of Mike's latest wild goose chase? As usual his conclusion comes first -- CBM couldn't possibly have routed his course by mid-December 1906. And to support it he is again just blatantly making up things. He apparently hasn't even given much thought to how this supporting theory is supposed to work.
-
The November 22, 1906, Sag Harbor Express reported that SHPBRC are "at present building a new inn near the Golf Club House."
So, reportedly, the location of the inn had already been determined before the December articles which mention that the 1st hole would be near the inn. If Mike has a point here, it is lost on me.
-
Mike,
In the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on pg 187, CBM says that the location of the property "was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where thoroughfares an railroads would never bother us". Why would he write that if Peconic Bay Realty proposed to build a "highway" across his property? I know that the writing came well after the fact, and that the proposed road never got built. Is it possible that Olmstead got carried away or erred in drawing their map of the property and that there was never any intent to build a road where they put it?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
The November 22, 1906, Sag Harbor Express reported that SHPBRC are "at present building a new inn near the Golf Club House."
So, reportedly, the location of the inn had already been determined before the December articles which mention that the 1st hole would be near the inn. If Mike has a point here, it is lost on me.
David,
Does the article happen to mention whether there was an existing Shinnecock Inn there already that they were replacing. Interesting that it's reporting that they are already building the Inn in November when the land deal didn't close until December. I guess they were confident of the deal.
Back a page or so; thanks for the 1873 map. I had been searching for it, but could not find it on-line. Did you find it on-line? Could you tell me where? An IM would be fine if you don't want to publish it.
Interesting about the northern track. Too bad the map is not to scale. It can't be overlaid on any of the other maps, so not sure where the track is actually located. In any event, it seems to have disappeared by the 1903 USGS survey map and it's not on the 1905 Automobile Map. Because of the scaling issues, it's hard to tell if it matches the 1916 North Highway.
-
Bryan,
There was a Shinnecock Inn prior, which also burned down. It was on a different site, closer to Southampton.
This Shinnecock Inn was NOT built for NGLA. It was going to be built anyway by Alvord's group for rich folks escaping from the city.
CBM just realized that if his members could stay there after travelling 3 or so hours from the city, he could avoid building a clubhouse, at least for the first couple of years while they built their course.
The first report I've found that indicates they intended to build the Inn was in mid-November, 1906. I believe it opened in the March/April 1907 timeframe.
btw...I don't think the site going west towards the Inlet with Shinnecock Hills GC to the east was a "third location".
I believe it was the "Canal Site" referred to by CBM in his book, and if I get the chance today I hope to explain why I thnk that later.
-
Mike,
In the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph on pg 187, CBM says that the location of the property "was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where thoroughfares an railroads would never bother us". Why would he write that if Peconic Bay Realty proposed to build a "highway" across his property? I know that the writing came well after the fact, and that the proposed road never got built. Is it possible that Olmstead got carried away or erred in drawing their map of the property and that there was never any intent to build a road where they put it?
Bryan,
That's a good point.
I can tell you what I think. I think at the time the map was drawn NGLA was still only "undetermined" in terms of its borders, with the only certainty being that CBM would choose 205 of the 450 acres available on that site, as all the reports in December 1906 stated after he "secured" the property.
I think the Planners thought it would be advantageous to have a motor route go right to the golf, and imagined it running right between the two courses. You'll note that the proposed road ran north of all of the land of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time, and I'm thinking that Olmstead and the other planners imagined all of NGLA would be somewhere North of their road.
I don't think they knew CBM wanted to go as far south (as close to the Shinnecock Inn, actually) as he did in selecting his land, thus they drew what they hoped for, not what CBM eventually chose.
By the time this map was published, we don't know yet (the final deal closed sometime in "Spring 1907") if the exact boundaries of the purchase were determined, so the map wasn't yet revised for advertising purposes, and probably never was.
The highway just didn't get built as planned because CBM decided to include that southermmost section in the planning for his golf course, a process which took place and was finalized sometime after he secured 205 undetermined acres in December 1906 and his final purchase in Spring of 1907
As we've noted, a number of things on that map differed from "proposed" to what eventually got built.
-
Mike,
While all that could well be, and no doubt that a lot of things were being planned simultaneously, my sense is that once the planned roads were donated to the state, they had a lot to say about it. It would appear that they preferred both roads end up at Southampton, which had to be the center of the action back then.
David,
I hope you meant to type that you never contended the routing was done by Oct 1906, not Oct 1905! You are usually more precise than that. That said, I had always understood your contention that most of the big picture items had been completed by Oct 1906 and it was only minor tweaks occurring after December. I take it that using the Inn would be a big picture item.
That said, if announced in Nov 1906, Alvord and CBM both surely knew about it before then and the idea to start and finish there certainly had to have occurred to them. On the other hand, we always presume that the tweaking had to do with Redans and Alps. It could very well have had something to do with the final route of the road, etc.
I still agree with you that the planning was ongoing from probably June 1906 when he started to ride the land until the day they dropped the grass a year later. It is usually that way. We will probably never know many of the details, but those are exactly the details which fascinate me.
-
Do we know that the December agreement was contractual beyond the newspaper articles using the word "secured" or "purchased"?
-
Jim,
Yes.
-
How?
Assuming it's not something you're going to post on here (or else you already would have I'd think), does it use the words "undetermined" or "to be located later", or anything to imply they didn't know where it was going to be?
The inclusion, or exclusion of those concepts should shed all the light you need on the state of the planning.
-
Jim,
I'm not sure which of these you missed prior?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5020/5424650605_21fd7a99b5_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5425252080_16045b9758_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5178/5424616185_34bf188b3e_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5425252182_2666baaff2_b.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I think what you suggest about CBM and Whigham finding the site sometime after his return to the states in mid-June 1906 and this taking several months is a very possible scenario.
However, if I had to bet my house on what happened, here's what I think transpired.
First, I don't believe that CBM made an offer in late 1905 for land near the Canal. Given a total of 2700 acres to explore and consider, I doubt very much that CBM would have jumped on the first 120 acres he found near the Canal. In fact, I think the only thing that CBM did in the weeks after that purchase is consider how the development plans that Alvord's group was trying to quickly put together that included infrastructure and travel considerations now suddenly made a place as far out as Shinnecock Hills viable for his proposed club.
CBM had played out there before at SH, and was probably impressed with the general land forms and sand-based soil for golf, as well as the nearness to the sea and wind, so I think the last domino he wanted to see tumble was more logistical and economical than golf-related.
I think he had in his mind that Shinnecock was "the place", and then went abroad to take his final graduate studies in course architecture in the first half of 1906.
On the 20th of June, 1906, the following article appeared. At this time CBM is still saying he is looking for sites in a variety of places. He also tells us that only 3 or 4 of the holes will be exact reproductions;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
On October 15th, 1906, a New York paper printed the following, with the supposed location being somewhere between Shinnecock Hills to the East, near the Cold Spring Inlet to the west, the LIRR to the south, and Peconic Bay to the north.
David and most here have contended that this property is that of Sebonac Neck, which CBM eventually purchased. I don't agree for a number of reasons.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
On November 1st, just a few days after the Lesley Cup matches, two reports surfaced that cast further confusion, as it seems clear that the original reports about CBM having already secured "250 acres" of land anywhere was clearly in error;
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
This is complete speculation on my part, so I would appreciate any feedback that's civil and constructive. But, I believe that CBM was correct when he told us that he and Whigham decided over 2 or 3 days on horseback that the land was what they wanted and I believe they went to get agreement from Alvord's group hastily once they made that determination.
I don't think the June-October story washes with that memory of CBM's, especially since the actual contract to secure the land wasn't signed until mid-December and the contracts to purchase the specific acres wasn't signed until sometime the following Spring!
Instead, I think the land I laid out previously was the land CBM first considered, and what he later referred to as the land near the "Canal".
I guess I can't get over the issue of three directional landmarks being so either distant from today's NGLA or strained definitions, such as Shinnecock in 1906 being "East" of NGLA. With that in mind, let's look again at the land I originally suggested CBM very well may have been considering.
First, it's important to note that earlier David measured NGLA from end to end and tells us that it runs 2 miles in each direction.
Assuming that CBM would want a similar course in another location to have lots of waterfront and possibly an out and back routing to maximize efficiency, the following shows what two miles (in red) starting at the east side of Shinnecock Hills (and the Shinnecock Inn) and going westward towards Good Ground and the Inlet at Cold Spring would look like in terms of distance covered.
Assuming also that CBM either wanted 250 acres, or that the newspaper transposed the 205 acres he'd been looking for, it looks to me like one could probably build a whale of a golf course there. It's also pretty obvious that the course would/could have a long stretch along Peconic Bay to the north.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5526492869_82c225318f_b.jpg)
To give you an idea of why CBM may have called this land near the "canal" this aerial shows the proximity of the canal at Good Ground to the west;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5526492917_68e7796f1f_b.jpg)
Now, CBM tells us that he made an offer for only 120 acres, not 205, and certainly not 250.
Here's what I think happened...
I think CBM had initial discussions and tried to get the whole 205 he'd been looking for right in the prime real estate area as indicated. I do think the newspaper in NY reporting it initially likely transposed or misreported that number, but it could have been 250, I guess. In any case, we do know that CBM was looking for that 205 acres because 110 or so would be used for the golf course, another 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and then the other 90 for 1.5 acre building lots for the Founders.
I think someone took CBM's initial offer or informal discussion with the developer as a done deal, or misreported it as fact, or CBM may have even planted the story, but we know it didn't fly for whatever reason.
What I think happened is that the Developer, rightly so, told CBM that such a plan took too many of his prime real estate lots that Alvord had hoped to make a killing on, primarily through the sale of large estate subdivisions.
CBM may at that point have decided that his Founders could always buy their own properties out there from Alvord if they were so inclined, and then came back later to Alvord with an offer for only the 120 acres or so he believed he needed for golf, which is the offer he mentioned in his book.
I think CBM tried to put some pressure on Alvord with the November articles where he said he was still looking at Montauk, and also said he may have to look elsewhere if he couldn't get a better price....very good negotiating moves.
I think Alvord came back rejecting that offer, but also referring to CBM that he might want to look at some other property further to the northeast, which also had water views, sandy soil, etc., but that wasn't as optimum for real estate development as the land where CBM made his first offer.
I think sometime after November 1st, CBM and Whigham got on horseback for 2 or 3 days and got excited at the possibilities and determined if they could get the land for the same price as their first offer ($200 an acre) they would make an offer on the 205 they felt they needed.
Not wanting to lose his chance to build in the Shinnecock Hills, I think CBM acted quickly to secure an undetermined 205 acres there on his consolation site, and signed a contract to that effect within weeks.
-
I see Mike Cirba is ready jump ship from his discredited mystery-third-site-theory back to his discredited the-land-near-the-Canal theory. How many times has be been back and forth between these? I've lost count.
Strange how he can't make up his mind as to what these articles referred, yet he remains absolutely certain they couldn't possibly have refered to the Sebonack Neck land. Obviously his desired conclusion is driving all this, as usual.
Hopefully this time around his "analysis" while address the following question:
If the land described in the October articles was the 120 acres near the Canal (discussed in Scotland's Gift,) then why did CBM write about not wanting to be near the SHGC and about how he had made an offer for 120 acres near the Canal? The Canal was about three miles away from SHGC, which was as far away as one could get from SHGC and still be on the SHGC land!
Likewise, I hope this time he addresses each point raised in my post a few pages back explaining why I don't believe that the October articles were describing the 120 acres near the Canal.
____________________________________
Jim,
I don't think Mike answered your question, did he? Weren't you asking about what information we have about this option agreement other than what appears in these December articles and in Scotland's Gift?
I am curious as to the basis for his "Yes" answer, and am equally curious as to his bases for the rest of the bald claims Mike has been making recently about a variety of facts.
________________________________________________________
Bryan,
The 1873 map is online from the NYPL's Digital Library. The 1916 Atlas pages you posted are there as well (w/o watermark.) http://digitalgallery.nypl.org Let me know if you need a more detailed location.
[By the way, if I recall correctly, a while a go you (or someone else) was looking for the location of Canoe Place. It looks to have been adjacent on to the east side of the canal along Southampton Bay.]
I am not so sure I am willing to put my faith into the accuracy and completeness of the 1905 road map. Likewise for the 1903 USGS survey. You seem to be assuming that these maps showed every road, public and private, and I am not sure that was the case. Plus the 1903 survey does to appear to have marked all the roads and buildings. The SHGC clubhouse and outbuildings are not on marked on the map. Likewise, some of the various roads which reportedly ran through or around the course, such as Cold Spring Road and Raynor Road, also seem to be missing.
You guys seem to be assuming that the road cutting across NGLA in the 1907 overlay was NOT an already existing road. I am not sure that this is a safe assumption. Judging from the location of the Inn and the large "to SOUTHAMPTION" written above St. Andrews Road down by the RR tracks, it looks as if the developer was planning on that route being the main road to Southampton, and I don't think it makes sense that the developer would build another road to Shinnecock in addition.
In other words, some semblance of the north road may well have been in existence at the time CBM was planning his course, and that alone would explain why it would appear on the 1907 developers schematic.
___________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
Yes, I meant October 1906. While I don't think it really matters to my point or yours but to nonetheless to set the record straight, I don't think I have ever "conten[ded] that most of the big picture items had been completed by Oct 1906 and it was only minor tweaks occurring after December." It could very will be that this was the case, but I don't think I have enough information to speculate one way or another.
_______________________
I posted before reading mike's post above. I'll take a look at his post and address it later, if necessary.
-
I read Mike's post. It isn't even necessary to fully respond because it is just a rehash of his same old misreading of the general description provided in those October articles, along with a bunch of wishful thinking about what he would have liked to have happened. This latest theory doesn't even begin to address the many reasons why I don't think the October articles were describing the 120 acres near the Canal.
It wouldn't be a Cirbaian theory if he weren't misrepresenting both my position and the source material. I'll not get into all of it, but I want to note that Mike misrepresented what I wrote about CBM's description of the parcel being 2 miles long.
-
Why does everyone assume CBM wanted to have as much water frontage as possible? He loved St Andrews and Prestwick and thought them worthy of study/imitation--I would not really consider either to be waterfront in the sense everyone means with the Sebonac Neck property. There has been a lot posted here and I may well have missed it but did he ever really say 'I would love for me dream course to have a number of holes alongside the deep blue sea'?
And yes, I do admit he raves about the water feature hole up in the corner, but it isn't being alongside the water that he finds appealing but the specific strategy it will enable him to employ (Cape) that he wants.
-
Here's the funny part...
If I were actually biased, or intellectually dishonest I'd be arguing like heck that those October articles were the land of NGLA! ;D
That would pretty much end once and for all this nonsense about routing the course in a day or two.
That timeline would look something like this;
August - CBM Finds the site on horseback with Whigham and studies the land. Decides he likes it, gets it surveyed, mapped, cleared, and studies it some more. Spends a lot of money on postage.
September - October - CBM studies that land some more, reads the feedback on his maps, and makes an offer of some type that gets reported.
November - CBM continues studying the land.
December - CBM signs contract to secure 205 "undetermined" acres of the 450 available. States he'll spend the next five months with his committee studying the land.
May 1907 - After studying the land for most of the past year, CBM finally decides the borders of this property and signs a purchase contract.
;)
-
Why does everyone assume CBM wanted to have as much water frontage as possible?
Andy,
I agree with you.
I think that assumption is more of a modern day quest for eye candy.
Macdonald's PRIMARY goal was to site his ideal/classic holes, not create views.
He tells us that he was looking for topography that would best receive his ideal/classic holes, not provide optimal views.[/b]
He loved St Andrews and Prestwick and thought them worthy of study/imitation--I would not really consider either to be waterfront in the sense everyone means with the Sebonac Neck property. There has been a lot posted here and I may well have missed it but did he ever really say 'I would love for me dream course to have a number of holes alongside the deep blue sea'?
Not that I can remember.
Again, his primary goal was to site his ideal/classic holes, not produce views.
I believe that those supporting the notion that he wanted more Peconic Bay holes are misguided for two reasons,
1. His stated goals
2. The inability to get back to the Shinnecock Inn by way of his Alps and Redan.[/b]
And yes, I do admit he raves about the water feature hole up in the corner, but it isn't being alongside the water that he finds appealing but the specific strategy it will enable him to employ (Cape) that he wants.
He goes beyond that, he touts the fact that his "Eden" is improved because topped shots wouldn't be able to run up on the green.
-
The significance of the 1873 map is that it proves the long term existance of THE major East-West road/highway on the North Shore of the South Fork, dating from 1873 and earlier, through 1916 and beyond.
Mike claimed, despite having seen the 1903 map, the New York State Senate minutes of 1906 and the Olmstead 1907 map, that the North Highway didn't exist in 1916.
Then, when forced to admit it existance, he claimed it was nothing more than a "cart path", in an attempt to dismiss it's significance as THE MAJOR East-West road/highway on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The North Highway, was one of only two major East-West roads traversing the South Fork.
Denying its existance, in the face of overwhelming source documentation, reveals Mike's propensity to ignore the facts in pursuit of his goal.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the existance of the North Highway, running right smack down the middle of the Olmstead map, undermines Mike's theory on the potential location of NGLA.
Nobody in their right mind would craft an elongated, narrow golf course, restricted on the North property line, with THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE running right down the middle of the golf course.
It doesn't matter if it was a dirt road or a paved road, it was the main, if not the only commercial thoroughfare running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork.
When you consider that land prices were increasing, that developers were developing the land, that a new hotel was going to be sited on the North Highway, one had to know that the North Highway would only get busier. That it would continue to be the main artery for commercial, residential, social and vacation travel on the North Shore of the South Fork.
Mike's advocacy for CBM choosing that long, narrow strip of land, bounded by the railroad to the south and water to the north, with the North Highway running right smack down the middle defies logic.
Lastly, Mike continually relies on newspaper articles as being factually correct, when he and others have already admitted that they're seriously flawed.
Why would you base any conclusion on seriously flawed newspaper articles ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1873Atlas.jpg?t=1297711643)
-
Patrick,
Our understandings of the North Highway are not similar at all, but its of no real import to me.
Perhaps the map from 1873 will prove what I've been telling you, namely, that the North Highway was the ONLY Major East-West thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork, and that nobody in their right mind would select a long narrow strip of land with THE major artery running right smack down the middle of it, for their golf course.[/b]
I will also continue to disagree that anything to do with designing a golf course or routing it is an easy excersise.
I think there are two reasons for that.
1. Your ego
2. Your context.
With respect to context, you're forgetting that he didn't have to design the golf course after he found/determined the land, he'd already accomplished that task vis a vis the previous determination of his ideal/classic holes.
All he had to do was sequence them on the land he picked.
We know he almost picked 120 acres to the West.
We know that he considered Montauk.
Had he been successful in purchasing the 120 acres to the West, he would have placed his ideal/classic holes on that land.
Again, he didn't have to design any holes. He'd already done that. Think of project in the context of "pre-fab".
He had the holes done, they'd been "pre-fab'd" in an earlier process.
All he had to do was place his ideal/classic holes where he felt the land best accomodated them, be that on the 120 acres near the canal, the land at Montauk, or the eventual site at NGLA.
Once he rode the land, determined that he wanted the long, narrow strip starting and finishing at the Shinnecock Inn, adjoining Shinnecock Hills GC, down to Bulls Head Bay for his Eden and Cape, then up to his 9th hole along Peconic Bay, then back to the Shinnecock Inn by way of his Alps and Redan, the course routed itself. This was not a complicated task where an architect does NOT have a preconceived selection of holes.
CBM had his holes, all he needed was the land to place them on.
He almost placed them on 120 acres to the West. Instead, he placed them on an even better slice of land that became NGLA.
I have every confidence, that if you had 18 pre-determined holes for a golf course, had 450 acres to choose from, that you could do a basic routing within half a day, especially if you knew your starting and finishing POINTS, and the location of four to six critical holes.
How many times did early architects stake out a basic routing in a day ?
-
The objection David and Patrick originally raised that there couldn't have been a golf course built along the southern stretches of Cold Spring Bay going westward from Shinnecock Hills because a highway ran through it has been thoroughly debunked with clear historical documentation.
Mike, I must have missed the "debunking" part. What "historical documentation" are you referencing ?
The map dated 1873 ?
The map dated 1903
The NYSS document dated 1906
The map dated 1907
The map dated 1914
The map dated 1916.
Would you tell me what historical documentation has debunked the existance and importance of the North Highway, the highway that runs smack down the middle of your alleged golf course ?
-
Patrick,
Context maybe. Ego no. With all due respect, and allowing that you are entitled to your opinion, you just don't know what you are talking about, either with the road, and especially with the routing. Looking back with hindsight, its easy to see how the routing came together. We have no way of knowing if that is how it actually came together, and the whole process of finding the contours (without a topo map, apparently) fitting the holes together, etc. couldn't have been any easier then than now.
Even if Ross and Bendelow did one day routings, it was because they were paid $50 or whatever, and they were going to be done in a day, because that was all it was worth to them. This was CBM's baby, and as has been pointed out he changed the routing (by lengthening it) for several years. I doubt he would rush it. Its a different animal.
Have a good one.
-
David Moriarty,
What Mike forgets is that the only site/s where one can see both the Atlantic and the Peconic is near the canal and not where Mike claims with his red line marking in post # 911.
Remember, it was Mike who posted the articles stating that you could see the Atlantic from EVERYWHERE on the property except the low lying areas.
You can NOT see the Atlantic from anywhere on his red line, let alone EVERYWHERE on the property except the low lying areas.
His own prior position contradicts his latest claim
-
Patrick,
Context maybe. Ego no. With all due respect, and allowing that you are entitled to your opinion, you just don't know what you are talking about, either with the road, and especially with the routing.
I'm 100 % correct on the road.
Source documentation from 1873, 1903, 1906, 1907, 1914 and 1916 supports my position, while you, Mike and others have nothing to support your position.
As to the routing, I think linear reasoning/geometric logic, along with finite acreage, three clearly defined borders and critically positioned holes support my position
[/b]
Looking back with hindsight, its easy to see how the routing came together.
While that's true, we also have CBM's account and Max Behr's reaffirmation, along with the geometry of the property and the out and back configuration coupled with the precise location of six to eight initial key links, which expand to 12 key links.[/b]
We have no way of knowing if that is how it actually came together, and the whole process of finding the contours (without a topo map, apparently) fitting the holes together, etc. couldn't have been any easier then than now.
Jeff, CBM told us that he found the contours by diligently inspecting the property and that he quickly found four (4) critical holes, (Eden, Cape, Alps & Redan)
CBM told us that he quickly found the lines of demarcation to the South, East and North, all that remained was the Western boundary.
You and I both know, that if your starting and finishing points are at the same location, then, when you stretch your outgoing nine to Peconic Bay, you have to return to the Shinnecock Inn, and, once you have to pass through the Alps and Redan holes on that return journey, the basic routing has been determined. How can you maintain otherwise ?
In addition, CBM tells you he found the Sahara and the Road holes early, thus locking in the routing even more.
It's my belief that CBM NEVER intended his clubhouse to be located right beneath Shinnecock Hill's clubhouse, that he always intended his final clubhouse to be at it's current location. Thus, with his ultimate starting and finishing holes established, in addtion to his temporary holes, along with his six to eight ideal/classic holes (sahara, alps, redan road, bottle, eden, cape & leven) you have 12 of the 18 holes and you know where his missing original six holes (# 2, 3, 6, 7, 14 & 15) have to go.
You're just being stubborn, which I understand, but, again, if you view the routing process as taking an 18 link chain, and laying it upon the land, in the configuration he describes on page 187 and 188, the routing doesn't stand out, it leaps out at you.[/b]
Even if Ross and Bendelow did one day routings, it was because they were paid $50 or whatever, and they were going to be done in a day, because that was all it was worth to them.
This was CBM's baby, and as has been pointed out he changed the routing (by lengthening it) for several years.
Lengthening holes doesn't change the basic routing.[/b]
I doubt he would rush it. Its a different animal.
It's a different animal because he had already designed the individual holes.
He only needed to sequence them.
Once he went from the Shinnecock Inn, along the route he described, up to Peconic Bay, the routing was pre-determined.
Once he inserted just four (4) of the critical holes in that long out and back configuration, the die was cast. The basic routing complete.
How could it not be ?
205 Acres, 18 links, out and back, along a predetermined outbound path, including two critical holes (# 4 & # 5), up to Peconic Bay, then back to the Shinnecock Inn, passing through holes # 12 & # 13, and you don't think the routing was done ?
Even Max Behr claimed the course routed itself.
Why would he say that if it wasn't true ?
Is Max Behr's word not good enough for you ?(;;)
-
Patrick,
Without in any way supporting Mike's conception of where the October article said the property was, I think you are absolutely wrong on the road. You may have skipped some of the postings on the weekend. The 1873 map is not to scale and doesn't overlay on any other maps or on the modern Google aerial. Your beloved North highway along with the South Highway, less than one half mile apart, serving perhaps a 1000 people between Good Ground and its surrounding 4 or 5 family hamlets and Southampton is not on the 1903 map or the 1905 map. The 1903 and 1905 and even the Olmstead map overlay both themselves and the modern physical features. If you look at the 1873 map, the road appears to go well north of SH up around the small hamlet of Tuckahoe and then down to Southampton. Its track doesn't map to the 1916 North Highway. And, again, it is not on the 1903 and 1905 maps. Maybe they just left that track off because it was insignificant in those years. And, once again, I don't think it is a necessary prerequisite to knock down Mike's hypothesis.
David,
Thanks for the location of the map. I'll look it up when I'm out at Bandon and have some spare time. I was looking to figure out where Canoe Place was because the big article placed the the western boundary of the 2700 (2600) acres at Canoe Place Creek. As far as I can tell Canoe Place was just west of the present canal. It seems odd that the ad used Canoe Place Creek as a boundary when the canal had been there for 25 years. Could there have been a Canoe Place Creek and a Shinnecock Canal in 1917? I hoped the 1873 map would shed some light.
-
From a George Bahto thread three years ago:
Two or three years before The Evangelist of Golf was published I saw the article Henry Whigham wrote about his father-in-law Charles Macdonald just after Charlie had passed away. It is framed, under glass and hangs just to the left of the front desk at The National’s clubhouse.
The 3,200+ word article was written as a eulogy and cited the many deeds of Macdonald.
..................................
Here are a few paragraphs from the Whigham article and you can do with it whatever you please.
Article in part:
* *
“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going.
Now, I'm sure that somebody questioned or corrected this last paragraph somewhere in the back pages, but I missed it. So what does it mean that Macdonald and Whigham rode the course in September 1907? Did Whigham get it wrong? Did George mistranscribe it? Surely it can't be the right year. But is it the right month? Was it September 1906?
-
Andy, I don't think that CBM would have been concerned with maximizing the amount of waterfront property either. A few pages ago I responded to one such claim as follows, ". . .for CBM the quality of the golf course was the main criteria, not the scenery. In this regard, while views were nice, a seaside location was a necessity because only a seaside (or sea-approximate) location could provide the proper conditions (such as the proper soil, undulations, winds, etc.) for ideal golf. So while views were undoubtedly a bonus, they were not a driving consideration."
__________________________________________________
Bryan,
I had just assumed that the ride had occurred during construction, which had been ongoing for many months by September 1907. Yet now that you have pointed it out, it looks as if this ride occurred before they had chosen the land. (With the old men providing prophecies about what would happen if CBM and HJW chose the site.) The copy in George's book also gives the year as 1907, but 1906 would make more sense.
As for the roads, do you have any explanation as to why some buildings and roads might have been missing from the 1903 map?
-
Jim,
I'm not sure which of these you missed prior?
Mike,
I didn't miss any of those, I just wasn't sure which you took as gospel and which you dismissed completely.
What I was actually asking was, as David suggested, was do we have any evidence of the actual Option contract?
-
Patrick,
I think you need to rely on facts instead of hysteria and myth-making as to the location of the "North Highway" in 1906.
There is no way it ran through the land where I proposed CBM might have been looking for his golf course.
Not a chance. Bryan has shown again and again that your understanding is simply wrong.
Hope you're feeling better, and I'll resist any "eyes" jokes. I'd much rather talk about your nurse. ;) ;D
Patrick/David/Bryan/Jeff...others,
Many articles, including the November 1st 1906 article I posted above state that CBM had been looking at "various sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills. Another article on the same day indicated that CBM was still looking near Good Ground in western Shinnecock Hills.
Where do you think those other sities were located?
Bryan,
That's a very interesting quote...I'd be curious to know the exact story and if Whigham got the date right. Damn, these guys weren't very good about that, were they? :-/
-
Bryan,
I'm not sure if you ever read the following, posted well back in the early pages of this thread;
The entire hamlet of Hampton Bays, seen in the map below, was known at the beginning of the 20th century as "Good Ground".
The hamlet was settled in 1740 as "Good Ground", which became the main hamlet of eleven in the immediate area. The area where Main Street, also known as Montauk Highway, is located today, was the approximate area of the original hamlet known as Good Ground.
There were ten other hamlets in the area. The other hamlets in the area were called Canoe Place, East Tiana, Newtown, Ponquogue, Rampasture, Red Creek, Squiretown, Southport, Springville, and West Tiana. Most of these hamlets were settled by one or two families and had their own school house. Many of the names from the former hamlets are still featured as local street names today, as well as Hagstroms maps and Road Atlases.
As a result of the growth of the surrounding hamlets and villages in the Hamptons and increased tourism from New York City, the eleven hamlets, although generally called "Good Ground" collectively by the early part of the 20th century, amalgamated under the name "Hampton Bays" in 1922. The motive behind the name change was for the hamlet to benefit from the "Hamptons" trade that the hamlet's neighbors were experiencing.
Here is the area that was known as "Good Ground" in the early 20th century.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5438764415_2e5a65342a_o.gif)
-
Jim,
I'm not sure what further evidence you're looking for?
CBM told us he secured the property in November 1906...when he told us he got agreement from the Company he wrote;
"The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."
The contemporaneous news articles dated the signing of that contract to Friday, December 14th, 1906, and said virtually the exact same thing...the company agreed to sell CBM 205 acres of a 450 acre plot and the boundaries were undetermined so he could have flexiibility to route the course as he saw fit. They even QUOTED CBM SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING!
I'm not sure what more you're looking for than a first-hand account and corresponding contemporaneous news articles quoting CBM telling us the exact same thing??
I seem to be the only one here who is believing Macdonald...the rest of you can't believe what he tells us so you seem to want to make up your own legends.
He never says he routed the course and then secured the property. Never. Nowhere. No How.
He says he and Whigham found some great natural features to utilize, decided it was what they wanted, and then moved forward to secure enough of the property (under a contract that gave them flexibility as to the eventual borders) that enclosed those natural features to meet all their twin goals for golf and building lots.
The latter idea fell by the wayside for reasons that I think we've gone over well enough.
-
I reread that paragraph and more from HJW in George's book. While the 1907 appears to be a mistake, its enough to convince me that the land search started in September 1906, initial purchase announced in October, etc. Also of interest in George's timeline is that that Raynor was hired in 1907 and according to HJW, first looked at the topo maps others had drawn for CBM abroad. And, that Raynor was hired as a surveyor, and then to assist in construction at the "first seeding."
While we can argue all day, this is enough to convince me (for now) of a later timeline more along the lines of what Mike is contending, and which fits with the known purchase timeline according to the newspapers. This last little tidbit sort of fits my "simplest explanation is usually the most logical" theory of history.
I will also note they returned to Shinny for lunch after their pony ride, and I will cut Patrick off at the pass - I do not believe that NGLA routed itself in "half a day."
-
David,
I did overlay the 1903 map onto the Google aerial and the three squares (buildings) on Tuckahoe road north of the tracks fall directly on the SH clubhouse. If you feel there are roads missing on the maps, perhaps all it means is that they were insignificant. I'd put the most faith in the 1903 USGS map.
Mike,
I don't know what to make of the sources. They all seem to be suspect in some fact. We're trying to find some logic in what may be erroneous "facts" by all parties.
Yes, I had read that on the Hamptons history site. Population was 504 in 1870. Must have created a lot of traffic for Patrick's highway. :)
-
Bryan,
So right you are on that road. While I can't speak authoritatively on moving roads on LI, I can tell you that in some of my research in other areas, its quite common to find structures, roads, etc. on those old maps that don't show up consistently. It could be errors of the mapmakers (or be influenced on what they were hired to map exactly) or a function of a rapidly changing area. And, there were probably more fires out there than just the Shinnecock Inn.
In 1873 those dotted lines were probably literally indian trails. In 1903, small paths for horse and wagons to those few houses built (mostly from shareholders in the land company according to one account)
I wish we could put this whole road issue to bed, including the road through the 9th tee, etc. Its obvious they moved more than a Mel Brooks mole.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for pointing us to Whigham's account in George's book.
When we talk about what was involved with the routing, Patrick has contended that it was EASY because CBM already knew all 18 holes he wanted to produce so he could just fit them like jigsaw puzzle pieces.
I'm not sure why he would say that because CBM, Hutchinson, and many others told us that CBM's thinking had evolved at that point where only 4 holes were actually reproduction templates, with the remainder of the golf holes either "Composites" of features he admired overseas, or wholly original holes.
Whigham apparently agreed;
He did not, it is true, reproduce eighteen classic holes. The holes he copied in detail were the Redan at North Berwick, the Alps at Prestwick, , and the Eden and the Road holes at St. Andrews. Several other holes at the National have features borrowed from Littlestone and Muirfield and elsewhere. But it very soon became apparent to Maconald, once he had picked his ground on Peconic Bay, that nature, here too, had her own suggestions and it was far better, and certainly much more amusing to utilize existing features of the land than to copy slavishly from the great masterpieces. Indeed, what Macdonald actually accomplished was finer than what he had originally planned. He did produce a course with eighteen great holes, and in doing so created masterpieces of his own which have been reproduced in many parts of America.
-
Mike,
How....ingenous of you......
-
Jeff,
I prefer "ingenius", but I've been called so many names and insults on this thread by those hoping to squelch the facts and discussion and speculation based on those facts that I've lost track. ;) ;D
Just don't call me late for dinner, tee time, or bed.
-
Gump, you're a damned genius...you'll make lieutenant some day...
-
Jim,
Maybe you should start a thread on Forrest Gump quotes.....no golf relation, but he did enjoy riding his lawnmower, so maybe close enough? Vietnam is now building golf courses. Close enough?
-
I actually played the course (in South Carolina) where the Vietnam scenes were filmed..."Hi Bubba!"
-
Did Gump ride horses?
-
No, he outran them. But based on these last passages, will some future historian declare that the signature meal in the NGLA clubhouse was a revolving menu of shrimp based dishes? But, only using shrimp recently having been fresh road kill on the long existing North Highway?
I know a few amateur historians who would probably make the case that this was true, using their "critical thinking."
-
Bryan,
My mistake, I had SHGC shifted too far left. Here is the 1903 map with a rough overlay of the current golf course land.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-1903-w-overlay.jpg?t=1300213988)
-
David,
I cannot prove it, but I don't think Shinnecock goes that far north. Did you see it touching Sebonak Creek on an aerial/Google earth?
-
Jim, That is where it falls on the overlay, and everything else lines pretty much up. The 1903 map has Sebonack Creek further south and much wider as compared to to today. On Google Earth it looks like Sebonack Creek runs almost to the North Highway.
-
Yeah, I just looked on Google Maps (not Earth) and it went right to it. The creek is narrower, but both are drawings so accuracy isn't expected in my opinion.
-
Bryan,
My mistake, I had SHGC shifted too far left. Here is the 1903 map with a rough overlay of the current golf course land.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA-1903-w-overlay.jpg?t=1300213988)
David,
Wouldn't it be much more illustrative and illuminating to use the boundary dimensions of Shinnecock GC as it existed in 1906, or if we are uncertain what that entailed, how about 1916 where we know exactly the dimensions from the scaled map Bryan provided?
Are we still hoping to make it appear that Shinnecock was predominantly east of NGLA back then?
-
I guess perhaps I missed something, because I'm not understanding why we'd want to see the dimensions of today's Shinnecock GC, which bears little resemblance to the land it occupied in 1906, or even in 1916, which I've roughly illustrated below.
Anyone care to enlighten me on what is significant about today's dimensions? Thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5529546947_50861c0dbc_b.jpg)
-
This was touched on a few pages ago, but George Bahto's book says CBM tried to purchase Shinnecock Hills GC from the realty company. Was it on leased land at that time?
The book almost makes it sound as if the original offer was actually the golf club itself, and not some other property near the bay.
Also, while there is no need to split hairs to the nth degree on a side issue, from reading that passage in George's book again, he mentions that CBM did want Peconic Bay front property for yacht landings, so it was desireable.
When I said I had no doubt he wanted more shore, I wasn't necessarily thinking just in terms of views, but in the overall replicating of his beloved St. Andrews, although granted its not all by the sea either. And, given CBM did actually have the right to choose from over 450 acres, and didn't have to do the out and back routing even after choosing the Inn as the clubhouse, the fact remains, he did do so, for some combo of views, golf holes (although the current 18 doesn't really fit the water closely, but is just adjacent so it wasn't necessarily the golf topo that drove that decision) and docks seems to have influenced CBM to go that route.
Saying he would go there just for views, and views weren't his primary goal is a bit too simplistic statement. He had the chance to use different land with good contours, and chose to stretch the course to the Peconic Bay, so I think its reasonable to conclude he wanted to.
It was also written that he acquired an extra two acres to "protect themselves" a few years later. Was this the open land near 18 tee perhaps, to stave off someone building a house out there?
Last question...where was CBM's house across the bulls head bay and does it still exist?
-
Mike Cirba,
I posted the graphic so readers could better understand the location of the current golf course land on the 1903 map. NGLA wasn't there at all in 1903, so will you accuse me of trying to create the false impression that it was? Had I been trying to misrepresent the actual borders from 1906, then I wouldn't have indicated that the graphic was a rough overlay of the "current golf course land." And I don't need your advice on what you would find "illustrative or illuminating" or what you want to see.
You've got some nerve, given the multitude of misleading and misrepresentative scribbles you try to pass off as fact. Even your latest drawing is wrong.
-
David,
The northernmost part of Shinnecock Hills GC in 1916 was approximately 700 yards north of the LIRR, or approximately 110 yards north of the southern border of NGLA.
If my rough drawing is "wrong", then please tell us where, but don't just continue to make baseless accusations, please.
Drawing the Shinnecock Hills GC as it stands today where considerable land had been purchased to the north of the 1906-16 property lines in the 1920s is misleading to the casual reader, whether or not you intended that, and I think you'd want to be more precise.
Thanks.
-
Is this really what you've been reduced to? Pretending that I am misleading people with honest and accurate posts? That you would claim my post is misleading is further indication of your poor comprehension skills and your unwillingness to reasonably understand this material.
As for baseless claims, do you mean like your oft repeated claim that no part of the SHGC land was east of the land CBM was considering? Now THAT was a baseless claim. So far, so are a number of your other claims, such as your claim that SHGC did not buy land to the north in 1898/99 and your claim that SHGC never laid out an extended women's course around that same time. I'll leave it to you to try and figure out how your latest scribbles are inaccurate.
-
From a George Bahto thread three years ago:
Two or three years before The Evangelist of Golf was published I saw the article Henry Whigham wrote about his father-in-law Charles Macdonald just after Charlie had passed away. It is framed, under glass and hangs just to the left of the front desk at The National’s clubhouse.
The 3,200+ word article was written as a eulogy and cited the many deeds of Macdonald.
..................................
Here are a few paragraphs from the Whigham article and you can do with it whatever you please.
Article in part:
* *
“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going.
Now, I'm sure that somebody questioned or corrected this last paragraph somewhere in the back pages, but I missed it. So what does it mean that Macdonald and Whigham rode the course in September 1907? Did Whigham get it wrong? Did George mistranscribe it? Surely it can't be the right year. But is it the right month? Was it September 1906?
Bryan,
Isn't this the same document where Whigham states that Macdonald routed Merion ?
-
Jeff Brauer,
George's book says that CBM tried to buy SHGC itself, but I don't recall ever seeing any source material indicating that this was the case. One thing that makes this seem unlikely to me is that George also wrote that he tried to purchase SHGC from the "Peconic Bay Realty Company." Perhaps he meant Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company, but so far as I know, SHGC owned much of the land on which their course sat.
As for CBM wanting land stretching along Peconic Bay for a yacht basin, I think may be misunderstanding what George wrote. For one thing, George noted that this reason was "secondary." So it hardly suggests that CBM would have grabbed as much land on Peconic Bay as he could. For another, NGLA had a yacht basin, but it wasn't on the additional land stretching along Peconic Bay, it was near where Bullshead Bay met Peconic Bay.
As for the extra 2.5 acres, I think the original property line was supposed to be fairly directly behind the 18th green, and the extra 2.5 acres are further behind, toward Sebonack.
As for CBM's house, the 1916 atlas shows the land he owned and the location of his house. I'll try to post it if I get a chance.
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
Mike, here are the maps and aerials you posted.
The North Highway runs smack down the middle of the phantom golf course you insisted was CBM's choice.
Now, you refute your own opinion, claiming instead that the golf course wasn't in the area you marked, which is what I had stated all along.
If you're going to make outrageous claims and misrepresent the facts along with what others have stated, you'd better erase/edit all of your previous posts because they clearly contradict your most recent claims.
YOU posted the Olmstead plan with the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom, delusional golf course.
-
I think you need to rely on facts instead of hysteria and myth-making as to the location of the "North Highway" in 1906.
Mike, how can you deny the existance of the "North Highway" when it appears on so many independent maps and is refered to in the New York State Senate documents in 1906 ?[/b]
There is no way it ran through the land where I proposed CBM might have been looking for his golf course.
Of course it did.
YOU posted the Olmsted plan claiming that the golf course was on that site, you just never bothered to look and see that the Major East-West thoroughfare ran right smack down the middle of the site you claimed was his proposed golf course. I've reposted your claim and the Olmsted map YOU posted, in the reply above[/b]
Not a chance. Bryan has shown again and again that your understanding is simply wrong.
Bryan hasn't proven a thing.
Like you, he denies the existance of the North Highway, despite documented evidence to the contrary.[/b]
Patrick/David/Bryan/Jeff...others,
Many articles, including the November 1st 1906 article I posted above state that CBM had been looking at "various sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills. Another article on the same day indicated that CBM was still looking near Good Ground in western Shinnecock Hills.
Where do you think those other sities were located?
Did it ever occur to you that like so many other flawed/inaccurate articles, that perhaps these articles are in error ?[/b]
Bryan,
That's a very interesting quote...I'd be curious to know the exact story and if Whigham got the date right. Damn, these guys weren't very good about that, were they? :-/
Do you think Whigham got it right when he stated that Macdonald designed Merion ?(;;)
-
Hope your eyes are OK and you'll see the pic below clearly.
It's from the Vanderbilt Cup race of 1906.
That's certainly an interesting picture, and, I did put drops in my eyes to help me focus.
But, I'm troubled by a few details.
The first of which is that the driver is sitting on the right side of the car and the steering wheel is located on the right side.
In 1804 New York State passed a law which mandated that traffic (wagons, buggies, cars) had to drive on the right side of the road.
Wouldn't the driver and steering wheel be on the left side of the car ?
Or, do you think the photo was of a foreign car ?[/b]
Winning average speed was just over 50 m.p.h.
Evidently, those dirt roads were maintained very well, especially if cars could average 50 mph on them.
Probably because wagon and buggy traffic had been on them since the 1700's[/b]
[/color][/b]
Note that the race was over dirt roads, even though the road course was near Lake Success, much closer to NYC and civilization than the wilds of the Shinnecock Hills.
Why would you expect otherwise ?
It was 1906 and American cars were just coming into mass production in 1902.
Dirt roads had been used by wagons and buggies since the 1700's.
Mike Cirba claimed that the North Highway was a six lane paved road in 1906, not me.[/b]
Good to know that the race drivers could have made it from NYC to SH in 1906 in under 2 dusty hours (if the car didn't break down). Not to mention the lack of gas stations out that way.
With a gas tank as large as the one behind the driver, my bet is that he could make it to Chicago and back(;;)[/b]
I'll bet the North Highway was a real race track in those days.
No one claimed it was a race track, only that it was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST HIGHWAY ON THE NORTH SHORE OF THE SOUTH FORK. [/b]
No annoying cops and radar traps either, I'll bet.
See, you're wrong again, Southampton was always a stickler on speeding, especially with out of state drivers, you know, the kind who are totally unfamiliar with the roads and local lay of the land.
(http://races.pmhclients.com/vcrsys/Images/Then/Image1-691_edited-1.jpg)
-
David,
Macdonald tells us that the "yacht basin" was intended to be within Bulls Head Bay, not on Peconic Bay.
-
Without in any way supporting Mike's conception of where the October article said the property was, I think you are absolutely wrong on the road.
The overwhelming body of evidence, the source documentation, says I'm right.
How convenient of you to accept Mike's Olmstead map, and then, subsequently, declare it null and void when the same map destroys his premise.[/b]
You may have skipped some of the postings on the weekend.
That's possible.[/b]
The 1873 map is not to scale and doesn't overlay on any other maps or on the modern Google aerial.
So what, neither is the Olmstead map at scale, unless they were building roads 200' wide
The precision of the map in terms of scale isn't what's critical.
What's critical is the existance of the North Highway, which clearly appears on the 1873 map.
Why do you accept all of Mike's schematics, obviously not drawn to scale, as accurate ?
You know some of these diagrams are incorrect, scalewise, yet you allow Mike to enter them as factual in terms of their borders and features.
I know it's difficult for you to admit you're wrong on the North Highway's existance and significance, especially when I'm right, but, the facts, the source documented facts, prove the existance of the North Highway.[/b]
Your beloved North highway along with the South Highway, less than one half mile apart, serving perhaps a 1000 people between Good Ground and its surrounding 4 or 5 family hamlets and Southampton is not on the 1903 map or the 1905 map.
You're so unfamiliar with the land that you don't even know that the neck immediately East of the Shinnecock Canal is less than a mile wide, so what difference does it make that the North and South Highways are only one half mile apart. You're so incredibly unfamiliar with the area that you don't understand the significance of both roads. And, the North Highway does appear on the 1873, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1916 maps.
The 1903 and 1905 and even the Olmstead map overlay both themselves and the modern physical features. If you look at the 1873 map, the road appears to go well north of SH up around the small hamlet of Tuckahoe and then down to Southampton. Its track doesn't map to the 1916 North Highway.
Do yourself a favor, look at where the North Highway is from the time it crosses the Shinnecock Canal until it passes directly south of Cold Spring Pond. You can't miss it. Even I can't miss it and my vision is certifiably flawed. .
And, again, it is not on the 1903 and 1905 maps.
Of course it is. It's staring you right in the face but you DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.
It crosses the Shinnecock Canal right next to the Railroad tracks and continues to meander East below Cold Spring Harbor.
How can you deny its existance ?
Maybe they just left that track off because it was insignificant in those years.
They didn't leave anything off, it's sitting there as plain as the nose on your face. but, since you can't see the nose on your face, just reach up with either hand and feel it.
And, once again, I don't think it is a necessary prerequisite to knock down Mike's hypothesis.
Of course it is.
The North Highway runs right smack down the middle of his entire phantom golf course, something that CBM would never contemplate, especially on a narrow out and back routing bordered on the north by Cold Spring Pond.
I'm the one with the eye problem, but, you're blind to the facts.[/b]
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
-
I guess perhaps I missed something, because I'm not understanding why we'd want to see the dimensions of today's Shinnecock GC, which bears little resemblance to the land it occupied in 1906, or even in 1916, which I've roughly illustrated below.
You've mis-positioned both Shinnecock's golf course and NGLA's golf course.
We know the 1st tee was within 200 yards of the Shinnecock in which was on the road, and that the 18th green was about 30-50 yards closer, so I think you've mis-positioned NGLA in your rendering.
The road that you show below the 1st tee and 9th green probably was realigned to run right through the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA.
In addition, it continues ENE and forms the Northern Border of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
You show Shinnecock well North of it's actual location which is well south of the narrow southern extension of Bulls Head Bay (Sebonac Creek). Shinnecock NEVER came close to the tip of Bulls Head Bay (Sebonac Creek)
It only went as far north as the road that you show running below the 1st and 18th holes at NGLA on your map.
Why would you present/mis-represent Shinnecock's configuration/location ? ? ?
In other words, your pink and green representations are seriously flawed.
Shinnecock NEVER extended up to the water as you have again, misrepresented.
Shinnecock's NORTHERN border IS THAT ROAD, the "New North Road" that would eventually be rerouted to bisect NGLA's 8th and 11th holes.
And, NGLA extended further south with the rerouted road bisecting the 8th and 11th holes, as opposed to your rendering which would have the road to the south of the 1st tee and 18th green..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5529546947_50861c0dbc_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Your dogmatic ranting about the roads is just plain wrong. The North Highway is not on the 1903 or 1905 maps. I will argue no further. You will never admit to being wrong.
Also, it's a good thing that I'm not David or I would have started hectoring you about misrepesenting anything I've said as supporting Mike's theses.
As for why the race car photo shows the driver on the right, I have no idea. There are multiple pictures that show it that way for multiple race cars. Given the accuracy of reporting, and to start another conspiracy theory, maybe the papers purposely reversed all the pictures. Or, maybe all the cars cqame from England. The car was called a Locomobile, I believe. It'd be a perfect fit for the people on these threads.
And, yes, Whigham's article was the one that mentioned Macdonald and Merion. I believe that George was taking credit for starting the war of words on that subject around here. But, I'm not going there.
-
Wow...when the opposition becomes this desperate and hysterical in their arguments, you instinctively know they have no ammo left.... ;)
Patrick,
The Olmstead drawing was not a "map". It was a "Land Plan". It was proposed, not "as built".
You know that, but have no evidence left to base your and David's baseless claim that a highway ran through the land I suggested that CBM might have been considering for his golf course.
It's over, and I'll join Bryan in refusing that argue that one with you further as it's pointless and absurd.
Also, that green and pink drawing that you heavily criticized...it's not mine...it's David's!
I'm thinking maybe you should consider putting this whole thread to rest as it's not doing your analytical credibility any favors.
David,
Shinnecock Hills GC never owned any land north of the point I drew up to 1916.
That 1916 map Bryan produced is accurate.
The proposed expansion to the Women's Course never happened.
Also, I already conceded that by 1916 (not sure about 1906 as we have no scale maps) approximately 110 yards at the north end of Shinnecock lay east of the 2,520 yards of NGLA.
Also, with allies like Patrick here you may want to consider letting this thread die quietly as well, because you've both been proven wrong again and again.
I started this thread because of your contention on the Myopia thread that I made wild and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of NGLA that would be shocking to the members there.
Please list them again if you still believe that to be true, because I believe everything I've claimed here is supported by CBM's book, and George's book, and the contemporaneous news accounts and historical records of the times. I also believe folks who've followed along here likely have a much more detailed, accurate understanding of the origins of that great course than they perhaps have had in the past. I've learned a lot and I hope you did, as well.
Yes, along with the rest of us I engaged in some admitted speculation at times, such as trying to locate the site talked about in those October articles you posted, but overall, I think it's clear that I've represented the historical record very accurately.
-
Bryan, I am with you on the road. Pat tells us to just look at the maps. As much as I have looked, I see no north highway on any of those 1903-5 maps. Maybe he should add some lines where he sees them, because I sure don't.
Haven't brewed the coffee yet, but is Pat taking Mike to task for a map David produced? A new low even for a guy who just had needles stuck in his eye.
David,
Others have said the purchase of Shinny wasn't considered, and it does seem unlikely. If you can just give me what road CBM's house is on, I think I can figure it out, but I appreciate any info you can easily provide. Just a curiosity after seeing pix of his house in George's book.
-
Jeff, Bryan & Mike,
Please tell me what road/s appears above the railroad tracks between the Shinnecock Canal and points East in the pink and green color coded 1903 map above.
Thanks
As to my taking Mike to task, with limited vision and the multiple maps submitted by Mike, Bryan, David, it's David's error on the siting of Shinnecock. I believe that both David and Mike are wrong on the siting of NGLA in that I believe NGLA was closer to the road to the south, the North Highway.
-
Bryan,
I still don't care about this highway stuff and still haven't paid much attention to your back and forth with Patrick, but after having looked at your last post, I suspect that the two of you might be talking past one another.
Recall that this highway nonsense began when Mike came up with his mystery site where, in October of 1906, CBM was supposedly planning to build a 120 acre course stretching from SHGC along the bottom of Cold Spring Bay and along part of Peconic Bay to the west of Cold Spring Bay. As I understand Patrick's point, he thinks that there was a highway that would have run right up the gut of a substantial portion of Mike's mystery site. Without wishing to fight about it with you or anyone about this, I tend to agree with him on this point.
Here is a map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book. I've placed a blow up of the area in question in the upper right corner.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1907RoadAtlas.jpg?t=1300295179)
As you can see, the main road runs along Peconic Bay and part of Cold Spring before cutting down to the location of the Shinnecock Inn and SHGC before heading into Southampton. The description of the route to Southampton (and beyond) confirms this; after crossing the "new bridge" over the canal one took a left on "Shore Road" which which ran "along Peconic Bay through Shinnecock Hills" to the Shinnecock Inn, and after the Inn, one crossed the tracks and joined the "old road" near the art colony. So it seems that by by 1907 at the latest, the main route to Southampton was north of the tracks, along Peconic Bay and at least part of Cold Spring Bay, and thus would have run right up the gut of Mike's mystery site. Given we are dealing with Mike, he will probably claim that this road definitely couldn't even have been contemplated in October 1906, but I think that scenario is rather unlikely. Plus, even the 1903 map shows a road along the bottom of the part of Cold Spring and that road would have run right up the gut of Mike's mystery site.
Anyway, here are depictions of the Shinnecock Inn and the Irving Hotel in Southampton, both from the same publication. These weren't exactly frontier shacks. Note that the description under the Shinnecock Inn mentions new roads built by SHPBRC affording views of Peconic, Cold Spring, and Bullshead Bays.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
By the way, in addition to the 1873 map I posted, I have taken a look at an 1802 map and an 1845 map and they both show a northern route through the entire area. I came across the surveyors description for parts of the North Highway and St. Andrews Road from the early teens, but haven't spent any time trying to make sense of them (without knowing the exact location of their reference markers it would be difficult, I think) but if you think you can make sense of them, I'll be glad to send them to you.
___________________________________________________
Patrick,
I created those pink and green shadows of the current courses on the 1903 map by overlaying that map with the Google Earth image, and things line up fairly well so I think my depiction is generally pretty accurate, although I can't attest to the location of the road. I agree that it looks strange, but as I explained to Jim, I think this is because the 1903 map has Sebonack Creek as far too wide for too far south. (The google image shows a small line of Sebonack Creek where the 1903 image shows a wide waterway or swamp.)
Were I to place the future location of 1907 Shinnecock Inn on this map, it would be about 200-300 yards south of what would eventually become the southern tip of NGLA, just across that road which runs at an angle underneath NGLA's future location.
___________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
The location of CBM's old house is at an intersection of a line straight east of the space between "Sebonack" and "Creek" on the map, and straight north of the "9" in the "29" elevation marker (a bit to the east of the creek.) The house is visible on Google Earth. (He also looks to have owned another house and/or some more land south of there a bit.)
_______________________________________
Mike Cirba,
1. According to you, I have been "proven wrong again and again" while "everything" you have "claimed here is supported by CBM's book, and George's book, and the contemporaneous news accounts and historical records of the times." Fascinating. Statements like these really highlight your veracity and/or your analytical capabilities, or lack there of.
2. I am not the least interested in your unsupported assertions about the 1916 map or the expansion of the women's course. Back up your claims. And what happened to your claim that Shinnecock did not buy any land to the north around this same time? Shall we add that to the long list of "facts"you just made up?
3. Your latest drawing on the 1903 map doesn't even accurately depict what is on that 1916 map.
4. As for your demand that i list for you all the stupid and unsupported claims you've made about NGLA over the years, that is about as realistic as your mentor's demand that I go back and identify every single one of his insulting and inappropriate posts. I have neither the time to create nor an interest in creating a 2000+ page faker document.
-
David,
Glad you don't care about this "highway stuff", yet spend your days futilely trying to somehow prove me wrong. ;)
Guess that highway just plumb up and disappeared. Don't you hate when that happens?? ;D
And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested. Are you trying to show how much traffic CBM would have had to contend with if his first offer to Alvord referenced in SG was accepted?? ;)
Say goodnight, David.
-
Mike
So as to not make me read through this entire Morrisonesque thread could you please give a very brief synopsis of what you are trying to prove? And please don't post a series of old news articles/maps (those repeated posts of the same articles, over and over again, always come across as a diversion tactic, its more distracting than anything), just a series of bullet points in your words, if possible.
-
Tom,
"Morrisonesque"?
David,
"Faker Document"??
Guys..transparent jealousy really doesn't wear well on anyone. You should really go write your own version of history if that's your thing.
TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;
1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process. It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.
2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.
3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.
4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.
5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.
6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.
7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.
Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.
I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them. ;)
-
Mike,
You did so well, but I recommend editing to take out the last sentence, and maybe the first two. Guaranteed to add animosity, whereas I will give TMac credit for NOT trying to add to it, although Morrisonesque is also a little over the top.
TMac,
The length of this thread is in part due to:
Pat Mucci's repeated insistence that NGLA nearly routed itself in a day, to which I have strongly disagreed.
David's anger that Mike has postulated that CBM might have looked at a third site, and frankly, I think its fair to say no one has signed off on that concept.
David and Pat's disagreement that the other site (even if only the first offer) could have been where Mike suggested it was, based on roads, highways, and what not. The location of that site is still undetermined, although I think most agree that it was not the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, as George Bahto reported in his book. (Side note, I would still love to know where it was, but its a historical side note)
The timeline still seems to be an issue, with Mike figuring the real work didn't start until after the option was formalized in December 1906, and David most strongly thinking a lot was done prior to October 1906. It appears to me (and maybe only me) that Whigham tells us those first pony rides took place in Sept. 1906, which puts it at a later time line than many think, given that CBM says he made his first offer only a few weeks after SHPB Realty bought the land, closer to Dec 1905.
As usual, individual opinions vary with the weight placed on various documents. Fascinating stuff, and not worth the acrimony that always gets started between us. The higway argument and discussoin about whether Shinny was east or south of NGGLA are mere personality conflicts on our part. I think there is general agreement on Mikes points otherwise, although I have said that while CBM had a committee, I believe he would have outvoted them 1 to 5.
-
Jeff,
I'd love to edit but am on my Blackberry and can't, unfortunately.
Just one thing I'd add...I don't think the site I proposed based on the articles was a third site but the first.
Other than that...nice synopsis.
-
Mike,
No problem. And my reference wasn't chronological. The "third" site meant one not discussed by CBM, who mentioned two sites in his writings.
I would still like to know where that first offer was made near "good ground."
-
Jeff,
I had speculated that perhaps the site in those articles was the canal site as I believe CBM made his first offer in 1906, not 1905.
You may have missed it, but no biggie.
Thanks.
-
Last night Mike Cirba wrote: "And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested."
Shortly thereafter he wrote: "I had speculated that perhaps the site in those articles was the canal site . . . "
Will the real Mike Cirba please stand up?
______________________________________________________________
Mike,
IT IS FOOLISH TO PRETEND THAT YOU WERE NEVER TALKING ABOUT THE CANAL IN ONE POST, YET PRETEND YOU WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CANAL A FEW POSTS LATER!
Obviously, not even you know what you are talking about! Or do you think that we are the real idiots, and will accept this nonsense?
Same goes for your laughable list. You managed leave off almost all of what you have desperately tried yet failed to prove, and you even throw in a bunch of stuff that I explained to you years ago as if it was your own original analysis. You are delusional.
And Mike, the highway stuff is entirely irrelevant to the land CBM was considering in October and is of little interest to me. But Bryan seems interested so I passed along the information to Bryan. Unlike you, not all my posts are aimed at some petty agenda. Rather, I am often just passing on information.
And again with the jealousy nonsense? Even you must be able to comprehend that there are a multitude of reasons to joke about the "publication" of the 2000+ page faker cd. Where is this sense of humor you are always bragging about?
_________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
Whether or not Mike's duplicitous tactics annoy me, the ONLY reason that this thread is as long as it is because of Mike's multitude of ridiculous claims, his habit of recycling through the same ridiculous and disproven material again and again and again, and his inability and/or unwillingness to even keep his own story straight.
For example, Mike would have you believe that he has been suggesting the canal site all along, but you know as well as I do that he has repeatedly jumped back an forth between various theories (including his third mystery site theory) despite the underlying facts.
Look at those recent posts where he makes polar opposite claims in the space of a few hours and is so delusional that he doesn't even realize he has done so. This is typical and you know it. So why do you pretend like Mike is playing this straight?
-
David,
Maybe he should change his name to "Mike Circling?"
But, don't kid yourself. That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long. We all parse words, we all analyze. I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above. Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter. Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.
Thanks for the info on CBM and his house.
-
But, don't kid yourself. That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long. We all parse words, we all analyze. I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above. Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter.
Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.
That's absolutely untrue.
My problem with Mike isn't that he disagrees with either David or me, but that he knowingly misrepresented the facts and postulated conclusions that he knew were incorrect in order to serve his previously stated agenda, to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order.
For you to turn a blind eye to his deliberate misrepresentations is somewhat puzzling, unless, you've allowed "personality" to override intellect.
Mike has changed his position innumerable times, and not once did you stand up and say, "Mike, you've changed your position again"
Not once did you ask him what his core position was. And, by a core position, I mean one that you don't waiver from. One that you retain until it's proven wrong. Time and time again, Mike was proven wrong, sometimes by his own posts. But, never once, did you call him on his disingenuous posts.
Mike has clearly stated that his mission is to prove that CBM did not route NGLA in short order.
Thus, he's drew his conclusion and embarked upon a journey, not to find the facts, but to present anything and everything to reach his stated goal.
The length of this thread is due solely to Mike changing his position, over and over again, with David, myself and others, having to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking his "premise of the day".
So, let's not be so quick to disparage David's and my efforts to debunk so many of Mike's revolving door premises.
You seem to want to force us to accept anything and everything Mike's stated, irrespective of its inaccuracy.
-
I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;
1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process. It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.
Mike, this is what David and I have always maintained.
That you drew your conclusion before discovering/establishing the facts.
You had/have an agenda, and it's not to search for the truth, but to disprove CBM's routing NGLA in short order since that goes to the core of your Merion argument. That's not the academic or intellectually honest method for conducting historical research. And, in fact, it's disingenuous.
Your claim that it wasn't routed in short order holds about as much merit as your claim that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914[/b]
[/color][/b]
2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.
Only for the purpose of your agenda.
Your denial of the existance of the North Highway in as late as 1914 speaks to your bias.
It speaks to the fact that you're not searching for the facts, instead you're searching for info that will ONLY promote your stated agenda.[/b]
3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.
First, that a major presumption on your part.
CBM tells us about the 120 acre parcel and the Montauk site.
ONLY YOU are insisting upon another site.
I think you're trying to FORCE/FABRICATE information to suit your agenda. [/b]
4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.
Again, this is totally agenda driven and related to Merion.
Hutchinson was overseas and never saw the site at NGLA.
Travis was dismissed.
Macdonald had every opportunity to name the parties involved.
Only Whigham is mentioned in detail in the selecting of the site and positioning of the holes.
Yet, again, you want to FORCE/FABRICATE the involvement of Emmet, Travis and Hutchinson.
Hutchinson never saw NGLA until 1910.[/b]
5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.
Again, you're trying to FORCE/FABRICATE surplus land for building lots, even though Bryan Izatt and David Moriarty showed you that that was impossible at the NGLA site.
In addition, do you really believe that the wealthiest men in America, men with huge estates, would build homes and live in 1 acre plots in a sub-division ? How did Sabin respond to establishing his residence in the area ?[/b]
6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.
If you'd read page 184 of "Scotland's Gift" you'd see that CBM didn't have 18 template holes..
He certainly had 8 or 9 templates, but, he clearly states that the other ideal/classic holes WERE composites.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you're misrepresenting Macdonald's written words, and that's disingenuous.
Sahara, Alps, Redan, Short, Road, Bottle, Eden, Cape, Leven.
They're all there at NGLA.[/b]
7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.
His clubhouse choice wasn't the Shinnecock Inn.
That was a temporary choice, a short term choice of convenience.
It's my belief that Macdonald ALWAYS had the current clubhouse location reserved for his clubhouse and that the Shinnecock Inn served as a perfect interim clubhouse.
The yacht basin was NEVER a factor in determining the routing.
That's just another of your wild speculations.
Can you site any reference in "Scotland's Gift" that states that the Yacht Basin was a consideration in determining the routing ?
Absent that citation, would you admit that this is just another diversion, another wild goose chase you wish to send others on ?[/b]
Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STORY IS ?
That's our point.
YOU and YOU alone have determined the story to conform with your agenda, namely, to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order.
Yet, Max Behr goes into great depth about the ideal routing, an out and back routing mirroring TOC's routing.
Max Behr goes on to say that NGLA followed this model and that the course basically routed itself.
So, here we have a knowledgeable, contemporaneous account from an architect, stating that the course routed itself.
And Mike, who posted this essay, now wants it stricken from the record because it refutes his pre-determined agenda.
Please read the following carefully.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_8c3fe941c0_o.jpg)
-
.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_8c3fe941c0_o.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I disagree with you on numerous accounts there.
If there is one thing I really detest is the constant use of the word "disingenous" on these threads. It is really insulting, and truly elevates the acrimony. Its not like this is a trial or congressional hearing. Let's face facts, you are calling him a liar, which isn't nice, or condusive to discussion.
When Mike introduced his theory of a potential offer on an unknown site, he did present some new articles (maybe just to him) and analysis of those. I recall Tom MacWood telling us that when he presented theories he didn't need to back them up, and I don't recall you or David thrashing him for that, even though its about the same as what Mike is doing. This battle is nothing more than another version of that, but from someone who generally disagrees with you.
Let's face it, Mike's treatment is just a decision by you and David to be mean spirited. Period.
You in fact, have presented more red herrings, repetitive and obviously false statements on this thread than Mike ever has. Taking dashed line dirt roads and calling them highways, telling Mike he has posted incorrect maps that were really David's, insisting it was a days work to route the course, etc. which shows me you are more interested in the argument than finding out facts, and in pushing your man crush on CBM to prove he did route Merion in a day (which is wrong, BTW) much more than Mike.
For that matter, you continue to deliberately misreprsent things in the post above. I have repeatedly agreed with you that Mike is wrong on the idea of some mystery site not described in Scotland's Gift. I have never asked you to accept anything, and yet you put that trashy little sentence in at the end, that is 100% false.
And I didn't tell David you guys were the only reason this was long. I just said Mike isn't the only reason.
As usual, for all the mess, I learned something on this thread. Bryan and others bringing back douments I had forgotten (like the HJW euolgy) which suggests the initial tour ofthe Sebonac site was in Sept 1906 was invaluble in forming my opinion of what happened. There is really no reaons for me to want to know that, but I am always intersted in history, just for curiosity sake..
Others may disagree with my take, but it little matters, really. I wanted to get a better sense of how a great course came to be, and I think I have it.
So, why would I be interested in the arguments and insults many here are throwing around because of a few disagrements?
Short version: I call BS on your last post. But, have a great day, and I hope you are feeling better.
-
Patrick,
I disagree with you on numerous accounts there.
If there is one thing I really detest is the constant use of the word "disingenous" on these threads. It is really insulting, and truly elevates the acrimony. Its not like this is a trial or congressional hearing. Let's face facts, you are calling him a liar, which isn't nice, or condusive to discussion.
That's correct.
When maps from 1873, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907 show the existance of the North Highway, and the New York State Senate documents show the existance of the North Highway, and Mike claims that in 1914 the North Highway didn't exist, that's DISINGENUOUS. It's lying.
I don't care whether you like it or not. You're in denial. Mike knew the North Highway existed, he saw the source documentation, but, in an effort to put forth his stated agenda, declared that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914. That's a blatant lie. Calling it disingenuous was being polite on my part.
My newest (architectural) fantasy is to get you on the witness stand, present five (5) seperate, clear photos, from different angles, of Mike Cirba robbing a bank (he's wearing a TEPaul mask, but, he's got it on backwards) and asking you if you see the same person in all five (5) photos.
Then, I'd present a notorized copy of the bank President's affadavit, stating that he's personally done business with Mike for the last 20 years, and yes, he was talking to him in the lobby, with the mask of TEPaul turned around backwards, when he pulled out a water pistol and pointed it toward the teller's window.
And, I'd ask you again, is that Mike Cirba.
No doubt, you'd attack me for putting facts in front of you that you'd want to deny, facts that you'd need to deny, because you thought about robbing the same bank yourself, albeit with a Wayne Morrisson mask.[/b]
When Mike introduced his theory of a potential offer on an unknown site, he did present some new articles (maybe just to him) and analysis of those. I recall Tom MacWood telling us that when he presented theories he didn't need to back them up, and I don't recall you or David thrashing him for that, even though its about the same as what Mike is doing.
Then your recall isn't what you think it is.
I've challenged Tom MacWood on a number of his presentations.
Please stop with the absurd "double standard" defense, it's not applicable.
Mike has contradicted himself as much as David and I have contradicted him.
You have an issue with David and Tom.
I sometimes disagree with David and Tom, but, there's a distincition between an issue and a disagreement.[/b]
This battle is nothing more than another version of that, but from someone who generally disagrees with you.
That's not true in the least.
Mike and I often agree on issues.
It's that idiot savant, TEPaul who disagrees with me 98.6 % or is it 96.8 % of the time.
[/b]
Let's face it, Mike's treatment is just a decision by you and David to be mean spirited. Period.
That's absolutely untrue.
I've posted that I like Mike, but that I have a problem with him on this thread. A problem with his presentation, agenda, facts and flawed conclusions.
You in fact, have presented more red herrings, repetitive and obviously false statements on this thread than Mike ever has.
That's also UNTRUE.
Would you list the red herrings I've presented
Taking dashed line dirt roads and calling them highways, telling Mike he has posted incorrect maps that were really David's, insisting it was a days work to route the course, etc. which shows me you are more interested in the argument than finding out facts, and in pushing your man crush on CBM to prove he did route Merion in a day (which is wrong, BTW) much more than Mike.
This shows how really biased, if not stupid you've become on this thread.
It was MIKE who posted the Olmsted Bros plan that LABELED THE NORTH HIGHWAY, THE NORTH HIGHWAY, NOT ME.
Map after Map, New York State Senate documents in 1906 refer to the road as the NORTH HIGHWAY, but you, in your arrogance, claim that I labeled the road the North Highway.
Do me a favor, have someone, someone intelligent, read the posts to you, because you don't get it.
I didn't make up the name, The NORTH HIGHWAY. It was on the maps that MIKE posted. It was in the New York State Senate document that Phil Young posted. So how do you get off stating that I'm the one that named the road ?? Your bias and your emotions have overriden your intellect.[/b]
For that matter, you continue to deliberately misreprsent things in the post above.
How so ?
Be specific ![/b]
I have repeatedly agreed with you that Mike is wrong on the idea of some mystery site not described in Scotland's Gift.
I have never asked you to accept anything, and yet you put that trashy little sentence in at the end, that is 100% false.
Are you nuts ?
The last sentence of my last post references Mike and Max Behr.
it's got nothing to do with you.[/b]
And I didn't tell David you guys were the only reason this was long. I just said Mike isn't the only reason.
Of course he is.
If Mike didn't make outrageous, erroneous posts, David, myself and others wouldn't have to question and refute them.[/b]
As usual, for all the mess, I learned something on this thread. Bryan and others bringing back douments I had forgotten (like the HJW euolgy) which suggests the initial tour ofthe Sebonac site was in Sept 1906 was invaluble in forming my opinion of what happened. There is really no reaons for me to want to know that, but I am always intersted in history, just for curiosity sake..
I agree, that would seem to be an interesting item.
But, is HJW's word in that piece to be taken as the Gospel, for if so, then we must accept that CBM routed/designed Merion.... yes ?
Others may disagree with my take, but it little matters, really. I wanted to get a better sense of how a great course came to be, and I think I have it.
I share that desire, but, not when presented by someone with a predetermined agenda rooted in Merion.
So, why would I be interested in the arguments and insults many here are throwing around because of a few disagrements?
I think you initiated the insults toward me.
I still have your apology, which I accepted(;;)
[/b]
Short version: I call BS on your last post.
The entire post ? ? ?
Shirley you jest.[/b]
But, have a great day, and I hope you are feeling better.
The surgery appears to have gone well, but, we won't know until the post-op evaluations are in.
Thanks[/b]
-
Pat,
Stopped reading your post halfway through. What's the point? Not going to argue endlessly on a post about arguing endlessly.
I will say, BTW, that David's last map concering the road may have changed my opinion, although the other maps sure didn't show a highway there. I am not going to spend much time figuring it out, since its irrelevant except over on roadsoflongisland.com, but you might have been right. Might.
Edit: 5PM and I took a minute to read your post, and go back to where this derailed (maybe this should be posted on that Chambers Bay thread.....) It went to hell in a handbasket (or maybe Merion wickerbasket) in posts 62-68. David was his usual insulting self before that, but Jim Kennedy reacted to Mikes post 62, where after two dozen paragraphs, mostly true, mentions that he doesn't think CBM was a fan of the one day routing, using CBM writings from 1897 to back up his point.
Is that where you say Mike stated his agenda? It seems Jim Kennedy stated it for him, and then you jumped on the bandwagon quick. The whole tone went downhill after that. It was civil before.
Just saying.
-
Jeff,
I too have learned alot on this thread.
I'm going to start two tangential threads on NGLA soon.
Let's just say that we disagree on some issues and agree on others.
-
Tom,
"Morrisonesque"?
David,
"Faker Document"??
Guys..transparent jealousy really doesn't wear well on anyone. You should really go write your own version of history if that's your thing.
TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;
1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process. It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.
2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.
3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.
4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.
5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.
6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.
7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.
Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.
I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them. ;)
Mike
After 28 pages of posts which of these points have you been able to prove?
-
But, don't kid yourself. That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long. We all parse words, we all analyze. I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above. Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter. Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.
There may be some truth to some in what you wrote, and it is certainly worth considering. And while Mike is driving these threads with his ever changing interpretations, I'll concede that a bit less from me about the nature of Mike's games would probably shorten the threads, at least initially. Same goes for a substantial portion of the excess from Mike's posts and yours as well, but you have a habit of overlooking Mike's rude digressions as well as your own.
- Does it really advance the conversation or shorten the threads when Mike falsely boasts about how I have been proven wrong "again and again" while every single one of his claims has been supported by the facts?
- Does it really advance the conversation or shorten the threads when he repeatedly misrepresents my position as well as the source material?
- How about when he refuses to even address legitimate critiques of his position, or to answer questions, or to back up his own assertions?
- Or when he switches positions so he can avoid answering my questions by declaring them "beyond stupid and insulting" based on his formerly rejected position?
- Or how about your insulting comments to me and about me or your lectures and commentary on my behavior? Do you think that advances the conversation or shortens the thread? I don't.
So while I will consider less commenting and more substance, I'll take my present ratio of substance-to-excess over his or yours any day.
And Jeff, I disagree with your assessment that Mike does not deserve my comments or critique. Whether flattering or not, my comments about Mike are accurate and the go to the substance of the matter as well as his ability to deal with it. He brings my commentary on himself through his behavior and his claims.
What it comes down to is that he is either unwilling or unable to carry on a reasonably intelligent conversation or to stay above board regarding his representation of the various positions and the source material. Even you must realize that this is the case. Or did you not notice that last night Mike told me that he hasn't even suggested that those articles refer to the Canal land, and then, a few posts later he turned and told you the opposite?
Surely these are not honest and accurate representations, are they? It wouldn't advance the conversation to allow Mike to just continue on with such contradictory positions to suit his rhetorical needs? Yet that is exactly what you do, and apparently what you expect of me! Isn't it about time you started calling him out for such foolishness
________________________________
As for Mike's agenda, it goes back most recently to the Myopia threads where he tried to make that too about Merion via NGLA. Before that there have been at least three or four threads which started substantially like this one and in which Mike was selling similar ideas. If you don't believe he had an agenda coming in then return to his ridiculous and misrepresentative attempt at an IMO early on in this thread.
-
David,
Fair enough and its not that I don't understand where you disagree with Mike, or your frustration at covering different topics like the "third site" repeatedly. And I agree he and I have taken some subtle shots at you and Pat (or not so subtle) so we are all to blame. What proves it was someone other than the main participants bringing back the HJW euolgy, while we all continued to repost the same old documents. (To be fair, you have provided some old road maps the may change my thinking, but its an unrelated point, at least to me)
Truthfully, and as I have said before, I am most frustrated with Pat's quick routing ideas. First, nothing in the record suggests it, and relying on Behr's later recollections, as a non participant, and in an article about another topic, seem really off to me, yet he keeps pounding that table and presenting that as some kind of proof of something.
And I did ask him which day he thought CBM routed Merion, with no response. Was it June 29, 1910, with no topo maps in front of him, or was it March 1911, when they spent the weekend at NGLA with him? As far as I know, only you believe CBM routed Merion by himself, and I don't recall you contending it was done in a day, only in the period from June to Nov 1910, in time to set the road.
Call me crazy, and perhaps its as much because the notion of courses routing themselves offends me professionally, but in the context of these discussions over the years, it just doesn't fly, and bothers me more than Mike postulating about where the initial CBM offer might have been.
-
Wow...we're talking golf courses here, fellows.
Sheesh.
Ok...a few points.
First, one of the things that makes us human is our ability to take in and process new information and evidence and consider those factors and re-shape existing ideas and opinions. Some here might want to try that rather than regurgitating disproven and/or unfounded dogma for 20 pages. ;)
Second, there is no inconsistency in what i presented. I first considered that the land seemingly described in those October articles was possibly a third site, but the more I studied it, the more I have come to believe (and SPECULATE) that it was indeed the land described by CBM in his book as "near the canal". I also believe his offer took place after his return from abroad in 1906, and not 1905. I did describe the reasons why I believe this in my post #911 a few days ago but it likely got lost in the noise and continuing personal insults so I can understand how many might have missed it.
I'm not sure how speculation on known facts, even if shown to be incorrect, or perhaps even on something we might never know, is suddenly off-limits on this site, and verboten? Aren't we supposed to be "discussing" these topics, or is this a religious monastery where deviation from some accepted topics is punishable by public humiliation and verbal stoning?
I don't believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal as David seems to, which is why I joked to him that he now has a highway running through his site per his 1907 map. I think CBM just used that as a landmark, which in the midst of not much development at the time it certainly was, and the site I described is miles nearer the canal than the site he ended up with.
But, it's what I believe and speculate based on my understanding of the evidence and I have a friggin' right to say it here despite your efforts to drown me out.
This isn't Iran fellas, and you guys hopefully aren't mullahs.
-
Acceptance and Dedication of
North Highway and St. Andrew's Road : Upon the dedication and release of the lands within the highway on Shinnecock Hills known as North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road for use as a public highway, and upon the consent of the Town Board of the Town of Southampton, etc., hereto annexed, I do order that North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road, as described in the dedication and release. aforesaid, executed and acknowledged by Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company, Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Samuel L.Parrish, A. H. Buck, and the Long Island Railroad Company, be accepted and laid out as a public highway in the Town of Southampton, etc. The said highway is bounded and described as follows : The roads on Shinnecock Hills, Town of Southampton, known as North Highway and part of St. Andrew's Road described as follows : Beginning at a monument marked 322, said monument being in the Northerly boundary line of the land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. running thence North 75° 07' RECORDS: TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON llS 20" West 503.9 feet to monument 321; thence- North 69° 02' 20" West 313.1 feet to monument 320; thence South 82° 30' 40" West 296.5 feet to monument 319; the above course being along the Northerly line of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, thence North 85° 12' 20" West 51.93 feet to monument 294, the last course being across the Tucka· hoe road ; thence on the same course 637.5 feet to monument 300, thence North 73° 02' 20" West 306.4 feet to monument 299, thence North 72° 51' 50" West 122.05 feet ; thence North 76° 56' 20" West 161.44 feet ; thence North 80° 32' West 71.35 feet, thence North 88° 30' West 187.78 feet to Station No. 1, thence North 64° 22' 30" West 97.3 feet; thence North 40° 21' 40" West 98.03 feet; thence North 59° 21' 40" West 57.32 feet to Station X, the above courses being along the Northerly boundary line of the land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The foregoing describes the Southerly line of the St. Andrew's Road. The Notherly line being 50 feet distant and parallel to the Southerly line. Beginning at Station X in the Southerly line of the said Saint Andrew's Road, running thence North 55° 23' 36" West 86.95 feet across Saint Andrew's Road; thence on the same course along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company 69.42 feet to Station No. 2, thence North 39° 53' West 137.35 feet to Station No. 3, thence North 20° 42' West 472 feet to Station No. 4, thence North 42° 26' West 143.3 feet to Station No. 5, thence North 76° 36' 30" West 399.00 feet to Station No. 6, thence North 65° 31' West 399.64 to Station No. 7, thence North 61 ° 24' West 428.22 to Station No. 8, thence North 69° 51' West 379.82 feet to Station No. 9, thence North 83° 17' 30" West 661.21 feet to Monument H. 12, thence North 72° 28' West 210.21 feet to manument H. 13, thence North 70° 40' 50" West 309.5 feet to 114 RECORDS; TOWN OF' SOUTHAMPTON monument H. 14, thence North 72° 00' West 219.75 feet to Station No. 10, thence North 75° 22' West 491.52 feet to monument H. 15, thence North 79° 44' 28" West 338.9 feet to monument H. 16, thence North 83° 02' 30" West 5 10.73 feet to Monument H. 17, thence North 85° 14' 30" West 530.25 feet to Station No. 12, thence North 88° 40' West 70.33 feet to the intersection with the Easterly line of the Hills Station Road ; thence on the same course 50.42 feet across the said Hills Station Road; thence on the same course 217.17 feet along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company to monument H. 23 ; thence North 88° 14' West 251.4 feet to monument H. 24; thence North 87° 53' 30" West 819.41 feet to monument H. 25, thence North 84° 19' 52" West 465.98 feet to monument H. 26, thence North 80° 28' 12" West 402.13 feet to monument H. 27, thence North 75° 30' 30" West 225.87 to Station No. 15, thence North 68° 28' 30" West 271.75 to monument H. 28, thence North 66° 01' 55" \Vest 771.98 feet to monument H. 29, thence North 58° 21' West 574.1 feet to Station No. 17, thence North 65° 30' 30" West 183.5 feet to Station No. 18, thence North 86° 02' 30" West 192 feet to monument H. 30, thence South 71 ° 27' 30" West 242.3 feet to Station No. 19, thence S:outh (1)0 45' West 246.35 feet to monument H. 31, thence South 54° 50' West 190.95 feet to Station 20, said station being at the intersection of the Easterly line of the Peconic Road, thence on the same course 104.09 feet across said Peconic Road, thence on the same course 36.11 feet along the Northerly boundary line of the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company to Monument H. 32, thence South 62° 50' 30" West 413.83 feet to Monument H. 33. thence South 72° 20' 30" West 375.45 feet to monument H. 34, thence South 86° 03' 30" West 437.42 feet to Monument H. 35, thence North 80° 45' West .256.85 feet to Monument H. 36, thence North 58° 26' 30'" West 488.55 to Monument H. 37, thence North 59° 03' 30" West 250.18 to Monument H. 38, thence North 73° 26' West 192.78 feet to Monument H. 39, thence North 86° IS' 19" West 333.33 feet to Monument H. 40, thence South 85° 43' 30'" West 429.22 feet to Station No. 22, thence South 77° 13' 30'" West 233.8 feet to Monument H. 41, thence South 71° 00' 30'" West 355 feet to Monument H. 42, thence South 67° 06' West 231.18 feet to Monument H. 43, thence South 66° 47' 42" West 502.58 feet to Monument H. 44, thence South 64° 58' West 204.28 feet to Station No. 24, thence South 56° 14' West 337.43 feet to Station No. 25, thence South 56° 19' West 156.02 feet to Station No. 26, thence South 44° 46' West 156.98 feet to Station No. 27, thence South 30° 07' 59" West 444.73 feet to Station No. 29 the course also crossing the right of way of the Long Island Railroad, thence South 25° 07' West 161.08 feet to Monument H. 48, thence South 15° 28' 30" West 154.35 feet to Station No. 30, thence South 15° 48' 30'" East 100 feet, thence South 3° 59' 30" East 100 feet, thence South 16° 55' 30'" West 50 feet, thence South 36° 55' 30" West 80 feet, thence South 56° 55' 30" West 57 feet to the Northerly line of the South Highway, the above describes the Southerly line of the North Highway, the Northerly line being 66 feet distant and parallel to the Southerly line going East to a point opposite Station No. 2, from this point the width of the road decreases until the said Northerly line intersects the Northerly tine of the Saint Andrew's Road at a point opposite Station X.
-
Andy,
Is this the dedication to build the highway? Is it dated??
It does seem to mention that it was north of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club boundary.
Thanks for posting it.
-
Mike, it's from 1913. It can be found here: http://www.southamptontownny.gov/filestorage/760/762/792/1054/2530/BK-08.pdf
It's titled "The Eighth Volume of Records of the Town of Southampton 1893--1927" and is an official publication of the town.
Inner page calls it 'A Record of Highways of the Town of Southampton, NY Liber A'
Turns out there were a lot of highways in that area but it appears what they called a highway and what we would call a highway may not have been the same thing. There's also early mentions of a surveyor named Raynor.
PS I should add, I am not looking to pick a fight with anyone about the roads, where they were, what they cut through or didn't cut through; I just thought some might find it of interest as I did.
-
Andy,
Thanks...yes, the "highways" out there hardly seem to have been deemed as permanent unmovable obstructions, especially when trying to best develop thousands of acres as a millionaire's playground.
-
Mike,
Had an interesting thought last night, about restarting this thread from the basics.
Can we agree that NGLA exists? Seems like the natural starting point, maybe even extend that to "exists on Long Island." If we can get by that hurdle, maybe we can move on to more specific agreements.
Cheers to all, and especially Patrick who is still recovering.
-
Jeff,
I had an interesting thought as well.
At the moment I posted those articles on the first page and some argued that multiple, contemporaneous, and even same-day news articles in competing papers all saying the same thing was all lies, lies, and more lies, or even better, that we couldn't interpret those articles for ourselves and needed to be all told what they said by someone with greater knowledge, intelligence, and understanding, then I should have just had a good laugh and moved on because you really can't convince anyone who refuses to learn. ;) ;D
-
Jeff Brauer,
Since you are always so keen on critiquing my methods, perhaps you can help me more productively deal with Mike and his methodology? Have you read Mike's post above where he tries to explain why he is telling you one thing, and me the opposite? According to Mike, I seem to "believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal," and this is why Mike "joked" with me about my blowup from the map.
But is this an honest and accurate assessment of our earlier exchange, or an honest, accurate, and reasonable depiction of his claim? Let's take a closer look.
My Post. As you may recall I posted the entire map from the 1907 Atlas covering the "Far Part" of Long Island, along with a blowup I had created of the section of the map from Good Ground to the eastern edge of Bullshead Bay. I accompanied it with a synopsis of the driving directions from the Canal to Shinnecock from the same book. This was the post that apparently convinced you that there was a road going through the area of Mike's mystery site.
Mike's response. After some deflections about the highway disappearing and such, Mike commented as follows:
And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested. Are you trying to show how much traffic CBM would have had to contend with if his first offer to Alvord referenced in SG was accepted??
Say goodnight, David.
As you can see
- Mike acknowledged that map is of the area NEAR THE CANAL.
- His next sentence further leaves no doubt that we are talking about the land NEAR THE CANAL "referenced in SG," the land relating to CBM's "first offer."
- He claimed that the land he suggested was not NEAR THE CANAL.
- He even scoffed at me by throwing in that smarmy last sentence, as if by posting that 1907 Atlas showing a road through the land NEAR THE CANAL I had somehow conceded the argument or proven his point for him.
Mike's Contradiction. A few posts later Mike told you the opposite, and I called him on it. We've covered that.
Mike Excuse. Since I called him on it, Mike is now trying to explain away his previous comment. Again, according to Mike, he joked with me about my blowup because "I seem to "believe the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal." Huh?
Compare Mike's excuse to his comments above, and please answer the following:
-Have I ever suggested that CBM's first site "was actually right over the top of the canal?"
-Did the map and blowup I produced suggest this, or that I thought this?
-Looking at what he originally wrote, does Mike's excuse make any sense?
-Is Mike being HONEST here?
-Is he ACCURATELY AND REASONABLY explaining his prior statement?
As importantly:
- What is a reasonable response to this kind of thing, especially when it happens again and again?
- If you are truly interested in advancing the conversation, shouldn't YOU and everyone else be calling "bullshit" loudly and clearly?
There are other misrepresentations in that post about what and when Mike has claimed in the past, but I haven't got all day and hopefully you get the picture.
I'd appreciate an answer to my questions above, Jeff, because maybe I am missing something. I know you don't like words like "disingenuous" or "delusional" so I will be more straightforward than that. It seems to me like Mike is lying through his teeth to try and save face. If he is not, and he actually believes what he is writing, then he may be mentally incapable of carrying on a reasonable conversation.
-
Many pages ago I addressed why I did not think those October articles could possibly have been describing the land "near the canal." Here is part of that post, with a few changes:
DID THE OCTOBER ARTICLES DESCRIBE THE 120 ACRE PARCEL NEAR THE CANAL?
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period, or at the very least earlier, rather than later, in 1906. CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way.
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had secured the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected.
Also, later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed.
4. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal.
5. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land, about three miles fro SHGC. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property. Early in the process CBM did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land as adjacent to the golf course.
______________________________________________
Mike is now claiming,
"CBM just used [the canal] as a landmark, which in the midst of not much development at the time it certainly was, and the site I described is miles nearer the canal than the site he ended up with."
I am not even sure if understand this? How can a site described as "adjacent to SHGC" also be miles nearer to the Canal than the site CBM ended up with? Has Mike lost track of his own argument again?
Mike's claim that the October articles described the land near the canal makes no sense for the reasons listed above, not the least of which is that the October articles described the land ADJACENT TO SHINNECOCK HILLS GOLF COURSE which was about three miles from the Canal.
Judging from his recent posts, Mike seems to think that we ought to just accept his ideas and theories, whether they make sense or not. But as I have said to Jeffrey Brauer, not all ideas and analysis are created equal. We need to discard the ideas and analysis that don't make sense, and MOVE ON. We cannot just endlessly circle back to these discarded ideas every time they are convenient to some rhetorical point Mike is trying to make.
-
David,
As I once relayed, I recall being on a jury where part of our verdict was a result of not liking the lawyers style, which is too factual. Doesn't sound right, but bedside manner (to mix metaphors) is everything.
To sum up, I agree with many of your points. I asked Mike a few direct questions and got varying answers. As he has said he is trying to flesh out an opinion on some vague notion that the wording in those articles bothers him. He is likely wrong. IMHO, when he makes a smart remark to you, he is saving face, but he is not necessarily lying. That is simply you and Patrick applying negative motives to him, based on past animosities. Just my take.
But, there you go again, a lengthy response not really addressing facts, but Mike's motives. Let's do what you say, discard stuff and move on. Simple question, with no recriminations for any response, speculation or otherwise - When and where do you think that first offer was made?
As I have said, rereading HJW eulogy, makes me think now that it was after return in June 1906 rather than 1905. In a way, we have all agreed that CBM wouldn't let his best opportunity go, but then, if he had made the first offer in 1905, in essence he would have done just that, no?
As to where, it seems anyones guess. Bahto says it was SH golf club itself. Interesting, but not near the canal. Don't know what the acreage was, and it sounds as if it would have been leased land, not owned from his account. Mike's speculation is kind of near the canal, but has some flaws. At times, I have wondered if it was actually west of the canal, which also seemed to have less development plans.
I would love an educated guess from you. If you have no interest in guessing, I understand.
-
Map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1907RoadAtlas.jpg?t=1300295179)
This is the add for the Shinnecock Inn, the one that burned down, according to Mike Cirba, in 1908
Could someone please tell me on what road it is sited in 1908 and earlier ? ? ?
Could someone tell me which highway the visitor is instructed to take ?
Is it the NORTH HIGHWAY ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
-
Patrick,
Well, its the NEW north highway, which also jives with what Phil posted a while back. And, it makes perfect sense that with the Realty Co finally making plans to develop a long dormant area, that the highway would be developed. It also says "roads built by the company" which suggests it wasn't built until after they acquired the land, and also jives with those reports from Phil that there was question whether the road was private or public.
So, the road was built by the real estate company concurrent with CBM's search for land. He made an offer somewhere, perhaps not knowing of the road plans and was rejected because plans were too far along (road and lot plans) The whole argument presumes that CBM was aware of their plans when he made the offer, but I don't actually recall that being established.
Or, his offer was actually west of the canal, out of the roads way, and rejected for other reasons.
As David says, lets move on.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I'll be glad to address the facts and I did. (Did you not see my last post or did you just choose to ignore it?) But given that you have seen fit to repeatedly lecture me on how I should treat Mike, I'd like to flesh out this issue a bit further.
You seem to be delicately dancing around the issue here, even suggesting that you are trying to side with Mike because you don't like me or my methods. Like I hadn't figured that out. But why don't you quit mincing words, and just answer my questions? Let me narrow it down for you:
- Was Mike's explanation about his duplicitous post to me HONEST, ACCURATE, AND REASONABLE?
- If not, then why are you scolding me for trying to set the record straight?
- Do you really think I should just pretend (like you do) that Mike isn't repeatedly posting things that we know are FALSE?
In other words, isn't "varying answers" just a euphemism for "lies" or at the very least "falsehoods." Don't Mike's "smart remarks to save face" usually involve similar "falsehoods?" Or, if he is not intentionally being dishonest, the what the hell is it? Why does he repeatedly post false and misleading information? Is he incompetent? Is he delusional? Why can't he even keep his own story straight?
Is it too much to expect a certain level of honesty, accuracy, and consistency in these conversations?
Look at his explanation above for his duplicitous comments to us. You must know that he is falsely representing what happened on both counts! So what is going on here, and how am I supposed to respond to such repeated nonsense?
-
David,
I did see your last post (meaning the second to last, with a rehash in blue). What I read was a lot of reasons the site wasn't as Mike suggested. What I asked was where then, do you think it was. If I missed that answer in a quick read, I'm sorry.
As to Mike, sometimes, when a guy is trying to save face, have you ever considred just letting him back out gracefully, rather than pounding him into submission?
-
Jeffrey Brauer,
The problem with that approach is that this is far from a one time occurrence. The falsehoods just keep coming, so I hardly think that gracefully letting him back out is a realistic or productive option, especially when we both know that Mike will circle back to the same false information next time it suits him. And he will manage to take an unctuous swipe at me in the process.
As for your question, I have no idea where the property was except that CBM described it as near the canal. I doubt it was west of the Canal because CBM told us it was part of the property controlled by SHPBRC, and that property stopped at the Canal. We may not even know for sure if CBM's trying to buy specifically identified land or whether he simply approached the new development company to ask if they would be willing to sell him 120 yet to be determined acres near the canal. It could have been already determined, but I don't think he said one way or another.
-
David,
Well, I have seen it happen all ways. Not just talking about this specific incident, but in general, when we attack, others defend. In some ways, I think Pat is defending his tenuous quick routing theory because I keep saying its false, for example. I do understand what he is saying, once the parameters were set, but disagree with his phrasing. Anyway, I think most of the length of these threads comes to that, on all sides.
I don't know why historical trivia is so fascinating, but I like to know the backstory. Your theory that he just went and asked for 120 acres for just golf in the area to be developed as opposed to a specific 120 acres he had scouted is as good an explanation as any, and would fit all the known facts and fits the CBM narrative, especially if we accept the Sept pony ride from Whigham as suggesting the whole acquisition scenario played out rather quickly after June 2006. It might explain the rather broad land desriptions in those articles that confuse Mike, no?
-
Jeff,
If you had 450 acres to pick from, and you examined the site over 2 or 3 days, and selected a narrow strip, bordered on three sides, then returned and bordered the fourth side, while at the same time selecting 6-8-12 sites for your holes, wouldn't you say that the routing was done ?
What more was there to do but fill in the missing six blanks, blanks that were confined to a pre-determined location within the returning chain link back to the Shinnecock Inn.
Jeff, it wouldn't matter who was disagreeing with me, I'm convinced that the configuration of the site selected, forced the routing in short order. Max Behr declared that the course routed itself, which is exactly what I'm saying.
Once CBM determined the approximate Western Border, having already established his Southern, Eastern and Northern Border, the only remaining border was the Western border and once that was established, the 18 hole chain link routing, with 6-8-12 links already sited, was determined.
Once CBM declared, "Finally, we determined it was what we wanted" ..... "after which we staked out the land we wanted" refers to the WESTERN BORDER. The Southern Border was already established on his first visit, as was the Eastern Border and the Northern Border. The staking out of the remaining border finalized the site and the routing, especially since he studied the natural contours and sited 6-8-12 of his holes.
This isn't rocket science, rather "Routing for Dummies"
CBM was enamored of the classic links of the UK, especially TOC. Once he was given an expansive site (450) acres, he chose, almost immediately, an OUT and BACK Routing.
Eventually you'll be entitled to my opinion ;D
-
Pat,
I'm already feeling entitled to it.
I wouldn't be surprised that he liked the idea of an out and back routing. Nor surprised if he wanted some water frontage u on the bay, etc. Nothing would surprise me at this point.
-
David,
As I once relayed, I recall being on a jury where part of our verdict was a result of not liking the lawyers style, which is too factual. Doesn't sound right, but bedside manner (to mix metaphors) is everything.
To sum up, I agree with many of your points. I asked Mike a few direct questions and got varying answers. As he has said he is trying to flesh out an opinion on some vague notion that the wording in those articles bothers him. He is likely wrong. I
MHO, when he makes a smart remark to you, he is saving face, but he is not necessarily lying.
That is simply you and Patrick applying negative motives to him, based on past animosities. Just my take.
I have NO past animosities with Mike.
I've had him as my guest at GCGC, welcomed him to Mountain Ridge and would play with him anytime.
You're wrong on your attibution.
Here's what Mike stated in the face of the following information.
Maps and NYSS documents bearing the dates of 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907 reference the existance of the North Highway.
We know that the Shinnecock Inn that unfortunately burned down was located on the North Highway.
But, here's what Mike declared in reference to the North Highway in 1914:
That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
If that isn't disingenuous in the face of overwhelming documented evidence, I don't know what is.
You called it lying, disingenuous seems more apt. ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5445347569_bb2d0267f6_o.jpg)
At times, I have wondered if it was actually west of the canal, which also seemed to have less development plans. [/size]
I think that's a possibilty based on the claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas.
-
Patrick,
You have to admit that map from 1914 doesn't show the north highway. While taken in the totality of documents produced before and after it probably is wrong, but given that maps are intended to be correct, I can see Mike forming an impression that there was no road there from this.
But, it really doesn't matter. It seems pretty clear to me that the development of the whole area- roads, lots, NGLA was booming and going on simultaneously at the same time in 1906. When CBM offered to buy 120 acres of land from the Realty Co, we simply don't know how much he knew about their plans, the plans of the state highway dept, etc. If we presume he was not totally informed of such, and why would he be, then the discussion on how right or wrong Mike's attempt to find out where that land was is irrelevant, other than if you and he just happen to like to argue about things.
When I said you had past animosities with Mike, I was thinking only of the Merion threads, and not in the real world. The fact remains, that it is Jim Kennedy, then you, then David, who in quick succession starting in post 62 informed the world of "Mikes agenda" and in very sinister tones at that!
What I have never understood is how either you or he thinks that what happened at NGLA means that something must have happened at Merion. I have read all there is on both time lines. There are some similarities, there are some differences. To quote the kids today....Well D'uh!
-
Patrick,
You have to admit that map from 1914 doesn't show the north highway.
Jeff, not only does it not show the North Highway, but, it doesn't show any other road in the entire South Fork, but one.
Would you call that being disingenuous ?
Here's a map from less than two years later.
Do you think these roads all sprung up between 1914 and 1916 ?
1916 Suffolk County Atlas Map
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NorthHighwayMap.jpg)
Do you think the advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn, dated 1907 were giving potential guests misleading directions.
Here is a map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book. I've placed a blow up of the area in question in the upper right corner.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1907RoadAtlas.jpg?t=1300295179)
Anyway, here are depictions of the Shinnecock Inn and the Irving Hotel in Southampton, both from the same publication. These weren't exactly frontier shacks.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
Jeff, please, you're far more intelligent than that.
You're defending an indefensible act.
I truely believe that you need to consult with my eye doctors about your blind spot.
While taken in the totality of documents produced before and after it probably is wrong, but given that maps are intended to be correct, I can see Mike forming an impression that there was no road there from this.
YIKES, you really can't believe that in the face of the abundance of the source documentation that preceeded Mike's claim
But, it really doesn't matter. It seems pretty clear to me that the development of the whole area- roads, lots, NGLA was booming and going on simultaneously at the same time in 1906.
Jeff, if you'll drive out and spend some time in that area, you'll see that it's not "booming" today and it wasn't "booming" 105 years ago.
When CBM offered to buy 120 acres of land from the Realty Co, we simply don't know how much he knew about their plans, the plans of the state highway dept, etc.
CBM was a member of Shinnecock Hills, he was familiar with the area.
The land he sought was strictly to site his 18 ideal/classic holes.
That it was 120 acres seemed incidental, evidently he felt is was adequate to suit his purpose of siting those 18 holes.
It was a stroke of luck that the company turned him down, as the current site seems to be exponentially superior to any site near the canal, East or West.,
If we presume he was not totally informed of such, and why would he be, then the discussion on how right or wrong Mike's attempt to find out where that land was is irrelevant, other than if you and he just happen to like to argue about things.
Jeff, whenever a crime is commited, one of the first things the investigators look for is MOTIVE.
When you have a motive, often you're on your way to solving the crime.
Here, the crime is a pre-determined agenda, one that Mike's stated.
So, my purpose in participating isn't to debate/argue, although I do enjoy it, it's to prevent an attempt to revise history to fulfill a pre-determined agenda, an agenda that 's rooted in Merion, not NGLA.
I hope you understand that.
And, I do forgive you for all the insulting things you said about me. ;D
Unlike others, I can compartmentalize easily and don't take passionate, heated, contentious debates to heart.
You may not remember it, but I had very contentious debates with Tom MacWood and David over Merion.
I since changed my opinion based on their ongoing presentations.
I had heated debates with Tom MacWood over Aronomink and Seminole.
But, like at a committee or Board meeting, where passionate, heated, contentious debates take place, once the vote it taken, we all go back to being fellow members and friends,
And so it is with GCA.com.
I've had heated debates with a good number of people with whom I retain good ongoing relationships.
Including Darth Morrissett.
Is that a helmet he's wearing or just a bad haircut.
Although, I've recently gained a new respect for certain aspects of his "game"
When I said you had past animosities with Mike, I was thinking only of the Merion threads, and not in the real world. The fact remains, that it is Jim Kennedy, then you, then David, who in quick succession starting in post 62 informed the world of "Mikes agenda" and in very sinister tones at that!
But Jeff, Mike confirmed my allegation when he stated his agenda.
You can't fault me for being right ..............again ;D
What I have never understood is how either you or he thinks that what happened at NGLA means that something must have happened at Merion.
Jeff, Mike is trying to prove that CBM couldn't have routed Merion in short order if he couldn't route NGLA in short order.
He's stated that, you must have missed it.
This is ALL about MERION
That' was Mike's agenda from the begining.
I'm surprised you missed it.
I have read all there is on both time lines. There are some similarities, there are some differences. To quote the kids today....Well D'uh!
-
David,
Well, I have seen it happen all ways. Not just talking about this specific incident, but in general, when we attack, others defend.
None here are perfect, but not every fault is shared equally among us, either. You won't find me repeatedly posting false information or circling back again and again to re-cover discredited information. That is Mike's game, and it impedes any real progress.
In some ways, I think Pat is defending his tenuous quick routing theory because I keep saying its false, for example. I do understand what he is saying, once the parameters were set, but disagree with his phrasing. Anyway, I think most of the length of these threads comes to that, on all sides.
Patrick has been in and out of various threads, but before this one I don't think he had any idea what it was like to have to deal with Mike over the entirety of one of these long threads. I think this experience has shocked, dismayed, and disappointed him. So it should be no surprise that he is wary of every claim and that he has his hackles up and is ready to battle.
As for your particular battle with Patrick I haven't paid it much attention. Last I checked, Patrick generally agreed with me that the course was routed during the 2-3 horseback ride as well as the ensuing period during which they again studied the contours in earnest, and that this process took place before they took a formal option on the property. Just like it says in Scotland's Gift. Within those rough constraints I don't think you, Patrick, or any of us knows exactly when CBM had located every hole or when he had figured enough that we would call it a routing, and I don't think it matters much, at least not to me. Mike is the one who has repeatedly tried to make this about whether there was a one day routing, but that is only because he mistakenly believes it helps his Merion argument.
I don't know why historical trivia is so fascinating, but I like to know the backstory. Your theory that he just went and asked for 120 acres for just golf in the area to be developed as opposed to a specific 120 acres he had scouted is as good an explanation as any, and would fit all the known facts and fits the CBM narrative, especially if we accept the Sept pony ride from Whigham as suggesting the whole acquisition scenario played out rather quickly after June 2006. It might explain the rather broad land desriptions in those articles that confuse Mike, no?
First, I wouldn't call it my theory. I was just pointing out that it was a possibility, as it is a possibility that he wanted a specifically defined piece of land near the canal, and everything in between those two.
Second, I don't think this changes any of the analysis about the description in those October articles. While CBM did not nail down the location, CBM did tell us he didn't want to be next to SHGC and that he offered to buy land "near the canal." And he made these representations in the context of wanting to buy land on the 2000+ acres of land controlled by SHPBRC, and that land ran from the canal to just past SHGC. The canal was as far away from SHGC as he could get on that property. Within the context of his description it would make no sense for him to have described the area adjacent to the Shinnecock as "near the Canal."
Third, Whigham said the ride was 1907, not 1906. Even if it was 1906, we have no way of knowing how long they had been working on the project prior to that ride. You seem to be assuming that this must have been the initial ride(s) but Whigham doesn't say that. And even if it was the initial ride on the Sebonack Neck property, that doesn't really tell us the timing of the Canal property.
I like to know the backstory as well, but only if it is knowable from the source material. Unless some more information comes forward about the Canal property, all we will know is what CBM told us; he wanted to be far away from SHGC and he tried to buy property near the Canal, which was as far away as he could get from SHGC on that large parcel.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I'm again shocked by your position and/or reasoning.
You cite the 1907 Shinnecock Inn add as evidence for the recent creation of the New North Highway.
If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway.
The same highway that appeared in maps dated 1873, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1907 along with the 1906 New York State Senate citation of the highways existance.
How much longer are you going to continue to brainlessly insist that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 and earlier.
Talk about being disingenuous ;D
-
.
-
Patrick,
Three questions for you:
1. What do you think the orange, black and dotted black roads are called on the 1916 Atlas map? Hint, the orange ones (including the North Highway) are "Improved or Good Roads".
2. Can you please draw on the 1903 USGS map where the "North Highway" from 1916 is?
3. Could you mark for us on the 1903 USGS map where you think the underpass on the "North Highway" mentioned in the Senate document was?
David,
Thanks for the 1907 map. Why do you think that the road as portrayed on it was not on the 1903 and 1905 maps?
Andy,
Interesting. It's from 1913. Have you mapped it? It seems to start and SH and go west.
Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?
-
Jeff,
About the hot development of Shinnecock Hills, the 1916 map indicates maybe a couple of dozen estate lots. It doesn't say whether there were houses on them or not. In any event they would have been summer homes for the most part. It doesn't seem likely that there was heavy development of either homes or supporting infrastucture.
-
TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;
1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process. It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.
To my knowledge no one is disputing the creation of the NGLA was a long process. It is one the great stories in golf architecture history. From the best hole discussion to the decision to build the ideal course in America to organizing a syndicate to going abroad studying and seeking advice to searching for and purchasing the property to laying out and building, etc. It is a well documented story, to say the least. Why does it matter if the course was routed in two days or a week? The majority of courses in that era were routed in short order.
2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.
You don't like CBM's timeline in his book?
3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.
The 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay?
4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.
Is this a new development? He wrote that in his book and in the club prospectus. Are you under the impression CBM get too much credit for the design of the NGLA?
5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.
Good luck. Even after 1000 posts the proof for this theory still appears to be allusive.
6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.
Everything I have read suggests he was most interested in identifying the best most interesting features on the great courses of the world. He wrote that the drawings he made were not necessarily depicting a particular hole tee to green, but were in most instances drawings of the outstanding feature of a given hole. No doubt he understood trying to find the perfect contours to reproduce a given hole would be very difficult, and finding the perfect land to reproduce 18 holes would be impossible. He was very bright man who sought out the brightest minds for advice.
7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.
They identified the 205 acres they wanted prior to November 1906 (I don't know when the Inn built or planned to be built), and I'm sure there were numerous considerations at the time they determined what particular 205 acres they would purchase, including potential clubhouse site and access to the bay, but the golfing attributes were obviously the most important consideration. As far as the routing is concerned the most important factor was the narrowness of the site, which dictated, more or less, an up and back routing. I don't think CBM would have purchased such a narrow property had he not known, generally speaking, how the course was to be laid out.
Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.
I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them. ;)
You don't like the story CBM told in his book?
-
"If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway"
And my local hospital has a place to view the "oldborns" right next to the viewing window for the "newborns.".....
Sometimes, new is just new, especially when cars had just been invented a few years prior.
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm surprised you seem so reluctant to pursue any open questions here, especially those that are conflicting between CBM's account over 20 years later and contemporaneous reports of the time, including direct quotes from the man as well as his 1912 Letter to the Founders.
CBM did not have to choose a narrow strip of land...he had 450 available acres to choose from, including much of the land of today's Sebonack GC along Peconic Bay, so nobody was forcing him to do anything. However, I would argue he was a bit hamstrung by his choice to use Shinnecock Inn as the clubhouse (in his book he tells us that it was because they did not have money for a clubhouse initiallly), and his desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing. THOSE DECISIONS more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal.
For instance, CBM tells us he opened his course and held his first informal Invitational Tournament in 1909, when it was clearly documented that it happened in 1910. CBM tells us the 450 acres had never been surveyed, but it was years earlier.
So, I don't see your problem with us looking at these questions? Did you know Walter Travis was still involved as late as 1908 for instance?
-
David/Patrick,
I realize that the two of you are simply trying to rattle me with your now pages worth of accusations of lying.
It won't happen.
But I'm calling bullshit on the two of you. Complete, utter, extraneous, insulting, non-productive bullshit.
The both of you are full of it from head to toe here. With David, it's the usual stuff and it doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm disappointed at Patrick who I like and respect a great deal.
Yes, at times my SPECULATION on what may have happened on questions NONE of US has answers to has changed in light of new facts or evidence presented, but lying? Give us a fucking break.
So. you two bullshitters;
Tell us precisely what LIES I've told. Enough of your stupid, childish games.
-
"If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway"
And my local hospital has a place to view the "oldborns" right next to the viewing window for the "newborns.".....
Sometimes, new is just new, especially when cars had just been invented a few years prior.
So, the 1906 New York State Senate documents, citing the North Highway were a fraud, a fabrication ?
Jeff, it's better to lose an argument to me than look foolish, if not stupid, which is the direction you're rapidly heading.
The overwhelming body of evidence, from the 1700's to 1873 to 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907 clearly establishes the existance of the North Highway before 1914, when Mike Cirba insisted that it didn't exist.
But, if you want to continue to lose credibility and intellectual respect, keep insisting that the road didn's exist until post 1914.
I tell my kids that being stubborn can be an asset, but, that there are two kinds of stubborn, "smart" stubborn and "stupid" stubborn.
You've become Exhibit "A" for "stupid" stubborn. ;D
-
Patrick,
The "North Highway" in 1906 was a dirt road, and it ran much closer to the railroad tracks and away from Cold Spring Bay than in Olmstead's later plan.
It was so miniscule and untravelled that even in later iterations it didn't appear on a map of paved "highways" of Long Island in 1914. As seen, the South Highway south of the railroad tracks DID appear on that map,
It would NOT have affected any hypothetical plans CBM might have had to build a course between Shiinnecock Inn and the Inlet of Cold Spring Bay.
Where do YOU think CBM was looking for golf as he checked out "Various Sections" between Peconic Bay and Shinnecock HIlls?
Where do YOU think CBM was looking to build a golf course near the Canal separating Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay?
-
David/Patrick,
I realize that the two of you are simply trying to rattle me with your now pages worth of accusations of lying.
It won't happen.
But I'm calling bullshit on the two of you. Complete, utter, extraneous, insulting, non-productive bullshit.
The both of you are full of it from head to toe here. With David, it's the usual stuff and it doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm disappointed at Patrick who I like and respect a great deal.
Yes, at times my SPECULATION on what may have happened on questions NONE of US has answers to has changed in light of new facts or evidence presented, but lying? Give us a fucking break.
So. you two bullshitters;
Tell us precisely what LIES I've told. Enough of your stupid, childish games.
Let's start with this one.
After seeing the North Highway on maps, some of which you posted, dated 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907, along with the 1906 New York State Senate documents, You stated
that as of 1914 the North Highway wasn't in existance.
Here's your quote;
here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
That was a blatant lie.
You know it and I know it.
Only Jeff Brauer remains in "stupid" stubborn denial on the existance of the North Highway prior to 1914 ;D.
In your post to Tom MacWood, I believe you made a mistake.
The 450 acres at Sebonac Neck hadn't been "surveyed".
There's a distinct difference between a "survey" and a "topo" and the two shouldn't be confused.
In your zeal to discredit Macdonald's ability to route a course in short order, you made reckless leaps of logic that went beyond reason.
You posted articles that were flawed, yet, you held them out to be "The Gospel", and to make matters worse, you repeated the process, over and over and over again. That's disingenuous. You made claims that were without factual support, speculation as you call it, but, you didn't present these items as "speculative" you presented them as factual, and that's disingenuous.
And, you did all this in an attempt to fulfill your predetermined agenda, an agenda that you stated, namely to prove that CBM couldn't route a course in short order.
When you have an agenda focused on but one goal, to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order, everything you presented was toward that end. Who knows what material you reviewed that would support CBM's ability to route a course in short order, that you didn't produce. Once an agenda is established, the bias that is inate in that agenda manifests itself in your attempt to reinforce your agenda, so, we'll never know what additional information you reviewed, but chose not to publish because it went against the grain of your agenda.
I told you that I viewed every entry you made with a degree of enlightened suspicion because I didn't trust that you'd be intellectually honest.
And that was strictly because you were driven by your agenda, and not by the desire to uncover all of the facts, even if they undermined your agenda.
I also think that you were used, that you were being supplied information by other zealots, Merionophiles, and that sometimes you posted information without studying it closely. Surely the Olmsted Bros plans would be one of those items. A plan that clearly shows the North Highway running smack down that narrow strip of land between Cold Spring Pond and the Railroad tracks.
From the begining, you were a man on a mission, a mission to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order.
You hoped to prove that if he couldn't do it at NGLA, he couldn't do it at Merion.
I recognized this from the begining and you eventually confirmed it in writing.
Despite all of the acrimony, a lot has been learned.
Like most of these quests for historical data, a good deal of information may remain unknown.
As I cited, even lengthy, detailed contemporaneous accounts of Sebonack and Atlantic, in book form, don't tell all of the details, details that we'd like to know.
What's done is done.
You may be disappointed in me, but, I can assure you that I was as much, if not more disappointed in you.
Introducing a thread under one guise, when you clearly had a hidden agenda, is disingenuous.
It is not an exercise that's seeking the truth, rather one that's seeking a select set of information supporting the hidden agenda.
What most reading these replies don't know, is the ridiculous number of lenghty emails, dozens, that TEPaul and Wayno have sent to Moriarty, MacWood, you and me. What the readers of GCA.com don't realize is that there was a collective effort, vis a vis your co-conspirators, to prove the agenda. But, you were the point man, thus, you took the flak for posts and positions that were flawed, factually incorrect and disingenuous.
Sometimes I think you posted material presented to you without seeing if it passed the smell test, relying on others to have done the due diligence for you, but, that was a mistake, for as zealous as you are about Merion, your zealotry pales in comparison to others.
The vile nature of the emails from TEPaul and Wayno that GCA.com'ers didn't see is disgraceful.
The personal attacks, having NOTHING to do with the thread at hand are terrible
Those guys and you are losing your marbles over .................MERION
Are you kidding me.
The only justification over such insane conduct would be if your wife's or daughter's name was Merion and these guys were trying to have an affair with her. But, to conduct themselves in a disingenuous to vile fashion over MERION, the golf course, and Macdonalld's involvement is patently insane and proof that you all need greater diversification, porn or a mistress in your lives ;D ;D ;D
I like you, I like TEPaul, I like Wayne Morrisson, but, I don't like the conduct, the vendetta like and agenda driven approach to this thread or any other thread.
Let's go back to healthy debate, passionate debate, heated debate, even contentious debate, but, let's retain intellectual honesty and refrain from personal attacks, on and off this website.
-
Mike Cirba,
Your demands that we expose your specific lies are always a double-edged sword for me. You are literally asking for it, yet if I actually answer then others jump on me for picking on you and/or not sticking to substance. Besides, look at my posts. I don't just claim you are lying, I point out the specific lies as I go. But since you asked, I'll will be so kind as to identify just a few of your most recent fibs . . .
- You were lying when you wrote that I believe "the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal." That is a lie and you know it. I have never said or implied any such thing.
- You were also lying when you wrote that you had not suggested the site described in to those articles was "near the canal." ("That blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested.") You have done so repeatedly, and did so immediately after you told me that you didn't!
- You were also lying to Jeff when you implied that you had not suggested the land described in those articles was anything but the site described by CBM as "near the canal." Jeff mentioned you had advocated a third site, and you set him straight by explaining you had speculated about a site near the Canal. This was dishonest because you have repeatedly speculated about a third site, one not near the canal, including in the post to me a few before your post to Jeff!
- As discussed in detail above in my posts to Jeff, your explanation of these two contradictory statements for this was also a flat out lie. Even Jeffrey has acknowledged you were just trying to save face!
- My favorite recent lie of yours is the one where you claimed that I have been proven wrong "again and again" on this thread, while also claiming that every single one of your theories have been born out by the facts. Now had this been a joke, it would have been quite funny for you, but you were being serious. And dishonest. Or, at least, delusional.
- In addition to these outright lies/delusions, there are multitudes of theories and speculations that are beyond preposterous and unreasonable. For just the most recent example, in classic Cirbaian fashion you immediately preceded your outrage at our calling you out on your methodology with the claim that CBM's "desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing" and the location of the Shinnecock Inn "more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal."
"More than anything?" The yacht basin and Shinnecock Inn were more important to CBM than the perfect hill for the Alps hole? More important than the perfect plateau for the Redan? More important than the cape for the Cape hole? More important than the other undulations perfectly suited for the holes he had in mind? More important that the nature of the soil and the ideal the conditions for golf?
The truth is that CBM described the yacht basin as an aside. An afterthought. An incidental. From Scotland's Gift: "Incidentally at the National we have an excellent yachting basin . . .." As for the location of the Shinnecock Inn, it may have been a consideration and it certainly provided CBM the opportunity to focus on what his MAIN PRIORITY which was creating his ideal course (as opposed to building a clubhouse) but it is foolish to pretend that 70 of the richest men in the world had absolutely no other choice but to build next to a Inn. They seemed to eek by once the Inn burned, didn't they?
So were these blatant and foolish misrepresentations actually lies on your part, or are you mentally incapable of understanding such things? I don't know. You tell me?
-
Patrick,
The "North Highway" in 1906 was a dirt road, and it ran much closer to the railroad tracks and away from Cold Spring Bay than in Olmstead's later plan.
Mike, In America in 1906 almost every road was a dirt road.
But, if you'll look at the picture of the Vanderbilt Race that Bryan posted, you'll see that they were pretty sophisticated dirt roads, so much so that cars averaged 50+mph on these roads (note, this wasn't a race track, but town roads)
Commerce and travel had been conducted on these roads for centuries.
Your attempt to minimalize or disparage these arteries of commerce and travel was but for one purpose, to fulfill your agenda.
It was so miniscule and untravelled that even in later iterations it didn't appear on a map of paved "highways" of Long Island in 1914. As seen, the South Highway south of the railroad tracks DID appear on that map,
Mike, this is where you get yourself in trouble.
The 1914 map you presented showed only one road on the entire South Fork in 1914 and we both know that that wasn't the case.
By making that presentation and that claim, you were clearly being disingenuous, especially when the North Highway, in the Olmsted Plan YOU posted, ran right down the middle of your phantom golf course.
And, if the road was so "miniscule" as you disingenuously describe it, why did it take an act of the New York State Senate in 1906 to move where it crossed the railroad tracks ?
It would NOT have affected any hypothetical plans CBM might have had to build a course between Shiinnecock Inn and the Inlet of Cold Spring Bay.
Mike, that's a lie, and the Olmsted plan you posted proves it.
Where do YOU think CBM was looking for golf as he checked out "Various Sections" between Peconic Bay and Shinnecock HIlls?
Unlike you, I'm not going to speculate and claim that my speculation is The Gospel.
We know he mentioned Montauk and a site with 120 acres.
IF, and it's always a big IF, IF the newspaper articles were correct about being able to visualize the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas, I would think you would have to be close to the canal.
I think that's the only area where those two bodies of water are readily visible from everywhere except the low lying areas.
But, it's clearly NOT the land immediately south of Cold Spring Pond with the North Highway running through it.
Where do YOU think CBM was looking to build a golf course near the Canal separating Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay?
I believe that CBM stated that it was close to the canal, it was 120 acres. If the Atlantic and Peconic Bay were visible from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas, I think it MAY have been immediately EAST or even possibly WEST of the Canal, but, certainly close to the canal IF the statement about the visibilty of those two bodies of water is correct..
-
Patrick,
I am getting tired of being called stupid and a liar, and you using some vague time frames, gross misrepresntations and bad logic as an excuse to do it.
You reposted a map in#1001, which Mike Cirba originally posted. For whatever reason, that map from 1914 doesn't show the North Highway, and I noted that it didn't, while other maps do, which I also noted.
Those 1906 documents from the State discuss taking over the road (which wasn't public) for the purpose of building that overpass. The motion was not approved because there was a question of whether it was a state road at that point. If they were discussing FUTURE plans for overpasses in 1906, it makes sense that those didn't get built until at least 1907, doesn't it?
The 1907 map David posted had a north highway on it, as do the ads, which say its a new highway. Those ads say that the company built the new road.
My take is the highway was built right in that time period about 1907 when first shown on maps and ads as a highway, mostly because there were plans afoot for more developement in the area and was quickly given over to the state for maintenance, which is not uncommon even today.
I never said it didn't exist in 1914. Whe would we debate whether a road in existence in 1914 affected the conception of NGLA in 1907? It makes no sense for you to waste band width arguing such a proposition, does it?
Any road shown on earlier maps, such as 1873 before there were any cars is certainly not a highway is it? They were dirt roads, privately built, not state highways. If so, then please heed requests to mark where you see the highway on the older maps, because most of us still don't see them there.
In your earlier posts you also took me to task for saying that area wasn't booming then or now. I don't know the exact sales figures in any given year, of course, but when a developer announces a 2600 acre real estate development, and proceeds with those plans, and houses and roads get built, we can at least call it a developing area, if not a booming area. No doubt build out took many years, and there were lulls, spurts, whatever.
I have told no lies, nor said anything to you that requires an apology. This just really gets old. Its one thing to get frustrated from time to time in a discussion, but quite another to go out of your way to be insulting. As my father used to say "Have some respect for yourself, son!" I am asking the same of you.
-
Jeff,
I've come to realize that you'll get no respect from either Parick or David in this discussion, and neither will I or anyone who disagrees with them and even the most obvious, mundane matter
Even Bryan Izatt was thrown under the bus for daring to bring some actual facts into the mix that dispute their contentions.
Similarly...
Your attempts to ask them to do more than insult us in trying to discuss matter like other sites CBM may have considered is futile, as well.
Neither of them will show you where they think CBM might have considered locating his course before finding the land he settled on because they'd rather sit back and accuse me of lying when I'm admittedly SPECULATING on where that land might have been.
Patrick will concede that it possibly might have been "near the canal", which is even more ironic given his arguments, because BOTH the North and South roads would have passed through it had it been near there.
It's pathetic, and really sad.
They've chased people like Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, Phil Young and anyone who disagrees with their speculative, revisionist nonsense from the site, and they've made it into personal wars.
I seem to be the only one left...me, and anyone who dares to agree with the slightest point I make is guaranteed to be insulted and badgered.
Since I came back to this site about a year ago after taking six months off from their garbage I started a simple thread on Cobbs Creek and the best public courses prior to the Depression.
David and Tom MacWood took that opportunity to insult me on that thread from the very beginning, and I don't think there's been a thread I've posted on since then that hasn't been met with a vendetta-driven response from David.
I hope you guys enjoy him...because I'm done here as well.
This is absolutely beyond disgrace, and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, as well for permitting this to continue.
-
Mike,
Yes, I just lost my mind in a moment of optimism there. I thought the gca.com "rainbows and puppy dogs word filter" might be finally working again, but alas, I was wrong. Pat's posts still read like the crap they are.
Oh well, that's ten minutes of my life I won't get back.
BTW, in a few hours, you and I need to be mortal enemies while the Flyers and Stars play........for a few hours, I won't have ANY friends in this thread....WAH!
-
Andy,
Interesting. It's from 1913. Have you mapped it? It seems to start and SH and go west.
Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?
Bryan, I have not mapped it--that would be too close to heavy lifting and I'd much rather leave that to you, Mike and David.
I believe dedication and release roughly means 'I give up my personal land for this road (dedication) and am hereafter free from any claims or damages (released) that may occur'. But that is just my reading and I'd be happy for a lawyer or realtor to correct me.
-
Patrick,
I am getting tired of being called stupid and a liar, and you using some vague time frames, gross misrepresntations and bad logic as an excuse to do it.
I NEVER called you a liar.
I did state that you were gravitating toward "stupid" stubborn.
You reposted a map in#1001, which Mike Cirba originally posted. For whatever reason, that map from 1914 doesn't show the North Highway, and I noted that it didn't, while other maps do, which I also noted.
Those 1906 documents from the State discuss taking over the road (which wasn't public) for the purpose of building that overpass. The motion was not approved because there was a question of whether it was a state road at that point. If they were discussing FUTURE plans for overpasses in 1906, it makes sense that those didn't get built until at least 1907, doesn't it?
Read further. They mention that the road was the North Highway and dthat it posed a safety hazard as it crossed the railroad tracks.
The 1907 map David posted had a north highway on it, as do the ads, which say its a new highway. Those ads say that the company built the new road.
That's NOT what they say. They don't say it's a new highway, they say it's the NEW NORTH highway.
We know from earlier maps, dated 1873, 1903, 1904 and 1905 that the North Highway existed.
Yet, in your blindly "stupid" stubborn attempts to not be wrong in an exchange with me, you remain in denial, despite overwhelming hard evidence.
That's "stupid" stubborn.
My take is the highway was built right in that time period about 1907 when first shown on maps and ads as a highway, mostly because there were plans afoot for more developement in the area and was quickly given over to the state for maintenance, which is not uncommon even today.
Then how do you explain the 1903 New York State Map depicting the North Highway ?
Or any of the pre 1914 or 1907 maps depicting the North Highway ?
You're just being "stupid" stubborn and aren't going to win on this issue.
I know how that pains you, but, you'll get over it in time ;D.
I never said it didn't exist in 1914. Whe would we debate whether a road in existence in 1914 affected the conception of NGLA in 1907? It makes no sense for you to waste band width arguing such a proposition, does it?
Now you are being disingenuous.
Mike declared that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 in an effort to dismiss its existance in the Olmsted plan, a plan where Mike had sited his phantom golf course. Mike was trying to show that if the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 it couldn't have existed in 1907 or earlier.
That you don't see Mike's motives is mind boggling.
Any road shown on earlier maps, such as 1873 before there were any cars is certainly not a highway is it?
Jeff, you've just gone from "stupid"stubborn to stupid.
Of course there were highways in America before cars traversed them.
How do you thinik commerce and travel were undertaken
According to you and your hair brained logic, there were no roads, no highways in America until after the auto was mass produced.
Do you really believe the nonsense you're typing ?
They were dirt roads, privately built, not state highways.
If so, then please heed requests to mark where you see the highway on the older maps, because most of us still don't see them there.
Jeff, the Olmsted plan labels the road, "THE NORTH HIGHWAY.
The NEW YORK STATE SENATE DOCUMENTS REFERENCE THE NORTH HIGHWAY.
But, you continue to be "stupid" stubborn.
In your earlier posts you also took me to task for saying that area wasn't booming then or now. I don't know the exact sales figures in any given year, of course, but when a developer announces a 2600 acre real estate development, and proceeds with those plans, and houses and roads get built, we can at least call it a developing area, if not a booming area. No doubt build out took many years, and there were lulls, spurts, whatever.
I took you to task, rightfully so, because even today, it remains a vast, sparse, underdeveloped area.
An area that you're totally unfamilar with.
So, tell me, how was it booming ?
Where are all the houses, buildings, stores, etc.. etc..
I have told no lies, nor said anything to you that requires an apology. This just really gets old. Its one thing to get frustrated from time to time in a discussion, but quite another to go out of your way to be insulting. As my father used to say "Have some respect for yourself, son!" I am asking the same of you.
I only responed in kind.
You may recall that you apologized for your conduct, off line.
I have nothing to apologize for.
I've not misrepresented or lied.
But, when someone else is disingenuous, I'll point it out, and I did.
YOU were the one who initiated the "liar" language when YOU stated that my calling Mike disingenuous was equivalent to calling him a liar
Don't start a fire and then claim you didn't start it, that you were just trying to put it out, that's disingenuous.
-
Mike Cirba,
You asked me to list out places where you have been dishonest, and I partially obliged with a list of recent "falsehoods" and now you accuse me of sitting back and accusing you of lying? That is rich.
You seem to have this idea that if you call it SPECULATING then you can say whatever you want no matter that you know it is false. Yet even given this your latest excuse for your misrepresentations is dishonest . . . .
- Were you "speculating" when you wrote that I believed the canal property was on top of the canal?
- Were you "speculating" about your own suggestions when you told me you had suggested property that wasn't "near the canal."
- Were you "speculating" about your own speculations, when you told Jeff you were referring to property that was "near the canal" and not a third site?
- Were you speculating when you explained why YOU had said what you said to each of us? Do you really have to speculate about this?
- Were you speculating when you claimed that I have been proven wrong "again and again" but that all of your theories have been born out by the facts?
How about when you "speculated" that getting to the water for the Yacht basis was more important to CBM than the quality of the land, the location of the Alps, Redan, Cape, or any other of the holes, or any other factor except maybe the location of the Inn? Is it really fair to portray such nonsense as honest speculation based on the record when CBM himself described the Yacht basis as an incidental?
And where, exactly, did I throw Bryan "under the bus?" Or shall we call this blatant lie another "speculation" on your part.
And as for Brauer, was answering his questions about CBM's house disrespectful. Or how about the fact that I continue to carefully consider and comment on his comments and theorie DESPITE THAT HE HAS INDICATED THAT HIS POSTS MAY BE MORE DRIVEN BY HIS DISLIKE OF ME THAN THE FACTS? Is that what you mean by giving him no respect? Or is this again just more "speculation" on your part?
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm surprised you seem so reluctant to pursue any open questions here, especially those that are conflicting between CBM's account over 20 years later and contemporaneous reports of the time, including direct quotes from the man as well as his 1912 Letter to the Founders.
CBM did not have to choose a narrow strip of land...he had 450 available acres to choose from, including much of the land of today's Sebonack GC along Peconic Bay, so nobody was forcing him to do anything. However, I would argue he was a bit hamstrung by his choice to use Shinnecock Inn as the clubhouse (in his book he tells us that it was because they did not have money for a clubhouse initiallly), and his desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing. THOSE DECISIONS more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal.
For instance, CBM tells us he opened his course and held his first informal Invitational Tournament in 1909, when it was clearly documented that it happened in 1910. CBM tells us the 450 acres had never been surveyed, but it was years earlier.
So, I don't see your problem with us looking at these questions? Did you know Walter Travis was still involved as late as 1908 for instance?
What open questions? The seven points you raised are not open, they are covered in CBM's book. Apparently you don't like or believe the story CBM presented in his book. Is that right?
I didn't say CBM was forced to chose a narrow property, I said he deliberately chose a narrow property, which I think supports the idea he had a good idea of the routing prior to choosing those 205 acres.
Hamstrung? Assuming that the location of the Shinnecock Inn was a consideration (I haven't read through this thread so I have no idea of the timing of the inn being built) how was that a negative? The routing that resulted was brilliant IMO. Do you think the routing is flawed in some way?
The date of the invitational tournament is a mistake, but its innocent mistake IMO. It comes right after he said they began playing the course tentatively in 1909, and if I remember that was late in 1909. They wouldn't be playing an invitational tournament in winter. The mistake has no bearing on any question regarding the design of the course. Clearly if the land had been surveyed, he was not aware of it, nor did have access to a survey map. Are you just grasping for straws?
I assumed Travis was still involved in 1908 since he was still being mentioned in articles about the course.
Why does it matter if the course was routed in 2 days or a week?
I haven't been following this thread closely but I've got to believe the reason for the 1000+ posts is your let me throw it against the wall methodology. Instead of continually throwing one theory after another against the wall, why don't thoroughly research the subject then present a coherent well reasoned essay? You could test your own theories prior to presenting them and save everyone's time.
-
David,
Never said I didn't like you. As you know, I have said I think I would like you in person, and have offered on two occaisions to try to meet you while I am in LA. Offer is still open while I regularly travel there. Your posts to me have been mostly respectful and well considered on this thread.
Not only that, but you actually improved discussions by actually admitting you didn't know or couldn't know something to a higher level of detail. I got to thinking how much all this acrimony stems from not admitting things like that.
I was going to comment on the yacht basin thingy. To me, that falls in the category mentioned above, ie. we can't know that level of detail. CBM obviously wanted great holes, which might be accomodated in various ways, but of course, if he wanted a yacht basin, that could only be accounted for on the water. Ditto, there was only one way to use the Shinny Inn. Short version, it probably isn't a productive argument to try to shave the cheese that fine as to whether the yacht basin was "incidental" or a larger concern in the design program. I mean, I don't care if it was 22% priority or a 87% priority. It had some priority, and enough to work it in the plan, so why split hairs on that?
-
TMac,
The areas that I agree would be of further interest to Mike is the timeline - CBM describes events but doesn't apply dates to them in Scotland's Gift on pages 187-9 for the most part. We can read Whighams eulogy and decide if that tells us they first rode the property in Sept 1906 or not. There was some belief, based on CBM's "a few weeks after they bought the land" that he made an first offer in 1905, not 1906.
Does it matter? No, not as you state in terms of the end result. If it wasn't great, no one would care.
Is it interesting? To me, yes. Not so much that I am interested in being called a stupid, disingenous liar on the world wide web, but I am interested. And just as knowing whether there was a routing before the Nov 15, 1910 Merion meeting or after could affect perception of how Merion developed, it would just help our understanding of the development of another important early course, no?
-
Mike
I don't believe I have chased off anyone, nor did I insult you on that thread or any other thread. You have tendency to allow your emotions to get the best of you, which often results factual errors.
-
Jeff,
I've come to realize that you'll get no respect from either Parick or David in this discussion, and neither will I or anyone who disagrees with them and even the most obvious, mundane matter
Mike, respect is earned, it's not garnered by being disingenuous.
Even Bryan Izatt was thrown under the bus for daring to bring some actual facts into the mix that dispute their contentions.
Bryan never got thrown under any bus.
Bryan is a big boy, posted some info and offered his opinion, which like any opinion, is open for discussion.
Similarly...
Your attempts to ask them to do more than insult us in trying to discuss matter like other sites CBM may have considered is futile, as well.
Both David and I have done far more than insult you.
We've proven that your agenda driven claims, claims you called speculative, but tried to pawn off as The Gospel, were wrong.
Neither of them will show you where they think CBM might have considered locating his course before finding the land he settled on because they'd rather sit back and accuse me of lying when I'm admittedly SPECULATING on where that land might have been.
Why do you insist on wanting us to engage in a "pin the tail on the donkey" exercise ?
You feel comfortable making bold, reckless claims, while trying to pass them off as factual.
Neither David nor myself want to engage in that foolish exercise.
I don't know, exactly, where CBM looked, so why are you demanding that we identify the exact site for you ?
Patrick will concede that it possibly might have been "near the canal", which is even more ironic given his arguments, because BOTH the North and South roads would have passed through it had it been near there.
Mike, I suspect that you don't know where the South Highway passed over the Canal, but, it's good to know that you finally admit to the existance of the North Highway prior to 1907. There's sufficient seperation between the North and South Highway, in fact, a railroad runs between them.
It's pathetic, and really sad.
They've chased people like Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, Phil Young and anyone who disagrees with their speculative, revisionist nonsense from the site, and they've made it into personal wars.
That's a blatant lie, something you're becoming adept at.
Let me clear the record for you.
Ran Morrissett banned TEPaul from this site due to TEPaul's conduct, not once, but twice.
TEPaul didn't withdraw from this site because of anything I typed, or anything David typed.
TEPaul was removed from this site by Ran Morrissett because of what TEPaul typed.
For you to try to tell others that TEPaul withdrew from this site because of me and David is a disgraceful blatant lie on your part.
A clear indication of the lengths you'll go to to forward your agenda.
Ran Morrissett banned TEPaul from this site because of TEPaul's conduct, TEPaul did NOT willingly remove himself.
Please, try something new, Get your FACTS right before you post.
I would like you to correct your accusation and apologize to David and myself for lying to participants and lurkers on this site regarding TEPaul's removal.
As for Phil Young, I like Phil Young. We disagree on how to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol and other issues, but, I have absolutely NO PERSONAL WAR with him. Same goes for Wayno. We disagree on a number of items, mostly MERION and Moriarty and MacWood related, but, I can assure you that I have NO PERSONAL WAR with Wayno.
Your above statements are just another lie in a series of lies.
I seem to be the only one left...me, and anyone who dares to agree with the slightest point I make is guaranteed to be insulted and badgered.
Mike, you can't make up things, speculate and call it factual.
And, you can't demonize those that oppose your disingenuous presentation, a presentation you admited was agenda driven.
Since I came back to this site about a year ago after taking six months off from their garbage I started a simple thread on Cobbs Creek and the best public courses prior to the Depression.
David and Tom MacWood took that opportunity to insult me on that thread from the very beginning, and I don't think there's been a thread I've posted on since then that hasn't been met with a vendetta-driven response from David.
I hope you guys enjoy him...because I'm done here as well.
I'd have to review it, but, I don't think I entered a single reply to the Cobb's Creek thread.
This is absolutely beyond disgrace, and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, as well for permitting this to continue.
Mike, please stop with the self pity, you brought this all on yourself.
You created this thread as a subterfuge, an attempt to prove that CBM didn't route Merion in short order.
You admitted that after I pressed you.
You presented knowingly flawed newspaper articles and held them out as accurate.
You misrepresented, you were disingenuous and you liedl
And now, you're trying to blame David, MacWood and me for the way you conducted yourself and our opposition to your admittedly speculative claims that you held out as the Gospel.
-
TMac,
The areas that I agree would be of further interest to Mike is the timeline - CBM describes events but doesn't apply dates to them in Scotland's Gift on pages 187-9 for the most part. We can read Whighams eulogy and decide if that tells us they first rode the property in Sept 1906 or not. There was some belief, based on CBM's "a few weeks after they bought the land" that he made an first offer in 1905, not 1906.
Does it matter? No, not as you state in terms of the end result. If it wasn't great, no one would care.
Is it interesting? To me, yes. Not so much that I am interested in being called a stupid, disingenous liar on the world wide web, but I am interested. And just as knowing whether there was a routing before the Nov 15, 1910 Merion meeting or after could affect perception of how Merion developed, it would just help our understanding of the development of another important early course, no?
I think it is interesting too, which is why I'm suggesting Mike thoroughly research the subject and present a well reasoned essay. Instead of throwing one theory after another against the wall why not do your due diligence. Like what David did with Merion and I've done with other essays. He should put his name, credibility, and reputation behind something, instead of continually throwing crap around and wasting a lot of time.
I don't see the correlation with Merion. There is no question who was responsible for the NGLA, who designed Merion is an open question. The questions about when Merion was routed are key to determining who was responsible.
-
TMac,
To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people. The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.
While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing. For that matter, valuble documents from Andy and Bryan might not have come forward using that method, so there is a benefit from doing that.
And, my only interest is in seeing how lots of "real world" factors like budget, contracts, etc. all came together in those days, apart from all the "ideal" links talk. As we have seen, nearly every design project entails some compromises to work through.
Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach? Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
-
Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
Now you're lying.
I never called "EVERYONE stupid, liars, or both."
I said that Mike was disingenuous, you introduced "liar" to the equation.
And yes, I did call you "stupid" stubborn which later evolved, through your continued denial of the existance of the North Highway, to simply "stupid"
Stop whining and try being genuinely honest and accurate with your posts
-
Pat,
I am being honest. Please draw a line on any pre 1907 map to show me where this alleged North Highway was in the area under discussion. Thanks.
-
Pat,
I am being honest. Please draw a line on any pre 1907 map to show me where this alleged North Highway was in the area under discussion. Thanks.
Sure, but, before I do, and since you want to complain about me calling Mike disingenuous, a "liar" in your words, I just wanted to post a quote from Mike Cirba's reply # 462 where he addressed you and referenced David and Myself.
Quote from: MCirba on February 28, 2011, 07:11:06 AM
Jeff,
These guys are both lying through their teeth and playing fast and loose with the facts.
Why didn't you object to Mike's calling me and David liars ?
-
Jeff,
To answer your question about the existance of the North Highway, here are some maps and documents dating from 1873 to 1916.
Look at the area starting with the Shinnecock Canal, going East, North of the Railroad tracks and tell me if you see the NORTHERN MOST ROAD ON THOSE MAPS, RUNNING EAST-WEST PARALLEL TO THE COASTLINE AND BENEATH COLD SPRING POND.
That's the NORTH HIGHWAY.
It's LABELED the NORTH HIGHWAY in the Olmsted map.
It's referenced in other maps and in the 1906 New York State Senate documents and the 1907 Shinnecock Inn advertisement.
Your continued insistance that the road didn't exist can only be explained by a "stupid" stubborn mentality and the real motive, to not have to admit that I'm right and you're wrong. That's really the core of this issue and we both know it, despite your protests to the contrary..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5435735423_c621d0caa6_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_b.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad4.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad2.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/NGLARoad3.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/ShinnecockInnMap.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1873Atlas.jpg?t=1297711643)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5438764415_2e5a65342a_o.gif)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1907RoadAtlas.jpg?t=1300295179)
-
Jeffrey,
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that you suggested that your opinions are driven more by your dislike of my presentation, than by the actual facts? If not, I have no idea what you meant by the story about your jury verdict based not on the facts but the presentation.
I was going to comment on the yacht basin thingy. To me, that falls in the category mentioned above, ie. we can't know that level of detail. CBM obviously wanted great holes, which might be accomodated in various ways, but of course, if he wanted a yacht basin, that could only be accounted for on the water. Ditto, there was only one way to use the Shinny Inn. Short version, it probably isn't a productive argument to try to shave the cheese that fine as to whether the yacht basin was "incidental" or a larger concern in the design program. I mean, I don't care if it was 22% priority or a 87% priority. It had some priority, and enough to work it in the plan, so why split hairs on that?
I think that even including it as a factor falls into the category of "we can't know" because there isn't much to go on even suggesting it was a factor. It was definitely a nice thing to have and it was mentioned and an "incidental" but that doesn't necessarily mean it entered into the decision making process.
In other words, it is a causation issue, and I don't know that there is a reasonably basis for thinking it entered into the decision-making process. There is certainly nothing about Whigham exclaiming from the Alps, "And the Yachts can park over there!"
That it was accessible via water might been a factor in the advantages of the general, regional location, as were the RR and the road. CBM makes it clear he wanted the course accessible to NYC (thus the elimination of Cape Cod.) That was an important factor, but to the general location, not the specific layout.
So while it was undoubtedly a nice bonus to have a yacht basin so close to the course, I have trouble understanding how it could have influenced the layout. There were many other yacht basins in the area (some probably not that much less accessible to the Shinnecock Inn than this one) and I have trouble believing that CBM would have compromised the course to make it yacht basin adjacent, as opposed to near a yacht basin.
Besides, Mike claimed that the yacht basin was the most important factor, along with the location of the Inn. I hardly think it 'splitting hairs' to call Mike out on this, given he is obviously suggesting that CBM was more concerned with the incidentals than with the quality of the golf course. CBM makes it quite clear that the quality of golf was his priority.
To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people. The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there are "people who matter" when it comes to determining what really happened at Merion (or anywhere else.) What really happened at Merion isn't at all dependent upon whether a couple of history fakers currently have the ears of some of those at MGC.
-
Jeffrey,
After writing this I have debated whether to post it because while I mean what I say I really don't mince words and it may come off as harsh. (What's new, right?) Please accept my assurance that I am not trying to embarrass you or Mike, but rather am trying to explain to you my perspective on all of this and my frustration with some of it. I'd like your opinion on it because, beleive it or not I would like to get past some of this this animosity. Here goes . . .
While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing.
Really? Did you stop to consider the hypocrisy in this statement? Because I seem to recall you repeatedly railing on my various theories even when they have been thoroughly researched and even when there was nothing contradicting them! In fact not long ago I posted about some research I had done about Shinnecock and you repeatedly posted about how I should have done more research and made sure I got my facts straight BEFORE I posted, even though I had done extensive research and even though I had my facts straight. From one of your posts on that Shinnecock thread:
"I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public? If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?"
Similarly, you have come after me and MacWood on similar grounds on Merion, Myopia, and other courses, although I would put the quality and depth of our research and analysis against the field, including the self-appointed experts on those very same courses. So why the hypocracy? Why the double standard? Why rail on us for quality work and then condone and support Mike specious and unsupportable claims and games?
And what of Mike's own hypocrisy? Shouldn't Mike at least be held to his own standard? Here is what he had to say on that same Shinnecock thread:
In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.
Surely you must have gotten a laugh just now out of the absolute absurdity of this? At least a chuckle? While Mike has presented a number of new and different versions of NGLA's established history, has he DONE ALL HIS HOMEWORK? Honestly? Has he done any? And do you suppose he took each of his garbage theories to NGLA prior to posting them here? I sure hope he didn't embarrass gca.com by actually presenting this crap to these clubs.
Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach? Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
Again hypocrisy, given your criticisms of TM's approach and mine. But lets set that aside and consider the difference in our approaches. The difference between approaches is not one of preferences, it is of INTENTION and RESULT. MacWood's approach works and so does mine, and each of us is primarily interested in figuring out what really happened. In contrast, Mike's approach produces an endless procession of bogus claims. Because with Mike facts and truthfulness are subservient and malleable to the desired conclusion. And the result is the constant misrepresentations, exaggerations, changes in direction, etc. Anything to serve the conclusion.
Look Jeffrey, I don't think Mike is necessarily dishonest at his core. He's pulled some nasty crap with me (like his witch-hunt about the intentions of my essay) but I write most of that off to emotion getting the best of him. But that said, perhaps because of the mentoring he has received from some (but not all) of the "researchers" with which he has associated himself, he has absolutely no concept of how this process is supposed to work. As I have written to you before, one cannot start with big picture conclusions and work backward from there, but that is all Mike does. All of his "research" and "facts" are meant to serve his predetermined conclusions, and they inevitably get twisted and turned to serve that purpose. And because he is always overly emotional about this stuff (see his unprovoked, "David, Fuck Off and Die." comment on the other thread today) he slips into a web of idiotic misrepresentations and contradictions, and unfortunately tries to escape by spinning more.
That is why, within three posts, he can tell me that he never suggested land "near the Canal" and tell you that he has only suggested the land "near the Canal," yet not even notice that he has contradicted himself. That is why he argues that all that was done on the horseback ride was a general inspection of the soil and contours on the 450 acre site, and at the same time argues that during the horseback rides they had chosen the site, found six holes, a yacht basin, found the first and last holes, could describe the dimension, had numerous others inspect the site, and everything else described in those December Articles. That is how he can argue that a site not anywhere near SHGC can also be adjacent to SHGC. He can berate Patrick for thinking the horseback rides were productive when his own theory dictates that everything mentioned in those December Articles happened on those same rides! He can argue that "to lay out" a course definitely meant to design it when referring to Wilson and Merion, but definitely didn't mean to design it in the case of Campbell at Myopia. And that is why he agreed with me as to the meaning of the October articles one day, but when asked to consider the implications of this not only dropped this understanding, he considered questions based on this understanding to be "stupid and insulting." Etc.
In the above examples, his analysis was subservient to his conclusions and the analysis and facts could discarded and changed as he saw fit. It has been going on for years! Remember how Mike used to argue that CBM and HJW were not known for their expertise as golf course designers in 1910? (Even he ought to admit that was absurd, but I am sure he won't.) Similarly, remember how he used to argue that NGLA wasn't even that big a deal by 1910, that it was just being constructed, and that it wasn't all that well known? Remember how he (and others) used to focus on the opening date of the clubhouse to try and create the false impression that the golf course at NGLA was more a contemporary of Merion than a predecessor? Remember how he used to take his cue from Wayne and try to portray NGLA as a course with at least one foot and maybe two feet stuck in the dark ages of design? I won't even get into the nonsense concerning Hugh Wilson's trip or various other aspects of Merion's history.
So while I understand my shots at Mike sound harsh, and will try to tone it back, it is more about his approach than anything else. His approach is at the root of all of this.
-
David,
Maybe it is all in the approach! I'm pissed, but only at the Stars losing in a shootout to those disingenous Philly Flyers. Damn.
I really have no problem pointing out my inconsistencies, Mike's inconsistencies, etc. We all have them. Sometimes I marvel at how, almost on cue, the Philly crowd takes amost an exact opposite meaning of the importance of certain things solely if you mention you think its important. It often does seem intentional, or as I once explained (and think I took some flak for it, it sounds to me like certain thought patterns just go together, much like conservatives and liberals can often be presumed to favor certain ideas. People just think differently, which is not surprising, and I don't think people in other political parties are bad americans, for instance, even if the debate gets heated on more important issues than the North Highway.
As I have mentioned, I don't care for the overuse of disengenous, and don't see why these threads need to escalate to the point of that, although I do understand that we all get angry sometimes. It sort of strikes me as calling someone unamerican, or whatever. Its an insult and not really true of much of the discussion here.
Inconsistent, yes, disingenous, no, at least IMHO.
I have noticed you have toned it way back, and for one appreciate it. That is all anyone here can ask from you. Better that than having another interested contributor force himself to leave the site.
-
Thanks for the 1907 map. Why do you think that the road as portrayed on it was not on the 1903 and 1905 maps?
You're welcome. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, and sorry that I apparently threw you under the bus. I'll focus on the second of these two maps, assuming (perhaps wrongly) it was the most up to date.
The 1904 Map. To clarify, "1905 map" looks like it was actually the 1904 map, at least according to the copyright notice in the lower right corner Also it looks like parts of the road are there on the 1903 and 1904 maps, just not all of it.
I am not sure about your interpretation of the legend (which only stated that the red dotted lines are poor roads.) This was a AAA map, and I suspect that those red lines (with mileage marked between various points) corresponded with recommended drives and/or described routes, and some of these had to utilize poor roads. And if one looks closely one can see that all the roads are there in black, and the red lines are added onto these roads. So while we might assume that the AAA would have recommended the best road corresponding with its destination or route, I don't think we can make too many assumptions about the quality of the other roads. Some of them might have been almost as good or as good but just not going to the right place. As for the black dotted lines, it could be that they were of poorer quality, but it also could be that they were roads that had not been designated as public roads, or some such thing.
And with this particular map, isn't much of the road already there? The first section next to the canal is not, but once the road curves up, it looks like most of the road was there except for the small section under the "I" in "HILLS." Or am I not getting something? Granted, on this road it is marked with dotted lines, but I am not sure what this means.
Is it possible that this was a period of transition toward roads suitable for automobiles, and that this northern route was not updated/build for automobiles as early as the southern route, but that this was going on during this time period?
Andy,
Interesting. It's from 1913. Have you mapped it? It seems to start and SH and go west.
Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?
That information Andy posted was what I was referring to in my previous post. Are you sure you don't want to figure out how to draw that out? The book contains some interesting background information on what highways meant early on in Southampton and what was going on with the dedications and releases. I think it is a bit out of range even for this far reaching thread, though, especially because I honestly don't see much relevance to these road issues. I think Andy provided the link, but if you want me to relink it I will.
_______________________________________________________
Jeffrey,
I agree that people in other political parties are not bad people, but I think that many of the pundits and zealots on both sides are extremely dishonest in their presentation of the material and that they play us for fools and will try and twist anything to try and get us to buy what they are selling. I think that calling these people out is necessary, as unpleasant as it may seem.
And while I agree that we could all be more polite, I still think you only pay attention to one side of the rudeness, and you always ignore the context.
- What could be more rude than to blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent another's position and/or the source material?
- What could be more rude in these discussions than repeatedly hopping back and forth between contradictory positions so as to never have to honestly address the ramifications of either one?
- What could be more rude than refusing to answer legitimate questions or to consistently back up one's claims?
How much of this sort of thing must we put up with before harsh words are in order?
-
Andy,
I'll try to map it when I get home from Bandon next week. I love heavy lifting. ;)
That's also my reading of "dedication and release". Just wondered if I was on the right track. I guess it meant that the section of "highway" described was privately owned until 1913.
Did you read the preamble to the Liber, that described what a highway meant back in the day? I found that interesting too. I wonder if that description of what highways meant extended to highways at the end of the 19th century?
Andy,
Interesting. It's from 1913. Have you mapped it? It seems to start and SH and go west.
Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?
Bryan, I have not mapped it--that would be too close to heavy lifting and I'd much rather leave that to you, Mike and David.
I believe dedication and release roughly means 'I give up my personal land for this road (dedication) and am hereafter free from any claims or damages (released) that may occur'. But that is just my reading and I'd be happy for a lawyer or realtor to correct me.
-
Bryan, our posts crossed. Good luck with figuring out the road and hope your are enjoying bandon.
-
Patrick,
I assume you missed this in the recent deluge of posts and recriminations. So once again, could you please answer the questions below. And please don't just repost the maps and say that they are there. If you could draw a nice green line through them that'd be nice. And, if you culd compare their location to the North Highway on the 1916 map that would be nice too.
Patrick,
Three questions for you:
1. What do you think the orange, black and dotted black roads are called on the 1916 Atlas map? Hint, the orange ones (including the North Highway) are "Improved or Good Roads".
2. Can you please draw on the 1903 USGS map where the "North Highway" from 1916 is?
3. Could you mark for us on the 1903 USGS map where you think the underpass on the "North Highway" mentioned in the Senate document was?
.....................................................
-
Bryan, our posts crossed. Good luck with figuring out the road and hope your are enjoying bandon.
I am enjoying Bandon, although at times there is too much rain, cold or sleet. Too bad you couldn't make it up here. SoCal is sadly underrepresented. I doubt I'll have much luck with the roads or persuading Patrick that he's wrong. Oooops, is that another bus coming.
-
David,
I'm having ongoing problems with my screen flipping back up when I get past about ten lines of interspersing comments in your reply. So, I'll have to just try to hit on a couple of points.
Yes it is possible that some sections of the highway were on the 1903 and 1904/5 maps. But not most of it. Could you do an overlay to demonstrate which parts match. I can't from here andI don't think Patrick can or will do it.
Thanks for your thoughts on what you think the red and black and dotted line roads mean. Have you looked at the legend on the 1916 map. It clearly says what the red and black (solid and dotted) roads were then. Many roads are the same between the 1903 and 1916 maps. I'd appreciate your perspective on what that 1916 legend means. I don't believe it means a thoroughfare or road as we currently understand it, nor as a major atererial route for commerce, as Patrick sees it.
Yes, I'd agree that the north highway was being developed or improved to handle automobiles somewhere after 1905 and before 1916. According to Andy's find, the SH section was only made a public road in 1913.
I did read the beginning section of the Liber, and yes it makes interesting reading about what highways meant back in the early times of Southampton. It persuades me that the "highways" in 1873 or even 1903 were not the avenues of commerce Patrick sees them as. And, yes, the road thing is tangential, but then so is a lot of the heated commentary about character shortcomings on this thread.
One last request. Could you place on a map where you think the Senate document places the North Highway grade separation from railroad tracks. On the 1913 map would be the best, since I think it is the most reliable. The senate document is very specific. I've asked Patrick the same question, but I suspect he will not answer, and I'd like someone to confirm or deny where I think it was.
-
TMac,
To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people. The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.
While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing. For that matter, valuble documents from Andy and Bryan might not have come forward using that method, so there is a benefit from doing that.
And, my only interest is in seeing how lots of "real world" factors like budget, contracts, etc. all came together in those days, apart from all the "ideal" links talk. As we have seen, nearly every design project entails some compromises to work through.
Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach? Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
The people who matter? That sounds like something coming out of the Kremlin or Red China. This is the 'official' story...case closed. Those same people has no doubts about the previous story too. There are two or three theories floating about and no one has been able to prove theirs to the others' satisfaction, it is an open debate.
I don't have a problem with Mike starting a thread with hopes of getting some collaboration. I don't think that is what has occurred here, or at least was his intention at the start, but whatever the case, at some point I think it would be good for him to sit down, try to figure it out himself and put it into an essay. Everyone approaches these questions with a bias of some sort, but one of the beneficial bi-products of researching and writing an essay that you are going to present to the group is the desire to appear as objective as possible. Your name and reputation is at stake, and you know going in this group will pick it a part with fine toothed comb. You have to approach the subject with an open mind, and question everything, especially your own biases. You figure out what are confirmed facts, and what are open questions, and dig like hell to answer the open questions, and by the end, hopefully, the essay writes itself and the question of bias is mute.
-
Bryan,
I don't know how to draw on schematics/maps and the like,
But, on the 1903 map, the North Highway starts south of the Railline, crosses it beneath the "S" and the "H" in Shinnecock and continues as the Northern most road.
If the North Highway, the only East-West roadway on the North Shore of the South Fork wasn't a major commercial and travel artery, what road was ? What East-West road serviced the entire North Shore of South Fork, from the Canal to Sag Harbor and out toward Montauk ?
The location of the railroad crossing and the North Highway is irrelevant to establishing the EXISTANCE of the North Highway.
What difference do 500 yards, 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards mean ? The critical issue is the documented reference to the North Highway, a highway Mike Cirba claimed, didn't exist in 1914, despite its appearance on a map he posted from 1907.
You're also laboring under the opinion that the North Highway was static, fixed in concrete from 1873 to present day.
Looking at the 1903 NYS map, it would seem that the crossing beneath the "S" and the "H" in Shinnecock would be a likely site to reconfigure the crossing, but, again, the exact location of where the North Highway crosses the railroad is irrelevant to establishing the factual EXISTANCE of the North Highway in 1914 and earlier, which is what you're also, foolishly, attempting to deny
-
I am enjoying Bandon, although at times there is too much rain, cold or sleet. Too bad you couldn't make it up here. SoCal is sadly underrepresented. I doubt I'll have much luck with the roads or persuading Patrick that he's wrong. Oooops, is that another bus coming.
I'd love to have made it, and hope you are all having fun. Thank goodness for the greatest advancement in golf technology of the past 100 years. Rain gloves.
Yes it is possible that some sections of the highway were on the 1903 and 1904/5 maps. But not most of it. Could you do an overlay to demonstrate which parts match. I can't from here andI don't think Patrick can or will do it.
I will try to put something together this evening.
Thanks for your thoughts on what you think the red and black and dotted line roads mean. Have you looked at the legend on the 1916 map. It clearly says what the red and black (solid and dotted) roads were then. Many roads are the same between the 1903 and 1916 maps. I'd appreciate your perspective on what that 1916 legend means. I don't believe it means a thoroughfare or road as we currently understand it, nor as a major atererial route for commerce, as Patrick sees it.
Here is the legend from the lower left corner of the 1916 Atlas page.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1916Legend.jpg?t=1300658881)
The red line marks off the area as the area covered by the Southampton Village scale plan. I am not sure whether this raises questions as to whether the rest is actually to scale or not. The brown lines designated "improved or good roads." I assume that this would have been different than the same description a dozen years before. I would guess that these road would have been some sort of hard pavement. The others are described as "old wood roads." There were such a thing as plank roads, but I don't think that this is what it is referring to. Probably less developed roads than "the improved or good roads" but as I said that may not have meant the same thing in as in 1904.
Yes, I'd agree that the north highway was being developed or improved to handle automobiles somewhere after 1905 and before 1916. According to Andy's find, the SH section was only made a public road in 1913.
Why do you think the development started somewhere after 1905? I think we'll no more about that segment if you draw it out. (Have fun with that.)
I did read the beginning section of the Liber, and yes it makes interesting reading about what highways meant back in the early times of Southampton. It persuades me that the "highways" in 1873 or even 1903 were not the avenues of commerce Patrick sees them as. And, yes, the road thing is tangential, but then so is a lot of the heated commentary about character shortcomings on this thread.
I am not sure I would draw the same conclusions, but no matter.
One last request. Could you place on a map where you think the Senate document places the North Highway grade separation from railroad tracks. On the 1913 map would be the best, since I think it is the most reliable. The senate document is very specific. I've asked Patrick the same question, but I suspect he will not answer, and I'd like someone to confirm or deny where I think it was.
I assume you mean the 1916 map? I think the underpass is where "North Highway" crosses the RR tracks about 400 ft. east of the Canal. Is this where you were thinking?
-
Arggh, I lost my response. This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy. The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.
David,
Thanks for the legend. I did look up wood roads, and it appears they were mono directional two rut sand tracks for wagons hauling lumber from the forests in the area. If they were old wood roads in 1916 I assume they were probably old in 1906/07 too. The Shinnecock Hills were pretty well deforested at that time. Hardly the busy arterial road that Patrick would have us believe.
The Senate document places the crossing as 9,440 feet from Good Ground Station or where the old wood road crosses the tracks under the "H" in Shinnecok. If the 1916 map is to be believed, that's not where the crossing was in 1916. And, I have no explanation of that.
Patrick,
The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe. What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.
The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.
-
Thanks for the legend. I did look up wood roads, and it appears they were mono directional two rut sand tracks for wagons hauling lumber from the forests in the area. If they were old wood roads in 1916 I assume they were probably old in 1906/07 too. The Shinnecock Hills were pretty well deforested at that time. Hardly the busy arterial road that Patrick would have us believe.
Interesting. What is your reference? I ask because I have seen the same phrase used elsewhere in Long Island to describe good gravel roads. And the "wood road" reference classifies every single road as "wood roads" (including roads in the village of Southampton) except for the recommended roads. It doesnt seem likely that they were all old lumber roads. And the lumber explanation does not match the description of how the highways were formed in the city records, does it? Also, I don't know the history of SH but I have read in an old history that the area had very few trees and may never have had trees. (In fact I have a photo somewhere I will try and find.)Is it possible that that the name was used for roads that crisscross the countryside like lumber roads, even if they weren't lumber roads?
The Senate document places the crossing as 9,440 feet from Good Ground Station or where the old wood road crosses the tracks under the "H" in Shinnecok. If the 1916 map is to be believed, that's not where the crossing was in 1916. And, I have no explanation of that.
Not sure I follow you here. I measured 9440 ft from the Good Ground Station and I come out at North Highway crossing, just east of the canal. There is still an underpass there today. I have the old Good Ground station at the where Springville Rd crosses the tracks in Hamptons.
-
Arggh, I lost my response. This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy. The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.
My screen has also started jumping again once I get further into a response.
The first few lines are OK, but, after that, the jumping begins.
The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe.
Bryan, in Mike's attempt to marginalize and dismiss the North Highway, he refered to it as a "Superhighway"
Why would you resort to employing the same tactic ?
I never said it was a "superhighway".
What I claimed was that it was THE MAIN road, from the canal, running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The overwhelming body of evidence, vis a vis maps and New York State Senate documents support my claim
What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.
The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.
Then you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
Why would the owners of the NEW Shinnecock Inn site their brand new, huge hotel on the North Highway, if it wasn't a main artery in 1906 ? ? ?
Do you think they'd site this magnificent new large hotel on a two rut logging path as you claim ?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
I know how difficult it is for you to admit that I'm right and you're wrong, but, you've had so much experiece at that, that you'd think you'd be used to it by now ;D ;D
It's clear, by the reference to the "New" North Highway, that there was an "Old" North Highway, the one that appears northernmost on all of the maps dating back to 1873.
Do you think that that Shinnecock Hills Golf Club sited their clubhouse on or off of a two rut logging path, or off of a main road ?
-
Thanks for the legend. I did look up wood roads, and it appears they were mono directional two rut sand tracks for wagons hauling lumber from the forests in the area. If they were old wood roads in 1916 I assume they were probably old in 1906/07 too. The Shinnecock Hills were pretty well deforested at that time. Hardly the busy arterial road that Patrick would have us believe.
Interesting. What is your reference? Here's one reference. http://chestofbooks.com/gardening-horticulture/Journal-8/The-Garden-Or-America.html (http://chestofbooks.com/gardening-horticulture/Journal-8/The-Garden-Or-America.html) I ask because I have seen the same phrase used elsewhere in Long Island to describe good gravel roads. And the "wood road" reference classifies every single road as "wood roads" (including roads in the village of Southampton) except for the recommended roads. It doesnt seem likely that they were all old lumber roads. I don't disagree. But it seems likely to me that the roads in the Shinnecock Hills were more likely logging roads. They seem pretty randon and there was really nobody living there at the time. It has been described as a desolate wasteland at the time. And the lumber explanation does not match the description of how the highways were formed in the city records, does it? Also, I don't know the history of SH but I have read in an old history that the area had very few trees and may never have had trees. (In fact I have a photo somewhere I will try and find.)Is it possible that that the name was used for roads that crisscross the countryside like lumber roads, even if they weren't lumber roads? It's possible. But why were there roads crisscrossing the area when nobody lived there. There appear to be many roads beyond Patrick's supposed North Highway. I have seen articles that say that Long Island provided most of the firewood to heat NYC at some point.
I have also seen references to wood roads being sand covered by wood chips. Sort of like this:
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/IMG_0452.jpg)
The Senate document places the crossing as 9,440 feet from Good Ground Station or where the old wood road crosses the tracks under the "H" in Shinnecok. If the 1916 map is to be believed, that's not where the crossing was in 1916. And, I have no explanation of that.
Not sure I follow you here. I measured 9440 ft from the Good Ground Station and I come out at North Highway crossing, just east of the canal. There is still an underpass there today. I have the old Good Ground station at the where Springville Rd crosses the tracks in Hamptons. This site describes the history of the station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Bays_(LIRR_station) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Bays_(LIRR_station)) I think the station back then was closer to Ponquogue. In any case, if it was just east of the canal, then why don't the 1903 and 1904/5 maps show a road of any sort crossing the LIRR in that location just east of the canal?
-
Arggh, I lost my response. This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy. The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.
My screen has also started jumping again once I get further into a response.
The first few lines are OK, but, after that, the jumping begins.
Do you suppose there is tech support somewhere where we could report this?
The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe.
Bryan, in Mike's attempt to marginalize and dismiss the North Highway, he refered to it as a "Superhighway"
Why would you resort to employing the same tactic ? I wasn't aware that Mike had called it that and I was not trying to follow his lead. I should have said main commercial arterial thoroughfare.
I never said it was a "superhighway".
What I claimed was that it was THE MAIN road, from the canal, running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The overwhelming body of evidence, vis a vis maps and New York State Senate documents support my claim
I disagree for the reasons in the posts above.
What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.
The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.
Then you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
Why would the owners of the NEW Shinnecock Inn site their brand new, huge hotel on the North Highway, if it wasn't a main artery in 1906 ? ? ? I don't know. It seems like an odd location. It's not near the sea or any of the small towns of the time. The only thing that was close was SH and the proposed NGLA. Could you tell me who was using this main artery in 1906? The population density of the area was minmal. The summer traffic was presumably mainly from NYC and largely coming by train.
Do you think they'd site this magnificent new large hotel on a two rut logging path as you claim ? Perhaps it was the Bandon Dunes of its time - a little off the beaten path ;)
I know how difficult it is for you to admit that I'm right and you're wrong, but, you've had so much experiece at that, that you'd think you'd be used to it by now ;D ;D You're always right, and I'm never wrong, so let's call it a no decision.
It's clear, by the reference to the "New" North Highway, that there was an "Old" North Highway, the one that appears northernmost on all of the maps dating back to 1873. Sometimes new is just new as Jeff pointed out to you. A new house does not necessarily replace an old house - otherwise new subdivisions would never get built
Do you think that that Shinnecock Hills Golf Club sited their clubhouse on or off of a two rut logging path, or off of a main road ? Beats me. Do you have any photos or source documents that shows the road to nowhere on which the clubhouse was built in the late 1800's was a rut, a dirt road, or a gravel road
I wonder if you can tell me who the members of SH were in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I assumed they were successful rich NYC business men. Did they play their golf mainly on weekends? Weekdays? What percentage would have taken the train out for the weekend of golf and to go to their summer homes. Or do you think they did daily commutes from NYC by horse and carriage? I am curious on how golf was played in those days. No argument required, I'm just curious as to your views. It surely must have been different that today where we jump in the car, play a round, have dinner at the club and then hop in the car and go home.
-
More "period" information from a website about the Hamptons:
By the 1870's the extension of the Long Island Railroad from Eastport to Sag Harbor, passing through the Hills substantially cut down the three-day journey from Shinnecock to Brooklyn, and was the beginning of real development there. The Shinnecock train station build in 1877 was the first real building erected in the Hills.
After passing through several corporate hands, 3,596 acres of the property owned by the Proprietors was sold to the Long Island Improvement Company, which had been created by Austin Corbin, President of the Long Island Railroad, and a group of New York City investors. Villa sites were sold for $3,000 per acre with the restriction that only cottages costing $5,000 or more could be built.
By 1893, the Long Island Improvement Company collapsed, having sold off 810 acres. The remaining acreage was purchased by the Shinnecock Land Company which sold fourteen parcels and then sold out to the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company in 1906.
By 1906 there were eighteen homes in the Hills - all summer residences used from July to Labor day. However, the development of Shinnecock Hills into a premier summer colony was deterred by the panic 1907 and the reinstatement of the income tax in 1913. Public auctions in 1925 and 1929 resulted in the further sale of hundreds of plots.
-
When we talk about "roads", it's important to remember the source of this whole discussion; to wit, it was the contention of both Patrick and David that there was no way CBM could have been looking at the land I suggested that was west of 1906 Shinnecock Hills (which at that time was virtually due south of NGLA), skirted the Long Island railroad to the south, and whose western boundary extended to the canal between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, both arguing vociferously that the "North Highway" was running smack dab right through it in 1906.
This is important to keep in mind now that neither David nor Patrick are willing to tell us exactly where they think that "highway" actually was located in 1906, even though they've been asked repeatedly by multiple people here.
But yet, this is what David wrote after I suggested that this might be the land described in those October 1906 articles he posted;
Like in the post above, for example. You have shamelessly pretended that those articles were referencing the 120 acres of land near the canal, again and again, post after post, lame-ass drawing after lame-ass drawing, not suggesting but insisting - INSISTING - that you knew best and that your contrived pencil thin outline containing a highway was definitely the right land. Wasting all of our time with your bullshit. To no avail.
So what's next for you? You just segue from one smelly pile of misinformation into the next smelly pile of misinformation. This time you create an entirely new attempted transaction! Let's pretend that in additon to the other properties, CBM was also trying to buy this bizarre two mile narrow strip of property containing the highway. Never mind that there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this. Never mind that he'd have to have been an IDIOT to conceive of such a thing. Those things do not matter to you. You want it to be true, so you will not let minor details like facts get in your way. You'll just make up some more crap and pretend like you know best. And we will all waste another week of watching you try to pound your round peg into a square hole.
Hard to imagine, but Patrick was even more apoplectic;
If he did, he must have been drinking heavily because that light yellow enclosure of yours has a highway running right smack down the middle of it.
Mike, it is dishonest, not just intellectually dishonest, but flat out dishonest, when you make things up and then draw predetermined, erroneous conclusions, presenting them as factually bona fide.
That land was NOT empty.
The NORTH Highway, the predecessor to the Sunrise Highway ran right through it, all the way to Amagansett.
The NORTH Highway ran right through the center of your golf course.
In response, back about 20 pages of screamed accusations and personal insults ago, I posted the following map and commentary, about which Patrick has continually claimed since that I stated no other roads including the North Highway even existed in Long Island by 1914.
His hyperbole is just that; I never claimed anything of the sort. In fact, here is my supposed "lie" and what I wrote at the time;
Even by 1914 it looks as though the highway to the South Fork was south of the tracks, not north of it. I also like the way the scaled map shows the exact location of each Railroad Station, giving us a better idea of how far apart the original Shinnecock Hills station was from "Golf Grounds".
Was there any development north of the track in Shinnecock at this early time?
From the looks of things here, the "inlet" between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Hills Train Station would appear to be the Canal, no?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
You would have thought I'd set fire to the NGLA clubhouse so vehement and vile has been the flurry of insults and recriminations.
Heaven forbid that I actually try to locate a site CBM may have potentially looked at prior to purchasing NGLA, a site suggested by the landmarks cited in the October 1906 articles David posted. Those guys are sooo sure that the land in question is the current site, even though the western border is 1.5 miles from the western border of today's NGLA, that they feel it necessary to bully and insult any one who dares suggest that it isn't.
This has moved past parody into comical absurdity. We are now having a discussion about a Highway to nowhere where David is trying to convince Bryan that words and definitions don't mean what they mean...
18 freaking houses in all of Shinnecock Hills at the time. 18.
Virtually ALL of them in the southern section below the tracks sited above Shinnecock Bay.
And yet supposedly the area above the tracks is serviced by an immovable highway that would have precluded anyone from building a golf course up near Cold Spring Bay where I suggested.
Brilliant. Too Freaking funny!
I think I'll just go back to the sidelines and cancel my subscription to "Joke of the day", because sitting back and watching Patrick and David, while still both refusing to actually tell us where their supposed "Highway" existed in 1906, still try to tell us they are right.
Amazing.
Funnier still is the contention from Patrick and David that the reason I am arguing that the October articles are not the site of NGLA because...get this...it's part of my Master Planned Agenda to prove that Merion wasn't designed by CBM in a day.
Somehow, by refusing to stretch out CBM's design timeline by an additional two months because I don't think those articles refer to the land he actually bought, I'm advancing my Machavellian agenda to show that CBM would have taken a much more methodical approach than all those foreign pros who came before him. Follow that logic? ;) ;D
Anyway, here's the 1914 Atlas from which I made my original contention that no major highway existed above the Railroad tracks, even by that late date.
We know from the metes and bounds produced earlier that it wasn't even proposed to be a public road until 1913, and I'm pretty sure that never got built as described in that document, and am looking forward to seeing Bryan's efforts to map it out.
In any case, I also hope someone can find the full page of this map...the one I took is cropped on the left side and you can't read the entire key.
In any case, I'm done here and have presented every bit of information I could find on early NGLA. I hope some have found it of interest and value.
Just wanted to let folks know why I'm now Public Enemy number one and worthy of pages of insult from those two brilliant researchers and analysts who seek nothing but the truth.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/5550567732_c380aeb59b_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
The whole road chase has been a trial to wade through, but the truth is, it only arose because you refuse to believe the one key word in that snippet from October..."secured"!
The description of the location of the land is clearly vague so mapping out its speculative location is pointless. Assuming the word secured was a negotiating ploy by CBM is quite another matter considering the developers would surely have known if he bought something whether or not it was their land...
-
Jim,
I'm not sure I understand your point.
This is the first of those articles, from a New York newspaper on Oct 15, 1906. Apparently two similar articles were posted in Boston the next day, and David speculated that may have been because of a tournament at Myopia where CBM may have been in attendance, which seems odd given it showed up in NYC first.
In any case, what is it that you think I'm not understanding or accepting from this article?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
-
So you accept that CBM secured the current site of NGLA prior to October 15, 1906? Great!
-
The fact is, it's much simpler to accept that CBM saw the land and knew it would work because of the terrain and got a verbal agreement to buy 205 acres. The coincidence of wanting to use the Shinnecock Inn as a temporary clubhouse and locating a few key holes narrowed down the possible land he would buy to some version of the narrow strip he bought. By December he had determined the exact route the course would follow and had a good idea of the tee and green locations of each hole, otherwise he wouldn't have placed the stakes where he wanted them and signed the contract.
This assumption of him having a good idea of the tee and green locations is based on the handful of key features he identified and the resulting need for certain hole types.
I know the December articles say the next several months will be used to select the proper hole distances etc...I'd suggest that was different variations on the same theme.
-
Mike Cirba,
1. Historical Research. Your first post above provides long quote from what you identify as "a website about the Hamptons."
- Again, could you please provide some sort of a useable reference when you provide such quotes?
- Was this the website? http://www.thehamptons.com/showhouse/shinnecock.html
- If so, do you have any idea where the website got its information? Surely we shouldn't take everything you read on a random website as gospel, should we?
2. Your next Post In my opinion your next post contains a number of misrepresentations about what has transpired here, I won't bother even addressing most of it. I tried to explain to Jeff Brauer my frustration in these matters above, and so I won't go through it all again here, either. I've also indicated that I will work to keep it more civil.
I wish you could comprehend that there is quite a lot of legitimate frustration behind that incivility, and it largely stems from the way you have approached this material. Rather than ranting at us and angrily making yet another grand exit, perhaps you should calm down and carefully consider how we got to this point? Could it hurt?
3. The Road Issue. Not sure why you are so upset about me answering Bryan's questions. My conversation with him has nothing to do with your theories. I am doing it out of common courtesy and because that is where my conversation with him lead. As I have said, I think this road issue is a complete irrelevancy, but since you asked I think the North Highway was probably in about the same spot in late 1906 as is shown on the 1907 map I posted.
4. My quote. In those two paraghaphs of mine that you quote I was obviously frustrated and probably should have toned it down. Sorry about that.
Colorful imagery aside I think there was a lot of truth in my description of your methodology, aside from my optimistic estimate as to how long this tangent would take. I estimated that we would probably have to waste another week dealing with this third-site theory. One week. That quote was from February 12. Over five weeks have passed and since then. Five weeks of exactly what I described, excluding the colorful language of course.
5. A Suggestion. Instead of this endless discussion about how we discuss things, perhaps we can move the conversation forward?
On at least two occasions, I have listed out some of the reasons that I do not think that the October articles were describing the site "near the canal."
- Do you agree that the October articles were not talking about the site described in Scotland's Gift as "near the canal."
- If not, then perhaps you could actually address the various reasons I listed?
Thanks.
-
So you accept that CBM secured the current site of NGLA prior to October 15, 1906? Great!
Jim,
That would certainly be simple and probably save a lot of time and energy for me to agree (not to mention being the brunt of personal insults) but it wouldn't be intellectually honest or sincere at all, so sorry...can't buy it.
I say that for a number of reasons;
First, we know that virtually every newspaper in NYC reported the weekend after December 14th that CBM signed contracts to "secure" 205 undetermined acres of the 450 available on Sebonac Neck on that Friday.
The articles are all very detailed, and include direct quotes from CBM detailing what his plans are over the next several months. These are hardly vague or general, but get down to actually deciding which holes and features to reproduce, and the process for doing so, including making plasticine models to guide the builders and shapers.
Secondly, we also know that the purchase for the exact land that CBM eventually staked out after he routed the golf course didn't take place until the spring of 1907.
CBM himself tells us he didn't secure the land until "November 1906", so to suggest this happened in October, or two months prior to signing papers to that effect just doesn't ring true to me.
Next, there is the "location", which you describe as vague".
I'd argue that there is no way someone could mean the 450-acre portion of land of known as Sebonac Neck if they referred to it skirting the Long Island RR to the south. Heck Jim...there is no way someone would be referring to Sebonac Neck by saying it ended at the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station...that's 1.5 miles away from NGLA! We also know that virtually all of Shinnecock Hills GC was due South of NGLA at that time, so to hear it was an "eastern" neighbor is a stretch, at best.
So, I'm confused by those October articles, frankly.
They are wrong on multiple counts. They mention 250 acres, yet CBM and Whigham had been telling folks that they needed 200 or just a bit more than that for the previous two years, and settled on 205.
It is not a coincidence that the 205 acre number worked out exactly to the number CBM wrote he'd need in his original prospectus to potential Founding members where he said he'd need;
110 acres for the golf course
5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds
1.5 acre building lots for 60 Founders = 205 acres
Do you think it's just some strange coincidence Jim that he secured exactly 205 undetermined acres of the 450 avabilable in the first place? What exactly are the odds of that?!?
The article also talks about the land already having been measured, surveyed down to the foot, maps made and distributed to foreign experts, a cost overall of $100,000, and several other items that don't seem to jive with either the timing or the other known facts.
So no, as much as I'd like to just agree with the over-simplification of events as ascribed to by you and David, I don't honestly believe that to be the case.
-
David,
I appreciate your last post a great deal. Thank you very much.
I'm not sure we'll agree in the end but I do think we can disagree much more agreeably and I'll look forward to that.
I'm running short on time today but will try to answer your questions sincerely by tomorrow.
Mike
-
Mike,
If you were traveling to Shinnecock by car from New York City would you hit NGLA first? How about by boat? I think you'd have to try hard not to hit NGLA first...does that give you a different perspective on the East-West overanalysis?
If you were in NYC writing for a newspaper in 1906, how would you have described the location with notable landmarks?
-
Jim,
In 1906 if you were travelling from NYC to NGLA by car or train you'd hit Shinnecock Hills first.
David and I have quibbled over the exact dimensions but by 1916 the area outlined in black is the general shape of Shinnecock Hills GC.
In 1906 we don't have anything definitive, but I don't believe it ran quite so far west and possibly not quite as far north.
In either case, coming along the tracks, or along the existing road system you'd still hit Shinnecock first, and NGLA would be directly to your left after a bit, or due north.
Kind of like today, actually, with the only difference being that large areas to the north of today's Shinnecock GC...from about the number 2 green north, weren't owned by the club at that time, and were part of a purchase made in the 1920s, which makes today's Shinnecock course appear much more east of NGLA than was the case in 1906.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5091/5529546947_50861c0dbc_b.jpg)
-
Yeah, that's right...I was thinking of driving along the north road, or of coming in by boat into Cold Spring Pond or Sebonak Creek, whichever...just trying to open a door to what could have been the author's perspective since it seems the sum total of landmarks would be unachievable...
-
Arggh, I lost my response. This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy. The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.
My screen has also started jumping again once I get further into a response.
The first few lines are OK, but, after that, the jumping begins.
Do you suppose there is tech support somewhere where we could report this?
I had this problem about a month or so ago, then it went away, and now it's returned, so, I would think that someone could help us cure the glitch.
The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe.
Bryan, in Mike's attempt to marginalize and dismiss the North Highway, he refered to it as a "Superhighway"
Why would you resort to employing the same tactic ? I wasn't aware that Mike had called it that and I was not trying to follow his lead. I should have said main commercial arterial thoroughfare.
I never said it was a "superhighway".
What I claimed was that it was THE MAIN road, from the canal, running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The overwhelming body of evidence, vis a vis maps and New York State Senate documents support my claim
I disagree for the reasons in the posts above.
What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.
The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.
Then you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
Why would the owners of the NEW Shinnecock Inn site their brand new, huge hotel on the North Highway, if it wasn't a main artery in 1906 ? ? ?
I don't know. It seems like an odd location. It's not near the sea or any of the small towns of the time.
The only thing that was close was SH and the proposed NGLA. Could you tell me who was using this main artery in 1906?
Actually, it is close to the sea, and it's near/in Southampton.
Before the Railroad, EVERYONE traveling on the North Shore used it to get East-West.
Golfers going to Shinnecock used it.
Vacationers and travelers staying at the Shinnecock Inn used it.
Commerce used it.
The population density of the area was minmal.
If that was true, then there would be NO NEED to build a railroad to traverse the South Fork, would there ?
Obviously, there was sufficient commerce and travel to merit the creation of a rail line to service that area.
You don't build railroads to nowhere
The summer traffic was presumably mainly from NYC and largely coming by train.
How'd they get there before there were trains ?
Do you think they'd site this magnificent new large hotel on a two rut logging path as you claim ?
Perhaps it was the Bandon Dunes of its time - a little off the beaten path ;)
Nah, it was right on the beaten path,, The North Highway.
I know how difficult it is for you to admit that I'm right and you're wrong, but, you've had so much experiece at that, that you'd think you'd be used to it by now ;D ;D You're always right, and I'm never wrong, so let's call it a no decision.
Sounds reasonable
It's clear, by the reference to the "New" North Highway, that there was an "Old" North Highway, the one that appears northernmost on all of the maps dating back to 1873.
Sometimes new is just new as Jeff pointed out to you. A new house does not necessarily replace an old house - otherwise new subdivisions would never get built
Except that prior maps and official papers document the prior existance of the North Highway.
You can't ignore the fact of prior reference
Do you think that that Shinnecock Hills Golf Club sited their clubhouse on or off of a two rut logging path, or off of a main road ?
Beats me. Do you have any photos or source documents that shows the road to nowhere on which the clubhouse was built in the late 1800's was a rut, a dirt road, or a gravel road
I thought your photo of the road in the Vanderbilt Races was rather revealing.
A wide, well compacted dirt road. These roads were used for centuries before the auto was introduced.
Mike would have us believing that commerce and travel in 1914/1907 were just out of the Iron Age.
As to getting to Shinnecock, Using Mike Cirba like logic, I think it's reasonable to assume that the golfers were airlifted to the practice area and walked from there to the clubhouse. You don't site a clubhouse in a location that's inaccessible.
At some point, common sense should be at the foundation of your position.
The notion that a huge, brand new, relocated hotel, with a nice driveway, with garages available would be sited on anything but a major road is unrealistic.
I wonder if you can tell me who the members of SH were in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I assumed they were successful rich NYC business men. Did they play their golf mainly on weekends? Weekdays? What percentage would have taken the train out for the weekend of golf and to go to their summer homes. Or do you think they did daily commutes from NYC by horse and carriage? I am curious on how golf was played in those days. No argument required, I'm just curious as to your views. It surely must have been different that today where we jump in the car, play a round, have dinner at the club and then hop in the car and go home.
Even today, NGLA is a seasonal club.
As we type, the club is closed.
Like ANGC, Seminole and others, the season seems to dictate the level of activity.
I suspect that many had their estates located on the South Fork, where they would summer for the season.
Sabin would seem to be a reasonable example.
Others probably stayed at the Inns/Hotels for short or long durations.
And others probably drove and/or railed to the area for varying durations.
Others probably stayed as guests with fellow members, for a weekend, week, month, season.
Don't forget, the pace wasn't as frenetic as it is today.
-
When we talk about "roads", it's important to remember the source of this whole discussion; to wit, it was the contention of both Patrick and David that there was no way CBM could have been looking at the land I suggested that was west of 1906 Shinnecock Hills (which at that time was virtually due south of NGLA), skirted the Long Island railroad to the south, and whose western boundary extended to the canal between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, both arguing vociferously that the "North Highway" was running smack dab right through it in 1906.
Mike, don't blame David or myself.
It was YOU who posted the map showing the North Highway running smack down the middle of your phantom golf course, not David nor me. It was your own posting of that map which depicted the North Highway running right down the entire middle of your alleged golf course. You just failed to carefully examine the map you posted. You didn't even bother to perform any degree of due diliegence. Don't blame David or myself for your gaff.
This is important to keep in mind now that neither David nor Patrick are willing to tell us exactly where they think that "highway" actually was located in 1906, even though they've been asked repeatedly by multiple people here.
Once again, you're lying.
I've answered that question, over and over again.
To help you out, here's the map YOU posted with the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom golf course. How much clearer can one get. When you combine this map with all the others, the answer is pretty obvious, you just don't want to accept it because it destroys another of your wild baseless speculations
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_z.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
In addition, here's the 1903 New York State Map showing the North Highway running through your phantom course.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
And, three other maps to refresh your memory, one from 1905
1905 Automobile Club Map
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
1916 Suffolk County Atlas Map
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916NorthHighwayMap.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5439789568_616280d930_b.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA1907RoadAtlas.jpg?t=1300295179)
And, don't forget the 1906 New York State Senate documents which describe the North Highway as it crossed NORTH of the Railroad tracks.
And, don't forget the 1906-07 advertisement for the Shinnecock Inn, located on the North HIghway
Here's an another advertisement from June 2, 1907. Please read the part about the good roads.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
Only you, with your stated agenda, could deny the existance o fthe North Highway in 1906-07
In response, back about 20 pages of screamed accusations and personal insults ago, I posted the following map and commentary, about which Patrick has continually claimed since that I stated no other roads including the North Highway even existed in Long Island by 1914.
His hyperbole is just that; I never claimed anything of the sort. In fact, here is my supposed "lie" and what I wrote at the time;
Even by 1914 it looks as though the highway to the South Fork was south of the tracks, not north of it. I also like the way the scaled map shows the exact location of each Railroad Station, giving us a better idea of how far apart the original Shinnecock Hills station was from "Golf Grounds".
You know, you just can't tell the truth. You are lying again. Fortunately, I saved your post/comment.
And what you stated above is NOT what you wrote above the 1914 map you posted.
I previously quoted what you wrote, but, since you can't tell the truth, I'll repost your quote again.
That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5445347569_bb2d0267f6_o.jpg)
The record, written in your own hand above, speaks for itself, and no amount of denial on your part will change that.
Funnier still is the contention from Patrick and David that the reason I am arguing that the October articles are not the site of NGLA because...get this...it's part of my Master Planned Agenda to prove that Merion wasn't designed by CBM in a day.
Mike, you clearly stated in a written reply that your agenda was to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order.
Are you now going to claim you never made that statement ?
Here's your quote from reply # 437
[/b][/size]
Actually, that's where you're most wrong.
If I have an agenda, it's not to show that CBM could not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him.
That's an absurd proposition...you or I could route a course in a day if pressed, although the results would almost surely betray our puny efforts.
So you're misunderstanding me, and perhaps that's my fault.
Instead, my agenda has been to show that CBM WOULD not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him. That is very much to his credit, and a fundamental reason why NGLA is so monumentally great.
-
Patrick,
I can't tell if you are being honest or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
That April 1907 "map" I posted is NOT a map.
It's a PLAN.
It does not reflect reality....it reflects what the company ENVISIONED.
By that time, CBM had ALREADY SELECTED his land further to the northeast, and it's indicated on the map.
As you can see, it was virtually all DUE NORTH of the land of Shinnecock Hills GC.
That PLAN also has the supposed North Highway running right over today's 10th tee at NGLA.
IT WAS NEVER BUILT along the Red Line I indicated on that map and I have to believe YOU KNOW THAT.
IT DIDN"T EXIST at all along that stretch in 1907 and I have to believe YOU KNOW THAT.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_z.jpg)
The maps you posted from 1903 and 1905 show a road, a smaller dirt road, running along but much further south towards the railroad tracks and NOT in the area where I drew the hypothetical golf course. Back then there was plenty of area between Cold SPring Bay and that dirt road, all the way from Shinnecock out past the inlet to build a golf course. Plenty.
Besides, if any part of it did affect any proposed golf plans, what did exist as a road north of the tracks was so marginal and infrequently used (with all of 18 houses in existence in all of Shinnecock Hills at the time, all most all of them south of the tracks) that there is no doubt that any of it interfering with any grander plans like a golf course could have been easily moved/replaced as Alvord saw fit. Today's cart paths have more permanence and structure.
It was so marginal Pat, that even by 1914 it was NOT included on a highway map of NYC and Long Island, yet the South Highway was clearly shown.
Not even big enough to be considered...I almost feel sad for it.
Bryan has shown you that, I've now explained it in almost childlike terms and I hope that's the end of it.
If you're confused, then perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully before continuing to fire personal insults and angry barrages.
-
Mike,
Isn't this a rendering you created a couple weeks ago as a possible location being described in the October articles? I thought it was this suggestion that created the debate about roads...
It's clear from those maps that, at a minimum, the road runs through a good chunk of the property when measured against the bounds of Cold Spring Pond...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
Yes? No?
-
Mike,
Isn't this a rendering you created a couple weeks ago as a possible location being described in the October articles? I thought it was this suggestion that created the debate about roads...
It's clear from those maps that, at a minimum, the road runs through a good chunk of the property when measured against the bounds of Cold Spring Pond...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5439551574_52d7c9bc04_b.jpg)
Yes? No?
Patrick,
Yes, it's what I drew, but what you're somehow failing to either understand or acknowledge is that the North Highway you see in today's aerial is not what existed in 1906 when CBM was looking at possible sites for his golf course.
That Highway was never built as on the Olmstead Plan because Olmstead had it running up through today's NGLA, right over the original first tee.
He had it running north of Shinnecock Hills at the time, which would have gone right through today's golf course, as well.
As you know, it was eventually built running south of Shinnecock Hills GC. back down along the tracks through that stretch.
In 1903 and 1905, it looks as though the primary west/east road running north of the tracks at the time had a piece that ran North to Peconic Bay somewhere west of the inlet, and then swept down much further south towards the tracks than what Olmstead proposed on the 1907 drawing. I do not see any part of it affecting the land I suggested might be the land CBM originally considered and if any portion intersected so as to interfere with grander plans like CBM's golf course, I don't see it would it have been too difficult to re-route a dirt road.
Also, Patrick, that yellow box I drew is just a rough approximation. I have no idea how many acres it includes, but I wanted to show one potential site that matched up to the landmarks discussed in those October 1906 articles and based it on a general out and back routing that went along for about as far as NGLA does in a straight line and back, only this time stretching along Cold SPring Bay heading to Peconic Bay as opposed to stretching along Bulls Head Bay heading towards Peconic Bay that he ended up with.
I don't think it's crazy or unreasonable...much less lying.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I posted that, and was looking at the road in the 1903 map that runs through the middle of your proposed site for about half the east/west length. I'm not calling it a super highway or anything, just that there was a road through the middle of your proposed area...
-
Jim,
Sorry for the confusion.
All I can say in response is 1) Then NGLA could not have been built for much the same reason as a road runs right through it. ;) and 2) I'm not sure that's drawn accurately as it doesn't seem to have the road indicated in the same place as the 1905 Automobile map.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5506487697_8b5da4fc8b_b.jpg)
-
I think the maps show inconsistencies that can be taken with a grain of salt...I don't think the roads moved so much as different map makers drew them slightly different prior to laser technology.
I still revert to my primary position from 20 pages ago that this was a three step process (primary steps anyway):
1 - CBM rides over the land and determines in general it's suitable to build his course. Initially it is a non-specific portion of the 450 acre parcel although it is somewhat situated due ot the location of a handful of key features. This is prior to Oct 15.
2 - Between October and December the whole team has a look and begin making suggestions and a great number of holes are identified and the exact boundaries can be drawn and the option contract signed by the December date.
3 - Through the winter the company CBM formed collects the subscription money formalized the business plan and in the Spring the final purchase is executed.
The December articles suggesting the boundaries are undetermined and the holes, as well, are yet to be determined simply says to me that they hadn't completed the plans exactly. The fact that they signed contracts for this specific piece of land is too compelling as evidence that CBM knew exactly where he was going to go with his course.
-
Jim,
Here's a rough approxiimation of what i originally drew in yellow now in black superimposed on the 1905 Auto Map;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5059/5553240636_a2c3818e21_b.jpg)
Where exactly does it say that CBM signed contracts for this specific piece of land in December 1906? I read just the opposite, in both the bodies of those articles as well as in CBM's directly quoted words.
I understand your theory, but I don't see that the contemporaneous evidence supports it.
-
Mike,
I know the articles say "undetermined" but we have to accept the statements of people that have bought land. I believe Jeff Brauer made it clear that there are no "informal options" although it might have been Pat.
I think we have to decide one of two things if we are really going to move forward. Either the contracts were not actually signed, or they described a specific piece of land. I cannot accept that contracts were signed for a non-specific piece of land.
In the scenario of a handshake in December for a non-specific 205 acres, CBM holds all the risk and I doubt he would put himself in that position at that point in time.
By the way, I would be happy to proceed on the assumption that there was actually no contract signed in December if there's evidence of that...
-
Jim,
It was Pat who said there were no such things "informal options".
But then again, Pat has said a lot of things here.
I'm not sure why it couldn't be as simple as this;
"We, the undersigned, agree that Mr. Charles Blair Macdonald, as the assigned representative of National Golf Links, will purchase 205 acres of the 450 acres available on a tract of land known as Sebonac Neck at the total cost of $40,000 within the next six months."
"During this interim period it is understsood the Mr. Macdonald will be finding the most desirable acreage for the golf course his group is planning to build, and as such will purchase acreage contiguous within itself, as opposed to separate, multiple parcels within the larger tract in making up the 205 acres."
"Further, Mr. Macdonald will have the property surveyed and staked at his own cost".
or something like that.
-
Jim,
I"m going to show you how disingenuous Mike is being.
Notice how he conveniently fits his new phantom golf course, which he's now made narrower into the map.
Now he's shifted the course further North, using the North Highway as his southern border.
Notice how he told you where the North Highway ran in 1903.
There's only one problem, here's the 1903 New York State map.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
Look closely at the little cape/bay on the southern portion of Cold Spring Pond.
Do you see how the North Highway runs right through that section, right along the southern border of Cold Spring pond.
Now look at Mike's newest version of his golf course.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5059/5553240636_a2c3818e21_b.jpg)
Notice how the 1903 North Highway would run right smack down the middle of his phantom golf course.
Mike keeps shifting the size, location and configuration of his phantom golf course to suit the map of the day.
You should also know that the distance between the southernmost portion of Cold Spring Pond and the Atlantic Ocean is probably less than 1,320 yards, making Mike's newest version a course that would probably require foursomes to walk "single file"
-
I can't tell if you are being honest or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
That April 1907 "map" I posted is NOT a map.
It's a PLAN.
It's a plan BASED ON A MAP OF THE AREA, INCLUDING COLD SPRING POND, THE EXISTING NORTH HIGHWAY AND THE EXISTING RAILROAD.
It does not reflect reality....it reflects what the company ENVISIONED.
IT DOES REFLECT REALITY UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO INSIST THAT THE RAILROAD, COLD SPRING POND AND OTHER FEATURES DIDN'T EXIST IN ORDER TO SUIT YOUR PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSIONS?
By that time, CBM had ALREADY SELECTED his land further to the northeast, and it's indicated on the map.
As you can see, it was virtually all DUE NORTH of the land of Shinnecock Hills GC.
That PLAN also has the supposed North Highway running right over today's 10th tee at NGLA.
That's your interpretation
IT WAS NEVER BUILT along the Red Line I indicated on that map and I have to believe YOU KNOW THAT.
IT DIDN"T EXIST at all along that stretch in 1907 and I have to believe YOU KNOW THAT.
OF COURSE IT DID
The Shinnecock Inn was sited ON the NORTH HIGHWAY IN 1906.
How can you deny the North Highway's existance in the face of the 1906 New York State Senate Documents, citing its existance ? ? ?
How can you deny its existance in the 1903 New York State map ? ? ?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5300/5506005097_22c8952dca_z.jpg)
The maps you posted from 1903 and 1905 show a road, a smaller dirt road, running along but much further south towards the railroad tracks and NOT in the area where I drew the hypothetical golf course.
You must be out of your mind.
Here's the 1903 Map.
The North Highway hugs the southern shore of Cold Spring Harbor.
How can you blatantly lie about these things ?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903.jpg)
Back then there was plenty of area between Cold SPring Bay and that dirt road, all the way from Shinnecock out past the inlet to build a golf course. Plenty.
Take another look, the North Highway is right up against Cold Spring Pond at its southernmost point
Besides, if any part of it did affect any proposed golf plans, what did exist as a road north of the tracks was so marginal and infrequently used (with all of 18 houses in existence in all of Shinnecock Hills at the time, all most all of them south of the tracks) that there is no doubt that any of it interfering with any grander plans like a golf course could have been easily moved/replaced as Alvord saw fit. Today's cart paths have more permanence and structure.
Mike, when you make comments like that, you lose more and mre of your credibility
You reference Shiinnecock Hills as if there was nothing else on the South Fork.
No Montauk, No Sag Harbor, No Southampton.
Again, that's disingenuous on your part
It was so marginal Pat, that even by 1914 it was NOT included on a highway map of NYC and Long Island, yet the South Highway was clearly shown.
On the map you presented, The South Highway was the ONLY road shown on the entire South Fork in 1914, despite the fact that the Shinnecock Inn was sited on the North Highway in 1906. Didn't you read their advertisements ?
Why do you constantly ignore the 1906 New York State Senate documents which clearly confirm the exisitance of the North Highway
Not even big enough to be considered...I almost feel sad for it.
Bryan has shown you that, I've now explained it in almost childlike terms and I hope that's the end of it.
Bryan may be closer to my position than yours
What's amazing is how you continue to ignore the 1906 New York State Senate documents confirming the existance of the North Highway in 1906, just as it's about to run right rhrough your phantom golf course
If you're confused, then perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully before continuing to fire personal insults and angry barrages.
I don't consider refuting blatant misrepresentations and lies as personal attacks, but, I can see why you'd want to categorize them in that fashion
Some last questions.
Do you consider the 1906 New York State Senate document to be authentic ?
Do you consider the advertisement for the Shinnecock Inn to be atuhtentic.
Do you consider the June 2nd, advertisement for Shinnecock Hills to be authentic
Do you consider the 1903 New York State map to be authentic
Please answer those 4 questions
-
Patrick,
I'm starting to worry about you, but at least your sense of humor seems to be slightly returning so I'll take that as a good sign.
Holy cow...you think that the North Highway ran through the 1st tee at NGLA when it was built?!?! THAT is what's proposed on that April 1907 Land PLAN! Egads, Patrick! Please get a grip!!
As far as walking single file...
Here is a modern aerial. I've drawn three lines.
The first on the left shows what would have been the narrowest point of what I proposed, from the edge of Peconic Bay to an actual road that looks close to traversing the same route as whatever that old dirt road was on those 1905 maps. It is 200 yards.
The next shows the distance from the northern boundary I proposed to the actual North Highway that was eventually built MANY years later. It's 400 yards, actually 405 yards to be precise.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5553863072_00cf0bdc15_b.jpg)
The last line, which actually more reflects the reality of the time, shows that it was over 750 yards from that boundary to the rail line, where there is PLENTY of room to re-route a dirt road if necessary.
I went to look at NGLA and measured the width at various points.
Would you like to hear them?
-
And Patrick...
Since your humor is returning, I thought you might enjoy this one.
I called CBM's office on Wall Street asking for him to return my call.
I'm trying to reach him before he goes ahead and builds his National Golf Links on Sebonac Neck!
Holy smokes...I just discovered that there's a freaking HIGHWAY running right through it!! ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5553336259_1e50e561cb_b.jpg)
David,
Sorry...don't think I'll get your questions answered today but will try tomorrow.
I'm very hopeful they'll help to get us on a better tone here.
-
Mike,
Are you now agreeing with me about the North Highway running right down the middle of your golf course ?
That's the original entrance to the clubhouse that enters the property at the Eden hole, it's not the main East-West commercial Highway. I pointed that out on the 1903 New York State Map.
If, according to you, the North Highway was no more than a dirt cart path, this must have been a deer track.
Now this was a road to nowhere, terminating on the bluff above the Peconic Bay, as opposed to the Main Artery for East-West traffic on the North Shore of the South Fork.
Since you wanted to draw a distinction between the types of roads in existance in 1906, it's only fair that you do so with this road to nowhere. ;D
-
Patrick,
I'd say the road above the Railroad Tracks was a one lane sandy golf cart path.
The road up through NGLA was a path through the brambles, wide enough for one man and his angry, bleeding horse. ;) ;D
Some widths on today's NGLA, admittedly at the narrow points;
* Turning Area of 9th green - 94 yards
* Width of portions of 9th Fairway/10th fairway - 195 yards
* Width of numbers 8 and 11 at points - 215 yards
* Width of area of 7th green across 11 - 259 yards
* Width of area of 3rd tee/15th fairway - 231 yards
* Width of area just short of 18th green across 1st tee - 180 yards.
And Patrick...for an "out and back" golf course, the widths at NGLA are HUGE, reflecting the generally humongous fairways, some of which are over 100 yards wide in spots, which generally reflect the strategic options CBM wanted to present for all levels of players, but primarily to create avenues of play "around" hazards for the weaker players.
If you think about what's realistic on most modern courses.....perhaps 35 yard wide fairways with 50 yard buffer zones between each hole I'd think you could realistically route an out and back course in under 170 yards of width.
Perhaps Jeff or some other professional could weigh in on that question.
-
Don't want to derail you guys while you're having a good time, but am I correct is saying that the only reason for these many pages on the North Highway and whether it existed or not is because if it did exist then it definitely/maybe/doubtfully ran down the middle of the alternate site Mike proposed? I realize that sounds pejorative but I really don't mean it to be--just want to make sure I am following along.
-
I think you've pretty well got it...I wouldn't hang the blame on any one person but the whole debate hinges on the suggested possible location described in the October articles...
-
Thanks Jim. Definitely not blaming anyone for anything--just want to make sure I haven't missed something.
-
Andy,
Yes, in this strange bizarre land we call GCA, you've nailed it exactly. ;) ;D
I am perplexed how my suggestion as to the location of the site in those articles has taken us to this point, but we sure do love our minutiae here, and I also think some just like to argue, as well. ;)
-
Don't want to derail you guys while you're having a good time, but am I correct is saying that the only reason for these many pages on the North Highway and whether it existed or not is because if it did exist then it definitely/maybe/doubtfully ran down the middle of the alternate site Mike proposed? I realize that sounds pejorative but I really don't mean it to be--just want to make sure I am following along.
What I keep trying to explain is that even if there were no roads in the entire area, there would still be no reason to think that there was a mystery third (or fourth) site where CBM was so far along in the process that it was reported that he had bought the land. According to the article, CBM had found the site, gone over several times with Whigham, had maps drawn up and sent them overseas to the worlds experts, and secured the property.
I guess that Mike would like us to believe that this slipped CBM's mind (as well as the rest of the world's.
He would also like us to ignore that absolutely no evidence exists anywhere of such a thing, other than Mike's interpretation of those October articles.
He would also have us ignore that the articles don't even match the land he is trying to sell us. For example, Mike's site does not stretch along the Peconic, nor is his new site even adjacent to Shinnecock to the west!
But there were roads, and this area was being developed. But these are just additional reasons of many to dismiss Mike's theory.
_____________________________________
Mike,
1. You you keep saying that the 1907 land plan was never implemented. You know that this is in large part false. According to the 1907 Atlas major parts of the project were implemented, INCLUDING THE NORTH HIGHWAY, which appears as THE MAJOR ROUTE. And the 1907 Atlas only shows the main arteries. Maps before and after show that many of those roads existed.
2. The only part that is missing from the 1907 Atlas (as compared to the 1907 land plan) is the eastern tail, marked "to Shinnecock." On the 1907 Atlas, the highway veered south much like the major road does today! LIKEWISE, on the 1907 land plan, the Shinnecock Inn was located the part that veered south, Golf Road. Do you think the developer was not going to put the inn on the main road, or do you suppose that this was intended to be the main route?
3. You keep focusing on the small extension, but it is not really relevant to your proposed location, as it only impacts a few hundred yards of your proposed site! See graphic below.
4. You seem to be trying to have it both ways with that 1907 land plan. You've made all sorts of claims about it, including that it is not to scale, but then you try to use it as the exact location of exactly what was planned. In reality, while not perfect, the land plan gives a pretty good idea of both what roads were there before, and what came after. The eastern tail may be the exception to this, as it appears to either be a bit just a bit higher than the roads that existed both before and after.
5. Next time you wonder why we get frustrated with your posts, go back and look at your latest "rough approximation" of the site you originally suggested, and compare it to the the one you actually suggested. They aren't even close. And in some places they leave less than 100 yards width for the entire out and back course! (This doesn't even consider the 60 estates.) This is a perfect example of you fudging the facts in order to try and make your case. As often happens, in the process you end up arguing against yourself, as you can see in the next point.
6. Ironically, your latest proposed site (the new "rough estimation') cuts directly against your all of your arguments for creating the third site in the first place.
a. Your northern border is well north of your original border. So it is even further away from the RR tracks, and not much closer to the RR tracks than the southern point of NGLA!
b. At least your original third site tried to 'stretch along Peconic Bay' for a few hundred yards west of the canal. This fourth one barely touches it.
c. Your new mystery site abruptly elbows north as it stretches east, and its eastern edge is well north of where you have indicated SHGC was located! In fact even NGLA extends a few hundred yards south of the eastern edge of your new site! Yet you spent weeks arguing that at no point was SHGC adjacent to the east of the land CBM was considering. Now the eastern section of your own site is even further north???
8. Here is a overlay showing (among other things) the routes in question on the 1907 plan as well as the later 1916 Atlas. The 1907 plan is in green, and the 1916 Atlas is in orange. The 1907 Atlas looks like it approximates the 1916 highway. We are talking about the same roads here. And they run right up the gut of your first proposed site, which is yellow.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/SH-Overlays-2-1.jpg?t=1300911252)
_____________________________________________
-
Here is the same map more of the roads.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/SH-Overlays-3.jpg?t=1300910995)
Blue - 1903 map.
Red - 1904 map.
Green - 1907 land plan.
Orange - 1916 map.
Purple - Shinnecock Inn (from 1907 land plan)
Yellow Box - Mike's mystery third site.
White Box - Mike's mystery fourth site.
While not shown, the highway on the 1907 Road Atlas seems to track the 1907 land plan and the 1916 Map. And as you can see, while there is some variance from map to map (I don't think any of them are perfect) the roads generally track each other.
The older roads (1903 and 1904) are missing the very first section of the northern road near the canal, and one section of the northern road from about the middle of Mike's third site east
_____________________________
Bryan,
I hope this answers your question for a while ago.
_______________________________
Jeff Brauer,
In the upper right hand corner is a small orange box next to a road with a circular driveway. That is CBM's house on the 1916 Map.
____________________
NOW CAN WE PLEASE PUT TO REST THIS NONSENSE ABOUT THE ROADS AS WELL AS THIS NONSENSE ABOUT A THIRD AND FOURTH MYSTERY SITE?
-
Mike,
Would you read, with great care, the 1906-07 advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn and the Shinnecock Hills development.
Please pay special attention to the sections reporting on the roads in the area.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
Please also note the auto in this add which appeared in a June 2, 1907 NY paper.
Why would they show people traveling to Shinnecock Hills in cars if no suitable roads existed.
Why would they state, in unequivical terms that good roads were in place ?(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
You've long ago entered the realm of "stupid" stubborn. ;D
-
Mike,
Would you read, with great care, the 1906-07 advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn and the Shinnecock Hills development.
Please pay special attention to the sections reporting on the roads in the area.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
Please also note the auto in this add which appeared in a June 2, 1907 NY paper.
Why would they show people traveling to Shinnecock Hills in cars if no suitable roads existed.
Why would they state, in unequivical terms that a COMPLETE SYSTEM OF GOOD ROADS were in place ?(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
You've long ago entered the realm of "stupid" stubborn. ;D
-
David,
Yes, that was what I was looking for. When I get home on Friday I'd like to add the 1903 and 1904 North Highways that Patrick has touted.
For the record I don't agree with Mike's thesis that there was a mystery third site. I also don't agree with Patrick's assertion that the North Highway was a major commercial artery in 1906. I don't think the road issue is all that compelling in knocking down Mike's site. What is compelling is that it doesn't stretch along Peconic Bay, nor does it skirt the LIRR. And, the fact that we know of no other mention of a third site.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/SH-Overlays-2-1.jpg?t=1300911252)
-
Patrick,
In the following exchange I was interested in Shinnecock Hills Golf Club in the time before there was an NGLA.There were only a handful of estates in the area in those days. The Shinnecock Inn wasn't built yet. There weren't really a lot of cars. Before 1905 was all play on SH from members who were on extended sojourns away from the city? Or on weekends? Hard to see how SH could have survived in those days.
I wonder if you can tell me who the members of SH were in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I assumed they were successful rich NYC business men. Did they play their golf mainly on weekends? Weekdays? What percentage would have taken the train out for the weekend of golf and to go to their summer homes. Or do you think they did daily commutes from NYC by horse and carriage? I am curious on how golf was played in those days. No argument required, I'm just curious as to your views. It surely must have been different that today where we jump in the car, play a round, have dinner at the club and then hop in the car and go home.
Even today, NGLA is a seasonal club.
As we type, the club is closed.
Like ANGC, Seminole and others, the season seems to dictate the level of activity.
I suspect that many had their estates located on the South Fork, where they would summer for the season.
Sabin would seem to be a reasonable example.
Others probably stayed at the Inns/Hotels for short or long durations.
And others probably drove and/or railed to the area for varying durations.
Others probably stayed as guests with fellow members, for a weekend, week, month, season.
Don't forget, the pace wasn't as frenetic as it is today.
-
To get off the roads and mystery third site thing, here's another question. Did NGLA own the land (200 yards long by ?? wide) between the original first tee and the Shinnecock Inn? Back in 1906/7? Today? In between? Or did they have a right of way on Peconic Realty land? There's nothing obvious on the 1907 land plan.
-
Patrick,
I know you are enamored of these ads. I have forgotten what dates they are from. Could you remind me. The top one says the new roads were built by Peconic Bay Realty, yet they are only proposed roads in the 1907 land plan. It also says there is no grade crossing between the Inn and Southampton. How is that possible since the Inn is north of the tracks and Southampton is south. Do you suppose there was some hyping going on in the ad?
The third one reads like a promo for a new development. I suspect that all the promised amenities, includng the roads, are futures. Nice picture with the windmill in the background. Did the NGLA windmill exist at the time?
Mike,
Would you read, with great care, the 1906-07 advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn and the Shinnecock Hills development.
Please pay special attention to the sections reporting on the roads in the area.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/ShinneInn1907.jpg?t=1300299181)
Please also note the auto in this add which appeared in a June 2, 1907 NY paper.
Why would they show people traveling to Shinnecock Hills in cars if no suitable roads existed.
Why would they state, in unequivical terms that a COMPLETE SYSTEM OF GOOD ROADS were in place ?(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Jun2_1907_NYSun.jpg)
You've long ago entered the realm of "stupid" stubborn. ;D
-
I was looking at George's book in the Old Mac clubhouse today and saw the original blueprint of the course. At a glance, it struck me that the shape of the property looked like a mirror image of the shape of The Old Course property. Could CBM's routing have been inspired by the routing of TOC?
-
Guys,
I'm not suggesting that this was some mystery "third site". I'm suggesting it was the "Canal Site", that CBM's offer for that site happened in 1906, not 1905, and I'll try to explain more later as time permits.
I may be wrong, but I'd like to explain my thinking without this thing getting inflamed again.
This whole October article discussion is largely tangential to my larger points that I think are evidenced on this thread, and ironically, the viewpoint espoused by largely everyone else besides me here simply extends the design phase of the project over two months so I really don't mind if I am wrong.
Still, I'd like to make the case for it and would be happy to take constructive criticism.
Please just don't tell me that barely travelled dirt roads running through the area in 1906 were going to be an impediment to building a golf course anywhere that CBM and Alvord agreed was desirable because that's preposterous.
David,
Thanks for taking the time to do all that drawing.
I do think it's important to note that the North Highway was never drawn as on the Olmstead Plan, especially that part near Shinny and NGLA.
As drawn on his Land Plan, he had the highway going along the north boundary of Shinnecock Hills, and when the actual highway was built, it went south of Shinnecock Hills, down along the tracks.
And I agree with your larger point that much of the Olmstead Plan in 1907 was accomplished over the decades since, but I really don't think they have much to do with what land was available to build a golf course on in 1906.
-
Seems unlikely that it was the canal site. Where you've drawn it is not near the canal. And it's plausible that the 250 acres really meant 205 acres or even 450 acres. But no transposition gets you to 120 acres. If roads were not an issue, as I believe for the most part they weren't, then there are lots of 120 acre parcels near the canal that could have been what CBM had in mind. By the way, the yellow area you originally created was 260 acres more or less. You'll need to reduce its size by half if you want to match it up to CBM's 120 acres.
But all of this has been said before. What's your new thinking.
-
Plus...it said "PURCHASED"!
-
Jim,
What said "purchased"? Are you referring to the October articles?
-
Yep
-
David,
Yes, that was what I was looking for. When I get home on Friday I'd like to add the 1903 and 1904 North Highways that Patrick has touted.
I've done that. The roads from these years are in blue (1903) and in red (1904) on the second map I posted. I can make it bigger when you get back if you want. I haven't posted the older maps which show a road through that area because I don't think they are anywhere near to scale.
Out of curiosity I also looked at the 1907 land plan compared to newer land records, and it looks as if the vast majority of the roads on that plan were built. Not sure if it was all in 1905-1907, but there are a number of articles indicating that the developer had invested substantially in developing this land but building a network of roads and such. All that may have stopped abruptly with the bank panic in the fall of 1907 but by that point the project had been going for about two years. But prior to that they had apparently been quite busy. On July 13 1907 reported that development began shortly after the purchase and that the developer had had built "a fine Hotel called the Shinnecock Inn, several miles of roads, two railroad stations, and three undergrade crossings."
In the following exchange I was interested in Shinnecock Hills Golf Club in the time before there was an NGLA.There were only a handful of estates in the area in those days. The Shinnecock Inn wasn't built yet. There weren't really a lot of cars. Before 1905 was all play on SH from members who were on extended sojourns away from the city? Or on weekends? Hard to see how SH could have survived in those days.
I think you may be drastically underestimating how busy this place was during the summer. Reportedly, even before the turn of the century this had become a premier summer locale for a Society, along with Newport. There were other summer clubs besides SHGC including the Hampton, Meadow, and Maidstone Club. In addition to being an equity club, SHGC provided many summer memberships. Tennis was big and so were "automobiling," fishing, and bicycling.
My impression was that many had summer residences there and many others traveled there and stayed Inns or in rental cottages. In 1898 there were reportedly five hotels or boarding houses in Southampton, twelve more in Good Ground. In 1908 there were reportedly over 200 guest rooms in Southampton and "Golf Ground" and over 600 in Good Ground. There was also a famous art colony and even a museum (Created by Samuel Parrish one of the founders of SHGC.) Plus, some people did live out there, even back then. I think I read that the population of Southampton was around 2000 in 1902 and the population of Sag Harbor was 3000 around the same time, but I will have to double check.
Here are a few photos from a 1908 RR promotional:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinne1908.jpg?t=1300992297)
We aren't dealing with the boondocks here. Just how many of such such summer cottages and clubs would have to been located out there for you to consider it civilized enough to have decent roads?
Seriously, while there were undoubtedly some primitive roads out there, I really doubt they were all primitive. I suspect that the roads had been improving as the automobile was becoming more prominent. Those society types at these clubs were not riding around in horse buggies in 1905. Rather, "automobiling" was quite a fad of the society crowd. The Automobile Club of America and other such clubs had their origins as society social clubs, and families such as the Vanderbilts were big supporters. The Shinnecock Inn was a frequent stop and/or destination for various automobile races and runs, and provided the "Shinnecock Inn Cup" for one such race in May of 1907.
I came across a 1907 advertisement for an automobile which supposedly could make it from Brooklyn to the Shinnecock Inn faster the the "Cannon Ball Express " train between the two locations.
Granted, all of this progress may all have been stalled or even set back by the bank Panic of 1907, but things were looking pretty rosy before then.
_________________________________
As for those ads you asked about, the first one was from the 1907 Automotive Blue Book, the second from newspapers in the spring of 1907.
Patrick has mentioned that NGLA did not originally own the land between the course and Inn, and that they purchased some of that land later. I don't know one way or another.
-
From the same 1908 RR promotional as pictured above:
. . . Good Ground and the fashionable Shinnecock Hills with its beautiful roads laid out by the landscape architects, Olmstead Brothers and Downing Vaux from which may be had superb views of the surrounding land and waters of the bay and ocean.
. . .
The most important of the Hamptons is Southampton, where the air of social refinement is fully equal to that of the most fashionable watering places in America. Within its borders there is a small lake and many beautiful drives, not only to the beach but to the backcountry overlooking Peconic Bay.
-
I was looking at George's book in the Old Mac clubhouse today and saw the original blueprint of the course. At a glance, it struck me that the shape of the property looked like a mirror image of the shape of The Old Course property. Could CBM's routing have been inspired by the routing of TOC?
Bryan,
I had mentioned that earlier.
What triggered my comment was Max Behr's article about NGLA, TOC and how NGLA routed itself.
In addition to TOC, I think CBM was influenced by the out and back routings of many of the UK Links courses.
However, I don't think 120 acres on a squarelike parcel would accomodate an out and back routing
-
Guys,
Still, I'd like to make the case for it and would be happy to take constructive criticism.
Please just don't tell me that barely travelled dirt roads running through the area in 1906 were going to be an impediment to building a golf course anywhere that CBM and Alvord agreed was desirable because that's preposterous.
Mike, they weren't "BARELY TRAVELED DIRT ROADS" Once again, you're misrepresenting the facts. Once again, you're being disingenuous.
They were well travled roads. Please, look again at the advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn, located ON THE NORTH HIGHWAY.
You continually make these extreme pronouncements and then use the extreme pronouncement as the foundation for another speculative theory.
The advertisements refer to "Automobile parties, garages, a complete system of GOOD roads, yet you continually ignore the facts, prefering instead to make false statements about the conditions circa 1906-07.
How much longer are you going to maintain this charade in the face of overwhelming, independent source documentation ?
David,
Thanks for taking the time to do all that drawing.
I do think it's important to note that the North Highway was never drawn as on the Olmstead Plan, especially that part near Shinny and NGLA.?
As drawn on his Land Plan, he had the highway going along the north boundary of Shinnecock Hills, and when the actual highway was built, it went south of Shinnecock Hills, down along the tracks.
Mike, the North Highway EXISTED PRIOR TO THE OLMSTED MAP/'PLAN.
The North Highway didn't come into existance after the Olmsted map/plan.
While roads may have been realigned, the fact is that the North Highway existed prior to the Olmsted Plan.
It's shown on map after map after map predating the Olmsted plan
-
I think your measurements are INACCURATE.
The entire width of the isthmus east of the canal from the water jutting down in the lower right from the North Highway to the Atlantic Ocean is only 1,320 yards.
I'd feel more comfortable if Bryan or David calculated the measurements as you've been prone to error.
Here is a modern aerial. I've drawn three lines.
The first on the left shows what would have been the narrowest point of what I proposed, from the edge of Peconic Bay to an actual road that looks close to traversing the same route as whatever that old dirt road was on those 1905 maps. It is 200 yards.
It's less than that, especially when you've angled it.
That road WAS the NORTH HIGHWAY.
I believe it's called the "Old North Highway" today.
The next shows the distance from the northern boundary I proposed to the actual North Highway that was eventually built MANY years later. It's 400 yards, actually 405 yards to be precise.
That's the "SUNRISE HIGHWAY"
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5553863072_00cf0bdc15_b.jpg)
The last line, which actually more reflects the reality of the time, shows that it was over 750 yards from that boundary to the rail line, where there is PLENTY of room to re-route a dirt road if necessary.
Why didn't you show more of the aerial to the EAST.
Where the North Highway is RIGHT ON THE WATER, RIGHT ON COLD SPRING POND, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE YOUR PHANTOM GOLF COURSE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Don't just present a partial portion of your phantom course, present the entire area, not what's convenient to your agenda.
-
Mike,
Look at the driveways to these "summer cottages".
Why would someone build such elaborate driveways if there were only dirt roads that barely got any traffic on them, as you contend.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Shinne1908.jpg?t=1300992297)
The overwhelming documented evidence destroys your misrepesentations, misrepresentations that only "stupid" stubborn people would cling to.
-
Mike,
In the 1906-07 ad for Shinnecock Hills, it distinctly states.
"It's attraction and advantages are:
A complete system of good roads for riding, driving or motoring"[/b][/size]
The ad/s go on to state:
Take the NEW North Highway at the Shinnecock Canal to the NEW Shinnecock Inn.
Especially arranged for AUTOMOBILE PARTIES, with GARAGE and every convenience.
For you to continue to deny the existance of the North Highway, traffic and automobile use is being blatantly disingenuous.
There's just no other way to describe your insistance that only a few dirt roads existed and that they were barely traveled, which is what you've maintained.
-
WHO CARES ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE ROADS...THE SITE IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER THE CANAL SITE OR THE SEBONAK NECK SITE.
-
WHO CARES ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE ROADS...THE SITE IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER THE CANAL SITE OR THE SEBONAK NECK SITE.
I agree with the first part and agree that "the site in question" was not the Canal site. But "the site in question" was the Sebonack Neck site, was it not? The Sebonack Neck site was the one on which the course was ultimately located. I know Mike's fourth mystery site is starting to creep up onto the Neck, but so as to avoid confusion I don't think should call it the "Sebonack Neck site."
___________________________________
Mike Cirba, I had somehow missed some of your latest drawings and posts above. I am disappointed to see that you apparently did not take to heart my suggestion that you try to seriously consider the reasonableness of your representations and analysis before continuing along the same lines as you before.
1. I've posted the locations of all those roads. and the North Highway was on the 1907 Atlas except for that little tail to the east. So why do you keep claiming it wasn't built until many years later?
2. Your latest drawing measuring the distances astonishes me. Along much of your latest site there was less than 100 yards between the road and the shoreline. You drawing leaves off this this part altogether!
3. I never claimed that the roads on the Olmstead plan were built decades later or "over decades" as you imply I did. I really do not appreciate you misrepresenting my position especially given that I have repeatedly indicated that, by 1907, "major parts of the project were implemented, INCLUDING THE NORTH HIGHWAY, which appears as THE MAJOR ROUTE." (emphasis in original.) So far as I can tell, the project was well under way by the timeframe in question!
4. I see you have returned to claiming that in October articles were referring to the site "near the canal" discussed in Scotland's Gift. Rather than continuing to stubbornly fixate on the roads, perhaps you should address the real problems with this position. I have repeatedly provided you with a list of reasons this was not the case, and despite repeated representations that you will address these reasons, you continue to ignore them. I am particularly interested in how you can say that your latest site could be the site near the canal. Your drawing matches neither the description of the canal site in Scotland's Gift nor the the description of the land stretching along the Peconic from the October articles.
5. I for one am especially curious as to your latest explanation of how you can draw a site next to SHGC and well away from the Canal and claim it is actually near the Canal and well away from SHGC.
6. I am also curious as to how you can continue to adamantly claim that site described in the articles couldn't possibly be the site on which NGLA was built when your own drawing of that site includes part of NGLA!
-
No David, The "site in question" I was referring to is the yellow box (or the new black one...) Mike has drawn speculating where the October articles could have been describing.
The entire road debate seems to be an attempt to debunk those locations...
-
No David, The "site in question" I was referring to is the yellow box (or the new black one...) Mike has drawn speculating where the October articles could have been describing.
The entire road debate seems to be an attempt to debunk those locations...
Gotcha. My mistake. I think we agree that there are much more straightforward reasons to discard Mike's various October mystery sites, other than that they would displace a major ongoing development project, but it seems Mike would rather discuss roads than address these.
-
David,
I've often wondered about the land leading down to Cold Spring Pond.
The stretch from the 1st tee at Sebonack to the 12th green at Sebonack and beyond, down to Cold Spring Pond and the isthmus leading to the inlet. I wonder if CBM refered to the Canal when he meant the inlet. Hard to make such a big mistake, but possible.
That long stretch of beachfront property was probably a good setting for a golf course, but, I don't think it was the land that was the deal breaker, rather the price. Water front property always costs more than inland property and CBM's $ 200 per acre, while reasonable inland, may have been woefully inadequate on the water.
Friends of mine bid on the Sebonack property. Some for a golf course others for homes, and I can tell you that the cost of lots on the bluff overlooking the water would have been much, much higher than the inland lots. I think that was true in 1906.
In addition, that's a pretty neat strip of beach running on the north shore of Cold Spring Pond, and as a developer, I don't think I'd give that asset up so quickly if I was developing the area.
20 & 30 years ago I made suggetions to a friend of mine who was on the Board at NGLA that they should negotiate with the union to buy a border strip or enter into some type of option for a narrow strip of border property, should the parcel be sold in the future.
Every time I play the 5th hole I'm reminded of my suggestion
-
Patrick,
Interesting speculation but I think CBM knew the difference between an inlet and the Shinnecock Canal. That canal was a major physical feature out there, the western border of Shinnecock Hills and the western border of land in question. Once he decided on the Shinnecock Hills location CBM wanted to be well away from SHGC and land near the canal was as far away as he could get. Also, In don't think the description in SG makes sense if both parcels were on Sebonack Neck.
I understand what you are saying about the land values generally and today, but this land was well out of the way in an area with an abundance of beach front property. It is hard to imagine overlooking its value now, but just look at how long that parcel went essentially unused. And I think the development company's plans to develop the rest first and their willingness to sell to CBM speaks to the relative value of the rest of the area as compared to the SHill area.
-
20 & 30 years ago I made suggetions to a friend of mine who was on the Board at NGLA that they should negotiate with the union to buy a border strip or enter into some type of option for a narrow strip of border property, should the parcel be sold in the future.
Pat, did some union own the property that became Sebonac? Also, have never been there--what would your suggestion have accomplished?
-
I wonder how much it matters that CBM ended up with that parcel of land rather than the other 120 acres or Mike's mystery locale. Yes, he says he found the perfect Alps and Redan but would he have found something similar or created it or dug something equally good out of any of the 205 acre parcels he might have ended up buying in that little region?
-
I still haven't been able to find the time these past few days to comprehensively address David's questions, but the amount of additional discussion on this and a number of new related threads at least gives me some confidence that this thread has been of value to most folks who have read it, and I'm glad for that.
One thing I'd like people to think about is the fact that the real estate transactions didn't take place out on the island, but in Brooklyn, where the PB&SHRC was located.
I'd also be curious to explore why only one NYC paper actually reported that October 15th story, which seems to have been placed on the wire and then reported in Boston and a few other sites verbatim.
In fact, AFTER that article was written, both the NY Sun as well as the seemingly most "in the know", the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, printed much different accounts of where things stood on November 1st, based on what they reported CBM said to reporters at Garden City during the Lesley Cup matches, with the Sun stating that CBM was down to a site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground and Montauk, and the Eagle reporting that he was looking at various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills.
Certainly, by contrast, the mid-December reporting was much more extensive with numerous papers reporting that CBM had signed a contract securing 205 undetermined acres of 450 available.
Hope to get into more detail, and more admitted speculation this weekend.
-
Mike Cirba,
My questions and comments have been pending for weeks now. Perhaps you ought to address them before heading off on yet another tangent?
-
David,
No tangent...just setting the stage.
Sorry for the delay...last few days have been hectic.
I will try to put something together by end of weekend. Thanks for your patience.
-
Mike Cirba,
My questions and comments have been pending for weeks now.
Perhaps you ought to address them before heading off on yet another tangent?
David,
I agree, let's not embark on any diversionary, specultative expeditions until all of the questions you've posed have been satisfactorily addressed and answered
-
Patrick,
Isn't it nap time or something? ;). ;D
-
Patrick,
Isn't it nap time or something? ;). ;D
Actually, it's night-night time.
I have to get my beauty rest in preparation for the huge surprise birthday party that TEPaul and Wayno are throwing for me tomorrow. ;D
-
One more belated post on the roads. And, not wanting Pat to have the last post. ;D
In the Southampton Records there was a File 40 from August 1913 that talked to dedication of a number of roads and trading of other roads to Peconic Bay Realty. I've reproduced it below. The first highlighted part describes in text a road through the Shinnecock Hills which it later refers to as the North Road. Further down, where I've also highlighted, it refers to the North Road as a new road which the Town is accepting while giving older unused roads back to Peconic Bay Realty. Based on this, I'd draw the conclusion that the North Highway as we know it in 1916, or today, was built closer to 1913 than to 1906. Clearly, there were parts of the road there, probably in unimproved states. in 1903 and up until the new road, in its entirety, was built. There was a section there in 1903, St Andrews Road, on which the Shinnecock Inn was built, but it must have been an unimproved road at the time.
Based on this file, it is clear that the new roads mentioned were built as private roads and then dedicated and released as public roads in 1913. The trade-of was that Peconic Bay received a number of rights-of-way (public?) that were for roads that would be displaced by the new roads.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/File40SouthamptonRecords.jpg)
Here below is the 1903 USGS map of the Shinnecock Hills. I think it is the most accurate from that era.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903zoom.jpg)
David has done a good job of overlaying the various maps from the era. I just wanted to add this one below, which shows, in Mucci-green, the 1903 "North Highway" as Patrick has described it. I've also added, in red, the North Road/Highway provided by the metes and bounds of the Southampton Records that Andy found. And, I've added, in yellow, the 1916 Atlas map version of the North Highway. Both are consistent with the current routing of the road, with one exception. The eastern end that used to run through the Shinnecock Hills golf club, currently drops southerly and runs much closer to the LIRR tracks. No doubt a result of one of the later rebuilds of SH.
It should be noted that all the road rights-of-way were designated as 50 feet wide, much wider than the actual roads were built then, or now.
It also appears that the South Highway was not a complete contiguous road either in 1903, but was by 1913.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwaySuffolkCountycopy.jpg)
On the next picture, I've plotted the metes and bounds for parts of St Andrews Road and Tuckahoe Road that were dedicated as public roads in 1913. The orange parts are stretches that abut some part of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The measurements are quite precise. They appear to match the related stretches on the 1916 Atlas map. Unfortunately there is no mention of roads that abut other boundaries of the club.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/VariousRoadsfromSothamptonRecordsMetes.jpg)
Finally, for Patrick, a picture of the still bustling ;) North Highway in the 21srt century. Next time you're out that way, maybe you could stop and see if there is a dedication stone on that bridge from the year it was built? Or, not.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
-
Bryan,
That's absolutely tremendous work...thanks!
Two questions;
1) In your estimation, based on the position of the North "road" in 1906, would there have been enough width to route an "out and back" golf course heading west from about 200 yards from the west side of Shinnecock Inn, located south of Cold Spring Bay and north of the railroad tracks, and ending with it's westernmost point near the inlet (possibly even stretching further so that Peconic Bay was to the north) between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground without having to contend with road congestion? If I understand your map correctly the location I described would run north of the Muccian Green road.
2) From reading the metes and bounds from the 1913 dedication, it sounded as though the North road ran along the north border of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club at that time. Is that correct, and if so, could you show us precisely where that was and it's positioning in relation to NGLA?
Thanks again...great stuff.
-
Mike,
How far would you guess it was from the Shinnecock Inn to that section of Peconic Bay?
-
Bryan,
I agree, great work. How many hours did you spend? I will bet they are less than all the uninformed arguments made here about those #$@(@ roads. For what its worth, I always had the impression that the roads developed slowly, but faster after Peconic Bay started drawing their plans and selling lots.
It shouldn't have been a question as to whether a golf course would fit in that area. It would be whether CBM had any idea of the plans when he suggested his first site to the realty company. I suspect he went in there in summer of 1906, saying he wanted at least some waterfront land, and they rejected him because they were too far along with their plans to change (perhaps having already submitted plat plans and the like) but were perfectly willing to have NGLA as an amenity on land that had not been considered yet for development.
The whole argument about how idiotic Mike was for suggesting that area because of the roads seemed far fetched to me, given the timing of everything.
And, it would still be interesting but not imperative to know where that site was!
-
Jim,
No need to guess, actually.
David has shown us how today's NGLA actually traverses about 2 miles in each direction, plotted along the holes.
The following would assume a straigther routing, but the red line going east/west is 2 miles exactly.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5172/5575056259_959c4e43b6_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Is this the Canal site possibly?
Why would the canal site also be anchored by the Shinnecock Inn and not actually too close to the canal?
Jeff,
When CBM says he made the first offer just a few weeks after the realty company bought the land why would the platt plans have been too far evolved for them to give him a certain area?
-
Jim,
If he did make the offer in late 1905 or very early 1906, my guess is that they had engaged Olmstead and had at least figured where the bulk of the development was going. Just because the plan was made public in 1907 for advertising, doesn't mean it wasn't under development from the get go right after purchase (and possibley before purchase as part of what would now be called "due dilligence."
If we believe Whigham on riding the Sebonac site in Sept 1906, I get the feeling that the first offer came sometime after CBM's June return from GBI, myself. There are a few other examples of CBM not exactly having his dates right either.
In either case, its an easy scenario to see that the land company offered him land that was projected to be (despite incomplete plans) of less use to their basic scheme. And, as David suggested once, maybe CBM went in and wanted to generally purchase 120 acres and was told he should look at the neck, without there ever having been a specific site, but rather a general area near the canal.
-
Jeff,
I can see the realty company turning him down for property they saw as worth more than he was offering, but I can't see that their plans were too far evolved to have accepted his offer. Nothing supports it.
-
One more belated post on the roads. And, not wanting Pat to have the last post. ;D
In the Southampton Records there was a File 40 from August 1913 that talked to dedication of a number of roads and trading of other roads to Peconic Bay Realty. I've reproduced it below. The first highlighted part describes in text a road through the Shinnecock Hills which it later refers to as the North Road.
That reference indicates that they ACCEPT an EXISTING road, the NORTH ROAD
Further down, where I've also highlighted, it refers to the North Road as a new road which the Town is accepting while giving older unused roads back to Peconic Bay Realty.
That's NOT what it says, it says:
It mentions roads that run North-South, connecting the South Country road to the North road, and it mentions "new roadS above mentioned", not the "singular" North Road.
But, it would be helpful if you could obtain the Seth Raynor map cited.
Did you do this research or did someone else provide it for you ?
Based on this, I'd draw the conclusion that the North Highway as we know it in 1916, or today, was built closer to 1913 than to 1906. Clearly, there were parts of the road there, probably in unimproved states. in 1903 and up until the new road, in its entirety, was built. There was a section there in 1903, St Andrews Road, on which the Shinnecock Inn was built, but it must have been an unimproved road at the time.
That's your opinion, one that I don't agree with
Based on this file, it is clear that the new roads mentioned were built as private roads and then dedicated and released as public roads in 1913. The trade-of was that Peconic Bay received a number of rights-of-way (public?) that were for roads that would be displaced by the new roads.
Those roads appear to be North-South roads, not East-West roads
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/File40SouthamptonRecords.jpg)
Here below is the 1903 USGS map of the Shinnecock Hills. I think it is the most accurate from that era.
I agree that it's accurate, and if you look carefully, between the "K" in Shinnecock and the "H" you'll see that the road is about 20-30 yards south of the water in the little inlet,. At that point, the North Highway runs right through Mike's phantom course.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903zoom.jpg)
David has done a good job of overlaying the various maps from the era. I just wanted to add this one below, which shows, in Mucci-green, the 1903 "North Highway" as Patrick has described it. I've also added, in red, the North Road/Highway provided by the metes and bounds of the Southampton Records that Andy found. And, I've added, in yellow, the 1916 Atlas map version of the North Highway. Both are consistent with the current routing of the road, with one exception. The eastern end that used to run through the Shinnecock Hills golf club, currently drops southerly and runs much closer to the LIRR tracks. No doubt a result of one of the later rebuilds of SH.
It should be noted that all the road rights-of-way were designated as 50 feet wide, much wider than the actual roads were built then, or now.
It also appears that the South Highway was not a complete contiguous road either in 1903, but was by 1913.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwaySuffolkCountycopy.jpg)
On the next picture, I've plotted the metes and bounds for parts of St Andrews Road and Tuckahoe Road that were dedicated as public roads in 1913. The orange parts are stretches that abut some part of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The measurements are quite precise. They appear to match the related stretches on the 1916 Atlas map. Unfortunately there is no mention of roads that abut other boundaries of the club.
Finally, for Patrick, a picture of the still bustling ;) North Highway in the 21srt century. Next time you're out that way, maybe you could stop and see if there is a dedication stone on that bridge from the year it was built? Or, not.
Bryan,
I can understand you ignorance with respect to the Olde and the Old North Highway since you're not familiar iwth that area. ;D
I've taken the road depicted below hundreds of times. I refrenced it in many of my replies
That road runs under the current Sunrise Highway just East of the Canal.
When I stay at the Hampton Maid, in Hampton Bays, I take that road, which goes under and north of the Sunrise highway to the point just west of that little inlet between the "K" and the "H" in order to avoid the backed up traffic on the Sunrise Highway, even at 6:00 am. The Sunrise Highway replaced the North Highway as the Major Thoroughfare running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork. In many locations, the Sunrise Highway traverses the olde North Highway.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
-
Jim,
I know those plans for large parcels take a while to develop. They start with analysis of the land, surveys, etc. then land allocation studies, then prelim plans, etc. If they had gotten to the concept stage before CBM asked to buy land, it would be easy to say no.
But, as you say, they may also have just seen the land along what "would be" the north highway as the easiest to develop for whatever reason, and most valuble and just decided to stick with the plan.
We are probably envisioning things a bit differently, but in the end, we only know they turned CBM down, and somehow it had something to do with their grand plans. The specifics, I doubt we will ever know. We don't even need to, but its fascinating to try to fill in the details.
If we ever do know, I bet we are both wrong! But, I am pretty damn sure Patrick is wrong about the roads. The maps show there were many roads in different locations prior to 1907. They moved, sort of proving they could be moved, no? It was not until they were dedicated public roads that they couldn't be moved......
-
Mike,
I'll answer the question you posed to Bryan, who has no first hand knowledge of the lay of the land in that area.
There was NO room to squeeze a golf course south of Cold Spring Pond. The Inlet that dips down, between the "K" in Shinnecock and the "H" in Hills in the 1903 map, approximately 20-30 yards from the North Highway. In fact, the 1903 map shows it closer than that.
Jeff,
Since when can't public roads be moved.
That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said, and you've said plenty of ridiculous things.
-
Pat,
Well, the govt can move them, but usually not for private interests. It is hard to sell public land by charter in most cases. I know they have straightened them over the years for greater traffic.
The day when you tell me I say silly things is the day .....well, I will try to be civil.
-
I've just assumed the slight variations in the roads was different map drawers, are you guys saying it's more likely the roads moved than to have mads slightly inconsistent?
-
Bryan,
If you look carefully, you can see the overpass for the Sunrise Highway in the distance behind (north of) the Railroad Trestle.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
The road depicted is in almost the exact location at the North Highway in the Olmsted Map, which as we all know, ran right smack down the middle of Mike's phantom golf course.
The next time you're in that area, where the Old North Highway intersects with the Sunrise Highway, just a little west of the little inlet, between the "K" and "H" in the 1903 map, stop in at the "Lobster Inn" a nice restaurant right on that little inlet. They have some nice waiters and waitresses who've been there since 1902 and they can tell you all about the fact that they located the Lobster Inn on the Sunrise/North Highway for prudent business reasons, just like the Shinnecock Inn did.
-
Jim,
Yes, I think it may be the Lcanal site".
I'll try to explain soon, but it's been a really busy couple of weeks and I don't want to go off half-cocked given the history here to date.
I may be wrong, but at least Bryan has shed some light on reality here, and that's very helpful.
-
Mike,
I'll tell you what surprised me...2 miles out and back and 100 yards wide is only 78 acres.
I would have guessed closer to 500...seriously!
For what it's worth, I think it'll be a stretch to have that be his proposed first site, but I'm curious to hear your idea.
-
Jim,
I think the maps are pretty accurate.
Bryan stated that he thought the 1903 map was accurate, and I believe it is.
That map has the North Highway running right down the middle of Mike's phantom golf course.
Jeff,
In 1954 the Interstate and National Defense Highway System was initiated.
Major interstate Highways replaced connecting State Highways.
In some cases, they incorporated existing highways into the system.
As to roads and intersections moving, in NJ, RT 1, Rt 171 and Rt 130 were moved recently.
And, as I type, so are the roads leading to and from the East side of the George Washington Bridge.
ARW allows various authorities to move roads when necessary.
Moving them in 1903, 1906 or 1916 was duck soup.
-
Pat,
Semantically, I wouldn't say Duck Soup, but lets not quibble, as I agreed that the govt moves highways for their own reasons.
That said, if you think moving roads in 1906 was duck soup, then why is it so hard for you to believe that CBM went to the Realty Co. and suggested the site near the canal, with the same idea. Why wouldn't they move a few simple roads for his great golf course?
That is ALL that had to have happened or been believed for CBM to make an offer where Mike postulated that he made his offer, no? While Mike's theory is still speculation, you have prompted 25 pages of posts based on your contention that he wouldn't have offered to buy land in an area because the roads were there, and yet you say it was duck soup to move them.
Also, while I have no doubt that SHGC and NGLA fought the eventual roads that went through their property (can't fight city hall, I guess, no matter how powerful you are) the fact that Merion, Mid Ocean, and other later projects have roads through them suggest that perhaps, CBM wasn't all that concerned about a road or two cutting through his golf course site, eh?
Thus, given the CBM description of the land, I have just never thought Mike's theory deserves the load of crap you give it. If the offer was not there, then where? It is certainly a question worth asking.
Have a good one.
-
Jeff,
That site would never be considered..."near the canal", that's why his theory is off base so far. If he comes up with additional info maybe things change, but from what's been produced so far, it's 120 "near the canal". Why is Mike anchoring this site to the Shinnecock Inn? Nobody reported that at the time...
-
Pat,
Semantically, I wouldn't say Duck Soup, but lets not quibble, as I agreed that the govt moves highways for their own reasons.
That said, if you think moving roads in 1906 was duck soup, then why is it so hard for you to believe that CBM went to the Realty Co. and suggested the site near the canal, with the same idea.
Because it wasn't just one road that would have to be moved, it was the main road running East-West, a road central to the entire development.
It they moved the North Road, they'd have to reconfigure all of the other roads. And, where would you move the North Highway, the Major East-West thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork ?
Please review the Olmsted Bros Map.
You're talking about reconfiguring a complex development, not just one road.
And, for what purpose, so that a golf course could be built where the development company wanted to site homes.
Think about that. Selling that land to CBM would be disastrous to their development plans.
And I thought common sense was common ? ;D
Why wouldn't they move a few simple roads for his great golf course?
Because it would have been financially disastrous.
That is ALL that had to have happened or been believed for CBM to make an offer where Mike postulated that he made his offer, no?
NO.
The entire development plan would go down the tubes if they sold the land Mike identified, and, they would have sold it cheap, at $ 200 per acre.
Ruining any possibility of development on a critical stretch of land, land on the water, the most valueable land.
And, where would they have relocated the North Highway ?
Like Mike, you're proposing speculative hypotheticals and asking why they wouldn't have done it.
I can tell you one reason they didn't do it.
And, that's because, they didn't do it. IF it was so easy and if that was the site, they would have done it, but, neither is the case.
It wasn't going to happen. Your belief in Mike's phantom course is rooted in one principle, and that is, that I say it couldn't happen, and you want to prove me wrong.
While Mike's theory is still speculation, you have prompted 25 pages of posts based on your contention that he wouldn't have offered to buy land in an area because the roads were there, and yet you say it was duck soup to move them.
Oh, I see, like you haven't been complicit in promoting 25 pages.
Now Jeff, you're starting to be disingenuous.
I stated that it was duck soup to move public roads in 1903, 1906 and 1916.
It's one thing to move a road, it's quite another to completely undo a development plan with multiple roads and redraft an entirely new plan moving many roads.
Please, do yourself a favor and review the Olmsted Plan. It's NOT one road that would have to be moved, but, EVERYROAD.
AND, where would you move the North Highway to ? South of the Railroad tracks ?
Please, get a grip on reality and give up the fantasy of trying to prove me wrong on this issue.
Look at the Maps, look at the location of Mike's phantom course, look at Cold Spring Pond, look at the Railroad tracks, look at all the other roads and tell me you really believe the nonsense you're spewing.
Also, while I have no doubt that SHGC and NGLA fought the eventual roads that went through their property (can't fight city hall, I guess, no matter how powerful you are) the fact that Merion, Mid Ocean, and other later projects have roads through them suggest that perhaps, CBM wasn't all that concerned about a road or two cutting through his golf course site, eh?
Not when it's THE major thoroughfare for the North Shore of the South Fork and it runs down the entire middle of your golf course.
It's one thing to have a road cut across a hole, quite another to have it run down the middle of your entire golf course.
And again, it was THE Major East-West Thoroughfare on the North Shore of the South Fork.
It's an absurd premise, but, I'm sure you'll blindly soldier on in an attempt to prove me wrong, and in doing so, you look silly.
Thus, given the CBM description of the land, I have just never thought Mike's theory deserves the load of crap you give it.
Are you intimately familiar with that land ?
The location of Cold Spring Pond, the Railroad, the North Highway and the topography ?
If you were, you'd see the absurdity of Mike's and your position.
If the offer was not there, then where? It is certainly a question worth asking.
For once we agree.
Thwarting our attemps at locating the exact site are conflicting reports, one of which stated that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on the property except the low lying areas.. CBM stated that he wanted to get far away from Shinnecock. He mentions 120 acres near the canal.
Our dilema is the definition of "near". Is it a hundred feet, a hundred yards, 1,000 feet, 1,000 yards ? Is it East or West of the canal ?
Is he refering to the Shinnecock Canal or the canal at Cold Spring Pond ? I don't know.
What intriques me more, is how was he going to site his 18 ideal/classic holes on 120 acres ?
What was the configuration of that 120 acres and what was the topography.
David makes the case that it was the western portion of Sebonack Neck. Could be, but, I don't know where or how the 120 acre site was configured.
I don't think we can draw any finite conclusions without more data.
Have a good one.
-
Jim,
I agree if you are talking about the portion of the site by the Inn. Mike's original yellow rectangle extended from the canal all the way across, and was much larger than 120 acres originally proposed.
Pat,
Sorry to say that your logic on this one is easily assailable. Although we will never know, I do know that I have several emails etc. telling me I DO NOT look silly in this. I presume you have a few of your own.
None of the roads, even the north road in whatever configuration it was in by 1907 was hard to move. They would have built the new road, put up barriers until ready, and then transferred traffic when ready, just as they do today. In fact, the realty company was PLANNING on moving the road anyway, according to their master plan, so they obviously didn't think it would be a financial disaster, although history does show that they sure didn't believe that moving it for CBM's golf course served their purposes.
That wouldn't have necessarily stopped CBM from offering on it anyway, out of ignorance or ego that they would accomodate him. And, CBM tells us just that. Just because they DID reject him, obviously because their base level or detailed thinking when CBM offered to buy 120 acres in the middle of their plans, and because he told us he was rejected (pretty strong words, actually) means that he MUST HAVE offered somewhere near the canal, and perhaps been a bit surprised at the reaction, right?
To my mind, its very possible/probable that they told CBM "We love ya, but you do know that your offer would make us move about ten miles of road we have planned in great detail, no?" (or some similar reason - wanted lake front, utilities closer, access to train station, etc.)
We agree that the developers simply weren't going to change their plans (and most likely roads) for him, but did want NGLA there, so they offered to let him take a look at the final property.
It just seems to me that your logic that ignores what did happen (rejection) in favor of what we now know did happen. It also seems simple to me that CBM simply got there to offer on the land a bit past the shelf life of his idea, because of the work the developer put in during a short time frame.
Nothing more, nothing less. While I understand the reasons the developers DID reject him in that area, I don't think he never offered there - he tells us so, but doesn't tell us the reasons why. Maybe he is up in heaven saying "If that fool Mucci could see it wouldn't fly, why couldn't I? D'oh!"
BTW, I also agree that we won't ever know where it was offered and can't draw any finite conclusions. It is simply our web version of those Disney kid adventures when they go out looking for buried treasure, no? And, I have briefly looked at the topo in the Cold Springs and Canal areas and also wonder just where those holes might have gone. Even on what looks from the topo to be better land, it had to be a challenge to fit those holes in, and he eventually abandoned the pure copy idea in favor of a mesh of concepts and fitting the land. Actually, for pure templates, the land along Cold Spring appears to me to be a bit flatter, and might have been easier.
But, those kind of speculations are fun for history and architecture buffs and keep us coming back, no?
Sleep well.
For that matter, we don't know how the course would have been routed, and it could very easily (I presume) been routed to parallel important roads rather than have them cross fw, as later happened at NGLA and SH.
We agree that set in stone by the time Charlie made the offer.
-
Bryan, You mentioned that the North road was described as a "new road" in the 1913 records, but I don't see that. Can you point it out, or are you assuming it was new due to the fact it was being handed over to the municipality then?
The reason I ask is because, whether "new" or not, it sure sounds like the same road drawn and described in the 1907 automobile atlas. The description of the route to Southampton from that Atlas:
After crossing bridge [over the Canal] take first left—the 'Shore Road,' running close along Peconic Bay through Shinnecock Hills (96 miles); Shinnecock Inn. Cross RR., meeting old road near "Art Village," just beyond; here bear left, straight ahead on fine surface, part of the way oiled. Continue direct, turning left into SOUTHAMPTON. 100 miles from New York.
Note that the description is similar to that in the 1913 record. Note also that the road described in 1907 goes to the Shinnecock Inn. From an advertisement in same Atlas: "Take the new North Highway at the Shinnecock Canal to the new Shinnecock Inn." The 1903 route you highlighted does not appear to have gone to the Shinnecock Inn.
Also, are you missing a map? I don't see where you have marked the described road as described in the town records in orange.
____________________________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
I am a bit perplexed you are back again rehashing the same old discredited theories, yet you still haven't bothered to answer my questions or to address the points I raised about your latest theory. I am also disappointed that you continue to misrepresent my position on matters I have clarified repeatedly.
Will you please just answer my questions and address my critique? How many months could it take?
_________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
I am not sure what you are looking at, but I don't see all these roads you think were moved. Which roads were moved?
I think I provided the locations of most of the roads at a number of dates and except forthe roads running through SHGC they all seem to be in about the same place throughout. Roads were added, some were eventually subtracted, but I don't see where they have been moved.
Care to elaborate?
-
Bryan, You mentioned that the North road was described as a "new road" in the 1913 records, but I don't see that. Can you point it out, or are you assuming it was new due to the fact it was being handed over to the municipality then?
The reason I ask is because, whether "new" or not, it sure sounds like the same road drawn and described in the 1907 automobile atlas. The description of the route to Southampton from that Atlas:
After crossing bridge [over the Canal] take first left—the 'Shore Road,' running close along Peconic Bay through Shinnecock Hills (96 miles); Shinnecock Inn. Cross RR., meeting old road near "Art Village," just beyond; here bear left, straight ahead on fine surface, part of the way oiled. Continue direct, turning left into SOUTHAMPTON. 100 miles from New York.
Note that the description is similar to that in the 1913 record. Note also that the road described in 1907 goes to the Shinnecock Inn. From an advertisement in same Atlas: "Take the new North Highway at the Shinnecock Canal to the new Shinnecock Inn." The 1903 route you highlighted does not appear to have gone to the Shinnecock Inn.
Also, are you missing a map? I don't see where you have marked the described road as described in the town records in orange.
____________________________________________________________
...................................
David,
You're right, I did neglect to include one map. I've edited the original post to include it. Here it is below, as well. Now the preview is not working, so I seem to be more prone to posting errors. At least the flipping screen and the inactive tool bar are fixed.
The reference to the "new roads" is in the third highlighted section of File 40 above. They accepted new roads and gave up old roads that were no longer relevant because of the new roads.
I think your automobile atlas was a bit off. Do you really think it is 96 (or even 9.6) miles from the canal through the Shinnecock Hills? The only thing 100 miles out that way on LI from New York would be Montauk, and only if you took a slightly non-linear approach.
The Shinnecock Inn would be just off the Muccian-green road on the semicircular road just west of the SH clubhouse on Tuckahoe
Road, so I'd guess the atlas was accurate enough in saying that the road went by there.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/VariousRoadsfromSothamptonRecordsMetes.jpg)
-
David,
Sure, one more time before I nod off and get up early to head your way.....
I looked at your overlay with blue (1903) red (1904) etc roads. Those roads, pre Olmstead development plan seem to have moved a lot.
However, its clear there were far fewer roads on the western portion, near the canal than to the east. Those roads further east were said to be access to the dozen or so private homes (mostly owned by employees of the Brits previously owning the land, at least north of the north road) so there would have been the problem of acquiring several small private parcels (unless they leased the land to build their houses) in addition to moving roads.
It would seem to confirm that the first offer was the canal site, to me:
*CBM said it was there
*Despite my earlier proclamations of CBM's possible ignorance of the of the Realty Co. planned roads, or their committment to that plan when he offered in 1905-6 at about the same time the plan was being drawn up, I prefer to think that CBM was smart enough to suggest a site that had the least infrastructure requirements (road moves) and the wester portion would be more logical.
*Fewer Roads
*Existing roads (including the North Road and the Lobster Shack!) further south, near the tracks.
*Seemingly plenty of room for 120 acres of golf to be deeded without moving existing roads or at least miniimizing their crossings.....
IN SHORT - SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY BEST
I agree with you, Patrick and Jim that there wasn't a third site, and that the first offer was likely near the canal, as has been reported. I believe CBM got blocked because the realty company didn't want to erase drawn roads as much as they didn't want to rebuild real roads.....and I think most agree, despite arguing the minutiae of road alignments. They COULD have moved them, but didn't want to for a host of reasons.
It also makes sense to me that most of the new roads were built to the Omstead plan, and as part of a private developement, later turned over to the State/County/Cities, etc. as would be common. It says that they built the new road to the SI and sometimes new is just new, although it may be semantics of realigning one road rather than calling it a new one. The new alignment was almost certainly a much nicer road than anything that existed before.
Like Bryan, my preview and edit capabilities are most stressful right now. Sorry for any tyops.
Cheers.
-
Bryan,
That's absolutely tremendous work...thanks!
Two questions;
1) In your estimation, based on the position of the North "road" in 1906, would there have been enough width to route an "out and back" golf course heading west from about 200 yards from the west side of Shinnecock Inn, located south of Cold Spring Bay and north of the railroad tracks, and ending with it's westernmost point near the inlet (possibly even stretching further so that Peconic Bay was to the north) between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground without having to contend with road congestion? If I understand your map correctly the location I described would run north of the Muccian Green road.
2) From reading the metes and bounds from the 1913 dedication, it sounded as though the North road ran along the north border of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club at that time. Is that correct, and if so, could you show us precisely where that was and it's positioning in relation to NGLA?
Thanks again...great stuff.
Mike,
Here are three possible 120 acre, or more, sites. One where you want it and two that are actually near the canal. The red one had no roads through it then. The blue had roads through it then, but doesn't now. Your green one didn't have roads in 1903, but certainly did by 1913 at the latest. For reasons given on other posts, I don't think that the green location is a starter unless you have some further information.
In looking at the North and South highways as built by 1916, I was reminded of your Two Curvilinear Roads theory from that Phillie course. ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Possible120AcreSites.jpg)
You have to understand that the metes and bounds refer to one side of a 50 foot wide road. They describe what abuts that side of the road. At the end they say that the other boundary is 50 feet away and follows the same path. It doesn't describe what property is on the other side of the road. So, for instance, just because it says that the southern side of St Andrews road was the north boundary of SH, doesn't exclude that the north side of St Andrews Road was also the south boundary of another part of SH. In 1913, from other maps, we know that St Andrews Road and Tuckahoe Road ran through the golf course.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/VariousRoadsfromSothamptonRecordsMetes.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I do not doubt the accuracy of that 1907 Automobile Bluebook, but if you'd like to check it out yourself via google books. "1907 Automobile Bluebook"
I don't understand your comments about the mileage. The book provided directions for recommended routes. Southampton was on "Route No. 1" in the Long Island Section; New York and Brooklyn to Sag Harbor, N.Y. - 115 Miles: "Main thorofare from Long Island City and Jamaica, via the "South Shore," to Southampton and Bridgehampton, connecting for Sag Harbor, Shelter Island and Greenport. Extension Route to Amagansett." The mileage gives distance from the beginning of the route to that point which appears to have been midtown Manhattan. So via their recommended route it was 96 miles to the canal and 100 miles to Southampton (so it was 4 miles across.)
According to Google Maps it is 95 miles from Grand Central Station to Southamption via the Southern State Parkway and NY-27, so the 1907 measure of 100 miles via less direct roads seems about right to me.
Looking at the land plan and a number of the maps, I do not think that the Shinnecock Inn was directly along the route shown on the 1903 map. Close, but not quite. It looks to have been along Golf road on the land plan.
-
One more belated post on the roads. And, not wanting Pat to have the last post. ;D
In the Southampton Records there was a File 40 from August 1913 that talked to dedication of a number of roads and trading of other roads to Peconic Bay Realty. I've reproduced it below. The first highlighted part describes in text a road through the Shinnecock Hills which it later refers to as the North Road.
That reference indicates that they ACCEPT an EXISTING road, the NORTH ROAD
Yes, yes it does. Finally something we agree on. Somewhere between 1903 and 1913, Peconic Bay Realty took some sections of your green road and added other sections to make the North Highway as it was accepted in 1913 and as it is today
Further down, where I've also highlighted, it refers to the North Road as a new road which the Town is accepting while giving older unused roads back to Peconic Bay Realty.
That's NOT what it says, it says:
It mentions roads that run North-South, connecting the South Country road to the North road, and it mentions "new roadS above mentioned", not the "singular" North Road.
But, it would be helpful if you could obtain the Seth Raynor map cited.
Did you do this research or did someone else provide it for you ?
If I had the Seth Raynor map, I'd produce it. Unlike some others on here. Who else would you think would be nutty enough to do this for me?
Your reading skills are deteriorating. Read it again. It says they accept the North Road. It says they accept the Hills Station Road, the Peconic Road, the Tuckahoe road and the St Andrews Road all of which run north south generally and connect the South Road to the North Road. They refer collectively to all these roads, including the North Road, as "new roads".
Based on this, I'd draw the conclusion that the North Highway as we know it in 1916, or today, was built closer to 1913 than to 1906. Clearly, there were parts of the road there, probably in unimproved states. in 1903 and up until the new road, in its entirety, was built. There was a section there in 1903, St Andrews Road, on which the Shinnecock Inn was built, but it must have been an unimproved road at the time.
That's your opinion, one that I don't agree with Well, we can't agree on everything, can we.
Based on this file, it is clear that the new roads mentioned were built as private roads and then dedicated and released as public roads in 1913. The trade-of was that Peconic Bay received a number of rights-of-way (public?) that were for roads that would be displaced by the new roads.
Those roads appear to be North-South roads, not East-West roads
The North Road is described correctly as running "Northerly and Easterly and Southerly" from the canal. The other 5 named roads were generally north-south, although st Andrews is east-west in places. The roads/rights of way that they got back ran in random directions. Some, south of the LIRR at the canal end ran east-west. Not sure what your point is?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/File40SouthamptonRecords.jpg)
Here below is the 1903 USGS map of the Shinnecock Hills. I think it is the most accurate from that era.
I agree that it's accurate, and if you look carefully, between the "K" in Shinnecock and the "H" you'll see that the road is about 20-30 yards south of the water in the little inlet,. At that point, the North Highway runs right through Mike's phantom course. Yes, it does run close to the inlet at that point. I don't agree with Mike's placement of the course, but I don't think the roads were a primary reason to think this. And, without prejudice, SH had two roads running through it at the time. It was not unheard of to build golf courses around and across roads.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLAUSGSTopoMap1903zoom.jpg)
David has done a good job of overlaying the various maps from the era. I just wanted to add this one below, which shows, in Mucci-green, the 1903 "North Highway" as Patrick has described it. I've also added, in red, the North Road/Highway provided by the metes and bounds of the Southampton Records that Andy found. And, I've added, in yellow, the 1916 Atlas map version of the North Highway. Both are consistent with the current routing of the road, with one exception. The eastern end that used to run through the Shinnecock Hills golf club, currently drops southerly and runs much closer to the LIRR tracks. No doubt a result of one of the later rebuilds of SH.
It should be noted that all the road rights-of-way were designated as 50 feet wide, much wider than the actual roads were built then, or now.
It also appears that the South Highway was not a complete contiguous road either in 1903, but was by 1913.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwaySuffolkCountycopy.jpg)
On the next picture, I've plotted the metes and bounds for parts of St Andrews Road and Tuckahoe Road that were dedicated as public roads in 1913. The orange parts are stretches that abut some part of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The measurements are quite precise. They appear to match the related stretches on the 1916 Atlas map. Unfortunately there is no mention of roads that abut other boundaries of the club.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/VariousRoadsfromSothamptonRecordsMetes.jpg)
Finally, for Patrick, a picture of the still bustling ;) North Highway in the 21srt century. Next time you're out that way, maybe you could stop and see if there is a dedication stone on that bridge from the year it was built? Or, not.
Bryan,
I can understand you ignorance with respect to the Olde and the Old North Highway since you're not familiar iwth that area. ;D
I've taken the road depicted below hundreds of times. I refrenced it in many of my replies
That road runs under the current Sunrise Highway just East of the Canal.
When I stay at the Hampton Maid, in Hampton Bays, I take that road, which goes under and north of the Sunrise highway to the point just west of that little inlet between the "K" and the "H" in order to avoid the backed up traffic on the Sunrise Highway, even at 6:00 am. The Sunrise Highway replaced the North Highway as the Major Thoroughfare running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork. In many locations, the Sunrise Highway traverses the olde North Highway.
I knew you must take this road. That's why I asked (perhaps facetiously, maybe not, whether you could look for the dedication stone on the bridge. It'd be interesting to know how long it took from the Senate approval to the actual building. As to the Olde vs Old vs Sunrise, I'm not sure what your point is? I would guess that the Olde is the Muccian-green road, the Old is the North Highway as built by 1913, and the Sunrise is the "new" expressway. Surely you're not suggesting that CBM should have known they were going to build the Sunrise expressway through this property. ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I do not doubt the accuracy of that 1907 Automobile Bluebook, but if you'd like to check it out yourself via google books. "1907 Automobile Bluebook"
I don't understand your comments about the mileage. The book provided directions for recommended routes. Southampton was on "Route No. 1" in the Long Island Section; New York and Brooklyn to Sag Harbor, N.Y. - 115 Miles: "Main thorofare from Long Island City and Jamaica, via the "South Shore," to Southampton and Bridgehampton, connecting for Sag Harbor, Shelter Island and Greenport. Extension Route to Amagansett." The mileage gives distance from the beginning of the route to that point which appears to have been midtown Manhattan. So via their recommended route it was 96 miles to the canal and 100 miles to Southampton (so it was 4 miles across.)
According to Google Maps it is 95 miles from Grand Central Station to Southamption via the Southern State Parkway and NY-27, so the 1907 measure of 100 miles via less direct roads seems about right to me.
Looking at the land plan and a number of the maps, I do not think that the Shinnecock Inn was directly along the route shown on the 1903 map. Close, but not quite. It looks to have been along Golf road on the land plan.
Your original quote was out of context and therefore mislead me. I thought the 96 miles referred to the distance from the canal through the Shinnecock Hills. As you've described it now, it makes more sense.
On the 1916 Atlas map it is darn close. If you want to argue a hundred feet or something, off the "highway", I'm not going to go there.
-
Bryan,
If you look carefully, you can see the overpass for the Sunrise Highway in the distance behind (north of) the Railroad Trestle. Now you're really beginning to worry me. The Sunrise Bridge is 1000 feet north and around a curve from here. Next you'll be telling me you can see the Atlantic from here! ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
The road depicted is in almost the exact location at the North Highway in the Olmsted Map, which as we all know, ran right smack down the middle of Mike's phantom golf course. Just a reminder that the Olmstead Map was a "plan" not an as built map. This section of road is today, exactly where it was when it was dedicated to the Town in 1913. This road and location is not on the 1903 map. When was the bridge built? You really need to find that dedication stone. I'll host you at my club if you can get us a picture of the dedication stone proving the build date and it's before the end of 1907. :o Who cares where the phantom course is. We have no proof one way or the other. No need to demean Mike in the process.
The next time you're in that area, where the Old North Highway intersects with the Sunrise Highway, just a little west of the little inlet, between the "K" and "H" in the 1903 map, stop in at the "Lobster Inn" a nice restaurant right on that little inlet. They have some nice waiters and waitresses who've been there since 1902 and they can tell you all about the fact that they located the Lobster Inn on the Sunrise/North Highway for prudent business reasons, just like the Shinnecock Inn did.
Man, that'd be something to see, wait staff who were around since 1902! Are they vertical, or horizontal? Above or below ground? Do I need a medium to talk to them?
-
Bryan,
The papers reported 250 acres, I think it was transposed from 205 acres, but I would suggest it looked more like this;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
No intention of misleading you. Given that various sources from 1907 mention that there was a new road to the Shinnecock Inn, I think the road had been finished by then.
-
Mike,
Sorry, I'm losing track of which line you are arguing here. Is it that the October article is describing a third mystery site? Or, a forerunner of the 205 acre site that Macdonald eventually bought? Or, that it was describing the rejected 120 acre site?
I was simply trying to provide some possibilities on where a 120 acre site near the canal could have been.
David,
No worries about the atlas.
I'm curious how you see the time line on the building of the North Highway? Can we agree that some sections of it were there in some form in 1903? And, that there were two significant sections (from the canal to a point just west of the Pond inlet; and, from the midpoint of the Pond eastward to meet up with St Andrews road) that got built somewhere between 1903 and 1913. When do you think those sections of the road were built and the other sections improved? By sometime in 1907? Do you think the 1907 Olmstead map in the advertisement was a to-be plan or a fait accompli with regards to the North Highway? Who do you think built the missing sections; they appear to have been private roads up until 1913? Do you think the underpass of the LIRR got built in less than a year of the Senate approval?
-
Bryan,
I do think the north highway was in place by 1907. The developer reportedly got busy building roads and infrastructure pretty quickly after purchasing the property. The Shinnecock Inn was open for the Summer of 1907 and I sounds like by this time the north highway was in place. I think SHPBRC would have improved the roads and/or built the missing sections before they started heavily marketing the project (spring of 1907.) I don't know what existed on those two sections missing on the 1903 map. There was some sort of a north road earlier, but maybe it had been abandoned or the owners cut off the right of way. I have no idea. As for the Olmstead plan I think that it is probably some of both; main roads built (by the developer), others perhaps staked out. As for the underpass, it sounds like it was there in the 1907 Bluebook, but beyond that I don't know. I think the RR station moved twice, and I am not sure where it was in 1907.
-
Bryan,
If you look carefully, you can see the overpass for the Sunrise Highway in the distance behind (north of) the Railroad Trestle.
Now you're really beginning to worry me. The Sunrise Bridge is 1000 feet north and around a curve from here. Next you'll be telling me you can see the Atlantic from here! ;D
Now, you're worrying me.
I think you've posted the wrong photo.
There is NO overpass North of the Railroad Trestle until you get to the Sunrise Highway.
The archway (overpass) must be from some other location, it's NOT the North Highway just East of the Canal and South of the Sunrise Highway.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
The road depicted is in almost the exact location at the North Highway in the Olmsted Map, which as we all know, ran right smack down the middle of Mike's phantom golf course.
Just a reminder that the Olmstead Map was a "plan" not an as built map.
I believe it's a map with a plan incorporated.
You can't deny the existance and location of the Railroad, Cold Spring Pond and other features.
I believe that the North Highway was one of those features.
The advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn, in 1906-07 clearly reference the North Highway as the location and method of getting to the Shinnecock Inn, so it had to be there prior to 1913.
This section of road is today, exactly where it was when it was dedicated to the Town in 1913.
This road and location is not on the 1903 map.
I'm not so sure.
The 1903 map seems cut off at the western end.
When was the bridge built?
Do you mean the trestle in the photo or the archway bridge behind it ?
Again, I don't think your picture is a photo of the North Highway, just East of the Canal and South of the Sunrise Highway since there's no archway overpass between the trestle and the Sunrise Highway. Could you re-investigate the origin of that photo ?
You really need to find that dedication stone.
If my eyes were better, I'd drive out there this weekend.
I'll do my best to get there one way or the other.
I'll host you at my club if you can get us a picture of the dedication stone proving the build date and it's before the end of 1907. :o Who cares where the phantom course is. We have no proof one way or the other. No need to demean Mike in the process.
Does that include food and beverage ?
The next time you're in that area, where the Old North Highway intersects with the Sunrise Highway, just a little west of the little inlet, between the "K" and "H" in the 1903 map, stop in at the "Lobster Inn" a nice restaurant right on that little inlet. They have some nice waiters and waitresses who've been there since 1902 and they can tell you all about the fact that they located the Lobster Inn on the Sunrise/North Highway for prudent business reasons, just like the Shinnecock Inn did.
Man, that'd be something to see, wait staff who were around since 1902! Are they vertical, or horizontal? Above or below ground? Do I need a medium to talk to them?
Maybe that explains why the service is so slow.
-
Bryan,
Why do you keep refering to missing sections of the North Highway, as if it was a partially built thoroughfare, with missing links ?
Why would anyone construct such a road ?
The 1903 Map seems pretty clear in that the North Highway is continuous.
That's also reflected in the Olmsted Map.
Why would the Shinnecock Inn advertise that you merely had to take the North Highway from the Canal if it wasn't a completed road ?
-
Bryan,
You stated:
Your reading skills are deteriorating. Read it again. It says they accept the North Road. It says they accept the Hills Station Road, the Peconic Road, the Tuckahoe road and the St Andrews Road all of which run north south generally and connect the South Road to the North Road. They refer collectively to all these roads, including the North Road, as "new roads".
I think, if you'll read it again, you'll see a coma after "North Road" and then a listing of other roads.
I believe that when they're referencing "the new roads above mentioned", that they're only referencing those roads subsequently listed and not the "North Road"
As to the North Road Photo in Hampton Bays, it does say, "Location Approximate"
What date is that photo.
As to views of the Atlantic from that location, the trestle is "at grade" with the road well below grade.
-
The papers reported 250 acres, I think it was transposed from 205 acres, but I would suggest it looked more like this;
Mike,
Once again, you've changed the location and configuration of your phantom golf course.
Please tell us, how did they get back and forth across the inlet ?
Ferry ?
Bridge ?
Tunnel ?
Tramway ?[/size]
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Based on the topography and the statement that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on the property except the low lying areas, I'd have to go with your blue parcel
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
You can NOT see the Atlantic from ANYWHERE on Mike's parcel.
-
Patrick,
I'll break up the answers to keep from getting too complicated. Dealing with the photo below, I've compressed its width so it should fit on your screen now. I assume you didn't scroll to the right on the original photo. The inset, bottom right indicates where the photo was taken - on the North Road, just south of the LIRR trestle. You can see Canal Road E on the left side of the inset to help you place where the photo is from.
I am mystified as to the archway overpass you are seeing behind the trestle. There is no archway between the LIRR and Sunrise, as you've said. I don't see anything in the photo other than the shadows of some trees that may look an archway to you, but is really just trees. The photo is from the right place and this is the bridge in question looking from south to north.
Bryan,
If you look carefully, you can see the overpass for the Sunrise Highway in the distance behind (north of) the Railroad Trestle.
Now you're really beginning to worry me. The Sunrise Bridge is 1000 feet north and around a curve from here. Next you'll be telling me you can see the Atlantic from here! ;D
Now, you're worrying me.
I think you've posted the wrong photo.
There is NO overpass North of the Railroad Trestle until you get to the Sunrise Highway.
The archway (overpass) must be from some other location, it's NOT the North Highway just East of the Canal and South of the Sunrise Highway.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
..................................
When was the bridge built?
Do you mean the trestle in the photo or the archway bridge behind it ?
Again, I don't think your picture is a photo of the North Highway, just East of the Canal and South of the Sunrise Highway since there's no archway overpass between the trestle and the Sunrise Highway. Could you re-investigate the origin of that photo ?
.................................
-
Bryan,
.........................
You really need to find that dedication stone.
If my eyes were better, I'd drive out there this weekend.
I'll do my best to get there one way or the other.
In all sincerity, don't even think of going out there until your eyes are up to it. This is only an internet debate.
I'll host you at my club if you can get us a picture of the dedication stone proving the build date and it's before the end of 1907. :o Who cares where the phantom course is. We have no proof one way or the other. No need to demean Mike in the process.
Does that include food and beverage ?
Of course it does. Transportation to my club is not included though.
.................................
-
Bryan,
Why do you keep refering to missing sections of the North Highway, as if it was a partially built thoroughfare, with missing links ?
The North Highway in 1913/16 did not follow the same path as the Muccian-green road of 1903. See the picture below. I am assuming that Peconic Bay built the "North Highway" that they dedicated to the town in 1913 by reusing some sections of the Muccian-green road, particularly above the word "COCK" on the map and to the eastwhere St Andrews Road went through SHGC. The existing roads in those two sections coincide with the later North Highway of 1913/16. I am assuming that the missing sections, at the west end near the canal up around the word "SHINN" on the map and the area on the south shore of Cold Spring Pond, which didn'r exist in 1903, were built from scratch by Peconic bay Realty. The latter two stretches are the two stretches I am saying were missing. They were not there in 1903 and were added some time subsequently.
Why would anyone construct such a road ?
The 1903 Map seems pretty clear in that the North Highway is continuous.Sure the 1903 map is clear, but what you've called the North Highway isn't where the North Highway was in 1913 when it was dedicated as a public highway. Just a reminder that the Shinnecock Inn was not on one of the missing sections. It was just off of the existing St Andrews Road section of the Muccian-green road. So, you could get to it by following the green road.
That's also reflected in the Olmsted Map.
Why would the Shinnecock Inn advertise that you merely had to take the North Highway from the Canal if it wasn't a completed road ?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwaySuffolkCountycopy.jpg)
-
Bryan,
You stated:
Your reading skills are deteriorating. Read it again. It says they accept the North Road. It says they accept the Hills Station Road, the Peconic Road, the Tuckahoe road and the St Andrews Road all of which run north south generally and connect the South Road to the North Road. They refer collectively to all these roads, including the North Road, as "new roads".
I think, if you'll read it again, you'll see a coma after "North Road" and then a listing of other roads.
I believe that when they're referencing "the new roads above mentioned", that they're only referencing those roads subsequently listed and not the "North Road"
Wow, the parsing is down to commas now. I'd just remind you that the Peconic, Tuckahoe, etc roads were on the 1903 map whereas sections of the North Highway that was being dedicated were not. How does that make the aforementioned roads new and the latter named road not new. If anything, at that time the North Highway as dedicated was newer and the Peconic, Tuckahoe, etc roads were older.
As to the North Road Photo in Hampton Bays, it does say, "Location Approximate"
What date is that photo.
As to views of the Atlantic from that location, the trestle is "at grade" with the road well below grade.
I was just joshing you about the Atlantic view from under the trestle. But, now that you're seeing archways in the picture, maybe the Atlantic is just behind that. Oooops, wrong direction. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patrick,
Yeah, I thought the blue parcel looked like the best bet. Near the canal, nice views of the Atlantic, good looking topography. It does have those annoying roads through it, but they seems to have pretty much disappeared over the years. That section looks like the least developed part of the Shinnecock Hills in current times, based on the aerial views.
I think Mike is the only person who thinks that his parcel is germane to anything. We should wait until he brings forth his further thoughts. I see nothing in what's been presented so far to support any thesis that that land was part of any of CBM's plans.
Bryan,
Based on the topography and the statement that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on the property except the low lying areas, I'd have to go with your blue parcel
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
You can NOT see the Atlantic from ANYWHERE on Mike's parcel.
-
Bryan,
What year was this picture taken ?
Look beyond the trestle.
There appears to be an archway/underpass unless that's just the trees that have grown over the road..
There is no archway/underpass just north of the trestle until you get to the Sunrise Highway which is further North
If you'll note, there appears to be a number of "historical" sign markers alongside the road.
If I can get there in the next few weekends, I'll take photos of what they say and the date plaque of the trestle, if there is one.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
-
Patrick,
I don't know the year; Google doesn't seem to date them. I'd guess it's a few years old. The more recent ones have much better clarity.
The archway you're seeing is just tree shadows playing tricks on old eyes. Here's another picture looking the same way, but from underneath the LIRR trestle.
The photos on Google are 360 degree, and using them I am unable to see anything that looks like a dedication stone. But, if you are out that way and it's not too dangerous to inspect the bridge, maybe there is a date there. Hopefully we won't have to argue whether the engravers of the stone (if it exists) transposed digits in the year, or just plain got it wrong, it would of course be carved in stone and therefore unassailable. ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/LIRRNorthRoadTrestle.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Please look at the 1907 Olmstead MAP which incorporates the development plan.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
You will note that the South Highway, Railroad Line, Peconic Bay, Cold Spring Pond, Shinnecock Bay and North Highway are all depicted.
The MAP is accurate.
The plan merely identifies/labels the block of parcels to be developed, but the main features, are in fact depicted as they existed in 1907, including the North Highway.
Please look at where the North Highway passes UNDER the Railroad Trestle in the 1907 Map.
It's in the exact same location as it is today.
The North Highway appears in that 1907 map as the North Road appears today, as pictured in your photo.
We know, from contemporaneous advertisements by the Shinnecock Inn, in 1906-07, that the North Highway existed.
I suspect that the trestle will have a more modern date, perhaps in the 30's when many public works projects were completed.
While I"m interested in the dedication plate, I"m also interested in what may be historical markers along the road.
Also, please go to the other NGLA thread posted yesterday.
-
Patrick,
Nice that you still think that 1907 Olmstead Brothers Land Plan was an actual Map. It makes discussing things rationally with you so possible. ;) ;D
I just can't imagine how CBM and his members teed off though with the North Highway heading to Southampton running across his original first tee and right in front of his original 18th green.
Also interesting to see just how far "east" Shinnecock Hills was of NGLA at the time.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5581968099_7e761ed608_b.jpg)
-
I still haven't been able to find the time these past few days to comprehensively address David's questions, but the amount of additional discussion on this and a number of new related threads at least gives me some confidence that this thread has been of value to most folks who have read it, and I'm glad for that.
One thing I'd like people to think about is the fact that the real estate transactions didn't take place out on the island, but in Brooklyn, where the PB&SHRC was located.
I'd also be curious to explore why only one NYC paper actually reported that October 15th story, which seems to have been placed on the wire and then reported in Boston and a few other sites verbatim.
In fact, AFTER that article was written, both the NY Sun as well as the seemingly most "in the know", the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, printed much different accounts of where things stood on November 1st, based on what they reported CBM said to reporters at Garden City during the Lesley Cup matches, with the Sun stating that CBM was down to a site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground and Montauk, and the Eagle reporting that he was looking at various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills.
Certainly, by contrast, the mid-December reporting was much more extensive with numerous papers reporting that CBM had signed a contract securing 205 undetermined acres of 450 available.
Hope to get into more detail, and more admitted speculation this weekend.
Mike,
Curious if you're interested in getting to the point of this post you made last week...other than the riveting road argument Pat keeps driving it seems as good a place as any to try to move forward.
-
Patrick,
Nice that you still think that 1907 Olmstead Brothers Land Plan was an actual Map. It makes discussing things rationally with you so possible. ;) ;D
Of course it's a map. It's a map with a development plan drawn on it.
Can't you see Peconic Bay, The Shinnecock Canal, the Railroad, The North and South Highway ?
They're all there.
I just can't imagine how CBM and his members teed off though with the North Highway heading to Southampton running across his original first tee and right in front of his original 18th green.
Remember Mike, according to you, that road was nothing more than a dirt cart path.
And, they played over it, the exact same way they tee off over roads today, on # 8 and # 13.
CBM and his fellow members were also used to this at GCGC where they teed off over roads on # 3, # 9 and # 12 and played to greens fronted by roads at GCGC, on # 4, # 8 and # 16
Bryan,
When you did the measurement for the relocation of the crossing of the North Highway and the Railroad tracks, per the 1906 New York State Senate minutes, did it bring you close to the overpass/trestle pictured below ?
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NorthHighwayatLIRRWest.jpg)
-
Patrick,
You're kidding, yes?
-
Mike,
Not at all.
CB Macdonald was a member of GCGC as were many others.
Playing across a road was quite common, in fact, it's still done today at NGLA.
But, purchasing land with THE major thoroughfare on the entire North Shore of the South Fork running right down the middle of that narrow, limited parcel wouldn't be something that CBM or any reasonably intelligent fellow would do.
How do you reconcile that you CAN'T SEE ANY of the Atlantic from your phantom site North of the Railroad tracks, when you vigorously defended the accuracy of the article you posted that claimed you could see the Atlantic from EVERYWHERE except the low lying areas. ;D
-
Patrick,
You're seriously trying to tell us that the major road running to Southampton north of the rail tracks ran over the first tee at NGLA and in front of CBM's 18th green, and what's more, CBM routed his course knowing full well this was planned?
April Fool's Day was a few day's back, yes?
And you call me disengenuous??
Further, what does seeing the Atlantic Ocean or not have to do with anything?
Where does it say that the first site CBM selected had an ocean view?
Why are you not troubled that the site south of the rail tracks (in blue) that you and Brian both feel may have been the "Canal Site" has the much earlier developed South Highway running right through it?
Further, CBM himself said that the soil and dunes on the north side were much superior to those on the Atlantic side of Shinnecock Hills.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Based on your knowledge of the North road in 1906, is there anything that would discount this possibly being the approximate site mentioned in the article?
Shinnecock Hills GC adjoining on the East
Skirting the Long Island Rail Road to the South
Western Boundary near the inlet between Shinnecock Station and Good Ground
Stretching along Peconic Bay to the North
Using Shinnecocck Inn as the clubhouse
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5585055978_d4336e224a_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
Where did the Mystery highway across the first tee (today's 10th) disappear?? ;) ;D
Funnier still, as seen below that original 18th green got moved back in the first couple of years.
As the green was built originally the MYSTERY HIGHWAY would have RUN right through your 18th green and 1st tee!! ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5404754070_18337047cf_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5517268239_d01e3d6a51_b.jpg)
-
For what its worth, I am wondering if the first site, if we think its the blue one, wasn't a bit narrower, longer, and further east.
It appears from the solid lines that the southern highway was improved west to east and in play at that time. Also the descriptions of seeing the Atlantic from the high points and all but the low points seems to fit if you move the blue portion east - many more highs and lows, plus less road interferenced and no road drawn in solid lines right along the water, as is the case right by the canal. It also appears to have one estate type house looking over the ocean, which might have also served as clubhouse with a view, although, that is speculation as I don't know what was there.
But then, we would have to accept "near the canal" as being a pretty broad description.
-
Patrick,
You're seriously trying to tell us that the major road running to Southampton north of the rail tracks ran over the first tee at NGLA and in front of CBM's 18th green, and what's more, CBM routed his course knowing full well this was planned?
No, I"m not trying to do that, YOU are.
You're the one claiming the North Highway ran over the first tee at NGLA.
Could you show us any map proving your theory ?
And you call me disengenuous??
Yes, I did, and, you were.
You claimed that the North Highway didn't exist as late as 1914, ergo it couldn't exist in 1907, depite 1906 New York State Senate Minutes, earlier Maps and the 1906-07 advertisdents for the Shinnecock Inn all citing the existance of the North Highway.
You deliberately lied.
Further, what does seeing the Atlantic Ocean or not have to do with anything?
Didn't you post newspaper articles that declared that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas. ?
Where does it say that the first site CBM selected had an ocean view?
In the newspaper articles you posted
Why are you not troubled that the site south of the rail tracks (in blue) that you and Brian both feel may have been the "Canal Site" has the much earlier developed South Highway running right through it?
Who stated that I wasn't troubled by that ?
Certainly not me. That's just another of your misrepresentations
I made a clear caveat. That caveat had to do with the newspaper articles YOU posted that stated that you could see the Atlantic from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas. Based on that, I favored the Blue site over the red site.
Absent that newspaper article you posted, I would have favored the red site
Further, CBM himself said that the soil and dunes on the north side were much superior to those on the Atlantic side of Shinnecock Hills.
That proved not to be true, by CBM's own admission.
He had to truck in 10,000 loads of dirt to the final site in order to improve the soil conditions.
In addition, being somewhat familiar with the area, I would challenge CBM's evaluation of the land on the North and South side.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5576913760_441ddc459b_b.jpg)
-
Jeff Brauer,
CBM doesn't just say "near the canal", he states, "120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay"
I've always wondered if that site could have been west of the canal.
As to the configuration, we're all speculating, and that's OK
Mike in your green diagram you never answered my question as to how golfers were going to traverse the rather substantial inlet.
Could you address that issue ?
-
Pat,
Good evening. I suggested that a month ago, and David correctly pointed out that the Realty Land ended at the canal. Other than that, there are parcels west of the canal that might fit the bill very well.
-
Bryan,
Please look at the 1907 Olmstead MAP which incorporates the development plan. Can we agree that it is a MAP that has a SUBDIVISION PLAN on it?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5441635339_4afbff43db_b.jpg)
You will note that the South Highway, Railroad Line, Peconic Bay, Cold Spring Pond, Shinnecock Bay and North Highway are all depicted. Yes, they are all depicted.
The MAP is accurate. I assume that it accurately depicts the PLAN that Olmstead did for Peconic Realty. As to its placement of highways, I think it is not accurate in the way you think it is. See below.
The plan merely identifies/labels the block of parcels to be developed, but the main features, are in fact depicted as they existed in 1907, including the North Highway. I disagree. What it depicts is their development PLAN. See below for an explanation of why I think that is so.
Please look at where the North Highway passes UNDER the Railroad Trestle in the 1907 Map.
It's in the exact same location as it is today. I don't think the scale of the map is accurate enough to make that determination. However, it is logical that there was only one underpass and that it was at the location it is currently at. I don't buy for a second your suggestion below that the trestle was built in the 1930's. Are you suggesting that the Senate mandated the grade separation in December 1906 and they didn't get around to building it until the 1930's?
The North Highway appears in that 1907 map as the North Road appears today, as pictured in your photo.You may want to think so, but that is incorrect. See explanation below.
We know, from contemporaneous advertisements by the Shinnecock Inn, in 1906-07, that the North Highway existed. What we KNOW is that some North Highway existed, but we don't KNOW its configuration in 1907. I find it amusing that you are relying on advertisements to support your statements. I thought we were generally agreed that the sources, maps, contemporaneous news items, writings by CBM, writings by Whigham, etc are all of questionable accuracy on some or many points. But those ads - man, they must be perfectly accurate. ;D
I suspect that the trestle will have a more modern date, perhaps in the 30's when many public works projects were completed. So, they built another one in 1907 as mandated by the Senate, and then ripped it out and rebuilt it in the 1930's.
While I"m interested in the dedication plate, I"m also interested in what may be historical markers along the road. If there are historical markers, that'd be persuasive too.
Also, please go to the other NGLA thread posted yesterday. If it is the April Fools one, please tell me that your position on this stuff hasn't just been a longstanding April Fools day joke.
For your edification, I think the following may help clarify the road situation in your mind. (Well, at least I can hope.)
The first map is the 1903 USGS map that I think we can agree is accurate and complete. I have only done the western section because this is tedious work, and I believe it proves the point. I've highlighted the existing roads in green. Remember, that some are solid lines - improved roads; and some are dotted lines - unimproved roads.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1903GreenRoads.jpg)
The second map adds in blue those roads proposed in the 1907 Olmstead land plan that were not already there from 1903. The combined blue and green roads match the Olmstead plan. As you can see there were quite a few roads proposed to be added to the existing ones. Of course, you would have us believe that those roads were built in the year between the time Peconic Bay bought the property and published their ad with the land plan.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1907GreenPlusBlueRoads.jpg)
The third map indicates in red, roads that were proposed in the Olmstead Plan that had not been built by 1916. It also indicates in purple, the roads that existed in 1903, that no longer existed in 1916. You'll note that the North Highway on the Olmstead Plan, that skirted the south shore of Cold Spring Pond, didn't get built there. It was further south. You might also note that the Olmstead Plan proposed a road and bridge across the North end on the Shinnecock Canal, in addition to the existing southern road bridge and the LIRR bridge. This northern crossing wasn't built by 1916 and isn't there today. And, of course the segment of the North Highway that transgressed NGLA, as Mike has pointed out, that never got built there either. Bottom line, the Olmstead Plan is not a foolproof MAP of what was on the ground in 1907. It was a land PLAN on a map.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1916GreenBlueRedandPurpleRoads.jpg)
-
Mike,
You indicated that you had further thoughts about the October article that you were going to bring forward a week ago. Jim asked you about that a few posts back, and I'll add my voice to his. What additional thoughts on the article do you have?
As for your question below I'm still confused about what you think your proposed layout is, so I'll ask a second time - Is this what you think might be the 120 parcel that CBM said he offered on? Or, is it some mystery version of what they bought (optioned?) two months later, that turned into the current layout? Or, something else?
Bryan,
Based on your knowledge of the North road in 1906, is there anything that would discount this possibly being the approximate site mentioned in the article? I've said before, and I'll say again - no, I don't think your drawing fits this description nor is it the site of the 120 acre offer or the final site. By the way, what you've marked out is about 180 acres. Not near any of 120 or 205 or 250 or 450 acres
Shinnecock Hills GC adjoining on the East It doesn't adjoin it. Sort of kitty corner.
Skirting the Long Island Rail Road to the South Nope, it doesn't meet my understanding of "skirting".
Western Boundary near the inlet between Shinnecock Station and Good Ground Depends upon which inlet they are talking about and what acreage your trying to match it too. If it's 120 acres, where are you going to take 60 acres off?
Stretching along Peconic Bay to the North Nope, it stretches along Cold Spring Pond.
Using Shinnecocck Inn as the clubhouse Is that from this article? Or, another one. Or, CBM's writings?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5585055978_d4336e224a_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Thank you for your very thorough, factual, and painstaking analysis.
I personally would have loved to see you do the same thing with the road system further east in Shinneocock, nearer the Inn, but I do understand how time-consuming it is and I do think you've proven your point to everyone in the world except perhaps for Patrick, who will deny the truth til the end.
Thanks again...I'm hoping I can find time later today to answer your questions, and I really appreciate you coming onto this thread because you are a stand-up guy who provides value and objectivity.
-
Bryan,
Based on your knowledge of the North road in 1906, is there anything that would discount this possibly being the approximate site mentioned in the article? I've said before, and I'll say again - no, I don't think your drawing fits this description nor is it the site of the 120 acre offer or the final site. By the way, what you've marked out is about 180 acres. Not near any of 120 or 205 or 250 or 450 acres
Shinnecock Hills GC adjoining on the East It doesn't adjoin it. Sort of kitty corner.
Skirting the Long Island Rail Road to the South Nope, it doesn't meet my understanding of "skirting".
Western Boundary near the inlet between Shinnecock Station and Good Ground Depends upon which inlet they are talking about and what acreage your trying to match it too. If it's 120 acres, where are you going to take 60 acres off?
Stretching along Peconic Bay to the North Nope, it stretches along Cold Spring Pond.
Using Shinnecocck Inn as the clubhouse Is that from this article? Or, another one. Or, CBM's writings?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5585055978_d4336e224a_b.jpg)
Bryan,
It has been offered here that the October 15th 1906 article (see my snippet above) is talking about the land on Sebonac Neck that CBM eventually purchased.
While I can see some of your points here in reference to my approximate drawing , I also think you're nitpicking a bit.
By contrast, do you think that the land of the existing NGLA golf course in any way had the 1906 Shinnecock GC adjoining to the east, skirted the Long Island Rail Tracks to the south, or has its most westerly point the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station?
Which of the two properties more accurately fall into the parameters described in the article? Either?
As regards your other questions, I'll try to answer more comprehensively as I'm able, but for now let me state the following;
1) I believe an accurate reading of CBM's book indicates that he made his first offer for the "Canal Site" not in late 1905, but in 1906 after his return from abroad. I believe CBM decided that he would build his course somewhere in Shinnecock Hills in late 1905, after Alvord's company purchased the whole shebang late that year. Within a month or so, CBM was on a boat to GBI for five months, not just to study the great courses and ideal holes, but more precisely, to have exact surveyor's topographical maps drawn of them. I don't believe CBM would have made an offer for a specific parcel of land PRIOR to having the exact specs for what he wanted to build on that land.
2) I have no idea what a view of the ocean has to do with any first site for the golf course. I think that's simply misleading refuse from Patrick's speculation that you couldn't see the Atlantic from anywhere on the Sebonac Neck site (in 1906, which includes the higher land of today's Sebonack GC) before a lot of tree growth over the past century. Certainly, I've never seen anything indicating that the "Canal Site" had ocean views, but I have seen a number of articles stating that views of the seas existed from almost every vantage point in Shinnecock Hills. Was that marketing or reality? I don't know, but Patrick who pretends to know doesn't know either.
3) I think the site described in the article is very possibly the "canal site". Although it's western edge is half-mile from the canal, that's a damn site closer than the 1.5 miles that the western edge of NGLA is from the Inlet described as the western edge in the article. Besides, what other landmark could they state it was close to? Travelling east, the canal would be the last thing you'd go past other than open meadows before reaching the course.
4) In 1905, newspapers reported the CBM was mostly looking to build near Westbury, not far from Meadowbrook CC at that time.
5) Only one NYC newspaper, the Evening Telegram, reported that site in October of 1906. In fact, that article, which was published on Monday, October 15th, was followed by a verbatim article the next day in the Rochester (NY) Democrat, and very similar articles the next day in Boston that David later posted here. David had speculated that perhaps the Boston papers had the scoop because CBM was there at a tournament at Myopia, but it appears the story had it's genesis in NYC with the Telegram.
Within weeks, other papers, including the Brooklyn Daily Eagle which seems to have been by far the most accurate and detailed throughout the entire year and a half saga, wrote that CBM had indeed not made up his mind yet, but was considering a number of sites in "various sections" of Shinnecock Hills. The NY Sun indicated more specifically on November 1st that he as still looking at a site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground, as well as in Montauk.
Conversely, when CBM actually did ink the papers to secure 205 undetermined acres out of the 450 available to him on Sebonac Neck on December 14th, 1906, within days ALL the major newspapers in NYC were carrying the story in detail.
6) As regards the "120 acres", I'd speculate that the following may have happened. We know CBM was primarily interested in golf, but we know his plans and original solicitation to membership included needing about 205 acres with the promise of building lots for Founders. We also know that CBM felt he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course, and another five for a clubhouse and surrounds, so I think it's reasonable to assume he felt he could do the golf course on 120 acres.
I think he may have gone to Alvord seeking 205 acres in and around where I've approximated, but Alvord said no...he had his own plans for real estate in that area and didn't want competition for estate land sales. Given that reality, I think perhaps CBM went back to him asking if he could at least have his 120 acres for golf in that neighborhood (which is the offer he recalled 25 years later in his book), but probably again was shot down.
It's important also to note that NO newspapers of the time, despite some detailed coverage over a number of years, EVER mentioned anything about CBM offering to buy land adjacent to the Canal, either in 1905 or any other year.
I think possibly as consolation that Alvord may have suggested that CBM consider his at the time "unplanned" land up to the northeast on Sebonac Neck, but I believe this whole process happened quickly and sequentially, just like its described in the book. I think that CBM and Whigham spent a few days riding around and were excited by the prospects, and had some of their friends come by in coming days to confirm.
I think by November that Alvord agreed to sell CBM 205 acres of the 450 available at $20K, of which "securing" contract papers were signed a few weeks later on December 14th.
So, in closing, I think the October articles were generally mistaken, and derivative from that original October 15th Evening Herald article, and were likely some confused amalgam of land CBM had been considering and had made an offer for somewhere down to the west of Shinnecock Hills extending out to the inlet towards Good Ground, and the land that he had just been offered to consider stretching further to the northeast. As described, the area is well over 1000 acres, which makes no sense for a golf course, or for a land purchase. Certainly, that Evening Telegram article was not confirmed by any other independent NYC newspaper source.
I think CBM likely spent a lot of time looking at land between Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay after his return from abroad in June, and likely made his canal offer sometime by early September.
I think CBM then was asked to consider the Sebonac Neck land, and after he and Whigham rode it, they invited Travis, Chauncey, and friends over the next few weeks, and also negotiated pricing with Alvord which took them to sometime in November.
Once they all felt comfortable with the price and the general land forms for golf, feeling comfortable that they had enough land of contiguous quality to build what they wanted, lawyers drafted papers that gave CBM the right to select the 205 acres of the 450 he felt best for golf over the next several months and papers were signed.
After CBM and his committee determined the holes and finalized the routing, the property was surveyed by Raynor, the boundaries staked, and the purchase finalized in the spring of 1907.
I may be wrong...but that's what I think happened.
-
I'm hopeful as well that my post above includes my responses to David's questions about the site. If there is anything I missed, please let me know and I'll try to give my best shot.
In the meantime, here's the only reference we know of to the "Canal Site".
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317370_65d034efed_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
Thanks Mike, I would like to take the time to put my full thesis on paper like that and will try to, but no promises.
I think my primary disagreements with your logic are that you are anchoring that theoretical site to the Shinnecock Inn when I see no reason to. CBM identified it as "near the canal" and that's good enough for me. Second is that you dismiss the words "secured" and "purchased" in those October articles...instead attempting to prove and disprove certain locations based on much more ambiguous terms like "adjoin", "skirted" and "near".
I'll reiterate that those descriptors are intended to be read by people in places that are likely not as familiar with each and every feature out there at the end of Long Island as we now are. This fact became clear to me when I measured the distance from the Shinnecock Inn to Peconic Bay along your possible site. It's just not that far. This is a really small area in the grand scheme of things.
The first offer may well have been in the summer of 1906, I can't debate it or agree to it...it just doesn't matter all that much to me.
Didn't the second newspaper article say something along the lines of "it was to be kept secret but now that that other paper has released it I guess we will as well..."? I'll go look for it, but if you have it to re-post I would appreciate it.
-
Jim,
A couple of things in response;
1) Since I believe with about 90% certainty that all of this happened in 1906, AFTER CBM returned with his topo maps of the great holes and features abroad, I also believe that this would have all happened in a similar timeframe of getting information about the imminent creation of the Shinnecock Inin.
We know he didn't have money upfront to build a clubhouse and I think finding out about the Inn was one of the key VOILA! moments that drove the eventual purchase. I just think that CBM would have likely first looked at land west of the Inn than what sounds to have been much more uncharted territory to the north of it.
I do believe some type of Inn existed out near the Canal, but I'm not sure the size or convenience.
2) Interesting you mentioned the news article that referred to keeping secrets. What i found out recently is that all happened in June/July 1905, not 1906. The scoop wasn't about the Shinnecock HIlls specifically, either, it was about Long Island generally, and when the Brooklyn Daily Eagle broke the news they wrote in July 05 that CBM was looking around Westbury, LI, near Meadowbrook CC.
Hope that helps.
-
Jim,
Also, here again is the "Mother Article" from the NY Evening Telegram on October 15th, 1906 that the two Boston articles (as well as a verbatim one the next day in the Rochester (NY) Democrate) seem to have sprung from.
There is no mention of "securing". I believe that was simply the Boston writer trying to make it sound like an original article, although it's obviously cobbled.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
For comparison, here's the Boston article published the next day;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
-
No mention of "securing"? What do you suppose "purchased" would be synonymous with?
-
Jim,
Please see my edit/addition above. Thanks.
As regards purchasing, we know for a fact that no purchase took place at that time (it happened in the spring of 1907), and we also know for a fact that contracts weren't signed to secure the Sebonac Neck property until mid December, two months later. Multiple NYC papers posted in-depth articles about the securing of the land in December in the days following that event, and they were remarkably consistent, if also clearly written by different writers privy to the same information.
I think the October articles mixes a number of facts and some assumptions, and the fact it wasn't copied by other NYC papers leads me to believe that the greater thrust of it is erroneous, although it contains interesting insights into the process by that time.
-
Mike,
I think it plays perfectly with CBM's description of the process and the resulting 3-step process for acquisition.
1 - realized we wanted to buy within this 450 acres
2 - realized the exact 205 we wanted to buy
3 - formalized the transaction with cash in the spring
-
Jim,
I would generally agree, but sense that the time between the horse rides in September and (first gaining agreement with Alvord) and then the signing of that agreement to secure 205 undetermined acres of 450 available took a few months, which probably shouldn't be too surprising when you think about it.
I think one area we may still disagree is the site of the land described in the Oct article. If it included Sebonac Necik, it would include a site over 1000 acres in size, which really seems to me to include both the original site as well as the site he eventually purchased.
Related please consider that November articles talked about a site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground, so there may have been both sites in Shinnecock Hills still in play at that time.
-
Isn't it more likely that the descriptions in those articles were general descriptions of the land the realty company owned than exact boundaries of the course?
-
Does anyone know when CBM bought the land for Ballyshear?Can you really look down over NGLA from there?
-
Isn't it more likely that the descriptions in those articles were general descriptions of the land the realty company owned than exact boundaries of the course?
Jim,
IF the landform in the article measured something around 450 acres (the size of the Sebonac Neck tract) I'd completely agree. THe problem is that the area from point to point to point to point is probably around 1000 acres if we assume the Sebonac Neck land was included in that parcel referenced in the October 15 article.
If it was the land owned by the Reality Company, that would included 2700 acres stretching from the canal to Southampton.
-
The realty company owned 2000+ acres, didn't they?
-
Jim,
The Realty Company purchased/owned over 2700 acres, stretching from the Canal at Good Ground to almost Southampton, excluding the land owned by Shinnecock Hills GC and a few previously built estate homes.
It was a much larger area than what was described in that article.
-
With the exception of land south of the railroad tracks, how does the defined area not fit the described area better than anything else being thrown against the wall? Remember, I think the perspective of the reader of the articles is important in deciphering just what is being located.
-
Is it unreasonable to ask that a summary post be made so that readers can see what has been established from this thread and what remains to be vaildated?
Thanks.
-
Jeff T,
Yes, probably too much too ask.
All we can say for certain after 35 pages is that many folks use the word "disingenous" a lot.
-
Jim,
I'm not sure if what I've drawn in green is accruate as the boundary of the 2700 acres of the Alvord holdings (versus your interpreation of the land the article describes in yellow), but the gap is pretty significant, especially since the article talks about it being a specific "250 acres".
Which, of course, makes me think the writer wasn't quite talking as far norh as Sebonac Neck with his description, or even merging information from multiple sites CBM was looking at.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5182/5592451357_315ee769d4_b.jpg)
-
All we can say for certain after 35 pages is that many folks use the word "disingenous" a lot.
Jeff,
There you go lying again, you disengenous sl*t!
;) ;D
-
Mike,
Interesting that both sites could have been in play. I think we took the words in SG "but was refused" to mean he offered on one, and then looked at another. If it was a collaborative effort between parties, perhaps they were riding both sites almost simultaneously and one sort of gained favor for all reasons discussed.
Not hard to imagine that after CBM looked at the best topo features of the canal area site, and made a real concrete offer, that the folks at Alvord said no because it was too valuble, but didn't say no outright based on the land plan, as we have previously theorized. Might not have been the roads at all!
We just don't know how it all went down, based on a few pages of writing from CBM. However, it would have been just as easy for him to write that he took pony rides on several sites, although all those roads through the first site may have precluded the need for it!
Still fascinating to wonder about it though, you disingenous person, you!
-
Mike,
Don't you think "the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock stations" is the canal?
-
Jim,
That's what I thought it was the first time i read it, but David later convinced me that it was the inlet on the West edge of Cold Spring Bay.
At the time, the area known as "Good Ground" extended further east than the canal on some maps, further leading me to think that an inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station was the one at Cold Spring, which confirmed David's idea for me.
Feel free to convince me otherwise. ;)
-
I guess it doesn't make sense to me why that inlet would identified in connection with train stations when it's nowhere near the tracks...
David,
Good Ground may well have extended more to the east, but where was the station?
I know we can splice the sentence to exclude the Good Ground Station but for my humor, which side of the canal was it on? East or West?
-
Mike,
My two month old computer died this morning. I'm now awaiting new memory chips and new hard drive, so I can't give this thread as much attention, but, ..............
By contrast, do you think that the land of the existing NGLA golf course in any way had the 1906 Shinnecock GC adjoining to the east, skirted the Long Island Rail Tracks to the south, or has its most westerly point the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station?
Which of the two properties more accurately fall into the parameters described in the article? Either?
I prefer to think that the article - which is wrong in so many aspects - was just describing a general area and not a specific property line. So, no I don't think it fits either your suggested property or the final site, or even where I think the rejected 120 acre offer was.
Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large. It measures out to 3400 acres. The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too. It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and near Southampton on the east. Pretty hard to draw based on that description. I would draw the conclusion that news reporting of the time was pretty loose and easy about location. I think in both cases you are trying to impart too much precision to general descriptions. I'd be inclined to totally discount the October 15th article as an attempted scoop that was completely muddled.
And, OH CRAP, HERE GOES THE FLIPPING SCREEN AGAIN. Clearly this is not going to be my computer day.
-
Bryan,
An attempted scoop using a pretty specific word such as purchased or secured? I guess anything's possible, but when it came true a matter of weeks later it seems to me like it was the scoop.
-
Jim,
I'm going with the theory that it was a general area description in which there wasn't a whole lot in the way of landmarks at that time. Maps generally had Cold Springs Pond identifed on them; you'd think it would have been just as easy to call it the inlet to Cold Springs Pond, rather than relative to a couple of far away rail stations.
The Good Ground station was 9,440 feet west along the tracks from the North Highway overpass. That puts it more than a mile west of the canal. Using two rail stations seems like an odd way to define an inlet that is not really near either. I think the article, including the location description, is just some more reportorial crap.
-
Bryan,
An attempted scoop using a pretty specific word such as purchased or secured? I guess anything's possible, but when it came true a matter of weeks later it seems to me like it was the scoop.
They didn't "purchase" it two months later either. I meant it was a scoop in the sense that the reporter probably wasn't working with information direct from CBM. Maybe he heard snippets and ran with a story. In that context, I don't put too much store on the exact boundary location.
-
Jim,
Well, to be fair, it came true 2 months later, or more specifically, his securing of the land took place on a much more specific site two months later, with actual purchase coming about 4-6 months after that.
Also, NONE of the other NYC papers confirmed that it was indeed a scoop in the days that followed.
Bryan,
That sucks. Sorry to hear it.
-
Jim/Bryan,
Here's the infamous 1914 map which Patrick insists should show the awesome width and breadth of the North Superhighway and called me a disengenous liar for using. :(
In any case, looking at the location of Good Ground and Shinnecock Station would lead me to think that the canal was very possibly the inlet referred to in the story.
Don't know, but possibly?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
One other thought,
1) I believe an accurate reading of CBM's book indicates that he made his first offer for the "Canal Site" not in late 1905, but in 1906 after his return from abroad. I believe CBM decided that he would build his course somewhere in Shinnecock Hills in late 1905, after Alvord's company purchased the whole shebang late that year. Within a month or so, CBM was on a boat to GBI for five months, not just to study the great courses and ideal holes, but more precisely, to have exact surveyor's topographical maps drawn of them. I don't believe CBM would have made an offer for a specific parcel of land PRIOR to having the exact specs for what he wanted to build on that land.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that CBM needed to have exact topo maps of his ideal hole from the UK because he intended to replicate exact copies of them? And, that he wouldn't have offered on a piece of land until he had those exact topo plans of the ideal holes? In the end he built holes that were inspired by his ideal holes. They were not exact copies. For that he didn't need "exact specs" or "exact surveyor's topographical maps" of them, did he? So, I'm not sure you can draw your conclusion that he wouldn't make an offer until he had his exact topo maps of the originals.
-
Bryan,
These two pages lead me to the belief that CBM felt that having the surveyor maps was an integral first step he needed to complete prior to selecting land;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5436562574_f8279c2533.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large. It measures out to 3400 acres. The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too. It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and near Southampton on the east.
Bryan,
Canoe Place Creek looks to be the canal, and the Eastern Edge of the Olmstead Plan appears pretty close to what Mike has drawn, not exact, but close enough IMO. Where would you think he has it wrong?
The exact lines along the waters edge surely make up some acreage...
-
This is crazy. Mike fails to answer the pending questions and instead gives us a list of his beliefs and we start over again at square one? We have covered all this ground before!
I'm hopeful as well that my post above includes my responses to David's questions about the site. If there is anything I missed, please let me know and I'll try to give my best shot.
You haven't even begun to address my questions or analysis. For example, on multiple occasions I have set out for you a list of specific reasons why the site described in the October articles is NOT the site described as the site "near the canal" in Scotland's Gift. I have repeatedly asked you to address each of my points, but despite repeated promises to do so and week after week supposedly considering my points, you have not even begun to address these points. There are other questions you ignored, but let's start there.
Rather than addressing my points, what you have again set out a series of a series paragraphs setting out "what [you] think happened." Such an exercise can be useful to the extent it helps you clarify your position to yourself and others, so thanks for that. That said, your list of beliefs doesn't really advance the conversation. Rather it seems to have reset the scoreboard and sent us back to go over everything again.
Meanwhile, the real issue here is whether or not your beliefs are actually reasonable interpretations of the totality of the source material, and whether they are the best interpretation. In my opinion there is no reason to get to the latter because in my opinion your beliefs are unreasonable..
For example, for the reasons I have repeatedly provided, I think it is unreasonable for you to believe that your mystery site was actually the Canal site described in Scotland's Gift. Will you please address each of my reasons and explain the reasonableness of your position given each of these reasons?
Likewise, your interpretation of the land described in the October articles is unreasonable. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if you can somehow jury-rig your mystery site to sort of fit with the description in the articles then the articles must have been referring to something other than the site CBM was considering on and under Sebonac Neck. You cannot. While you may refuse to accept it, the description fits the site CBM was considering on and under Sebonac Neck, and this would be so even if the site you keep manipulating also fit (it doesn't.) You wrote:
By contrast, do you think that the land of the existing NGLA golf course in any way had the 1906 Shinnecock GC adjoining to the east, skirted the Long Island Rail Tracks to the south, or has its most westerly point the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station?
This is the sort of cherry-picking and manipulation of the facts that leads to the use of the dreaded "D" word. You conveniently forgot the part about how the land stretched along Peconic Bay. And your focus on the other aspects of the description is hardly reasonable and objective. Let's go through the description once again . . .
1. The land stretched along Peconic Bay.
- Your various proposed sites do not stretch along Peconic Bay.
- The Sebonac Neck property obviously stretches along Peconic Bay.
2. The land "skirted" the RR to the South.
- This could mean either that the land was next to the RR or that it it was near the RR, but not next to it.
- Your various proposed sites are all either further away from the RR or not appreciably closer to the RR than the actual site.
3. The land adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course to the east.
- I've produced source material indicating that by this point SHGC owned land to the east of a portion of the land currently occupied by NGLA. (Additionally the land being considered may have even extended further south.)
- While you have proclaimed this source material inaccurate, you have never produced anything supporting your proclamation.
- Even if you were correct on this point (you aren't) the very best you could do is to claim that SHGC was catty-corner to the southwest instead of west. Hardly reason to throw out the site.
- Most of your various sites do not even adjoin the land you claim was SHGC! Some miss it entirely to the north. Others are well west.
4. The westerly point was "near" the inlet.
- You change this by claiming the westerly point was the inlet, but the articles clearly claim it was NEAR the inlet, not at it or past it. Yet your various proposed sites actually put the westerly point at or past the inlet. Granted, out of context "near" could be past. But in the context of the description it seems nonsensical to read the passage as having the land stretch along Peconic Bay to westerly point "near the inlet" if the westerly point was actually past the inlet.)
- The definition of "inlet" is far from specific and it is unclear whether the author was referring to the opening of Cold Spring pond or the narrow section or all of it. The fact that "Inlet Road" on the 1907 land plan stretches about halfway along the waterway suggests that Inlet meant more than just the opening. Chances are that the author did not have any idea to what he was referring but was just doing his/her best with the description someone had given him.
- Regardless, the westerly border of the Sebonac Neck property is Cold Springs Harbor/Bay/Pond/Inlet, and as can be seen on the 1907 plan, stretched all the way to the opening. That is how CBM (in Scotland's Gift) and the various December articles described the larger parcel.
I am having trouble understanding how you can continue to ask us to throw out the most obvious interpretation of the article and replace with it a never before mentioned mystery site right through the heart of an ongoing development project. Like it or not, the description fits the Sebonac Neck property, by which I mean not only Sebonac Neck, but also the land CBM was considering below the actual Neck.
Which of the two properties more accurately fall into the parameters described in the article? Either?
First, the Sebonac Neck property - the land CBM described as the 450 acres out of which he chose his golf course - falls well within parameters described in the article.
Second, later descriptions of the 450 acres track the key points of the October article. For example, CBM in Scotland's Gift: ". . . 450 acres of land on Sebonack Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay lying between Cold Springs Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. . . . It adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course." There it is.
- A mile along Peconic Bay is certainly stretching along Peconic Bay.
- And if Cold Springs Harbor is the landmark to the west then whatever "inlet" means the land in question was surely near it.
- It adjoined SHGC, and I have posted source material indicating that it adjoined to the east. You keep claiming it adjoined SHGC to the south, but the closest border was to the east unless you are claiming that CBM was considering land all the way down to St. Andrews road.
Third, as explained above, your various sites are by far the worse fit. While you constantly change the picture, generally your sites don't fit as well because . . .
- They do not stretch along Peconic Bay.
- They are not appreciably closer to the RR.
- They do not adjoin SHGC.
- They all end past the canal or at it, they don't stretch along the bay to a point near the canal.
There are many more problems with your long statement of belief, but rather that start all over again, I'd appreciate if you would finally address my reasons why your site is not the canal site.
-
I think one area we may still disagree is the site of the land described in the Oct article. If it included Sebonac Necik, it would include a site over 1000 acres in size, which really seems to me to include both the original site as well as the site he eventually purchased.
This just isn't true.
The "original site" was NEAR THE CANAL. Your yellow-lined rendering goes nowhere "near the canal" and therefore it does not contain "the original site" described by CBM. Similarly, your yellow-lined rendering borders SHGC.
As you have acknowledged, Scotland's Gift provided our only description of the canal site. CBM didn't want to be near SHGC and tried to buy 120 acres near the canal. Yet you ignore CBM's description in its entirety! That is not reasonable. (You even have this happening a year after CBM decided to buy land in the Shinnecock Hills!)
And even if the October description could fit 1000 acres, so what? The article does not purport to be an exact metes-and-bounds description of the final site. And it doesn't purport to be describing "specific" land as you claim. It describes the general location of the land with very little specificity, and the 450 acre site fall well within this description.
Even you recognize that the 450 acres is a subset of the larger 1000 acre site the article might describe, yet you try to force another separate and independent site into the same thousand acres? What is your REASONABLE basis for so doing? Surely not Scotland's Gift.
Besides, whether it is 1000 acres or 10,000 acres, the land in question had to stretch along Peconic Bay to a point near the inlet. Assuming the "inlet" is the body of water next to "Inlet Road," the only property that fits the bill is Sebonac Neck!
This is where reasonableness and good faith comes into play. We know that two months after these articles, the purchase was finalized. We also know that the description in the articles is similar to that in Scotland's gift and later articles. We also know that sometimes articles (and clubs) were sometimes premature in announcing their purchases. Etc.
Yet whether you call it the canal site or not, you have created a third site out of whole cloth because you don't want to accept the more obvious interpretation. That is unreasonable.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
David,
It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.
-
I guess it doesn't make sense to me why that inlet would identified in connection with train stations when it's nowhere near the tracks...
I can't put myself in the mind of whoever came up with the description, but I figured Cold Spring harbor/bay/inlet/pond was visible from the train. The inlet is less than a half-mile from the RR line which, according to the 1903 map, was at around 75 ft. elevation when it passes by the inlet.
Also the southern point of NGLA is only about 600 yards from the RR tracks, and we don't know how much further south the 450 acre site extended. So I am not sure we could characterize the described land as "nowhere near the tracks.") Whether it was "skirted" by the tracks to the south is a matter of interpretation, I guess, but I don't think the description is unreasonable given that the land was readily accessible to the RR and station, yet not right on the tracks. (Note that skirting as opposed to bordering the tracks was a big plus to CBM, who wanted to be alone with nature but still wanted to be close to NY.
David, Good Ground may well have extended more to the east, but where was the station?
I haven't been able to figure out the exact location but the station was definitely west of the canal. But it doesn't say "Good Ground Station" it says "Good Ground." And it doesn't say "stations" it says "station." So, heading east on the train, the inlet was after Good Ground but before Shinnecock Station.
David, It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.
I considered this and discussed it initially, but it doesn't say "canal." It says "inlet." Why would anyone refer to the Shinnecock Canal as an inlet?
Were there no actual inlet fitting the description, I might be inclined to believe that the reporter meant canal but wrote "inlet." But there and was an inlet fitting the description and it was apparently known as an "inlet." The 1907 rendering identifies "Inlet Road" running alongside it!
By "it" I mean the inlet, not the canal. Sometimes "inlet" just means "inlet."
-
David,
In your second paragraph there, I agree. I was saying the inlet is no near the tracks while the canal is traveled over once you pass Good Ground and Good Ground station and before you get to Shinecock Station.
I guess my point is that I think the descriptions are describing the entire area of the land company's holdings north of the train tracks.
-
Jim, if the western point of the land was along Peconic Bay and well away from the RR tracks then I would think the identifying landmark might be away from the tracks as well. If the inlet was visible from the train, then the reference makes sense, doesn't it?
Anyway, it doesn't seem like the articles are describing the whole area north of the tracks to me, but it really ought to make no difference. If the articles were describing the SHPBRC land north of RR then I don't think there is any way to reasonably exclude the Sebonac Neck property
That said, I am afraid you have given Mike his next excuse to start over again. Rather than admitting that the description could reasonably include Sebonack Neck, and rather than finally addressing my points, I expect Mike will latch on to your reading (one he previously objected because treating the inlet as the inlet made more sense to him) with the added caveat that Sebonac Neck was somehow excluded, and we will start this process over again. In short, I am afraid Mike's approach to interpreting the articles is Anything-But-Sebonac-Neck but I hope he proves me wrong
-
The Good Ground train station/depot has not alwaays been in the same location. When it was first opened in 1871 it was in Hampton Bays. In 1874 a new one was opened in Good Ground. This continued until 1913. Then a new station was opened. That is why I bring this to your attention as the latest map you showed with the "Good Ground" station on it is from 1914 and is quite a ways from the canal. I have contacted some research friends at the Long Island Studies Institute to see if I can get you an exact location for the station in 1906. What I can provide for you, and I think both the ratio of automobiles to horse-drawn wagons is quite telling as is the paving of the roadway, is a photograph of the Good Ground train depot/station taken in 1909. That's at the bottom of the page.
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm
LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD
Alphabetical Station Listing
and History
(Compiled from data researched by
Vincent F. Seyfried, Robert M. Emery, Art Huneke and Jeff Erlitz)
HAMPTON BAYS MONTAUK OPENED: 2/1871 AS “GOOD GROUND”,
BURNED: 11/4/1873
2ND DEPOT OPENED: 1/10/1874,
CLOSED: 1913, USED AS EX-
PRESS HOUSE FOR 3RD DEPOT.
3RD DEPOT OPENED: SUMMER/ 1913,
AGENCY CLOSED: 1958, RAZED:
c. 1964. STATION STOP MOVED
2,000’ WEST: 12/26/74
4TH , RELOCATED DEPOT WITH HI-
LEVEL PLATFORMS BUILT: 2000-01
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1909goodgroundhamptonbaystrainstation.jpg)
-
Jim/David,
So, you're both in agreement that the "inlet" was the canal??
I'm confused on what you're agreeing about because it sounds as though you are both making widely different points.
Jim seems to be arguing that the site described in the paper is ALL of Alvord's holdings and David seems to be arguing that it's referring only to the mere 250 or 205 or 450 acres that CBM eventually purchased on Sebonac Neck.
So, let's start west...where is the writer saying the western bprder was; the canal or the inlet?
-
Bryan,
The linked judicial decision helps explain the timing of the construction of the roads and crossings, the locations of the crossings, and the belated timing of the dedication.. It seems the town refused the dedication until certain conditions were met by SHPBRC. The RR was somewhat caught in the middle and eventually sued both the and SHPBRC.
http://books.google.com/booksid=zY47AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA887&dq=%22canoe+place%22+shinnecock+hills&hl=en&ei
=s7mbTYv7EqiC0QGN2sHhAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=twopage&q&f
=false
From the opinion with my bold:
In May, 1906, the Railroad Company and the Realty Company entered into an agreement by which the Railroad Company agreed to build a new station to cost about $1,000 at a new location near the west end of the Hills, to be mutually agreed upon; to repair and paint the Shinnecock Hills station and put in three undergrade crossings for the public road, one at each end of the new north road which the Realty Company was then building, the other for a cross-road just west of the Shinnecock Hills station. In passing, the crossing upon the cross-road is not here in dispute. That was built solely at the cost of the Railroad Company.
. . .
[]On December 4, 1906, the railroad commissioners made an order eliminating the grade crossings upon said highways and providing for the building of the two new crossings under the railway. The Railroad Company thereafter built these two crossings under the railway, in accordance with said order, the total cost of which was $17,905.28, no part of which has been paid by either the state or the town. Some negotiations were then had between the town board, the highway commissioners, and the Realty Company in relation to obtaining the necessary consents and preparing the formal papers; but nothing definite was done until, at a meeting of the highway commissioners on the 3d day of June, 1908, a resolution was passed, of which the following is a copy:
'Moved and carried that the secretary inform the Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company that the town board and commissioners of highways are not ready to accept the proposed roads across the property of said company until the following objections and conditions are met as per original agreement: . . . '
So SHPBRC was in the process of building the North Road in May of 1906 and the underpasses at each end were completed sometime after December 4, 1906, but substantially before June 3, 1908.
Given the description of the west underpass, working backward would put the Good Ground station at the northeast corner of the intersection of Springville Rd. and the track
___________________________________
Mike,
No. We are not in agreement that the "inlet" was the canal. I think the "inlet" was the inlet.
-
Phil,
Here is a site that I posted some weeks ago that describes the history and location of the station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Bays_(LIRR_station) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Bays_(LIRR_station)) In these uncertain times, I guess Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source. Anyway, if it is correct, you can surmise the location of the station.
After dealing with Pat's photo interpretation skills over the last few days, I hope that what you are seeing is a graded dirt road. Just wanted to check. And, it sure does look busy around that station. ;D
The Good Ground train station/depot has not alwaays been in the same location. When it was first opened in 1871 it was in Hampton Bays. In 1874 a new one was opened in Good Ground. This continued until 1913. Then a new station was opened. That is why I bring this to your attention as the latest map you showed with the "Good Ground" station on it is from 1914 and is quite a ways from the canal. I have contacted some research friends at the Long Island Studies Institute to see if I can get you an exact location for the station in 1906. What I can provide for you, and I think both the ratio of automobiles to horse-drawn wagons is quite telling as is the paving of the roadway, is a photograph of the Good Ground train depot/station taken in 1909. That's at the bottom of the page.
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm
LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD
Alphabetical Station Listing
and History
(Compiled from data researched by
Vincent F. Seyfried, Robert M. Emery, Art Huneke and Jeff Erlitz)
HAMPTON BAYS MONTAUK OPENED: 2/1871 AS “GOOD GROUND”,
BURNED: 11/4/1873
2ND DEPOT OPENED: 1/10/1874,
CLOSED: 1913, USED AS EX-
PRESS HOUSE FOR 3RD DEPOT.
3RD DEPOT OPENED: SUMMER/ 1913,
AGENCY CLOSED: 1958, RAZED:
c. 1964. STATION STOP MOVED
2,000’ WEST: 12/26/74
4TH , RELOCATED DEPOT WITH HI-
LEVEL PLATFORMS BUILT: 2000-01
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1909goodgroundhamptonbaystrainstation.jpg)
-
David,
The judicial decision looks interesting. I'd like to look at it directly, but the link does not work. Even copying it and removing CR's and repasting it doesn't work. Can you fix it? In these days of Tall Tales, I'd like to see the source.
I agree to your location of the Good Ground Station. I do think that the article places the inlet between the two stations - or at least that's how it reads to me. I understand you take a more literal interpretation. What escapes me is why they wouldn't have used the canal as a reference point rather than Good Ground or Good Ground Station. The canal had been there for years and must have been pretty well known. I agree that the inlet is the Cold Springs Pond inlet.
-
Mike,
Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large. It measures out to 3400 acres. The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too. It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and near Southampton on the east.
Bryan,
Canoe Place Creek looks to be the canal, and the Eastern Edge of the Olmstead Plan appears pretty close to what Mike has drawn, not exact, but close enough IMO. Where would you think he has it wrong?
The exact lines along the waters edge surely make up some acreage...
I cannot place Canoe Place Creek on old maps, but it seems logical that it is the canal. But then, why didn't they refer to the west boundary as the canal rather than calling it the creek. The canal had been built for 20 years. Odd.
I think Mike has gone too far east towards Southampton. If I ever get my main computer back together, I'll try to map out where 2700 acres would get you. The north, south and west boundaries are pretty well defined. Only the east requires playing with.
Would you agree that CBM's estate wasn't part of the Peconic Bay Realty tract? Just curious.
-
David,
The judicial decision looks interesting. I'd like to look at it directly, but the link does not work. Even copying it and removing CR's and repasting it doesn't work. Can you fix it? In these days of Tall Tales, I'd like to see the source.
We should all always insist on looking at the source which is what I have been telling people for years. I think that was the point Tom MacWood was trying to make with the hoax.
As for the source, try . . .
http://books.google.com/books?id=zY47AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
The case beings on page 887.
I cannot place Canoe Place Creek on old maps, but it seems logical that it is the canal. But then, why didn't they refer to the west boundary as the canal rather than calling it the creek. The canal had been built for 20 years. Odd.
I wondered about this as well. The original deed to the parcel would have predated the canal, and the description of the border may have gone back to the original "deal" with the indians. If the legal description was Canoe Place Creek, they may have just reported it that way.
I think Mike has gone too far east towards Southampton. If I ever get my main computer back together, I'll try to map out where 2700 acres would get you. The north, south and west boundaries are pretty well defined. Only the east requires playing with.
I am not so sure it was 2700 acres. It may have been but I have also seen 3200 acres and other numbers. Part of the confusion may be that the acreage apparently included 500 acres which was underwater.
-
David,
For what it's worth I was including Sebonak Neck in the area described in those articles, not excluding it as Mike would like to.
Also, the 1914 map Mike posted a couple pages ago shows a town "Canoe Place" immediately below the opening of the canal.
-
Wherever it was, I now believe that CBM personally wrote (or was quoted directly) the description of the area in the October 15th article.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
Which makes it even more interesting that this piece surfaced in the NY Sun two weeks later on November 1st, 1906.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
Or this on the same day in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, courtesy of David.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
-
David,
I'm not sure we agree on where those articles refer to. ;)
Perhaps we need some outside, independent definitions and please feel free to add your own.
I thought about this as I read your description of how you think the Sebonac Neck site that CBM eventually ended up with fit into the parameters described in the article.
I'm particularly interested in the fact that you believe the current course site, or the Sebonac Neck site, was somehow able to "skirt" the Long Island Railroad at any point, so let's start there.
skirt·ed, skirt·ing, skirts
v.tr.
1. To lie along or form the edge of; border: the creek that skirts our property.
2. To pass around rather than across or through: changed their course to skirt the storm.
3. To pass close to; miss narrowly: The bullet skirted an artery.
4. To evade, as by circumlocution: skirted the controversial issue.
v.intr.
To lie along, move along, or be an edge or a border.
The southern edge of NGLA today is about .35 mile from the Long Island Railroad.
I know you argued that the land could have been further south, but that really doesn't make sense as it would have had to include the Shinnecock Inn just a couple of hundred yards south, and any further than that it would have had to actually include land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, land which actually DID "skirt" the Long Island Railroad.
Below on your original overlay I've approximated the location of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time in Yellow, indicated the LIRR in Purple, and the Shinnecock Inn in Blue.
I fail to see how any of the land of Sebonac Neck could have "skirted" the Long Island Railroad. Actually, CBM sort of makes my point for me, as he tells us how the site he DID eventually purchase "skirted" Bulls Head Bay for a mile, which of course it does.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5595409006_2d19d427f0_b.jpg)
-
More definitions;
"Stretches Along", as in "stretches along Peconic Bay to the north".
stretch (strch)
v. stretched, stretch·ing, stretch·es
1. To become lengthened, widened, or distended.
2. To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction: "On both sides of us stretched the wet plain" (Ernest Hemingway).
3. To lie down at full length: stretched out on the bed.
4. To extend one's muscles or limbs, as after prolonged sitting or on awakening
a·long (-lông, -lng)
prep.
1. Over the length of: walked along the path.
2. On a line or course parallel and close to; continuously beside: rowed along the shore; the trees along the avenue.
3. In accordance with: The committee split along party lines over the issue.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5526492917_68e7796f1f_b.jpg)
-
"Adjoin", as in, "its eastern limits adjoin the Shinnecock Hills course".
ad·join (-join)
v. ad·joined, ad·join·ing, ad·joins
v.tr.
1. To be next to; be contiguous to: property that adjoins ours.
2. To attach: "I do adjoin a copy of the letter that I have received" (John Fowles).
v.intr.
To be contiguous.
The western and northern boundaries of the Shinnecock Hills GC in 1906 are approximated in Yellow below with the location of the Shinnecock Inn indicated in Blue.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5595409006_2d19d427f0_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I would agree that the specific Sebonak Neck site doesn't fit the description any better than your hypothetical site running east-west above the north highway...don't you agree? Your definitions kind of make that point inarguable...
-
And finally, "near", as in "the most westerly point is "near" the inlet between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Station."
near (nîr)
adv. near·er, near·est
1. To, at, or within a short distance or interval in space or time.
On a related note, and perhaps more germane, I'm not sure that just because something has been formalized and constructed into a "canal" that it isn't still an "inlet".
In fact, the Shinnecock Canal is actually TWO inlets, one from Peconic Bay from the north and one from Shinnecock Bay on the south.
in·let (nlt, -lt)
n.
1.
a. A recess, such as a bay or cove, along a coast.
b. A stream or bay leading inland, as from the ocean; an estuary.
c. A narrow passage of water, as between two islands.
d. A drainage passage, as to a culvert.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
Actually, I think its highly possible that the land described includes all of the land of Shinnecock Hills north of the Railroad tracks EXCEPT the Sebonac Neck site.
In other words, I think you are VERY possibly correct that the inlet was the canal, especially given definition #3.
-
Why would you exclude the Sebonak Neck land?
-
Why would you exclude the Sebonak Neck land?
Because CBM sort of implies he found the Sebonac Neck site AFTER he was refused his offer for land closer to the canal, which seems still in play as of this date (as well as November 1st).
-
Still...why does the brief snippet from the October articles preclud the Sebonak Neck area?
You seem to be inserting your opinion that the canal offer was in late summer 1906, but that is still just an opinion, correct?
-
Jim,
Because I think if he was talking about ALL of the land above the tracks that included Sebonac Neck, he would have indicated that the property skirted Bulls Head Bay for a mile on the east, just like he wrote in his book. And yes, it's an opinion, but one I think that is supported by most of the facts we know.
He wouldn't have referenced BHB if he was still looking at land here, which is what the news articles in October & early November said. He didn't...instead he talked about the property adjoining Shinnecock Hills to the east, which is surely a tremendous stretch given the 1906 dimensions of that course if he was talking about Sebonac Neck.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5253/5435682583_bf358426e2_b.jpg)
Also, more of the reason I think CBM would not have made an offer for any land prior to obtaining Topographical survey Maps of the great holes and features abroad;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5096/5471531354_f855374a5c.jpg)
-
What on earth could possibly flip you to believing the articles were in CBM pen?
-
Adjoins and skirted.
-
You're a piece of work...
-
Jim,
When was the last time you used the word "skirted"? ;) ;D
-
I hope this is another April Fools joke.
Mike,
When will you address my questions and analysis about your "canal site" claim? It has been months now.
Jim,
I hope I get credit for calling it. This has become so predictable that I think I could write out both sides of this "discussion" myself.
-
Full credit for sure.
Now, back to our disagreement about the inlet...if we look at the description in total it would be really tough to argue that the author is describing Sebonak Neck, and only Sebonak Neck, due to the relationship to both the railroad and Shinnecock Hills GC. My view on your inlet versus my canal is that simple. For the inlet into Cold Spring Pond to have been the intention the author must have been describing exactly Sebonak Neck (just west of Southampton) so why wouldn't he have just said Sebonak Neck as opposed to this large, ambiguous area?
-
Jim,
I don't think the article was describing "Sebonack Neck and just Sebonac Neck" Why would it? NGLA extends well off of Sebonac Neck. As for the location of SHGC in relation to the property, Mike continues to misrepresent it.
We've got to keep this in perspective here. This isn't a legal land description, it is a newspaper blurb. I don't think we can assume that author had any idea that the land out there was called Seconack Neck or that Cold Spring was called Cold Spring or whether it was a harbor, inlet, pond, swamp, or whatever. He doesn't even get the name of the train station right. He was either relaying what someone had told him (and who knows what that person knew) or he was providing a general location based on what he knew of the area. It seems unreasonable to nitpick about whether a few hundred yards is "skirting" or whether enough of SHGC was east of the course when we know some of it was.
-
In general, I agree.
I think the key word in there is "secured" which is much less ambiguous than "skirted". The fact that nothing was actually secured until a month or two later doesn't matter to me when you consider exactly what CBM wrote in Scotlands gift. He clearly describes a three step process of identifying the general land, then finding the portion he wanted (and staking out the boundary), and then execute the transaction.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
David,
It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.
Jim, Bryan, David, Mike, et. al.,
I haven't been able to devote much time to reading threads in the last few days and hope to do so this weekend.
But, there's one thing I have to say.
Time and time again, newspaper articles have been seriously flawed.
Everyone has admitted or agreed that they're seriously flawed.
So why the undying allegiance to the validity of this particular one ?
Why are you granting this article infallibility ?
-
Pat,
The most important parts of that article for me are the date and the word "secured". I don't think it's infallible, hell it's not specific enough to become infallible but when it came fully true within two months I tend to think it's worth paying attention to. Just my opinion. Mike and David are trying to make it more specific than it could possibly be.
-
Patrick,
You haven't missed much. Mike is about to launch into his fourth or fifth Anything-But-Sebonack-Neck interpretation of that article and about to come up with his fourth or fifth alternative site.
The only thing I take from those articles is that by mid-October the Sebonac Neck property is in play. Mike agreed with this until I pressed him to consider the consequences.
And of course Mike is still yet to address my critique of his "canal site" theory.
-
Just an opinion, but with no evidence of a third site, and the revelation that they did the sebonac pony ride in Sept., I keep thinking that the first offer was also made in Sept. 06. If he was quoting CBM in that article, CBM was probably just being mysterious, because both sites were still in play, or he just didn't want the press to know anymore than what they knew already - that he had narrowed the site effectively down to the Shinnecock Hills area.
For all we know, CBM expanded the description to keep the Shinny folks in the dark and not pissed off, or just was hesitant for some other reason to let out too many details, so his description to the reporter (or Whighams or maybe even the Peconic Bay folks, as we don't really know the source) described all possible properties under consideration. Or maybe the news guy heard leaks about both areas and just decided to cover himself by describing it all.
Again, just my take. All the stuff on roads, third sites, etc. probably is to no avail, IMHO. This would be the simple explanation.
-
Jeff,
Even with the words secured and purchased in there? Seems odd if there were no deal...
In any event, it does seem the most likely source would have been the realty company, doesn't it? They win by drawing attraction to the area, CBM does not.
-
Jim,
If the article was in fact a "scoop" the reporter may have overheard someone say that CBM was going to buy some land from them, and the deal was "imminent", no? However, he didn't know where, so he described the whole area.
Basically, in this case, I am in Pat's "why trust the news" campe (I think others agree) and am offering up a theory as to why it was inaccurate. It makes as much sense as parsing words like "skirted".
-
But it came true...doesn't that distinguish it from other faulty news reports?
-
Jim,
Admittedly, my theory rests on some exact timing of the reporter getting the inside scoop that a deal was assured, but an exact location had not yet been determined. However, IF they rode the Sebonac site for a few days in late Sept., just a few days after looking at the canal site, the timing isn't too far off. Reported in October and Nov 1 (copied most likely) right after the pony rides, but before the option is actually taken in December.
Because the option hadn't been taken, but its reported anyway, its a scoop, based on insider knowledge. And, it became partially true, but some of the details were not right - notably a good description of the exact site. Who knows. It seems he thinks the site is near the eastern portion. Other than the Good Ground reference, it does fit the final site.
So, now we have Mike and his third site, David saying it refers to the final site, and me saying the article is hedging its bets between the original canal site and the final site, because its rushed to pub before a final deal is made. Between the three of us, I think we have all possibilities covered!
-
I don't think Mike thinks it's a third site anymore, but rather the canal site.
I think the description in that snippet is the entire realty company's holdings north of the railroad.
-
Jim,
I think there were only two sites, too. I also think the description was the entire holdings north of the tracks, for reasons I explain above. That said, some folks made a nice case for the original canal site to be south of the tracks, given the view of the Atlantic, et al.
Then, the reporter would have had to have known the southern site was out, and some site north of the tracks was now under discussion, but again just didn't know the details, so he included the whole property in his description, so as to get out an accurate (as could be with facts he knew) scoop as quickly as possible.
That still makes the most sense to me. The article just doesn't accurately describe any particular site.
-
Jeff,
The reporter would not have needed to know anything other than CBM had secured some land within the Alvord holdings north of the railroad tracks...as well as what the general boundaries of the Alvord holdings were in their entirety...right?
Why would he have to know anything about a first offer? North or South of the tracks...
-
Jim,
You are right. All he would need to know is that there was an offer.
-
Guys,
Why do we care if the Atlantic Ocean was in view on the first site? Where are we getting that prerequisite from? CBM made pretty clear in the December articles that the land and dunes on the Peconic Bay side of Shinnecock were preferable so I think the south side was ruled out pretty quickly.
As regards the article and the description of the site, would any of you honestly say that you would include the land of Sebonac Neck in your interpretation of what the article is talking about if you did not know that was the land CBM eventually purchased? Seriously??
Regarding Sebonac Neck, when I'm referring to it for purposes of this discussion, I'm speaking specifically of the tracts of 450 acres that CBM had for his consideration. To say that his purchase of NGLA goes far south of Sebonac Neck really isn't the point. Until someone finds/posts the metes and bounds of the overall 450 acre tract (if such a document exists), NONE of us know the exact dimensions, but we can reasonably assume it was the land of today's NGLA as well as much of today's Sebonack GC.
The December articles that did refer to this plot of land were very specific, and described the land as lying between Bulls Head Bay, Cold Spring, and Sebonac Neck. No mention of canals, Good Ground, the Long Island Rairoad, or any of those points because they were most assuredly not near the land that CBM was considering at Sebonac Neck.
October 15, 1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
November 1st, 1906
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
December 14th, 1906
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5597609083_ea3fe5932c_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5526492917_68e7796f1f_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Shouldn't that confirm for you that it was a three step process in which CBM agreed to buy some of Alvord's land in October, found exactly what he wanted to buy by December, and completed all the technicalities in the Spring?
All we need to believe, in order to buy into my scenario, is that the author(s) of those early articles knew it was for part of Alvord's land but did not know the it was limited to Sebonac Neck. In that scenario, wouldn't you describe the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club as East of Alvord's land?
-
Mike, Are you ever going to answer my questions and address my analysis?
-
Jim,
No, I don't agree. In December CBM had not yet determined the land needed for his course, much less the routing.
David,
What questions are still open? I don't agree that the first offer was 1905, I don't agree that it couldn't have been any of the land west of Shinnecock Hills skirting the RR tracks to the south and going out to the inlet (which I think was the canal), and I think the offer of 120 acres was a counter offer after CBM's larger first offer was rejected.
By the way, for a bunch of smart guys, we've missed something very obvious that proves CBM did not have his land selected or course routed in December. More to follow....
-
Fellows,
Please read again what CBM tells us about the property he's secured in December of 1906.
By the way, this is from the same newspaper that posted the October 15th article.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362496648_17607c50c7_b.jpg)
-
An acre is a conventional measure of area. It was defined in the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and was supposed to be the area that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day. Acre is derived from the Latin for field, but the common field system of medieval times in Britain was ten acres. An acre is a furlong long and a chain wide. In fact, an archaic word for furlong was 'acre-length' and for chain 'acre-width'.
furlong 201.17 m 8 furlongs = 1 mile
10 chains = 1 furlong
220 yards = 1 furlong A furlong is a 'furrow long' or length of a medieval field (see acre). The furlong was also known as flatt, furshott, or sheth. The length varied depending on the type of soil. It was usual for horses to take a short breather at the end of the furrow before turning in to the next furrow. The heavier the soil, the harder the horses had to work, and so the less time between breathers. This led to shorter furrows or furlongs between the ends, and therefore local variations in furlong length. These variations were not removed until the railways required a universal standard measurement.
Furlongs are used for the lengths of some horse races.
Here's the land at 4 acres wide;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5598267434_90eb5fde23_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
Also, here again is the "Mother Article" from the NY Evening Telegram on October 15th, 1906 that the two Boston articles (as well as a verbatim one the next day in the Rochester (NY) Democrate) seem to have sprung from.
There is no mention of "securing". I believe that was simply the Boston writer trying to make it sound like an original article, although it's obviously cobbled.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
For comparison, here's the Boston article published the next day;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061017BJ.jpg?t=1297368891)
Mike,
Put that article with these two and it's clear the CBM quotes in December were held for two months and reproduced...
-
Jim,
I'm not seeing it...what quotes are you referring to?
Thanks
-
How about the statement that maps have been made and sent...???
Also...you like "skirted" and "adjoined" didn't you?
Do you think CBM grew up tilling heavy or light soil? That's got to be the key to determining the width he's describing as 4 acres, no? Please don't answer that...
-
Jim,
Where does it say maps were made and sent in the December articles?
Also, how "wide" do you think an "acre" is?
-
Are you serious?
Have you read the October 15th article yet? i believ you referred to it as "The Mother"...
-
Also...I have no idea how wide CBM thought an acre was, so why bother? If he was looking at all 450 acres of Sebonac Neck he would have said so. I think he does say that in his book as a first step in considering it (right after he was turned down on his canal site offer!).
When an article from October 15th with very accurate details of what eventually happened (not all details, but enough to know the author had a good source) why would we assume it's not accurate? I haven't heard one good reason other than saying we know it was not actually purchased at that point. I'd offer that a handshake at this stage of the purchase suffices for securing the property...that's the only thing we could possibly disagree about.
-
Jim,
Where in the December articles does CBM refer to maps having been drawn up and sent?
Also, CBM DOES tell us he's looking at all of the 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...he tells us he has it his disposal a tract 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.
-
This is ridiculous Mike. Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.
At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal." For the following reasons and more, this was not the case. I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would. You never have. Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue. You are playing games.
Here they are again. There are more but lets start here:
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way. Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?
4. The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected. CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?
5. Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed. To what were the later articles referring if not this article?
6. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?
7. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property. In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?
_____________________________________
As for your measures, we've covered this before and I have explained where I think the 4 acres figure came from. I considered your interpretation and don't buy it. If CBM meant a 1/2 mile he would have said 1/2 mile. If he meant 8 furlongs, he would have said 8 furlongs.
-
Jim,
Where in the December articles does CBM refer to maps having been drawn up and sent?
I have no idea. I've now re-read it a few times and find no mention of the maps...what does that mean to you? The October articles make no bones about it. By then they had been drawn up and sent.
-
David,
Please see my replies below in BLUE. Thanks.
This is ridiculous Mike. Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.
At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal." For the following reasons and more, this was not the case. I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would. You never have. Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue. You are playing games.
Here they are again. There are more but lets start here:
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?
David, I believe I've tried to offer a theory multiple times now. What we do know is that 250 acres is not the correct amount, either of what CBM actually secured, what he purchased, or what he wrote he offered originally. So, we know that in this aspect the news report is wrong.
Personally, I believe it was a transcription error in the paper that got propagated. We know from 1904 onward that CBM wanted just over 200 acres, we know he wrote in his Founders agreement that he needed 205 acres (110 for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acres ea for building lots for the Founders), and we know that what he eventually secured and purchased was exactly 205 acres. Coincidence? No way.
I believe and have hypothesized that because his first offer was for land that Alvord was planning for real estate development that after CBM was shot down asking for 205 acres, he decided to skip the building lots and see if he could buy just enough of that land for the golf course (120 acres), which also got refused, but which he related in his book.
I think it's absurd to think that it's because on one site he decided he needed 205 acres for his course while southwest of there he'd only need 120. Ridiculous, frankly, but respectfully.
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way. Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, but the short answer is that I believe you are reading CBM's book incorrectly. He doesn't tell us he decided upon the Canal Site shortly after Alvord did his huge land purchase...he tells us he decided to build his course in the Shinnecock Hills shortly after Alvord made his purchase in late 1905.
You can surmise all you like about CBM's motivations, but they really aren't supported by facts. If he was so eager to not miss an opportunity then why did he go abroad for 5 months right after Alvord's purchase.
Instead, I believe CBM would NEVER have made an offer on land until he was sure it fit with the general dimensions and type of fetaures he wanted but he couldn't even quantify that until he had his Topographical maps of the great holes and features abroad...which was the primary purpose of his extended stay.
Again, what was the very first thing he and Whigham did after he got general agreement from Alvord to sell him land at Sebonac Neck? They, "studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind."
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?
4. The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected. CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?
5. Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed. To what were the later articles referring if not this article?
6. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?
7. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property. In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?
_____________________________________
As for your measures, we've covered this before and I have explained where I think the 4 acres figure came from. I considered your interpretation and don't buy it. If CBM meant a 1/2 mile he would have said 1/2 mile. If he meant 8 furlongs, he would have said 8 furlongs.
David, I'll get to your questions 3-7 this weekend, I promise. In the meantime, perhaps you and/or Jim can tell me what you think CBM meant with "4 acres" in width, because perhaps I missed it previously.
If he's talking about square acres, that's only 208 yards wide, and we know most of NGLA is MUCH wider than that and there certainly wouldn't be much land to choose from "for his consideration".
If he's talking the way it was used to measure width historically, as in a furlong, then it's 880 yards, which is very consistent with a site of 450 acres overall, especially since we know that the site is actually 1.45 miles long, and not 2 miles. Do the math and it comes out pretty close to 450 acres overall.
At the width of a square acre, 208 yards, the site would have only been 151 acres at 2 miles long and a paltry 112 acres at 1.5 miles.
It was 4 furlongs, and he was talking about having ALL of Sebonac Neck for his consideration and at his disposal to stake out the best holes and land forms in December of 1906.
Thanks...
-
Mike,
I'll concede that he was looking at all of Sebonac Neck in December if you'll concede that he had maps drawn up and mailed to all of his advisors by October...is that a deal? I don't think it's at all impossible that he would have surveyed all 405 acres.
-
Mike, one of the problems I have with your posts, is your convenient massaging of the language.
You've sneakily, or disingenuously taken "four (4) acres" and changed it to "four (4) SQUARE acres"
WHY did you do thiis ?
-
Jim,
Let me think about it more.
Pat,
Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because the way an acre was used to indicate distance was a furlog, or 220 yards x 4 or 880 yards wide..
Gotta run but will answer rest this weekend.
-
Mike,
An acre is a measurement of land that's not relegated to a fixed perimeter, and certainly not a square.
An acre of land can have any number of configurations, none of which need to be square.
While the equivalent of an acre, when expressed in feet, yards or rods is expressed in square yard or square rods, that doesn't force the parcel being measured to be deemed a square parcel.
In truth, you referenced acres previously when attempting to describe fairway widths and then changed your measurement to square acres, which isn't accurate.
If you check with TEPaul and Wayno, they can give you the history of the area/acreage of the fairways at Shinnecock.
How the number of acres was fairly large, then shrunk for the U.S. Open, and then expanded again, but, never, let me repeat, NEVER was the acreage expressed as "square" acres. That's solely your doing.
That's solely your attempt to establish fairway width in that context to further an agenda. ;D
I hope to be back this weekend also
-
David,
Please see my replies below in BLUE. Thanks.
This is ridiculous Mike. Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.
At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal." For the following reasons and more, this was not the case. I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would. You never have. Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue. You are playing games.
Here they are again. There are more but lets start here:
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?
David, I believe I've tried to offer a theory multiple times now. What we do know is that 250 acres is not the correct amount, either of what CBM actually secured, what he purchased, or what he wrote he offered originally. So, we know that in this aspect the news report is wrong.
Personally, I believe it was a transcription error in the paper that got propagated. We know from 1904 onward that CBM wanted just over 200 acres, we know he wrote in his Founders agreement that he needed 205 acres (110 for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acres ea for building lots for the Founders), and we know that what he eventually secured and purchased was exactly 205 acres. Coincidence? No way.
I believe and have hypothesized that because his first offer was for land that Alvord was planning for real estate development that after CBM was shot down asking for 205 acres, he decided to skip the building lots and see if he could buy just enough of that land for the golf course (120 acres), which also got refused, but which he related in his book.
I think it's absurd to think that it's because on one site he decided he needed 205 acres for his course while southwest of there he'd only need 120. Ridiculous, frankly, but respectfully.
This is just too much. You've created yet another transaction out of thin air. An original never before mentioned offer for 205 acres, which was then changed to 120 acres? What is this, the fifth or sixth fake site you have invented? You cannot just make shit up, Mike! Besides, you keep saying it was reported that he bought exactly 205 acres, but those articles report he bought 200. So much for your transcription.
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way. Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, but the short answer is that I believe you are reading CBM's book incorrectly. He doesn't tell us he decided upon the Canal Site shortly after Alvord did his huge land purchase...he tells us he decided to build his course in the Shinnecock Hills shortly after Alvord made his purchase in late 1905.
This is almost a YEAR later. Even if he waited until after his trip, that gets us to June (there is no reason to think he would have.) This was OCTOBER. The development had been planned and they were well on their way to having it in shape by October!
You can surmise all you like about CBM's motivations, but they really aren't supported by facts. If he was so eager to not miss an opportunity then why did he go abroad for 5 months right after Alvord's purchase.
I don't have to surmise at all about his motivations! I just have to read what he wrote. He told us the timing. You insert A YEAR OF HIM DOING NOTHING AFTER HE DECIDED TO BUY THE PROPERTY! A YEAR! TALK ABOUT SURMISING ABOUT HIS MOTIVATIONS.
Instead, I believe CBM would NEVER have made an offer on land until he was sure it fit with the general dimensions and type of fetaures he wanted but he couldn't even quantify that until he had his Topographical maps of the great holes and features abroad...which was the primary purpose of his extended stay.
Talk about surmising about his motivations! This is pure fiction on your part! We don't know what the offer for the land was. It might have been no more specific than him asking them if they would be willing to sell him 120 some acres somewhere over by the canal, tbd later. You cannot turn it into an exact land just because it suits you!
Again, what was the very first thing he and Whigham did after he got general agreement from Alvord to sell him land at Sebonac Neck? They, "studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind."
So what? You have no idea whether he locked himself into anything specific. You are just making stuff up.
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?
4. The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected. CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?
5. Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed. To what were the later articles referring if not this article?
6. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?
7. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property. In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?
_____________________________________
As for your measures, we've covered this before and I have explained where I think the 4 acres figure came from. I considered your interpretation and don't buy it. If CBM meant a 1/2 mile he would have said 1/2 mile. If he meant 8 furlongs, he would have said 8 furlongs.
David, I'll get to your questions 3-7 this weekend, I promise.
You have got to be kidding me! These questions have been pending for months, and you have "promised" you would get to them for MONTHS!
WHY NOT JUST ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO ANSWER? Because f you cannot answer these questions in the months you have had to answer these questions, then YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS. Another weekend of hoping to think of yet something else to make up isn't going to matter.
In the meantime, perhaps you and/or Jim can tell me what you think CBM meant with "4 acres" in width, because perhaps I missed it previously.
If he's talking about square acres, that's only 208 yards wide, and we know most of NGLA is MUCH wider than that and there certainly wouldn't be much land to choose from "for his consideration".
If he's talking the way it was used to measure width historically, as in a furlong, then it's 880 yards, which is very consistent with a site of 450 acres overall, especially since we know that the site is actually 1.45 miles long, and not 2 miles. Do the math and it comes out pretty close to 450 acres overall.
At the width of a square acre, 208 yards, the site would have only been 151 acres at 2 miles long and a paltry 112 acres at 1.5 miles.
It was 4 furlongs, and he was talking about having ALL of Sebonac Neck for his consideration and at his disposal to stake out the best holes and land forms in December of 1906.
Thanks...
First, Your math skills suck. 208 yards equals the width of a square acre? 320 acres is pretty close to 450 acres? Again you appear to just be making shit up. Second, I've already addressed these issues. Look it up. Third, I am done answering your questions until you answer mine in full.
-
What is an acre wide mean? An acre is a measure of area, not distance. Wikipedia provides two possible ways to derive a distance.
"Originally, an acre was understood as a selion of land sized at one furlong (660 ft) long and one chain (66 ft) wide; this may have also been understood as an approximation of the amount of land an ox could plough in one day. A square enclosing one acre is approximately 208 feet 9 inches (63.63 metres) on a side. ".
But, then we'd need to know which of the two CBM was referring to, or if he was referring to either. So, it could be that 4 acres wide meant 4 x 660 feet (2640 feet) or 4 x 208.75 feet (835 feet). Of course, maybe he didn't know what he was talking about with measurements. Or, the reporter messed it up. Yet another example of questionable news articles.
If he was talking about the furlong measure, then 4 acres wide by 2 miles long is 640 acres (not a familiar number). If he was talking about the side of a square acre, then 4 acres wide by 2 miles long is 202 acres (nearer to a familiar number). I'd go with the latter interpretation. Surely CBM couldn't have used some other arcane measure of the width of an acre, could he?
-
Bryan,
Actually, we know that the land wasn't 2 miles long. From the back of today's 9th green to the Peconic Bay is 1.45 miles.
1.45 miles x 4 furlongs (acres) wide = 464 acres, which to me sounds pretty darn close to the size of the 450 acres of Sebonac Neck.
Why would CBM use an arcane term like "four acres wide" and refer to a common horse and farming and ploughing term, the furlong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlong
http://www.sizes.com/units/acre.htm
Well, it WAS 1906! ;) ;D
Besides, THINK about the context of what CBM was quoted as saying after securing 205 undetermined acres in December 1906.
CBM told us that he had 4 acres wide x 2 miles long "AT OUR DISPOSAL".
What the heck would there be to consider about a property 208 yards wide by 2 miles long??? That would be the height of absurdity ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5602998713_b00fe4b60f_o.jpg)
I don't understand why you guys don't want to believe CBM in his own words?
:'(
-
Mike Cirba,
You just grasp onto claims as it suits you, no matter how absurd, and then put blinders on against all logic. Suddenly 1906 is the middle ages; CBM doesn't know how to say a half mile; and then there is 208 yards?? You are just making shit up.
Speaking of making shit up, CBM didn't say "for our consideration." He said, "We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long." You cannot substitute your own words or someone else's later paraphrase when we have CBM's direct quote. And if CBM described the "stretch" as being two miles long you cannot throw that out and substitute your own measure so you can fudge the whole thing and get a number more to your liking. You aren't describing a "stretch," you are describing a mass that has nothing in common with either the specific land CBM is describing or with Sebonack Neck.
Bryan's math is correct, and he knows the difference between a foot and a yard. Working off of CBM's description of a two miles stretch, and CBM's description of the total acreage of 200 acres (not 464 acres) the confusing variable fits as one side of a square acre.
Now when was it that you were going to address the rest of my questions?
-
A bit more on acreage from this site;
http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/area.htm
acre 0.4 hectares 4840 square yards = 1 acre
1 furlong x 1 chain = 1 acre
10 square chains = 1 acre
4 roods = 1 acre
640 acres = 1 square mile An acre is a conventional measure of area. It was defined in the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and was supposed to be the area that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day. Acre is derived from the Latin for field, but the common field system of medieval times in Britain was ten acres. An acre is a furlong long and a chain wide. In fact, an archaic word for furlong was 'acre-length' and for chain 'acre-width'. See the length page for furlong and chain.
If you want to visualise an acre, it's a square with sides of nearly 70 yards (or 64 metres). A hectare is about two and a half acres.
The Scottish and Irish used to have different values for their acres. The Scottish acre was 6150.4 square yards and the Irish acre was 7840 square yards.
Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804 allows the use of the acre for land registration.
-
Seems to have been a much more prevalent measure in the UK.
Where was CBM schooled again?
From this site;
http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-02/moa-10.html
Back to School
So how many do you still remember? There were 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, five yards and one foot and six inches to the rod (or pole or perch), 4 rods (or poles or perch) to the chain, 10 chains to the furlong, and 8 furlongs to the statute mile. (Yes, of course our North American readers remember all this ~ and even the rod, pole and perch ~ but metrication has dug deep into British minds and few schoolchildren can now explain why a furlong is a furrow long, despite horses in the British Isles still racing over furlongs.)
Let's start with the acre. Now that is 4,840 square yards, which is equivalent to the area of a rectangle one furlong in length and one chain in breadth. If we remember that the acre was the standard unit of area measurement and that a mediaeval ploughman with a team of eight oxen was required to till one acre a day, the significance of the furlong "furrowlong" is easily grasped. A furrow 220 yards long was about the most four yoke of oxen could pull steadily through heavy soil before they had to rest.
So the acre in mediaeval England was a furlong in length. But it was a chain wide, a chain being twenty-two yards. How was that figure chosen? Yes, twenty-two yards it is, but think of it as four rods. The rod was the ox-goad the ploughman used to control his team, and to reach his leading pair it had to be sixteen and a half feet long, five and a half yards. Such a convenient length allowed easy assessment at any time in the day of how much had been ploughed of the width of the acre.
The common land of the English villages was parcelled out as fairly as was possible and to ensure that everyone had his share of good land and bad land no one had his several acres adjoining each other. The dividing markers between acres were very narrow strips of unploughed land which, over the long years, as the land between them was worked and in consequence sank a little, appeared to be raised. When, every third or fourth year, the crop rotation allowed land to lie fallow, any games played on its rich grass would be influenced by those markers. They would be the obvious locations to site the wooden stumps at which a ball might be aimed. And so cricket, England's oldest team game, even today places the wickets one chain, 22 yards, apart.
Now let's look down the acre, the length of the furrow. Where the oxen turned and rested, where one acre butted on the next, small mounds rose from the ground. They were called butts and were utilised, as butts are today, as protection for those who stood behind the archery targets. During the many centuries in which archery was a compulsory recreation in both England and Scotland, the yew longbow in the hands of a yeoman with a strong draw could hurl the grey goose-feathered, ash clothyard about 220 yards, a furlong.
As the clothyard sticks which gave their name to the English arrows were used to measure cloth, they were a little longer than a yard, 37 inches instead of 36. So what, before it disappears from British life forever, was the inch (one-twelfth of a foot ~ as its derivation from the Latin uncia indicates)? David I, King of Scots, that saintly man, first defined the inch as the breadth of a man's thumb at the base of the nail, but the precision of its calculation (owed to the measurement of the thumbs of three men, one of small build, one medium and one large, and the sum being divided by three) suggests its use may have originated in Flanders, then the most commercially advanced state in Europe and the ancestral country of many of David's principal counsellors. The English used the Scottish inch also, but defined it later as the length of three grains of barley placed end to end.
-
Funny how you always have time for this distracting nonsense, and time to re-edit your posts for over an hour, but you don't have time to answer a few simple questions.
-
Mike,
I understand what you're trying to do by figuring out just what CBM meant when he said 4 acres wide but can't get over the fact that regardless of what you come up with it will be no better than a guess based on your desired result...so why take the time?
Are you still working on the assumption that the routing process had not begun prior to the December agreement? Keep in mind, the land was surveyed and maps delivered to a half dozen experts around the world 2 months earlier and 4 or 5 full holes had already been located and at least 1 of them fully measured and planned...
-
Mike,
An acre is a unit of measurement used to determine AREA, NOT CONFIGURATION.[/b][/color]
Nowhere does CBM reference "Square" Acres, that's your disingenuous representation.
Four Square acres would have sides of 280 yards.
And, CBM didn't make the statement you claim he made.
The statement is an alleged statement from a newspaper article.
You yourself have stated that newspaper articles are often incorrect.
I prefer calling them seriously flawed.
As to the distance from the area behind the 9th green to the 18th green being 1.4 miles, is that as the crow flies or as the golfer walks ?
-
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but in re-reading that article (again) I notice CBM says "The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes."
Does this suggest the first offer was on the blue site as per a few pages ago, facing the Atlantic?
He also describes differences in the topo, presumably from the first site considered. Looking at the topo maps might give us a clue as to where the first offer was.
-
Jeff I don't think that those articles have anything at all to do with the first offer. Were it not for Cirba's never-ending crazy theories it never would have occurred to anyone to try to read in information about the first site into these articles. That is because there is no reason whatsoever to read in such information. We can't just make things up because we think it would be interesting or because it fits our preconceived agenda, yet that is what is going on here. I took CBM to be speaking about SHGC, but really I have no idea and don't think it sheds much light on this topic at all.
None of this is that complicated. We can glean from the October articles that The current property was in play in October 1906 and earlier, and that substantial planning had already occurred None of Mike's crazy asides or endless creation of new sites will change this! Not even his invention of a previous offer for a 205 acre canal site meant to be far away from SHGC which was actually nowhere near the canal and right next to SHGC, which was then changed to an offer for a 120 acre canal site meant to be far away from SHGC which was actually nowhere near the canal and right next to SHGC .
-
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but in re-reading that article (again) I notice CBM says "The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes."
Does this suggest the first offer was on the blue site as per a few pages ago, facing the Atlantic?
It would seem so.
He also describes differences in the topo, presumably from the first site considered. Looking at the topo maps might give us a clue as to where the first offer was.
Jeff,
I think part of the problem we face in trying to locate the first site is the conflicting statements.
Whether CBM was being site specific with respect to the soil, or just making a general statement, remains open to debate.
But, he appears to be incorrect in his assessment of the soil conditions on the North Shore as he had to truck in 10,000 loads of topsoil for NGLA.
David,
I agree, CBM knew the area well.
He knew where the canal was and how far Shinnecock golf course was from his site and, he knew the size of the parcel, and it's cost at $ 200 per acre.
-
Guys,
You're right...my math was off on the square acre yardage. That's what happens when I try to do this stuff without the adequate time and math was always my worst subject. :-\
Still, 280 yards is pretty tight, but that might be an average.
I have to head out for dinner...will get to the other questions later, or by tomorrow, but for now we're agreed that he was talking about 205 acres secured by December, with likely the flexibility to weave in and out of the western border as necessary for good golf holes, while staying within the overall 205.
-
David,
I answer your questions as I'm able during a busy couple of weeks and am met with more insults. Nice.
The October articles do not prove that CBM was looking at the Sebonac Neck site in October. The land described going out to the inlet near Good Ground or along the railroad tracks do not describe the property of Sebonac Neck no matter how you try to spin it.
Unless you want me to concede that perhaps he was looking at everything north of the tracks at that time, which is possible, I fail to see how Sebonac Neck is described in that article.
The fact that the October 15th article in the Evening Telegram was copied verbatim in Rochester NY, and copied by two Boston papers does not mean it was accurate in the least, frankly.
It was the ONLY NYC paper to write such an article, which differed widely from December, when CBM actually secured 205 acres, because ALL the NYC papers reported that.
Was is a scoop or a f-up? We don't know, but to say it proves something without ANY other supporting evidence is wishful thinking on your part.
-
It has to be Sebonack Neck, because that is the only place where land stretches along Peconic Bay with a westerly point near the inlet. And Mike, you are back to blatantly misrepresenting things. It doesn't say "near Good Ground" but you know this because we covered it repeatedly. And it doesn't say "along the RR tracks" but you know this too. Yet you are again purposefully misrepresenting things to try and support your bogus point.
As for my questions, they have been pending for months now, and you have falsely promised that you would address them repeatedly, yet you wonder why I am frustrated that you keep trying to change the topic instead of addressing them? That's rich.
Instead of again trying to avoid them, why not answer them or just finally admit that there is absolutely no way that the October articles were describing your canal site or any of the other sites you have created out of thin air.
-
David,
As seen in my first two answers to you above, I've addressed the answers to your questions multiple times throughout these pages in DISCUSSIONS with Bryan, Jeff, Jim, and others.
Perhaps I didn't respond directly in the interrogation style you prefer, as if I were on your witness stand? Perhaps having a hostile questioner leads to its own delays and my resultant lack of interest in engaging with you when I know it will simply be spun in newly insulting and twisted ways?
You may think your methods are somehow yielding the facts here, but as long as you try to spin things for your agenda, they aren't, and never can be, despite how pure you believe your methods are.
Case in point...it's clear that the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station is the canal, David. It's clear that there is NO WAY that the land of Sebonac Neck could "skirt" the Long Island Railroad because Shinnecock GC was in the way.
Yet, you tell us that the October article HAD to be Sebonac Neck. That's crap, no matter how you spin it.
I will try to answer your other questions because I'm interested in the subject, but your whole method isn't designed to spur discussion, but to stifle it.
-
David,
Once again, if I haven't answered ALL of these questions repeatedly through discussion with others, please see my replies to your questions below in BLUE.
Please resist the urge to become hysterical and personally insulting in your responses as you have over this past weekend. I know it's exceptionally difficult for you, but please make at least a modicum of effort. Thanks.
This is ridiculous Mike. Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.
At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal." For the following reasons and more, this was not the case. I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would. You never have. Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue. You are playing games.
Here they are again. There are more but lets start here:
1. The acreage is way off. The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?
David, I believe I've tried to offer a theory multiple times now. What we do know is that 250 acres is not the correct amount, either of what CBM actually secured, what he purchased, or what he wrote he offered originally. So, we know that in this aspect the news report is wrong.
Personally, I believe it was a transcription error in the paper that got propagated. We know from 1904 onward that CBM wanted just over 200 acres, we know he wrote in his Founders agreement that he needed 205 acres (110 for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acres ea for building lots for the Founders), and we know that what he eventually secured and purchased was exactly 205 acres. Coincidence? No way.
I believe and have hypothesized that because his first offer was for land that Alvord was planning for real estate development that after CBM was shot down asking for 205 acres, he decided to skip the building lots and see if he could buy just enough of that land for the golf course (120 acres), which also got refused, but which he related in his book.
I think it's absurd to think that it's because on one site he decided he needed 205 acres for his course while southwest of there he'd only need 120. Ridiculous, frankly, but respectfully.
2. The timing is way off. CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905. This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap. Plus, CBM wasn't a fool. I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way. Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?
Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, but the short answer is that I believe you are reading CBM's book incorrectly. He doesn't tell us he decided upon the Canal Site shortly after Alvord did his huge land purchase...he tells us he decided to build his course in the Shinnecock Hills shortly after Alvord made his purchase in late 1905.
You can surmise all you like about CBM's motivations, but they really aren't supported by facts. If he was so eager to not miss an opportunity then why did he go abroad for 5 months right after Alvord's purchase.
Instead, I believe CBM would NEVER have made an offer on land until he was sure it fit with the general dimensions and type of fetaures he wanted but he couldn't even quantify that until he had his Topographical maps of the great holes and features abroad...which was the primary purpose of his extended stay.
Again, what was the very first thing he and Whigham did after he got general agreement from Alvord to sell him land at Sebonac Neck? They, "studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind."
3. The outcome is way off. CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected. Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property. While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later. If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?
The October article is WRONG and it's obvious. CBM purchased 250 acres in October 1906??!?
He didn't purchase anything until the spring of 1907, having secured the property in mid-December 1906.
CBM may have said something to a reporter that was misinterpreted...certainly the description of the land in question could encompaass all the SHPBRC holdings north of LIRR, but the FACT that this story was NOT reported by any other NYC newspaper tells us it was bungled and erroneous.
Might this have referred to the Canal Site offer? Very possibly. There is absolutely NO evidence of CBM making an offer to Alvord at any other time, and this was the only mention of an actual offer by CBM prior to the multiple articles reporting his securing the 205 acres in mid-December.
Prior to then, the land described in the news articles was quite different than what he actually secured. Here again it is described with the "inlet" between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, which is the Canal, first in October 1906, and then on November 1st in another paper.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5436659573_269f29e804_o.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
Neither is the Sebonac Neck site, no matter how you try to spin it. There is no way Sebonac Neck either skirts the Long Island Railroad (Shinnecock HIlls GC was in the way), nor does it have a western border out near the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.
The November 1st article quoting CBM from the NY Sun makes it clear that the site in western Shinnecock Hills near the canal was STILL in play at that time.
4. The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad. It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location. This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected. CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?
Now this one is pretty funny, actually. ;) ;D
We KNOW from the November 1st Brooklyn Daily Eagle report that CBM had been looking in "various sections" in the Shinnecock Hills. Is it any wonder that Whigham would have been riding along with him at those "various" sites?? WHERE do YOU think those various sites were, David?
As far as the maps, do you know of any other source ever who told us that CBM sent surveyor's maps to experts abroad for their input prior to purchasing the property?? Any?
Frankly, I think the writer of the article misunderstood what CBM was saying.
CBM had just returned a few months prior with surveyor's maps of the great holes abroad. Where did he get these maps?
In CBM's 1912 Letter to the Founders, he includes this portion;
"We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us."
No mention of them evaluating property, or looking at maps CBM sent to them prior to his purchase. I think the writer, who seems confused on a number of points (i.e. size of property, purchase vs offer, location, cost, etc.) also misunderstood that the maps in question were of famous holes abroad that were intended to be copied in whole and part on the new land in question.
Here's how our intrepid reporter interpreted that;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5609444005_0079fa3660_o.jpg)
Of course, I wrote this back about 20 pages ago, but since you asked again, I'm happy to repeat myself.
5. Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed. To what were the later articles referring if not this article?
David, the article that said the site was the same one as "previously announced" was from the NY Sun on December 15th, 1906. The only "previous" article I've found from the New York Sun discussing the location is this one from November 1st;
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
Unless you can show us some article between November 1st and December 15th appearing in the NY Sun where the Sebonac Neck site is being referenced, I would surmise that it's just a reporter covering his butt as if he was "in the know" all along.
6. The location is way off. The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal." The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east. The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course. This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description. The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?
As mentioned multiple times already, it seems the land mentioned in the October 15th articles is virtually all the holdings of the SH&PBRC north of the Long Island Railroad. I'm not sure exactly how near to the canal CBM's first proposed site was or not, but I would mention two things;
The Canal would be the last landmark one would pass travelling east from Good Ground until one reached the Shinnecock Hills station and would be a handy reference point. I'm not sure CBM meant that his proposed course would have abutted it, but that generally it was near to there. The one hypothetical course I drew had it within half a mile. In comparison, your attempt to suggest the article was actually referring to Sebonac Neck stretched the western boundary of today's NGLA 1.5 miles to the inlet at Cold Spring, so I'm not sure why you now see a need for specificity in terms of proximity of landmarks?
7. Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course. Take a close look at Scotland's Gift. In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC. He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal. The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land. It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property. In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?
David, this question really shows the depths of hypocrisy which you're willing to sink to simply to argue with me.
We KNOW CBM built his course RIGHT NEXT TO Shinnecock Hills GC and that his original planned use of the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse was abutting the northern section of Shinnecock Hills GC!
How in the world can you now argue that CBM wouldn't have built a course going west of the Shinnecock Inn instead of heading north of it??
He tells us in his book that he located his first hole next to the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't have money for a clubhouse originally, yet you argue that he didn't want to go there? Which is it??
_____________________________________
-
Mike,
Can I pick out one of two of your points to discuss? I agree with several of your opinions in that post there, but believe you rationalize away the source material that doesn't fit your conception and exagerate the value/accuracy of that which does...maybe we all do.
As to the location in that snippet from October...I think it's unreasonable to narrow down the area being described more precise than the entire Alvord holding North of the Railroad because of the various features...Peconic Bay, SHGC, the inlet/canal...as your attempt to draw it hopefully illustrated, the area described cannot possibly be a 200 acre parcel. I think David's point about it "stretching along Peconic Bay to the North" has to mean Sebonac Neck is included in this description along with everything else.
Next...your notion that CBM would need topo maps of the holes abroad to know what he was looking for on the ground is ludicrous (respectfully). That suggests he didn't know what these holes were...almost that he read about them in a book and decided he would like to build them on a whim. I believe he knew the holes cold and his desire for maps later was so he could replicate them as close as possible. Finding the right general ground conditions would not require topographical maps of the various holes and I'm not sure how you could argue that.
-
Jim,
Sure, I appreciate a discussion about this.
The site I described that runs from the canal to the west to SHGC to the east to the LIRR to the south (which does not include Sebonac Neck) stretches along Peconic Bay for 1.25 miles to the north. I think that is the general area CBM was searching in first.
As regards the maps and whether CBM would have made an offer for land without them, I guess it's possible but he certainly seemed to put a lot of emphasis on them and even though I've seen a lot of golf holes over time, if you asked me to accurately estimate the size, depth, elevation, and such of various features based on my mind's eye memory I'm pretty sure the margin of error would be significant.
I don't think CBM would have made an offer until he was ready in all respects, and the fact that the first offer he mentions in his book was for only 120 acres sounds to me like a "negotiated down", "golf-only" amount based on getting rejected on a previous offer. ALL of the articles including his own Founders letter from 1904 talk about needing just over 200 acres for his grand plans that included an estimated 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre building lots for the 60 Founding members and the fact that he eventually secured and purchased EXACTLY the 205 referred to in his original Founders letter was not simply a coincidence but his intention all along.
p.s...please also see my previous post to David, where I've now taken the time to largely reiterate multiple points I'd previously stated here, and answer his questions in full, but now in one place. Thanks.
-
Thanks Mike.
First, there's no reason any of those descriptions would preclude the Sebonac Neck area either, are there? It's illogical to eliminate it for no reason. If it were a different owner that would be a reason, but it wasn't. 2,700 acres sounds like a huge area to us, but someone contemplating a purchase of nearly 10% of it would have surely known about all of it. I can't picture why you would exclude Sebonac Neck based on the descriptions in those articles.
As to the maps, sure we've seen alot of golf holes, and if we were building a course with specific holes in mind we would want the details prior to construction, but we would surely be able to ride around a property and determine its suitability for creating the holes we had in mind...CBM even tells us so! I don't know why you wrefuse to believe what CBM himself says...
-
Jim,
Your second point is taken. ;)
The first, I'm not sure.
CBM tells us that "everyone thought it was more or less worthless", referring to the land of Sebonac Neck. Although that seems ridiculous to us now in retrospect, CBM tells us that it was so overgrown and insect and swamp-ridden as to be only passable on horseback.
So, depending on the timing, I'm honestly not sure if it was included in the land described in that article or not.
But one thing is certain...we know that the southern and western boundaries in that article were NOT land on Sebonac Neck, nor was the eastern boundary of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time on Sebonac Neck.
Given the 1.25 mile stretch to the north of the Peconic Bay over between the canal and the inlet and I'd bet if I had to that Sebonac Neck wasn't being discussed yet, but I may be wrong there.
-
Agree on the Southern and Western boundaries. As to the rest, let's look at it this way...
If CBM realized immediately after Alvord purchased the whole thing that he wanted to build there, and made his canal site offer in the late fall of 1905 (my instinctual reading of his words, but I'm not locked in to it) then it's possible he wouldn't have thought about Sebonac Neck because it would be a heck of alot easier to get to a golf course down by the canal than up in the uncharted Sebonac Neck area. Alvord knew that as well and they couldn't agree on a price in that vicinity.
If CBM waited 9 months to do any negotiating with Alvord, surely a great deal of planning (if not implementing) had been done with roads and subdividing the land. This would have made it clear that a large purchase for the wholesale price down near the canal was a shot in the dark and an immediate switch in focus to Sebonac Neck would be required. CBM had a per acre budget and Alvord had a per acre minimum limit so the "presumed worthless" land of Sebonac Neck became the focus to see if a golf course could be built there. If CBM waited until the summer of 1906 to consider buying a parcel from Alvord (this is your reading of his words) then it couldn't have taken 10 minutes from the rejection of the canal site offer (wherever it was) for them to think about Sebonac Neck. So now they determine Sebonac Neck can work and there's an announcement in a Brooklyn newspaper that CBM agreed to buy a plot to build his golf course.
Who benefits from this information going public prematurely? Alvord! Would it further benefit Avlord to give a very non-specific description of the land in the event an interested home buyer wants to build out there? Yes.
-
I'm a little behind on this, but wanted to quickly revisit the 4 acres by 2 miles description of the property in December. Here is a picture with one possible tract based on an acre width being 208 feet (square acre) and another based on an acre width being a furlong. The former makes an area of 202 acres, the latter 640 acres.
Perhaps CBM was using the measures as a general description of the total area, not the precise dimensions of the length and width. Or, Charley was really bad at math and mapping. Or he was misquoted yet again.
Neither looks very good if the dimensions are taken literally.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/NGLA202and640Acres.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Or, it could simply mean that CBM didn't know the exact dimensions of his purchase yet, EXACTLY as he was quoted as saying in December 1906 after securing 205 undetermined acres of 450 available. ;) ;D
Thanks.
Jim,
Let me think more on your theory. I'll try to respond more later, but I do think that much like CBM related, the first offer was followed in short order by a second offer for the Sebonac Neck site.
It's an unfortunate place for a Page Break in CBM's book, but re-reading that portion across both pages leads me to believe that the Sebonac Neck site was almost offered as a consolation prize and didn't happen a year later, but instead in quick succession.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Obviously you didn't like the answers to those questions based on YOUR OWN previous understanding of the facts, so once again you simply rewrite the factual record to fit with your current agenda. So after months of agreeing that the "inlet" was the "inlet," now the 'inlet' was obviously the canal? Fascinating. But the twisting doesn't stop there. Last week you informed us that the October articles contained CBM'S OWN WORDS, as if CBM himself had written the articles. This week they are so seriously flawed that you change the meaning of just about every word in them! Which is it?
This is much like what happened last time I asked you questions you couldn't answer. You just changed all the facts! Yet you wonder why you have been called disingenuous.
It ought to be apparent to everyone by now that you have little interest in what really happened. This is rhetoric for you. You will claim anything if you think it might suit your point, and change just as quickly once you have a different point to make. You are not even worth addressing.
_________________________________________________________________
Jim,
1. I really don't understand how you can conclude that the CANAL was actually the inlet, especially because there was an actual INLET fitting the description. The actual inlet was only a few hundred yards from the RR and judging from the elevations I think it would have been quite visible from the train. So I don't understand why you don't consider it the landmark in question.
2. I understand why you don't want to treat the description as an sort of exact meets and bounds, and I agree with you. It was generally describing the location of the course using somewhat familiar landmarks. I think those landmarks were Peconic Bay, SHGC, the RR line, and the inlet. You think those landmarks were SHGC, the RR line, and the canal. So far as I understand your position, it only differs from mine in that you think the land described was somewhere east of the canal, which you think was mistakenly referred to as an inlet, and I think the course was somewhere east of the inlet, which I think was correctly referred to as an inlet.
_________________________________________________________
Bryan,
My assumption is that the two miles referred to either the distance along the outward segment of the golf course (which is about 2 miles) or the distance along Peconic Bay, then along Bullshead Bay to the Eden Green, to the 18th, which is also about 2 miles. Obviously, because this is not really a length for area purposes, this is going to throw off his math regarding the estimated width.
-
His dream golf course, had been thinking and planning for years about doing this. He has some of the richest people around willing to hand over cash. He himself purchased a huge property just across the water and could afford to build a huge/stunning estate with all sorts of amenities.
And yet, when the time comes to pull the trigger he is going to let something like the location of the Shinnecock Inn determine where his holes will go and what land he will use? Where he will place his first hole?
This has never made sense to me.
-
Andy,
Yet, CBM tells us in his own words that this was the case, and the contemporaneous news articles say much the same thing.
I think the issue was simply this; CBM didn't know exactly how much play he'd get on a regular basis (mostly on weekends) given the distance from NYC or how quickly the membership would grow, so since the Shinnecock Inn was already being planned, it meant he could hedge his bets.
The only downside to that approarch is that it largely dictated the general shape of his routing, with both the first and final holes needing to be located 1.45 miles (as the crow flies) from Peconic Bay.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5179/5419366512_778e425aa7_z.jpg)
-
David,
Simply looking at the locations of Good Ground and Shiinnecock Station on that 1914 map is the cause for thinking the inlet was the Canal. Just because it's a canal doesn't mean it isn't also an inlet, because it clearly is.
Jim convinced me that the author of the article (and I still believe he got his description of the area directly from CBM) was speaking about SH&PCRC's holdings north of the railroad tracks.
Whether that description included Sebonac Neck at that time I'm uncertain, and dubious based on the reasons I shared with Jim above.
If I wasn't interested in the topic I'd certainly never spend this much time on it.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
-
Jim,
1. I really don't understand how you can conclude that the CANAL was actually the inlet, especially because there was an actual INLET fitting the description. The actual inlet was only a few hundred yards from the RR and judging from the elevations I think it would have been quite visible from the train. So I don't understand why you don't consider it the landmark in question.
2. I understand why you don't want to treat the description as an sort of exact meets and bounds, and I agree with you. It was generally describing the location of the course using somewhat familiar landmarks. I think those landmarks were Peconic Bay, SHGC, the RR line, and the inlet. You think those landmarks were SHGC, the RR line, and the canal. So far as I understand your position, it only differs from mine in that you think the land described was somewhere east of the canal, which you think was mistakenly referred to as an inlet, and I think the course was somewhere east of the inlet, which I think was correctly referred to as an inlet.
David,
How would you describe the differences between a canal and an inlet?
-
An inlet is a narrow body of water between islands or leading inland from a larger body of water, often leading to an enclosed body of water, such as a sound, bay, lagoon or marsh. In sea coasts an inlet usually refers to the actual connection between a bay and the ocean and is often called an "entrance" or a recession in the shore of a sea, lake or river. A certain kind of inlet created by glaciation is a fjord, typically but not always in mountainous coastlines and also in montane lakes.
Complexes of large inlets or fjords may be called sounds, e.g. Puget Sound, Howe Sound, Karmsund (sund is Norwegian for "sound"). Some fjord-type inlets are called canals, e.g. Portland Canal, Lynn Canal, Hood Canal, and some are channels, e.g. Dean Channel, Douglas Channel. - Wikipedia
-
http://marinas.com/view/inlet/669_Shinnecock_Canal_North_Inlet_Canoe_Place_NY
http://marinas.com/view/inlet/670_Shinnecock_Canal_South_Inlet_Canoe_Place_NY
http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/bib/whitford/old1906/chapter12.htm
-
Andy,
Yet, CBM tells us in his own words that this was the case, and the contemporaneous news articles say much the same thing.
Mike, yep, I know, CBM certainly did write that. Just not sure I buy it. 1) They certainly could afford to build a clubhouse if they really wanted to (besides this being a group of wealthy men, CBM himself was a man of means---and they were able to afford a clubhouse when they needed to) and 2) his big dream and major decisions are going to be held hostage to some extent by the trivial cost of a clubhouse?
-
Andy,
This November 1st, 1906 article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle speaks a little more about the clubhouse considerations;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
-
Just my two cents on the topic of the clubhouse, but it seems these guys were known as much for their frugality as for their business success...perhaps interrelated...
In the two or three of these historical conversations/debates I've participated in it's consistent that while most of the members could seemingly fund a clubhouse themselves, that wasn't the issue. It was whether they should fund it themselves as opposed to setting up a sustainable model...
David,
How would you differentiate between inlets and canals?
-
Mike,
As usual your selection of "facts" to support your argument is beyond suspect. We don't need to look at a 1914 map - one you have held up as obviously inaccurate - to learn the location of the inlet as compared to Shinnecock Hills Station! And you have apparently forgotten that YOU WROTE that early last century "Good Ground" included an area well east of the canal:
Bryan,
I'm not sure if you ever read the following, posted well back in the early pages of this thread;
The entire hamlet of Hampton Bays, seen in the map below, was known at the beginning of the 20th century as "Good Ground".
The hamlet was settled in 1740 as "Good Ground", which became the main hamlet of eleven in the immediate area. The area where Main Street, also known as Montauk Highway, is located today, was the approximate area of the original hamlet known as Good Ground.
There were ten other hamlets in the area. The other hamlets in the area were called Canoe Place, East Tiana, Newtown, Ponquogue, Rampasture, Red Creek, Squiretown, Southport, Springville, and West Tiana. Most of these hamlets were settled by one or two families and had their own school house. Many of the names from the former hamlets are still featured as local street names today, as well as Hagstroms maps and Road Atlases.
As a result of the growth of the surrounding hamlets and villages in the Hamptons and increased tourism from New York City, the eleven hamlets, although generally called "Good Ground" collectively by the early part of the 20th century, amalgamated under the name "Hampton Bays" in 1922. The motive behind the name change was for the hamlet to benefit from the "Hamptons" trade that the hamlet's neighbors were experiencing.
Here is the area that was known as "Good Ground" in the early 20th century.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5438764415_2e5a65342a_o.gif)
So, using YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the location of Good Ground, and a Google Earth Image showing Shinnecock Hills Station (red dot), let's see if there are any inlets between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Btn-Good-Ground-and-SH-Station.jpg?t=1302553680)
So far as I can tell there is only one inlet, the one above INLET ROAD.
And Mike, the Shinnecock Canal is not a fjord. For you to suggest it is absurd.
______________________________________________________________
Jim,
I am no expert on canals or inlets. As I understand it, canals are manmade waterways built to move boats, people or sometimes just water from one point to another. Generally, inlets are relatively narrow openings or entry points, sometimes leading to an inland body of water, sometimes not. (If narrow enough, the entire inland body of water might be called an inlet.)
But for me the key factor in this case is to look at what the two bodies of water were called in the context of the time. The Shinnecock Canal is a man-made canal and was and is commonly known as the Shinnecock Canal. Likewise, judging from the name of the adjacent road on the 1907 map, the first section of Cold Spring Pond was known as an INLET.
So far as I know, with the rare exceptionof the glacially formed (and confusingly named) Fjord-type inlets located in the Pacific Northwest, canals are called canals and inlets are called inlets.
___________________________________________________
Andy, I agree with you about the clubhouse. While the Inn provided the convenience of not having to devote the initial resources to the clubhouse, it seems very unlikely that the location had to be tied to a third party Inn. As was born out, they managed to build a clubhouse when need be. Plus, the first offer was "near the Canal" which was well away from the Shinnecock Inn.
-
David,
Except we KNOW that the November 1st articles tell us that CBM was quoted as saying the land that was the "westerly strip of Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground" was still in play.
We KNOW where Shinnecock Hills was, and it was part Alvord's purchase that extended to the canal in the west.
I think after Alvord made his purchase there was no question about what area was called what, or where the "westerly strip of Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground" was located.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5012/5435682645_1793ba3022_b.jpg)
-
David,
You haven't bought into a single interpretation Mike has made in about 5 years on here and now his suggestion that the geographic region called Good Ground extended that far East is Gospel...not quite. Any objective reading of that passage while looking at a basic map will conclude that the referenced landmark was the canal. Do you think the canal may have been an inlet 15 year earlier before the banks were dug out a little bit? Did this canal have locks? I've driven over it and believe it may have a lock right now, but not sure when it arrived.
In any event, the October snippet does not possibly read as a specific site...yours or Mike's...
-
David,
Another problem with your interpretation of which inlet was referenced is that the author would have been viewing it from their car on the North Highway yet describing it in relation to at least on train station...this is an inconsistency Mike might be proud of but I can't figure out. You guys do the same thing with this stuff. The train tracks were/are 850 yards away.
-
Mike Cirba,
Whether through chronic carelessness or intentional deception on your part, almost all your posts contain misrepresentations of the source material.
1. CBM was NOT QUOTED in the November 1, 1901 article at all. And a report from the same instance, written the same day in a different paper, provided a different version of the same event. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle - the paper you insist had the best information on the course - reported that CBM "said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills" and that this "admission" had been printed "as far back as last spring."
Did you get that? VARIOUS SECTIONS AROUND PECONIC BAY AND SHINNECOCK HILLS. I suppose that this must be read as excluding the Sebonack Neck portion as well?
2. You also disingenuously state that "we KNOW where Shinnecock Hills was," as if this was at issue. The issue is the location of the inlet as compared to the "Shinnecock Station" not all of the Shinnecock Hills.
____________________________________________
Jim,
I never said a thing about viewing the inlet from the North Highway. You are the one who suggested that it had to be looked at in relation to the RR tracks and so I suggested that it seems like it would be readily visible from the train. I had thought the inlet was three or four hundred yards from the railroad tracks, but I just measured it and it seems to be about 500 ft. at its closest point (where the west section of Inlet Road first intersects with the North Highway.) Your measure was to the mouth, but it sure seems like both the mouth and narrow passage would have been visible from the tracks. The RR appears to be between approx. 50 and 80 feet elevation as it approaches and passes the inlet, and the grounds appears to slope down to the inlet. Without trees (and at the time there were few) it would be easily visible. To put it in perspective, the Alps hill and the Redan tee are both around 40 ft. elevation and Bullshead Bay is about 400-425 yards away.
I don't know exactly what was considered Good Ground and I don't accept Mike's designation of anything as "gospel," which is why I clearly noted that this was Mike's description and not mine. But surely at least Mike ought to have to live with his own claims! I don't know exactly where Good Ground started or ended, although I have read references to the "Shinnecock Canal" as being in or at Good Ground.
You wrote: "Any objective reading of that passage while looking at a basic map will conclude that the referenced landmark was the canal."
Talk about a Cirbaian over-statement! I challenge you or anyone to find me one historical reference where the Shinnecock Canal was ever referred to as an Inlet! I've looked at a lot of references and have never seen it! And why would they reference the Canal with a RR station that was two miles away? Why not just say "the canal" or "the Shinnecock Canal" as that was how it was known?
You asked: "Do you think the canal may have been an inlet 15 year earlier before the banks were dug out a little bit?
No. This was a canal. A man made canal. There is a legend that the indians had a canal there long before, but if true it was long gone. Reportedly, the RR passed through on a 10 foot embankment. Canal Construction began in the 1880's and by 1901 they had reportedly spent $225,000 on the Canal and its various gates, a swinging bridge for the highway and a RR bridge for the RR (neither of which were apparently needed before the Canal.) This doesn't include the cost of a second RR bridge to replace the damaged original. While the banks were reportedly sandy, by 1901 there was reported a substantial structure below water level. One of the purposes served was to bring Shinnecock Bay, which had been cut off from the ocean, back into productive health. (The Shinnecock Inlet was created by the 1938 Hurricane.)See History of the Canal System of the State of New York (1906) by Witford and Beal, on Google Books.
You asked: Did this canal have locks? I've driven over it and believe it may have a lock right now, but not sure when it arrived.
Not sure, but according to Wikipedia the current lock system was built in 1919. As of 1906 there were gates to control the tides but I am not sure about locks.
Jim, the bottom line for me is that the Shinnecock Canal was well known and called the Shinnecock Canal. It wasn't called an "inlet" and it would have made no sense to call it one or to describe its location by reference to a RR station two miles away! In contrast, the actual inlet was called an inlet, and no with any reasonable placement of Good Ground, the inlet falls between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Hills Station.
If they meant "in the Shinnecock Hills north of the RR" the why didn't they say "in the Shinnecock Hills north of the RR."
And Jim, my understanding is no more specific or less specific than your understanding. We just use different inlets. Or rather, I use an actual inlet and you use a canal.
-
His dream golf course, had been thinking and planning for years about doing this. He has some of the richest people around willing to hand over cash. He himself purchased a huge property just across the water and could afford to build a huge/stunning estate with all sorts of amenities.
And yet, when the time comes to pull the trigger he is going to let something like the location of the Shinnecock Inn determine where his holes will go and what land he will use? Where he will place his first hole?
This has never made sense to me.
No, it doesn't.
But, you have to look at the Shinnecock Inn as his TEMPORARY clubhouse, not the location of a permanent site for the clubhouse, as there was no room for a clubhouse in that area and CBM would never site his clubhouse in the shadow of Shinneocock's clubhouse for a variety of reasons.
I believe that he ALWAYS intended for the clubhouse to be in its present location, again, for a variety of reasons.
The use of a temporary clubhouse is a common occurence.
Just ask the folks at Friars Head and Hidden Creek
-
David,
I believe you said the inlet was 300 or 400 yards from the tracks at one point in time. I measured it earlier and either the tracks have moved or our measuring devices are way off. The nearest drop of water along there to the tracks is 650 yards and that wouldn't look like an inlet.
The fact is, you've got an interpretation and you're not leaving it but you will not be able to find an objective person to agree with you on this sooner than Tiger Watson invites Shivas to the Isleworth Spring Better Ball...
The snippet must be referring to the entire parcel north of the tracks for all the reasons you and Mike think it cannot be about the others specific parcel...
-
David,
I believe you said the inlet was 300 or 400 yards from the tracks at one point in time. I measured it earlier and either the tracks have moved or our measuring devices are way off. The nearest drop of water along there to the tracks is 650 yards and that wouldn't look like an inlet.
I may have, but if I did I was mistaken. The nearest drop of water is about 520 yards, but as I said, even if a half mile at its furthest point, I think the inlet would have been quite visible from a train given the elevation difference.
The fact is, you've got an interpretation and you're not leaving it but you will not be able to find an objective person to agree with you on this sooner than Tiger Watson invites Shivas to the Isleworth Spring Better Ball..
I considered the possibility that the articles referred to the canal from when I first found the article and I wrote about the possibility, but it just doesn't make sense to me. The Shinnecock Canal is a canal, not an inlet, and it was commonly known as the "Shinnecock Canal." I've looked and I have never once found it referred to as an inlet.
So, the fact is, I haven't come off the interpretation because I think mine is the better, more reasonable interpretation. By far. As for whether "an objective person" would buy it, that is never my concern. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I'd stood alone and yet been correct. Besides, last time he commented, Bryan agreed with me. Mike agreed with me before last week, but you said an objective person.
The snippet must be referring to the entire parcel north of the tracks for all the reasons you and Mike think it cannot be about the others specific parcel...
What you are saying makes no sense to me. What is it about Mike's reasons that even remotely applies?
Here are a couple of photos where the canal is visible. The first one, circa 1903, is looking west at the Shinnecock Hills The RR bridge crosses the canal at an angle, but the canal is visible running across the middle of the right side of the photo.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1903SHfromCanoePlace.jpg?t=1302582690)
This second one is circa 1909 and looks to have been taken from near the south mouth of the canal. Note the title of the photo. Why would a Canal in Good Ground be described as a inlet between Good Ground and a RR Station two miles away?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/ShinnecockCanalcirca1909.png?t=1302582772)
-
David,
I linked to all of that yesterday, which you might have missed. Here they are again.
There are actually two "inlets" at the Shinnecock Canal, and you could have saved some time researching and re-typing all of that canal history yesterday if you'd just read the link.
The first two links show the respective inlets at Shinnecock Canal.
The third link is a very comprehensive history of the canal for those inclined to learn more.
http://marinas.com/view/inlet/669_Shinnecock_Canal_North_Inlet_Canoe_Place_NY
http://marinas.com/view/inlet/670_Shinnecock_Canal_South_Inlet_Canoe_Place_NY
http://www.history.rochester.edu/canal/bib/whitford/old1906/chapter12.htm
Also, the November 1st article in the NY Sun said that CBM stated he was still looking at the site near Good Ground in Westerly Shinnecock HIlls. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle report of the same day didn't contradict this, but simply said that CBM had been looking at "various sections" around Peconic Bay and the Shinnecock Hills, which I'm sure was the case.
I posted both of them above so I'm not sure what is at issue? They certainly don't confirm the October 15th article that says CBM had already purchased land!
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
-
His dream golf course, had been thinking and planning for years about doing this. He has some of the richest people around willing to hand over cash. He himself purchased a huge property just across the water and could afford to build a huge/stunning estate with all sorts of amenities.
And yet, when the time comes to pull the trigger he is going to let something like the location of the Shinnecock Inn determine where his holes will go and what land he will use? Where he will place his first hole?
This has never made sense to me.
No, it doesn't.
But, you have to look at the Shinnecock Inn as his TEMPORARY clubhouse, not the location of a permanent site for the clubhouse, as there was no room for a clubhouse in that area and CBM would never site his clubhouse in the shadow of Shinneocock's clubhouse for a variety of reasons.
I believe that he ALWAYS intended for the clubhouse to be in its present location, again, for a variety of reasons.
The use of a temporary clubhouse is a common occurence.
Just ask the folks at Friars Head and Hidden Creek
Pat, I am sure you are right about temporary clubhouses generally. I have seen it as well. But can you picture the land for Friars Head or Hidden Creek being purchased based on the location of a temporary clubhouse, or the routing itself being based on the location of such a clubhouse? Either CBM got lucky and the best land available happily happened to follow the flow from the clubhouse's location, or he was content that basing his routing around that location would leave 'good enough' land for him to work with. Or his memoirs written years later may not be fully accurate.
Pat, do you think he designed the course with the assumption that his tenth hole would eventually be his first hole and his ninth would actually be his finishing hole?
-
Just my two cents on the topic of the clubhouse, but it seems these guys were known as much for their frugality as for their business success...perhaps interrelated...
In the two or three of these historical conversations/debates I've participated in it's consistent that while most of the members could seemingly fund a clubhouse themselves, that wasn't the issue. It was whether they should fund it themselves as opposed to setting up a sustainable model...
Jim, I tend to agree. But in this case things like what land to purchase and the routing itself were in essence held hostage by the location of the Shinnecock Inn.
-
Andy,
As it dictated the position of his starting and closing holes, it certainly had a big impact on what land and routing CBM could use.
Patrick may be correct that CBM wanted to create the clubhouse where it is today all along, but by that point the die was cast, and the routing determined.
The location of the Shinnecock Inn was not a bad spot at all, though, on top of a significant hill, with reasonable access from rail and auto, which I think was his other big consideration that no one thinks about.
As Jeff Brauer mentioned, as pure as we like to think these guys were, most projects including this one have to make some compromises to non-golf realities and practicalities.
-
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5445967570_ddc2bc33b6_b.jpg)
David,
Perhaps a better question is what do you think the dot next to the words Good Ground mean on this map?
And then, if you were looking at a map similar to that one and reading the passage that says the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station what would ever make you go all the way to Shinnecock Hills Station before looking a half mile North? I say a half mile because it seems pretty clear that the inlet is the entry point from the larger bady of water and that 800+ yards away from the tracks...have the trackes moved since then? Also, why do you say there were no trees between the tracks and the inlet?
-
Mike, I was answering Jim's questions and whether you linked to "all of that" is irrelevant.
As for your links to those two modern photos, you aren't seriously suggesting that the entries to the north and south ends of the CANAL are what the reporter was referring to when he said "inlet" are you? What kind of a bizarre reading would have him reference those but not notice the CANAL in between. Only you could come up with this stuff. I am still waiting for an example of the CANAL having been called an inlet.
Funny how you have ignored the "various sections" language.
Funny also how you see CBM as entirely beholden to the site of the Inn, yet you seem to have him completely oblivious to the rest of the same development, even as late as October of 1906!
And Mike, you never addressed my graphic above. By your understanding of the location of Good Ground, the only inlet between Good Ground and the RR station is the one leading into Cold Spring Pond.
-
David,
I know this was covered earlier in this thread, but regarding that snippet from October I think if we could get on the same page it would only help move Mike that way also. How close is the western part of teh golf course up on Sebonac Neck to the inlet into Cold Spring Pond? And how close is the southern part of the golf course to the railroad tracks? Aren't they both a considerable distance to be considered relevant landmarks? My conviction on this topic is based on my belief that the word "skirt(ed)" describes an extended border as opposed to a glancing touch. If you can convince me otherwise it might be a conversation.
To clarify my entire position on that snippet, I think Alvord leaked it to the press (in Brooklyn) to generate interest in his land, and he described pretty much all of his land...North of the tracks.
-
Jim,
The western edge of NGLA is 1.5 miles from the inlet at Cold Spring Pond.
The southern edge of NGLA is .35 miles from the Long Island Railroad, and in 1906 could not have "skirted" those tracks because Shinnecock Hills Golf Club was in the way. Those railroad holes on SHGC were later abandoned when Flynn did his redesign in the 20s.
Also, almost ALL of NGLA was due north of SHGC in 1906, not east, with perhaps a 100 yard corridor where they adjoined in the far northwest corner of SHGC.
-
Mike,
Are you in agreement that the October article was very possibly defining a much greater area than a specific golf course acreage? To be fair, I'm hung up on the word "purchased" and I know you don't think it happened that early, but are you at least comfortable with the notion that the land described is Alvord's holding North of the tracks, including Sebonac Neck? A day or two ago you thought it excluded Sebonak Neck, if you still do, can you explain why?
-
Jim,
Yes, I'm in agreement that the October article described a section of land larger than any golf course site.
Here's what I wrote you two days back about whether it included Sebonac Neck;
CBM tells us that "everyone thought it was more or less worthless", referring to the land of Sebonac Neck. Although that seems ridiculous to us now in retrospect, CBM tells us that it was so overgrown and insect and swamp-ridden as to be only passable on horseback.
So, depending on the timing, I'm honestly not sure if it was included in the land described in that article or not.
But one thing is certain...we know that the southern and western boundaries in that article were NOT land on Sebonac Neck, nor was the eastern boundary of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time on Sebonac Neck.
Given the 1.25 mile stretch to the north of the Peconic Bay over between the canal and the inlet and I'd bet if I had to that Sebonac Neck wasn't being discussed yet, but I may be wrong there.
One other thing is more a gut feel...CBM's book seems to imply that he found (or was shown) the Sebonac Neck site AFTER he was refused the Canal Site. Since I think the Canal Site was still in play at this time, I suspect the October article was only the land below Sebonac Neck.
But, I could be convinced otherwise... ;)
-
I guess my thought is that IF (still an if) the snippet was describing all of Alvord's land North of the tracks we would need a reason to exclude Sebonac Neck...and I don't see one. CBM may have viewed it as a consolation, but Alvord surely knew it was there...
-
Jim,
Then I guess that question is, did CBM yet know it was there? Had he and Whigham taken their horse rides yet over 2 or 3 days?
After CBM's death Whigham wrote that they did ride the NGLA land in September, but said it was September, 1907. God, could any of these guys get a friggin' date right??!
I guess one thing perhaps we've never considered is that it's possible CBM thought both sites were in play very late in the game (Oct/Nov) until getting rejected for his offer closer to the Canal.
Certainly we've seen nothing that would rule that out, right?
-
Jeff has mentioned a quote from Wigham (maybe in CBM's eulogy?) that they did that exploratory ride in September 1907 and has assumed he meant 1906. I'm inclined to dismiss a source as faulty (not dead wrong, just unreliable to build a case on) when one part is known to be wrong so I don't know. If we are not dismissing the comments by Wigham, and are assuming he meant September 1906 then the canal offer would have been dismissed prior to that.
-
Jim,
You don't think it's possible that both sites were still in play,at least in CBM's mind?
That would make the November 1st article talking about "various sections", as well as the November 1st article indicating that his first choice was still the site in western Shiinnecock Hills near Good Ground much more understandable.
-
Mike,
I think the word purchased is too compelling.
What do you make of Wigham's comment about making the horse ride on September 1?
-
I'm still of the opinion (to which we are all entitled, and seem to have) that the inlet was the one for Cold Spring Pond. If they were looking for landmarks to describe boundaries, it just seems unlikely that they would have used the "inlet to the canal" rather than the 'canal" itself to define the western boundary. The canal had been around for years and goes north-south, so could be viewed as a boundary and was well known. The "inlet to the canal" is a point that doesn't lend itself to being called a boundary of any length. Jim and Mike, how far north and south do you think would be considered the "inlet" rather than the canal proper? Do you think they were referring to the North inlet or the South inlet to the canal?
As to Good Ground, I need to re-find an historical article that I previously read that more accurately places it. I would read the article as defining Good Ground as either the train station of the same name, or the hamlet of the same name that was near the train station. The map Mike posted is of the modern Hampton Bays that grew out of Good Ground, so I'm not sure it is relevant. In any event, the inlet to Cold Springs Pond seems more like an inlet and is between the hamlet of Good Ground and the Shinnecock train station.
As to whether there were trees there, I think David's picture shows pretty clearly there was not. I also note the bustling South highway receding into the distance. The North Highway artery is a little harder to discern. ;)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1903SHfromCanoePlace.jpg?t=1302582690)
-
Mike,
I think the word purchased is too compelling.
What do you make of Wigham's comment about making the horse ride on September 1?
Jim,
I think the October 15th article was in error in that respect.
Here's why...
First, no other NYC paper reported that on 10/15.
A few days after that the Lesley Cup ("Intercity") matches were held towards the end of October at Garden City
At that point, we have two NYC papers, The Sun and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle both reporting on November 1 that CBM stated during the Lesley Cup the search was still ongoing.
The Sun reported that CBM was down to two sites...one in western Shinnecock near Good Ground, and one in Montauk.
The BDE reported that CBM had been poking around looking at "various sections" between Sebonac Bay and Shinnecock Hills.
If CBM had already purchased, or even gotten agreement with Alvord at that point, then why would he ever say that?
In fact, the bit about Montauk was likely a bargaining ploy, as we know retrospectively that he thought it was too expensive out there to develop on pure sand. He was probably trying to get Alvord to believe he had other options.
But, we also KNOW that he seriously looked at and even made an offer in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground near the canal because he told us.
So, we KNOW that no purchase was made, or any other agreement made that was solid by the October 15th article. It was erroneous in that respect, and possibly premature, or even perhaps wishful thinking on CBM's part that he relayed to a reporter.
But, by the Lesley Cup in late October, we KNOW that no deal existed.
Make sense?
Also, I don't know what to make of Whigham's stated month, but I guess it's possible if multiple sites were in play. We do know it wasn't his first choice, so perhaps that was the fall-back position.
-
Bryan,
I think the author was referring to the whole canal as an inlet, not the North or South entry. Obviously just an opinion.
I read Good Ground the same as it seems you do. Stretching that far east of the canal seems like a stretch in the context of what this author was trying to describe...would someone even know they they wer ein Good Ground that far past the town and train station?
Hard to really make a prediction about trees and brush between the tracks and an inlet a half mile away based on that picture...the brush close to the camera position seems pretty healthy even if there's nothing over on the hills in the distance.
-
Is that the Atlantic Ocean visible in the distance? ;) ;D
-
Mike,
Regarding Wigham...I'm curious if you buy the date he declard as September?
Regarding the October report, I've repeatedly said I don't think CBM would have any reason to leak any information prematurely but that Alvord did. Do you agree with that concept in general? CBM wouldn't want any further interest in the real estate out there until he was locked down, but Alvord would want to publicize CBM's interest/purchase because it could only help his development.
-
Jim,
I'll concede that's possible if you concede that there is no way a deal had been struck, verbally or otherwise, prior to the Lesley Cup matches in late October.
CBM's comments about being down to two sites, and possibly rejecting them both and looking elsewhere if the price was too high was an obvious negotiating ploy, and he stated that AFTER the October 15th article.
He also made clear he was talking about the site near Good Ground (Canal Site) in that November 1st article, not Sebonac Neck.
As far as Whigham...
it's possible they rode in September, but that would mean that they did nothing about it for a few months, still trying to get their first choice near the Canal. It was only after getting rejected for the Canal site, likely in November, that the Sebonac Neck site became the primary focus.
I'd further surmise that it was probably due to the factors CBM mentioned...overgrown, swampy, bug-ridden, that it was his second choice in the first place.
-
Mike,
CBM makes it clear that they didn't ride around Sebonac Neck until the canal site offer had been rejected so you have to decide which you believe more...the timing of information given to the newspaper or CBM's own recollection of the events...perhaps Wigham's recollection as well although I don't have his words in front of me.
Isn't it possible that the November article contained dated information? Didn't we see a post early on this thread about on of the papers holding back on some inside info when a competing paper let something out prematurely? I'll go look, but it would be great if someone remembers this...
-
Jim,
You're getting confused. ;)
The November 1st articles did not contain dated material. They referred to what CBM relayed during the Lesley Cup matches which I believe took place the previous week.
They were VERY current and the BDE article seems to have paraphrased what CBM said on Saturday 10/21.
The reference to holding back info referred to a June 1905 situation where CBM was looking at Long Island, near Westbury, and was unrelated to these events.
I do think it's possible that CBM & Whigham rode around the site in September, only to still be in discussions for their preferred site near the Canal up through early November, and went back to it after their first choice was subsequently refused.
-
Gotcha, thanks...confused is passed, we're into full delerium...
Are you willing to dismiss the October article as altogether misinformed and totally false?
-
David, Perhaps a better question is what do you think the dot next to the words Good Ground mean on this map?
While they are not very accurately placed on that map, I think they are RR stations.
And then, if you were looking at a map similar to that one and reading the passage that says the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station what would ever make you go all the way to Shinnecock Hills Station before looking a half mile North?
I don't think that article was based on a very inaccurate map that doesn't even show the inlet in question, so I am not sure why I would look to such a map to understand it. Why not look to the land itself? Also, I think it odd that your main criticism is that we are trying to read too much specificity into a general description, yet at the same time you seem to be reading things into the description of the location of the inlet.
- It doesn't say "Good Ground Station." It says Good Ground. We are not sure where exactly "Good Ground" began and ended, but at least some reports put the canal at Good Ground.
- It doesn't say that the inlet was at the exact middle of the distance between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station. It says it was between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.
- You wouldn't have to go all the way to the Station. The inlet begins about 3/4 of a mile before the station, and I think it would have been visible from further still.
- While it was all technically Southampton, it seems the area west of the canal was generally referred to as Good Ground and the area east of the Canal was considered to be Shinnecock Hills/Southampton with the Canal acting as a dividing line. (Although the Canal connects Peconic Bay with Shinnecock Bay, I have never seen the Canal as described as being in Shinnecock Hills, only in Good Ground and/or Canoe Place.)
I know this was covered earlier in this thread, but regarding that snippet from October I think if we could get on the same page it would only help move Mike that way also. How close is the western part of teh golf course up on Sebonac Neck to the inlet into Cold Spring Pond? And how close is the southern part of the golf course to the railroad tracks? Aren't they both a considerable distance to be considered relevant landmarks?
As usual Mike's answers to these questions are misleading. He admits that the description was of a larger area than just the golf course, but then only measures from the golf course. And he measures all the way to the opening of the inlet at its far western point!
A more realistic answer is that it is difficult to say how far the course was from the "inlet" without knowing what was meant by the inlet, but whatever measure is used I have trouble understanding why it wouldn't be from Sebonack Neck, which was the land CBM was first considering. According the the 1907 plan, the developer owned the narrow strip of extending from Sebonac Neck all the way to the inlet! Even if we don't consider this strip to have been part of Sebonac Neck, the strip to the opening of the inlet is only about 3/4 of a mile. If we exclude the strip and measure to the part of marked "Cold Spring Bay Inlet" on the 1907 map, then it is less than 1/2 mile to where the body of water narrows significantly.
It is speculative on my part, but to me that article reads as if whoever came up with the description (probably whoever fed the information to the reporter) didn't really know what to call the body of water we call Cold Spring harbor/bay/pond/inlet. Otherwise why not just call it what it is? This is the main sticking point I have with believing the article referred to the Shinnecock Canal as the inlet. The Shinnecock Canal was well known as such, and enough of a landmark to be identified without reference to a RR station two miles away!
[As an aside but along these same lines, I think it very possible (if not likely) that the article was referring to the entire body of water as an inlet, and not just the narrower first section The first part of it is very narrow and I am not sure if the fatter second part disqualifies it from being considered an inlet or not, or whether whoever came up with the description was familiar with exactly what an inlet leading to a pond and what was just an inlet! In fact, while it looks like it has been formalized somewhat through development, I still I think it is still a bit unclear just what this body of water is, whether a pond, bay, swamp, harbor, or "inlet." There is already a Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island which only adds to the confusion. Anyway, If "inlet'was meant to refer generally to the entire body of water, then it becomes quite clear that they are talking about the Sebonac Neck Property.]
As for the distance to the RR tracks from the course today it is about .35 miles. There is strip of the SHGC between it and the tracks, but of course Mike failed to mention that there was also a road leading to the Golf Ground Station and according to the location of the Shinnecock Inn on the overlay, it was less than 1/2 mile from there to the the Golf Ground Station.
To clarify my entire position on that snippet, I think Alvord leaked it to the press (in Brooklyn) to generate interest in his land, and he described pretty much all of his land...North of the tracks.
Maybe, but if so, then I think it more likely that what was meant was the inlet into Cold Spring, because the developer refers to it as "Cold Spring Bay Inlet" on the 1907 map! But that said, I think it just as likely that CBM told someone that the developer had agreed to sell hims land on the parcel stretching out along Peconic Bay with the westerly point near that inlet (or whatever that water is) and that it would adjoin SHGC and be readily accessible to the RR tracks without having to be right next to them. This would be consistent how the larger property was described in later articles and by CBM himself.
My conviction on this topic is based on my belief that the word "skirt(ed)" describes an extended border as opposed to a glancing touch. If you can convince me otherwise it might be a conversation.
Really? Because it doesn't say that the property stretched along the RR or even that the property "skirted along RR to the south." It says the land was "skirted by the Long Island Railroad to the South." As I understand it, the verb "to skirt" often times means to go around, or to narrowly avoid. The RR didn't pass through the land but it did narrowly avoid it.
Granted, sometimes "skirted" means stretched out along. But it also means "to narrowly miss" and that works as well or better here, especially when we consider that the land had already been described as stretching out along Peconic Bay! If it stretched along the RR as well, then then wouldn't it have been simpler to write that it stretched out along Peconic Bay to the north and the RR to the south? But it didn't. It stretched out along Peconic Bay to the north and was skirted, or narrowly missed, by the RR to the south. So it was north of the RR but not right on it.
_____________________________________
I don't think there is any way in hell the Canal offer was still alive in October of 1907. Even Mike was dating the Canal offer to June or July of 1906! What happened to that Mike?
The developer purchased the property in October of 1905 and CBM decided to go after land around then. By October 1907 the develeloper had been working on the project for about one year. CBM would have had to have been a flipping idiot to wait until a year into the development to try and buy land near the canal, right in the heart of the development! Call him what you will but he wasn't an idiot.
-
What is accurate is CBM's description of the location of the 120 acres he tried to buy.
He specifically referenced the 120 acres as being "Near the canal CONNECTING Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay.
There is but one canal that connects those two bodies of water.
-
Jim,
I guess under the light of analysis and known facts, I'd be hard-pressed to tell you any part of the October 15th article that's particularly accurate, other than CBM was considering locations in the Shinnecock Hills, but even there it's not very enlightening.
David,
How is it preposterous that CBM would wait a year (after his trip abroad for 5 months to get surveyor's topos of the best holes and features abroad) to make his first offer, but not preposterous for him to wait a year to make his second offer?
-
Mike,
You continue to throw out hypotheticals with an agenda, namely, that if David or Jim or anyone isn't able to disprove them, that they must be true.
-
Patrick,
My arguments would shorten the timeframe that CBM needed to find the site, secure the property, and route and design the course by over two months from what David is arguing.
I'm really not sure how that is an "agenda" or somehow detracts from your CBM routing NGLA in two-days on horseback fantasy. ;) ;D
-
David,
How is it preposterous that CBM would wait a year (after his trip abroad for 5 months to get surveyor's topos of the best holes and features abroad) to make his first offer, but not preposterous for him to wait a year to make his second offer?
Because of the DEVELOPMENT. The property from the Inn to the Canal was being DEVELOPED. Roads were being built. A hotel was being built. RR crossing were being planned. The North Highway was reportedly under construction in May 1906. In contrast, no development was taking place on the Sebonac Neck Property. And judging by the description in the articles, this process may have been going on for quite some time.
Only an idiot would decide to buy property in a certain area, and then sit on his hand for a year while the property was being developed with the idea of selling it for a substantially larger sum than its predevelopment value!
-
Jim,
I guess under the light of analysis and known facts, I'd be hard-pressed to tell you any part of the October 15th article that's particularly accurate, other than CBM was considering locations in the Shinnecock Hills, but even there it's not very enlightening.
Mike,
You've just been agreeing with me that it's likely that the land being described was all of Alvord's holding north or the RR tracks with the exception of being on the fence (better than disagreeing) about Sebonac Neck...and the details of that article came tru a mere two months later and yet you have the ability to say you don't see any accuracy in it???
David,
A canal is a man-made inlet. This particular canal had been an inlet a mere 15 years earlier. You can stretch in an effort to see the inlet a half mile from the train tracks AND a mile and a half from your golf course but you still miss two of the four descriptors in that snippet. Good luck.
-
David,
A canal is a man-made inlet. This particular canal had been an inlet a mere 15 years earlier. You can stretch in an effort to see the inlet a half mile from the train tracks AND a mile and a half from your golf course but you still miss two of the four descriptors in that snippet. Good luck.
A canal is a canal, especially when it is named "Shinnecock Canal" and well known as "Shinnecock Canal." As I understand the history, this was solid ground 20 years before. The RR reportedly passed through on 10 ft. embankment. If this was ever called an inlet, I've been unable to find and example of it.
Earlier you accused me of acting like Mike, a low blow if I ever heard one. I won't resort to that, but I will note that you are now adopting his tactics here by measuring from the course when we are all agreed that the description was of a larger land mass, either all the land north of the RR or Sebonack Neck. It doesn't take a tape measure to see that Sebonac Neck stretches out along Peconic Bay to a point near the inlet.
-
But doesn't come close to the tracks and is not to the west of Shinnecock GC...that's two out of four with one of the other two a pretty good stretch as well...the larger land mass assumption must meet most of the criteria and your's (Sebonac Neck) doesn't.
-
Just to reconcile the 4 acres by 2 miles description from December, here is a map with an outline that is about 2 miles on the eastern edge, 4 (square) acres wide in the southern end and with a quarter of a mile along Peconic Bay. Maybe CBM got some things right.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/4acresx2miles.jpg)
-
Thanks Bryan.
_____________________________
Jim, I don't know . . . weren't you the guy who didn't want to turn these descriptions into exact meets and bounds? Because you seem to be making a number of specific judgments about the exact meaning of some pretty vague words, and your judgments by no means encompass the full range of reasonable judgments.
1. I think Mike and I are in agreement that the southern point of NGLA is about 1/3 of a mile from the tracks, yet you pronounce that NGLA doesn't come close to the RR tracks. So what in your mind would be close to the tracks without being right next to them? How close does the land have to come to the tracks to skirt the tracks? How about a 1/4 away of a mile like the Shinnecock Inn, NGLA's temporary Clubhouse? Is a couple hundred yards close enough? I've lived about a 1/3 of a mile from a RR line, and it seemed pretty damn close to me.
2. You also wrote that NGLA was not west of SHGC. I disagree. Even Mike has admitted that part of NGLA was directly west of part of Shinnecock, and I think Mike is wrong about how far north SHGC extended, and produced an article indicating as much. I've asked Mike to provide the basis for his bald claims, but of course he hasn't. Surely you don't read the article as requiring that every bit of NGLA be directly west of SHGC, do you? That hardly seems consistent with your idea of reading these articles referencing a general area. Part of the eastern border of NGLA adjoined SHGC to the west. What else do you require?
Don't get me wrong, I think I understand the basis for your opinion. But I am pretty sure Google Earth was still a few years off and I just don't think that anyone was out there with a tape measure calculating the exact distance to the RR tracks, or with a compass mapping out the furthest eastern edge of NGLA to see if any of it might extend slightly east of the portion of NGLA adjoining SHGC.
In other words, it is a newspaper article, probably written by someone relying on someone else's description of the general location of the course. So I don't attach specific measurements to words like "near" or "skirted." If it generally makes sense and might give me an idea where the course was, then I think I am on the right track. This was land stretching along Peconic Bay and its westerly point was near the inlet, it was adjacent to SHGC to the east, and was fairly close to but not right at the RR tracks. Close enough for me. And when I read the rest of the article and all the other details about what was ongoing, then I am more convinced. And when I consider CBM's description of what happened in Scottland's Gift, then I am even more convinced. And when I consider the timing and what happened 60 days later, moreso. (By the way, I wonder what a normal escrow period was back then.)
In case you are wondering, Bryan's depiction above has the southern point at about 480 yards from the tracks, a bit over 1/4 mile. Close enough, or not even close?
-
Re the location of the inlet, here is the 1903 USGS map that includes Good Ground to the west. You'll see that Good Ground is a hamlet that is the same location as the train station of the same name. So, it doesn't matter if the text meant the hamlet, or the station; they are basically in the same area. Good Ground does not appear to extend to the east because Newton gets in the way.
The Cold Springs Pond inlet is pretty much in between Good Ground and the Shinnecock train station.
I'm inclined to agree with David on the point that the inlet could have meant the whole pond. An inlet can be a body of water that is indented into the surrounding land. Burrard Inlet and Cook Inlet are two large examples.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/InletLocation.jpg)
As an alternate theory to the location of the October article, it seems to me that CBM might have said that he was looking at 450 acres to find the 205 acres he needed and the reporter mistakenly combined the two into 250 acres. If it was really meant to say 450 acres, then here is a tract of land on Sebonac Neck that is 450 acres and stretches along Peconic Bay, adjoins SHGC on its eastern edge at the south end, has the (larger) inlet as its western end, and has the LIRR skirting (1000 feet) from the southern end. Remember that CBM said he wanted a quiet property away from traffic and trains, so skirting to him might have meant 1000 feet. The canal makes no sense to me as the western boundary - it was there for more than 20 years and even in 1903 is clearly labeled as a canal, not an inlet.
I think this tract of land is more plausible than the whole of the Alvord property north of the track.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/SebonacNeck450Acres.jpg)
-
Bryan,
Some nice work and I'll have more comments later, but your location of the Shinnecock Hills Trail Station is off by quite a bit. You might want to re-check that.
Thanks
-
David,
I'm not trying to be overly specific. I simply think the very general descriptors in that article need to be stretched on three of the four reference points for it to describe only what you and Bryan are suggesting. I think it's very likely the agreement CBM and Alvord had at that point WAS IN FACT FOR what you guys are describing but that the description was for the entire area.
I think it benefits Alvord for the agreement to be publicized as would advertising his entire holding...
I think the common understanding of the word inlet is that it's a connection between two bodies of water...not an indented body of water such as a bay or harbor.
-
By the way...I'd be curious where you found a definition of "skirt" to mean anything similar to what you guys are implying because all I could find made it clear that "to skirt" is to narrowly avoid something while creating a border with it.
-
Bryan,
I've approximated the location of Shinnecock Station with a blue X.
It was 1.2 miles west of the "Golf Grounds" station at Shinnecock Hills GC.
Hope that helps....thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5186/5616009227_d5473b8804_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
On the issue of "skirting", please see what i wrote to David earlier below;
David,
I'm not sure we agree on where those articles refer to. ;)
Perhaps we need some outside, independent definitions and please feel free to add your own.
I thought about this as I read your description of how you think the Sebonac Neck site that CBM eventually ended up with fit into the parameters described in the article.
I'm particularly interested in the fact that you believe the current course site, or the Sebonac Neck site, was somehow able to "skirt" the Long Island Railroad at any point, so let's start there.
skirt·ed, skirt·ing, skirts
v.tr.
1. To lie along or form the edge of; border: the creek that skirts our property.
2. To pass around rather than across or through: changed their course to skirt the storm.
3. To pass close to; miss narrowly: The bullet skirted an artery.
4. To evade, as by circumlocution: skirted the controversial issue.
v.intr.
To lie along, move along, or be an edge or a border.
The southern edge of NGLA today is about .35 mile from the Long Island Railroad.
I know you argued that the land could have been further south, but that really doesn't make sense as it would have had to include the Shinnecock Inn just a couple of hundred yards south, and any further than that it would have had to actually include land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, land which actually DID "skirt" the Long Island Railroad.
Below on your original overlay I've approximated the location of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time in Yellow, indicated the LIRR in Purple, and the Shinnecock Inn in Blue.
I fail to see how any of the land of Sebonac Neck could have "skirted" the Long Island Railroad. Actually, CBM sort of makes my point for me, as he tells us how the site he DID eventually purchase "skirted" Bulls Head Bay for a mile, which of course it does.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5595409006_2d19d427f0_b.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I appreciate your effort at estimating the 450 acre tract known as Sebonac Neck and think it's probably pretty close to what the reality was.
In that regard, by definition the October article could NOT have been talking only about Sebonac Neck, as the location of the Shinnecock Station was actually along the western edge of the property boundary you drew, almost due south from there.
When the article states that the western edge of the property was near the canal between Shinnecock Station and Good Ground then we certainly KNOW that point is west of the tract of land you've estimated as the 450 acres of Sebonac Neck, yes?
-
Mike,
We haven't convinced them yet that the canal was the INLET referred to in the article. You wrote canal in that post there...
The Cold Spring Inlet is a bit west of their Western boundary, no?
-
Jim,
Yes, if memory serves the Cold Spring inlet is about .75 miles. From the western edge of the land encircled on Bryan's map and 1.5 miles from the western edge of NGLA.
-
David,
Along the lines of "why wouldn't the author just say 'the canal' if that's what he were referring to?"...why wouldn't he say Cold Spring Pond?
-
Mike,
Point taken on the location of Shinnecock station. I was confusing it with Golf Ground station, which was actually called Shinnecock station when it was resurrected for the Open at Shinnecock Hills. In any event, the inlet to Cold Springs Pond is still between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station; although it is closer to Shinnecock than Good Ground. But, then the article doesn't say that the inlet is in the middle, does it.
The article does say that the western boundary is "near" the inlet, not at the inlet. Let's not parse the word "near". The 450 acres I drew could be construed to be near the inlet.
As to skirting, let's keep in mind that the article says that the RR skirts the property. That seems at least grammatically incorrect to me since it suggests that the railroad came after the golf course and was routed to bypass the course. Your definition "2. To pass around rather than across or through: changed their course to skirt the storm." is the meaning that I would guess was in the mind of the writer of the article. Interesting example in the definition, skirting a storm. Would you want to skirt a storm at a good distance, rather than just miss it on the very edge? Given that CBM didn't want to be near traffic or the RR I'd guess he wanted to have the RR skirt the property by a goodly distance - say, 1000 feet.
-
David,
Along the lines of "why wouldn't the author just say 'the canal' if that's what he were referring to?"...why wouldn't he say Cold Spring Pond?
Beats me. Why use a vague term like inlet when there are two named landmarks, the canal and the pond, available. Maybe he didn't know the area and forgot to write down the names of the landmarks? Maybe the name of the pond was not well known to him or his readers so he didn't use it? The canal on the other hand was a well known significant construction project from 20 years before.
-
David,
Along the lines of "why wouldn't the author just say 'the canal' if that's what he were referring to?"...why wouldn't he say Cold Spring Pond?
Jim,
As I said, I don't think the name of "Cold Spring Pond/Bay/Harbor/Inlet/whatever-it-is" was well known and that article reads as if whoever came up with the description didn't know its name so they just described it by location. (It is a bit confusing especially bc there is another Cold Spring Harbor on LI.) In contrast, the Shinnecock Canal was a well known landmark along the southern arm of Long Island. It is referenced repeatedly in newspapers, in driving guides, in histories, even in fiction and legend. There would be no need to characterize it by reference to a RR station two miles away.
-
Man, you guys are doing some serious parsing. The great majority of the readers most likely had never been anywhere near Shinnecock, and perhaps the writers hadn't either. Would it make any real difference to the readers if the canal was the inlet, or if the inlet was a pond? Making assumptions based on a writer who didn't know the area well, writing for people who didn't know the area at all, and then running with what you think he might have meant by the word 'skirt' 100 years ago?
Boys, come back!
-
Ok...I'll come back first, Andy. ;) ;D
If the October 15th article was accurate, and the writer meant Sebonac Neck, and it meant that CBM had somehow secured land on Sebonac Neck by that point...
then why, a few weeks later at the Lesley Cup matches at Garden City would CBM tell folks that he was down to two sites...the first in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second in Montauk?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why the need for spreading disinformation?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why even mention the Canal Site in western Shinnecock Hills at all??
-
Andy, I agree, although the person who provided the information the reporter must have had some general familiarity with the area.
But I do agree that the whole endeavor with the word parsing is absurd. But this is what happens again and again when Mike chooses his preconceived conclusions over the most obvious, reasonable, and straightforward interpretations of the source material.
Keep in mind that Mike was in agreement that these articles indicated that, more likely than not, CBM was already considering the current site by October, and that the only reason we are going through all this is he refused to consider how this impacted his other conclusions.
It is too much. A waste of time and energy. I have better things to do.
-
Jim,
CBM references the "Shinnecock Canal, as being the canal that CONNECTS Peconic Bay with Shinnecock Bay,
There's only one waterway that does that, the Shinnecock Canal.
-
Ok...I'll come back first, Andy. ;) ;D
If the October 15th article was accurate, and the writer meant Sebonac Neck, and it meant that CBM had somehow secured land on Sebonac Neck by that point...
then why, a few weeks later at the Lesley Cup matches at Garden City would CBM tell folks that he was down to two sites...the first in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second in Montauk?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why the need for spreading disinformation?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why even mention the Canal Site in western Shinnecock Hills at all??
Mike,
Your biggest problem with holding the November 1 articles as true and the October one as fiction is that the October 1 came true very soon thereafter...all this word parsing aside, it happened.
Also...it wouldn't have been a done deal because nothing had been signed and no money had changed hands...
-
Bryan,
I think just skirting the storm is the goal. If it's in a fixed location, why would you add 100 feet to your radius rather than just going around the edge of it?
EDIT: 1,000 feet!
-
Regarding the inlet/canal debate...you guys make good points about the name of the canal, but the other factors make me feel pretty comfortable that he was speaking of the whole area. He was just so non-specific. Hate to say it Andy, but the word "skirted" is my anchor on this.
I think the agreement was for a portion of Sebonac Neck which CBM would locate specifically in the next two months but the descriptors were for a much larger area.
Nobody has answered my question about the likelyhood of Alvord leaking the deal...prematurely...isn't he, or his associates, the most likey source? He's got the most to gain and nothing to lose.
-
Jim,
Personally, if I was skirting a storm or I was on a plane skirting a thunderhead, I think I would want to give it a good berth, not keep as close to it as I could in going around it. But, that's just me being cautious.
Here is yet another definition of skirt from Merriam Webster:
"a : to go or pass around or about; specifically : to go around or keep away from in order to avoid danger or discovery
b : to avoid especially because of difficulty or fear of controversy <skirted the issue>
c : to evade or miss by a narrow margin <having skirted disaster"
I'm going with the "keep away" part of definition "a", because CBM said he didn't want to be near the noisy railroad. Do you agree that that was one of his desires? You want to go with the "c" definition. That's OK with me, but how do you reconcile that with CBM's stated desire to keep away from the RR. The RR was there a long time before he was looking at properties. Do you think he would really say that the property that was for his ideal course was narrowly close to the RR that he stated he didn't want to be near? I guess he could have, but it doesn't make sense to me.
I think we are all convinced that the reports of the time, or even after the fact reminiscences by the involved parties, have factual errors and contradictions. How do any of us decide which parts are true and which are erroneous. Maybe we should only believe the "facts" where there are two or more "independent" sources that state the same fact the same way. For instance, maybe we can't take as fact that there was an offer on 120 acres near the canal because we don't have a second source.
Of course, then we have theories that have no sources, such as Mike's theory of a preliminary offer on 200 acres before CBM backed off to 120 acres. :o
-
If he was so intent on avoiding any traffic and noise, why would he have wanted a spot near the canal first (he said it, I'm going to believe it more than an article with no source reference)? You did a nice piece 3 or 4 pages ago showing pretty minimal land near the canal even at that point...you tell me...
-
Jim,
Yes, it could have been an Alvord leak, but then again this is a theory for which we have no source. But, following on your theory, did CBM then leak that he was looking at other sites in November to turn the screws on Alvord who thought they had a locked up deal? Maybe Alvord was asking for more than $200 an acre and CBM was trying to ratchet the price down. Just another unsupported theory. ;)
-
We're passing in the night here. Depends on what near the canal meant. Maybe it was near like the October property was near the inlet or the final course is near the RR. Maybe near meant a 1000 feet. We don't know.
-
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/1903GreenRoads.jpg)
I don't know...looks to me from this one that the closer to the canal the more room he'd have...but who knows.
I think the comment about the roads, and desiring privacy is a view from the end of his career as opposed to at this stage. He's quoted elsewhere as enjoying having roads to use as features/obstacles on his courses...the Merion debate bore this out.
-
Hate to say it Andy, but the word "skirted" is my anchor on this.
According to thesaurus.com, "skirted" as I think it was used is synonymous with avoided, bypassed, dodged, ducked, eluded, evaded, sidestepped, and steered clear of. I have trouble understanding why the RR, which missed the property by 1/3 of a mile, did not "skirt" the property in question.
Nobody has answered my question about the likelyhood of Alvord leaking the deal...prematurely...isn't he, or his associates, the most likey source? He's got the most to gain and nothing to lose.
It is possible I guess, but I don't think too likely. If the developer was trying to hype the development for its purposes then I would have expected that they would have hyped the real estate angle.
I don't know where the information would have come from, but I suspect that it was from CBM talking about it. Some of the earlier articles on NGLA had come from information CBM had sent to the founders as an update on the process, and it is possible that he communicated with some or all of the founders about his progress and one of them passed it to the press. But this is pure speculation and doesn't really get us anywhere.
If he was so intent on avoiding any traffic and noise, why would he have wanted a spot near the canal first (he said it, I'm going to believe it more than an article with no source reference)? You did a nice piece 3 or 4 pages ago showing pretty minimal land near the canal even at that point...you tell me...
Judging from how CBM described the timing and circumstances of the Canal property, I am under the impression that he decided to purchase land near the canal before he was aware of the development plan.
-
David,
On the last point, the picture Bryan developed there is pre-development plan and if you want 120 acres with a significant buffer (1000 feet) from roads there's not much to choose from...not something I want to debate because I was merely making the point that CBM writing in SG that it's better to paly golf in peace and quite is ideal doesn't exactly match his early career practice.
As to "skirting the tracks", if you're trying to say the author was writing that the course avoided the tracks at all possible cost, I guess we can discuss that, but it sure would be a funny thing to write. The fact is, the land you and Bryan are presenting had noting to do with the RR tracks...
-
Let's not forget that "skirted" would have had an entirely different context in those parts at that time.
The Shinnecock Hills golf course skirted the LIRR tracks in places, but it also crossed right over the tracks in others, playing on both sides of it! It had been that way for a number of years and this idea that CBM somehow skirted the tracks by over a third of a mile away is really a poor interpretation IMHO.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5517247595_62eeb592be_o.jpg)
-
If the October 15th article was accurate, and the writer meant Sebonac Neck, and it meant that CBM had somehow secured land on Sebonac Neck by that point...
then why, a few weeks later at the Lesley Cup matches at Garden City would CBM tell folks that he was down to two sites...the first in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second in Montauk?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why the need for spreading disinformation?
If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why even mention the Canal Site in western Shinnecock Hills at all??
Mike,
Your biggest problem with holding the November 1 articles as true and the October one as fiction is that the October 1 came true very soon thereafter...all this word parsing aside, it happened.
Also...it wouldn't have been a done deal because nothing had been signed and no money had changed hands...
Jim,
I would disagree with your contention that the October article came true very soon thereafter.
When did CBM buy 250 acres of land that we agree could have been ANYWHERE north of the LIRR tracks (based on the description in the article) for $100,000 as described in that article?? (btw, I also agree with you that his comments 20+ years later about "wanting to be alone with nature" was simply making lemonaide out of lemons. Most of the best courses at that time adjoined railroad tracks, including his beloved St. Andrews)
Why was this supposed "scoop" not reported in any other NYC paper for the next two months if it was accurate?
The article has multiple errors, and to me the only valuable thing we find from it is that CBM was looking at sites seemingly between the Canal and Shiinnecock Hills GC at that time and perhaps had made an offer of some sort. Most of the rest of the article doesn't hold up to any known facts or close scrutiny.
I think the reason why we disagree is because you still believe that CBM didn't find the Sebonac Neck site until AFTER he had been rejected from the Canal site. I don't think that's necessarily true.
Here's what he wrote about it;
"I offered the Shinnecock HIlls & Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 an acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it."
"However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and lying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bulls Head Bay. This property was little known and have never been surveyed. Everyone thought it was more or less worthless. It abounded in bogs, and swamps...etc....The only way we could get over the ground was on ponies."
I think we're reading into it if we believe that he knew nothing about the Sebonac Neck site until after his offer for the canal site was refused.
I think both sites were still in play as of the Lesley Cup in late October 1906, AFTER that October 15th article, and exactly as was reported.
Also, it's been mentioned that my theory is somehow made up without any factual basis on the idea that CBM first likely offered for over 200 acres at the Canal Site, but then perhaps countered for only 120. However, from 1904 on...from the time CBM drew up his Founders Agreement, it was known and repeated multiple times in the press that CBM was looking for slightly over 200 acres, and we know how he saw that land being divided up...110 acres for golf, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre lots for the 60 founding members...EXACTLY 205 acres. Hell, he wrote it up in the Founders Agreement, so that was clearly the expectation!
So, this whole idea that he made an offer for 120 acres is the one off here...not my theory. So why might CBM have compromised from his original goal in the case of his first offer? I think it makes perfect sense that he'd drop the building lot portion of his plan...after all, Alvord was going to be building near there and I'm sure he didn't want competition. Perhaps the site was so good that CBM was willing to adapt? What in heaven's name is unfounded or preposterous about that theory?
Instead, what's preposterous is this ridiculous idea that on one site, CBM would determine he needed EXACTLY 205 acres for just the golf course, yet on the other site would be just fine with slightly over half of that! Absurd, frankly.
So, what I think happened is that in October CBM made his original offer for the Canal Site. CBM TELLS the reporter from the NY Sun weeks later during the Lesley Cup that the Canal Site (westerly portion of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground) is still in play, but also throws out the negotiating ploy about a site near Montauk, and further ups the ante by saying if those don't pan out pricewise, he may have to keep looking elsewhere.
So we KNOW nothing was settled or promised between him and Alvord by the Lesley Cup. This is a fact.
If we agree that the land referred to in the October article is all of the land held by Alvord north of the tracks, then why couldn't this article have referred to an original offer on the Canal Site? Frankly, I think it was, and I also think that the writer transposed the number of acres from 205 to 250.
I do think that CBM knew about the Sebonac Neck site by this time (he'd been looking in "various sections" around Peconic Bay and the Shinnecock Hills as reported on November 1st in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle), but was still negotiating to get his preferred first site near the canal.
It's the only theory that holds up to all the facts that we do know, including the fact that by December, all of the articles talked about him securing 205 undetermined acres out of the 450 available, and that he would work with his committee to determine the holes to be copied and their yardages over the next several months. This was not a site that had been worked for months previously, but one that was the negotiated second choice after it was determined good enough after multiple horse rides by CBM and Whigham.
Here's how CBM describes what happened;
"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally (BOLD Emphasis mine) 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."
THAT is what happened by December 15, 1906. AND that is EXACTLY what was reported in the days following December 15, 1906.
The rest happened in the following months, AFTER they got agreement (secured) with Alvord to sell them EXACTLY 205 undetermined acres of 450 available, and then proceeded as follows, exactly as CBM said in the December articles they would do;
"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."
...and completed the purchase in spring of 1907.
-
Mike,
You guys all do such interesting things in these conversations. Do you really think after all this time I would assume that's all CBM said about the Sebonac Neck site based on you typing it here? How many times have you posted this page from the book?
I think they knew there was land there, but hadn't considered it for golf for any number of reasons and CBM implies exactly that in the sentences immediately after you stopped quoting him in that last post...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5370317384_cbb7c6d341_o.jpg)
There's no way CBM and HJW rode the Sebonac Neck site prior to being rejected on the canal site...
As to the October article...who knows...
Your edit came through as I was posting this...
-
Jim,
I just thought it was quicker to post a couple of sentences than go and find that page again.
I do think they looked at that site in September as Whigham wrote, but it wasn't their first choice for a number of reasons.
-
Mike,
You're grasping.
You are trying to hold Wigham's word over CBM's words now, both 20 years after the fact. If you are going to believe both of them, then they rode Sebonac Neck in September after being rejected on the canal site. Any other interpretation and you have to discount either CBM or HJW, no two ways about it.
What your bolded word AGAIN does is confirm my three-step process.
1) look at the land to check suitability - obtain price agreement with no specific boundaries inside the 450
2) go over the land more closely and determine the boundaries
3) execute the transaction
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
By the way Mike, another piece of the October article that illustrates accuracy is the names of advisors...
-
Jim,
I don't understand why you think CBM's account and Whigham's account are at odds?
These guys had been looking around Alvord's holdings for months by this time. Why wouldn't they have choices 1, 2, or even choice 3 in their minds prior to negotiating?
-
Another preposterous idea that's been promoted is that CBM would not have known in late 1905 that Alvord was planning a "development" there, so would have rushed his first offer for the canal at that time.
What exactly was Alvord if not a real estate developer? Perhaps he just wanted a 3000 acre estate for himself? ;)
http://www.belleterre.us/History/DeanAlvordandtheGloriousYears/tabid/97/Default.aspx
-
Jim,
I don't understand why you think CBM's account and Whigham's account are at odds?
These guys had been looking around Alvord's holdings for months by this time. Why wouldn't they have choices 1, 2, or even choice 3 in their minds prior to negotiating?
I don't know Mike, you tell me...you've been trumpeting the Sebonac Neck site throughout this thread as a consolation offer after the rejection of the canal site...are we flipping that?
-
Jim,
I think it's a consolation in the sense that it wasn't their first choice and we know that.
However, we also know that;
1) We both agree that the October 15th article referred to all of Alvord's holdings north of the LIRR, although I'm not 100% certain that it also includes Sebonac Neck. I've conceded it may, especially given Whigham's "September" quote.
2) On November 1st, quoting CBM at the Lesley Cup weeks later, two articles appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and the NY Sun. The Eagle reported that CBM had been looking at "various" sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills, and the NY Sun reported that CBM said he was down to two choices...one in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground (obviously the Canal Site) and one at Montauk Point.
We know retrospectively that Montauk was a negotiating ruse, but it seems at that time that the Canal Site was still in play, no?
Which makes sense to me...I would think that CBM already knew about Sebonac Neck, had likely rode it with WHigham by then, but for a number of reasons (i.e. proximity to SHGC, swamps, brush, etc.) was still hoping for the canal site and perhaps had even modified his original request from 205 to 120 acres by that time, perhaps based on Alvord rejecting a real-estate competitor in the neighborhood.
-
Mike,
There's alot more in that October article than just a vague reference to some plot of land...I think you ought to re-read it with as open a mind as possible.
-
Jim,
As I mentioned earlier, I think the writer misunderstand what CBM was saying about surveyor's maps, etc., and his "experts" abroad who helped him.
There is no mention, anywhere, ever, that CBM sent plans of the land to those guys to provide feedback prior to purchase except for this article.
What there is, is mention in his 1912 Founders letter naming many of the same men and thanking them for their maps, etc. of the great holes abroad.
I guess it's possible that CBM went to the extent (and expense) of having his first site surveyed and mappped and sent abroad, but I think the writer is mostly mistaken on that point.
-
Jim,
Actually, now that I think about it, that's a very interesting and telling point.
At the Sebonac Neck site, does CBM tell us that he had the land cleared, surveyed, and mapped (much less sent to experts abroad) prior to agreeing to secure 205 acres?
No, he doesn't.
He tells us that he and Whigham decided that it was worthwhile after a few days of horseback rides around the uncleared property, and then getting Alvord's agreement to sell them 205 acres at the price they wanted out of the 450 available.
-
. . .
The rest happened in the following months, AFTER they got agreement (secured) with Alvord to sell them EXACTLY 205 undetermined acres of 450 available, and then proceeded as follows, exactly as CBM said in the December articles they would do;
"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."
...and completed the purchase in spring of 1907.
This just may be Cirba's most specious quote and use of ellipses yet, which is saying something given that it is Mike we are dealing with! He just happens to leave out the part about optioning the property. At this point, after going over this for this long, do we still need to keep pretending that Mike is acting in good faith, or can we call out sleazy tactics when we see them?
And of course Mike didn't understand my point about CBM's consideration of the land by the Canal. As I read SG, CBM just missed out on trying to buy the pre-development land near the canal on the cheap, before the developer bought the property and the development began in earnest.
_______________________________
Jim, thanks for pointing out those names again. Mike has us so focused on this description that it is easy to lose sight of the overall context of the article. Given the names and details, it seems that this information must have come from someone on CBM's side of the the transaction.
Isn't it amazing how mike can tell us exactly what was mistaken and what wasn't about these old articles, and with no support whatsoever? For him, history is definitely a creative process.
-
David,
regarding the possible leak: agreed that it must have been from CBM's camp. I thought Alvord would be to gain, and there's the inconsistency with the Noveber 1 articles, but it's hard to picture Alvord or any of his crew knowing all those names.
Mike,
That's really the point. I think CBM had the land surveyed and maps sent abroad prior to the writing of that October article...simply because it says right there that it was completed and we know (105 years later) that those things were completed at some point. Other than history playing out, why do we need second sources from that date?
-
Mike,
I don't have time right now to go through your long posting. In a quick read, it is an interesting mix of "facts" and suppositions. Would it be possible for you to do a simple timeline from October to December of what you think happened when and label them fact or theory.
As I understand you, you think CBM made an offer for 205 acres in October, then modified it to an offer for 120 acres somewhere north of the RR tracks in the Shinnnecock Hills, also in October. Was rejected by Alvord in October. Then was looking at a canal site again as well as Montauk in November. Then agreed to buy 205 of 450 acres in Sebonac Neck in mid December.
Re the long posting, one question for now:
So we KNOW nothing was settled or promised between him and Alvord by the Lesley Cup. This is a fact.
How do we KNOW that. How do we KNOW what CBM and Alvord were doing in the background? At best, this is a supposition on your part. All we KNOW is that he supposedly told a reporter that he was looking at other sites. It is possible that he had deal with Alvord, but told the reporter something that implied he didn't. Or, do you believe that CBM couldn't have mislead the reporter. Or, the reporter might have misunderstood or misquoted. Not that that ever happened before or since. Anyway, I would debate that the conclusion you draw is a FACT based on this evidence.
-
How do we KNOW that. How do we KNOW what CBM and Alvord were doing in the background? At best, this is a supposition on your part. All we KNOW is that he supposedly told a reporter that he was looking at other sites. It is possible that he had deal with Alvord, but told the reporter something that implied he didn't. Or, do you believe that CBM couldn't have mislead the reporter. Or, the reporter might have misunderstood or misquoted. Not that that ever happened before or since. Anyway, I would debate that the conclusion you draw is a FACT based on this evidence.
More than this, according to the articles he wasn't talking to a reporter, but was responding to a question asked in front of a room full of people at Garden City. If he was engaged in discussions/negotiations with Alvord, then it hardly seems like the most opportune setting for him to provide a detailed and accurate answer to exactly what was ongoing.
Keep in mind that some of the earlier articles mentioned that the search for the site was secretive or at least under the radar. While CBM was still in Europe, Devereux Emmet wondered whether CBM might have already found and secured the property, so apparently not even those involved knew exactly what was ongoing with the property search! So I hardly think we can take the above as "FACT" especially given that two different accounts of what he said were reported.
-
My premise stated as FACT was that CBM did not have an agreement with Alvord by the Lesley Cup.
Even David suggests that at best perhaps they were in negotiations at that point.
The mid-October report of a "purchase" was simply wrong in that regard, and many others.
Besides, can anyone provide a remotely plausible reason why CBM would have referred to being down to 2 choices...the first the Canal Site in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second at Montauk if he had already struck agreement with Alvord prior to then, verbally or otherwise?
Who would he be fooling?? Alvord owned both the Canal Site as well as the Sebonac Neck site.
Of course, the Montauk mention was a ploy to try and make Alvord think that he had other options with other sellers, but the FACT remains...
CBM did NOT have a deal of any kind by the Lesley Cup, and yes, it is a fact.
David,
Where does the November 1st, NY Sun article say he was speaking to a crowd of people?
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
-
Quit misrepresenting what I said, Mike. I didn't suggest that "at best perhaps" anything! Negotiations oftentimes continue long after some sort of basic agreement or understanding between the parties is already in place but not yet formalized. In a situation like this one, negotiations may have continued long after the developer agreed he was willing to sell CBM some land.
Where does the November 1st, NY Sun article say he was speaking to a crowd of people?
Don't you ever tire of petty, misleading little games?
The Nov. 1, 1901 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated, ". . . Charles B. MacDonald, in answer to a question put to him before the crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City club house, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills."
-
David,
We know that negotiations continued after CBM obtained agreement from the company to sell him the land.
CBM tells us that the company agreed to sell 205 acres and that CBM would be permited to choose the land that best suited his purpose.
That he subsequently studied the land again, selected the land that would best accomodate his classical holes, and THEN he staked the land he finally decided that he wanted.
It's all on page 187
-
Don't you ever tire of petty, misleading little games?
The Nov. 1, 1901 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article stated, ". . . Charles B. MacDonald, in answer to a question put to him before the crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City club house, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills."
David,
Misleading?!? You are the one who stated that the November articleS had CBM talking to a crowd of people.
That's not true...the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article states that, but the NY Sun article, which contains more specific information does not.
-
Yes, misleading. And petty. But I guess your post speaks to the pettiness, whether you explicitly mention it or not.
Stop the games Mike.
-
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/ngla/Nov1_1906_NYSun.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061101BDE.jpg?t=1297368891)
Mike,
Are these the two articles from November 1 that tell you something definitive? I continue to be amazed. Which one was it that was "more specific" than the other?
-
Jim,
Wouldn't you think the site in Western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground is possibly the Canal Site?
-
Mike,
Could have been. Do you think it's possible he would have agreed to buy the Sebonac Neck site so soon after not having made an offer anywhere at all? Seems like quick action for someone who up to that point had moved slowly and dilligently and stated immediately that they were going to continue to move slowly and dilligently...course not opening for a couple years etc...
I think the two November 1 articles are useless!
-
It might sound ridiculous or impertinent, but I assure you it's just informational...
What is at issue here?
Is it a matter of who did what or just when? and if it's a matter of when - what is the difference in the contrasting opinions, how much time?
cheers
vk
-
Just when.
A few months at the beginning, no difference on the completion/bulk of work on the ground.
Some believe David and Mike are using this as a proxy for their Merion debate, I'm not and don't have an opinion on whether or not they are...I just think they don't like each other and are unable to have a grown up conversation...
-
Mike,
Just out of curiosity, where is the reference to CBM making any comments at the Lesley Cup?
-
Bryan,
CBM sequenced the attempts at acquisition.
First the 120 acre site was targeted, and when that bid was rejected, CBM turned his attention to the 450 acres at Sebonack Neck.
Posting newpaper articles of CBM's supposed conversations with members and others can't be considered as "factual".
Time and time again these newspaper articles are seriously flawed.
Mike accepts those newspaper articles as "fact" that agree with his position..... at that time.
Subsequently, he may disavow the accuracy of the same article.
CBM wrote in some detail, the sequenced process of purchasing the land for NGLA
-
Patrick,
I understand. Why can't we get Mike to understand?
Mike,
IMHO, what you are doing is to take two newspaper snippets of questionable veracity and inferring that their contents means that Alvord and CBM didn't have an agreement. Even if the two snippets are factually true doesn't prove in any way that there wasn't a deal. If they are true, all they prove is that CBM said he was considering other sites. The articles provide no insight into why he would have said that at that time. Just because you want to infer it, doesn't mean it is true. We don't KNOW that there wasn't a back channel deal. You can take your inference as fact if you want, but that doesn't make it so.
-
Mike,
If I understand your position correctly (not sure I do) are you saying that on November 1 that CBM was still considering the Canal site (as well as Montauk) and that his offer on 120 acres was rejected some time after Nov 1.
You've pointed out many times that CBM originally in 1904 mooted 110 acres for the golf course, and he subsequently wrote that he offered on a 120 acre site for the golf course near the Canal. We KNOW that the course as built occupies a little more than 200 acres. When do you suppose he figured out that his ideal golf course wasn't going to fit on 110 to 120 acres, and he really needed 75% more space than he originally planned? If he was offering on 120 acres in early November and "securing" 205 of 450 acres in mid-December, I presume you think that he figured it out between mid-November and mid-December 1906. What caused the epiphany, do you suppose?
-
I don't believe this sheds any light on this subject, but it is interesting. CH Alison was a member of Oxford & Cambridge Golfing Society team that toured the US in 1903. In 1950 he recalled their visit to Shinnecock.
"In Great Britain in 1903 seaside links were regarded as an unapproachable first class. St.andrews, Hoylake, Prestwick, Sandwich and Muirfield were the big five, and if any were to be added to their number they would be of similar character. In the US this has never been the case. It maybe assumed that the course which O&CGS played were a fair sample of the best of their time, and Shinnecock Hills was the only one of them which was of the sand-dune type. While we were there Mr. Charles Macdonald showed us the neighbouring dunes which the National was made, a bold project which he brought to a successful issue some years later."
-
TMac,
Thanks for that snippet. I think it sheds light on just how long CBM was considering land all over LI. Oddly, it sort of contradicts his writings that the land was generally considered worthless, if he was already familiar with its dunes characteristics.
To be honest, one of the funny things about this thread, compared to others, is that some folks who formeraly argued that contemporaneous articles are the cadillac of source material, argue that CBM's recollections many years later are the best source here, and articles are not. We know that CBM has the year wrong in a few instances, as does Whigham in his eulogy, and it might make sense that CBM has some details (to the level we seek) wrong, either because of the late writing, or just because he is trying to summarize the whole affair in a few pages.
Thus, saying he was "rejected" may not be totally accurate, IMHO, in the sense that a formal offer was made. I can see his efforts with Alvord being very cooperative, over a long period of time. Its obvious that it took several years to finally pick out the land.
That said, I am still of the opinion that the Oct article was basically a "scoop" that CBM had narrowed it down to an Alvord site, but the reporter didn't know the exact site, (nor did CBM at that point, although he was close to deciding) so he described the whole area north of the tracks only because that's as much as he could narrow it down. Again, just MHO.
-
Jim,
A few things.
First, the Lesley Cup was held at Garden City in late October 1906. It is what the NY Sun snippet called the "intercity" matches.
Here is the entire golf article that appeared in the Sun on that day, and it includes a very interesting synopsis of the changes that Walter Travis made to the course that year, although it doesn't reference him by name.
I'm not sure who the Sun golf reporter was at that time. Perhaps Joe Bausch knows if he's looking in.
In either case, the writer seems pretty well connected to events both at that club (where CBM was quoted) as well as to golf generally.
I'm not sure how you can accept the October 15th article which has numerous factual errors on the face of it, was not reported by any other NYC paper, yet totally discount this one, as well as the one in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle the same day that make clear that no deal has yet been done, nor any site officially selected.
I think the only reason you find it wanting is that it punctures your view of how this went down, frankly.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5621293601_d01786a49f_o.jpg)
-
Jim,
I'm not sure how you can accept the October 15th article which has numerous factual errors on the face of it, was not reported by any other NYC paper, yet totally discount this one, as well as the one in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle the same day that make clear that no deal has yet been done, nor any site officially selected.
I think the only reason you find it wanting is that it punctures your view of how this went down, frankly.
Mike,
I believe the October article matches Macdonald's description of the events much better than either of the two you are relying on...afterall, it came true and neither of your did.
Macdonald's description, not these unsourced newspaper articles, but his words in Scotland's Gift that have been posted on here so many times.
I think as of October 15th CBM and Alvord had a handshake agreement for 205 acres that CBM was in the process of locating specifically. It discusses maps being made and sent, and who they would be sent to. Just because you don't think that's what actually happened doesn't mean it didn't, afterall it was clearly part of the plan. I didn't come into this with an agenda and don't have one now. I have developed an instinct/conception of what happened and how.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
Mike,
What are these "numerous factual errors"?
I've got 250 acres as one.
But I think purchased is an acceptable equivalent for agreed to buy or secured in this scenario. I know you'll disagree so we can call that a draw. so you've got one and a half. Are there any others? Did he not send maps to exactly those people? Did the author leave one or two people out?
-
Mike,
If I understand your position correctly (not sure I do) are you saying that on November 1 that CBM was still considering the Canal site (as well as Montauk) and that his offer on 120 acres was rejected some time after Nov 1.
You've pointed out many times that CBM originally in 1904 mooted 110 acres for the golf course, and he subsequently wrote that he offered on a 120 acre site for the golf course near the Canal. We KNOW that the course as built occupies a little more than 200 acres. When do you suppose he figured out that his ideal golf course wasn't going to fit on 110 to 120 acres, and he really needed 75% more space than he originally planned? If he was offering on 120 acres in early November and "securing" 205 of 450 acres in mid-December, I presume you think that he figured it out between mid-November and mid-December 1906. What caused the epiphany, do you suppose?
Bryan,
I also find it odd that you're willing to accept the October 15th article as having some basis in fact, particularly in terms of an agreement of some sort (which was not repeated in any other NYC paper), but are in the Muccian camp of discounting others, lumping them all into the "news articles are crap" bin.
Are we going to do that here, or are we going to use higher standards of discernment to see what facts that we know support which articles?
I do find it funny as Jeff said, how that worm has turned here compared to other threads where news articles were held to be virtually infallible, and worthy of changing attribution records of major club courses.
In any case, let me try to answer your questions, although some is admitted speculation.
First, I doubt that NGLA as built was over 200 acres of golf course. I recall David measuring it some time back and estimating that it was around 165-170 acres today.
Here's a drawing from back then...it certainly doesn't seem to take up the entire shaded 205 acres, does it?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5517268239_d01e3d6a51_b.jpg)
In fact, CBM himself told us that he didn't use all of the land he bought for the golf course in his 1912 Letter to the Founders, under the heading, "Surplus Land". He refers to his original Agreement (also reproduced here) where he thought there would be land enough left over for 1.5 acre building lots, which didn't turn out to be the case, obviously.;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/5393591181_1ebcc650fa_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_b.jpg)
This was nothing unusual. Even by 1915 Max Behr wrote about the amount of land needed for a golf course and talked about the variables of land shape and routing that would play into that determination. He seems to say that although more is better, about 120 acres of so will work in most cases.
CBM himself also told Merion they could build a first-class course on 120 acres, so we know it was in the range of what he thought.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_eebfe7f59c_b.jpg)
Nevertheless, we know golf course when completed took up more space than the 110-120 acres CBM himself estimated and wrote that he'd need.
I think this is due to a few reasons.
First, we know that CBM's primary focus was the golf course. I'm not sure he ever really wanted to build lots for his Founders at all, but probably saw that as a necessary incentive to gaining enough Founding members and seed money to build his dream course.
So, I don't think he shed many tears in scrapping that part of his plan, probably figuring that he could financially compensate them in some other way once things were up and running.
I also think that once he scrapped that idea it really opened up the whole playground for him, and gave him unique opportunities to create width and expanse that was beyond probably what he even envisioned at first. Playing into that however, was the fact that some of the land was not quite as good as CBM originally hoped, and a lot of dirt was brought in, and swampy areas attempted to be filled, with some of it remaining not very good for golf, and probably not for building lots either.
One other thing that I don't think he estimated was exactly how wide he'd need to make his fairways to accommodate "safe" avenues of play for short hitters and high handicappers playing "around" his hazards. As such, today the width of some fairways is over 100 yards, which is HUGE, and the scale of the course is impressively huge.
So, as far as the timeframe for when this transition happened?
Personally, I think it happened over the course of the design and early construction phase in 1907 and into 1908.
I don't see any reason at all to think that CBM added 75% to his estimate between late 1905 and late 1906, nor do I believe that CBM thought the canal site would make a great golf course at 120 acres, but somehow he needed 205 at Sebonac Neck. It's a ridiculous contention, frankly.
In the end, as Max Behr said, enough land was purchased to incorporate all of the best natural features for golf and then "no concession was made to economy in the use of land." Once CBM scrapped his building lot plan, he certainly had a LOT to work with.
Interestingly, even in 1915 Behr wrote, "Even so, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the golf course and is available for other purposes."
Do you think it was simply coincidence that CBM wrote in 1904 he needed 205 acres, was quoted during intervening years as looking for slightly over 200 acres, and purchased exactly 205 acres at the end of the day?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA19061015NYET.jpg?t=1297494849)
Mike,
What are these "numerous factual errors"?
I've got 250 acres as one.
But I think purchased is an acceptable equivalent for agreed to buy or secured in this scenario. I know you'll disagree so we can call that a draw. so you've got one and a half. Are there any others? Did he not send maps to exactly those people? Did the author leave one or two people out?
Jim,
Here's what I think is in error here;
1) 250 acres
2) A description of the location of the 250 acre purchase extending at minimum over 1000 acres if David is correct, and extending over miles if you and I are correct.
3) The purchase price of $100,000. CBM bought the land for $40,000. Even if the article was referring to how much money had been raised that total was $1,000 x 60 Founders or $60,000
4) A complete misconception about what CBM's foreign expert friends were doing. These were the men who provided him with maps and photographs of the great courses, holes, and features abroad. There is no record of CBM ever sending topo maps to these guys nor does CBM credit them with helping him to select the right property, although he does give some credit to Seth Raynor for his help with the purchase.
In fact, CBM himself tells us in SG that he decided to purchase the land based on multiple rides with Whigham, provided they could get it for the right price (the exact same $200 an acre he had offered for the Canal Site). He probably realized that this number might work with Alvord for the overgrown site on Sebonac Neck with the implied costs of clearing, surveying, filling, etc...
He says nothing about consulting foreign experts.
If such an offer was already a done deal, and CBM had already had the land cleared and surveyed down to foot measurements, then again...why the heck would CBM still be talking about the Canal Site a few weeks later at the Lesley Cup, or throwing Montauk into the mix as an obvious tactical ploy?
-
Mike,
Could have been. Do you think it's possible he would have agreed to buy the Sebonac Neck site so soon after not having made an offer anywhere at all? Seems like quick action for someone who up to that point had moved slowly and dilligently and stated immediately that they were going to continue to move slowly and dilligently...course not opening for a couple years etc...
Jim,
As I mentioned, I think the Sebonac Neck site was in play by September as Whigham wrote, but as the second choice. I think they rode that site a few times, and saw great possibilities "in the rough" so to speak, but probably had their eyes first on the Canal site.
Once the Canal site offer was refused and that negotiation broke down, then they tried to move quickly on the Sebonac Neck site, provided they could get the same price per acre they originally offered.
We also know from the November 1st Brooklyn Daily Eagle report, again from CBM at the Lesley Cup matches at Garden City, that he had been looking at "various sections" between Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills, so I think the idea that he entered the negotiations with only one site in mind out of the 2700 acres of Alvord's holdings is really not realistic.
-
Either 1300 posts ago or now, how does this thread advance our knowkledge of something vital?
What could it possibly matter to the product or to the reputation of CBM or NGLA if the purchase of 205 acres, includes, anticipates, contemplates or varies from the "theoretical 120" needed to build JUST golf course?
In effect, are we saying that if X happened at Y, NGLA is different? CBM is more of a genius or more of a fool?
What fact that might come out of this (doubtful) is essential to our understanding (never mind application) of the history of GCA?
Would the certainty of one date of one land transaction over another, change anything about our understanding of the growth of the course or CBMs role in the devlopment?
cheers
vk
-
VK,
For me, the one GCA relevant fact that could potentially come out of this is an answer to the question of whether or not a Gof Course Architect building his dream course would spend several years looking for a parcel to buy that would be just right for his purposes and not plan/visualize any of the golf holes prior to purchasing the land.
That is essentially the position Mike has taken throughout this and, frankly, is the only reason I'm involved...because I just don't believe it's possible.
Jeff Brauer has documented his extensive experience as a professional as almost always being given a specific parcel of land to go find and develop holes on. I wonder if he would do that to himself if it were his own money...a project he were driving from the outset...
-
Jim,
Please see this March 24th, 1906 article with a letter from CBM. Sound familiar?
It's obviously where the October 15th article got its (mis)understanding of concerning the sketches and agreement on how to proceed between parties on both sides of the ocean.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5621610537_4b3e0f3e8f_o.jpg)
-
VKmetz,
For me, the one relevant GCA historical fact I'm trying to demonstrate is simply this;
In the earliest days of GCA in this country, courses were routed in short order, usually by foreign pros who were paid for a few hours effort and that was the expectation, but it was also the sales pitch.
The great courses designed by amateur architects in this country were conversely labors of love where meticulous detail was spent over a number of years. Routings of 18 tee and green locations were painstaking processes to yield the best the land had to offer and were a clear break from the past, and a major reason they achieved greatness.
It isn't that men like Macdonald, or Fownes, or Wilson, or Leeds, or Crump COULDN'T route a course in a day if they had to, but that they WOULDN'T, because they understood how fundamentally important that activity was to shaping the bones upon which the rest of the suit would be hung.
It was a fundamental shift in golf course design in this country, and the reason those courses are still held up today as pinnacles of achievement.
My friend Jim may argue that they would also approach land purchases in the same manner, but I think that process was slightly different and not always based on golf-only considerations. I think that process considered accessibility, accommodations, utilities, potential for real estate or other non-golf items, overall soil types, general land characteristics, and any general features that could be utilized for interesting golf on a more macro scale.
I think it was after securing enough land, sometimes with undetermined boundaries within a larger land mass as in the case of NGLA and Merion, that the fun started, the routings were determined, the stakes were plotted, and the ultimate purchase of the finalized acreage subsequently took place.
-
Jim,
While only once putting my own money in a far less than dream project, I have had a few that had an extensive search of sites, including Colbert Hills, which was certainly a dream course for them.
You would be surprised how much the practical aspects - utility costs, location, real estate, etc. play in selecting the site. I recall many old articles about gca telling me that in many respects, natural features may be one of the last things to look at in a site! Obviously, CBM was going to build those in where needed, but something like a free clubhouse couldn't be attained any other way than selecting the site he did.
And, if using my own money, I have no doubt I would be similarly enticed by lower costs.
As to VK's question, I was interested in where the first site offer was, and in the general time frame and process he used. Some here (Pat) seem to be interested in just how long it might take CBM to route a course of that caliber, for a variety of reasons. That said, I just don't think its a bad thing to want to know more detail about how it came together, but at the same time, I think we already know all the detail we are ever going to.
-
Jim, Mike
Thank you for the second clarification.
No matter what, I truly appreciate the dogged, voluminous research that all parties bring to bear. Analysis and conclusion may be a different story, but the effort that all posters make is usually very valuable.
My input, given the context as I'm understanding it is that:
- I would suspect that CBM's dedicated search was a little bit of both, he both had some holes in mind and was still open to the uniqueness/suitability of a property as it was presented to him.
- once he got to honing in on a general "area" for the course, these senses became more acute, then things became more specific, and elements of price, other development and so forth were arranged on a priority basis, in his mind.
I guess what I'm saying is that - even with one's own money - the process in 1904-1911, as it is in 2004-11, is one that is necessariy fluid, blending circumstance, fortune and design in equal measure.
There's no doubt CBM was earnest and visionary in controlling the former factors as best he could to serve the latter.
cheers
vk
-
VKmetz,
Great post and I completely agree with your thoughts on this process.
I'm hoping the thread has some value to folks here...lord knows the collective man-hours spent on it have been substantial! ;)
Thanks for your participation and insight.
-
V.Kmetz,
Sorry I haven't responded to your post. As I said above this has become rather pointless. But I will try to explain why I have been involved thus far and what I think has come from it.
Either 1300 posts ago or now, how does this thread advance our knowkledge of something vital?
What could it possibly matter to the product or to the reputation of CBM or NGLA if the purchase of 205 acres, includes, anticipates, contemplates or varies from the "theoretical 120" needed to build JUST golf course?
This was a revolutionary time in Golf Course Design in America and understanding NGLA is essential to understanding what was ongoing then and what happened after. To put it simply, NGLA changed the way America (at least) approached the creation of golf courses. There were other important courses, but none compared to NGLA in terms of influence. It was the exemplar, the laboratory, the reference point. People think of CBM as the guy who built templates, but there are many other very important aspects to his work and one of them is generally being discussed here: the way in which clubs should go about creating their golf courses.
To generalize, golf clubs in the past had made due with whatever land was available and convenient, whether or not it was land ideally suited for golf. CBM's well-publicized search for the ideal holes and the perfect site changed the focus so that the quality and suitability of the land became a major component in creating a golf course. As Max Behr put it in the article posted above by Mike, but which Mike still apparently does not quite grasp:
The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
As Behr noted, NGLA set the standard, and "provided the solution of the whole business." It was the exemplar. Behr was telling clubs across America, don't just buy land according the acreage, roughly figure out your course FIRST, and then, AFTER YOU HAVE ROUGHLY SKETCHED OUT THE COURSE, you should buy that land.
CBM describes the process the same way. First he and Whigham rode the property to determine the general suitability, then he made sure the land owner was willing to sell him the land, then they again studied the land and countours earnestly and came up with his rough routing, then he secured the property encompassing the land he had chosen for his course. [CBM apparently even went further and left himself some leeway regarding the exact boundaries of his purchase.]
That to me is what is important about this conversation. CBM set the standard as to how to go about choosing a site, and to varying degrees other courses followed suit as best they could in their circumstances, or they reconsidered the land land they were already using and better utilized their own natural conditions. This site-based approach to choosing a golf course (or at least the elevation of the importance of the suitability of the site) was one element of a major turning point in golf course design, and is still very relevant today.
Sure other considerations were important, but the golf course itself was the driving force.
In effect, are we saying that if X happened at Y, NGLA is different? CBM is more of a genius or more of a fool?
That is an interesting question, and to understand the answer you must understand a bit about the history of these threads, as this is at least the fourth or fifth one with a similar slant. Not trying to disparage Mike here, but I think it is important to understand history to understand the present. It all goes back to the seemingly endless attempts of Mike and some of his friends to downplay or diminish CBM's impact on golf design in America in general, and on the creation of Merion East in particular. Along these lines, in the past we have been treated to a series of claims about CBM and NGLA, most of which will hopefully seem pretty silly now, even to Mike.
For example, Mike and Co. have argued that NGLA was a course squarely stuck in the dark ages of design, with geometric features, cop bunkers, etc.
They also have argued, in 1910, CBM and HJW were not well known as creators of golf courses, but rather were known mainly for the golf Championships each had won about fifteen years before.
They also have argued, C. B. Macdonald and Henry J. Whigham knew little (or nothing) more about the creation of golf courses than the men at Merion who turned to CBM and HJW for help in creating Merion East.
They also tried to argue that, if anything, CBM and HJW were only experts on agronomy, and that Merion would have only gone to them for advice on agronomy rather than on design.
They also tried (and still sometimes try) to represent NGLA as a contemporary of, as opposed to a precursor to, courses like Merion East which were built after NGLA. (They do so by focusing on the date NGLA's clubhouse opened, as opposed to considering when the course was built and the press it received from 1904 on.)
They also tried to argue that CBM was an egomaniacal braggart who insisted on being credited for everything he touched and would never had gone out of his way for the good of the game unless there was something in it for him.
That list doesn't even get into some of the crazier discussions (such as the nasty business about Wilson's trip, or some of the nastier characterizations of CBM personally) but hopefully it gives you and others some understanding of what is really ongoing here.
As you put it, at the root of it this is all geared toward making CBM out to be "more of a fool."
This particular instance of portraying CBM as "a fool" goes back to a series of threads where, to varying degrees over the past few years, Mike has argued that CBM locked himself into the property without considering whether and how the golf course would fit on that property. Fortunately, he has been largely unsuccessful and has had to drastically temper his claim because the facts are just too overwhelming to the contrary, but as you can see by his post to you, he is still basically selling that same bill of goods. This is what he is getting at when he argues, "I think it was after securing enough land, sometimes with undetermined boundaries within a larger land mass as in the case of NGLA and Merion, that the fun started, the routings were determined, the stakes were plotted, and the ultimate purchase of the finalized acreage subsequently took place."
Never mind that this is directly contradictory to Mike's fallback point about how very careful CBM was, and how he he knew the importance of carefully and correctly utilizing the land. And never mind that even by Mike's version CBM still had room to adjust the boundaries later. And never mind the overwhelming facts to the contrary. Mike still wants to convince us that CBM committed to the land without having even a rough idea of how the course would fit on that land.
And the reason, as can be gleaned from the quoted sentence immediately above, is of course Merion. There is no question that CBM and HJW helped Merion choose their land for Merion East. But Mike would have us believe that in so doing, CBM and HJW did not at all consider how and where golf holes would fit on the property Merion was considering (or even on the additional property CBM and HJW suggested they purchase.) I guess Mike figures that if he can prove that CBM and HJW blindly locked themselves into the land at NGLA without concern for how the course would fit, then they must have recommended that Merion do the same thing. That is what is behind this multiyear process, and this monumental waste of valuable time.
[As an aside, Mike's second point - about CBM not doing a quickie routing - is also all about Merion. While it isn't the case, Mike seems to believe that I think CBM planned Merion in one day. That is ridiculous, but Mike thinks I believe this, so he is intent on proving that it took a long time for CBM to plan NGLA, therefore he wouldn't have planned Merion in a day. But this is obvious on both counts. It took a long time to plan Merion as well, but what Mike ignores is that CBM was involved throughout the planning.]
So in a sense, Jim had it right above. This is very much a proxy for the Merion discussion, in that the reason we are having the discussion and the reason Mike takes the positions he does is directly related to making CBM out to be a "fool" for the sake of Mike's Merion argument. Why else would Mike insist that CBM would lock himself into land without considering how a golf course would fit on that land?
I guess for me one could say that this is about Merion as well, but I think it might be more accurate to say that THE MERION DISCUSSIONS WERE REALLY ABOUT THIS. In other words, for me it is ALL about understanding early golf course architecture in America, and Merion was merely an avenue to explore what happened back then, and how it was being distorted by certain commentators. It was just one piece of the puzzle.
What fact that might come out of this (doubtful) is essential to our understanding (never mind application) of the history of GCA?
Part of the problem with this thread is that IMO the entire goal has been to distort understanding of what happened at NGLA. So my goal in essence is to stop the distortion, and to keep CBM from being falsely portrayed as "a fool." That has gone on too much around here. In the process, hopefully some have come to realize what I suggested above about how NGLA was an example of the right way to create a golf course.
Would the certainty of one date of one land transaction over another, change anything about our understanding of the growth of the course or CBMs role in the devlopment?
It might keep an accurate understanding from being distorted and in the process lead to a more accurate understanding of the time period.
-
The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.
Do we have good reason to believe that Behr would truly know all this to be true? Or is he relaying what he has been told after the fact?
-
Do we have good reason to believe that Behr would truly know all this to be true? Or is he relaying what he has been told after the fact?
Would he truly know? I guess it depends upon what you mean. He certainly seems to have been much better situated to comment on the situation than Mike. CBM tells the same basic story as Behr, and this in and of itself is very good reason to believe both Behr and CBM!
If you are asking whether Behr was actually there when these decisions were being made, I don't know, but I doubt it. I can't remember the source offhand, but there is at least one random report linking Behr to the creation of NGLA, but I've never been able to confirm his direct involvement. But he was a friend of CBM's and the editor who published CBM's and HJW's "Representative American Golf Holes" series. He was a respected writer and wrote about what happened early on at NGLA on numerous occasions. He was a well respected writer and knew and was friends with the main parties involved. He was in the know enough to have been included in the first tournament at NGLA.
So I'd say he probably didn't know first hand, but that he most likely got his information directly from those involved, since his version is corroborated by CBM's and the vast majority of everything we know! (I find it interesting that he even cited the correct acreage.)
-
David,
Where does CBM say he routed the course in a couple of days or or did a rough sketch or that the course laid itself out?
Where exactly are the stories of the two men identical exactly?
CBM in December 1906 tells us something very different...why do you think he's being made to look foolish?
That preposterous...this thread has exalted him...it's silly, cheap caricatures that minimize his efforts that I think detract from his very real and very singular accomplishments.
-
David,
Where does CBM say he routed the course in a couple of days or or did a rough sketch or that the course laid itself out?
This stuff requires a modicum of common sense as well as a good faith willingness on the part of the reader to actually try and understand the point the author was trying to make. As has often been the case, you fail to meet either requirement.
1. Behr was NOT being literal when he noted in parentheses that the course "really laid itself out to a large extent." The course wasn't really out there marking off greens, tees and bunkers, or building them. No matter how spectacular the land, courses are not literally self-creating.
The point Behr was trying to make was that the ground CBM had chosen was extremely conducive to golf, and once CBM had already found the suitable territory and then been over the land to work out the rough routing using all of the best features of the landscape including the features such as the Alps, the redan, the cape, etc., then much of the work of laying out the course on the ground already done. An Alps hill did not have to be built because it had been found. Likewise for the Redan, Cape, the location for the Eden, the Sahara, etc.
2. Likewise, Behr was NOT being literal when he when he wrote, "the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape." The routing may or may not have been literally sketched out (roughly or otherwise) but the point Behr was making was that CBM figured out the rough routing "using all the best features of the landscape" BEFORE he bought the property.
3. I never said anything about CBM routing the course in a couple of days and neither did Behr! Why do you just make garbage like this up? It is ridiculous.
The kind of intentional obliviousness and misinterpretation you display in your question above is the central reason why these threads have become such a waste of time.
Where exactly are the stories of the two men identical exactly?
I am not sure what "exactly . . . identical exactly" means, but I am sure I never used the words "identical" or "exactly" when comparing the two version. I wrote, "CBM tells the same basic story as Behr," and I explained how the stories were the same. Both involved CBM finding the right landscape, then roughly routing the course using the best features, and then finally purchasing the property containing the course he had roughly routed, or as Behr said, the course he had roughly sketched out. Again, you seem to be intentionally obfuscating the issue by misrepresenting what I wrote.
CBM in December 1906 tells us something very different...
Not so. In December 1906 CBM provided many details about his routing of the course and of the property itself, more than enough to convince a reasonable reader that he already had a rough idea of the course at this point. And when read in conjunction with Scotland's Gift and everything else we know, this becomes even more apparent. But then, this assumes that the reader will use common sense, and make a good faith effort to understand what was meant given the entire context, not just run with a few out of context (and often misquoted) sentences.
why do you think he's being made to look foolish?
Despite your attempts (only some of which have been outlined above) CBM hasn't been made to look foolish because some of us have been steadfast in setting the record straight. Hopefully, the one thing that may have come from this is that by now everyone (including you) must now realize how absurd some of those characterizations have been.
That said, the attempts above have made you and your friends look foolish. Unfortunately, by playing along I've undoubtedly made myself look foolish as well.
That preposterous...this thread has exalted him...it's silly, cheap caricatures that minimize his efforts that I think detract from his very real and very singular accomplishments.
The "silly, cheap caricatures" are the ones you and your friends have foisted on us, and some of them (there are many more) are accurately listed above. These latest misrepresentations are just a continuation of those caricatures.
-
David,
Thank you for that thorough and detailed breakdown. As I said before, I am ultra-appreciative of the dedication the long-time posters, no matter what disagreements or debates ensue.
Mike,
Same goes for you - just the post beginnings and many of the articles and tableaux that have been posted are fascinating.
Full disclosure:
I'm one of those guys who would call CBM the Father of American GCA, not because of exclusivity, but because George Bahto's book has the perfect title - he was the evangelist. I think by dint of his associations with the Scottish masters of the first Open era, it was CBM who was the first American to get it in his mind that America "needs" this - or at the very least, he needed to have it in America, if only for his own pleasure.
Right there, I'm making the case for the dark side of CBM, the ego. He was a brash and self-aggrandizing cuss. His behavior, or instigation, in those first US tournaments is proof enough for me on that crappy side of his personality. He couldn't help but always want to be in the conversation, he felt some ownership of the conversation.
I have none of the decisive provenance many of you fellows have put forward, even if some pieces end up being contextual, and not seven-ways-to-Sunday redundant fact. Still my view is that Charlie had his hands in everybody's pie, when there was such a small and clustered pie to carve up. I think he insinuated himself into golf conversations and stewardship, even where he had no proprietary part and NGLA was another way - ends up being a brilliant iteration - to make sure everyone knew his authority.
He had an honest inspiration claim and he wished that it would be a hegemony. Of course, the dynamics of a spreading, founding sport do not allow for such hegemony and so the patina of his memory make him seem as much braggart as genius.
I would like to think of it this way; of the early American founders he was the one most in tune with Scottish lineage and knew the most about the architectural values of Scottish courses, and gave them the most thought and study. Like clubs, balls, and rules, these needed importing too and in a meaningful way Charlie was an effective tradesman in their worth.
I'd wager he saw or looked for Scottish and European values of the courses he played and studied in every piece of land he looked at OR was given to work with. The National "opportunity" was a unique one to put a fine point on that; one that satisfied ancillary or accidental needs as well as the core values and hole templates he saw with his eye - with an opportunity to tweak multiple play and aesthetic values into a unique form, like the Cape.
Again, I thank those who do the work on this. i'm fascinated by the level of detail all uncover and me picking a winner is irrelevant, because I don't think I'll ever be an architect, I probably will never play National ever again - but I may write about these topics and this is an avenue of inquiry that is nutritious for that effort.
cheers
vk
-
V. Kmetz,
I agree with much of what you wrote but think perhaps the "dark side" of CBM gets overplayed, at least around here.
You mention "his behavior, or instigation, in those first US tournaments" as "proof enough" of the "crappy side of his personality." I assume you are referring to the two 1894 national championship tournaments at St. Andrews and Newport, and the story in George's book and elsewhere about CBM throwing a hissy fit after losing the Newport tournament and forcing those in charge into holding a second, 'do over' national championship tournament at St. Andrews, NY, then pulling the same thing after losing there. Thus essentially forcing the creation of the USGA in large part to hold a third tournament and to try and put the reigns on CBM's ego.
It makes for a great story and one I've seen told many times here and elsewhere. But like many great old golf legends, I suspect that while there is some truth to it there is also quite a bit that perhaps ought to be written off to creative license. As I understand it (based on what I have gleaned from contemporaneous accounts) the controversy actually arose before either tournament took place, with both clubs claiming to hold the national championship. And the pre-tournament controversy involved not just he setting but also the format (match play vs. stroke play) as well as with the respective fields. And there were calls for some sort of national unification to deal with such matters before either tournament was played.
Anyway, no doubt CBM was imperfect man, and maybe there is some truth to this particular legend, but we need to take all of this stuff with a grain of salt.
-
VKmetz,
I'm very glad that you see the value in these threads despite the disagreements that sometimes ensue. If nothing else, it does exemplify the passion some of us feel on these topics.
And please don't mind David...I think he feels if he doesn't throw in a personal insult to me in each and every post of his I'll stop loving him. Either that or I'm the only one he has left to argue with now that Tom Paul has moved on. ;) ;D
David,
Let's not bring Merion into this again. That's not what this thread is about.
Unless you're finally prepared to document ANY evidence of CBM's supposed invovlement with that club between July to November 15 of 1910 (by which time you say the course was fully routed), then I think we've fully exhausted that topic.
Let's keep it to Charles Macdonald and the approach he used to build his ideal course, because it's been fascinating and educational.
-
Either that or I'm the only one he has left to argue with now that Tom Paul has moved on.
He has?? Because I've got a junk mail bin full emails suggesting otherwise. Rather than moving on, he seems to have simply gone underground. And judging by the subject matter lines on those unread messages he is still as glued to gca.com and as focused on his petty vendettas as ever. Perhaps he should take his talents to treatment.
David,
Let's not bring Merion into this again. That's not what this thread is about.
Of course it is! That is how and why it started. And every other similar thread you have started has been about Merion as well. You couldn't even resist trying to tenuously tie it back to Merion in your answer to V above. Go back and read your own pitiful attempt at an "IMO" part way through this thread if you don't think this is about Merion!
Unless you're finally prepared to document ANY evidence of CBM's supposed invovlement with that club between July to November 15 of 1910 (by which time you say the course was fully routed), then I think we've fully exhausted that topic.
Typical Cirba. Insert Merion into the conversation, then claim you don't want to talk about Merion while at the same time drawing some asinine conclusion blatantly misrepresenting my position about Merion. Obviously, you plan to continue talking about Merion. You just don't want me talking about Merion.
Let's keep it to Charles Macdonald and the approach he used to build his ideal course, because it's been fascinating and educational.
I am sure it has been fascinating and educational for you, but then with all of your comical portrayals of CBM over the past few years, you have had the most to learn by far. For some of us it has been endless hours of remedial discussions trying to stop you and your pals from blatantly misrepresenting the history of golf course design in America. Hardly a productive or necessary use of anyone's time.
Seriously, have you ever paused to consider how absurd most of these claims were? What have you learned about your approach by all of this? Anything at all? Let's take just one. Surely you recall your endless insistence that in 1910 CBM and HJW weren't well-known for gca in 1910? After all this, what do you think of your claim? Would you like to amend that? Have you learned anything about CBM and HJW that has changed your opinion on this particular issue?
-
VKmetz,
Along the same lines regarding those 1894 tournaments, according to the NYSun (October 13, 1894) during the first day of the St. Andrews tournament (before CBM's loss in the finals) it was announced that "a golfing association composed of all of the clubs in the United States would be formed" that fall, with Theodore Havemeyer as the President. Reportedly, the new association would draft the rules for the playing of the next championship and choose the sites of the championship contests. This was a couple of months before the meeting between the five clubs at which the USGA was formed.
-
David,
That sure was a lot of talknig about Merion for you not to talk about Merion.
Sheesh...stick to the topic at hand if you still have no evidence of any CBM activity there in the second half of 1910, please.
You're the guy who told us the course was fully routed by November 15th, 1910 when they secured the land, not me. I agree completely that this position is "asinine" based on the evidence, but that's probably where our agreeement stops. Let it go.
I would think this whole thing would be very educational for you, as well.
-
David,
That sure was a lot of talknig about Merion for you not to talk about Merion.
Sheesh...stick to the topic at hand if you still have no evidence of any CBM activity there in the second half of 1910, please.
You're the guy who told us the course was fully routed by November 15th, 1910 when they secured the land, not me. Let it go.
I would think this whole thing would be very educational for you, as well.
You are confused Mike. You are the one pretending not to be talking about Merion, not me.
So far as I know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910. But of you cant even get that right without misrepresenting me. It is all set out in my IMO (or at least it was before it got garbled.) Despite many empty promises, no competent rebuttal has ever been brought forward or published.
Now will you answer my questions about CBM in the last paragraph above?
-
David,
I shouldn't have used the word phrase, dark side, that was flimsy on my part. And I think it WAS totally overblown and over emphasized right from the beginning.
I don't have my library nearby at present, but after reading some writers like Wind and Sommers (The US Open Story) in blend with other accounts, I think much of Charlie's rep from that time took on the patina of gossip as fact. Nobody's fault, just a small group of original competitors and patrons who would naturally take disparate views and those views leach into the realm of the reality we deal with 100-115 years later.
Scotlands Gift is just about my favorite book ever, for Golf and even in a general literary sense I think of it as meaningful as Caesar's Commentaries. And even in that labor-of-love autobiography, I intuit that there's something about Charlie that made him want to say, "I loved her first."
cheers
vk
-
David,
I understand some of your frustrations with Mike, as his arguments have veered all over the map on this. That said, and with all due respect, I gotta call BS on these:
So far as YOU know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910?
Then, you know wrong. Or at least, you can only SUSPECT that Merion was routed by then. But, no documents have ever come forward proving it, and that is not really any different than some of the cases Mike or others make.
"Despite many empty promises, no competent rebuttal has ever been brought forward or published. "
Hard to rebut a proposition that is forwarded by one person, but without facts to back it up, isn't it? If you don't think your Merion theory hasn't been pretty well disgarded by most, if not all, then you really just aren't listening and willing to accept others opinions.
Like Mike says, bring forth ANY documentation of CBM's involvement other than what is known, and we will all hail you as the greatest historian ever, and applaud your intuitiveness (even more actually, I do respect your intelligence and agree with you on many of these historic matters). Right now, we are just asking you to hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others to.
Given VK was asking some back story and seems to be too new to remember all the old wounds, I just figured we should let him know you have a wounded dog in this supposed fight, too.
All the best.
-
V was doing just fine and and certainly doesn't need you coming in here in pretending to set the record straight. You obviously come with a chip on your shoulder and aren't really all that concerned with what really happened, and he just might be. You do him a disservice by misleading him.
As for your opinion of my essay, you've now expressed your it almost as many times as your buddies, and each time is as substantively empty as the last. If you or they disagree with anything in my essay, then by all means make your case. But do so in a coherent and comprehensive manner, addressing all the issues. That is what I did, and what you and they have consistently failed to do. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
Hard to rebut a proposition that is forwarded by one person, but without facts to back it up, isn't it? If you don't think your Merion theory hasn't been pretty well disgarded by most, if not all, then you really just aren't listening and willing to accept others opinions.
It is easy to rebut a errant proposition without any facts backing it up. But is hard to rebut a reasonable theory when it is backed up by facts and when it provides the most logical and likely explanation of what happened. That is the situation here.
Like Mike says, bring forth ANY documentation of CBM's involvement other than what is known, and we will all hail you as the greatest historian ever, and applaud your intuitiveness (even more actually, I do respect your intelligence and agree with you on many of these historic matters). Right now, we are just asking you to hold yourself to the same standards as you would hold others to.
This is rich. "What is known" is only known because of my essay. The main body was made up of something like 24 or 25 separate sections, every one of which contained new information about Merion which had never before been brought forward, and the vast majority of this information has proven true and accurate.
Yet to you I am still one document short of making a convincing case? I could raise CBM and Hugh Wilson from the dead and have then sign notarized statements, and you guys would claim it was just CBM bragging and Hugh Wilson being polite.
Bottom line his that you are just here defending your buddies and trying to take some more shots at me. You aren't interested in what really happened. You really should quite pretending that you are.
-
So far as I know, Merion was roughly routed before November 15, 1910. But of you cant even get that right without misrepresenting me. It is all set out in my IMO (or at least it was before it got garbled.
"So far as I know"??
"roughly"??
I have no idea what this backpedaling actually means but it sounds like at least you now at least kinda, sort of, so far as I know admit that your essay was wrong in those respects.
As far as times I've been wrong about CBM or other matters, I've openly admitted it. It sounds like you're starting to do the same, so perhaps there is a chance of progress here after all.
-
David,
I certainly wasn't trying to anger you, but simply point out facts, or at least perspective. If I am doing VK a disservice, then I might add that you are doing a disservice almost any time your posts focus on telling us what Mike thinks, we should think, etc.
EDIT: BTW, I meant to ask you what you mean that "your essay has become garbled?"
I did think your Merion theory was "reasonable" but later came to believe it wasn't what actually happened. And, as I recall it, it later turned up that other than the mis timed theory of Hugh Wilson's trip, most of what you wrote was actually known by Merion, albeit, they seemed to prefer downplaying CBM's role more than you would like, or more than modern historians might.
As to making my case against your theory about CBM routing the course between his June visit (where he had no maps) and Nov 15, 2010 here it is: There are no documents suggesting this, and other documents suggesting he aided the Merion committee in March 1911, so the contemporaneous records suggest that your theory isn't true. I mean, what else do you think we need to do to rebut your theory? I think that covers it (and in many other debates, you would also have argued that it would, too, if presented by Mike or others)
So just to point out some of the factual errors in your last post, which you try to cover with indignity and disgust:,
Most of what you wrote about Merion was known, and simply rediscovered,
I am in fact very interested in what happened at various famous courses, and not defending my buddies at all.
My disagreements with you have nothing to do with friendships, allegiances, etc. It is a fact based disagreement in that no documents tying CBM to the Merion process between June and Nov 1910 exist to back up your theory. And yet, if I could, I would try to produce those documents, because I am interested in it, no matter who turns out to be right on that.
Again, I am not angry at anyone, but I do think your last post is clearly misleading as to what went down in those threads about that course that we are not talking about out loud, but really are talking about under the guise of talking about another course......just wanted to clear this whole scenario up for the newcomers. I think my last sentence does that pretty well!
-
Mike Cirba,
I am not backpedaling on anything. No need to. I often wonder if you ever bothered to read past the synopsis preceding my essay. If you did read it, you certainly didn't understand it and still don't. Why am I not surprised?
If you, Jeff Brauer, or any of your cronies have anything to say about my essay, then put it in a coherent and comprehensive work addressing everything. That is what I did, but what you and your cronies have been unable to do, for obvious reasons. Don't cherry pick things out of context like you do above or base your comments on artificially narrow constraints like Jeff does. Address it all. Everything. That is what I did. I'll be glad to review it and I will surely give it more of a fair shake than you and your buddies my work.
____________________________
Jeff Brauer,
1. It is a bit late in the game for you to start pretending to be a neutral and objective observer. What about the endless jabs, insulting lectures, and the sarcastic screeds and over-the-top attacks which even you have admitted went way too far? What of the childish and petty games you and you buddy have played with my reputation? What of the harsh criticisms of posts of mine when you hadn't even bothered to read them? Quit playing the righteous, objective, innocent here. While you are certainly self-righteous, you are neither objective or innocent in any of this.
2. As for your question, my IMO and others were garbled by one of system updates a couple of years ago, and are hardly readable. Had you ever bothered to look at my IMO in the past few years, you'd know what I am talking about! Yet here you are discussing its merits. Further confirmation that your pontifications aren't really based on anything in it.
3. Likewise, for your "making your case against my theory." There is a hell of a lot more to my "theory" than you let on, and while your proffer may satisfy your standards, it doesn't even come close to addressing even this small portion you confuse with my overall theory. But then you never bothered much with the "factual" part of factual analysis anyway.
4. When I ask you to make your case, I mean make your entire case. Address everything. Comprehensively and in context. Don't just throw out some b.s. about a few months while ignoring everything that happened before and after. And I am not going to argue it here, Jeff. No more of this piecemeal crap. If you want to make your case, then make your entire case. Address my entire essay once and for all. I came up with a coherent and cohesive statement of my position in my IMO. Surely it isn't too much to ask the same of you and your cronies.
Besides, you apparently forgot about the infamous "Drexel Documents." Remember? At the time your buddy took his talents underground, he had never come clean about his oft repeated claims (on and off the website) that he had found documents from the exact time period you mentioned and they established CBM's involvement throughout that time period. But of course you claimed that your buddy WAS BLATANTLY LYING. Or rather, you claimed that HE TOLD YOU HE WAS LYING TO TRY AND MAKE A FOOL OF ME. As I recall, you not only stood by your friend, you even had the nerve to publicly scold me for giving him the benefit of the doubt! How does that gel with your claims that your posts to me have nothing to do with your puppy-like loyalty to your buddy, the one you claim is a liar? What a joke!
By the way, have you ever figured it out? Was your friend lying to you when he told you he was lying to me? Or was he lying to me and the rest of Ran's website when he told us about these documents? Or were you lying when you said he told you that he was lying to me in order to try to make a fool of me? My, what a tangled web.
5. Your recollections about my essay are inaccurate, to put it mildly. I might have thought you were intentionally misrepresenting my essay, but that would have taken some actual familiarity with in on your part, and you don't seem to be at all familiar with it. Your comments remind me of how, for post after post, you harshly criticized my detailed and posts on the origins of Shinnecock Hills. Then you finally admitted that you hadn't even ever bothered to read the posts in question! Of course you were sticking up for your buddy then as well. Yet more evidence of your neutrality and impartiality when it comes to disagreements between me and your crony.
Just so we have have this straight, you have read my essay, haven't you? Obviously you haven't even looked at it in a couple of years, but did you even bother to read it when it first came out? Or did you get stuck in the synopsis like Mike? Are you pulling the same thing you pulled on the Shinnecock thread here?
As an aside, if you never got around to reading those you Shinnecock posts, you should read them. They were pretty damn interesting. Same goes for my IMO, if Ran would ever puts it back together again. You should read it.
How's that fit in with your claim that you really are interested in the history of these old clubs? Shouldn't you have at least read the posts if you were so interested?
-
I didn't want this last part getting lost at the bottom of above post. Unlike the usual nonsense from Jeff, Mike and their buddies, this next part I do really care about . . .
6. Jeff, your claim that Merion already knew most of what was in my essay is straight out of your buddy's talking points! If you are going to claim neutrality here, you at least ought to try and write your own material.
More importantly, your buddy's claim to that effect is an absolute LIE. There was very little in my essay that had every been understood or brought forward before, at least in the past half century. Your buddy and his writing partner had proclaimed themselves the living experts on the history of the course but they hadn't ever bother to do the research.
- Had it all been known before, then Wayne wouldn't have needed to plead with me to digitize and send him all my source material in the days following my IMO. Imagine me having to send him letters from Merion's board, the Nov. 15th map, substantial portions of the club secretary's scrapbook, etc. from Los Angeles when it was all right under his nose!
- Had it all been known before I wouldn't have had to explain to Wayne in great detail how the various real estate transactions went down. (Wayne thought that Merion had purchased about half-the-county in 1907 but he was looking at a conveyance that that had nothing to do with Merion or Merion's land! TEPaul dishonestly posted that he had documents proving that Merion controlled the land starting in 1909, and then he chastised me for questioning him about it!)
- Had it all been known before then the Barker routing wouldn't have been news. We'd have been talking about it for years! (Or does Wayne's ridiculous claim that maybe he had known about that at one time, but must have slipped his mind, count as Merion knowing all the time?)
- And how about the NGLA meeting? Merion's self-appointed experts had long claimed that these meetings had nothing to do with planning the course, and that they had occurred long before the course was planned! They also claimed that about all they discussed at the meeting was Hugh Wilson's pending tour of the courses abroad! It was my IMO that pointed out that the NGLA meeting was crucial to the planning of the course, and that it occurred at a crucial point in the planning process, and that the focus of the meeting was planning the layout of the course! In fact, here is about about the only influence your buddies the self-appointed experts would admit: To them CBM was essentially a glorified travel agent who helped Wilson plan his trip! And your buddies weren't the only ones!
But the list goes on. Your buddies had no idea of the reasons Merion's Board gave for the move, and they still don't accept the reasons. They had no idea who was behind Haverford Development Company or its crucial role in bringing about the creation of the course, or the extent of the real estate angle. And they had absolutely no idea about the various machinations of the land deals, including the crucial Dallas Estate deal. They had no idea the role Lloyd played. They had no idea that it was Merion's Golf Committee who brought in CBM and HJW to inspect the land; that, according to Merion's Board, the land purchased was based upon CBM's and HJW's recommendations; that it was CBM who recommended they use the land behind the clubhouse that they leased rather than purchasing; that CBM remained involved throughout; that CBM and HJW returned to Merion at Merion's request to finalize the plans for the layout that they had been working on for the past half year!
And Jeff, we are still on the first page of my essay! To list all that they did not know understand would be to write out my entire essay.
In short, your buddy and his writing partner aren't being honest when they pretend they knew it all before, or even that Merion knew it all before! Sure at the time all this was happening 100 years ago Merion was aware of it, but what had happened became long lost in the legend. Your buddies may have had access to source material which ought to have made it clear, but they had never figured it out. They had no clue. Just like Hugh Wilson's 1916 Chapter. It was right in front of them but they had no idea what it meant! They still don't, apparently.
There is of course another alternative. It is possible that your buddies have been blatantly lying to us for a decade about what Merion knew and didn't know! Having dealt with both of them, I wouldn't put it past either. But they can't have it both ways, and it is too late for your buddies to claim they knew all along.
More than that, it is despicable that they are pretending to have known all along and that they pretending to have figured it out for themselves. It is despicable that they cannot even give credit where credit is due. And, loyal friend or not, it is despicable that you play along with them, and passing along their misrepresentations to others as if true.
-
David,
Good evening. I would implore you to stop insulting us by telling others how we should act or think. I am speaking specifically to your request above to write out some sort of comprehensive rebuttal to your IMO piece. Really, I don't need 1000's of words to make my point, as the former lawyer in you appears to need. Here it is again:
To date (101 years later) there are absolutely no documentation of CBM being involved in Merion's design between June-Nov, 1910. True of False?
You have on many occasions said "Having contemporaneous documentation is the "gold standard" for historical research. True of False?
With no documents supporting that position, I have concluded it is false, much like you would probably conclude that one of my, or Mike’s, or Wayne’s, or TePaul’s positions, based on “reasonableness” would be false. You have railed my opinions, but never actually said they were false. You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions.
As to making a more detailed case, you will recall that in one of myself professed "over the top" posts to you, I also laid out where the foundation of your essay went wrong - you quoted the documents, and in the next PP, you cleverly and purposely changed key words like "approximate acreage" to "exact acreage" among others, and then you were off to the races. So, the rest of your “logic based argument” (as opposed to source based argument) is tainted because the beginning is wrong. Anyone interested can look those posts up.
For the record, I have read your piece on more than one occasion, and have agreed that it was quite respectful in tone towards the club, and not deserving of some of the crap you took. Your piece uncovered some new truths and had some value, which was lost in the battles between you and others.
I don't believe most of the negative attributions and character assassinations you have presented on this site about others. I understand your frustrations with TePaul, but it is really an insult for you to call me despicable puppet, and also post falsehoods about me to make your point.
The rest of your crap doesn't deserve an answer. Looking at the bright side, we do agree on your post a while back that this kind of crap is a waste of time.
I won't post on Merion related items in this thread again, but did enjoy setting the record straight for the newcomers.
-
Jeff Brauer,
If David hadn't posted his White Paper, Wayne Morrison wouldn't have visited the MCC archives and found pertinent information that hadn't been presented.
As to Merion having knowledge of everything David brought forth, even their website had Wilson's overseas trip incorrect, so I don't buy into that.
You may recalll Mike Cirba fighting vehemently to prove that Wilson sailed when they said he did, even after David provided the ship manifest proving otherwise.
I don't think David ever posited that his white paper was infallible.
The truth is that more is known about Merion due to David posting his white paper.
You might also recall that some, including myself, fought David on the issue of CBM's early involvement and the original 10th hole being an "Alps" hole. Wayno even went on site and measured the hole, attempting to disprove David. I posted replies disputing David, but, when he or someone else posted pictures clearly showing an "Alps" or faux "Alps", I had to concede that David was correct on that issue. There were other template holes that reflected CBM's influence, direct or indirect. Chances are, unless there's a new discovery, we'll never know.
Like many threads, more is known at the conclusion of the thread than at the begining and I think that's a beneficial bi-product, an asset to GCA.com and participants and lurkers whose hobby or passion is in golf course architecture.
-
Pat,
I agree we know more about Merion due to the IMHO piece, despite all the unpleasantness that transpired. I guess that just goes with the internet territory. That is why I said the piece had value, and despite what David has said from time to time, I have never simply sided with the Philly crowd in all aspects, including this thread where I have repeatedly said I disagree with most of Mike's third site or any theory that morphed from that.
-
Mike,
If I understand your position correctly (not sure I do) are you saying that on November 1 that CBM was still considering the Canal site (as well as Montauk) and that his offer on 120 acres was rejected some time after Nov 1.
You've pointed out many times that CBM originally in 1904 mooted 110 acres for the golf course, and he subsequently wrote that he offered on a 120 acre site for the golf course near the Canal. We KNOW that the course as built occupies a little more than 200 acres. When do you suppose he figured out that his ideal golf course wasn't going to fit on 110 to 120 acres, and he really needed 75% more space than he originally planned? If he was offering on 120 acres in early November and "securing" 205 of 450 acres in mid-December, I presume you think that he figured it out between mid-November and mid-December 1906. What caused the epiphany, do you suppose?
Bryan,
I also find it odd that you're willing to accept the October 15th article as having some basis in fact, particularly in terms of an agreement of some sort (which was not repeated in any other NYC paper), but are in the Muccian camp of discounting others, lumping them all into the "news articles are crap" bin. My post that you've quoted below was not about the October article or lumping all news articles in the crap bin. It was about trying to figure out what I thought were the ramifications of various facts and assertions that you've made.
Are we going to do that here, or are we going to use higher standards of discernment to see what facts that we know support which articles?
I do find it funny as Jeff said, how that worm has turned here compared to other threads where news articles were held to be virtually infallible, and worthy of changing attribution records of major club courses. I assume this lecture is generic and not particularly aimed at me
In any case, let me try to answer your questions, although some is admitted speculation.
First, I doubt that NGLA as built was over 200 acres of golf course. I recall David measuring it some time back and estimating that it was around 165-170 acres today.
Here's a drawing from back then...it certainly doesn't seem to take up the entire shaded 205 acres, does it? You're assuming that the shaded area of the following graphic represents 205 acres. How do you know it does? The area of the golf course proper (as close to the outside edges of the fairways as the course stands today) is about 175 acres. The area to the east of the 17th hole and north of the 18th tee is about 27 acres. That leaves about 3 acres total to provide a thin strip of rough along the outside edges of the course.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5517268239_d01e3d6a51_b.jpg)
In fact, CBM himself told us that he didn't use all of the land he bought for the golf course in his 1912 Letter to the Founders, under the heading, "Surplus Land". He refers to his original Agreement (also reproduced here) where he thought there would be land enough left over for 1.5 acre building lots, which didn't turn out to be the case, obviously.; I assume that the surplus lands he was referring to were the 27 acres to the east of the 17th green and north of the 18th tee. The northern part appears to have been pond and swamp in that era.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/5393591181_1ebcc650fa_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/5393591317_453fabf519_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5394188704_6232559b87_b.jpg)
This was nothing unusual. Even by 1915 Max Behr wrote about the amount of land needed for a golf course and talked about the variables of land shape and routing that would play into that determination. He seems to say that although more is better, about 120 acres of so will work in most cases.
CBM himself also told Merion they could build a first-class course on 120 acres, so we know it was in the range of what he thought. I accept that at some stage he thought 110 to 120 acres was enough for the course. In the end he used about 50% more.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5489475609_eebfe7f59c_b.jpg)
Nevertheless, we know golf course when completed took up more space than the 110-120 acres CBM himself estimated and wrote that he'd need.
I think this is due to a few reasons.
First, we know that CBM's primary focus was the golf course. I'm not sure he ever really wanted to build lots for his Founders at all, but probably saw that as a necessary incentive to gaining enough Founding members and seed money to build his dream course.But, he's still carrying on the charade to some degree in 1916. There's no ooops, I made a mistake, and there's only 27 acres for lots; just a note that there is some surplus land and they can figure out what to do with it sometime later..
So, I don't think he shed many tears in scrapping that part of his plan, probably figuring that he could financially compensate them in some other way once things were up and running. He's still paying lip service to the housing lot plan in 1916. When do you suppose he scrapped the idea in his own mind?
I also think that once he scrapped that idea it really opened up the whole playground for him, and gave him unique opportunities to create width and expanse that was beyond probably what he even envisioned at first. Playing into that however, was the fact that some of the land was not quite as good as CBM originally hoped, and a lot of dirt was brought in, and swampy areas attempted to be filled, with some of it remaining not very good for golf, and probably not for building lots either.
One other thing that I don't think he estimated was exactly how wide he'd need to make his fairways to accommodate "safe" avenues of play for short hitters and high handicappers playing "around" his hazards. As such, today the width of some fairways is over 100 yards, which is HUGE, and the scale of the course is impressively huge.Which ones are 100 yards wide? Some may be wide, but look no more than 75 yards to me. Others are 35 yards.
So, as far as the timeframe for when this transition happened?
Personally, I think it happened over the course of the design and early construction phase in 1907 and into 1908.
I don't see any reason at all to think that CBM added 75% to his estimate between late 1905 and late 1906, nor do I believe that CBM thought the canal site would make a great golf course at 120 acres, but somehow he needed 205 at Sebonac Neck. It's a ridiculous contention, frankly.
I'm not making that contention. I was trying to understand your theories. Let me say again, as I understood YOUR theory, the October article was about the canal site which CBM has stated was 120 acres. Do YOU agree that that is YOUR theory - that the October article is about the 120 acre canal site? If so, do YOU believe that in October 1906 CBM thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres? Do YOU believe that when he made that offer that he had scrapped the Founders' lots idea? Whu do YOU think he then turned around a month and a half later and decided to buy 205 acres? Was it just to get the Founders' lots back in, or because he suspected he needed substantially (50%) more than 120 acres for the course?
In the end, as Max Behr said, enough land was purchased to incorporate all of the best natural features for golf and then "no concession was made to economy in the use of land." Once CBM scrapped his building lot plan, he certainly had a LOT to work with.
Interestingly, even in 1915 Behr wrote, "Even so, a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the golf course and is available for other purposes."
Do you think it was simply coincidence that CBM wrote in 1904 he needed 205 acres, was quoted during intervening years as looking for slightly over 200 acres, and purchased exactly 205 acres at the end of the day?
-
Patrick,
Wayne finally laid down his cards, and while some of the information from MCC was "pertinent," it certainly doesn't live up to its advanced billing. Mainly, the information confirmed that CBM was not only involved in the entire planning process, he chose the final routing, so if anything Wayne's trip to the sister club made my case all that much stronger. Other than that, there doesn't seem to have been much there there. Of course we may never know what they are still hiding from public purview.
In short, they have been bluffing this entire time. I guess that is why it was/is so important to try and ruin my reputation. Their proxy rebuttal is an absolute joke.
_______________________________________________________
Good evening. I would implore you to stop insulting us by telling others how we should act or think. I am speaking specifically to your request above to write out some sort of comprehensive rebuttal to your IMO piece.
Jeff, You implore all you like, and I'll keep imploring you and anyone else taking unprovoked and baseless pot shots at my essay to back up your spurious claims with a coherent and comprehensive critique, instead of the piecemeal sniping and endless character assassination.
Really, I don't need 1000's of words to make my point, as the former lawyer in you appears to need.
Gee, what a surprise. Another lawyer crack. What's next? One of your didactic lectures about all reasons you dislike me? Glad that none of this is personal for you.
As for me needing 1000's of words to make my point, consider yourself lucky; it could have been 1000s of pages without any apparent point. Besides, my IMO made dozens of points that had never been made before, and so I'd say was pretty brief for considering the depth of the content. Wait until you see Part II.
To date (101 years later) there are absolutely no documentation of CBM being involved in Merion's design between June-Nov, 1910. True of False?
You have on many occasions said "Having contemporaneous documentation is the "gold standard" for historical research. True of False?
The true-or-false approach to historical analysis? No thanks. You well know the whether I have access to such documents is by no means dispositive on this issue. Stop the grandstanding and cheap rhetorical ploys, or at least ask your buddies whether such documents exist. They are the ones playing games with the source material. Besides, aren't you the one who is always lecturing about such things fallacious reasoning, such as this sort of false choice? You should take your wikipedia cut and pastes to heart.
I'll be glad to address this argument and all other of your arguments when you put it all together in a coherent and comprehensive critique of my essay. Good luck with that.
With no documents supporting that position, I have concluded it is false, much like you would probably conclude that one of my, or Mike’s, or Wayne’s, or TePaul’s positions, based on “reasonableness” would be false. You have railed my opinions, but never actually said they were false. You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions
More fallacious logic, this time a false analogy, and some more personal insults and more lawyer bashing to boot! You are on a roll! Is this more of the part where it isn't personal for you? Amazing how you can admit that I am always honest in my posts, yet you still manage to try to paint me as a liar. Always classy.
As to making a more detailed case, you will recall that in one of myself professed "over the top" posts to you, I also laid out where the foundation of your essay went wrong - you quoted the documents, and in the next PP, you cleverly and purposely changed key words like "approximate acreage" to "exact acreage" among others, and then you were off to the races. So, the rest of your “logic based argument” (as opposed to source based argument) is tainted because the beginning is wrong. Anyone interested can look those posts up.
Are you kidding me? First, although the one to which you refer was rude, this wasn't even close to the over-the-top posts to which I referred. Second, you didn't address a damn thing in my IMO in the post to which you refer. All you did was cut-and-paste a wikipedia entry! I never made any such changes to my logic. If I did, address them in a coherent and comprehensive critique and I'll get back to you.
I don't believe most of the negative attributions and character assassinations you have presented on this site about others.
Of course you don't believe me, but then that is what friends are for.
But it is YOUR character assassinations that are at issue here, not mine. You are the one who CALLED YOUR BUDDY A LIAR, NOT ME. You do recall telling me that your buddy told you that there were NO Drexel documents, and THAT HE HAD MADE THE ENTIRE THING UP (AND KEPT IT GOING FOR MONTHS) IN ORDER TO TRY AND MAKE A FOOL OF ME? If I recall correctly, you told me this offline as well as online. I am sure I can find a record of it. (By the way, you are not alone. Others of his confidants supposedly said the same thing.)
So isn't it you who is assassinating his character by claiming he admittedly came up with the entire cynical and dishonest scheme to try and make a fool of me. And that he used Ran's website for months to serve his little scheme? And didn't you then come after me for taking him at his word, as if believing a word the man said was an absolutely absurd thing to do? What could be more a character assassination than the man's own friend scoffing at others who were dumb enough to believe him?
So don't try to pin it on me. All I want to do is figure out what happened.
Did he lie to all of us by making up these Drexel documents, as you claim he told you he did?
Or did he lie to you about lying to me, so he could sit on pertinent documents rather than confirming my only remaining thesis that yet to be definitively confirmed?
Surely you understand why I want to get to the bottom of this.
I understand your frustrations with TePaul, but it is really an insult for you to call me despicable puppet, and also post falsehoods about me to make your point.
I didn't post falsehoods about you. You, on the other hand, claimed that except for the bit about the timing of the Wilson trip about, your buddies had already known everything I uncovered. That is straight out of your buddy's talking points and it is an outright falsehood. I worked damn hard on that essay and about everything in it was novel information that had never been presented before and certainly wasn't understood by your cronies.
So if you want to recant and set the record straight, then do so. But if you want to stand by your false claim, then while "despicable puppet" is your terminology, it sure seems to fit.
I won't post on Merion related items in this thread again, but did enjoy setting the record straight for the newcomers.
I am sure you did enjoy it. You always enjoy taking shots at me, no matter how unfounded. But you by no means set the record straight, and you are by no means a neutral party in all of this. You are defending your pals, just like you always do.
Hopefully Ran will fix my essay then newcomers can evaluate my claims for themselves. They could even compare it to that long promised point-by-point counterpoint, but no one was ever able to come up with one.
-
David,
Well, good evening once again!
IMHO, endless gasbagging usually equates to no real answers. There were really just one simple yes or no question concerning the part of your essay that believes that CBM's involvment from June 1910 until March 1911 actually happened. Try to break down the faulty logic for me in the contention that No evidence = most likely not true?
Do you have evidence? I take it you don't, so I am still quite confident that on the point above, you are most likely wrong. As to your twisting words to make your theory, I stand by that and anyone can read it. Here is the relevant passage I mentioned:
Merion wrote:
"It is PROBABLE that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase." (emphasis mine)
Which you converted to:
"The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” SPECIFIC (emphasis mine) land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.
So you converted two words, which entirely changes the most likely meaning of the real document. Your essay is also full of your favorite phrases like "In all likelihood", "It seems unlikely", etc. etc. etc. which reduce my confidence that its a real historical document, despite the considerable research that went into it.
You also wrote:
"It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. "
That is a key statement, backed up with no facts, just your opinion. I don't consider the comparison to NGLA to be any proof that a different project with different players ended up the same way. At least, I have never seen two projects unfold identically.
In short, I am just not convinced of your premise of routing before they started the committee. I can see why you might feel that way, and perhaps others agree. Its an intellectual disagreement. I really don't see where I have attacked your character in these posts, but you have attacked mine, and I see no reason for that. I apologized for old transgressions and yes, have told it like it is about your approach (see above) where I think it afffects the truth of the matter.
Sorry to hear about your essay getting ruined. I read it once again in cut and pasting the parts above, and it wasn't obvious to me which parts had been omitted, but then, I don't have a perfect memory. Again, its good writing, and has some value. I just don't happen to agree for reasons stated about the main premise of CBM being involved before the documentation says he was.
Cheers and good night.
-
Jeff Brauer,
1. I have plenty of evidence, some of which is in the essay. It is not up to you to tell me what my evidence should be. You can accept my argument or not, but of course it was always a given where you stand.
(I love how you hold up your mild critique of Cirba's bizarre third site theory as evidence of your neutrality! Loyalty is one thing, but not even Cirba can stand by Cirba all the time, so it is hardly a valid example.)
2. As for the first passage to which you refer about the "nearly 120 acres," are kidding me? That is the big error in my essay? You don't like the way I used the term "specific?" What a joke! Not that it matters one bit, but I was referencing the fact that it was "nearly" 120 acres which matched perfectly the exact amount they set out to obtain which was more than 119 acres but less than 120. It is all there in proper context, but then you seem not not be able to deal with anything in context. Don't blame me for your shoddy comprehension skills.
3. You then quote my topic sentence about Merion choosing the course before purchasing the land, and laughably claim I offered no fact but just this opinion. To the contrary. This is exactly what a huge portion of my essay, probably the next six or seven sections of the IMO, was dealing with and set out to do! This is a farce and EXACTLY why I am done with this piecemeal crap. You are pulling sentences out of context and then blatantly misrepresenting them with a bunch of nonsensical b.s. which only demonstrates how little you understood about the essay.
And you wonder why I have implored you and others to stop with this garbage and address it in proper context? The pettiness of your piecemeal critiques does more than I ever could to make my point for me.
4. You now have the nerve to claim it is just an "intellectual disagreement." If that was the case, then why the hell did Cirba throw TEPaul into the mix? And why did he my essay asinine? And why did he falsely claim that there were no facts backing it up?
And why did you hop in? You were not only agreeing with him, you claimed yourself that I "knew wrong" and there were no facts backing up my theory. And why did you spout off some bogus crap about how my theory has been disregarded by most? Most who? You and your cronies? Give me a break. And why did you start throwing these phony conditions at me as if you could dictate exactly what I needed to prove to be correct?
It is quite clear from your posts that you didn't insert yourself into the conversation to explain that while you understand my point, we had an "intellectual disagreement" about the meaning of some of the facts! You were here to take some shots and grandstand about how I was wrong. Nothing "intellectual" about it!
5. You don't see your jabs to be an attack on my character? Do you believe your own b.s.?
How about when you write, "You are a clever lawyer, who parses words, and assassinates character with ease, but you are always careful to avoid telling a flat out lies, even as you work around the edges of the truth on many occasions."? Sounds to me like you are calling me f-ing liar who is too smart to get caught. With your friends that might be high praise, but it is pretty damn insulting to me.
Or how about when you accused me of "cleverly and purposely chang[ing] key words" to manipulate the discussion Again, maybe "cleverly and purposefully" misrepresenting the source material deserves high honor amongst your crowd, but I don't like being called a liar. Not even a clever liar.
And I am most insulted by your misrepresentations of what my essay did and did not establish. You are absolutely wrong when you claim that your buddies knew it all before. That is beyond intellectual disagreement. It is an outright, despicable falsehood.
6. In a perfect close, you immediately return to misrepresent my essay, ridiculously claiming that my "main premise" involved the timing of CBM's involvement, as if the fact some might think he planned the course a few months later defeats my claims! I don't give a damn whether he routed the course in the fall (which I believe he did) or whether he waited and to plan the course at the NGLA meeting and his follow-up visit when he chose the final routing. Either way, he was involved in the entire planning process and is the primary force behind the routing plan and the planned hole concepts!
7. Why won't you answer my questions about the Drexel documents? You are the one who started this nonsense about the time period which the alleged Drexel Documents supposedly clarify. Are you caught up the lies now, as well?
-
There's a reason I didn't want this discussion to be about the "M" word, even though guys like Patrick kept wanting to bring it back to that...ugh.
I guess he'd rather question my motives than try to show us how CBM magically routed NGLA in a day or two, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such a feat, and plenty of evidence including direct quotes from CBM to the contrary.
Perhaps it's easier to question people's motives than trying to defend the preposterous notion that CBM in 1906 located the exact 205 acres he needed specifically for his golf course, like a hand in a glove, even though the evidence clearly shows the CBM thought he needed much less than that for his golf course, and had intended on creating building lots for his Founders. Of course, then it's harder to explain why he made an offer previous for only 120 acres, or later told the M club that they could get by with only 120 acres, but rather than try to illustrate and bolster the ridiculous proposition that CBM first routed the golf course, and then secured the exact 205 acres he needed, when again the contemporaneous record and CBM's direct statements shows completely otherwise, we go off into the weeds arguing with people who aren't even on this website any longer.
Are we done with NGLA here? Anything further to add?
Because if this is going to turn into Merion Part XV I'm outta here...
Once we go down that road, it seems all logic goes out the window and highly intelligent people who should know better start making absurd statements like "CBM was involved in the entire planning process", which is both hysterically funny and historically farcical.
CBM visited the site under consideration in June of 1910 and didn't return again until April of 1911, TEN MONTHS later, AFTER ALL of the "planning process" was DONE. ;) ;D
Gary Player and Freddy Couples make more site visits and provide more hands-on planning.
So, I would "implore" others here to avoid the mistakes of the past and either stick to the topic at hand or move on because I think overall this thread has been an interesting and educational one and not needing to end in yet another insult-fest.
-
The routing may or may not have been literally sketched out (roughly or otherwise) but the point Behr was making was that CBM figured out the rough routing "using all the best features of the landscape" BEFORE he bought the property.
David, thanks, I think that is exactly the point. It certainly appears to me too that Behr is making that point--that CBM had his routing before he bought the property. But I wonder, as I asked before, if we really have good reason to suppose Behr would truly know such a thing or if he needed to rely on CBM. Guess we can't really know at this time. Mike and Pat and Jeff and Bryan, do you suppose that is true? That CBM had his routing pretty nailed down before he purchased the land?
(PS To all--Let's please drop all Merion references from this thread?---everyone involved here is pretty familiar with the old threads and wounds and insults and bad feeling and it is taking away from quite an interesting topic. Could we just let everyone who has already made their Merion comments have the last word and leave it at that (I know, I know)?)
-
Andy,
That question is really the crux of my interest here and I think there's plenty of evidence that CBM had a rough routing figured out with several specific holes located. My theory is that this gave him enough confidence in the exact boundaries to make the purchase although I doubt he had every tee and green located because the December articles do say he was going to spend months (5?) figuring those details out.
But, I don't think there is a concensus here...
-
David,
Good morning.
If your contention about CBM's involvement doesn't depend on him having routed the course prior to November 1910, and is only that he was more involved than Merion tended to give him credit for, then we really have no argument.
If you are still contending that CBM did route it before November, as your essay claims, then I still contend that such a theory goes against all the known contemporary documentation that shows he provided his design assistance in March and April 1911, and will do so until you or others provide contemporaneous documents to that effect. I don’t consider your essay portions starting with words like "In all likelihood" to be convincing, but rather a theory offered up by you for vetting.
You have called your IMHO piece a rough draft, subject to change. If you DON'T care or know if/when CBM routed it, or it now it “misrepresents” your feelings, or has been changed by Ran, then I would suggest you pull down or modify your IMHO piece, because as I read it, that is what it still says. I mean, a historian can only believe in one set of facts, no? It was routed in 1910 or 1911, but not both. If you have changed positions, this seems…….. (Dare I use the “D” word, given my distaste for it?)
To bring this somewhat back to NGLA, I have never fully understood the arguments that claim some of the different details would dismiss or enhance CBM’s involvement at MCC. However, it seems to center around your essay’s claim of the earlier routing before MCC secured the property, right? It was you, starting around post no. 62 that made sure we all knew that Mike was trying to discredit your essay. So, if you no longer contend he had to have routed it prior to the MCC option in Nov 1910, the point is somewhat moot, no?
I still see a lot of parallels between the two courses. CBM recommended 120 as he did on the canal site, when the developer would control the housing sites as would be the case at MCC. MCC maintained some “wiggle room” after securing the property, as was done by CBM on the final site, and most likely on the canal site of 120 acres. There are some differences, but that is to be expected on two separate projects. I also note that in both cases, it seems to have taken longer to get the property secured than we would like to think - June 1910 to December 1910 for MCC and June 1906 to December 1906 for NGLA.
Cheers.
-
Andy,
I think CBM told us exactly what he did and by when, and I'm not sure why others don't believe him.
At the time he secured 205 undetermined acres of the 450 acres available on that tract of land on Sebonac Neck, in December 1906;
1) He determined his starting (and ending) holes would be located near the Shinnecock Inn, which would serve as his clubhouse.
2) He had located great natural features for an Alps hole, and surprisingly to him, a nearby natural ridge for a redan hole.
3) He had determined to use a little inlet at the edge of Bulls Head Bay for 1) a site for an Eden hole with a forced water carry (differing from the original in that respect because CBM felt being able to roll the ball to the green on the original was a deficit he was looking to correct), and 2) an adjacent setting for what he felt was an original hole with a diagonal carry from the tee across water, his "Cape" hole.
4) I think it's also reasonable to assume that CBM would have wanted his course to run along some portion of Peconic Bay, which was 1.45 miles away from the Shinnecock Inn. I think his purpose would be two-fold...1) for purposes of beauty and drama ,and 2) to establish a yacht basin for his rich member friends. Because of the distance he had to traverse to get there, he was only able to use about a quater mile of the 2 miles of Peconic Bay coastline available within the 450 acres before having to turn the course "back" towards Shinnecock to the south.
5) He tell us, in quite detailed fashion, that he was going to spend the next several months figuring out the rest, including which holes and features to reproduce, as well as the yardages of the holes, after which he'd stake the exact 205 acres and complete his purchase, which took place in the spring of 1907.
6) We also know that CBM felt he'd need far less than 205 acres for golf, but ended up using a lot more land to build NGLA than his original estimates. Thankfully, his plan to create building lots for the members never came to fruition! ;) ;D
-
Andy,
OUr posts crossed. I think Behr used what CBM told him to write a mostly unrelated article.
I think we all know the basic NGLA sequence, and given it was a cooperative venture, not sure any more detail is required to understand it. I don't know if CBM had 4 or 18 holes routed prior to the final option in December and construction in spring. For that matter, we don't know if he had a "final routing" in earlier time frames, and then made last minute field changes even past the start of construction, do we? We don't know when that final 205 acres was settled.
As to wanting 80 for housing and ending up with 27 as Brian says, I can tell you that happens, especially when golf is the driver. Given it was his ideal project, working like Pete Dye and going off his original self limits of property is not unreasonable.
I do think that HJW relaying of the Sept pony rides strongly suggests the whole time frame started later than some suppose. It seems he would have jumped right in upon return from GBI in spring, and figuring out why it took longer might require some digging into CBM's work life as a stockbroker, or personal life to see if some other issues slowed down his quest.
-
Jeff,
Just a housekeeping footnote...CBM went abroad early in February 1906 and returned in June.
Here's an article from June 20th, 1906, and it also speaks to the acreage CBM was looking for;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5362495802_bcc6f611bb_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
My bad. I knew he left in spring and returned in June. Not trying to be disingenous or anything......
That article confirms he didn't start looking until June 1906 though.
-
Jeff,
This article from March 20th 1906, which shows a letter from abroad, also refers to the plan to incorporate Building Lots for the members in the overall plan;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5621610537_4b3e0f3e8f_o.jpg)
This one, from the same month, and written by HJ Whigham, goes into further detail about the plans for building lots, calling the plan 'ingenious", NOT disengenous! ;) ;D.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5367491456_38d6bdf150_o.jpg)
-
Also interesting that CBM is not feeling too anti-techology at least regarding the rubber core ball, saying as much skill is still required, if perhaps different. I kind of feel the same right now. Ground game may be gone, but a different skill set is introduced when new technology comes along. Probably equal difficulty, just different than it used to be.
-
Jeff,
You should be able to see it now, correct?
-
yes
-
Let me say again, as I understood YOUR theory, the October article was about the canal site which CBM has stated was 120 acres. Do YOU agree that that is YOUR theory - that the October article is about the 120 acre canal site? If so, do YOU believe that in October 1906 CBM thought he could build his ideal course on 120 acres? Do YOU believe that when he made that offer that he had scrapped the Founders' lots idea? Whu do YOU think he then turned around a month and a half later and decided to buy 205 acres? Was it just to get the Founders' lots back in, or because he suspected he needed substantially (50%) more than 120 acres for the course?
Bryan,
Yes, my theory is that the Canal Site offer happened in 1906, not 1905, and I believe the articles appearing in the Oct/Nov timeframe referred to those discussions/negotiations.
I also believe that CBM was well aware of the Sebonac Neck site at that time, and that the horseback ride likely took place in September as Whigham later wrote, but that the canal site was his preference.
I can't see any possible or plausible reason why CBM would have told folks at Garden City during the Lesley Cup matches (reported on November 1st, 1906) that he was trying to get the site in western Shinnecock Hills near Good Ground (the Canal Site) if it had already been refused, or if he preferred the Sebonac Neck site instead. Who was he going to fool? Alvord owned both properties.
I do think that at that time CBM still believed he could build his ideal golf course on 120 acres. I think he believed it throughout the entire purchase process...otherwise, why make an offer on 120 acres for the Canal Site in the first place?
And yes, I DO believe CBM wanted building lots for his Founders as it had been part of his initial plan and the plan for over 200 acres with building lots was referred to by Whigham in 1906 so it was still the plan at that time.
I think he dropped it for the Canal site, probably after realizing that there was no way Alvord would allow him to compete alongside him in that regard, so what was likely a 205 acre original offer was reduced to 120 during the negotiations, and later remembered and referenced by CBM in his book.
And yes, I do believe that once the Canal offer was refused and he made a subsequent offer on Sebonac Neck that he went back to his original strategy of needing 205 acres, realizing that there were no competing plans by Alvord for building sites there at the time.
I think it was only during the design and construction phases AFTER December 1906 that he ended up using considerably more than that, likely figuring that if he delivered first and foremost on a great golf course, some other economic reparation could be arranged with the Founders in lieu of the building sites.
As far as the widths of fairways CBM eventually used, here are some of them as I measured at their widest points;
#7 - 134 yards
#16 - 85 yards
#17 - 90 yards
#18 - 81 yards
#8 - 79 yards
#9 - 76 yards
#12 - 83 yards
This is particularly ironic as CBM himself wrote that his ideal course should have fairways that averaged 50-55 yards, and railed somewhat against the trend to wider fairways.
In the end, I think the fairways at NGLA average about 72 yards in width, which I believe was deemed necessary to create "safe", but longer avenues around hazards on holes such as 3, 7, etc.
Other holes such as 5 and 16 with their large bowls required more land for fairway because of landforms.
This doesn't answer the question in total, but I think at some point CBM just kept using more and more of the land available to him, until the whole question of building lots was no longer feasible.
-
Andy,
I would love to leave Merion out of this but I am not going to sit quietly while let these "gentlemen" inaccurately malign my hard work. If they had anything of substance to say they would put in an their own comprehensive and complete IMO, but they are obviously incapable of this, so the sniping continues.
________________________________________________________
There's a reason I didn't want this discussion to be about the "M" word, even though guys like Patrick kept wanting to bring it back to that...ugh.
If you didn't want this to be about Merion, then why the hell did you inject both Merion and your buddy TEPaul back into this? Why did you mischaracterize my essay, claim I had no facts backing it up, and refer to my theories as "asinine?" That is a lot of bullshit to heap into a conversation you claim isn't about Merion! As I said above, you obviously can't help but talk about Merion, you just don't want me to respond!
Look at the post to which I am responding, above, for example. In classic Cirban self-contradiction and duplicity, you cannot resist once again misrepresenting both my essay and the underlying facts on the matter, again conveniently forgetting the NGLA meetings and the evidence of communication between CBM and Wilson and Merion. But of course once you've said your piece, then the you "implore" the rest of us to drop the subject? I call "bullshit."
Or how about your warning us not to turn this into another "insult-fest" when a few lines before you were the one dishing out the insults, calling my statement about the tenure of CBM's involvement "absurd" as well as "hysterically funny" and "historically inaccurate" and drawing ridiculous comparisons to CBM and Gary Player? Almost as bad as when you compared your own experience to CBM's! Remember that abCirbaty?
Such commentary is not only extremely insulting, it is inaccurate. You are absolutely, unequivocally, and factually wrong with your ridiculously limited description of CBM's involvement. CBM was involved throughout the planning process whether you care to admit it or not, and the fact on this one aren't even in dispute. He was there when they chose the land, the first sign of Wilson involvement in the process was him consulting CBM and acting on CBM's advice! The next month Wilson was at NGLA with CBM working on the layout plan, and a few weeks later CBM was back at Merion choosing the final layout plan! CBM was involved throughout the entire planning process!
I guess he'd rather question my motives than try to show us how CBM magically routed NGLA in a day or two, even though there is absolutely no evidence of such a feat, and plenty of evidence including direct quotes from CBM to the contrary.
You've got a lot of nerve talking about questioning motives after the various witch-hunts you have lead! Or did you forget your long-running campaigns to impugn my motives based on entirely false information? The difference it is that I am not spreading petty gossip like you did when you were trying to falsely impugn my motives.
You are responsible for injecting Merion in here with your false representations of the facts and my position. If you want it to end then stop with your nonsense.
______________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
1. As usual you entirely missed my point and are instead taking it entirely out of context to serve your own purposes. I am not changing my position or recanting on my theory about what happened in the fall. I was objecting to your false characterization of my "main premise." So you twist my words and the context and then then call me disingenuous (whether or not you use the term) based on your twisting. This has become standard practice for you.
2. You are wrong about who injected Merion into this. It goes back to the previous threads and the Myopia thread where Mike left no doubt what this was about. But as usual, you cherry pick something out of context then run with it.
3. Why won't you answer my questions regarding the Drexel Documents? You told me that there were no Drexel Documents, and that TEPaul admitted to you that he made the whole thing up to try and make a fool of me. I am looking for some clarification here. Have you ever figured out whether he was lying to you or lying to me?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Andy,
While it was a good question, you'll get nowhere on the matter of whether CBM routed the course prior to purchasing the property. Mike and Jeff are just is cherry picking select words and phrases (some of which weren't even used) and ignoring everything else.
CBM told us the order things happened in Scotland's Gift:
- First he and and Whigham rode the property and determined the land was suitable.
- Then they approached the developer and the developer agreed he would sell him acreage out of this property.
- Then they again studied the contours in earnest and determined how to use the natural features for the holes agree they had in mind. Mike agrees that this is when they routed the property.
- Then they staked out the land they wanted.
- Then they optioned the land.
- Then they finalized their purchase.
All of Mike and Jeff's twisting and taking things out of context doesn't change this order, and playing games with the chronology in Scotland's Gift doesn't change this basic outline.
-
David,
I posted nothing about twisting CBM's basic timeline for NGLA other than what he said and some speculation that he could have easily continued to tweak his routing right through construction. And that is because I have no dog in the hunt that would make me want to assign a clear date to the end of routing to prove anything about Merion. Please, stop lying and twisting. As usual, you are the worst at it, and you add to insult by accusing others of exactly what you do to cover it up.
As to Merion, I never said routing before Nov. was your main emphasis, but did say that is what your essay says (it does) and that is what you say in a post above that you believe (you did)
As to context, there is no context. Either there are documents showing CBM's involvement pre November, or there aren't.
Who injected Merion? Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)
As I have said every time you bring it up, TePaul told me originally that he didn't have any Drexel documents. He made it up as a joke on you. If such documents existed, it would prove CBM's involvment in routing, as your essay surmises, which is why you were so interested in them. But, they don't, so for now, I believe the March-April scenario that the documents we know of say happened.
I undestand you are more emotionally invested in your IMHO piiece, and have taken a lot of crap for it. I have said it has some value. But, based on your own standars, the portion about CBM routing it pre November isn't a supportable conclusion.
That's all I have to say on the matter. Not worth anyone's time and we all know you can argue til the cows come home.
Cheers
-
Who injected Merion? Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)
Jim Kennedy!
How dare you slip to such disingenuous tactics to drag my reputation through the mud...
Seriously though, the first mention of Merion on this thread was from Jim Kennedy...not sure where he has disappeared to...
-
OMG, so sorry Jim! I hate it that I destroyed your reputation.....
-
Jeff Brauer,
So now you are flat out calling me a liar, instead of coyly suggesting I was just good at getting away with lying?
Rather than lash out at me, perhaps you should try to comprehend what I wrote? If you had, you might have noticed that I noted that you and MIke have long twisted the order of events as set out in Scotland's Gift. You have. You and Mike have long insisted that the "option" did not occur in the order it is laid out in Scotland's Gift, but instead insert in in the middle of the long paragraph above. Go back and see what you wrote earlier in the thread if you can't keep track of your own argument.
So about that flying off the handle about me "lying and twisting." You were wrong. Just like you have been wrong in a number of misrepresentations about me and my IMO on this thread. Care to set the record straight yourself, or will you just move on to your next unfounded insult as you have been doing?
As to Merion, I never said routing before Nov. was your main emphasis
Wrong again. In post 1452, the post to which I was objecting, you referred to the timing issue as my "main premise." Not even close, which is why I objected.
As to context, there is no context. Either there are documents showing CBM's involvement pre November, or there aren't.
In that case you are wrong again. Documents show he was involved before November. He was there in July, visited the course, and sent a letter then. It is when you start playing games with before this date but after that date that it becomes clear that you are taking things out of context. Documents before and after the period you mention strongly imply he was involved even during the period you mention, whether you agree with me or not! For example, his July letter mentioned he would need a contour map to tell for sure if the holes he suggested would fit, and they'd have to have been idiots not to send him one. For another example, the Ag letters strongly suggest that that CBM was dealing with Merion during the period in which little documentation of anything is available. And then of course there are the documents suggesting that some form of routing was in place by then, but they have been discussed to death.
4. Who injected Merion? Not mentioned until Jim Sullivan, You, and Pat all mentioned it in consecutive posts (62-65 I believe)
As Jim S. points out, you are wrong again. Jim Kennedy first mentioned it, and others too I believe. (Jim deleted some of his posts.) But the reality is that it was obvious what this was about to anyone who had been following along with the last thread on Myopia, where Mike launched into all this crap clearly tied to Merion. This thread was to try and prove a point about Merion. See his sad self-proclaimed attempt at an IMO midthrough if you don't believe it. Besides, you know damn well this is all about Merion for Mike, so quit playing games.
As I have said every time you bring it up, TePaul told me originally that he didn't have any Drexel documents. He made it up as a joke on you. If such documents existed, it would prove CBM's involvment in routing, as your essay surmises, which is why you were so interested in them. But, they don't, so for now, I believe the March-April scenario that the documents we know of say happened.
So he told you that NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS EXIST, and that he was lying to me to try and make a fool of me. I knew that already.
Please answer my questions, though. They are serious questions worth considering.
How do you know he was not lying to you about lying to me, so he could avoid coming forward with the documents?
Seriously, with all the games he has played with the source documents over the years, doesn't it seem possible that he just couldn't go through with bringing forward documents that would kill his own legend once and for all, so he decided to take the easy way out and play along with the conventional wisdom that he was lying about it the entire time?
What seems more likely? That TEPaul would come clean with such important documents if they went against his beliefs, or that he would try to lie his way out of having to turn them over?
Because I still have trouble reconciling what you are saying with: 1) His original posts on the matter; 2) the fact that he kept the charade going for months, even after you had exposed his lies; and 3) the fact that the story he told in those first posts makes a lot of sense based on what I know about the parties involved.
So what do you think? Was he lying to you or me? If me, how do you know?
-
David, I wonder. TMac posted this earlier:
"In Great Britain in 1903 seaside links were regarded as an unapproachable first class. St.andrews, Hoylake, Prestwick, Sandwich and Muirfield were the big five, and if any were to be added to their number they would be of similar character. In the US this has never been the case. It maybe assumed that the course which O&CGS played were a fair sample of the best of their time, and Shinnecock Hills was the only one of them which was of the sand-dune type. While we were there Mr. Charles Macdonald showed us the neighbouring dunes which the National was made, a bold project which he brought to a successful issue some years later."
Do you think your step one:
- First he and and Whigham rode the property and determined the land was suitable. would have been necessary given that CBM had been salivating over that land for years already? Presumably he would want to closely look at it before taking the leap.
I think we all know the basic NGLA sequence, and given it was a cooperative venture, not sure any more detail is required to understand it. I don't know if CBM had 4 or 18 holes routed prior to the final option in December and construction in spring. For that matter, we don't know if he had a "final routing" in earlier time frames, and then made last minute field changes even past the start of construction, do we? We don't know when that final 205 acres was settled.
So Jeff, you don't think we should put stock in Behr's article to decide if CBM had a decent idea of his routing already in place before he made his offer?
-
Andy, if Allison's recollection was correct, then CBM might have already been at least somewhat familiar with the land. But I given the tenor of these conversations I try to to go out on too many limbs, so I stick pretty close to what I can support, and CBM noted that he and HJW spent two or three days on horseback studying the land contours before finally determining it was what they wanted.
Mike would have us believe that because CBM wrote that the property was "little known" and that "every one thought it was more or less worthless" should be read this to mean that CBM didn't know about it, and that CBM didn't recognize its value for golf. But I've never understood it that way, and find this highly unlikely, especially given the land's proximity to SHGC.
If I had to paint a complete picture I'd say it seems most likely that CBM was familiar with it, but that HJW and CBM rode the property for two or days to make sure and of course would have been looking out for golf courses the entire time. And then once determined it was suitable they approached the owner, then again studied the contours in earnest and finished the rough routing, then staked out the land containing the routing they wanted, then optioned the property.
___________________________________________
For the record I don't doubt that the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property.
-
David,
I think we all agree that "the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property."
It's just that we cannot know the exact level of detail planned prior to the option, as I said 4 or 14 holes, no one knows. And, I doubt it makes a lot of difference to NGLA and its history, but would be fascinating to find out.
A small but unimportant quibble - given CBM's writings and first offer, I certainly had the impression that Alvord alerted him to the Sebonack Neck as a likely place after turning him down, but the Allison article does show us he was familiar with the property.
As to our disagreements on Merion, I think we made our points on where we disagree and can drop it.
As to whether I know if your adversary is lying to me, I think I can judge character well enough to know and I don't think so, but can anyone know anything like that past 99.99%? It is my understanding from him that he emailed you what he has, which amounts to six letters to Lloyd that were of all things, from ANOTHER Charles McDonald, (a bridge engineer working on a separate project for Lloyd) and the original letter than Merion has a copy of and we know the contents. As far as I know, he is being truthful about that and there is nothing more, just in case you deleted his email to you.
Andy,
See above. Not sure I can clarify my position any better. We don't know and I don't think Behr carries more weight than CBM's words later. But, like David, it appears they found at least four holes quickly, which would put those ahead of the December option. Was the routing closer to finished than that? Probably, but by how much we cannot know with existing information.
-
Jeff,
I won't be able to respond to the last few pages of replies for a few days, but, I do want to say that my mentioning of Merion in reply # 1448 was in direct response to your citing Merion in reply # 1447.
-
David,
I think we all agree that "the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property."
If we all agreed to this there would be nothing to talk about. While Mike has been all over the place, he has repeatedly claimed that there was no routing - rough or not - prior to the course being optioned. In fact, as absurd as at may sound, he would have have us believe that CBM was still choosing out of the 450 acres despite the details in the December articles.
It's just that we cannot know the exact level of detail planned prior to the option, as I said 4 or 14 holes, no one knows. And, I doubt it makes a lot of difference to NGLA and its history, but would be fascinating to find out.
Not so. In Scotland's gift he tells us he routed the property before he staked out the land. Then he optioned the property. So whether or not CBM tells us every single detail, he tells us generally what happened.
You try the same thing here that you try with Merion and your pals have long tried with Merion. You act as if we are paralyzed to draw any conclusion without specific details of everything that happened. (This is ironic, given your usual approach of drawing all sorts of conclusions with basis in or understanding of the facts.) But we can and should draw reasonable conclusions when the source material justifies it. We are not fools, but we'd be foolish to doubt CBM's general description in SC especially when read in combination with the details in those December articles.
What we don't know the routing was changed, if at all, after the property was optioned. That is the speculative part, but you want to turn the tables and act is if this is the part we know about.
A small but unimportant quibble - given CBM's writings and first offer, I certainly had the impression that Alvord alerted him to the Sebonack Neck as a likely place after turning him down, but the Allison article does show us he was familiar with the property.
I don't think anything in the text justifies that impression, but you can read it how you like. I think everyone overlooks that was trying not to crowd SHGC initially. So far as we know he may have always had his eye on that property but was trying not to crowd SHGC. Once he overcame that concern, the property may have seemed quite appealing.
As to whether I know if your adversary is lying to me, I think I can judge character well enough to know and I don't think so, but can anyone know anything like that past 99.99%? It is my understanding from him that he emailed you what he has, which amounts to six letters to Lloyd that were of all things, from ANOTHER Charles McDonald, (a bridge engineer working on a separate project for Lloyd) and the original letter than Merion has a copy of and we know the contents. As far as I know, he is being truthful about that and there is nothing more, just in case you deleted his email to you.
What are you talking about??
- Last post you confirmed what you have said multiple times before: TEPAUL TOLD YOU THAT NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS EXISTED AND THAT HE MADE THEM UP TO MAKE A FOOL OF ME!
- Now you tell me that the Drexel Documents do exist?
Which is it Jeff? Do they exist or not? And if they do exist, then why did he tell you that they didn't exist and that he made them up to make a fool of me?? You tell me that he didn't lie to you, but then you tell me that HE DID LIE TO YOU. Because if the Drexel Documents existed then he was LYING TO YOU, wasn't he?
As for this bizarre suggestion about there being two Charles Macdonalds both dealing with Lloyd in the fall of 1910, you have got to be kidding me! It sounds an awful lot like Cirba's mystery sites, and, true or not, this story you are passing on is entirely inconsistent with the story he told online and the story that you told about him admitting he MADE THE WHOLE THING UP to make a fool of me.
As for him having sent me these documents, you have got to be kidding me again! I've repeatedly told him, you and others that TPaul messages get filtered out and never even show up in my inbox! This is because of the never-ending harassment! So why would he send me documents when I have told him I will never even see his messages?
I see that 130 tepaul related messages have been filtered out this calendar year, and not a single one of them contained attachments. So it is NOT TRUE THAT HE SENT ME SIX LETTERS.
This is quite creepy. You are contradicting yourself from post to post. Completely changing his story. Yet you claim he didn't lie to you. Well if he didn't lie to you, then how come he is claiming there really are Drexel Documents?
-
David,
Really, what are you, like five years old? Does your mom know you are using your parents computer?
The only creepy thing is you continuing to bring up the whole Drexel thing when the basics have been known to all since the beginning, including you, so you can play the victim card and continue the character assassinations.
I got news for you, no one here will ever consider you a victim. I understand you were the butt of a joke, but one that everyone else here saw immediately, and even told you about when it appeared you might have thought he was serious. We may have negative opinions of your personality, but I at least was dumbfounded that you fell for it.
As to what he sent you, I took that from one of his off line emails where he said he had emailed that stuff, or at least explained what he had found to you. Like you, I delete those, although I happened to have read that one, but I may have been wrong on him sending you attachements, but that is how I thought I read it.
So (once again) there were never any new Drexel letters. It was a joke. After TePaul made that post, he started looking around, thinking there might actually be something at Drexel, but found what I explained earlier.
I don't think we need to explain it again, since it just gives you another chance to throw a temper tantrum. Grow up. On any other internet site in the world, you would be banned as a troll.
TePaul is gone and you can let it go.
Cheers and good night.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Why so defensive? Don't like being caught in someone else's lies? I don't blame you, but I am not playing the victim here. I just want an accurate historical record. Let's review . . . .
1. In one post (and for the past many months) you claimed that TEPaul told you that there were NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS and that HE MADE THEM UP TO MAKE A FOOL OF ME.
2. Then you claimed that there really were Drexel Documents, but not all of them are about CBM.
3. Now you tell me that there were NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS and that TEPaul was lying to make a fool of me. Then he miraculously found some Drexel Documents, yet they were about a different Charles Macdonald?
You accuse me of acting like a five year old, but I'd have to be younger than that to believe this nonsense! It doesn't at all gel with what TEPaul represented in the beginning, middle or end of his scam, online or off.
What is going on here Jeff? Why do you keep changing your (and TEPaul's) story? What happened to your repeated claim that there were NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS? Others said the same thing, so what is up?
Here is what I think. I think there are Drexel Documents. I always have, despite you and others mocking me and ridiculing me for believing TEPaul's initial posts, and despite TEPaul's lie to you. It was too out of character for TEPaul made up a story which actually made some sense. Maybe I am wrong, but I want to get to the bottom of it.
Why do you suppose he lied to you about the existence of the documents? Why do you suppose he has gone on letting people think that it was all just a big lie? I think you can figure it out.
And why would you tell me he emailed me the supposed letters if he never did?
-
David,
http://ascelibrary.org/beo/resource/1/jbenf2/v15/i5/p565_s1?isAuthorized=no
-
So what?
I am more interested in what else was in there; the documents concerning CBM, particularly the stuff TEPaul was going on about when he first found the documents.
And you didn't answer my questions, and you know as well as I do that there is a reason why TEPaul lied to you by telling you that there were NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS.
Why do you keep changing the story Jeff?
-
David,
I really have never lied to you, and I do not believe TePaul has lied to me. You are most likely wrong on both accounts.
He told a story about the other McDonald working for Lloyd on a bridge that collapsed up in Canada. I trusted him but double checked out of curiosity, and found that link. If he was lying to me, it was one whopper of a detailed ruse, because everything he said checked out, and usually, elaborate hoaxes don't.
As I told you, TePaul was aware that there might be some documents at Drexel relating to Merion/Lloyd and made his post as a joke, as has been discussed and documented.
After posting that, he asked around, and a committee had apparently formed at Drexel to acquire document collections, so he did go look for relevant material after the fact. That is when he found the other McDonald documents. As he told me, McDonald worked on a Canadian bridge, rebuilding it after it collapsed during construction, which this link confirmed. He also built a small rock bridge at Allgates for Mrs. Lloyd’s garden.
Between the two projects, according to Tom, they exchanged six letters, all of which were in the Lloyd collection donated to Drexel.
The ONLY letter between CBM and Lloyd was the one already copied in the MCC files. Drexel has the original of that.
So, it was both a joke originally, and a later attempt to find actual historical documents on his part. Not sure why that is so hard to understand, but the coincidence of two McDonald’s is a bit odd, I will concede.
Protagonists that you may be, TePaul, at least to the degree that he felt you were interested in the real history of Merion, tried to reach out and tell you what he found, but as you mentioned here, you don’t read his emails. If he didn’t send you the actual letters, then that was my mistake in reading his mass email, on which you were copied, because I have long since deleted it. The body of the email said something like he had contacted you nine days ago to share what he had learned.
So, while I understand your differences with both myself and TePaul, please don’t keep saying unfounded things about us being liars, etc. If you must, then send me a private email, but I don’t think it’s right to continually make those kinds of accusations in public about me, or Mr. Paul.
Is it really worth your time to creatively find ways and snippets and small phrases to try to discredit Tom, Mike, me, and others? It is clearly a waste of my free time to continually answer your charges, but part of me feels like I just can’t let your bully type responses stand, lest even one person think they might be true about me.
PS - Please don't post that I have "changed my story yet again". You asked for more detaill, and God knows why I think you deserved it, so I provided it, and expect that you will simply use me giving you what you asked for against me again. Very tiresome.
-
BS
You repeatedly told me that TEPAUL TOLD YOU THAT THERE WERE NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS. That he had made them up to try and make a fool of me. Now he is telling you there are Drexel Documents. He LIED to you.
All this nonsense about how he LIED to me, then happened to find documents that weren't quite right is bullshit and you know it. He had the documents all along. Your story contradicts his own statements. It is just more LIES.
All the rest of your post is just a bunch of nonsense. You cannot possibly pretend to vouch for the truthfulness of TEPaul's representations., He has already shown his willingness to lie to you and play you for a complete fool to suit his game! And you've shown your willingness to let him! You were duped, Jeff, and yet you continue to try and cover up for this scumbag!
How do you feel now for scolding me for suspecting their really were documents? He made an idiot of you.
Your pal is a despicable human being, and you should be embarrassed to be facilitating his behavior. What kind of adults play ridiculous games like these?
-
David,
Well, that didn't take as long as I figured.
Once again, I told you no lies. I treated you with more respect than you deserve.
I will ask Ran to have you removed, or I will stop participating myself. Thanks to one person, this once great website simply isn't worth it.
And you calling anyone despicable is, in your words "rich."
Good night, probably forever.
-
For the record Jeff, I think TEPaul is the one who was lying. You keep saying I called you a liar, but all I see is me noting that TEPaul lied to you, and you relayed his lie to me.
Protagonists that you may be, TePaul, at least to the degree that he felt you were interested in the real history of Merion, tried to reach out and tell you what he found, but as you mentioned here, you don’t read his emails. If he didn’t send you the actual letters, then that was my mistake in reading his mass email, on which you were copied, because I have long since deleted it. The body of the email said something like he had contacted you nine days ago to share what he had learned.
This is an outright fiction, either by you or by him.
I just dug into my TEPaul junkmail file to find this email where he "reached out" to share with me because our mutual interest. Far from being a conciliatory email reaching out to tell me what he had found, it was just another ranting screed full of the usual insults and such. And there have been dozens of such emails, most of them much worse, harassing me and insulting me and trying to provoke me. That is why his crap gets automatically deleted out of my inbox and filtered to a special junk file-- when dealing with a psychopath one must always save such things, and your pal is one sick twist.
-
Jeff,
I've looked through the posts, and while I understand why you are angry, you are angry at the wrong guy. If TEPaul told you that THERE WERE NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS and that he made them up to make a fool of me, then he lied to you. And you conveyed his lie to me and everyone else.
As for me calling you a liar, you need to look again. You called me a liar above, multiple times. But I don't think I called you a liar. I think you believe what you are writing, but some of it is nonetheless untrue. As for TEPaul, YOU called TEPaul a liar, claiming he told you he made up the Drexel Documents to make a fool of me. But it turned out he was lying to you, not me.
I sure hope all this excuse making you are doing for him - this nonsense about how it was a lie but then he found the documents, etc. - is from him and not you, because it is bogus. It is entirely inconsistent with everything else he has said about these documents, including in the message you falsely described as his effort to "reach out" to me. I hope and assume this too was just more of his fiction and that you are just again acting his messenger.
As for why I care about any of this, first and foremost, I want a clean record. TEPaul has documents from Drexel, and he has been playing games with them one way or another since shortly after he first came forward with them. I want the accurate information to come out, but unfortunately TEPaul is not a reliable source. So who knows if we will ever get the full story about those documents.
I've slightly edited my last post above to soften it slightly toward you at least.
-
Rather than try to constantly defend myself against the way my positions and speculations here are continually misrepresented by one or two agenda-driven participants, I'll just trust that I've explained myself well enough and provided more than enough contemporaneous materials to make my points and move on.
I'm certainly not going to go down into the gutter where it keeps being driven, sadly.
I hope some here with an interest in the actual history of NGLA, as well as those who have shown themselves open to some back-and-forth speculation on matters that are open to that and/or impossible to prove one way or another have found the thread both informational and mostly interesting and thought-provoking to read.
Like Jeff, I find myself wondering why I'm even on this website any longer.
-
David,
I appreciate your attempt to soften your attacks on me. Of course, I understand that you have had some vile exchanges with TePaul which colors your opinions and makes you distrust anything he says, or anything I relay to you. I shouldn’t put myself in the role of middle man in communicating between two – if I may - near lunatics. I haven’t seen any of his personal emails to you, just the mass email relating that he had tried to contact you with that info. I didn’t know if it was vile or not, but having seen some of the others he has sent, I don’t doubt that it might have been unpleasant in spots and not more conciliatory.
That said, I say again I never attempted in any way to mislead you and I think I am smart enough to comprehend what TePaul says, you say, and the entire background of the long running Merion (and other) debates between the parties. Angry at the wrong guy? You are the one who attacks me, so how could me being angry at you be the wrong guy?
If you consider the time line factor, you know that he made a joke at your expense, but at the time he did it, he had no idea whether Drexel’s collections had anything relevant to Merion. It was after his post to you that he started his serious search, and he came up with exactly one already known document between Lloyd and CBM.
I am still disappointed that you would relentlessly taint me with character assassination, deflection, and the like, rather than simply admit straight up when asked - that you had no actual documents tying CBM to the process earlier than when club records said he assisted them. However, your interest in these non-existent documents at Drexel confirms this. In my opinion, it’s not accurate for you to say you want a "clean record". The documented historic record is unchanged, despite TePaul’s joke on you.
We do need to remind ourselves if this is the thread or even website to continue this discussion.
-
1. I didn't call you a liar, nor do I think you are lying. I think you have been lied to and you unwittingly passed along those lies.
2. I have no idea why you continue to try and defend you buddy. The story keep changing and it all contradicts what else TEPaul has written about it in posts and in messages.
3. You continue to say this started as a joke on me. I am pretty sure you are wrong about that. The joke was on you and whoever else TEPaul and his cronies lied to about the non-existence of the Drexel Documents. Because they existed and they exist. They were not made up. TEPaul did not make them up to make a fool of me. I am virtually certain that, as shocking and as out of character as it may seem, TEPAUL WAS BEING HONEST IN HIS FIRST POST ABOUT THE DREXEL DOCUMENTS. In fact, his first statement may be the only truthful statement on his part throughout this entire mess.
4. The lying and game-playing came when he apparently got cold feet about coming forward with the documents. So he started trying to manipulating me by trying to get me to jump through hoops, delete old posts, and such. And he told you HE MADE THE ENTIRE THING UP TO MAKE A FOOL OF ME. You never believed him in the first place, so it was an easy sell. Now that he thinks he can spin the documents so they don't hurt the legend (the name mixup) he apparently thinks there is no reason to keep on pretending that he made it all up.
As convoluted, sleazy, and dishonest it is, that is what I think happened.
But it remains to be seen whether those documents shed any light on this situation or not. All I am sure of is that if they contradict the legend, then they will likely never see the light of day. Why else would he have he have lied to you about their existence?
__________________________________________
I think we'd all be better off going forward if you would quit speaking for TEPaul. It puts you in an impossible position because chances are the information he has given you is false or at least highly dubious. It also puts me in an impossible position because chances are I am going to figure out that it is false or I am going to be highly suspicious of it, and rightfully so.
I know I asked for clarification on this matter, and I wanted clarification, and I appreciate you trying to clarify, but obviously you can't clarify, because your information comes from an unreliable source.
That is what happened here. I knew (or strongly suspected) that he was lying to you when he told you that there were NO DREXEL DOCUMENTS. He was manipulating you, yet you are angry at me for pointing that out, and for trying to set the record straight.
-
We agree that I shouldn’t put myself in the role of middle man in communicating between you two. So, that's a start.......
-
We agree that I shouldn’t put myself in the role of middle man in communicating between you two. So, that's a start.......
And a finish as far as I am concerned. I've no interest in such communication, whether direct or indirect.
As for NGLA, you wrote:
David,
I think we all agree that "the plan and the routing would likely have evolved as the details were worked out over the planning process, but it sure seems to me like they had at least a "rough sketch" in mind of where the holes would go before optioning the property. It's just that we cannot know the exact level of detail planned prior to the option, as I said 4 or 14 holes, no one knows.
As I said above, I don't think we are all in agreement here. In fact this is exactly what Mike has been railing against for years. But I think that this is what the historical record (whether Scotland's Gift, Whigham's account, the contemporaneous newspaper articles, or secondary sources like Behr in Golf Illustrated in 1915) indicates.
But if we are all in agreement on this except for Mike, then that is good enough for me.
It's just that we cannot know the exact level of detail planned prior to the option, as I said 4 or 14 holes, no one knows. And, I doubt it makes a lot of difference to NGLA and its history, but would be fascinating to find out.
While no one knows the exact level of detail of his rough sketch, that need not stop us from drawing reasonable conclusions based on the information we do have. To my mind, the specifics listed were highlights, not an exhaustive list as all he had found by December 1910, especially because in my mind Scotland's Gift indicates that routed the course before he staked out then optioned the property.
-
Moving from the details to the bigger picture . . .
NGLA presented a new approach to creating a golf course, where the quality and suitability of the land for golf was a primary driving force behind the selection process. This set the "Golden Age" standard in America as to how, ideally, things ought to be done, and IMO this standard likely had a tremendous impact on the quality of the architecture which followed over the next few decades.
In my mind it is no coincidence that the reemergence of tremendous golf course design over the past few decades could be described in terms of the rediscovery of the importance of starting with land ideally suited for golf. One need only look at the out of the way locations of some of the great courses built over the past few decades to see that, again, the quality and suitability of the land for golf has again become a primary driving force in gca.
That is a good thing, IMO.
-
RE post 1490, I pasted your own words and you found a way to disagree with me, but I agree that I should have probably excepted Mike Cirba in my post. Of course we don't all agree, and I agree with you on that. Will you find a way to disagree with my agreement there?
With your second pp, you state incomplete information "need not stop us from drawing reasonable conclusions based on the information we do have." (again cut and paste of your words) Accepting the reasonableness of both drawing conclusions, and of disagreements among us (as in PP1) I wonder how you reconcile much of your unpleasant responses just because Mike or I happen to draw different conclusions? Disagree you might. Destroy you should not.
As to No. 1491, I agree with pp no. 1 and most of pp no. 2. As you know, there is a difference in dream golf and building a course down the street for every day use. One reason I don't see the perfect parallels between NGLA and MCC some have drawn is that for all the glory that came after, it did not start as a true dream course like NGLA, it started as a neighborhood club, an upgrade over an existing course on leased land.
Dream golf is a good thing (I agree) But 90% of golf courses or more will always be built for location to population, not as getaways (which NGLA was, even that close to NYC) As such, most will have to find a way to be good in less than ideal circumstances and Merion is a great example of that.
I await your point by point response..... ::)
-
Jeff Brauer,
While you may consider yourself an impartial arbiter of all things related to my posts, I really don't think it would be productive to further discuss my methodology with you. I may not always agree, but I have no trouble with anyone offering reasonable conclusions based upon all the available information.
I wasn't referring to the parallels between NGLA and Merion, but rather was referring to NGLA as setting the standard for the entire golden age. But since you mentioned it, I understand your point but not sure it is wholly supported by the facts as I understand them. While I wouldn't characterize Merion as a typical "neighborhood club," I agree that other factors such as location and convenience were surely important at Merion as at any club. But nonetheless I do see parallels with NGLA for reasons set out in my essay. The mere fact that Merion went through the trouble of (among other things) arranging for CBM and HJW to inspect their and and advise them on its suitability indicates to me that Merion recognized the importance of the quality and suitability of the land for a first class golf course.
As for modern courses I am not so sure I think that there is a huge gap between dream courses and practical courses. By choice I play the vast majority of my golf at a course built on a low budget and for "location to population." Yet its excellence is rooted in the natural suitability of the site for golf, as well as the designers' humility in allowing the land to dictate the course, and not visa versa.
-
It's sort of funny, actually...after all of the debate and dissension and blood loss here over the years related to Merion and CBM's role, I'm really not sure that what actually happened at Merion was either unique or even particularly noteworthy in the least.
Certainly Rodman Griscom (whose sister Frances was an early American golf champion) knew CBM for a long time and the two were friends. The fact is, during June of 1910 Macdonald and Whigham (as well as Barker) were already IN Philadelphia for the US Open at Philadelphia Cricket Club. So it certainly wouldn't be somehow unusual or distinctive for Griscom to invite his friends over to view land under consideration by the club.
As early as September 1905 CBM had already made a practice of advising clubs, evidently. This snippet from an article talking about his plans for an ideal course makes it clear that CBM was often consulted by clubs building or considering new golf courses.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5637657302_bd82884a1a_o.jpg)
After his one day visit to Ardmore in June, 1910, there is no evidence or record of him doing anything further in 1910 beyond sending a letter on July 2nd with some very general, almost innocuous advice and a somewhat guarded recommendation that they move forward with the property.
It wasn't until NINE MONTHS later, at the end of the first week of March 1910, just over a month before the start of course construction that Hugh Wilson and his Committee went out to NGLA to stay for the night, during which time in multiple accounts they describe looking at Macdonalds drawings of the great holes abroad and discussing their principles during the evening (probably well into the evening!), and then walking around and seeing NGLA the next day.
Was this somehow unique, unusual, or particularly noteworthy?
HJ Whigham, in his eulogy for Macdonald in Country Life Magazine in 1939 tell us that even as early as September 1907;
"The very next year on the first Saturday of September I counted over fifty players at Shinnecock, many young people among them. The fame of the National had spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to look over the project, and Shinnecock, instead of being hurt by proximity to the National, had taken on a new lease of life."
In retrospect, and in proper historical context, perhaps the only remarkable thing about the Merion Committee visiting Macdonald at NGLA in the spring of 1910 was that it took them so long to do it!!
They were, of course, gratified at the help that CBM and Whigham provided to them, and even moreso, apparently invited those two gentlemen to visit their club in coming weeks, which they did in early April. That was their first visit back to the property since they saw it the first time ten months prior.
At that point, we know that CBM helped the Committee by picking the best of the five different plans they had created for the golf course, telling them that if they built that one it would include the best seven finishing holes of any inland course Macdonald had seen.
There is no record of CBM and Whigham ever returning to the property again, during construction, post-construction, or otherwise.
There is no record of any further involvement of CBM or Whigham at Merion in any respect, even though the club hosted the 1916 and 1924 US Amateurs, the 1934 US Open, and other major regional and national events during Macdonald and Whigham's lifetimes.
What was it Shakespeare said about "much ado about nothing"?
-
David and Mike,
Lots to agree with in both posts above.
I await your point by point responses. Whoops, maybe just point response!
Since David has an avatar of Groundskeeper Willie of the Simpsons, I recall an episode of that show where the family recieves this huge statue from Mr Burns (I don't recall why) and are sitting around discussing the "meaning" of all that transpired. In the end, they decide the lesson they learned is that "just a whole lot of things happened".
Has there ever been a show deeper than the Simpsons?
Cheers.
-
Since we're speaking of Merion...
I have two thoughts paralleling CBM:
Wasn't Lloyd the equivalent of CBM in finding the land and taking a couple years to do it?
Regarding the golf course...is it pure coincidence that the holes fit in with CBM's "ideal hole length's" nearly to a tee?
Ahh. that feels good!!!
-
Jeff,
Yes, and speaking of Tempest in Teapots, CBM himself told us which courses he designed in what order after NGLA;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5637184905_ebfac28e0d_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5637184919_1fd4dede3c_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5637184943_4f33143de1_b.jpg)
Jim,
No.
Yes.
-
Really? Pure coincidence?
-
Mike,
Well, since David and Pat tell us there is no reason to doubt CBM's words in Scotland's Gift, and he neglects to mention MCC as a course he designed, I would think the argument would be settled, no?
Somehow, I don't think that will be the case, as someone will tell us we can only believe the even (or odd, or prime) number pages, but he was somehow delusional or misquoted himself, or didn't know what he really meant by his own words or something........
It would seem clear that CBM did not consider MCC to be a full design, even if eulogized differently later.
-
I wonder if anyone thinks CBM was the full designer of Merion...not sure about that, but I sure am happy to take CBM at his word throughout.
-
Jim,
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Merion as opened fit Macdonald's "ideal hole lengths to a tee"?
Here's what CBM wrote;
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
When Merion opened in September, 1912, Alex Findlay wrote;
"It is 6,245 yards in length with enough tee space to stretch it out to 6,500 yards at any time."
True enough, when Merion hosted the 1916 US Amateur the following were the hole lengths and par;
1 - 335 - Par 4
2 - 513 - Par 5
3 - 427 - Par 4
4 - 355 - Par 4
5 - 555 - Par 5
6 - 420 - Par 4
7 - 195 - Par 3
8 - 350 - Par 4
9 - 170 - Par 3
10 - 385 - Par 4
11 - 335 - Par 4
12 - 460 - Par 5
13 - 125 - Par 3
14 - 407 - Par 4
15 - 330 - Par 4
16 - 433 - Par 5
17 - 215 - Par 3
18 - 420 - Par 4
6,445 Yards
Here's the Findlay Opening Day article;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5637359475_94036cf3d2_o.jpg)
-
I don't know, why don't we start with the par 3's...and consider the "ground by the clubhouse"...
I thought the original routing went from #2 to #6 (as the 3rd)...what is the story behind that early change?
-
Wow, you guys just cannot leave Merion alone.
Regarding the golf course...is it pure coincidence that the holes fit in with CBM's "ideal hole length's" nearly to a tee?
And it also must be pure coincidence that Hugh Wilson tried to build a Redan, an Alps, a Road Hole, a double-plateau green, another green with biarritz-type swale, a Long Hole with a properly placed hell bunker (CBM style) and a number of other features/holes fitting the general characteristics of CBM designs.
As for your idea of going through the holes, that might be fun, but it ought to have its own thread.
_______________________________________________
Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer,
Obviously you both feel very strongly that my essay is wrong, has no basis in fact, is "absurd" and "asinine," and whatever other insults you have piled on it this go-around. If that it the case, then I think you guys owe it to the rest of of the website and to all of golf course architecture to set the record straight. For the good of the website, history, and our understanding of golf course design, to advance higher learning, to avenge the wrongs I have committed, and to finally put me in my place, you guys really ought to write an IMO.
Because these endless drive-by potshots aren't going to cut it. They just increase hostilities and they don't really advance the conversation. And once Ran fixes my IMO, when people search for the history of Merion they will find MY IMO. They aren't going to dig through thousands of pages of this nasty garbage to ferret out all of your attacks and analyze them. So write an IMO and set me straight. Correct my wrong. Avenge Merion, Hugh Wilson, Wayne Morrison and anyone else you think I have slighted. Take me down a few notches. It needs to be done, if only so you guys can finally quit dwelling on it.
Of course when you try you might find that many of your conclusions don't hold up to critical scrutiny. But if that is the case, you shouldn't be taking repeated pot shots anyway, should you?
-- Like here, where Mike just simply pretends into existence the fact of CBM and HJW's whereabouts in June 1910. "The fact is," Mike claims, CBM and HJW were already in Philadelphia. I don't think any such fact has been established, and if not, then pretending it is an established fact does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
-- Or where you guys pretend that Scotland's Gift was a comprehensive and complete catalogue of everything CBM had ever done, so that you could conclude that if Merion wasn't mentioned then CBM must not been extensively involved. We all know that Scotland's Gift isn't even close to a complete catalogue-- one need only walk across the road to SHGC to find a course designed by CBM, yet not mentioned the pages of Scotland's Gift Mike posted!
Surely these rhetorical tricks don't amount to reasonable conclusions based on all of the source material, and surely they do nothing to advance the conversation, and they would have no place in a well-written IMO critiquing my theory. All they do is increase hostility, especially because we have covered all this ground a dozen times!
I think you guys ought to consider whether you are really interested in advancing the discussion or not. These pot shots consisting of already dead theories don't advance the discussion, and even if they did, no one ever will see them. If you really have something to say, then put it in a coherent and comprehensive essay, and put it next to mine.
That would sure cut down on the endless bickering.
-
HJ Whigham, in his eulogy for Macdonald in Country Life Magazine in 1939 tell us that even as early as September 1907;
"The very next year on the first Saturday of September I counted over fifty players at Shinnecock, many young people among them. The fame of the National had spread so far beyond Long Island that golfers from everywhere came to look over the project, and Shinnecock, instead of being hurt by proximity to the National, had taken on a new lease of life."
Mike,
Since you're quoting HJ Whigham eulogy to CBM, do you accept everything HJ Whigham wrote as accurate and factural ?
Or, just those things that suit your purpose ? ;D
-
I was looking at the hole distances Mike posted above for Merion and noticed he listed the 1916 hole distances instead of the 1912 distances. Now why would he do this? It seems he was trying to create the false impression that the original hole distances were not as close to the CBM holes as Jim Sullivan had suggested.
Mike and others have argued that CBM's suggestions would have produced too short a course for a championship course. However, as Jim Sullivan pointed out, the hole distances fit CBM's suggestions "nearly to a tee." This would even be more apparent if many of the hole distance listings at Merion had not been greatly exaggerated. While it is difficult to determine an exact measure, the original course at Merion was several hundred yards shorter than listed in the scorecards and this remained the case for decades. Somewhere there is a thread where I explain one reason this may have been the case.
-
David,
I'm not sure I understand your post about the hole lengths?
On what holes were the yardages changed between 1912 and 1916? Alex Findlay point out right up front that the course as opened in 1912 had back tee length to 6500 yards. Members tees in the middle were 6,250.
CBM recommended a maximum 6,000 yard course and they built one of 6,500, evidently. Pretty prescient of them, I'd say.
They played the US Amateur in 1916 at 6,450.
As far as the measured length, wouldn't that whole question be about their "intent"? In other words, if as you contend they were trying to follow CBM's ideal lengths to the "tee", wouldn't they have used whatever measuring techniques they were employing to come up with CBM's ideal 6,000 yard course, and claim that's what they built?
In other words, if they were trying to do as CBM suggested, or more preposterously, as CBM instructed them, then wouldn't they have come out Opening Day proclaiming an overall course length to their "intended" 6,000 yards, not 6,500 yards long??
And if their technique was "wrong" as you suggest, and they measured along the ground instead of as the crow flies, wouldn't Google Earth measure that course at something less than 6,000, say 5,750?
CBM wrote to them on July 2, 1910;
The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
Why do you think they didn't do what CBM suggested they do....build a course of 6,000 yards??
As far as attempting to build some holes based on templates, there is no question that they did. However, much of this seems to have taken place "post-routing", and certainly after Wilson and Committee had seen CBM's awesome version of those holes at NGLA.
Jim,
Can you think of any reasons why CBM would have recommended they try to get "a little more land near where you propose making your clubhouse"? I can think of at least 3.
Shivas,
I'll see if I can get it scanned on Monday..thanks.
-
Sure Mike,
In the context of his letter, the most likely reason is that it would make a perfect place to build the hole and a half they would need in coming up from the fence line down by the creek...just in case...
-
Mike Cirba,
What you are doing here is pretty typical for you, but it has little to do with determining the truth. On the one hand stretch and exaggerate the Merion side of the equation, pretending it was 6500 yard when it was listed at 6245 and actually was substantially less. you minimize the CBM side, pretending the 6000 was a "maximum" as if he was recommending that one could never go beyond this or even design a course allowing for one to add distance later. One need only look at NGLA to understand how CBM's thinking on length applied in a real world situation. The "circa 1910" NGLA scorecard pictured in George's excellent book on page 68 lists the "championship length" of 6324 yards.
Did CBM Recommend Tell Merion to Build Too Short a Course?
1. You claim that CBM recommended a "maximum 6000 yard course." But CBM did not recommend a maximum length of 6000 yards. This is yet Yet another preposterous misrepresentation on your part to try and twist what really happened to suit your rhetorical needs.
2. CBM did warn Merion and other courses against trying to make courses too long because he thought many courses were sacrificing quality in the pursuit of length, but CBM ALSO ADVOCATED FOR ELASTICITY IN HOLE DESIGNS, AND IN LEAVING AMPLE TEE SPACE BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS GREEN AND THE NEXT TEE IN CASE THE COURSE NEEDED TO BE LENGTHENED.
3. Also, unlike some clubs, CBM was secure enough that he was designing quality golf holes that he saw saw no need stretch or exaggerate his measures. He measured from the middle of tees and may not even have always included back tees in his measures. For just one example, CBM's Alps hole was reportedly built with enough "tee space" for a back tee measuring 410 yards from its middle of the back tee to the middle of the green, yet the course opened with the "Championship Length" of the Alps hole at only 376 yards.
4. Also, the your 6000 yard "maximum" assertion is ridiculous given that CBM provided Merion with suggested hole distances which allowed for a longer course than 6000 yards. Adding up the distances, one gets a course with a range between about 5700 and 6300 yards, with 6000 being about the middle point of that range.
5. Findlay did not say its "members tees in the middle were 6,250" or that the course "had back tee length to 6500 yards." You obviously are pretending that the 6245 measure was not from the back tees, but this is just more misleading nonsense on your part. Findlay and other commentators put the length of the course at 6250. As for your fictional creation of another set of tees behind these, YOU JUST MADE IT UP. What Findlay said was that there there was "tee space" to make the course 6500 yards. It is not clear whether he was referring to the added distance to the very back of the tees from the middle, or whether we meant that there was space to build additional tees if necessary. Whichever, there is nothing indicating there was another set of tees behind the 6245 yard tees!
In sum, it is ridiculous for you (or anyone) to suggest that following CBM's advice would have boxed Merion in to a course which was so short that it was not for better golfers or future technological changes. And it is ridiculous that you misrepresent what CBM was trying to accomplish around that time at Merion and elsewhere! CBM suggested holes of certain distances at Merion, and Merion appears to have followed his suggestions almost to a tee.
________________________________________________
You ask, "On what holes were the yardages changed between 1912 and 1916?"
Look it up yourself. Surely you have the yardages for 1912 and 1916, don't you? The listed yardage changed around 180 yards, total. You can list out the hole by hole changes as easily as I can. They don't matter to me much because they are both inaccurate, and I don't know if the changes were because the suddenly started measuring to the back of the tees (instead of the middle of the tees as CBM did) or whether some new tee boxes were built, or whether they replaced one bad measure with another.
You ask, "And if their technique was "wrong" as you suggest, and they measured along the ground instead of as the crow flies, wouldn't Google Earth measure that course at something less than 6,000, say 5,750?"
Yes, and using google earth the distances are nowhere near the listed yardage. I hate to attach exact measures because it is very difficult to tell exactly from where they were measuring, but the measures are definitely overstated by several hundred yards. At the opening it seems very likely that Merion was less than 6000 yards. I won't try to give an exact number of how much less.
You wrote, As far as attempting to build some holes based on templates, there is no question that they did. However, much of this seems to have taken place "post-routing", and certainly after Wilson and Committee had seen CBM's awesome version of those holes at NGLA.
More absolute nonsense on your part! After years of arguing that there were no "templates" at Merion you now switch direction and admit that they were building templates, but they were templates that just somehow fit with some preconceived routing that CBM and HJW had nothing to do with? So they all just happened to fit the distances, and be located in perfect spots for such CBM templates?
-
David,
Here are the stated yardages hole by hole at course opening.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/3752074045_05bd84b541_o.jpg)
Who said CBM told them to build "too short of a course"? I didn't say that....I said it was very prescient of them to build a course that wasn't the 6,000 yards he clearly recommended over a course of "6,300 or 6,400 yards", but instead built one that opened at 6250 and could easily be stretched to 6,500 for competitions, which was their intent from the git-go.
Again, CBM wrote to them on July 2, 1910;
The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
Why do you think they didn't do what CBM suggested they do....build a course of 6,000 yards??
And you didn't answer my question about "intent", not surprisingly. However they measured it, and whether that method had flaws or not, wouldn't they have tried to measure to CBM's stated ideal 6,000 yard course if indeed they were following his instructions?
-
Mike, they did build the course CBM instructed. They built the holes he suggested way back in July 1910, almost to a tee. And you seem to have forgotten CBM's involvement throughout the process as well. CBM and the Committee were working on the layout plan at NGLA and then CBM and HJW returned to Merion and chose the final layout plan that was approved by Merion's Board. Are you saying that Wilson did not build the course according to the plan CBM had chosen? On what basis would you say that?
Your question of "intent" makes no sense to me. So far as I can tell, Merion built the course as CBM intended them to build ir, or at least Merion tried to build it as he intended. Whether Merion later accurately measured and listed the distances has nothing to do with whether they built CBM's course.
You are playing games. Again. CBM did recommend a course of around 6000 yards, but he more specifically recommended 18 holes and those recommended holes added up to a course within a range of about 5700 - 6300. And then he remained in the design process and he chose the final layout plan! For you (or anyone) to pretend they disregarded CBM's instructions is preposterous. Merion's Board approved CBM's plan - the one he had chosen - and that Merion built their course according to that plan!
-
David,
I know you want to believe that and I know you want others to believe that, but you simply have no evidence of that at all.
CBM was there on June 29th, 1910 to see a proposed site of on land held by Connell's group in Ardmore. We don't even know what specific land he was looking at there yet as the Dallas Estate was not in control of Connell until several months later. Frankly, he could have been looking at 100-120 acres all north of Ardmore Avenue for all we know for certain.
The next record of any communication was 9 months later, in March 1911, when Hugh Wilson and his committee went to NGLA for an overnite visit. Hugh Wilson told us exactly what was done during that visit, as do the MCC Minutes, and it was NOT working on the design of the Merion golf course, much as you'd like everyone to believe that.
By that time, Hugh Wilson and his committee had already designed a number of different proposed courses. After their visit to NGLA they returned and created five different plans.
CBM did come down to Merion for the second time in April 1911, 10 months after his first and only prior visit, and helped the committee select the best of those five plans.
To say they laid it out to his plans is simple word games on your part and a bad...no, actually pathetic excuse for documented history.
If you have any other evidence of CBM's involvement at any time during the course of that year spent planning you really should produce it.
Jim,
How do you know that the "little more land near where you propose making your clubhouse" was the 3 acres of railroad land? CBM certainly never said that.
Why wouldn't it have been some of the land of Haverford College north of there, between the creek and the railroad tracks, running up along the quarry? I certainly see advantages from both a golf as well as a logistical standpoint in having them buy some of that acreage if it was available.
Are you suggesting that the golf course was routed in one-day by CBM on June 29th, 1910? He wrote his letter suggesting Merion try to get a little more land near the clubhouse to Merion 3 days later and we know that letter was very general and innocuous in nature.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5646491528_d52fe496b0_o.jpg)
-
David,
I know you want to believe that and I know you want others to believe that, but you simply have no evidence of that at all.
Really? And here I thought Merion's Board was presented the plan chosen by CBM and HJW, and that they authorized Wilson and his committee to build a course according to the plan CBM and HJW had chosen! Isn't that exactly what the minutes tell us?
Stop with the nonsense Mike. Quit making stuff up. There is evidence of CBM's involvement prior to March, and you know it. You misrepresent what we know about what happened and leave out key details such as how after the NGLA meeting they rearranged "the course." Etc. And as always, you nit-pick at out-of-context near-irrelevancies and ignore the big picture.
Try to put it in an IMO and even you might begin noticing the inconsistencies, mistakes, misrepresentations, and fudging you so often present in these posts. Or if you don't notice, I'd be glad to point it all out to you then. In an IMO you won't be able to as easily pick and choose or take things out of context, and you will not be able to easily ignore the overall picture by obsessing over out-of-context snippets like the "6000 yard" statement. At least not without looking more foolish in the process.
___________________________________________________
When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger. - Confucius
-
So which conspiracy theory sounds more unlikely:
Obama not being able to produce a full birth certificate, or David not being able to produce and evidence (other than his own logic, but I want someone who was there saying it) that CBM was involved in the design prior to March 1911?
In both cases, it would seem it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents (if they exist) than spend so much time explaining why you can't!
I don't think anyone is denying what the documents say about them adopting a plan picked by CBM in April, or meeting with him in March at NGLA to learn about design, and yes, probably look at his template holes and see where they might work on their plan.
David, without your desparate attacks, please repost any document (or show us which post in any thread it already has been posted) that shows any CBM involvement between June 29 1910 and March 1911. You tell us we "know" they are there, but we simply have never seen them.
Thanks in advance for the civil revelations that we may have missed. Not so much if you just parse more words, or try to browbeat us into believing your assertions.
-
So which conspiracy theory sounds more unlikely:
Obama not being able to produce a full birth certificate, or David not being able to produce and evidence (other than his own logic, but I want someone who was there saying it) that CBM was involved in the design prior to March 1911?
In both cases, it would seem it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents (if they exist) than spend so much time explaining why you can't!
What a strange analogy. APPARENTLY JEFF BRAUER IS A BIRTHER! That may be the ugliest thing I have ever said about anyone on these threads, but Jeff's revelation actually explains alot!
You guys continuing to deny CBM's extensive involvement in the design of Merion makes about as much sense as the Birther/Morons denying that Obama was born in the United States. In both cases plenty of evidence has been produced, but like the Birthers, you unreasonably demand some additional specific piece of evidence while ignoring all that which has been produced.
Jeff, I am not surprised that you aren't familiar with the evidence linking CBM to the process before March. Like with your brethren Birthers, facts have never really been your forte. But I've covered it many times, including in my essay, and I won't cover it again just because you order me to. By now you ought to know that, unlike your friends and allies, I don't lie, twist, or make things up, and I am very seldom wrong about such claims.
_______________________
Like his brethren Birthers, Jeff demands I produce some specific document but he ignores all the rest of the evidence, and he refuses to ask the one question anyone searching for historical documents must always ask: Would one would expect to find the documents one seeks given the state of the record as we know it?
He keeps demanding some specific statement of CBM's involvement between July and November of 1910, but so far as I know there is very little or no information available between July 1910 and November 1910 of any sort ABOUT ANYONE'S INVOLVEMENT. Yet we know quite a lot happened during this period. By his logic, no one did anything unless we can point specifically in a document to who did it and when. But as I explained in my essay, the course was routed during this period, and given that we aren't idiots we can draw reasonable conclusions about what happened based on the facts we have! His demand for this particular documentation isn't reasonable given that most of what was ongoing was behind the scenes, didn't involve Wilson (he wouldn't be involved for months) and wasn't being conducted as "official Merion business."
The only documents I can think of where the exact evidence you seek might be the Drexel Documents, but so many contradictory stories and lies have been told about the Drexel Documents, I would never believe a word of it until I am able to examine the entire set. Somehow I don't think that will happen any time soon.
__________________________
As for the rest, Jeff, if you admit that Merion accepted CBM's plan and built their course according to CBM's plan, then I have no idea what you think you are arguing about.
-
Its's very simple David, and why question anyone's intelligence but your own when you can't figure it out?
I don't believe that there was much activity other than putting together the parcel, which was announced in Nov 1910, finalized in Dec 1910 (although deed was recorded later) with an announcement that they were going to get started on the routing, the January appointment of the committee, etc.
If anyone else puts forth a theory without contemporaneous documentation, they sure hear about it from you, but you don't seem to want to play by your own rules, demanding that we accept your "reasonable" analysis.
And the fact that Drexel University is conspiring against you to not show Poor David any documents. Bwah!
Once again for the truth challenged (you) please show us any contemoraneous documents upon which you build the PORTION of your theory that Merion East was routed by CBM prior to November 1910. Show one, other than your logic about the "Merion Triangle" which makes as much sense as the Bermuda Triangle, and is just as mysterious.
It's simple. We want the same type of evidence you would demand of us.
Cheers.
-
But as I explained INCORRECTLY AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE in my essay, BECAUSE BECAUSE I WANT TO CHANGE MERION'S HISTORY TO EMBARASS TEPAUL the course was routed during this period, and given that we aren't idiots we can
draw reasonable conclusions I CAN BROWBEAT OTHERS RATHER THAN PRODUCE FACTS about what happened based on the facts we have WHAT I WANT PEOPLE TO BELIEVE HAPPENED!
Poor David,
I fixed your last post for ya!
-
Jeff,
You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but let's not pretend they aren't fact based, which is what you are doing. My theory has contemporaneous documentation, just not contemporaneous documentation you accept. Like the Birthers, you demand I jump through your hoops, ignoring that no such information is generally available about anyone's involvement.
Like with your Birthers this is obviously about anger and hate for you. Your last obnoxious post demonstrates that tt obviously has nothing to do with the truth.
And the fact that Drexel University is conspiring against you to not show Poor David any documents. Bwah!
I am very curious why you would say this? I told you I don't think Drexel is conspiring about anything so I have to believe this is just rhetoric to you, and is very disappointing to see.
Your pal claims that HE and his family committee control these documents, not Drexel. Drexel doesn't have them. Hopefully they will go to Drexel, at which case Drexel will no doubt do the right thing, but Drexel doesn't have them yet.
-
By the way, Jeff, I reported your post to Ran. Such garbage has no place here. You are really on a roll today. You should take a breather.
All this nonsense and animosity would go away if you guys would either drop it or man up and write your own IMO.
-
David,
Once again, you wish us to believe the portion of your conclusion prior to Nov 1910 is fact based, and yet you have never provided actual fact to document it, and you admitted earlier there were no documents to prove it that you know of. As such, portions of your essay wouldn't pass muster. At least they don't with me and I presume if you presented it in a more qualified vetting forum, I doubt it would pass there. Its not that hard. Your essay doesn't have enough evidence to draw some of the conclusions you draw.
Rather than step back, you attack everyone who disagrees with you. You accuse us of having agendas, of being anger filled, of being disingenuous, etc. You claim Mike started this thread only to talk about Merion, but of course, you were the one (of a few) who told us that and steered it this way, all to defend your essay, and trying to cover it up by accusing Mike of protecting his agenda.
Its all too much. All of which describes the browbeatings you give us to try to push through your agenda. I should ignore it, but when you try to push it through, I guess I like the fight enough to fight back. I admit I am weak that way.......
It seems you are getting more angry, and more desparate. A simple request not only trips you up, but sends you off the handle.
And this, at someone who agrees largely with you that CBM probably had a bigger impact than Merion had recorded in their more modern histories, but simply doesn't believe you proved a timeline intended to minimize the efforts of the Merion committee.
To use your words, its "rich" when you report bad behavior around here.
No need to respond, although I suspect you will because you usually like the last word, faulty as that word might be. Or, perhaps you will redeem yourself by producing the documents you say prove CBM's 1910 involvement. Oh wait, you have already admitted you can't produce those, but in the words of many politicians, you say "trust me."
and my last post simply conveys to the world what many have said here, that you have one, too. At the minimum, its protecting your essay against all comers. As you know, others have circulated emails around here that have you deciding to make a concerted effort to embarass other members of the website. If it isn't true, you have sure acted like it over the years.
-
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, Jeff.
You don't have to agree with my conclusions about Merion, but they are fact-based. Same goes for my conclusion that Obama was born in the US! In both cases, I have no need to jump through your hoops to make either case, because both cases have already been made. It doesn't matter to me whether you are convinced or not.
As for what "passes muster" with you, nothing I write ever will. So be it. I am not dumb enough to think I can change the mind of a Birther.
Funny you would accuse me of attacking given your recent posts to me, especially in a post where you admit you like to fight and are fighting here. Because I am not fighting. I don't care if you agree with my conclusion. I just wish you would stop misrepresenting the factual basis for my conclusions.
-
David,
As you suggested, I have reread your essay. You shouldn’t have suggested it. In a re-read, it looks even weaker than I remember it. (You may recall that I was initially impressed and agreed. It was only later that the arguments and documents that turned up as a result of your essay convinced me otherwise)
Not only do I not find any attributions to nearly every section, I find a lot of suppositions where you fill in the blanks for us, and admit you have no facts, using phrases like “In all likelihood”, “Presumably”, “It is probable”, “must have” and the like for nearly EVERY MAIN CONTENTION YOU MAKE.
A few samples that highlight my case against your essay:
"In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best."
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
, Macdonald and Whigham remained significantly involved even after Merion purchased the land based on their recommendations.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay! We do know they came back twice, as per the Wilson letter four years after the fact. But, if Wilson’s Brother says they came back twice only, why do you suppose it was more? Why tell us that?
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay! See above.
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned.....To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned.
As you know, this is my personal favorite falsehood. Your essay takes their written, contemporaneous words, and tells us approximate means required, and “nearly” means “specific!”. But where are your facts? Why should we accept your words over theirs?
Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion.
Is this supposed “proof” of how MCC did it? And yet you tell us that it was Mike Cirba who brings up NGLA as a proxy for Merion, while you are pure as new snow?
While the Plan for Proposed Golf Course does not include the routing plan, when viewed in light of another crucial piece of the puzzle, it does reveal that the course had already been planned at the time the document was drawn up.
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had the routing, but for some reason didn’t show it?
It has long been assumed that the “swap” occurred while Construction Committee was in the process of building the course. But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910[/b],
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/b]Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC started working on the plans before January? IF so, why were their no reports of anyone working on the plan earlier?
Since, according to American Golfer, Macdonald was in Chicago for the USGA annual meeting in mid-January 1911, the Committee was most likely met with him in the second half of January 1911
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC talked with CBM in January, rather than in March and April as reported? Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements.
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.
Is this supposed “proof” that MCC had a routing? If I recall, the areas of soil samples were marked with letters, rather than hole numbers, which could easily suggest no routing had taken place, at least to most of us! But that is not of concern, not in your essay!
By the time of the NGLA trip:
1. Merion already had a routing plan. Francis had been putting the finishing touches on the layout plan months before, when he resolved the routing issue.
But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
Wilson said: “Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton – both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick – twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans.”
As mentioned, if the contemporaries say CBM advised twice at Merion, including the June 1910 visit and later that April visit, tell me why we should believe your contention that he was much more involved? Where are your facts? Not in your essay!
Tillinghast did not identify who it was that showed him the plans, but he had apparently spoken to Macdonald about the course for the American Golfer article.
Speculation and/or you made it up, to use your customary parlance when others of us make statements. But where are your facts? Not in your essay!
David, to sum up your big flaming pile of pooh essay, and your horrible behavior here over the years, your essay simply is light on facts, and long on your “logic” of putting them together, which you demand we accept, when you call BS when any hint of that is done in reverse. You speculate, you make stuff up, and you have an agenda. Further, you cloak your true position by attacking and browbeating others endlessly.
Your essay is not worth the band space it’s written on, although I have admitted for all the mess, it created some value, by forcing others to go dig out documents, and probably does more clearly highlight CBM’s role in assisting the committee.
But to use your favorite phrases, it’s time for the world to see that “As far as I know, in all likelihood, it is probable, that you presumably must have stretched the truth just a wee bit for whatever reasons you may have had.
I will leave it at that, and I think we can leave it that we simply disagree on some of the major contentions of your essay.
I do agree that an IMO in point-counterpoint is “probably” more productive and lasting. I don’t think it should come from me, but if Ran or any of the Philly boys want to incorporate parts of this in any of their rebuttal pieces, they may feel free to do so.
-
PS - Sorry you have to wade through all that to sort out the quotes from David's essays, and my comments. I spent a while trying to introduce color, etc., but my edit function is still on the blink. My comments often start with "But where are the facts? Not in your essay" to convey that I am disagreeing with David's contention that this was a fact based essay.
As noted, all the conditional tense, and the near complete lack of attribution for many of the main points, along with Davide admitting separatlely that there is none, make this look more and more like a very substandard IMO, IMO!
But, we will leave it at that. David and I respectfully disagree on its merit, mostly because I don't accept the conditional tense statements as anything other than speculation and made up stuff, to use his favorite phrases.
-
Jeff,
Keep making sense like that and you might get me to switch parties by 2012.
-
David, to sum up your big flaming pile of pooh essay . . . Your essay is not worth the band space it’s written on
You continue to impress me with your class and dignity, Jeff. Way to keep it above the belt! No insults or attacks from you. And you even managed to accuse me of lying yet again. With the company you keep, that may be the most ironic comment of all.
And interesting timing on your change of heart (as opposed to change of mind) on my essay. Surely it has nothing to do with your obvious anger or frustration or with you taking pot shots left and right the past week or so! Is this another one of those unbiased attempts to set the record straight about my "big flaming pile of poo essay?"
As I tried to make sense of the disjointed hatchet job, I just could not get past your Birther analogy/admission a few post above. It keeps occurring to me that your approach here is the same as with that issue.
You know how you Birthers have seen the Certificate of Live Birth with the Official Seal of Hawaii, seen the contemporaneous newspaper reports in three different papers, read how such lists were compiled and sent out by the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, seen the sworn affidivats of the Hawaiian officials verifying the long-form birth certificate, read how Hawaiian law does not allow for the release of anything else, etc?
Yet despite all of this, you continue ranting . . . "Where are the facts? Where are the facts? These aren't the facts, and this doesn't cut it! Why won't Obama 'produce a full birth certificate?' 'it would seen it would just be easier to just produce the damn documents.' If you don't give me the documents I demand then you must be wrong!" That is what you are doing here. Some of it is a close paraphrase of you, in fact.
Obviously, by your own analogy/admission this has become a "Birther" issue for you, and as such it has nothing to do with truth or reality. As I said above, I'm not dumb enough to think I can change the mind of a Birther.
Hopefully Ran will eventually put my essay back together again, so readers can make up their own mind and won't be influenced by endless pot shots of the usual suspects.
-
Classic David.
My last post takes a comprehensive look at aspects of his essay that seem to be lacking fact. So, he goes back to a joke I made about comparing his essay to the birthers as PURE DEFLECTION because he has no fact based answers.
Another example of the lawerly tactics he has always used. If you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have the law on your side, pound the law, and when you have niether as in this case David doesn't, then pound the table! Discredit the witness! Deflect!
Do anything but answer the questions. And yes, I am LIKE the birthers in this regard. Why not just pony up and answer?
The only possible reason in this case is.....David cannot because he has no answers.
PS- I only found a few instances of jibberish in the translation of your document from memory, but none that took anyting out of context. IMHO, this "my essay was damaged" sounds like an attempt to give yourself cover for anything you need to backpedal away from.
Seriously David, where are the FACTS that back up the contentions in your essay that I QUOTED VER BATIM? I see no attributions, no quotes from known documents that make your case for you. None. So, please provide them rather than deflect, and we can end this debate. You actually could change my mind, if you only had facts.
But nice try on attacking me as usual.
What was the old Dragnet line? "Just the facts, m'am" Once again David, some four years after the essay came out, someone is just asking you to tell us the facts. And again, you can't.
-
Tried to go back and highlight David's exact quotes as taken from his IMO. An hour I won't get back. I wish Ran would fix the edit function, or is it just my computer?
Anyway, didn't get all the way through it, but hope it helps for the 1.38 people still interested in fighting for truth, justice and the American Way......
-
Great. More character assassination and some more lawyer cheap shots with a lame old joke thrown in. You are just lashing out, and have been for a while. You throw every insult in the book, including again questioning my honesty, yet you expect a serious answer to your latest out of context pot shots? Get real.
Besides, I've addressed the vast majority of your supposed "comprehensive look" at my essay numerous times. If I didn't address it many times before it is because you are just making things up and attributing things to me that I never even suggested, or your criticism make no sense at all. The facts are in the essay. You can't comprehensively address them by cherry picking out of context sentences then demanding, like some Rush Limbaugh wannabe, "Where are the facts?"
We agree that you are like the Birthers in this regard, so I don't see why you characterize that as an attack. You want to see attacks, look within.
___________________________
By the way, I notice you are not only clearing up the quotes but actually substantively changing your post above, long after I responded. Classy.
-
Making things up about your essay? Each of those was cut and paste copy. None of them had any citation as to why the were true, which would seem to be historic SOP, no? Really, I read it again, and in very few spots so you cite a specific document to boster your claims, which anyone can read above.
I do agree anyone interested can and should re-read your IMO, rather than take my word for it, though. While I am not trying to mislead anyone, I understand the potential for snippets to do so. That said, for those bits I took out, I am pretty sure that there is no correlating evidence for the assertions I put in there. Almost NONE. And, to be fair, I only took the ones I found questionable. There are certainly many more snippets in there that I obviously left alone because they were backed up, or at least, I recall the documents you were referring to.
For the snippets I posted, I don't see that you ever truly addressed them with fact, and are again avoiding it now.
Again, just the facts, m'am. How can you slam me for simply asking you for historical facts to back up your supposed historical research piece? You can keep trying to lump me with birthers or Rush, but its more deflection. In what universe is asking for facts a bad thing? Isn't that what the historic process is supposed to do?
Just to give you a chance to start slowly with just one, simple answer, what evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911? I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that. If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see.
Lastly, ALL I did with that post edit is put your quotes in bold for easier reading. There ARE NO OTHER CHANGES and for you to to infer that I am doing something unethical is just another example of your outright lying to cover up you being wrong.
-
Yes, Making things up. Creating B.S. strawmen and then attacking them. For example, I never claimed or even implied that CBM and HJW visited Merion more than twice, yet you attack me for it: "We do know they came back twice, as per the Wilson letter four years after the fact. But, if Wilson’s Brother says they came back twice only, why do you suppose it was more? Why tell us that?" You simply made up this notion that I claimed more than two trips, and then attacked me and scolded me and demanded I explain myself. You have little understanding of my claims or the facts, so you simply make shit up and attack me anyway.
Along the same lines, you also challenge my statement CBM and HJW remained significantly involved after Merion bought the property! Are you kidding me? If you cannot find my evidence on that one, then you couldn't have read the essay, even in its garbled form! Either that or you are just pulling things out of context and taking unsupportable pot shots.
One of the thing that was garbled were my footnotes. My factual assertions were extensively supported by footnotes, and they are gone or unconnected to that which they note. Other than than I have no idea where you get the idea that my stuff isn't supported. It is. Whether or not you agree with my conclusions.
This is crap, Jeff. Just another lame, thin, half-assed list of cheap shots. Pulling sentences out of context and demanding I jump through hoops for you. I'm not going to do it. If you guys ever come up with anything worth addressing, I will but this isn't even close, nor is Cirba's "IMO" nor is the Faker .pdf.
Just to give you a chance to start slowly with just one, simple answer, what evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911? I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that. If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see.
Okay Jeff. Here is your one. It is one and done for me.
The February 1, Ag letter from Wilson to Piper. The first evidence of Wilson's involvement. It was not only in my essay, it was part of the factual basis for supposing the timing of the NGLA trip, but also was discussed in my alternate theory about the timing.
As usual, you neither know the facts nor understand my arguments. But you want blood, so you spout off anyway. Which is why I encourage you to put it in a more productive form that just continually attacking me with things you obviously don't understand.
-
From the Essay as it now reads:
The Committee’s trip to NGLA probably occurred in January of 1911, the same month Merion finalized the purchase of the land and appointed the Construction Committee. By February 1, 1911, Wilson had already begun working out the details of the construction. On that date, Wilson sent a letter to agronomy expert Charles Piper requesting advice on viable grass strains for Merion. In the letter, Wilson noted that Macdonald had recommended Piper’s services, and that the committee valued Macdonald’s advice and was writing based on Macdonald’s advice. Thus, before February of 1911, Wilson and his Committee had already been in contact with C. B. Macdonald, discussing matters as specific to the construction as the type of grass Merion should try to grow.
Presumably, any such discussions between the Construction Committee and Macdonald occurred while the Committee was meeting with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. If not, then Wilson and his Committee had even more contact with Macdonald than is currently known. Either way, Wilson and his Committee began discussing the details of Merion East with Macdonald shortly after the Committee was appointed in January 1911.
You try and cherry pick one single issue to grandstand, and you cannot even pick one that isn't answerable straight out of the text! Instead you grandstand with your challenge:
"I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that. If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see."
What were you reading?? Did you even bother to read the documents?? It wasn't in any Appendix. It was right there in the text!
Enough of this garbage. You are just desperately taking shots but, as usual, you are shooting blanks.
-
David,
Nice try on demanding a comprehensive approach, as if finding a foundation of your theory as wrong isn't valuble. I took the portion dealing with you assertion of the November pre-routing in entirety, and posted what I think is true, unproven, and partially true. Maybe it can be a start towards a more comprehensive peice as you suggest.
David, I am not the ignorant person you make me out to be. I do understand your theories, and I understand you have backpedaled away from some at times. I also suspect you have enough alternate theories to keep yourself right in a pinch.
For that matter, I have usually found that most true theories as to history especially aren't that hard to understand, and that the real complicated ones (like yours) tend to have some problems. Not that this proves any specific case of history to be true or false. I also have said I agree in a general way that CBM deserves more credit than MCC gave in its history books, although I believe those in the know always knew it to a degree (its in their records.)
Here are the points I believe are more theory than fact, and as yet unproven. The fact that you wrote extensively on this pre november routing without documents and now hope that someone isn't hiding the Drexel documents, and hoping they prove something, speaks volumes to me about just how firm that part of your essay is, but here goes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After inspecting the site, Macdonald provided his (and Whigham’s) written opinion “as to what could be done with the property.” TRUE With Macdonald’s letter, the Site Committee now had two written recommendations about what to do with the property; first from Barker, and then from Macdonald and Whigham. TRUE The Committee must have preferred the latter, because according to Merion’s Board, the Site Committee’s report “embodied Macdonald’s letter,” and the Committee’s recommendation was based largely upon the views expressed by Macdonald. TRUE – SOMEWHAT. DIDN’T LIKE THE 6000 YARD RECOMMENDATION BASED ON FUTURE ACTIONS, BUT DAVID DISPUTES THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE LETTER RECOMMENDING (STRONGLY) 6000 BE ENOUGH.
The Site Committee’s recommendation to purchase had a few important caveats. They wanted the land at a slightly better price than had been offered. TRUE Also, the development company had contemplated selling Merion 100 acres, but now, after Macdonald’s review and recommendations, the Site Committee required specific parcels measuring nearly 120 acres. UNPROVEN, AS TO WORDS “SPECIFIC” AND REQUIRED
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres will be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000, we believe it would be a wise purchase. TRUE – QUOTES CLUB DOCUMENTS
The committee did not request an approximate acreage, but “required” specific land measuring “nearly 120 acres.” As will be discussed below, this was because the routing had already been planned. UNPROVEN, WRITTEN BY YOU, AND A BASIS FOR NUMEROUS OTHER FACTS YOU WANT US TO ASSUME ARE TRUE. THE ONLY APPARENT DOCUMENTATION SHOWN BELOW IS DAVID’S OPINION THAT MCC MUST HAVE FOLLOWED TO THE “T” HOW CBM GOT THE FINAL SITE FOR NGLA.
While the Site Committee tried “to impress upon the Board the fact that . . . prompt action [was] necessary,” immediate action turned out to be impossible. Haverford Development Company did not yet own all of the “nearly 120 acres” that Merion now required for their purposes. TRUE –The company controlled approximately 300 acres, but Merion needed two specific parcels totaling 24 acres that were not part of Haverford Development Company’s extensive holdings. The purchase would have to wait until they could gain access to this additional land. UNPROVEN, AS TO WORDS “SPECIFIC”. WE CAN ALSO SPECULATE THAT BASED ON SOMETHING, THEY REALIZED THEY NEEDED MORE LAND WEST OF ARDMORE ROAD.
Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. UNPROVEN Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel. UNPROVEN-NO PROOF THAT MCC AND NGLA FOLLOWED EXACT SAME PROGRAM. MCC APPEARS TO FOLLOW PROGRAM OF 120 ACRES WITH DEVELOPER CONTROLLNG LAND, NOT OFFERING THEIR OWN LOTS, FOR REASONS YOU EXPLAIN.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. UNPROVEN AND ADMITTED BY YOUR CONDITIONAL QUALIFER The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements. TRUE –MCC NEEDED OTHER PARCELS, BUT MAY NOT BE ONLY DIFFERENCE. EXACT SAME PROCEDURES NOT PROVEN.
I AM JUST TAKING THE ONE SECTION DEALING WITH CBM’S SUPPOSED ROUTING PRIOR TO NOV 15, 1910. I HAVE SHOWN THAT DAVID DISCUSSES THINGS BELOW, AS PROMISED, BUT NOT WITH ANY DOCUMENTATION. IF HIS FOOTNOTES REAPPEAR, THEN I WILL CONSIDER I MAY BE WRONG.
I admit the weakest part of my current argument MIGHT be solved by access to your footnotes. That said, see my comments about your Drexel documents above.
Once again, I just don't think there is any real conclusive evidence of the routing having been finished or even largely roughed in by November, which you have to believe to believe the CBM routed the course without the committee working on it, and just working on construction.
Oh yes, I recall your long dissertations (still largely debated) that laying out the golf course has some precise meaning that only you could figure out how it was used 100 years ago.
BTW, we should all celebrate. This has to be pretty close to 100 years exactly that one of our national treasures - Merion Golf Club - started that actual construction. Maybe someone should go out and set off some explosives to recreate the blasting on the 16th green!
-
David,
Not sure what you are saying in our crossed posts. I am pretty sure the only documented trip to NGLA was in March, not January as you speculated.
As to writing Piper and Oakley, didn't CBM mention that in his June 29, 1910 letter?
What documents do you have that demonstrate continued contact, other than your assumption that "they must have?"
-
Wait a minute here Jeff,
You grandstanded, pleading with me to answer a single question. Announcing that there was no factual basis in the essay. Saying you would apologize if you were wrong.
Well you were wrong. You couldn't even get this one point right. So where is the apology?
And while you are at it how about you admit you were wrong to claim I had stated there were more than two trips to Merion?
And how about admitting you were wrong about claiming there was no support for CBM's continued invovlement after July?
Nope. You just skip onto the next bogus claim about my essay, as if you weren't even involved in a conversation. Who is writing this stuff for you Jeff? Whoever it is (as if I didn't know) he ought to get his facts straight.
-
David,
Not sure what you are saying in our crossed posts. I am pretty sure the only documented trip to NGLA was in March, not January as you speculated.
As to writing Piper and Oakley, didn't CBM mention that in his June 29, 1910 letter?
What documents do you have that demonstrate continued contact, other than your assumption that "they must have?"
Neither Piper nor Oakley were mentioned in the June letter.
The Feb. 1 letter is evidence, and there is other evidence, but I answered your one question. I am done. You though need to set the record straight about some of the stuff you have claimed because it is wrong.
-
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
Who else was CBM talking about back in June, 1910 other than Piper and Oakley??
If they were following CBM's instructions, why did it take them 9 months to send soil samples to Piper and Oakley??
-
Nice try Mike, but as usual you are cherry picking the source material to distort what really happened.
In the February 1 letter Wilson indicated that CBM had spoken to them and that Wilson immediately decided to contact Piper based on CBM's good advice.
We have covered this all before. You guys are spinning your wheels.
Come up with something new or productive or let it go. You are wasting my time.
-
David,
If we are cherry picking, you cut down the tree, but just won't admit it like our first president......
I stand by my post, and note that you spend time telling us we are wrong, but precious little time defending how you are right.
Your essay tells us that Merion designed the course before buying the land, and offers only CBM's description of how he did it at the second site at NGLA as "proof." There is not one word of confirmation from any source (other than the Whigham eulogy, which is suspect, but possible)
I agree we should stop wasting time. I understand you are quite fond of your essay, and put a lot of work into historic research. I simply don't believe you have offered enough evidence. As you say, I am free to disagree with you, and having said that, and the reasons why, its time to let it go, perhaps for brighter minds to resolve any issues about Merion and its creation.
Have a happy easter.
-
Jeff Brauer,
You have some unfinished business. You were grandstanding about how I couldn't even come up with facts to support the notion that CBM and Wilson were communicating in January, pleading with me to answer just this one challenge and claiming that there was no support in my essay. You said if I offered support you would set the record straight.
I met your challenge straight out of the essay but, typically, you haven't lived up to your side of the deal. You were wrong. Said you would admit it if you were, but instead of so doing you just move on to the next issue about which you are also wrong.
And you also need to set the record straight about falsely accusing me of claiming there were more than two Merion trips and falsely claiming that there was no support stating the CBM and HJW remained involved after the land was chosen. There are plenty of other errors and mistakes in your accusations, but you can't even set the record straight on these first few, despite your indication that you would.
I don't care if you think I haven't come up with "enough evidence" because you have no clue what the evidence is (see the January claim) or even what I have claimed (see your more than two trips accusation) or even what the essay was about (see your accusation that I didn't support the claim of CBM's continued involvement.) Your claims of the last few days about my essay are downright foolish and show how little comprehension of what is in the essay and what isn't. But then when you are just cherry picking sentences, I wouldn't expect much understanding on your part!
Whoever has been feeding you this garbage the past few days is completely clueless, but then we already knew that.
You guys are spinning your wheels and taking pot shots about items already covered multiple times. Your attempts to crucify my essay will never stop, but you haven't even scathed it.
If you ever come up with anything new, let me know.
And I already defended where I am right. It is in my IMO. You should try it sometime.
-
"If you ever come up with anything new, let me know. "
David,
Ditto.
-
David,
If you provided evidence, which you claim to be a Feb letter saying that Hugh Wilson talked to CBM and immediately wrote Oakley, I can't comment because I don't recall that letter exactly. It is certainly not beyond you to add or subract one word which can change meanings. But, I understand where you are coming from and consider that letter to be sort of tangential evidence. However, it could be as Mike says. CBM did mention Washington Experts in his June letter, and it could also be that. IMHO, inconclusive.
Also, as to you making your point "right out of the essay" you quote yourself to make a point? Anyone vetting your essay will not use your words as proof of your words being correct! It doesn't fly with me, or for that matter, anyone who is serious about this stuff, but you have offered your own essay up as proof for your own essay in the past. You have to see the flaw in that logic, don't you?
-
David,
If you provided evidence, which you claim to be a Feb letter saying that Hugh Wilson talked to CBM and immediately wrote Oakley, I can't comment because I don't recall that letter exactly.
You cannot comment because you don't recall the letter exactly? ]Then if you don't have a firm grasp on the facts, what are you doing making all these outlandish pronouncements on my essay and what I have supported and what I haven't!
What a farce this is! This was your hand-picked issue, and you claimed I offered no factual support! I give you factual support straight out of my essay and suddenly you can't comment? You've been commenting for years without knowing what the hell you were talking about, so why stop now? The reality is are in no position to comment on ANYTHING in my essay because you don't have a grasp of either the essay or the facts. Yet you comment on how I claimed more than two Merion trips -- I didn't. And you comment on how I didn't support my claims of CBM's continued involvement -- I did. And you comment on a bunch more stuff that you don't understand! You only refrain from comment when proven wrong.
It is certainly not beyond you to add or subtract one word which can change meanings.
Here we go. Another shot at my honesty and integrity. I don't make stuff up or manipulate the source material like your pals and allies. and I AM TIRED OF BEING CALLED A LIAR BY YOU AND YOUR SCUMBAG PALS. I have no respect for them, and these never ending false accusations about my honesty are sapping what little respect I still had for you.
The rest of your post is just more wheel spinning and continued nonsense. I referenced that February letter and that February letter is my factual support. You don't need it accept it and of course will not, but that says more about you than it does whether I offered factual support.
You are a cga Birther, as is Mike. No evidence will satisfy you, and you won't accept even the smallest logical conclusions from an unambiguous factual record. In the February 1, 1910letter Wilson said that CBM had spoken of Piper and that he could help them, and they immediately decided to write and ask for help! That is all in the letter, BUT RATHER THAN LOOK IT UP YOURSELF (it has probably been copied 50 times in these threads) YOU AGAIN ACCUSE ME OF DISHONESTLY MISREPRESENTING IT AND HEM AND HAW ABOUT A LETTER FROM EIGHT MONTHS BEFORE THERE IS ANY PROOF OF WILSON'S INVOLVEMENT!
Such behavior is pure sleaze and is despicable.
-
This is the February 1st Hugh Wilson letter. The red underlined is simply highlighting some items from a past discussion.
In one sense Wilson was contacting P&O"immediately" as the property had only been purchased by HG Lloyd for the club in the latter part of December 1910. It would have been likely premature to send soil samples prior to actually securing the property. Also, Wilson's committee had only just been formalized at that time.
I don't see how this establishes the timeframe of additional communications with Macdonald one way or another after June 29th, 1910.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/3704287574_32cdbba422_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3703479649_bb6c37f966_o.jpg)
-
I don't see how this establishes the timeframe of additional communications with Macdonald one way or another after June 29th, 1910.
Of course you don't. Because you are incapable reasonably and objectively considering the source material. And no doubt Birther Brauer will agree with you.
But as I have said repeatedly, I don't care whether you accept my conclusions or not. I just want you both to quit pretending that there is no factual basis for my conclusions.
The letter provides a strong factual basis for the conclusion that CBM was involved before February 1st, and it just doesn't fit that this letter references a letter from eight months before.
You guys can twist it all you like (as you try to do above with your strained and misleading version of what "immediately" means) but the most obvious interpretation is what I said in my essay. Wilson was dealing with CBM prior to February 1, 1910, and when he first became involved in the project.
_____________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
Now that you have finally seen this letter, are you ready to set the records straight regarding your challenge above? And what do you have to say about your supposition that I lying about the letter by changing words to misrepresenting what it said? Surely this needs to be added to the growing is of false claims you have made about me and my essay that need to be set straight.
-
David,
As you predicted, I appreciate Mike refreshing our memory, and I agree with him that the Feb 1 letter in no way fleshes out when CBM suggested they contact Piper. Nor do I think you shed any factual light on it. Again, here is your essay verbatim on this matter:
Notably, in the February 1st letter, Wilson also wrote that he was sending Piper a contour map so that Piper could mark sections from where he wanted topsoil samples. Of course such a map would have been most worthwhile if it showed the golf holes, so that Piper would know from where to choose the soil samples. Conditional commentGiven that the routing had been known for months, Conditional commentand given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) Conditional commenthad been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, (False or Unproven at least) it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald,Conditional comment and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan.Conditional comment
Once again, a lot of "seems likely" but no additional proof that they had been in contact, and one outright missed fact - that they went to NGLA in January. Lastly, no hints that there are any golf holes on the map, just "sections" which somehow you magically interpret as a routing. With so many unproven assertions just in that one paragraph, how can we trust the rest of your essay?
I will apologize for inserting the word "immediately" into your post. I was certain you added that somewhere in a post or private email, but you are correct, and I did not find that word. Very sorry for that.
That said, I agree with you that your essay is an interpretation of the events, but just don't see the necessary corroborating evidence (such as any document pointing to other contacts) that I believe a true historian would seek out before publishing a supposedly serious theory that it is "the most reasonable interpretation." Interesting, but it falls short, and I think you would agree if any one else posted a theory on such little actual historic fact.
Again, anyone who reads your essay again will see that you really don't footnote it, point to any documents, etc. You just tell us its the most reasonable interpretation. Your essay is split perhaps 50-50 between facts we all know and your opinions as to what they mean. It really is. And that is a fact.
I know you disagree, and am willing to leave it at that. It seems clear that you and I start our discussions from vsatly differnt viewpoints (if not planets! ;)) and so I know it will be impossible to agree.
Cheers.
-
Hold on a second, Jeff.
Your claim was that there were NO FACTS SUPPORTING MY CLAIM THAT CBM WAS INVOLVED IN JANUARY. You didnt claim that no facts would convince you and Mike. That is a given!
YOU WERE WRONG. THERE ARE FACTS SUPPORTING MY CLAIMS. THAT YOU AND MIKE AREN'T CONVINCED IS YOUR PROBLEM.
-
David,
I agree we are two tough customers. I also agree there are some facts supporting your claims. But, like most of this historic stuff, there are so many conflicting documents, details to fill in, etc.
May not agree its not your problem. Its your essay, your contention it will be revised, etc. If Mike and I didn't exist, someone else would surely come in and fill the void.
BTW, I think the most accurate representation of my position is that there aren't sufficient facts to establish that CBM was involved prior to March 1911, save that June 29 meeting to inspect the property. Its not really an all or nothing mentality.
Cheers.
-
Is that what you are, a "tough customer?" I guess if you equate unreasonable with "tough customer" then I see your point.
You've repeatedly claimed there was much in my essay that had NO FACTUAL SUPPORT. You railed on it and me, calling it flaming shit, claiming it was worthless, calling me a liar, among other things. You grandstanded and threw down challenges and made promises of what would happen if I met them. You repeatedly announced that no facts backed up my claims. Here was your big challenge: "What evidence do you have that MCC visited with CBM in January 1911? I doubt you can even produce one fact/document to back up even that. If you can, I will certainly apologize, but frankly, there is none in your document, unless Ran deleted some appendix I don't see."
You were wrong. My claim was and is supported by the February 1, 1910 Wilson letter. It provided more than a reasonable basis for my claim, it provides a STRONG BASIS. So did you admit you were wrong and set the record straight as you indicated you would in your own cherry-picked challenge? Of course not. That would be reasonable, and you aren't reasonable, you are a "tough customer." So instead you outrageously accused me of LYING about what this document said.
Of course I wasn't lying at all. It was just another unfounded and damning insult on your part, but those are becoming commonplace for you. The document said exactly what I said it said. But did you admit you were wrong after it turned out that I wasn't lying? Of course not. "Tough customers" don't admit they are wrong merely because they are proven wrong, and they certainly aren't going to let little things like INTEGRITY or their WORD get in the way of being a tough customer! So instead you mumble some crap about "so many conflicting documents, details to fill in, etc." and leave it at that.
That's it? That is your excuse for repeatedly but wrongly claiming there is no factual support for my claims? That is your version of admitting you were WRONG, apologizing, and setting the record straight? That is all you can come up with after all your pages of bullshit, derogatory attacks on me and my essay, after repeatedly calling me a LIAR when I have done nothing but honestly and accurately represent the source material?
I know those pesky "documents, details to fill in, etc." have never held much interest to you, but then that begs the question of where you get off attacking me for week after week and calling me names and misrepresenting my essay when you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about? I guess you think this makes you a "tough customer" but to me it just makes you another scumbag who cannot separate his emotion from reasonable factual analysis. But I guess you admitted that when you informed us you were a Birther.
BTW, I think the most accurate representation of my position is that there aren't sufficient facts to establish that CBM was involved prior to March 1911, save that June 29 meeting to inspect the property. Its not really an all or nothing mentality.
It is sad, but this may just be true. It may be that this January 1910 business my just be the most accurate part of all your unsupportable, inaccurate, and uncalled for attacks on me and my essay over the past few weeks.
We have a letter where Wilson references CBM telling them to contact Piper, and Wilson saying they immediately decided to contact CBM. (There is more, but let's just go with this one document!) Yet, inexplicably, you claim that this is not sufficient evidence that CMB was involved with Wilson sometime before that letter?? And that is THE BEST you can come up with as a criticism of my essay? And you think that justifies this seemingly endless witch-hunt? Truly pathetic.
All your insults, all your baseless claims about my essay and your false accusations about be lying, after your challenge and grandstanding and all the other crap, we are exactly where we are when we started.
1. The claims in my essay have a reasonable factual basis.
2. Your claims to the contrary are nonsense.
3. You don't agree with my conclusions, but I can live with that. I wouldn't expect you would and I really don't care what you think, and for good reason.
That is it.
Oh yeah, I want nothing more to do with you.
-
I wish these threads could avoid the personal attacks but history seems to prove otherwise...my suggestion: either don't participate, or leave the personal insults aside...
David,
The problem with your interpretation is that you're assuming Wilson and CBM spoke or corresponded in January but there truly is no factual support for that. He didn't say they contacted Piper/Oakley immediately after speaking to CBM about them. he wrote..."we...imediately decided that we would write to you...". Deciding to write, and writing are two different events, wouldn't you agree?
Now, there's another issue amongst all this that can be analyzed in this context...one of your premises is that Wilson was not involved until January when the committee was formalized and I've always had a problem with that. Why would someone be apponted chairman of the committee out of the clear blue? While I have no specific proof, I think it's unreasonable to say Merion would have named him chairman of the committee if he hadn't shown an interest in the project and aptitude for the task over the prior 6 or 8 months.
These two items are distinct arguments but are inextricably linked in your assumption the Wilson's word "immediately" means he and CBM had just communicated with each other prior to the February 1 letter.
As you know, I agree that CBM had alot more to do with the initial creation of Merion East than a simple gratuitous visit in June 1910 and a couple casual conversations in March/April 1911 as Mike and Jeff consistently propose but I don't agree with your interpretation of all the material.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this paragraph Wilson wrote:
"Mr. Charles McDonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice and immediately decided that we would write to you and see if you would be good enough to help us out."
-
Was there a separate dedicated construction committee? Or was there the standard green/golf committee that managed the maintenance of the golf course, including in this case the construction of the new golf course?
-
Tom,
I don't know.
That being said, I think I can see where you're going. Correct me if I'm wrong but a staple of your position is that the construction committee wasn't formed until January and Hugh Wilson didn't show up in any conversations until that point. Is that fair?
-
Jim,
Your comments on the Wilson letter summarize my feelings perfectly. While you could interpret "immediately" to be upon speaking to CBM, it could also be immediately upon forming the committee. We know CBM spoke of the Washington exerts in June, we have to assume they did in January. To make that seem more likely, David's essay moves the well documented March NGLA trip to January, concurrent with the start of the committee, making it suspect, IMHO. He also repeatedly claims more evidence on this point, but offers none.
And that is just one of a dozen assumptions that I pointed out in his essay that he decided to answer! I believe the results would be similar for the other points, becacuse, in the bigger picture, he did admit earlier that there are really no documents in the June-March time frame to back up his contentions and that the supposed Drexel documents would be the only thing, if found. He has made my basic point for me.
His IMO is just that - an opinion. It simply shouldn't be taken as a valuble historic work, because so many large portions of it were done without standard historical backup. That said, I will once again say his opinion that in many ways, CBM got the short stick from MCC for his known contributions in March-April 1911 is an easily defended opinion. He just stretched it too far, IMHO.
And the only reason its on an NGLA thread is that the only proof he offers in his essay (his lost footnotes notwithstanding) of the earlier routing of MCC is that this is the way CBM did it at NGLA. But, he offers no documents to back that up, he asks us to presume he is corret. That in sum is why he takes off after Mike on this thread - to defend his theory at all costs - and as usual, makes it look like Mike was the bad guy for trying to discuss NGLA.
David,
I understand you are done with me. Whoo hoo! Hopefully, you do better at it than my Dear John letter attempt.
-
Tom,
I don't know.
That being said, I think I can see where you're going. Correct me if I'm wrong but a staple of your position is that the construction committee wasn't formed until January and Hugh Wilson didn't show up in any conversations until that point. Is that fair?
I would assume the green committee appointments would be made at the beginning of each year, and there is no reason to believe a new or non member would be involved with the golf course maintenance prior to that.
Are you sure Wilson was the chairman?
-
Tom,
I think it's been documented on here with source material that he was, although I don't have any of it saved to my computer and I'm not going to look for it.
Regarding the appointment of a committee, I think you're wrong. For starters, they would likely rotate on a fiscal year basis, around here the majority of those are not matched to the calendar year. Secondly, committee members can be added or removed at any time.
What's your angle? What do you make of the timing of Wilson's letter?
-
Jim and Tom,
Not sure the annual green committee has anything to do with a special year when a whole new course was being built and the old one was still in play. Not even sure that Wilson was a new member.
But, while I take the blame for steering this thread to Merion, because of its connection to the planning process at NGLA and the debate between Mike and David on same, I have to wonder if we are going to dig back into all the minute details, if we shouldn't open up an old Merion thread to discuss that?
Just a thought.
-
The way I understood the hierarchy, there was golf committee that oversaw everything relating to golf. Under that was the green committee which managed the maintenance. I was under the impression the green committee and the construction committee were one and the same, exactly the same members. I'm not sure if Wilson was chairman of the 1911 green committee or not, but I'm pretty certain he was newly appointed to that committee in 1911. And I would assume the naming or renaming of members of the different committee would have taken place at the annual meeting, whenever that took place (beginning or end of the year I assume). There was no reason for Wilson to be involved in any aspect until he was named to the green committee.
-
Looking through some old Inquirers it looks like the annual meeting typically took place in early December.
-
Tom,
The chairman of committees are named at the annual meetings. Their committee members are then subject to the chairman asking them to join so naturally it would not be at the exact time the chairman is named.
There was a quote along the lines of "the committee was formed in January of 1911...". What committee do you think was formed in January 1911?
-
Looking through some old Inquirers it looks like the annual meeting typically took place in early December.
For which club?
-
I presume its not the same Inquirer that we now know and hate!
If so, the headline would be "Hugh Wilson takes over Constructon Committee after abduction by aliens!"
-
No matter how mysterious some may want to contend the timing and membership were, it is indisputable that whoever was on or in charge of "the committee" were responsible for the various "plans" that were "laid out" for the golf course.
In the past, it has been argued here by some that the various "plans" that were "laid out" could have simply been physically staking the course "on the ground", as if the members of this committee simply walked around the property driving wooden stakes into the ground in accordance with someone else's plan.
This, of course, is complete and utter poppycock.
Let's read again what the MCC Minutes tell us about who was responsible for those plans.
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
The careful reader will note several things here, but the most important element is this;
Even if we consider that it's possible, if preposterous, that the committee was out there driving stakes, one would have to somehow accept that they drove five different sets of stakes in various locations! Did they perhaps color code them to avoid mass confusion?? ;)
But, reading closer one sees clearly that such an interpretation is sheer nonsense.
First of all, we learn that when Whigham and CBM came back on April 6th they spent their time considering the five plans "and the ground itself", which was separate from the five plans.
Moreover, we KNOW the plans were created on paper. In fact, the plan recommended by CBM is "submitted here-with" to the members of the Merion Board of Governors.
So, unless somehow someone dug up 120 acres of stakes and turf and managed to stake it to the back of the Committee Report, we have no riddle here at all, and this whole idea of them staking out the course "on the ground" turns out to be self-evidently ridiculous and erroneous.
Hugh Wilson's personal account of the two-day visit spent at NGLA, for an article on Agronomic issues for Piper and Oakley in 1916, reiterated what took place during that visit. It is also very telling to note that Wilson said, "our problem was to lay out the course, and build and seed 18 greens and fifteen fairways...", indicating clearly that these were two separate steps. If Wilson's committee was only involved in the construction aspects, he would not have needed the separate initial step of "to lay out the course", but would have moved right to "build and seed";
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
-
I presume its not the same Inquirer that we now know and hate!
If so, the headline would be "Hugh Wilson takes over Constructon Committee after abduction by aliens!"
Jeff Brauer, et. al.,
WARNING:
Gorgeous alien women have invaded earth and are abducting very charming, very handsome, very well endowed men and taking them back to their planet for sex, recreational and procreational.
YOU are not in any danger.
I'm just sending you this message to say "Goodbye" ;D
-
Jim,
We've covered this so many times before I am not sure it will be all that productive to cover it again, especially with Brauer hanging out with no other apparent purpose than to pontificate as to the historical value of my essay, and Cirba repeating the same garbage he has already spit out time and again. I wonder how the two of them decide who gets to post the screeds TEPaul sends them? I imagine them drawing straws, only with Cirba actually scribbling a picture of a drinking straw, while Birther Brauer demands to see the long form birth certificates of all involved to make sure the straws are legitimate. I guess they work it out somehow.
From hereon in I am only interested in discussions aimed at figuring out what happened. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN FURTHER DISCUSSING MY IMO with these TEPaul surrogates. I don't read his garbage in his constant emails and I'm not interested in reading it here either. If these clowns have any more to say about my IMO let them write their own damn IMO.
As for your questions, I will try to answer them when I get the chance, if for no other reason that you manage to disagree without even calling me a liar, or my work a pile of shit, worthless, asinine, absurd, and whatever else these two creeps have come up with the past few weeks.
Thanks for that.
-
What it comes down to for me, does the story make sense, is it logical.
Is it plausible Merion Cricket Club would put their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced untested insurance salesman when they had arguably the two top golf architects in the country at their disposal, not to mention the success of a real estate venture was also at stake. IMO not only is implausible, I think it is impossible, and nothing I've seen contradicts that opinion.
-
Shivas, The only version I have is the reprinted text in George Bahto's book on Macdonald. I am not comfortable cutting and pasting that many pages much out of George's book. Even if I was my scanner is broken. Don't you have book? If not I hear they are selling for around a grand. I'll gladly sell you mine for half that if you don't mind a few dog bites out if the binding.
Tom MacWood, how dare you bring logic into it. With logic how could we pretend that CBM just happened to be there throughout, without ever managing to contribute anything?
-
For that to be the case you would be accusing those same MCC members of outright fraud...which is exponentially less logical IMO.
I'm not sure how anyone can take the black and white position both sides have on this deal, all of your egos are making a reasonable conversation impossible...get over yourselves.
-
David,
I know you are done with me, but with your post 1458, it occurs to me for all our mud slinging, our postions may not have been all that far apart. So, sorry for my part in all that. We can get a bit heated sometimes.
Pat,
LOL. One question, are the alien women hotter than your eye doctors assistant? If so, put in a good word for me.....
Jim,
Yeah, we need to get over ourselves.
TMac,
You bring up a point that was bandied about quite a bit. Can a person with interest in history inject their biases too much into the proceedings? If the committee reports show that they did it mostly themselves, what makes us think our opinions as to what might have been logical can be substituted for the historic record? Some interpretation of documents is always required, but I believe it gets dangerous interpreting motive, intent, and events based on something other than the record.
Of course, all of this brings back memories of the discussion. Also debated hotly were concepts like whether we could trust club records and those who wrote them because some have turned out wrong. IIRC, because Tollhurst's 1950 history had some errors, some questioned all of Merions documents, including that letter Mike posted above, which, BTW Wilson clearly tells us he went to GBI later. How could a misinterpretation in 1950 cast doubt on a nearly contemporaneous document produced by a participant? Yet, I believe we debated that.
And who can forget the hundreds of posts devoted to what the phrase "laid out" meant in 1910. Mike's comment today about bringing the sod into the meeting room reminds me of why I gave up a large office with a conference room, and then a small one with a bigger personal office for conferences to work in my house - in 33 years, not one person ever brought a golf course to my office for examination!
Or our discussion of that era's train schedules, and what they told us about who designed Merion.
Ah, those were the days!
-
Jim,
I am not sure that last comment about accusing the various past MCC members of "fraud" was directed to me, but I certainly wouldn't and haven't. I've tried to take all of their comments at face value, which is how I figured all this stuff out in the first place.
For example, when Hugh Wilson tells Piper that that "CBM spoke of" Piper, and that Wilson immediately decided to write to Piper, I take that to mean that Wilson wasn't making it up and that CBM actually did speak to Wilson about Piper and that Wilson not only immediately decided to write, he immediately wrote.
I am not a fool an neither was Wilson, and it would make little sense for Wilson to write that CBM had spoken of him if they hadn't spoken, and if all Wilson had to go on was an old letter mentioning that Merion should send some samples to "Washington." Likewise, it would make no sense for Wilson to write that he "immediately decided to write" if he really meant he and Merion had waited eight months to write after they "immediately decided" to write.
But we'll get to all that I am sure. For now, I hope you don't mind that I started with your second theory first.
________________________________________________________________
Was Wilson Involved Prior to early 1911?
I understand why you want to place Wilson on the scene earlier than January 1911, but I just don't think the facts or your reasoning justifies such speculation.
1. I am unaware of anything putting HWilson on the scene earlier than early 1911.
2. There are a number of accounts discussing HWilson's involvement, including his own, Robert Lesley's, and AWilson's. All have HWilson starting after the land was purchased and the Construction Committee was appointed. If he was contributing earlier, I would expect that one or more of these accounts would have mentioned it. At the very least, the absence of any mention strongly suggests he was not involved before the Construction Committee was formed in early 1911.
3. A different Committee, Lesley's Golf Committee, was extensively involved during the period in question and Wilson was not on that Committee, nor is there anything suggesting he was aiding that Committee.
4. You reason that HWilson must have been involved earlier otherwise he wouldn't have been appointed chair. Like TomM, I have my doubts as to whether he was appointed chair right off the bat as opposed to eventually becoming the de facto chair precisely because of his interest and aptitude as the construction phase progressed.
5. Also, I don't know how we could say that earlier involvement must have been the reason for his appointment. Would you say the same thing about Dr. Toulmin? Aren't their other reasons Wilson may have been appointed? An interest in agronomy? His past experience at Princeton? He was due to take on responsibility? He had time? Who knows why? But yours is not the only potential reason and I am not sure it is even the most likely.
6. Also, had Hugh Wilson been involved earlier, there is a good chance he would have left a trail in the Piper/Oakley correspondence. This is Hugh Wilson we are talking about and he obviously wasn't shy about reaching out for help and assistance when it came to this project. Once he got started, he wrote letter after letter after letter to P&O and who knows who else. Had he already been involved, then why wouldn't the letters to Piper and Oakley started much earlier? The deal was in place by November at the latest, so why would he have waited? It just doesn't seem to fit HWilson's personality for him to have been involved yet not pestering Piper and Oakley and others for help.
So while I guess it is possible he was out there, it seems highly unlikely, given that 1) there is no factual record supporting your belief that Wilson was out their earlier; 2) I don't agree with your reasoning that they would never have appointed them had he not been out there; and 3) had he been involved, I'd expect to have seen evidence of it in the various descriptions of HWilson's involvement or at least in the P&O letters.
But as I have always said, I haven't precluded the possibility, but cannot base anything on speculation which such weak factual and analytical support.
-
What it comes down to for me, does the story make sense, is it logical.
Is it plausible Merion Cricket Club would put their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced untested insurance salesman when they had arguably the two top golf architects in the country at their disposal, not to mention the success of a real estate venture was also at stake. IMO not only is implausible, I think it is impossible, and nothing I've seen contradicts that opinion.
This is certainly a new and unique way of determining history.
Apparently it doesn't matter what the evidence shows. It doesn't matter what everyone said back then, including the Committee members. It doesn't matter what others like Tillinghast and Findlay contemporaneously stated. And most of all, it doesn't matter what the Merion Cricket Club Minutes said.
It only matters if it makes sense or seems logical to some here who can't get their minds around the fact that in the earliest days of golf in this country there was an amateur reaction to the general dreck of golf courses built by the supposed "expert" professionals.
So, I guess it doesn't matter that Richard Francis told us that his Committee both laid out and built the new course at Merion.
Not a mention of Macdonald
Not a mention of Barker.
None of this matters because we are in the midst of two men of self-professed superior intelligence who want to rewrite history to jive with what appears logical or makes sense to them.
Certainly a unique methodology so I have to give them credit there.
With absolutely no facts or evidence at their disposal, we hear instead accusations like me presenting this hard, physical, contemporaneous evidence is acting as some sort of shill for Tom Paul, who I haven't spoken to or emailed in a month or two. Without evidence, their logical arguments simply fall apart so instead we get inflamed accusations designed to divert attention.
Can we stick to actual facts and evidence?? Other than some speculation about where the site of the October NGLA articles may have been, that's all I've presented on this thread from the beginning. One would hope our conversation could have been more constructive but I do think a lot has been learned here, so I think it's been worth it.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-3.jpg?t=1243443487)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
-
Mike,
Is it plausible Merion Cricket Club would put their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced untested insurance salesman when they had arguably the two top golf architects in the country at their disposal?
I guess I don't know but the fact that 50 +/- years later, some clients apparently did the same thing when they hired Pete Dye would seem to suggest it might have happened, as if all the documents saying that is what they did wasn't enough. If we listen to Tom MacWood, Pete Dye's career never happened, and we can now discuss who REALLY designed Harbor Town, TPC, Crooked Stick, etc., no?
Just one targeted example of why that particular theory sucks.
PS-the analogy holds well because Pete designed a few courses before going over to GBI to get his style.
-
So this actually is a Merion thread after all! Just took 45 pages to get there :-)
-
Neil,
I'm blaming Brauer for this one.
I think he even admitted it was his fault, or else it was Jim Kennedy, can't remember which. :-X ;)
-
Neil,
No, its actually a Pete Dye thread, as you can see above.
-
Mike,
Is it plausible Merion Cricket Club would put their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced untested insurance salesman when they had arguably the two top golf architects in the country at their disposal?
I guess I don't know but the fact that 50 +/- years later, some clients apparently did the same thing when they hired Pete Dye would seem to suggest it might have happened, as if all the documents saying that is what they did wasn't enough. If we listen to Tom MacWood, Pete Dye's career never happened, and we can now discuss who REALLY designed Harbor Town, TPC, Crooked Stick, etc., no?
Just one targeted example of why that particular theory sucks.
PS-the analogy holds well because Pete designed a few courses before going over to GBI to get his style.
Pete Dye? I don't think the comparison is an apt one. Pete Dye's father designed, built and maintained his own golf course. Pete served as a greenkeeper at Fort Bragg golf course while in the military. I believe Pete's first design was a nine holer in Indy named El Dorado, or something like that. No disrepect to El Dorado but I don't think that job was quite as prestigious as Merion Cricket in 1911. Dye's record as an amateur golfer was more impressive as well.
-
Wilson had a bit of experience, too.
Spin it any way you want, TMac, your "I don't think its logical" theory of history truly sucks. To be honest, how many of our wars were "logical"? Elections? Rise of Dictators? Anyone can argue after the fact that it wasn't logical to have happened, and yet it did, repeatedly (whatever "it" was.)
-
Jeff
You to admit its not a good comparison....the Wilson scenario is a highly implausible one IMO, bordering on impossible.
-
Except that it happened. But, according to your logic, HHBarker designed the golf course because the train ran through Philly, which in itself is enough to discount any of your logic or opinons.
Your opinion just happens to be wrong, no matter how you cut it.
-
Jim, you asked for my thoughts on this passage from Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter:
"Mr. Charles McDonald spoke of you and said that you could help us out if anyone could. We realize the value of his advice and immediately decided that we would write to you and see if you would be good enough to help us out."
I think that, sometime shortly before this letter was written, Wilson had spoken to CBM about Piper and CBM said that Piper could help them. Shortly thereafter Wilson wrote to Piper for help. This seems to me to be the most logical, obvious, and straightforward reading of this passage and this letter. All the rest seems like word parsing and stretching beyond reasonableness.
Did Wilson Immediately Decide to Write Months Before Writing? You try to read this statement into your theory about Wilson having been out there much earlier and reason, "Deciding to write, and writing are two different events, wouldn't you agree?" Technically yes, but when it comes to reasonably understanding what Wilson meant, NO. It would make no sense for him to have meant, 'we immediately decided to write eight months ago, and then didn't bother to write until now. It just doesn't make sense.
Was Wilson Referring to the June CBM Letter? Others have suggested that this letter was referring to the last sentence in the June CBM letter. That doesn't make sense either.
1. Wilson is referring to a conversation, not a letter: "CBM spoke of you and said . . ."
2. The immediately expresses urgency which just doesn't apply to a letter that was written eight months ago.
3. The June letter does not mention Piper.
4. The June letter does not mention the specific inquiries Wilson is making.
Given Wilson's Personality and Mode of Operation, What Makes Most Sense?
Tom MacWood tried to inject some logic and common sense into this only to be insulted by the usual suspects. While I am sure they will declare that my theory "sucks" as well, I will nonetheless also try to inject a little common sense into the discussion.
Read the letter in the context of what we know about how Hugh Wilson operated. As I noted above, it is not as if he was shy about asking experts for help! We only have one database of of letters - the Piper Oakley Letters - but from these we can see that Wilson sent letters constantly, sometimes wrote multiple letters a week, looking for help with this project. The only letters we have are those he sent to Piper and Oakley, so is it reasonable to conclude that he only wrote to Piper and Oakley? Of course not! The Piper Oakley letters are evidence of how Wilson operated and would be unreasonable to think that he would have limited this behavior only to dealing with them! So, given that Wilson was admittedly in way over his head, and given that he had the two foremost experts at his disposal, is it reasonable to believe that Wilson would have refrained from contacting them? Honestly, do you think it reasonable that Wilson wasn't contacting CBM for help just as much or more than he was contacting Piper/Oakley? I don't think so. In fact, later letters in the Piper/Oakley files confirm that Wilson and CBM were corresponding. We have no idea how much they were corresponding, but one can get an idea of that by looking at Wilson's methods with Piper and Oakley!
But then this is where common sense comes into play, and also where we have to understand the limited nature of historical records. There are bound to be periods of time where records are lacking, and databases (such as a complete set of CBM Wilson correspondence) which would be terrific to have but are not available. We cannot pretend that nothing happened when we know something happened, or when common sense gives us a very good idea of what likely happened!
And frankly, it is unfathomable to me that Wilson would not have contacted CBM once he became involved in the project.
- Especially given the weight Merion was had placed and would continue to place on CBM's and HJW's recommendations!
- Especially given the fact that within a few months Wilson would be traveling up to NGLA so that CBM could continue to help them with the layout plan!
- How do you suppose that came about if CBM and HJW weren't even in contact? Do you suppose Wilson just showed up at his door, hoping that CBM was home? Or do you suppose it was something they had been discussing? There is no evidence of them discussing it, so by the logic around here I guess that Wilson must have just knocked on the door and introduced himself and demanded a few days of CBM's time!
I mean, come on, we need to be reasonable here. We are not idiots. Wilson would have been all over CBM for help, just like he was all over Piper and Oakley. Even contacting P&O was at CBM's directive! So pretending that the letter refers to anything else is a stretch beyond the breaking point.
Same goes for the late December or early January statement that "experts were at work" planning the course. We need only look to who Merion treated as experts to see who was meant. The only experts involved were CBM, HJW, and HHBarker, and at that stage Merion seems to have been focused on CBM and HJW.
-
David,
I assume Macdonald mentioned Piper and Oakley while he was at the site in June 1910, and followed up in the letter...don't you think that is most reasonable? Regarding the 6 or 7 month delay, they didn't need to grow any grass until then so why bother writing yet. Just a hypothetical, yet logical, reading of the words. As you know, I agree CBM was corresponding with the Merion folks to some degree between July 1910 and March 1911 but there is a logical readin of that paragraph that does not rely on a recent conversation.
-
http://tinyurl.com/5rm5jvt
Here's Whigham's eulogy as printed in George's book. It begins on page 263.
-
David,
I agree that Wilson probably contacted CBM right after being named to the committee. It might be, because of protocol that Lloyd set them up to start the relationship, and Wilson as head of the committee kept it going.
As you say, they didn’t just show up at NGLA in March without notice, so MCC and CBM must have spoken not only about setting up that meeting, but about other steps in “getting the committee off to a good start” which might include information on soils, getting a contour map, etc.
As we assume more, there is of course, a greater chance for error. My opinon of us putting CBM on site in late 1910 is summed up almost perfectly by your last paragraph in 1569 speaking of Wilson in the same light. Nothing in this logical pattern of contact suggests they were in contact any earlier.
For that matter, in re-reading Mike’s post of Francis’s memories, the following logic applies:
Wilson appointed to committee Jan 11
Francis appointed later (his own words)
Francis looking at maps, Francis comes up with land swap
So, how can we conclude the Francis land swap occurred prior to 1911, when there is no evidence of him being involved, either, prior to that time?
-
Tom MacWood,
So you've now deemed it "impossible" that Hugh Wilson and his committee designed Merion. Too funny.
I know you are still on your Barker thing, despite any evidence to support that contention, but when you keep mentioning that Merion had two of the best architects at their disposal, I'm guessing that you are including Barker in that group, despite a general lack of credentials and/or many courses of quality that survived even the 20s before being completely revamped, with the possible exception of Mayfield, but that seems like a place that Bert Way put lots of effort into over many years to build it into what it became.
In any case, my related question for you is this;
Why do you think the December 1906 articles that reported on NGLA's securing of land pointed out clearly that no professionals would be used and no professional advice would be sought?
Why do you think CBM, Whigham, Emmet, and Travis were also reported to say in late 1906 that the only 3 good American courses were Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago, ALL designed by amateurs?
Do you think CBM thought Barker was the best architect of the time before him?
Do you think CBM would have advised Merion to use Barker??
Besides, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Merion had two architects "at their disposal"? Barker was brought in to assess the property by Joseph Connell of HDC, not Merion. With the amateur ethos at Merion being very strong, it seemingly was not a good fit.
Secondly, as seen on this thread, CBM had his own hands full trying to get his course open and clubhouse built.
He had a soft, informal Opening Day Invitation tournament just 3 days after he wrote his letter to Merion on July 2nd, 1910 and didn't open the course formally until the next year. Reports of the course conditions were very raw...
There is no record that Merion ever asked CBM to design their course and no record that he did.
There is no record that Merion ever asked Barker to design their course and no record that he did.
This whole theory is made of cheesecloth and ALL the physical evidence disputes your logic and disbelief.
-
I've never quite understood why people read Francis' words to mean he was a late addition to the committee...beyond his words which are subject to multiple interpretations...is there anything to support his being a late addition to the committee? I think just the way he wrote that paragraph twisted you guys a bit...
-
David,
I assume Macdonald mentioned Piper and Oakley while he was at the site in June 1910, and followed up in the letter...don't you think that is most reasonable?
No I don't think that is the most reasonable or even all that reasonable. It makes no sense that Wilson meant: I had IMMEDIATELY decided to write about eight months ago, but I am just getting around to writing now! "Immediately" puts a sense of urgency and immediacy on this whole thing that aptly described what he know about how Wilson operated. He wouldn't have waited seven or eight months to write! And if for some reason he had waited, then he certainly wouldn't have written that he immediately decided to write.
Also Jim, so far as we know, Wilson wasn't out there.
Regarding the 6 or 7 month delay, they didn't need to grow any grass until then so why bother writing yet.
You are grasping here, Jim. You don't grow grass in January either, and there is plenty one can do ahead of time to prepare to grow grass. And Wilson didn't know how to grow grass which is why he was writing. So assuming he was on some sort of schedule relating to the growing schedule makes no sense to me. Plus it doesn't fit with the immediacy expressed in the letter.
Just a hypothetical, yet logical, reading of the words.
Hypothetical yes but not all that logical, and certainly not the most logical. Wilson expressed immediacy, and your "hypothetical" has them biding their time for seven or eight months. Wilson connects the immediacy to CBM's advice. There is no reasonable way to put seven or eight months between the advice and the letter when Wilson described reacting IMMEDIATELY.
As you know, I agree CBM was corresponding with the Merion folks to some degree between July 1910 and March 1911 but there is a logical readin of that paragraph that does not rely on a recent conversation.
This is why I keep saying that these guys were not dumb and we need not pretend we are idiots when we read and consider this stuff. One cannot twist and stretch passages beyond recognition to come up with alternate theories and then proclaim these theories to be "logical readings" and therefor equal or better than more straight forward and consistent explanations. Yet that is what is going on here. You guys (or those guys) don't like the implications of the logical and straight forward reading of this passage. So they try and twist it to fit with some alternate reading whether it fits well or not. That way they can keep up the fantasy of extremely limited involvement by CBM despite the records to the contrary.
The letter described CBM speaking and Wilson immediately reacting. This is exactly fitting with what we know about how Wilson acted. We just cannot stretch this out over seven or eight months and call that a "logical reading."
-
Jim,
You might be right on the Francis deal. He may have been on the committee from the start, and I might be parsing words too finely. That said, its a minor point that doesn't affect anything as far as I can tell.
There is nothing to suggest that either Wilson or Francis was involved prior to Jan 1911, which by association means the Francis land swap had to have taken place after that. From memory, the timing of that swap was also subject to great debate.
-
Jim,
I'd agree. I think Francis was named at the same time the committee was formed.
That being said, if Francis had done anything prior to January 1911, ESPECIALLY if he had come up with the idea that FINALIZED the routing prior to January, don't you think he would have made that eminently clear?
Instead, he makes clear that his work was accomplished within the context and timeframe of serving on the Committee, which we know was formalized in January 1911.
-
One cannot twist and stretch passages beyond recognition to come up with alternate theories and then proclaim these theories to be "logical readings" and therefor equal or better than more straight forward and consistent explanations. Yet that is what is going on here.
You, betcha! (insert Sarah Palin voice here if you wish, or Tina Fey)
Only problem is, David does it more than anyone.
You guys (or those guys) don't like the implications of the logical and straight forward reading of this passage. So they try and twist it to fit with some alternate reading whether it fits well or not. That way they can keep up the fantasy of extremely limited involvement by CBM despite the records to the contrary.
And which records are these? As far as my last reading of your essay, and some of your proclamations, there is really no evidence docuented of CBM's involvement after June 1910 and before March 1910, although I just coneded in another post that we can ageree they did correspond to set up the March meeting, and may have covered other preliminary matters.
Even if I agree with your interpretation of the Wilso 2-1 letter to Oakley meant there had been some recent contact, stretching that beyond that point would require, IMHO, some documentation. Have you offered any?
One of your best (or worst) tactics is to accuse others of doing just what it is you do as another form of deflection.
-
Really...this is ridiculous already.
If anyone has ANY physical or even anecdotal evidence of ANY communications between Merion and CBM in the EIGHT MONTHS between his one-day visit in June 1910 and March 1911 when Hugh Wilson's committee visited him at NGLA, please produce it now.
Never has so much been written about so little.
-
But Mike, we do have the answers from that magnificent, mysterious visitor from the East, (well east L.A.), that famous seer & sage, the all-knowing, all-seeing, omniscient, Moriarity the Magnificent!
"I hold in my hand the envelopes. As a child of four can plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They've been kept in a #2 mayonnaise jar under Funk and Wagnall's porch since noon today. No one - NO ONE! - knows the contents of these envelopes, but Moriarity the Magnificent, in his borderline divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers having never before seen the questions."
(With apologies to Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon) but somehow, David’s proclamations about his (and only his) ability to divine what must have happened from nearly out of thin air, it just reminds me of Carnak!
Only Moriarity the Magnificent can take two words from a letter and divine six months of detailed design involvement by Charles Blair McDonald! Truly mystical.
-
Jim,
I keep saying we are not idiots and don't have to behave like idiots, but these guys keep trying to prove me wrong on this point.
They have no interest in figuring this stuff out. And neither of them can reasonably explain how "immediately" can connect to an event seven or eight months before. Brauer even admits that there was communication going on, but still can't resist wading in with his foolish garbage and mockery.
Its like the joke where the guy says "give me a sign, any sign" and then gets struck by lightning, and then says, "like I was saying, just any sign at all . . . "
-
David,
Here's another old joke that sums up some of your recent contentions:
Kids eat mashed potatos as babies
Some kids try pot in their early teens
Some kids who use pot go onto cocaine
Therefore, a baby who eats mashed potatos will use cocaine
Let’s look at your logic, oh mystical one, and see what flies and what doesn’t. From your post 1580, I have the following comments, cut and pasted.
Read the letter in the context of what we know about how Hugh Wilson operated. As I noted above, it is not as if he was shy about asking experts for help! Fair enough.
We only have one database of of letters - the Piper Oakley Letters - but from these we can see that Wilson sent letters constantly, sometimes wrote multiple letters a week, looking for help with this project. The only letters we have are those he sent to Piper and Oakley, so is it reasonable to conclude that he only wrote to Piper and Oakley? Of course not!
Possible, but still an assumption, upon which you build yet further assumptions.
The Piper Oakley letters are evidence of how Wilson operated and would be unreasonable to think that he would have limited this behavior only to dealing with them!
So having no evidence is as good as having evidence, so it must be true? We have seen that from you before. A nice sleight of hand that allows you to draw any conclusion you want.
So, given that Wilson was admittedly in way over his head,
Actually, Wilson didn’t admit that until 1916, saying had they know that at the time they started, they might not have done it. This was right at his start.
and given that he had the two foremost experts at his disposal, is it reasonable to believe that Wilson would have refrained from contacting them?
Possible, and I agree he did contact CBM, if nothing more than to set up the March meeting. But, if CBM had already designed the course, why go there? Even if only for discussing FEATURE designs, why your contention that they brought routing maps for CBM to look at in MARCH, if he had routed the course by November? How exactly was he deeply involved?
Honestly, do you think it reasonable that Wilson wasn't contacting CBM for help just as much or more than he was contacting Piper/Oakley? I don't think so. In fact, later letters in the Piper/Oakley files confirm that Wilson and CBM were corresponding. We have no idea how much they were corresponding, but one can get an idea of that by looking at Wilson's methods with Piper and Oakley!
You are right, we have no idea how much they corresponded. But since face to face meetings were also a feature of the CBM/MCC contacts, and it took them to March to meet him, and discuss preliminary design ideas, how does this play into your contention that CBM was helping them design the course before January? For that matter, its just as possible that obtaining desig information would have been handled differently (and it was in part) than getting soil tests and the like. We are starting to get further afield of what is readily supported, and more into ssumptions, which critical thinkers will always question.
But then this is where common sense comes into play, and also where we have to understand the limited nature of historical records. There are bound to be periods of time where records are lacking, and databases (such as a complete set of CBM Wilson correspondence) which would be terrific to have but are not available. We cannot pretend that nothing happened when we know something happened, or when common sense gives us a very good idea of what likely happened!
We know things did happen (land acquired, corporations formed, and some other stuff in the actual record we do have. Common sense or your Carackinan (sounds like a breakfast cereal) methods cannot help us fill in with certainty beyond that, but that is what you have us believe ONLY YOU can do.
And frankly, it is unfathomable to me that Wilson would not have contacted CBM once he became involved in the project.
- Especially given the weight Merion was had placed and would continue to place on CBM's and HJW's recommendations!
- Especially given the fact that within a few months Wilson would be traveling up to NGLA so that CBM could continue to help them with the layout plan!
- How do you suppose that came about if CBM and HJW weren't even in contact? Do you suppose Wilson just showed up at his door, hoping that CBM was home? Or do you suppose it was something they had been discussing? There is no evidence of them discussing it, so by the logic around here I guess that Wilson must have just knocked on the door and introduced himself and demanded a few days of CBM's time!
We are already in agreement that Wilson contacted CBM to set up the March planning meeting. Again, I am asking two questions of you: If you think HW would have contacted CBM immediately, and been all over him for help, but also say that help came in March, how do you square that with CBM having already routed the course in 1910? Also, if after first contact with CBM, he immediately wrote to Piper/Oakley, how does that square with him being in constant contact with CBM prior to his Feb 1 letter? He couldn’t have meant “immediately” if he had been in contact with him earlier, right? Or would he have written ‘After CBM got on my ass for not writing you after he told me to in several calls and letters, I decided to do it immediately? It would appear that HW first contact would have been the morning of Feb 1, or just before by your reading and interpretation of the words.
I mean, come on, we need to be reasonable here. We are not idiots. Wilson would have been all over CBM for help, just like he was all over Piper and Oakley. Even contacting P&O was at CBM's directive! So pretending that the letter refers to anything else is a stretch beyond the breaking point.
Same goes for the late December or early January statement that "experts were at work" planning the course. We need only look to who Merion treated as experts to see who was meant. The only experts involved were CBM, HJW, and HHBarker, and at that stage Merion seems to have been focused on CBM and HJW.
There was long debate over the use of the term experts. Within Merion, their committee were their experts, and even if referring to CBM, this reference ties his work only forward to about the same time as the land purchase and committee formation, entirely consistent with the committee doing the work, with an assist from CBM.
Say what you want. You took two works "immediately contacted" and try to tell us that ti gives us a reat ieda about what happened over six months time. Amazing Carnak! To be charitable, its just a bit of a stretch. BW, if your answer is that its quite possible that CBM started helping more than was known about Feb 1 when Wilson first contacted him, then its a lot easier to swallow.
-
As you can see, I could probably come up with several inconsistencies each time Moriarity the Magnificent tries to spin his theories from a few snippets, rather than read the simple meaning of the words in the actual records. Of course, we have already done that over several 100 page threads, and it hasn't slowed him down.
The Philly boys are just following the club records. David and TMac build their arguments on documents that aren't there, logic that says no evidence allows us to know what happened, the assumption that the club members writing their documents and records consistently didn't write what they really meant to write, assumptions that certain terms, like "laying out a golf course" don't mean what they really mean, that clubs, individuals and universities are conspiring against them to withhold the truth, etc.
Which makes more sense to you? Simple explanation based on actual records, or complicated explanations where 1000 words still doesn't convey it, and then, they have to tell the rest of us we just aren't smart enough to understand?
I know how I am casting my vote!
-
Jim,
As I recall you had two related issues you put out for discussion:
1. Was HWilson involved in the design process prior to January 1911; and
2. Was Wilson's February 1, 1911, letter referring to a recent conversation with CBM, or one which took place many months before.
I hope I addressed both of these issues to your satisfaction.
-
I've never quite understood why people read Francis' words to mean he was a late addition to the committee...beyond his words which are subject to multiple interpretations...is there anything to support his being a late addition to the committee? I think just the way he wrote that paragraph twisted you guys a bit...
Jim,
I've always wondered about a "Francis-Raynor" connection.
Surely, like lawyer to lawyer, doctor to doctor, they must have had communications about issues vital to any golf course.
I have to get up at 5:00 am tomorrow, which is completely contrary to my circadian rhythm, so I'll try to get back over the weekend
-
I have no idea who originally laid out Merion, but there are only two options that make sense to me - Barker or CBM - or some combination. Wilson and his committee were in charge of overseeing construction...please read Wilson's own account and his numerous letters.
-
Tom,
The Barker mention is a good reminder. These guys have been so busy trying to discredit CBM and HJW, it is easy to overlook that when CBM showed up in June, Merion already had the rough routing Barker had drawn up. At least we know Barker did an original routing, that is more than we know about everyone who came after.
They can mock your theory about him passing through in December all they like. It is in Merion's records that Barker had already done a rough routing in June, whether he came by train or not!
-
Tom MacWood,
So you've now deemed it "impossible" that Hugh Wilson and his committee designed Merion. Too funny.
I know you are still on your Barker thing, despite any evidence to support that contention, but when you keep mentioning that Merion had two of the best architects at their disposal, I'm guessing that you are including Barker in that group, despite a general lack of credentials and/or many courses of quality that survived even the 20s before being completely revamped, with the possible exception of Mayfield, but that seems like a place that Bert Way put lots of effort into over many years to build it into what it became.
Who had better credentials in 1910 than Barker? I've been asking this question for a couple years now and I'm still waiting for an answer. Many of his courses were revised (including Merion if turns out to be one of his), but quite few of his routings are more or less intact, including Mayfield, Columbia, Westhampton, and CC of Virginia. I don't know of any architect operating in 1910 whose courses have not been changed.
In any case, my related question for you is this;
Why do you think the December 1906 articles that reported on NGLA's securing of land pointed out clearly that no professionals would be used and no professional advice would be sought?
I'm not familiar with the letter, and fail see what it has to do with Merion. Merion has a history of hiring professionals before 1910 and after 1910.
Why do you think CBM, Whigham, Emmet, and Travis were also reported to say in late 1906 that the only 3 good American courses were Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago, ALL designed by amateurs?
Myopia was originally laid out by a professional; Emmet and Hubbell were reportedly assisted by Findlay (and Barker assisted Travis with the redesign); I thought Chicago was a group effort of CBM, Whigham, James & David Foulis. I think you have tendency to over play and over romanticize this amateur thing.
Do you think CBM thought Barker was the best architect of the time before him?
I have no idea who CBM thought were the best architects in 1900, 1910, 1920 or 1930, here or abroad. To my knowledge he never commented on any individual architects, beyond Raynor.
Do you think CBM would have advised Merion to use Barker??
It is difficult to say, if I was to guess I'd say probably not. I do know Travis was recommending Barker, and a lot people were listening because he was getting hired by a boat load of prestigious clubs. Whoever recommended him the fact remains he some how became involved at Merion.
Besides, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Merion had two architects "at their disposal"? Barker was brought in to assess the property by Joseph Connell of HDC, not Merion. With the amateur ethos at Merion being very strong, it seemingly was not a good fit.
Amateur ethos? Please explain Merion's amateur ethos?
Secondly, as seen on this thread, CBM had his own hands full trying to get his course open and clubhouse built.
Too busy? We know he made at least two trip to Merion and made time for Merion to come to him....
He had a soft, informal Opening Day Invitation tournament just 3 days after he wrote his letter to Merion on July 2nd, 1910 and didn't open the course formally until the next year. Reports of the course conditions were very raw...
There is no record that Merion ever asked CBM to design their course and no record that he did.
There is no record that Merion ever asked Barker to design their course and no record that he did.
There is no record of Merion ever asking anyone to design their golf course, which is why this debate continues.
I have no idea who originally laid out Merion, but there are only two options that make sense to me - Barker or CBM - or some combination. Wilson and his committee were in charge of overseeing construction...please read Wilson's own account and his numerous letters.
This whole theory is made of cheesecloth and ALL the physical evidence disputes your logic and disbelief.
-
Another great example of how these guys can argue right around all the relevant facts, such as the fact that McConnell brought Barker in, and MCC specifically mentioned that they didn't, and never mentioned him again.
I think its great to know the back story, and even speculated at one time that CBM and the committee did in fact look at Barkers routing, perhaps making them realize they needed the Dallas estate to get the length they wanted, and maybe more. We don't know just how if any it influenced them but boy would it be fascinating to see that Barker sketch routing!
That said, its clear that Barker deserves no credit for the design of Merion. If I (or any architect) took any co-credit for courses because we did some preliminary work for developers, but owners, land parcels, or other factors changed, our portfolios would each have another fifty courses in them, because that happens a lot.
No one cares what TMac thinks is logical and we have seen his logical sequence that led him to credit the design to Barker. BTW, no one was making fun of railroads in any post, just TMacs tortured attempt to use the train schedules and his trip down south to somehow magically put Barker on site in December, just as the land deal was finalized to magically spend one day designing the course.
If TMac believes that the Wilson Europe story in the 1980's Tollhurst history discredits all of Merion's history, then others are surely allowed to believe that his Barker excersize taints nearly anything he might say about Merion, no? Clearly agenda driven, and it needs to be discounted for that reason alone.
Just MHO.
-
Fellows,
Can we now finally at least ALL agree that there is no way in God's green earth that the golf course at Merion was routed by November 15th, 1910?
I keep hearing people hedge their bets with terms like "rough routing", which is ridiculous, because the same person argued that Merion secured EXACTLY the land they needed before the end of 1910 based on the routing already being completed.
So, you can't have it both ways. It was either routed before the end of 1910 or it wasn't, and the reason why is very clear when one reads Francis' account.
First, Francis tells us that they were working within land constraints of an already secured property, not creating a routing and then buying the land that supports it. Listen again to his words;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Francis tells us that while they were working on the routing, or "layout";
1) The land (already secured) was shaped like the Letter L, indicating definitive borders.
2) It was not very difficult to "get" (or fit) the first 13 holes into the upright position of the L, with the help of "a little ground" (likely the 3 acres of rail property) on the north side of Ardmore Avenue.
3) But the last five holes were another question. In other words, they still couldn't fit them correctly in the land that remained.
Fit them to what? To the existing boundaries of the property in question, which is surely the 117 acres secured under Lloyd's name in December 1910, along with the 3 acres of railroad land.
So, I think it's indisputable that they were working on routing the course within the confines of land already secured (which happened in late December 1910), not routing the course and then securing the land. In fact, if they had routed the course first, there would have been no need at all for the "Francis Swap" because they would simply use whatever land they needed for their routing and then secure and purchase it, but that is NOT what Francis tells us happened. Are you listening Jim Sullivan? ;) ;D
Second, Francis tells us that his contribution came at the END of the routing, not midstream. He tells us that his brainstorm permitted the LAST five holes to be located or put into position on the land, provided that they swap land they weren't using "along Golf House Road", which is clearly the land across the street from the clubhouse extending up #14, and swapped it for land up near the quarry, specifically naming the area of the 15 green and 16th tee.
We also know from the minutes and the deed that Merion ended up purchasing 120 acres, not 117, so this was likely a result of reshaping these borders, as well. The final course measured just over 123 acres, given the leased 3 acres of railroad land.
So, we know that what Francis did FINALIZED the routing that was ultimately approved, and allowed Merion to move forward.
So, was the course routing FINALIZED on November 15th, 1910, and then specific land secured based on that completed routing, as some have argued?
I would refer for your consideration the following letter from the Merion Cricket Club minutes, copied from "The Nature Faker", by Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul;
The following letter from Thos. DeWitt Cuyler, Esq., was ordered to be spread in full
on the minutes, viz.,
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa
My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
In accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter from the Haverford
Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the
terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy
of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I
would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.
So, gentlemen, can we finally put to rest this notion that the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910?? It seems to me that if we can't accept these very basic facts as reality we'll never get anywhere, and it's clear that the design of Merion happened starting in 1911. What say ye?
Having said that, let's move back to the June 1910 timeframe when both Barker and then CBM & Whigham came to view the property.
First of all, do we even KNOW exactly what HDC property they were looking at specifically at that time, or what land was used on Barker's routing? We don't.
The land of the Dallas Estate, which makes up 21 acres of the existing East course was not under the control of the Haverford Development Company until FIVE MONTHS later. There is no mention of the need for HDC to acquire additional parcels in the July 1910 internal club records that talked about Connell bringing in Barker or CBM's and Whigham's visit. None.
Instead, we learn that HDC is offering at the time "100 acres, or whatever is needed" for the golf course from their existing holdings. We also know that Merion, likely as a result of conferring with CBM and Whigham, felt they would need to purchase "nearly 120 acres" instead, which is consistent with Macdonald's writings.
We can also safely assume that some of that land would be needed near the farm house on the property, up along the quarry, and along the creek, as related in the CBM letter. However, we don't know for certain the entire holding and it's even possible that the entire property looked at during that time was all north of Ardmore Avenue.
So, while we know that Barker submitted a routing on some HDC land for Connell, we don't know where it was, or if any of it was used in the final routing. We do know that no one at the time saw fit to credit him.
We also know that CBM did NOT submit a routing based on his one-day visit, but instead wrote a very general letter which has been reproduced here countless times.
Hopefully, such useless and unsupported speculation such as what's taken place over the past day won't go on (i.e. the secret relationship of Raynor and Francis, or the idea the Merion stole Barker's routing yet never credited him), but I won't hold my breath.
In any case, the facts are becoming clear, finally.
-
And now for the important breaking news - President Obama must be reading this thread, since he finally just released the long form birth certificate that should satisfy most people.
Coincidence? I think not.
-
Jeff,
Clearly the President follows GCA. How could he not and remain informed of important issues? ;)
Of course, I'd long argued that if we found a routing map signed and dated by Hugh Wilson and notarized by DeWitt Cuyler some here would immediately declare it a forgery.
I suspect the same thing will happen with the Birth Certificate. :-\
By the way, Jeff...reading Cuyler's letter we see that indeed it was possible to secure land in a fixed amount with undetermined borders out of a larger parcel, as happened at NGLA. What does this do to Patrick's contention that such a transaction was legally impossible??
-
Mike,
To be honest, what would be worth discussing from this point forward would be how the early holes were built. Wilson's 1916 recollections sure make it seem like they weren't going to move any earth in fws since he talks about building 18 greens and tees and seeding 15 fw.
However, we know they blasted the 16th green, and from old photos, it appears the Alps hole (original tenth) had a huge pile of earth put in it. So, where did they get that dirt? From road construction? A natural hill that was there (doesn't look like it)
Anyway, that would be interesting to me, and would fit the bill of how that stuff came to be as it was.
For that matter, since this is an NGLA thread, and most of those holes had some massive earthmoving (for the times) it would be great to unearth some documents about how long the fills were hauled, etc. Maybe thats just the architect in me, and no one else cares.
-
Jeff,
I would agree, because in the case of Merion, it seems those holes that were attempts to create "templates" based on holes from abroad were more "made" after the routing was established than "found" during the routing process, largely through earthmoving and bunker creation, as seen in Hugh Wilson's comment to Alex Findlay that the Alps "would take a lot of making", or Richard Francis telling us that "the location of the 3rd lent itself to this design", as opposed to "we looked to see where we could locate a redan hole".
But you're right...those efforts were minimal.
Anyone who has even been on the Merion property would note that many of the greens are simply at grade, and very little looks to have been done to the general contours of the overall land in terms of shaping.
-
Mike,
I always figured the prime reason the Alps was made was because with the road crossing, they wanted to encourage the aerial shot into that green, rather than have the run up over the road.....
BTW, don't recall where it was discussed, but there is some writings about Wilson mastering the natural look better than CBM, and also (I think) some discussion that they/HW really just didn't care for the strict lines of the CBM look and wanted to do it differently, which history shows, they did! (Maybe in Wilson's rebuilding of the course a few years later and over time) I think everyone has agreed that much of Wilson's legacy regarding the course was the slow addition of the White Faces of Merion, no?
-
Another great example of how these guys can argue right around all the relevant facts, such as the fact that McConnell brought Barker in, and MCC specifically mentioned that they didn't, and never mentioned him again.
I think its great to know the back story, and even speculated at one time that CBM and the committee did in fact look at Barkers routing, perhaps making them realize they needed the Dallas estate to get the length they wanted, and maybe more. We don't know just how if any it influenced them but boy would it be fascinating to see that Barker sketch routing!
That said, its clear that Barker deserves no credit for the design of Merion. If I (or any architect) took any co-credit for courses because we did some preliminary work for developers, but owners, land parcels, or other factors changed, our portfolios would each have another fifty courses in them, because that happens a lot.
No one cares what TMac thinks is logical and we have seen his logical sequence that led him to credit the design to Barker. BTW, no one was making fun of railroads in any post, just TMacs tortured attempt to use the train schedules and his trip down south to somehow magically put Barker on site in December, just as the land deal was finalized to magically spend one day designing the course.
If TMac believes that the Wilson Europe story in the 1980's Tollhurst history discredits all of Merion's history, then others are surely allowed to believe that his Barker excersize taints nearly anything he might say about Merion, no? Clearly agenda driven, and it needs to be discounted for that reason alone.
Just MHO.
At this point everyone has an opinion, but yours seems to be based more on emotion than the facts.
You are correct Barker's letter was addressed to Connell and the minutes made a point that he engaged him on his own, but that letter somehow made it into the official MCC record and was used by Lloyd & Co. to justify the purchase. It is also a fact three separate Philadelphia papers reported Lloyd secured the advice of Barker (and CBM & Whigham), and its unlikely Connell did anything without Lloyd knowing or approving. To my knowledge Connell didn't even play golf. So who ultimately brought in Barker is not exactly clear.
At this point, not knowing precisely who did what, I think it is pretty useless to make a blanket statement of who deserves and who doesn't deserve design credit because no one knows. We do know Barker produced a routing (the only known routing produced), and we do know the Philadelphia Press reported in November Barker has been engaged to design the golf course. Perhaps that was an erroneous report, but perhaps it wasn't. All I know is that Wilson's own account explains his role was construction, and the numerous letters back that up.
-
PS: You were the one who brought up train schedules not me. After I presented my theory about Barker laying out numerous courses in December. You claimed that someone had all the records of Ross's train travels, which I think is highly unlikely. But anyways after you first brought it up I said that Barker's train from NYC to Atlanta would have likely gone through Philadelphia, so it was plausible. You have tendency to forget how these things transpired and your role.
-
Fellows,
Can we now finally at least ALL agree that there is no way in God's green earth that the golf course at Merion was routed by November 15th, 1910?
I keep hearing people hedge their bets with terms like "rough routing", which is ridiculous, because the same person argued that Merion secured EXACTLY the land they needed before the end of 1910 based on the routing already being completed.
So, you can't have it both ways. It was either routed before the end of 1910 or it wasn't, and the reason why is very clear when one reads Francis' account.
First, Francis tells us that they were working within land constraints of an already secured property, not creating a routing and then buying the land that supports it. Listen again to his words;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Francis tells us that while they were working on the routing, or "layout";
1) The land (already secured) was shaped like the Letter L, indicating definitive borders.
2) It was not very difficult to "get" (or fit) the first 13 holes into the upright position of the L, with the help of "a little ground" (likely the 3 acres of rail property) on the north side of Ardmore Avenue.
3) But the last five holes were another question. In other words, they still couldn't fit them correctly in the land that remained.
Fit them to what? To the existing boundaries of the property in question, which is surely the 117 acres secured under Lloyd's name in December 1910, along with the 3 acres of railroad land.
So, I think it's indisputable that they were working on routing the course within the confines of land already secured (which happened in late December 1910), not routing the course and then securing the land. In fact, if they had routed the course first, there would have been no need at all for the "Francis Swap" because they would simply use whatever land they needed for their routing and then secure and purchase it, but that is NOT what Francis tells us happened. Are you listening Jim Sullivan? ;) ;D
Second, Francis tells us that his contribution came at the END of the routing, not midstream. He tells us that his brainstorm permitted the LAST five holes to be located or put into position on the land, provided that they swap land they weren't using "along Golf House Road", which is clearly the land across the street from the clubhouse extending up #14, and swapped it for land up near the quarry, specifically naming the area of the 15 green and 16th tee.
We also know from the minutes and the deed that Merion ended up purchasing 120 acres, not 117, so this was likely a result of reshaping these borders, as well. The final course measured just over 123 acres, given the leased 3 acres of railroad land.
So, we know that what Francis did FINALIZED the routing that was ultimately approved, and allowed Merion to move forward.
So, was the course routing FINALIZED on November 15th, 1910, and then specific land secured based on that completed routing, as some have argued?
I would refer for your consideration the following letter from the Merion Cricket Club minutes, copied from "The Nature Faker", by Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul;
The following letter from Thos. DeWitt Cuyler, Esq., was ordered to be spread in full
on the minutes, viz.,
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa
My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
In accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter from the Haverford
Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the
terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy
of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I
would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.
So, gentlemen, can we finally put to rest this notion that the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910?? It seems to me that if we can't accept these very basic facts as reality we'll never get anywhere, and it's clear that the design of Merion happened starting in 1911. What say ye?
Having said that, let's move back to the June 1910 timeframe when both Barker and then CBM & Whigham came to view the property.
First of all, do we even KNOW exactly what HDC property they were looking at specifically at that time, or what land was used on Barker's routing? We don't.
The land of the Dallas Estate, which makes up 21 acres of the existing East course was not under the control of the Haverford Development Company until FIVE MONTHS later. There is no mention of the need for HDC to acquire additional parcels in the July 1910 internal club records that talked about Connell bringing in Barker or CBM's and Whigham's visit. None.
Instead, we learn that HDC is offering at the time "100 acres, or whatever is needed" for the golf course from their existing holdings. We also know that Merion, likely as a result of conferring with CBM and Whigham, felt they would need to purchase "nearly 120 acres" instead, which is consistent with Macdonald's writings.
We can also safely assume that some of that land would be needed near the farm house on the property, up along the quarry, and along the creek, as related in the CBM letter. However, we don't know for certain the entire holding and it's even possible that the entire property looked at during that time was all north of Ardmore Avenue.
So, while we know that Barker submitted a routing on some HDC land for Connell, we don't know where it was, or if any of it was used in the final routing. We do know that no one at the time saw fit to credit him.
We also know that CBM did NOT submit a routing based on his one-day visit, but instead wrote a very general letter which has been reproduced here countless times.
Hopefully, such useless and unsupported speculation such as what's taken place over the past day won't go on (i.e. the secret relationship of Raynor and Francis, or the idea the Merion stole Barker's routing yet never credited him), but I won't hold my breath.
In any case, the facts are becoming clear, finally.
How does this effect my theory Barker staked out the course in December?
-
TomM,
Don't waste your time talking facts to Brauer. Facts and details have never been his strong suit, no matter how many times they have been covered before. For example I see he is again misrepresenting CBM's original aesthetic at NGLA to support Wayne and TEPaul's unsupported theory that Wilson (or as they misattribute, Flynn) rejected CBM's "strict lines" in favor of something more natural. It has been covered multiple times before with Brauer and he has even been provided photos, but he isn't going to let a silly thing like FACTS get in the way when he has a big picture point to make.
Likewise, perhaps you shouldn't interrupt Cirba with actual facts either. He seems to be quite busy tying himself in knots again, claiming both that the land was definitely decided and that it was yet to be determined in the course of a few sentences.
-
TMac,
I agree we all have opinions, and they can get quite strong. Mine ar not emotional at all and are based on what really happens, at least in the 33 years I have been a gca, regarding how projects get put together and credited. While you may think things were different back then, or should be different now, my points are valid based on how most people see crediting golf course design. In truth, I support the idea (to the degree its practical) of the "backstory, such as associate "A" did this or that on my or any projects. Its the next level of golf architecture history.
I know that Brad Klien had all of Ross' train schedules, which he told me he used to recreate Ross schedule for the book. Real research based on facts! But something you readily dismiss and IMHO, another nail in the coffin for your overall method of historical analysis, since you are clearly NOT openminded and able to start with a fresh slate.
I do recall you were trying to place Barker at Merion in December and I may have very well been the one to bring up train schedules in jest. Either way, 100 years later there is no verifiable evidence that Barker had anything to do with Merion besides his one day visit in June. If may just be time to give up that hope, eh?
-
David,
Please show me one fact that TMac has presented regarding Barker's December involvement, or how the fact that if he did, it would directly contradict your fact deficient theory of CBM being involved in December 1910?
And allow me to remind you that I counted over a dozen assertions in your essay that only offered "in all likelihood" as a defense or fact in making the assertion.
-
For that matter, in re-reading Mike’s post of Francis’s memories, the following logic applies:
Wilson appointed to committee Jan 11
Francis appointed later (his own words)
Francis looking at maps, Francis comes up with land swap
So, how can we conclude the Francis land swap occurred prior to 1911, when there is no evidence of him being involved, either, prior to that time?
Some time ago TEP said the January 11 date was bogus and questioned why you continued to bring it up. Francis did not say when he was appointed only that he was added because of his drawing skills. By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Yet another,"please show me one fact" challenge? I am still waiting for your promised apology from your last "just show me one fact" challenge, and this one is even more ridiculous than the last. A third grader could answer your latest challenge just by looking a few posts above, but I'm done entertaining your questions, no matter how inane.
I will say, though, that by continuing to challenge us to show you facts that are right in front of you, you demonstrate just how ill equipped you are to deal with this type of historical analysis. If you spent a bit more time actually considering the facts and less time grandstanding for your buddy, you might stop making a fool of yourself with these challenges.
As for you counting assertions in my essay, I never questioned your addition skills, only your analytical skills. And those aren't worthy of even a half-hearted counter.
-
TMac,
I agree we all have opinions, and they can get quite strong. Mine ar not emotional at all and are based on what really happens, at least in the 33 years I have been a gca, regarding how projects get put together and credited. While you may think things were different back then, or should be different now, my points are valid based on how most people see crediting golf course design. In truth, I support the idea (to the degree its practical) of the "backstory, such as associate "A" did this or that on my or any projects. Its the next level of golf architecture history.
I know that Brad Klien had all of Ross' train schedules, which he told me he used to recreate Ross schedule for the book. Real research based on facts! But something you readily dismiss and IMHO, another nail in the coffin for your overall method of historical analysis, since you are clearly NOT openminded and able to start with a fresh slate.
I do recall you were trying to place Barker at Merion in December and I may have very well been the one to bring up train schedules in jest. Either way, 100 years later there is no verifiable evidence that Barker had anything to do with Merion besides his one day visit in June. If may just be time to give up that hope, eh?
If Brad Klein had all of Ross's train schedules for some reason he did not use them in his book. What I think he probably found (in the Tufts archive) were misc itineraries for a specific week or month, see page 159. I think you may be confused.
Are you certain Baker was only at Merion one day?
-
TMac,
I only meant January 1911, and shouldn't have shortened it to January 11, which causes confusion. I have already agreed that the reading of Francis being added later is probably not right. He did say he was added, but "later" is an interpretation some of us made. And, I think we know that Francis (or whoever helped him pen that article) was wrong on the date of the UK trip. I don't think there was any question that the course was under construction in April/May 1911, is there?
As to using all the train schedules in the book, its another example of shortening for popular writing. He would only have included railroad timetables if writing a book for the limited universe of Donald Ross fans who are "foamers" (i.e. avid train watchers) I believe I may be the only member of that demographic!
And, I think you are correct, what Brad had was Donald Ross schedules from his office, and he said he had tracked his travels using the copies of the train tickets those records had. I don't think Ross had any actual railroad timetables, although Brad said he double checked actual railroad timetables to be sure in a few instances. The example I recall him telling me about was a club in Kansas that claims Ross designed their course, or stopped by to look at it. But, Brad used the timetables to confirm the train went through town in the middle of the night or something like that.
-
David,
Please show me one fact that TMac has presented regarding Barker's December involvement, or how the fact that if he did, it would directly contradict your fact deficient theory of CBM being involved in December 1910?
And allow me to remind you that I counted over a dozen assertions in your essay that only offered "in all likelihood" as a defense or fact in making the assertion.
It is a theory. It is fact Barker travelled from NYC to Atlanta in December. Barker likely travelled through Philly (twice) going to Atlanta and back. I have no proof he got off in Philly. It is a fact that it was announced in the press on 11/24 that Baker had been hired to design MCC and it is a fact that another paper reported he would be staking out several courses in the December timeframe.
In order for a theory to be taken seriously it has to be plausible, and I think there are enough facts to say the theory is plausible.
-
David,
In answer to the first fact challenge, you presented only two words from a Feb letter from Wilson to Oakley and nowhere did that specifically say anything about when Merion was routed, etc. You said there was more evidence, but you never ponied it up, unless you count you stretching two words in that letter to a six month timeline using your Carnakian skills.
I understood where you were going with that, but I doubt many will be convinced to turn a half piece of evidence into a full fledged fact we are ready to accept. Its just that simple. Over a dozen of your key essay points really aren't supported as fact. They are presented as theory with qualifiers. Its fine that you presented it, and as you say, its fine for me to disagree, which I am.
EDIT: David, I will apologize to this degree - I went back and looked and my specific question was to prove that HW and CBM had contact in JANUARY 1911. I have already agreed that they probably did, if for nothing else to start scheduling the NGLA meeting and most likely, revisit preliminary matters CBM discussed back in June, like soil samples. I mentioned topo maps, but from the letter, I gather those were already made by that time (and I have always been interested in the timing of that, as well)
My disagreements with your theory remain focued on the "routed prior to Nove 15, 1910" portions.
-
TMac,
I think your summary of your theory presents your thoughts well, perhaps better than intended. The word "plausible" jumps off the page at me, as I doubt true historians aim for "plausible."
And, in just my opinion (and I seem to be the only one speakin up here) I respectfully suggest that you have some facts, contested facts, and coincidences making up the bulk of that theory. By contested, I mean documents from MCC. I can understand, given CBM's amateur status, why they might not mention their intention to use his assistance, but would presume that in Nov/Dec that if they had hired a professional architect, some record of that agreement would be in place, or at least mentioned in the minutes, rather than the vague phrase "experts." The lawyers seemed to do everything else with regards to the acquistion of the property to the "T."
Also, I think the minutes referring to Barker were very specific that McConnell brought in Barker, but I suppose that is up for interpreation. The idea that the land guy (golfer or not) brings someone in to see if its feasible is pretty standard. And Lloyd was friends with CBM, and its doubtful he would bring in CBM and Barker, but I guess anything is possible, if not plausible.
-
By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.
Tom,
You're kidding, no? Have you ever been involved in a golf course project? What do YOU think they'd be doing six months prior to course opening?
As far as your theory about Barker desigining the course while hopping off the train, no, what I posted earlier doesn't address it.
It's self-evidently flawed and inaccurate and I trust current and future historians and interested observers would consider it completely baseless and without merit or justification so no rebuttal is really necessary.
-
David,
Rather than simply try to deflect and confuse the issue, why not just admit that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the golf course was routed before November 15th, 1910?
If the boundaries of the purchase weren't determined by December 21st, 1910 then why do you still pretend that's not a fact? If we know that Richard Francis' Land Swap provided the final piece of the routing that permitted the boundaries to be determined, why do you still pretend that happened before November 15th when it clearly didn't?
Frankly, I agree with Jeff that you do yourself a disservice by not correcting obvious errors in your IMO such as that one that are simply meant to discount Wilson's involvement. If your goal is to say CBM was not given enough credit, you're fishing in the wrong stream and end up looking obstinate and needlessly argumentative by failing to admit error in this key area.
Tom's wacky Barker theory aside, I think there's a lot better case to be made for some design input from CBM, but it ALL happened after January 1911, and it ALL happened in conjunction with and under the responsibility of Hugh Wilson's committee.
The problem is, that reasonable goal is compromised by a competing and factually irreconcilable goal, which is to diminish Hugh Wilson's authorship for the course and that's why you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The historical facts simply don't support you.
-
Mike,
I probably shouldn't go here, and .......delete.......................decided not to go there.
-
Shivas,
I think both points you make are true but would simply mention that 1) Merion didn't secure the land in question prior to late December 1910 (actually, HG Lloyd bought the land under his name at that time), and 2) Hugh Wilson's Committee didn't exist until January 1911.
So yes, he did get right on it immediately, but only as events transpired.
-
Shiv,
No one thinks HW was involved back in June 1910. So, the two possible interpretations of "CBM spoke of you and I immediately write to you" are that immediately refers to 1) his appointment to the committee, which we know occurred January 1911, or 2) a phone call (since CBM "spoke" of Oakley) between CBM and HJ (or given protocol, between friends Lloyd and CBM, perhaps with Wilson listening in and being given an intro, given it appears Wilson was a notch down the status ladder from those two)
So, you are right, and David is probably right that there was a January phone call between CBM and Wilson/Lloyd to establish the next phase of CBM's relationship with Merion.
My problem is that he takes that letter, and the other 1999 between Wilson and Oakley/Piper, and deduces that Wilson (or Lloyd or others at MCC) had been in contact with CBM since their one day visit in June, and that somehow, CBM had routed the golf course, Francis had tweaked it, and it was in place by Nov. 1910, even though MCC had it, they chose not to show it on their maps etc, etc. etc..
That he deduced so many things from a few words in that letter makes me want to relabel his essay from the "Missing Faces of Merion" to the "Missing Sansabelt Slacks of Merion" given how much strecth there is in there.
But in all seriousness, a couple of questions for anyone who knows:
Those 2000 agronomy letters stretched over what time frame? How many a week were exchanged during the heat of planning and construction?
Do we really think Wilson would work the same way with CBM?
First, it would be harder to absorb design ideas via the phone or letter, without maps, sketches, etc. And, they say they got a "good start" in March when they visited NGLA. Would there be any more letter type contact before March to discuss design and what could it have accomplished?
As above, there were some status differences. And, CBM was busy with NGLA, other clubs, being a stockbroker, etc. We know of a Feb 1/Jan 31 phone call, a March two day visit to NGLA, and an April one day visit back to Merion. After the committee got started in January, that is one contact a month between the two parties until the design was finalized.
Given all CBM had to do, isn't that a fairly reasonable time to figure he devoted only to Merion?
-
Shiv,
If you read David's theory, they were out there blasting dyamite before they owned the property, to justify his theory on the timing of the Francis land swap. Kind of a really big, loud soil sample dig!
Seriously, I think they would have avoided any sort of indication to the general public of their interest in the land, lest the landowners raise the price. They bought the Dallas Estate quite secretly through a front man.
I think you hit it on the head in your question via point 2. Land deals just take a while to put together, with all the legal stuff. I think we compress the "olden days" and wonder why "nothing" happened from June til Nov. In reality, quite a bit did - they bought more property, formed corporations, etc., brought it to a club vote, issued bonds, etc.
Also, while they didn't necessarily follow NGLA to an exact T, the time frame from looking at land to securing it and beginning construction is identical - June to April the next year. With two examples, I think we can presume that is how long deals took.
Lastly, they would know from CBM that construction starts in April. There were no big CD and Bid Packages. Design didn't take all that long, so to presume it had to start the year before is probably not right.
Just MO.
-
By the way Francis also said that while the committee was at work Wilson went to the UK to study golf design. I'm not sure what the committee was busy doing in April/May 1912.
Tom,
You're kidding, no? Have you ever been involved in a golf course project? What do YOU think they'd be doing six months prior to course opening?
As far as your theory about Barker desigining the course while hopping off the train, no, what I posted earlier doesn't address it.
It's self-evidently flawed and inaccurate and I trust current and future historians and interested observers would consider it completely baseless and without merit or justification so no rebuttal is really necessary.
Yes, they were busy watching grass grow. Construction had been completed the year before and they had seeded the course the year before too. They were so busy Wilson decided to go on a European vacation.
Regarding that 12/21 letter you posted, do you have the Nov. 23 letter he refers to?
-
Tom MacWood,
Yes, I do have the November 23rd letter...it's in the "Nature Faker" book.
It's fairly lengthy and talks about all the details of forming a corporation that would lease the land proposed golf golf back to the cricket club and if I keep copying snippets there would be no reason for you to purchase your own copy! ;) ;D
-
Shivas,
Here's the letter in question...please disregard the red underlines;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/3704287574_32cdbba422_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3703479649_bb6c37f966_o.jpg)
-
Tom MacWood,
Yes, I do have the November 23rd letter...it's in the "Nature Faker" book.
It's fairly lengthy and talks about all the details of forming a corporation that would lease the land proposed golf golf back to the cricket club and if I keep copying snippets there would be no reason for you to purchase your own copy! ;) ;D
Could you post it?
-
Shiv,
We have 90% agreement that the sky is blue!
I have always wondered myself how he could be building 6300 yards or so and telling Merion, with similar aspirations to build 6000 yards. Now, David went to some length to explain that the individual ideal holes actually total up to a varying yardage well over 6000 yards and he might have a point, but CBM did seem pretty strong on the idea that MCC should only build 6000. It appears MCC saw right through it, though for they wanted the longer course.
This is pure speculation, too, but given they probably decided they needed more land on that one day visit, like the Dallas estate, I have also wondered if they had him argue for the shorter course in writing ONLY to make it look like they wouldn't need more land than they wanted, again, as a ruse to keep prices down when they went to buy, and presuming the letter might somehow leak out. A long shot, but maybe they were covering all their bases.
-
Yep Mike, I'm here...amazing how much/little you miss when you take a day or so off...
My first point is regarding the "immediate" nature of Wilson's actions as speculated about from his February 1 letter. Quite simply they did take 7 months to reach out to Piper after CBM spoke of them. His July 2 letter refers to them. They may well have spoken about it again in January, but you're all suggesting this is such a vital correspondence that they wouldn't have waited. I don't buy it they did wait. They didn't need Piper and Oakley until they knew where they needed to plant "short growing grasses" because Piper and Oakley would be best qualified to tell them which type of grasses to plant.
In connection to this, I have always speculated that Wilson was at least involved in the conversation from the very beginning. To suggest that because he wasn't on the Site Committee means he wasn't involved at all is pretty thin although I don't have any evidence that he was.
My second point is about this timing of the Francis Swap, specifically the reading of his 1950 article. When he says the first 13 were pretty easy but the last 5 were another matter I wonder why this has to mean they had 13 holes laid out and ready to build if they could just figure out where to put 5 more. This seems like a screwy way to go. If you can't fit 18 holes in the area don't you have to re-route the course until you can? Jeff, is it likely that they would have looked at the map and had holes 1 - 13 complete and just various ideas for the last 5 alone? It seems more efficient to have all 18 up in the air until 18 holes can actually fit...no?
Oh, I do have a third point, what on earth could possibly motivate the MCC Board to fraudulently remove HH Barker's activities on their behalf from all internal records?
-
Shivas,
You haven't been playing close enough attention...my theory is a complete one-off from the two armies at war here...I like a little bit of both.
Also...Feb 1, 1911 isn't cutting it all that close to the spring 1912 growing season...
My speculation on this point is that by this time they knew pretty well where the holes were going to be and wanted to find out what sort of grass to plant once they finalized the holes through the spring and summer.
-
Jim,
In the case of a site that was divided by a road like Ardmore Ave, I would think that different parts of the routing could be separated, especially when there was only so much acreage to go around. I think they knew 1 and 13 were pretty well set, too because the clubhouse was set.
I don't know if that answers your question, or from the viewpoint of the many protagonists here, narrows down when the rough routing was finished. Based on your question alone, it could have been roughly settled at any time, and someone taking a later look to squeeze out what they could, or done all at once as one of the many routings they made or the five they revised after the NGLA meeting.
My personal theory on it is, given the urgency of the midnight ride to Lloyds, that Francis was struggling with one of the five a night or two before CBM was scheduled to come back April 6. I think we know the final boundary wasn't done until April something, so we know it wasn't any later than that. As to how much earlier, well, you decide.
I think someone did an excersise back on those actual Merion threads about putting the five holes on the property without the land swap (using the back of 17 green as the border, and accounting for the Quarry, etc. Using that boundary, it seemed pretty awkward, if I recall. And, we know some kind of triangle was in the parcel by Nov 15., which I believe came about only because they needed to connect golf house road to an existing intersection up north.
But, let the debates begin!
-
Jeff,
I hope you do know that I place a great deal of weight on your opinion in these discussions because you have been through it, in some form, exponentially more than the rest of us combined. It doesn't mean I always agree with your interpretations or opinions but I do respect the experience that has contributed to them.
Regarding this topic, sure it helps that the split parcel increases the liklihood of a sort of split routing, thanks. I did participate in that excercise of trying to find five holes in the rectangle (the North part of the "L") while didging the quarry and to me, it makes th epoint. The holes were awkward and relatively short. Hence the eye-opening idea/opportunity of swapping some of the western portion of it for the triangle. On the flip side, the narrow triangle as drawn on the November Plan could have contained the same holes only slightly narrower. Why would opening them up with a multi-point re-routing of a yet unbuilt road be the eureka moment?
-
Guys,
The answer to the riddle is the same reason CBM thought hed need 110 acres and used about 170.
-
Tom MacWood,
Yes, I do have the November 23rd letter...it's in the "Nature Faker" book.
It's fairly lengthy and talks about all the details of forming a corporation that would lease the land proposed golf golf back to the cricket club and if I keep copying snippets there would be no reason for you to purchase your own copy! ;) ;D
I find it odd you could type out the entire december letter but cannot post the 11/23 letter.
-
I would suspect David has a copy of it on his computer. He's been pretty persistent about saving a copy of just about everything that is produced on these threads.
-
Jim,
I think we debated just how much of a eureka moment it really was. Francis was being interviewed for the US OPen program, I think, and recounting his one contribution to the design. It might have been fluffed up a wee bit, no?
Also, as mentioned, they prepared five plans for CBM to review when he came back in April. I figure the midnight ride might be because CBM was coming the next day, and they had been struggling with coming up with a few acceptable options and he "made it under the wire" before the CB meeting.
Just a guess, and I do realize it doesn't match all the story as told later by Francis, such as the blasting the next day , which suggests it was later in construction. But, if the holes were crappy and unchanged before CBM approved the routing when he got back, why would he proclaim the last seven to be among the best in the world (potentially?)
I think some of those small details will remain a mystery unless someone holds a seance.
-
Shivas,
I appreciate you wading in here, but I hope you realize that much of what two of these guys write is more than a little misleading, especially when they pretend to depict my position. I'd really appreciate that you just ignore all their putting words in my mouth because chances are very good whatever they say in this regard will be absolutely wrong.
- Like when Brauer blatantly misrepresents my take on the quarry blasting.
- Or when Brauer pretends that Merion "saw right through" CBM and built a longer course than suggested. (Merion's course was at best around 6000 yards and they built the holes CBM suggested almost to a tee.)
- Or when, as above, he makes all sorts of ridiculous claims about what I gleaned from this February 1, 1911 letter, even claiming that I think Wilson was in constant contact with CBM between June 1910 January 1911. All I was addressing from that letter is that CBM and HJW were in contact and discussing the creation of Merion East sometime shortly before February 1, 1911. The rest is just their usual garbage, fiction, and misrepresentations, and the only purpose it serves is to highlight how little he understands about my position and about what happened.
So please don't rely on their versions of what I think. Neither has the first clue, even if they were willing to honestly express it.
_____________________________________
As for your list of what we agree upon and don't, if it were only so easy . . .
1. I think we all agree that in June 1910 CBM and HJW inspected Merion's Ardmore Ave. site at Merion's request, and that CBM sent HG Lloyd a letter containing recommendations. Beyond that there is bound to be disagreement.
2. I think we all agree that Merion announced the purchase to their members in mid-November 1911, but when the land was actually purchased and by whom is much more complicated.
3. I think we all agree that the Construction Committee was created in early 1911 and that Wilson was on that Committee.
4. I think we agree that Wilson wrote a letter to Piper on February 1, 2011, copies of which are posted above.
5. I think we agree that representatives of Merion visited NGLA so that CBM could continue to help the prepare to build their golf course.
6. I think we agree that CBM and Whigham came back to the property in April 1911 and that they again inspected the land, and that while there CBM and Wilson chose the final routing plan. Although we are bound to disagree as to what choosing the plan entailed.
7. I assume we all agree that they had telephones. I think that MacWood may have even had Wilson's telephone number.
There are a number of other things on which we ought to agree, such as that in late December 1910 or early January 1911 Merion announced to their members that experts were at working planning Merion's golf course. And that sometime after CBM and HJW returned to Merion to agains inspected the land and to choose the final routing plan, Merion's board was presented with this layout plan and told that it was the one that CBM and HJW had chosen, and that the board authorized the construction of the golf course pursuant to that plan.
There is more that we should agree upon, but somehow I doubt we will even agree on this much.
Brauer's theory on what they CBM and Merion would have had to talk about during the interim is very odd. I never claimed Wilson was communicating with CBM about the design during this period and I would be very surprised if he was. But I would be shocked if Merion had no communication with CBM during this period. Particularly, I expect that Merion sent CBM a copy of the CONTOUR MAP. In his June letter, CBM mentioned that it would take a contour map for him and HJW to be certain whether a first class course would fit, and we know that at some point before February 1 Merion had that contour map drawn up, because Wilson, who was contacting Piper at CBM's direction, had a contour map sent to Piper.
_________________________________________
As for your theory regarding the 6000 yard course, it is interesting speculation, but I don't think that it was the case. CBM wasn't building courses for professional golfers playing the tips of the back tees, and I don't think he was describing courses that way either. So when he refers to a 6000 yard course, I think he had a course like NGLA in mind. In other words, I think he considered it to be around a 6000 yard course. As he said in Scotland's Gift, when they first started playing NGLA it was, "roughly speaking, 6100 yards" and the first tournament was played at around 6100 yards, even though the first scorecard listed the championship length at over 6300.
In his 1907 article on the Ideal Golf Links, his ideal holes added up to around around 6020 yards. But in both these instances, there was ample room to make the course longer "at will." I explained above how CBM listed the yardage about 40 yards less than he could have on the Alps hole because to him that was the proper playing length at that time. And CBM "measured from the middle of the teeing ground to the middle of the putting-green. With proper teeing space and putting greens each hole could be lengthened at will by 20 to 30 yards."
So despite what Mike, Jeff, and others would have us believe there was no magic cap on 6000 yards. Nor was CBM trying to jam a short course down Merion's throat. The average of the hole distances listed is about 6000 yards but the range goes up to 6300 yards. If anything, Merion's course was barely as long as CBM suggested, which is to be expected, given that, as he expressed in his letter, their problem was fitting a first class 18 hole course on the acreage they proposed buying.
(To give just one example of how far off Merion's measures were, the old 10th hole was listed at 385 yards. In a straight line it measures more like 305-315, and if the hole had a dogleg it was very slight. A number of other holes seem to have been off by 10% or more.)
_________________________________________
Jim, I don't understand your take on "immediately." No doubt they waited to contact Piper/Oakley (who were NOT mentioned in the June letter) but it is Wilson who attached a sense of immediacy to the whole thing in the letter, as if he had just spoken to CBM. I cannot imagine a scenario where letting eight months lapse could be called "immediately."
As for the swap, there was plenty of room for that green and tee on the 1910 plan. As usual, Brauer isn't familiar with the facts and has gotten himself all confused and is making no sense. He even admits that the pre-swap border was at the back of the 17th green which essentially concedes the entire argument.
-
I would suspect David has a copy of it on his computer. He's been pretty persistent about saving a copy of just about everything that is produced on these threads.
I don't believe that is the case. I don't recall ever seeing that letter posted, and if David had it I'm pretty sure we would have all seen it by now.
-
There is no way the pre-swap border was behind the 17th green. More later.
-
Tom,
I'm shocked that you guys are interested in this topic yet haven't spent the 75 bucks to buy the book.
You don't have to agree with analysus or conclusions to want to view the evidence.
Amazing.
-
I can't believe I haven't received a complementary copy since I'm listed in the acknowledgements. In the past with similar situations the author has sent me a freebee. Oh well.
If you don't want to post it for whatever reason so be it. Obviously it has nothing to do with the Flynn book since you've posted one letter from the book already. I've never quite understood why you and the others have selectively realeased information.
-
Nything I've posted here has already been posted in whole or in part by one or both of the authors.
That's where I draw the line, Tom.
If you're interested in this topic, I'd buy the book.a
-
That should of read "hasn't".
-
If you don't want to post it for whatever reason so be it.
Obviously it has nothing to do with the Flynn book since you've posted one letter from the book already.
I've never quite understood why you and the others have selectively realeased information.
Tom,
I think "selective posting" has led to a good deal of suspicion and animosity amongst the participants.
The natural assumption, when there's a refusal to post a document in one's possession, is that the document contains information that the possesor doesn't want others to see.
Otherwise, why not post the document ?
-
I can't believe I haven't received a complementary copy since I'm listed in the acknowledgements. In the past with similar situations the author has sent me a freebee. Oh well.
Incredibly, the two Faker authors didn't even have the common sense or the decency to list you in the Acknowledgements. Your ideas, analysis, and research are scattered throughout the .pdf, and are sometimes the only reasonable glimmers in what is oftentimes a pretty dismal work. Yet the only credit they bother to give you is one mention of you providing them with census records records relating to Flynn and Pickering. Unbelievable! My guess is that they'd have removed this credit as well had they ever bothered to proofread.
You are not the only who did not receive proper credit or acknowledgment. With that single mention you received more credit than I did. They had no qualms about pilfering my analysis, ideas, and research but didn't bother to acknowledge me at all. Oh well, I should probably consider myself lucky.
But it goes to show what these "gentlemen" are all about. Imagine how much they have taken from these pages --except for the impressive collection of Flynn plans most of what actually makes sense in that pdf can be directly traced to you, me, or others on this website. Yet they have the nerve to try and charge us $70 bucks for what is essentially a document dump from Wayne's hard drive? How unjustifiably self-important can they get?
If you don't want to post it for whatever reason so be it. Obviously it has nothing to do with the Flynn book since you've posted one letter from the book already. I've never quite understood why you and the others have selectively realeased information.
This is especially fascinating from Mike, who makes no qualms about actually photocopying and posting page after page of copyrighted works all the time. I guess it is different when your buddies want to continue to play games with documents.
Anyway, I was curious as to whether Mike would play games about this and he has answered that. I'll post their transcription of the letter when I get a chance.
-
David,
It's very simple.
If either of the author's previously put something in whole or part on this board previously, I have no compunction with reproducing it during these discussions.
Neither author participates here any longer and I'm respectful of their personal wishes.
If you don't feel bound by the same constraints, please do as you wish.
Glad to hear you bought a copy.
-
Pat,
And by that, I presume you mean Obama's resistance to posting his full birth certificate until now?
PS - how is life with the gorgeous alien women?
David,
Your post 1645 sounds fairly reasonable right through Point No. 7. Maybe not all of the opening and closing PP, but as I have blatantly speculated before, maybe we aren't as far apart in views as our antagonistic posts suggest. You will have to refresh my memory on your quarry blasting theory, since as I recall it, you figured it was before they bought the land, and not in April as construction started, at least at one time. As always, I could be wrong and occaisionally am.
Shiv,
Please remember that when David says I misrepresent him, for the most part, I have been cut and pasting either David's essay or recent posts, and simply asking him the inelegant questions about backing it up with contemporaneous docments directly addressing supposed events, not his "logic." If that makes me a bad guy, then so be it.
-
Mike Cirba,
I am not interested in your lame excuses or faulty assumptions and I did not ask for your permission.
And quit pretending the Faker authors aren't participating. You guys are in near constant contact with them about this thread!
As for your speculation about whether I have wasted $70 dollars on a document dump from Wayne's hard drive, go pound sand.
-
Go pound sand?
Okay David, now you've made it personal. (insert smiley - that just struck me as funny and I suspect Mike will respond with nothing less than Nanny Nanny Boo Boo)
-
I can't believe I haven't received a complementary copy since I'm listed in the acknowledgements. In the past with similar situations the author has sent me a freebee. Oh well.
Incredibly, the two Faker authors didn't even have the common sense or the decency to list you in the Acknowledgements. Your ideas, analysis, and research are scattered throughout the .pdf, and are sometimes the only reasonable glimmers in what is oftentimes a pretty dismal work. Yet the only credit they bother to give you is one mention of you providing them with census records records relating to Flynn and Pickering. Unbelievable! My guess is that they'd have removed this credit as well had they ever bothered to proofread.
You are not the only who did not receive proper credit or acknowledgment. With that single mention you received more credit than I did. They had no qualms about pilfering my analysis, ideas, and research but didn't bother to acknowledge me at all. Oh well, I should probably consider myself lucky.
But it goes to show what these "gentlemen" are all about. Imagine how much they have taken from these pages --except for the impressive collection of Flynn plans most of what actually makes sense in that pdf can be directly traced to you, me, or others on this website. Yet they have the nerve to try and charge us $70 bucks for what is essentially a document dump from Wayne's hard drive? How unjustifiably self-important can they get?
If you don't want to post it for whatever reason so be it. Obviously it has nothing to do with the Flynn book since you've posted one letter from the book already. I've never quite understood why you and the others have selectively realeased information.
This is especially fascinating from Mike, who makes no qualms about actually photocopying and posting page after page of copyrighted works all the time. I guess it is different when your buddies want to continue to play games with documents.
Anyway, I was curious as to whether Mike would play games about this and he has answered that. I'll post their transcription of the letter when I get a chance.
My bad, I thought someone said I was in the acknowledgments. Never mind.
I appreciate you posting the letter, thanks.
-
Tom MacWood,
If the letter was in any way germane to any of the items at issue here you can be assured David would have already posted it. So, expect a big yawn when it's revealed.
David,
I speak solely for myself and barely can keep up with reading and responding here. My personal email box is awash in unread mail about this stuff. Wayne thinks I'm nuts for still posting on this board, and Tom probably feels the same....so be it.
In that vein, earlier you declined Shivas' request to reprint the Whigham Country Life article here from George Bahto's book because you didn't feel comfortable doing so.
It's the same deal here for me with unpublished stuff from Wayne and Tom's book.
If CBM was alive and didn't wish his stuff from his book to be posted here I'd respect his wishes, but alas...
And c'mon...knock of the insults and please just stick to the factual evidence.
Thanks.
-
I've gotta run out, but I'd like to quickly go back to the idea that the land swap happened before November.
Richard Francis told us that they had placed the first 13 holes and were struggilng to place the final five of their intended championship course. They had just used up their first par three on the back nine with #13.
I'd ask folks to think about the insanity of trying to fit those five holes into the remaining land if none of the land of the triangle was under their control at that time...if indeed their working property ended just past the 17th green.
Frankly, they would have been certifiable, especially since CBM had already recommended to them that much could be made of the quarry.
Instead, I'd like to ask folks to consider what it meant to any routing plan when it was determined that a "Lady's Aid" as it's know, or alternate route around the quarry was needed on hole 16.
The following depicts what I think happened. When the land was originally configured, no one saw the need to do that, and everyone thought they'd have enough width to do at least an out and back routing configuration on that part of the property, and indeed, it is possible as seen in this drawing, provided that the alternate fairway (which is original) on 16 wasn't needed.
It should also be noted that the original 15th tee was over just to the left past the 14th green.
I think all the evidence is very clear that the swap simply widened the top part to fit in most of the 14th green, the whole left side of the 15th fairway, and gave back the land across the street from the clubhouse, essentially fitting in the final five holes.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4915826639_27ffb7a5eb_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
Your suggestions fail for two reasons:
1) of course it was difficult to route the course (those 5 holes) in that area...that's the point. Freeing up the triangle let it fall into place...just as Francis says. I don't understand why you refuse to take him at his word!!!
2) if a "ladies aid on 16 was so incredibly vital to the play of the hole, and worthy of restructuring the entire land transaction, why did they build longer forced carries on the 17th and 18th holes with no ladies aids?
Just wonderin'...
-
Jim,
You might want to add a No. 3. As usual, Mike forgets that they also had all of the land across from the clubhouse to choose from. In any case his placement of the 14th green over on number 16 is an absolute abCirbaty.
We know what the swap entailed, Merion traded the land across from the clubhouse (now on the other side of the road) for the triangle up in the corner. There is no reason to doubt him on this.
-
Jim,
I do take Francis at his word.
And, it wasn't just difficult to route the final five holes in the supposed space left if none of the triangle was in play at that time. It was impossible. They would have been certifiably insane to have routed 13 holes knowing full well they only had land just beyond the quarry to their north to play with. Absolutely insane, Jim.
But Francis was right...
Merion traded a plot of land that was about 95 yards at it's widest point and 310 yards in length (as seen on the November 15th, 1910 map) for land that was 130 yards at its widest point and 190 yards long at the base of the "triangle" as seen on today's golf course.
They also received land west of that Land Plan that today makes up the left side of the 15th fairway down the length of it, as well as the left side of the 14th green and slightly below, and gave back all the land across the street from the clubhouse up the 14th fairway (the fine homes along Golf House Road) as part of the overall shift of the perceived western border from what was drawn originally on the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan.
Do you really think Francis was going to go into that level of detail to explain all of that in a short summation in a 1950 US Open preview article?
That exchange of land is really pretty obvious simply by looking at the proposed, curving symmetrical roads on each side of the HDC development between what was proposed in November 15th, 1910, and what got moved around and built after the Francis brainstorm on the modern aerial immediately following, with the roads "as built" shown in blue.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/4956447137_5c83df6979_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2340/3531414890_3f4515135b_b.jpg)
Here's the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan superimposed by Bryan Izatt (yellow road lines are mine) over today's golf course.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/3627225378_8542e8bcf0_o.jpg)
-
Mike, et., al.,
Can anyone superimpose the course on the land plot, when the old 13th or 14th holes existed ?
-
Jim,
This 1948 map may show it even better. Notice the change in the "triangle" between what was proposed in November 15th, 1910 and what was built.
The triangle was simply shortened, and widened, to the exact dimensions quoted by Francis of 130 yards by 190 yards from the original 95 yards by 310 yards, with the other part of the "give back" being the pregnant bulge down across from the clubhouse.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/3628225331_1f17851ddc_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
This is pretty crude, admittedly, and I'm sure someone will get all in a huff, but this is a representation of the locations of the original 1912 1st, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th holes, the latter of which finished behind the clubhouse along today's driveway.
Francis tells us that those holes in the routing were all in place, through 13, when he solved his riddle of how to fit the last five holes.
So, you have to put yourself on that 13th green as a starting point if you want to go through what is an interesting routing exercise.
My contention is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to route five reasonable golf holes, much less championship golf holes from there if at least some of the land of the triangle wasn't already in play. I'd further contend that the routers would have to have been certifiably insane to think they could do it if they really painted themselves into the corner some here are contending.
I'd like to see you, or anyone, really...attempt to do it if you think I'm wrong.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5667129843_55bc21bf13_b.jpg)
-
Always hate it if I am misrepresenting someone, as David claims in his Reply #1645 (David)
"Like when Brauer blatantly misrepresents my take on the quarry blasting"
It was spurred by this comment in Reply #1627 (Jeff)
If you read David's theory, they were out there blasting dyamite before they owned the property, to justify his theory on the timing of the Francis land swap. Kind of a really big, loud soil sample dig!
From David’s essay:
On November 14, 1910, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Merion had acquired “130 acres” of land for a new golf course…..
Given Francis’ description of the timing of the quarryman’s blasting, and given that he eventually served on the Construction Committee, it has long been assumed that the “swap” occurred while Construction Committee was in the process of building the course. But the supposed land exchange must have occurred much earlier, before Merion secured the land, which was before Merion appointed Wilson and his Construction Committee.The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized
Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land…..The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.
This is where I got my statement from, again, straight from the source. Not sure how I misrepresented David's position.
Also have a question, and that is if Francis was appointed to the same construction committee (maybe, or maybe not later, based on his word "added" no earlier than January 1911 why should we presume he was involved earlier, but we cannot presume Wilson was?
After all, there is no record of either being involved, so it seems a bit, uh, disingenous (sorry) to portray a lesser member of the committee as being involved pre committee, but the head wasn't?
Anyway, if someone can tell me what record there is to back up the Lloyd and Francis routing thoery, or how it was I misrepresented David's own words by nearly quoting them, then I am (like Ross Perot) all ears. I certainly didn't mean to misquote him, but if they were blasting before Nov 1910 as his essay suggests, I wonder how they would know that they were blasting the 16th green, given CBM wasn't approving the final routing until April of the next year.
-
This is beyond idiotic. Mike is regressing about three years and is launching into all his old disproven theories. Again. He is way off on his distances and apparently has no concept that PRIOR TO THE SWAP Merion had more land across for the clubhouse in which to fit the holes. Yet he continues to use post swap boundaries for pre-swap claims! And there is no excuse for his phony cut and pastes. It it has been measured repeatedly, including by Bryan, and all REASONABLE ACCOUNTS indicate there was plenty of room for a green and a tee!
Mike is no closer to reconciling his silly theories to the Francis statement now than he was three years ago!
-
Jim,
Mike neglects to mention that prior to that 1946 map Merion bought more land up in that corner! So his latest comparison to 1946 is inapt at best.
-
David,
Put up or shut up.
Let's see you route five reasonable holes for an intended Championship course on whatever measured land you think was applicable that doesn't include any of the triangle land.
Better yet, let's see you route five reasonable holes of any type.
Whoever routed the course would have to have been certifiably insane to box themselves into that corner by routing the first 13 holes (as Francis clearly stated) and leaving themselves with not nearly enough room with that big quarry to do the rest if none of that triangle land was in play at the time.
The only thing "disproven" around here has been your specious, ever-changing theroy.
So, here's your opportunity to prove us all wrong.
Have at it, dude.
-
As usual Brauer doesn't know the facts but that doesn't stop himself from pontificating about how I was wrong in my essay, no matter how irrelevant his point may be. I've told him repeatedly that a site formatting change garbled the essay, yet he is so fixated on trying to prove something - anything - from my essay wrong, that he apparently cannot help repeatedly cherry picking an out of context sentence or two, and then making all sorts of idiotic proclamations which are contradicted by the essay itself!
I never claimed that Merion was out there blasting on the property before they even purchased the property. If the Francis recollection of the timing of the blast was correct, then it was likely HDC, not Merion, who did the blasting. And, as usual, the portion of the essay that Jeff has chosen to cherry pick isn't even the portion where I address this issue.
Why do you all suppose he is so fixated on trying to prove some part of my essay wrong? He has already admitted that CBM and HJW played a major role in designing the course, so his purposes here seem beyond petty to me. If he wants to continue on his petty mission to nitpick at my essay at least find a copy of the real thing and address it in an IMO of his own. As it is, each of his theories about how I was wrong contains more errors than the whole of my essay!
-
David,
Read it all again and I think I cut and pasted the relevant portions. If you can, please show me other parts of it, but I don't think I missed any.
I agree that IF the blasting occurred prior to Nov, HDC had owned the Johnson Farm for a few years (?) and they would be legally entitled to do blasting at their own will.
Petty? There is still a major disagreement on who and when the routing took place. Your piece contradicts much of the club evidence, actually offers little direct evidence of all the routing work you say took place from August 1910 (purchas of Dallas Estate to finalize the basic parcel) and Nov 14, 1910.
I keep posting your piece to give you a chance to show us where the evidence comes from to back up your strongly held beliefs. You fail miserably. Go pound sand!
-
Jeff Brauer,
You were wrong and you did not post the relevant portions. It certainly doesn't surprise me that you cannot figure this out for yourself. As for yet another request for me to do your due diligence, I though old you I was done jumping through hoops for you?
Your only purpose here is try and prove me wrong. You aren't even bothering to pretend your goal is to figure out what happened. You have become almost as pathetic as your buddy.
-
The only thing "disproven" around here has been your specious, ever-changing theroy.
So, here's your opportunity to prove us all wrong.
Have at it, dude.
Right after Mike throws out his latest of dozens of different theories on this single issue, he has the nerve to accuse me of changing my theory? What is this, the Twilight Zone?
Apparently Mike hasn't quite figured out that THE REASON THEY NEEDED THE SWAP IS BECAUSE THE HOLES DID NOT FIT! And likely reason they did not fit was because there wasn't quite enough north south length for 15 and 16.
As for his demand that I route his course, if they couldn't make it fit the, what would it prove if I could or couldnt? Anyway, I'll file his demand with all of Brauer's demands.
-
David,
Sane men do not route 13 holes when it would be obvious to ANYONE that there isn't enough room to route the final 5 if the property line ended just beyond the 17th green as your entire theory is based on.
Jim,
Where exactly could they build alternate routes on 17 and 18?
Besides, 17 was a carry, but from a cliff-top tee with a long descent and about 150 yards of carry to reach a reasonable lie.
From the original members tee, 18 was 410 yards and required about a 155 yard carry up a 20 foot rise to reach the fairway.
Neither was exactly unreasonable compared to 16.
16 was 415 from the members tee and could play as long as 435 as it did in the 1916 US Amateur.
They were playing with hickory shafts.
A good player driving the ball in the 250 range was left with a carry of 165 to 185 over the quarry.
Weaker players driving 220 had carries of significantly further.
For all these reasons, it was determined that an alternate route was necessary.
-
Can we re-title this thing "Twilight Zone! - only enter if you're prepared to have your brain melt!"?
-
A major cog in the wheel of a pre-November 15 Swap is the ownership issue. "Why would they be able to blast away rock on someone else's property...?" I've argued that the personal relationship Lloyd likely had with HDC would facilitate everybody wanting to do what they can to make th edeal work, but more important, or technically inarguable, is that the land title didn't actually transfer to Merion until June or July 1911.
Lloyd took title as a representative of HDC, not of Merion in December 1910. He was clearly a bridge to make sure it all worked out well, but it cannot be argued that the blasting would not have happened until Merion owned it unless we're arguing that date to be after the summer purchase by MCCGA.
-
The following letter from Thos. DeWitt Cuyler, Esq., was ordered to be spread in full
on the minutes, viz.,
Philadelphia, December 21, 1910.
Mr. Allen Evans,
President, Merion Cricket Club,
Haverford, Pa
My dear Sir:
Re Merion Cricket Club Golf Association,
In accordance with Mr. Lloyd‘s request, I enclose herewith letter from the Haverford
Development Company of November 10th and copy of your reply thereto showing the
terms of the agreement to purchase the land for the golf grounds. I also enclose copy
of my letter to you of November 23rd. As I have duplicates of these three papers, I
would thank you to return them or copies of them to me.
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.
-
Jim,
No one is arguing that the blasting took place after July 1911, but it did take place after Lloyd purchased the entire Johnson Farm in late December 1910.
Just a couple of things for clarity.
Here's the 16th hole showing the alternate routes;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3570229743_4d6a1df0c0_o.jpg)
Here's on a drawing of the 14th hole you can see where the original 15th tee was located;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3629437019_ef0cebd929_o.jpg)
Here's the 17th hole from the tee in 1916;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3574371011_5246b6453d_o.jpg)
Here's looking from the 17th green back to the tee as well as showing the tee shot on 18;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2464/3574416285_d6faf79db4_b.jpg)
From this modern aerial you can see the pieces that didn't fit once that alternate route was established; specifically, the 14th green and the 15th tee with a red line going along the original approximate boundary as drawn on the November 15th 1910 Land Plan.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/3539708411_c50e9a2e14_o.jpg)
-
Some more interesting tidbits that might (emphasize might, because we don't agree on anything around here)
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.
What do you make of changing the land agreement a week +/- after the basic land plan was submitted to the members?
That the boundaries had not been determined? How could the land swap have taken place?
The request that the lease of the golf grounds conforms to the Haverford lease?
That the committees remained until the board of the new club was formed and that the ballot do do so was postponed? (actually, I think this just confirms that the construction committee formed in January.
That said, is there any evidence that Francis was on the land committee (forgot the name at the moment) or that Lloyd himself was in any way responsible for routing the course as David claims in his essay?
All of the points above cannot be reasonably reconciled to anything other than the routing being finalized well after Nov 1910. I am sure someone will chime in to say otherwise though.
-
Jeff,
Yes, it seems clear and obvious but that's never been a factor here. ;)
Jim,
I do not think you understand the significance of the point I made about that 310 yard linear dimension on that triangle versus the 190 yard dimension. It is really important because that linear dimension area covers some fixed points on the ground (stone monuments and the middle of College Ave) that have not changed for many years going back before MCC came to that land.
The 310 versus the 190 yard dimension is really important because they are both provable!! They are provable by a series of deeds runs over an extended period of time and they are recorded by the metes and bounds that appear on any deed.
Try to look at it this way:
1. That linear dimension (310 yards) exists on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan (that's provable---eg land to the west of it is colored in green and goes all the ways to College Ave) and it existed on the metes and bounds of Lloyd's December 1910 deed (he owned the land up there under College Ave from the McFadden place over to the Taylor or Davis farm (the dimensions of the Johnson Farm at the top of the L)).
2. It no longer existed when that road was built and dedicated (it got reduced from 310 yards to 190 yards). That effectively reduced Merion's ownership and use in any way of the top 120 yards of that original 310 yard linear dimension due to the road and its dedication on both sides of the middle by MCC and HDC (the road and its dedicated easement is app 7-8 yards wide).
3. If the deed from the transfer of the land from Lloyd to MCCGC Corp in July 1911 reflects the reduction of that linear dimension from 310 to 190 yards, then what does that say and what does it indicate? It indicates that there was a rearrangement of boundary lines at some point between Dec. 1910 and July 1911.
I would say that effectively and provably brackets in time some land dimension change such as the Francis land swap idea, wouldn't you? It also establishes in time a point before which it could not have happened such as Nov, 15, 1910 or in this case Dec. 1910 when Lloyd took by deed 160 acres of HDC land.
If the course and its effective 120 acres (plus 3 leased =123 acres) that was created by deed in July 1911 was already accomplished before Dec. 1910 or Nov 15, 1910 why would there have been any need for him to do that?
-
Jeff,
As we have discussed a few times, our (you and I) disagreement on the possible/likely timing of the routing pivots on one difference of opinion and yours carries all the weight of experience while mine has none. You believe it's impossible that they would have routed the course (hole structure, not specific features) and then drew the lines of what they would buy while I believe, based on the steps taken, that they must have done exactly that. Again, if not for your extensive experience to the contrary I would give your opinion on it very little consideration and it is in fact your opinion which is keeping me engaged in this...because if you're correct, my belief of what happens becomes impossible. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to let my mind be changed but the arguments put forth are pretty weak.
-
Jim,
But they DID route the golf course and then draw the lines!
That's what they did between December 1910 and April 1911 when the final routing plan was approved by the Merion Board of Governor's, which then authorized the SPECIFIC purchase of the EXACT 120 acres (plus 3 leased acres) that was completed in July 1911.
ALL of the documents and evidence prior to December 1910 show clearly that NO SUCH boundaries existed prior to then. All they had prior was the undetermined 117 acres of land at a fixed price that was promised by Connell in November, 1910, and which was then purchased (and encompassed within) by Lloyd in December of 1910 when he bought both the entire Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate.
NGLA did virtually the exact same thing as far as securing a fixed number of undetermined acres at a fixed price within a larger tract first, and then spending the next several months routing the course and staking the boundaries for a purchase that happened months later.
-
Jim,
But they DID route the golf course and then draw the lines!
That's what they did between December 1910 and April 1911 when the final routing plan was approved by the Merion Board of Governor's, which then authorized the SPECIFIC purchase of the EXACT 120 acres (plus 3 leased acres) that was completed in July 1911.
ALL of the documents and evidence prior to December 1910 show clearly that NO SUCH boundaries existed prior to then. All they had prior was the undetermined 117 acres of land at a fixed price that was promised by Connell in November, 1910, and which was then purchased (and encompassed within) by Lloyd in December of 1910 when he bought both the entire Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate. underlines are mine!
NGLA did virtually the exact same thing as far as securing a fixed number of undetermined acres at a fixed price within a larger tract first, and then spending the next several months routing the course and staking the boundaries for a purchase that happened months later.
If only you fully believed this we would be fine...but you insist on using an "Approximate Road" as a hard border to make your case, even though the acreage doesn't match the stated acreage...
-
Jim,
I'm willing to drop the western border (approx road) from the discussion because;
1) It wasn't built in November 15th, 1910.
2) We don't know if it matched the contour map that Wilson's group was working with
3) We can't accurately measure the Land Plan from a photo of a scrapbook taken at an angle.
Besides, the 310 yards to 190 yard measurement and the timing of that is the smoking gun, frankly.
I think what we DO know about the western border is that;
1) HDC wanted to maximize golf course frontage with all bordering estate homes facing the course.
2) HDC and Merion wanted to create a aesthetically pleasing road that was curvilinear.
3) Both parties were somewhat incentivized to keep golf course acreage to a minimum.
Francis's plan impacted ALL of those things and were the reasons he had to go to Lloyd seeking permission.
-
OK. So you're saying the road on the November 15 map was just out of the clear blue for aesthetic reasons (as you've suggested in the past)? Or that it was approximate based on an idea of where the holes would go?
See my point, I admit it may be slicing pretty thin, is that simply writing the word "approximate" on that map imples they had a general idea of where the road would go but hadn't pinned it down precisely yet...the boundary was "not definite".
I agree with David that the mere presence of the triangle on that land purchase map is evidence enough that Francis's idea occurred prior to then. Unfortunately for him, I think this disproves his premise of CBM having a heavy hand in the final product because as of June 29th he was clearly not part of the team. His letter was much more observational than involved.
Naturally the next question is what were they doing in March and April then? I assume they were fidgeting with exact hole lengths and basic features as opposed to actual routes around the property. Do you think they actually had 5 distinct routes around the property in the game as of April 1911?
-
Jim, I understand why you would want to defer to Jeff Brauer on some matters or at least give his opinions special credence, but Jeff is hardly behaving as an unbiased professional here. Rather, he seems to be here shilling for his buddy.
The only leg these guys have to stand on is to pretend Cuyler's letter indicates that the land had not been chosen or the routing process even yet begun as of December 21, 1910. But the letter does not say that. All it says is that the boundaries of the course had not yet been definitely determined. So what? We know CBM wouldn't choose the final layout plan for months, so why would we expect the exact plan with the exact width of the holes to have been determined in December?
Look at Wilson's letters, including his first one in February. He sure seems to think that Merion had "purchased one hundred seventeen (117) acres of land." And he seems to think he knew where "the Course" was located, and would even provide Piper and Oakley a contour map. It seems like they knew where "the Course" was located to me.
It seems a more reasonable interpretation of Cuyler that at that point they were waiting to draw the final lines until they knew exactly how much room to the west they would need for the 14th and 15th holes.
______________________________________
Also Jim, to refresh your memory on this 310 yards nonsense, for good reason the golf course owned the road. There was never a 310 yard triangle. There was a 190 yard triangle as described by Francis and then about 120 yards of road! Not sure what MCC wanting access to College Ave. to the north has to do the land swap, and I doubt Mike knows either since he is obviously just shilling for TEPaul on that issue.
-
Wow, David...that's quite funny.
It sure looks like a 310 yard long triangle drawn on this November 15th, 1910 Land Plan to me! Must be these damn new glasses!! ;) ;D
Seriously, I don't care if it was a square, a rectangle, or a parallelagram, the western side of this really doesn't matter, although it is YOUR contention that this Land Plan depicts a fully routed golf course at this point, not mine.
Frankly, all that matters is that the fixed boundaries that we DO know, and that are measurable and immovable, are those on the east and north.
This map makes clear that as of November 15th, 1910, land that was supposed to be part of the Golf Course went as far north as College Avenue with an eastern border for 310 yards along Haverford College and the McFadden property as represented on the Land Plan sent to Merion members.
THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation". This was by INTENT. THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time. It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
-
Jim,
You're telling me that they had this mondo brainstorm that put the last five holes in place down to a specific yardage that required Francis to get permission from Lloyd (who didn't own the land at that time?) and then didn't even take the time to depict it accurately on a SCALE MAP sent to the membership?
Oh...and they were also probably so excited at finishing their routing that they also forgot to show any of the hole locations of that routing on the Land Plan? ;) ;D
In answer to your other questions, I think they had variations on a theme, and preferences, but yes...I think they had five distinct routings in April 1911. From the sounds of their description in the MCC Minutes, it sounds like they tinkered endlessly with it over a number of months, likely since Jan/Feb.
-
This map makes clear that as of November 15th, 1910, land that was supposed to be part of the Golf Course went as far north as College Avenue with an eastern border for 310 yards along Haverford College and the McFadden property as represented on the Land Plan sent to Merion members.
THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation". This was by INTENT. THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time. It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.
Great! We finally agree. By mid November Merion was planning on using the land west of Haverford College for the golf course. So the swap had taken place by then.
Now that wasnt so hard, was it?
-
Yes, David, easy peasy.
And they had also seemingly determined to use the land of one J. Franklin McFadden as the eastern border of their golf course as well, along with determining the golf course would run as far north as College Avenue by November 15th, 1910.
Sure sounds like the Merion course we know and love today! ;)
Glad we agree on something!
-
THAT could not be some simple error, or some "approximation". This was by INTENT. THAT is where they thought they were going to put the golf course at that time. It is indisputable and the deeds reflect it.
Mike,
I'm going to need you to clarify this from just a couple of posts ago. What was by INTENT? What deeds?
-
One fact explains why the triangle existed as it did on the Nov 15, 1910 plan - the developer needed a road to produce those fine houses fronting the golf course, connecting at both ends as would be typical, and tying into an existing road (Trowbridge?) since safe and efficient road planning dictates that two intersections close together are not as safe and efficient as if the lined up. It was possible o move Golf House Road away from Towbridge, to produce a rectangle wide enough for two holes, but it would have put them over their 120 acre target.
That triangle was 310 yards long and maybe 60 yards wide, but it was determined by a combo of road planning needs and, golf acreage targets, not the final routing (obviously, since it’s not reflective of the final routing) It was labeled as “approximate” because the golf holes hadn’t been fit to it yet, as shown by club documents.
And there is no reason to beleive that Francis 130 x 190 yard triangle couldn't have been modified from a 60 x 310 yard triangle just as easily as it could have been added if Haverford college was the first planned north border.
-
Jim,
I think that you and I both seek some middle ground which is probably reality, and others perhaps get hung up in black and white theories, start and end dates, strict attribution, etc.
Let’s look at a couple of things from my perspective.
David’s essay with no proof, basically postulates that MCC “must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA." Has anyone looked beyond that to see how CBM did it at his own Chicago Golf, other consulting jobs he took, Piping Rock? How many of his dozens of projects followed the NGLA ideal?
And, why overlook the fact that he basically lucked into the ideal process at NGLA more because of Alvord’s situation and direction than his own beliefs. Why do we have to assume that he would strongly advise Merion there was only one way to do this? It wasn’t the only way CBM did this, and yet, that is what David and others have fixated on.
We forget that CBM first offered for 120 acres somewhere in the middle of the “in planning” Alvord subdivision, without a routing (At least, his writings don’t mention it, but he had postulated earlier that about 120 acres being ideal for a golf course.) Does that sound familiar? IMHO, the ONLY reason he (and Behr later) writes in depth about the second site process is because it was so ideal, not so common or mandatory.
If CBM did only his ideal course that way (and on the second try at that) how is that proof that Merion had to do it that way, rather than a more typical way? It appears to me to have been a long, slow carefully considered process of constant refinement to a final routing, ending at the last possible moment prior to construction, or maybe slightly after. I find situations where I can design right up to dropping the grass seed are in fact the most ideal!
The Merion parties brought in two Golf Course Architects for opinions on whether a good golf course was possible on that site. If you bring in two experts and both say it’s good property, and one does a first pass routing of parts of the course (Barker) and another studies the maps enough to tell them that the 3 Acres would make a great short hole par 3, and the Quarry can be used (CBM) and goes so far as to suggest 120 acres (both in general and after looking at the regular borders, dimensions and gentle topo of the MCC site) and a bit of wiggle room from his experience, wouldn’t you feel comfortable that you were making good choices in moving forward?
As I have speculated, CBM’s recommendations were probably based on his look at the Barker plan, which probably showed that holes west of Ardmore could only fit the land a certain way - as it happened, the creek is right in the middle of the property (between 4 and 5) and then veers to more of a 1/4 - 3/4 location up near 7. By luck of topography and border, it was pretty clear that the land was four holes wide. Holes 10-12 were obviously a bit clunky, running against the long dimension of the land.
If nothing else, I believe Barkers plan convinced CBM and the committee that to fit enough holes of adequate length west of Ardmore the Dallas Estate would be beneficial. But, we cannot know if any Barker holes were used exactly, or if there were map scribbles by CBM while on site looking over the maps, Barkers plan, and the ground.
In other words, based on CBM’s expert opinion of a one day visit, and another day to look maps and write a letter, MCC had done just enough to be comfortable that a final solution was attainable, rather than preparing a final routing by November 15, 1910. If they had the final routing at this time, of course there would be no need to leave the wiggle room with Golf House Road in December 1910, or to change the lease agreements in November 1910, about a week after agreeing to buy the land, etc. The record on when it was finished is pretty clear.
You could argue yes, Barker had an influence, and CBM provided at least some of the holes in June 1910 and perhaps in March 1911 when they were at NGLA. DM could probably pick out from above that I would agree at least parts of the course had some kind of “rough routing” or interim study, or TMac the same. I am fine with that, because routing “parts” don’t constitute a routing to me, given the importance of having it all fit together, which seems to have happened on CBM’s last visit.
To use TMac’s phrase, Merion’s original version of its history is certainly both a “plausible theory” given how things are usually done and still has the most documentation to back it up.
Don’t know if that changes your mind, but it sums up why I argue what I argue in this.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I really need you to stop misrepresenting what I have said and what my essay said. I NEVER wrote, in my essay or anywhere else, that "that MCC 'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.'" I didn't write this. This wasn't my analysis at all, nor do I believe it, nor have I "fixated on this," So just stop! Stop claiming you know my positions when obviously you don't know what the hell you are talking about!
For you to continue to misrepresent me on this point is bad enough, but for you to pretend you are actually quoting me is complete bullshit and completely dishonest. Like your buddy, you cannot deal with my actual position so you just make shit up. It is really pathetic and you need to stop.
Surely you can manage to discuss this stuff without your repeated false representations about my essay, can't you? You don't even have an accurate version of the document, for God sakes, so what the hell are you doing pretending to know what is says? It is not as if I have been shy about expressing my opinions on this stuff, so there is no need for your false representations!
-
To All,
Once again, I post a cut and Paste of David's April 2008 essay, unchanged. Yes, I am quoting David's essay verbatim, and apparently he believes that no one will bother to go over to his essay, but rather simply accept his blatant lies that I am being dishonest. Please, check it out to verify that I am not a lying bastard that David claims I am. Here is the EXACT section in its entirety (to avoid claims of cherry picking) where David discusses his theory of Merion's land purchase.
As I said, there is no evidence or documents just a presentation of what CBM wrote about NGLA and a comment that they did it the same way.
Can someone please tell me how quoting is essay is misrepresenting it? I think we all know what's happening. I am catching David in a fact by fact analysis, and he cannot refute it, so he attacks my credibility. Not, of course, ever really presenting a fact to refute it. I think David knows its over for his essay, and he's going down fighting.
Am I wrong? Does his essay say Merion bought land to fit holes predesigned, and that it was similar to the way NGLA did it? Does my computer screen filter some stuff out?
Thanks for reading.
Merion Purchased the Land they Needed for their Golf Course.
It has been widely assumed that Merion bought the land before Merion East was planned. To the contrary, Merion bought the land upon which their golf course had already been envisioned. Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion. They first inspected the land and found the golf holes they wanted to build, and then they purchased that land. In Chapter 10 of Scotland’s Gift, Macdonald explained that he had chosen the best land for golf from a much larger 405-acre parcel.
The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best 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. (p. 158, emphasis added.)
In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best. The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA? At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements.
Are we going to argue that when he writes "Merion bought the land where there golf course was already envisioned" that this would not imply routing? Honeslty, I cannot see any other way to interpret this.
-
David,
PS - Go pound sand.
-
Jeff,
Regarding your post 1695: it certainly makes sense on the surface to want as much golf course frontage as possible but in this case the implication of doing so with no other cause is to impart a great deal of leverage in these negotiations to HDC, which I don't quite buy. And then, in the course of the design process, HDC loses 120 yards of frontage...what do you make of this? Could be cause for litigation if I had bought the corner lot at College Avenue...
-
Jim,
There were no actual lots on that road until later, so there would be no reason for any lawsuit.
HDC and MCC were related and HDC wanted the best for both. They really only lost one lot which I am sure they regretted, but were willing to do.
-
I finally check back into this thread and find you idiots have managed to divert it back to Merion??
Really?
You haven't got Merion settled yet and have to drag other threads into it?
Amazing.
-
Jim.
HDC lost nothing.
At this point Lloyd had already purchased all of that land .
It's why Francis had to go to Lloyd for permission and not HDC.
Starting to make sense?
-
Ralph,
I think the misunderstanding is that you actually believed that Mike intended this to be about anything but Merion from the beginning. The entire thread has been a subterfuge for him to try an disprove something in my essay that I didn't even claim! This is about the fourth of these threads where Mike has pulled the same thing.
___________________________________________________
As usual, it is Jeff Brauer's analytical abilities that fail here, not my IMO. Again and again he takes some portion of my IMO, twists it beyond all recognition and and makes all sort of unsupportable assertions about what I wrote (or didn't write.)
-- Like when he falsely claimed that the IMO indicated that CBM and HJW made more than two trips to Merion;
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO contained no factual support that CBM and HJW remained substantially involved with Merion after helping Merion choose the land.
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO provided no support for my conclusion that CBM was communicating with Hugh Wilson in or around January 1910
-- And like when he falsely claimed that my IMO indicated that Wilson had been involved with CBM throughout the period between June and February.
So I am not surprised that he has done it again, this time going so far as to falsely quote me in the process. All because he apparently has no clue of what anything in my IMO actually means.
First he falsely quoted me, claiming I wrote that "MCC 'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.' " I never wrote that in my essay or anywhere else.
But Jeff thinks that his false representation is justified because I did write, "Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion." Huh? While this is from my essay, it doesn't justify his false claim. He is confused. Again. All I did was draw a parallel between what happened at Merion and what happened at NGLA. That is a far cry from claiming necessary causation.
I do think that "Macdonald and Whigham had chosen the land for NGLA in a similar fashion." But this does not logically lead to his false claim that I think that "MCC 'must have routed early because that was the way CBM did it at NGLA.' " We know what happened at Merion is by looking at the various documents indicating what happened at Merion, including the Francis statement! I never wrote that Merion "must have" done it the same because that is what happened at NGLA. Jeff's claim that I did is ludicrous.
In other words, I never claimed that A "must have" happened because B happened. There was no claim of causation in my statement. I did not say that one must have happened because of the other! And I did NOT base my conclusions about what happened at Merion on what happened at NGLA! Rather I simply pointed out the parallel.
But this is what Jeff does. He takes some snippet, misconstrues it, then starts making crazy pronouncements about my position! And incredibly he seems to think it is A-OK because what he misconstrued something from my essay! Go figure? Like Mike and TEPaul, Jeff Brauer seems to think he understands my position better than I do. I am sure this is NOT the case. All of them should worry a bit time trying to understand their own positions and less time misrepresenting mine!
____________________
Likewise, regarding the triangle, Jeff is drawing all sorts of conclusions without any firm grip on the facts. Haverford Development Company controlled the land North of College avenue as well, and that parcel was part of the same development. HDC could not only have put Turnbridge where ever they wanted. And he apparently doesn't understand that, but for the swap, HDC could have developed the land adjacent to and west of Haverford College for real estate regardless of where the put the road. With the swap they gave up at least one prime lot along what was to have been the northern border of the golf course property.
Same goes for Brauer's absurd statement that the triangle was "maybe 60 yards wide." It has no basis in fact. Not even Mike has had the nerve to claim it was that narrow! Unlike Mike and Jeff, I have never relied on Wayne's distorted and misleading snapshot of the November 1910 plan to estimate the width (Wayne had never seen that document at the time of my IMO; he had me send him the copy I used in my essay shortly thereafter, but apparently he preferred to take and use a distorted and misleading snapshot instead of the accurate black and white copy I provided him.) Both Bryan and I measured the width and both came up with a width which would comfortably allow for the tee and green.
________________________________
While he hasn't quite figured the ramifications, Cirba now admits that the land west of Haverford College was definitely intended to be part of the golf course by November 1910! What Cirba (and and apparently Brauer) seem to have forgotten is that Merion swapped for land that until then was NOT part of the golf course. This ought to settle matters, but something tells me he will witness yet another about face.
___________________________________
Jim,
I am sure you realize that Mike is fibbing again when he claims that Lloyd owned the property. Lloyd took the property in his name, but he did so ON BEHALF OF HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
That Mike continues to pretend differently goes to show just how slimy he is willing to be in these discussions.
-
Jim,
As far as deeds, Merion never owned ANY of the land north of the 16th tee except maintaining domain over half of Golf House Road so that the rest of that 120 yards that Lloyd purchased for the club north to College Avenue along the eastern border of the proposed golf course land in December 1911 (reflected on the November 1910 Land Plan) seems to have simply disappeared between Nov 1910 and July 1911.
Utterly Amazing.
And, to be precise, Merion owned the right side of the road north of 16, and HDC owned the left side, but then they handed the title over to the township as good neighbors do.
And now, even more amazingly we are suddenly hearing from David Moriarty that Lloyd took title for HDC, even though we've showed clearly in contemporaneous documents that he was advised to take title under his name by Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, Merion's attorney, to protect the interests of the Merion Cricket Club due to undetermined boundaries for the golf course at that time!
Wow. That's some Holy Conflict of Interest, Batman!!
This thing is unraveling faster than Weezer's sweater! ;) ;D
Ralph,
This is the place these things get discussed and debated.
I like you personally, but if you have nothing productive to add or meaningful evidence to produce and are only here to hurl bombs, why don't you and David go somewhere else and play with your hickory sticks?
-
I finally check back into this thread and find you idiots have managed to divert it back to Merion??
Really?
You haven't got Merion settled yet and have to drag other threads into it?
Amazing.
RSL,
This thread was never about NGLA.
I thought I posted that months ago ;D
-
Patrick,
If you want to go down with the sinking ship, feel free to hop on board.
We've learned LOTS about NGLA on this thread, despite the obfuscation and distraction by some (not naming any names).
Now that some others have brought up the supposed parallels to Merion, I guess that line's been crossed, so feel free to jump in but I have to tell you...the iceberg has already been struck and the dance band is playing.
-
Unraveling? When was the last time anyone brought any new information to this debate?
All I know is that there is no chance in hell the powers-to-be at Merion would've asked an inexperienced untested insurance salesman to deliver them a world class golf course. And if anyone is interested in confirming that all they have to do is read Wilson's own account.
-
And now, even more amazingly we are suddenly hearing from David Moriarty that Lloyd took title for HDC, even though we've showed clearly in contemporaneous documents that he was advised to take title under his name by Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, Merion's attorney, to protect the interests of the Merion Cricket Club due to undetermined boundaries for the golf course at that time!
Suddenly? Where the hell have you been the past few years? The documents establish that LLOYD TOOK TITLE FOR HDC.
Seriously Mike? This has been covered probably a dozen times, and the very document you mention establishes the opposite of what you claim. So this cannot be for real.
Here is the relevant portion of what we have been told is a transcription of the relevant Cuyler letter, with my emphasis:
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently.
Who should take title? HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
How should HAVERFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY take title? In Mr. Lloyd's name.
What does this mean? It means that Lloyd was acting on behalf of HDC and that Lloyd took title for HDC. So while the title was "in fact" in his name, it was not his land to do with what he pleased. Lloyd was holding the land for HDC pending the final determination of the boundaries, at which time Lloyd was obligated to convey the land for the golf course to MCC and the rest to HDC.
We've been covering this for years now. It isn't complicated for those who understand such things. And for those like you it has been explained probably a dozen times! Yet you pretend like you've never heard this before, like it is some outrageous and absurd proposition. You just have to be feigning ignorance here.
Ralph,
This is the place these things get discussed and debated.
I like you personally, but if you have nothing productive to add or meaningful evidence to produce and are only here to hurl bombs, why don't you and David go somewhere else and play with your hickory sticks?
There is no need to get nasty with Ralph, Mike. He is correct. It is idiotic that you keep doing this in these threads, and we are idiots for letting you. Besides, if being productive was a pre-requisite for posting here, you'd wouldn't be recycling through all this same stale garbage yet again.
-
Mike,
Please, please tell me that you aren't studying metes and bounds again. Or, deeds. Or, looking for stone monuments. Or pontificating on curvilinear roads. ??? We did this ad absurdum two years ago.
I was really taken by your "linear dimension area" concept. Could you explain that one? ;D
Re your point 2 below, to be factual, the 310 yard dimension did still exist in the spring of 1911 when Golf House Road was built, and in July 1911 when the 120.01 acres was deeded to MCCGA. The 120.01 acres included a rectangular strip that was 3.667 yards wide by 76.667 yards long that ran south from College Ave. South of the 76.667 yard long strip the east-west dimension broadened rapidly following the curvilinear arc of GHR as built at the time, and the same as it is now. That broadened area is 233.333 yards long.
If you go back two years you can see my theory on what was swapped and how the boundaries were realigned. But, you didn't buy it then and you probably wouldn't buy it now. However, your suppositions below don't wash either.
Maybe you'd like to revisit the extra 13 acres that Merion optioned to bring the total for the course to 130 acres and where I think that 130 acres was located. But, nah, those were only contemporaneous news articles and must have been factually incorrect.
Jeff,
Yes, it seems clear and obvious but that's never been a factor here. ;)
Jim,
I do not think you understand the significance of the point I made about that 310 yard linear dimension on that triangle versus the 190 yard dimension. It is really important because that linear dimension area covers some fixed points on the ground (stone monuments and the middle of College Ave) that have not changed for many years going back before MCC came to that land.
The 310 versus the 190 yard dimension is really important because they are both provable!! They are provable by a series of deeds runs over an extended period of time and they are recorded by the metes and bounds that appear on any deed.
Try to look at it this way:
1. That linear dimension (310 yards) exists on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan (that's provable---eg land to the west of it is colored in green and goes all the ways to College Ave) and it existed on the metes and bounds of Lloyd's December 1910 deed (he owned the land up there under College Ave from the McFadden place over to the Taylor or Davis farm (the dimensions of the Johnson Farm at the top of the L)).
2. It no longer existed when that road was built and dedicated (it got reduced from 310 yards to 190 yards). That effectively reduced Merion's ownership and use in any way of the top 120 yards of that original 310 yard linear dimension due to the road and its dedication on both sides of the middle by MCC and HDC (the road and its dedicated easement is app 7-8 yards wide).
3. If the deed from the transfer of the land from Lloyd to MCCGC Corp in July 1911 reflects the reduction of that linear dimension from 310 to 190 yards, then what does that say and what does it indicate? It indicates that there was a rearrangement of boundary lines at some point between Dec. 1910 and July 1911.
I would say that effectively and provably brackets in time some land dimension change such as the Francis land swap idea, wouldn't you? It also establishes in time a point before which it could not have happened such as Nov, 15, 1910 or in this case Dec. 1910 when Lloyd took by deed 160 acres of HDC land.
If the course and its effective 120 acres (plus 3 leased =123 acres) that was created by deed in July 1911 was already accomplished before Dec. 1910 or Nov 15, 1910 why would there have been any need for him to do that?
-
Some more interesting tidbits that might (emphasize might, because we don't agree on anything around here)
I would report that proceedings for the incorporation of the Merion Cricket Club Golf
Association are underway with a slight modification of the details of my letter of
November 23rd.
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon. (bold & color for emphasis mine)
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon.
I should be much obliged if you would at your convenience let me have a copy of the
lease of the Cricket Grounds from the Haverford Land and Improvement Company in
order that the lease of the golf grounds may conform therewith.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Thomas DeWitt Cuyler
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Board organize, and that the present
Committees continue for the present until the next meeting of the Board.
It is moved, seconded and carried that the Secretary postpone ballot.
What do you make of changing the land agreement a week +/- after the basic land plan was submitted to the members?
It tells me something happened between November 23 and December 21 regarding the potential lay out of the course.
That the boundaries had not been determined? How could the land swap have taken place?
I think the boundaries were determined on Nov. 23. In his Nov. 23 letter Cuylers refers to the plan included in the circular. I suspect that is the drawing entitled plan for the proposed golf course. The boundaries were determined on Nov. 23, but those boundaries were now being reconsidered for whatever reason.
-
Tom MacWood,
Do you realize your posts are becoming unreadable? No, I mean the red ink.....at least I think!
But, if you keep making such ridiculous statements as your last few here I'd suggest perhaps you should go and read Phil Young's architectural evolution piece on SFGC to see credible research that takes place both outside and WITHIN a club's records in action.
David,
No nastiness...I thought it was quite humorous actually. I do know how you spend a lot of time playing with your hickory stick and know Ralph has the same indulgence. ;)
Better than going around calling people "idiots", don't you think?
And Lloyd didn't just take title for the 117 acres Merion secured in his name for HDC....he bought the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate outright in December which is why Francis had to come directly to him for permission later..
Why in God's name would Francis had to have gone to Lloyd for permission before Lloyd owned any of the land????
That question itself is self-evident of the absurdity and ultimate folly of your position.
You'd really do yourself a favor by simply arguing that CBM had more to do with the course AFTER December than given credit for, which is an arguable position.
However, in your zeal to destroy the reputation of Hugh Wilson, and get back at whatever perceived wrongs happened to you in Philadelphia, you've boxed yourself into a position that is indefensible.
-
Bryan,
Good questions all, and i'll be back later this weekend but have to run out.
I will say that there was one article in a PHilly paper that talked about an option to 130 acres, but there is no internal record of such a thing, no paper trail indicating that ever happened, and the same article talks about tennis courts and other stuff.
In any case, I think even THAT article shows that the planning for the property had only just begun.
And no...I'm not going to look for stone markers today. ;) ;D
-
No nastiness...I thought it was quite humorous actually. I do know how you spend a lot of time playing with your hickory stick and know Ralph has the same indulgence. ;)
Are you still in 4th grade, or did your mind just stay in 4th grade while the teachers passed you along to be rid of you? What's next, fart jokes?
Better than going around calling people "idiots", don't you think?
Ralph called it as he saw it, and you continue to prove him correct . . .
And Lloyd didn't just take title for the 117 acres Merion secured in his name for HDC....he bought the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate outright in December which is why Francis had to come directly to him for permission later..
Mike you and your mentor cannot just play make believe when it come comes to this stuff! You have to consider what the documents actually say. HDC took title to that property in Lloyd's name. Here, let me break it down for once again in layman's terms.
1. As of November of 1910 HDC owned or had options to purchase not quite 340 acres of land. Not all of the land was yet in HDC's name, and HDC was using the money from the sale of the golf course land to consolidate all of their interests (exercising options, completing purchases, transfering property,etc.) into HDC for development. Particularly, the 140 acre "Johnson Farm" parcel was technically owned by a related entity (something like Ardmore Land Company) and the Dallas property was in the process of being acquired (as had been the case since October or before) from the Estate.
2. Originally, the land for the golf course was apparently to pass from the previous owners (Ardmore Land and whoever was holding the Dallas Estate, probably the executors or to whomever they had transferred) to the new MCC related corporation.
3. For this to happen, the Johnson Farm Property needed to be divided along Golf House Road, the location of which as of November 5th 1910 was still "Approximate" pending the final determination of the boundary of the golf course.
4. So Cuyler proposed that the parcels to be used in whole or in part for the golf course (the 140 acre Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate) be instead transferred to HDC in Lloyd's name pending the final exact determination of the boundary (the road) dividing the Johnson Farm.
5. At that point, on behalf of HDC, Lloyd was obligated to convey the land for the golf course to the MCC related entity and the remainder to HDC. And that is what happened.
So, in short, all this nonsense about Lloyd buying the land outright is and has always been wishful thinking your the part of you and your mentor. His and your claims about how Lloyd and his wife bought this land for themselves are absolutely ridiculous and yet another example of you you guys twist and manipulate the facts to suit your rhetorical needs! The Faker pdf is full of such examples!
It really shows bad faith on your part (and TEPaul's) for you guys to continue to twist and pretend that this was Lloyd's land to do with what he pleased! Lloyd was merely holding the land for HDC until the boundary was finalized and the golf course land could be transferred to MGA.
The entire thing was and is merely the result of a technicality relating to timing of the final determination of the location of the road! Ultimately the land for the golf course was going to MCC and the remainder to HDC! It was never "bought" by Lloyd as you guys keep pretending.
How can anyone take seriously anything you guys claim when you are blatantly misrepresenting what happened in this transaction to suit your argument? Is their anything you guys will NOT misrepresent?
Why in God's name would Francis had to have gone to Lloyd for permission before Lloyd owned any of the land????
That question itself is self-evident of the absurdity and ultimate folly of your position.
"Why in God's name" is another of your tells. It means there that whatever follows makes no sense and/or has no support so I am overstating it in the hopes people will buy it.
In this case it is self-evident but not for the reasons you claim. Lloyd was the person dealing with HDC throughout 1910.He was structuring the transaction and negotiating the land to be purchased. He is also the one who was dealing with CBM (and the person who a few papers reported had brought Barker in as well.) Lloyd was the go-to guy. Had this happened when you think it did, then Francis should have been peddling to Hugh Wilson's house, not Lloyd's.
You'd really do yourself a favor by simply arguing that CBM had more to do with the course AFTER December than given credit for, which is an arguable position.
However, in your zeal to destroy the reputation of Hugh Wilson, and get back at whatever perceived wrongs happened to you in Philadelphia, you've boxed yourself into a position that is indefensible.
This is a telling statement in more than one way.
1. What you suggest would be tantamount to ignoring, manipulating, and/or misrepresenting the factual record as I understand it for rhetorical gain. No thanks. That is how you and your buddies get yourself all tangled up and I want no part of that.
In other words, unlike you and your pals, I don't look at the facts as merely a means to advocate my preconceived conclusions. I go where the facts take me, and to me the facts indicate that at least a rough routing had already been determined before November of 1910, by some combination of Barker, CBM, HJW, and Lloyd and Francis!
2. There is no question that CBM played a major role of designing Merion East, and no question that it was MY ESSAY which brought this to light. All the insults and manipulation and game playing by you Brauer, TEPaul, Wayne and others aren't going to change this. But in addition, I'd like to understand the details, and what happened in 1910 is one of those details I'd like to work out.
3. Far from attempting to destroy the reputation of Hugh Wilson, my essay treats him respectfully and outright praises him. In fact I was the only one of which I am aware who ever showed enough respect for the man to take him at his word, which is what started this entire process in the first place.
Your insistence of couching this in terms of defending Hugh Wilson says a lot about you, though. A better way to look at this is that in your "zeal" to defend the legend of Wilson at all costs, you have made a fool of yourself and the very club and men you claim to be defending, and inexplicably you continue to do so!
If you are truly concerned with Hugh Wilson's reputation you really ought to take it up with the Flynn Fakers, who have all but cut Wilson out of what he actually accomplished at Merion. It is absolutely atrocious what they have done to Wilson's legacy in their "zeal" to pretend that Flynn should be given credit for all that is good at Merion. What a travesty --they don't mind burying Wilson in their quest to falsely elevate Flynn.
-
Tom MacWood,
Do you realize your posts are becoming unreadable? No, I mean the red ink.....at least I think!
But, if you keep making such ridiculous statements as your last few here I'd suggest perhaps you should go and read Phil Young's architectural evolution piece on SFGC to see credible research that takes place both outside and WITHIN a club's records in action.
It is glaring, but I'm confident you could read it and would rather not deal with it. I read his piece, and I'm glad you were impressed.
-
Re your point 2 below, to be factual, the 310 yard dimension did still exist in the spring of 1911 when Golf House Road was built, and in July 1911 when the 120.01 acres was deeded to MCCGA. The 120.01 acres included a rectangular strip that was 3.667 yards wide by 76.667 yards long that ran south from College Ave. South of the 76.667 yard long strip the east-west dimension broadened rapidly following the curvilinear arc of GHR as built at the time, and the same as it is now. That broadened area is 233.333 yards long.
Bryan,
I believe if you look carefully you'll find that the ONLY land on that deed Merion purchased north of the 16th tee for about 120 yards is the 3.667 yards (11 feet) that makes up the right side of Golf House Road (HDC owned the left half), giving them access north to College Avenue. The road was later gifted to the township.
There was no 310 yard triangle beyond what was drawn on the initial November 15th, 1910 Land Plan before the golf course was routed.
That triangle that was drawn at about 95 yards at the base with 310 yards in length on that Land Plan was changed once the course was routed. After the Francis Swap, it was widened at shortened to the now infamous 130x190 we know and love. ;D
The anticipated right side dimension for the golf course that extended north to College Avenue for 310 yards was the most obvious change from how far north they originally intended the golf course in November 1910.
-
Mike
When was the last time any new information was brought out?
-
C'mon Tom, don't be a wussy.
If you're going to hang around here just to take potshots why don't you just admit to everyone that you think this whole idea that the course was routed by someone prior to November 15th 1910 is a bunch of horse crap too?
You know it is, yet you sit here and won't call David out on it.
Why is that?
-
David,
You're deflecting the pertinent questions again, not surprisingly.
WHEN did Lloyd come into a position where his approval would have been needed for any Land Swap idea of Francis?
BEFORE November 15th 1910, or AFTER??
-
I'm guessing your response (or should I say your non-answer) means it has been a very long time since you or anyone else has brought new information to the table. At some point don't you grow tired of constantly speculating abut the same thing, over and over, and not getting any closer to the truth?
Here is one to speculate on: Why would Merion Cricket C. rely upon an inexperienced untested insurance salesman when they had arguably the two top men in the field at their disposal? Adding to the conundrum they were interested in building a world class golf course and the success of a real estate venture was on the line.
-
As far as the course being routed prior to November 1910, we all know Barker produced a routing in June 1910. I suspect he was back around December to actually stake out the course, and that may explain why Culyer said hold the phone December 21st. Perhaps a modification of the original routing, and the borders of the golf property, was a foot. Is it possible the swap may have taken place in December or January?
-
Tom,
1) Because it's an interesting, multi-faceted topic that helps us to understand the early American amateur architectural move away from the failed ways of the early British professionals.
2) Your complete lack of evidence upon which you base your speculation on this topic grows increasingly bizarre. You may want to get outside today. The swap theoretically could have taken place any time after Lloyd took control of the land in December, but the preponderance of evidence would make March/April a much higher possibility, probably by a factor of about 99 to 1.
-
David,
You're deflecting the pertinent questions again, not surprisingly.
You throw a little fit, wrongly denying that Lloyd took title for HDC and accusing me of "suddenly" making up this claim; I explain in detail what actually happened, and you accuse me of deflecting? Look in the mirror Mike.
WHEN did Lloyd come into a position where his approval would have been needed for any Land Swap idea of Francis?
BEFORE November 15th 1910, or AFTER??
I addressed this above and have addressed it numerous times before. Lloyd was the person who was negotiating the deal with Haverford Development Company BEFORE November 15, 1910. Read the Cuyler letters! Read the "circular." Lloyd was Merion's point person during the early stages of this. He was the go to guy.
You need to stop trying to twist everything, Mike. You've already conceded the main point in the disagreement. Now that you have admitted the obvious --that the land west of Haverford College was already to be part of the golf course before November 15, 1910, we really don't have much to argue about. Prior to the swap the land west of Haverford College was NOT part of the golf course.
-
David,
Nice try, but yes, according to the November 15, 1910 Land Plan the land all the way to the northern boundary of the Johnson Farm was considered to be the land where the golf course would be routed and built in coming months.
That both maximized golf course facing housing lots along the border (which was going to be a road separating the course from the RE Development), as well as maximized ingress/egress options for the club along the rail and to major roadways in the neighborhood.
It was a nice concept, but it didn't work.
Instead, once the course was being routed, Richard Francis realized that the border needed to be widened and shortened, so today instead of the course running the 310 yards from the southern border of Haverford College north to College Avenue, it only runs for 190 yards. That final 120 yards was abandoned, and other compensations took place up and down the border to account for the difference in overall property, mostly by giving up land right across the street from the clubhouse and continuing up the 14th fairway.
He also widened the base of that triangle to 130 yards to ensure he could get two parallel golf holes in there wihiile having to navigate around the large quarry.
I know you'll try to argue the most absurd things in an effort to negate Hugh Wilson's leadership here, David, but you have no evidence or facts on your side and it gets tiring just listening to you misrepresent others.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
I remember I really started to think that David's arguments were going south when he spent time saying that they really didn't want houses fronting the golf course, but with the golf course in the back yards. At length, this was one of his arguments as to why the road wouldn't have been as drawn originally, but mostly using 1950's real estate planning ideas.
My knowledge of real estate courses in that period - with front yard golf being fairly typical - told me that it wasn't very likely true that HDC would have considered something other than a long, fairly direct road along the golf course. As Jim Sullivan noted, they probably had a bit of consternation over loosing one potential lot up north, but had agreed to do what it took to fit a golf course in, and did get some extra cash out of MCC to offset the presumed lot value of that lost lot, as planned with the agreement.
But David did prove one thing - that he likes to argue no matter what. What have we learned? Well, nothing, since we are still arguing with him and nearly any nonsensical position he may wish to take, as long as it proves something other than what the Merion club documents say.
I do appreciate that he has stopped using the word disingenuous in regards to those who oppose his ideas, downgrading his approach to us merely pretending. As in me quoting his essay word for word, and him claiming that I am "pretending to quote him."
-
I addressed this above and have addressed it numerous times before. Lloyd was the person who was negotiating the deal with Haverford Development Company BEFORE November 15, 1910. Read the Cuyler letters! Read the "circular." Lloyd was Merion's point person during the early stages of this. He was the go to guy.
Jeff,
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.
See the above where he tries to somehow empower HG Lloyd with decision-making authority before Lloyd actually was in a position of power (as happened in December 1910)!
Because Lloyd was "negotiating" with HDC before November, he apparently had carte-blanche authority over them! ::) :o
Why bother negotiating? Why not just tell them this is what we're going to do and do it?
Read below what Francis tells us about his brainstorm again. Does he say that he went to Lloyd who then said he'd setup a meeting with Connell and HDC to discuss this proposal?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
No, he says "Lloyd agreed", and within a day or two they were out there blasting away! Would this ever have happened on land still owned by someone else who was still "negotiating"??? You've got to be kidding me.
I agree with you Jeff...David does himself a tremendous disservice by trying to play the MacWoodian ABW (anybody but Wilson) card because he locks himself into these preposterous arguments that do his more plausible scenario...that Macdonald had more to do with the routing of Merion East than we knew previously...a great deal of harm because it limits reasonable discussion.
Of course, he won't call MacWood out on his ridiculous Barker scenario so MacWood doesn't call him out on his ridiculous "routing before November" scenario, so we are left stymied, and unable to have a reasonable conversation.
They both so badly want to diminish the work of Hugh Wilson for whatever personal issues they have with Philadelphia and Philadelphians that any good that might have come from their research is the only thing that actually gets besmirched in the process.
***EDIT*** I just noticed something else in the Francis statement. Evidently at the time of his brainstorm there were still multiple golf "layout"(s) under consideration, as in "it didn't fit with any golf layout".
That of course belies the interpretation that the "layouts" were simply stakes in the ground put there by someone else's direction, but also really provides additional evidence that this likely happened sometime in late March/early April 1911, where we KNOW that there were at least five different "plans" created by the Committee after their return from NGLA in early March.
-
Mike,
Ironically, the truest words every spoken on this thread were in TMac's post 1716.
And, we have parsed the Francis document to death. While most seem to agree that it is basically accurate, it is such a sketchy account as to cause different interpretations, and make some wonder if parts came out wrong due to the time from which events occurred and/or just being shortened for publication, which I find can inadvertantly cause some misrepresntations.
That he went only to Lloyd could actually be interpreted many ways, as we have seen. That Francis seems to think Lloyd signed off, which discounts CBM and his final picking of the routing, seems to have some discrepancies, although, running it to Lloyd a few nights before CBM came back on April 6 to see if it was legally possible, and making that one of the final five routings, could make some sense.
-
Jeff,
One other bit of parsing as regards the pre or post November timeline.
Francis tells us "we had some land".
How could Merion "have some land" if they were still negotiating prior to the sale of the land to Lloyd in December 1910??
Other than that, your point is taken, but as the man who admittedly took the blame for bringing Merion into this discussion, you have a lot to answer for, young man! ;)
Truly, I think how Merion came into this discussion was simply that those who argued that the process at Merion paralleled the process at NGLA got too defensive when that argument came apart, and it was shown exactly how the process that NGLA differed considerably from the much over-simplified way it was presented.
In any case, it seems that we've come to the end of this discussion, and once Bryan Izatt confirms for me that the only land Merion owned above the 16th tee was the 11 feet on the right side of Golf House Road (which was subsequently deeded to the township) then I think there really are no remaining questions in my mind.
-
"All roads lead to Merion". I guess even that highway on Long Island.
-
Mike,
If David is serious that all he wants to do is know what really happened in 1910, there is room for serious and thoughtful discussion. As he says, we know something happened. And who knows, at some point the details may well fill in through some bit of luck - the kind that led the US to Bin Laden after all the years of frustration.
Until then, I would say, yeah, the PRODUCTIVE discussion is over, even if the discussion doesn't end.
-
If you guys want to exit the conversation, fine. If you figure getting no feedback from me for a day means I'm out, sorry. So let me know if you're done and I'm OK with that.
A couple questions for you to consider if you're interested.
1) Was the "committee" that was formed in January 1911 under the chain of command of the MCCGA? Or just the old MCC?
2) When do you guys think Lloyd found himself "with decision-making authority"?
3) Assuming when Francis says "we had some land to the West" that "WE" he was referring to was Merion (or the committee), do you realize they didn't "HAVE" any land until July 1911? Lloyd took title FOR HDC...not for Merion. It was still under HDC's umbrella until Merion bought it the following summer.
Just some items that might be worth discussing regarding the timeline...
-
Jim,
What these guys consider "thoughtful discussion" seems to just some more petty shots at me, along with even more misrepresentations. Brauer just cannot seem to stop misrepresenting and misunderstanding my position. Brauer claims:
I remember I really started to think that David's arguments were going south when he spent time saying that they really didn't want houses fronting the golf course, but with the golf course in the back yards. At length, this was one of his arguments as to why the road wouldn't have been as drawn originally, but mostly using 1950's real estate planning ideas.
What a farce. My essay noted that from June 1910 on, the houses surrounding the golf course weregoing to be facing the golf course! This was part of the deal! The golf course was essentially the centerpiece of their development and they were counting on it to lift property values. He is so clueless he cannot even get this correct.
_____________________________
As for your questions, if memory serves I believe the Construction Committee was nothing but a subcommittee formed under Lesley's Golf Committee. That is one of the things that makes this story so strange. Apparently there is never a mention in Merion's records during this time period of Wilson having anything to do with designing the course.
The "decision-making authority" bit is nothing but a distraction. Lloyd was the point-guy throughout this entire process, and was the one that was negotiating the land deal with HDC.
-
David,
To be clear, I was mentioning some posts you made on one of the Merion threads when I spoke of your arguing about HDC possibly being better off with lots behind.
As with most of your proclamations that I somehow am a farse, anyone who wants to can look it up. I recall those posts vividly, but not so well to have quoted you exactly.
But, typical of your tactics, I say you posted something, (not clearly enough perhaps) and you start arguing that it wasn't in your essay, just to argue. If I quote your essay verbatim, you argue its not your full position based on things you have written somewhere else. I have no doubt that you like to argue, and you like to parse words any way you can to make sure you can tell the world that every other poster is wrong in some way.
Actually, I recall my father used to tell me that the truth of a response is usually inverse to the number of words used to make it. I think of that every time I read one of David's long winded posts. And, while not direct evidence that he is being untruthful, just looking at his posts reminds me of Dad's wisdom over and over.
-
Jeff,
To be clear, you have repeatedly misattributed things to me during this thread and others, and have done so again here. As usual you have no understanding of or familiarity with the facts, so you just sort of glean or vaguely recall some garbage from something you half remember and and probably didn't understand anyway, and next thing you know you are spouting off about what I think and what I don't think. Your goal here seems to prove me wrong about any little thing and you repeatedly stoop to misrepresenting my position to try and create the false impression of success in so doing. Ironically, you make more major errors in most of your attempts to prove me wrong than I have made in my essay and in the years of discussing it.
I am not arguing "just to argue" but rather to set the record straight, in case anyone might believe that you have any credibility whatsoever when it comes to accurately stating my position.
So if you don't like me arguing, a simple solution would be for you to just knock it off. You obviously aren't capable of honestly and accurately presenting my viewpoint, and since I am more than willing to present it myself, your lame attempts at so doing are not only insulting, they are unnecessary.
As you say, anyone can look it up, so there is no need for you to continue to pretend you are some sort of objective spokesperson for what I think.
-
A simpler solution would be for you to admit there are no documents tying CBM to Merion in 1910, and/or admit your essay was a larger matter of intuiting a few morsels into things they are not.
I will give you credit for at least honestly believing your theory, whereas others would not. But again, in rereading your essay a few weeks ago, I was simply surprised at how much you qualified it, assumed it, etc. and how that could lead to years of ongoing debate. Like you, I am trying to keep the record straight, at least as I see it.
So, no, I am not unbiased at this point, but I am not being dishonest either. Nor am I incapable of dealing with facts. And speaking of that, what's with your continuted proclamations of "the facts as I understand them." What does THAT mean? Lastly, I am not some rube that you proclaim I am either.
I have broken down your essay and responses on a point by point basis and you have trouble answering simply and straightforwardly, so yeah, I presume you think its a good idea I stop in the name of love......of your own flawed essay.
-
Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my essay is hardly "breaking it down" whether you include quotes inapt to your point or not.
This has become personal and petty for you. You have become nothing but a shill for your buddy, who sends you instructions daily, and when you follow them you make a fool of yourself and the website.
-
Oh yes, I will add that in contradiction of your assertions, I can think for myself, form my own opinions, etc. And while I have seen others post his email comments verbatim, I have not done that as you suggest.
And lastly, I find it hard to think I am mischaracterizing your essay. It says what it says. It provides the evidence it does or doesn't. I actually find it funny that you not only parse the words of Merions minutes to tell us what they really mean, but now you parse your own essay to tell us what it really means. It means what it means in the big picture. That you can only find details to call out in my posts, but never really address the big picture is as telling as anything.
I suppose we can argue all day about who looks more the fool. I would wager more think you do, but who cares. I agree its petty on both sides, and I agree with you, its probably time to let it drop. Actually, I agree with TMac that the whole Merion issue should drop until there are new facts. I know you have spent some time looking for those Drexel documents, and I hope either you or Tom Paul find them, and that he actually finds the contour map that Wilson sent, etc.
I think we all would love to know more details about the creation of Merion, sans acrimony, just to know them. I have never doubted you were a gca history enthusiast, just like the rest of us.
-
Oh yes, I will add that in contradiction of your assertions, I can think for myself, form my own opinions, etc. And while I have seen others post his email comments verbatim, I have not done that as you suggest.
Did I say you were copying your creepy buddy's comments verbatim? No. But you cannot deny that he is extremely active behind the scenes and constantly feeding you directions and information.
He has been pulling your strings behind the scenes you have become nothing but a shill here doing his dirty work. You are TEPaul's lackey.
And you are mischaracterizing my positions in and out of my essay, almost daily. As for the essay itself I have explained to you repeatedly that the version you are viewing is garbled and incomplete, without proper notations and quotations. So no, it doesn't say what you say it says. Yet despite this you continue pulling out little out of context snippets. Petty.
But the main thing you have done is repeatedly draw inaccurate, unsupportable conclusions about my positions based on out of context snippets from the essay, and then you spew out caricatures and/or mischaracterizations of my position. And you pretend this crap comes straight of my essay when in fact it is a figment of your ever-more vindictive mind. Among your many mischaracterizations are your BS claims were:
- You claimed that I believed there were more than than two Merion trips. False.
- You claimed that I believed that Wilson was communicating with CBM between June and January. False.
- You claimed that I believed MCC was out there blasting green sites on land they did not own. False.
- You claimed that my essay contained no factual basis for believing that Wilson was in contact with CBM in January. False.
- You claimed that my essay contained no basis for suggesting that CBM remained significantly involved with Merion after June. False.
- You claimed that my essay contained no basis for a number of other conclusions in my essay. False.
- You claimed that I argued that HDC wanted to build the houses facing away from the golf course. False.
- You even accused me of lying about what was in Wilson's February 1, 1911 letter. False.
That isn't all of it I am sure, but that is a hell of a list of false statements about my position just for a weeks work, don't you think? Yet you are apparently unfazed. Apparently you and your creepy pal figure if you throw enough mud and shit at me some of it will stick, whether anything is true or accurate or not.
And now you have the nerve to accuse me of parsing my own essay, after what you have done with it? I assure you Jeff, I have a better understanding of what my essay says and means than you ever will. You are becoming as big a joke as your creepy pal.
-
David,
I have no doubt you have a better understanding of your essay than I do. I just cannot keep up with all the changes you have made in it. The only real question is not who understands it best, but whether its worth understanding at all.
To be honest, I know I have probably gotten as much concession out of you as I will ever be able to given your attachment to your own hard work. At one point, you said you didn't care when CBM routed it, in another post you admitted that evidence of CBM's involvement pre Nov. 1910 was probably the weakest part of your essay.
And, I have said that if you take away the less or unsupported CBM routed it prior to them buying the land, I sure do understand your point - while contemporaneous Merion documents gave CBM what they felt is due credit, it might not be enough, and until your essay came out, at least one generation of Merionistas (like Tollhurst) had downplayed or sort of forgotten that role.
-
David,
I have no doubt you have a better understanding of your essay than I do. I just cannot keep up with all the changes you have made in it. The only real question is not who understands it best, but whether its worth understanding at all.
This is absolutely and completely bullshit, and you know it. Just your latest effort to undermine me and my essay without actually putting forth the time or effort to really undermine anything at all.
The "changes" in my essay are minimal if at all. As ought to be expected after the years of intensive scrutiny since my work has received since Ran first posted it, there are a few things I would change, but were I to rewrite my essay today it would state the case even stronger than originally. The vast majority of what I concluded has been confirmed, and the case is extremely strong for the few issues that have not been confirmed. Certainly none of the dozens of smoking guns your cronies have come up with over the years has touched my essay, despite their proclamations!
If anything I could change the focus. You forget that before my essay came out your cronies were held all sorts of ridiculous beliefs about what happened at Merion and were hotly disputing all sorts of issue which have now been accepted as fact. Because of my essay. So I wouldn't need to focus so much of my IMO on refuting ridiculous aspects of the legend to which your cronies were clinging. (You guys are still clinging but have nonetheless been forced by my essay to let go most of your past pathetic rhetoric. Besides, I know much more than I did when I wrote the essay, essay, and could probably provide plenty more novel and interesting information and details.
To be honest, I know I have probably gotten as much concession out of you as I will ever be able to given your attachment to your own hard work. At one point, you said you didn't care when CBM routed it, in another post you admitted that evidence of CBM's involvement pre Nov. 1910 was probably the weakest part of your essay.
You've become so petty that you cannot help but twist even these points. I do care when CBM routed the course. You falsely claimed that the main point of IMO had to do with the timing, but is absolutely foolish. I explained to you that the main hypothesis of my project has always been to document CBM's extensive contribution to the original design of the course, and in this regard the exact "when" is much less important that the what.
In fact, if you ever actually bothered to try to understand the essay you'd have noticed that in the early period I don't credit CBM but rather some combination of Barker, CBM/HJW, and Lloyd/Francis. As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis, the apparent COMPLETE ABSENCE of mention of Hugh Wilson as compared to the repeated mention of HJW/CBM in Merion's documents. And then there is the course, where most of the holes were reportedly based on holes abroad - holes which Wilson had not seen at the time he built the course; the attempts by Wilson at building at a Redan, an Alps, a Short, and Road, a Double Plateau, a Long, a green with a Biarritz swale, another hole with Biarritz characteristics, and many other features and design concepts commonly present on CBM's courses, and then of course there is the Findlay article, the Wilson chapter, the Alan Wilson letter, the Whigham article, etc.
As for your next bogus claim, I think what I said was that the timing of the routing is about the only issue that has yet to be unequivocally confirmed. That is a far cry from "admitting" the IMO was weak on this point! It was not. It is just not a completely closed issue. Many of the other points were were so well documented that they are today unquestionably considered fact or should be! (e.g., unravelling the Wilson trip, unravelling the HDC real estate development connection, unravelling the various real estate exchanges and the RR land, unraveling the timing of Wilson's involvement, unraveling the general timing and purpose of the NGLA meeting, unravelling who brought in CBM and why, unravelling Merion's reason for moving, unravelling Merion's reliance on CBM's recommendations regarding the purchase of the land, unravelling the supposed "circular" and bringing forward the Nov. 15th plan, exposing that the course was largely considered to have been based on holes abroad at the time of the opening, and much more.)
Only you guys would try to condemn one portion of my IMO by lording over me the overwhelming success of the rest of the essay!
Now Jeff, I really don't want anything to do with you, so please go join your pal and the both of you can leave me the hell alone.
-
David,
I hear there are drugs for your condition. Really. The last post is getting borederline delusional. I think you are too close to it, really. And going too far. I don't see any groundswell of support that your IMO piece as been an overwhelming success. Again, you trumpet your own conclusions to prove your own conclusions.
Even looking at it from your POV - its an opinion piece, not a historical research document which it has morphed into in some of our minds because of the endless debate - which should give you some leeway (such as stating which parts of the piece you are more or less committed to) its still a tough sell, but thats okay.
Since its an opinion piece, as we have agreed many times before, you certainly are entitled to believe it, defend it, modify it, and celebrate the successes within it and I am certainly entitled to disagree for the reasons of insufficient factual evidence that I have cited concerns about.
It would be nice, BTW, if you got that essay fixed, if the citations are truly muddled and gone. I don't see more than a few instances of essay muddled. Won't Ran do it? Wouldn't you want to send him a fresh digital copy to repost?
-
I hear there are drugs for your condition. Really.
That is pretty funny coming from someone in bed with TEP.
-
Can't we all just get along ? ;D
Seriously, I don't know which is more boring, the constant name calling or Mike Cirba posting the same newspaper article 50 times.
Can we stick to the subject matter AND ONLY THE SUBJECT MATTER.
We know that your mothers wear army boots, we accept that our mothers wear army boots.
Just stay on topic without all the sniping.
Thanks, from the voice of reason and compromise ! ;D ;D ;D
-
Patrick,
Yes, when you are the voice of reason, and Osama is dead, its a world turned upside down and inside out.
Alien vixens must agree with you!
-
Re your point 2 below, to be factual, the 310 yard dimension did still exist in the spring of 1911 when Golf House Road was built, and in July 1911 when the 120.01 acres was deeded to MCCGA. The 120.01 acres included a rectangular strip that was 3.667 yards wide by 76.667 yards long that ran south from College Ave. South of the 76.667 yard long strip the east-west dimension broadened rapidly following the curvilinear arc of GHR as built at the time, and the same as it is now. That broadened area is 233.333 yards long.
Bryan,
I believe if you look carefully you'll find that the ONLY land on that deed Merion purchased north of the 16th tee for about 120 yards is the 3.667 yards (11 feet) that makes up the right side of Golf House Road (HDC owned the left half), giving them access north to College Avenue. The road was later gifted to the township.
There was no 310 yard triangle beyond what was drawn on the initial November 15th, 1910 Land Plan before the golf course was routed.
That triangle that was drawn at about 95 yards at the base with 310 yards in length on that Land Plan was changed once the course was routed. After the Francis Swap, it was widened at shortened to the now infamous 130x190 we know and love. ;D
The anticipated right side dimension for the golf course that extended north to College Avenue for 310 yards was the most obvious change from how far north they originally intended the golf course in November 1910.
Mike,
I have looked closely at the deeds. Have you? The northern 11 foot strip is 230 feet (76 yards), not 120 yards. You are factually incorrect. I am factually correct.
Consequently the triangle is 233 yards by 130 yards. And, it's not really a triangle.
Not sure what you are trying to get at in the remainder. The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road. IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time. IMHO it may be indicative of Francis' land swap idea, but I don't think it is conclusive. Unlike David, I don't feel that logical factual analysis leads to factual conclusions. I guess, based on what you've written I don't agree that the hypotheses you have come up with are factual conclusions either.
On the matter of when the swap took place (if it even really took place as described) how would you reconcile your "March/April" timeframe with the fact that the road as it now exists was surveyed and built before July 1910? Is it possible, probable, likely or certain that the land swap idea took place in March/April and the the road was surveyed in and constructed before July 1910? It falls in the unlikely category to me. Nevertheless the road was there when the deed to MCCGA was drawn up. Do you know how long it took to build three quarters of a mile of road in 1910?
-
David,
For context, I am not:
1) from Philadelphia
2) part of the Phillie mafia
3) on anybody's email list (thankfully)
4) a moron (despite Patrick the peacemakers sometime assertions),
5) trying to be petty
6) trying to twist or misrepresent your position, or
6) a birther.
I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use. When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"? Or do you attribute a likelihood to them? What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using? Are you 95% certain? Or 99%? Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?
As a case in point, in this quote from one of your recent posts:
I explained to you that the main hypothesis of my project has always been to document CBM's extensive contribution to the original design of the course, and in this regard the exact "when" is much less important that the what.
In fact, if you ever actually bothered to try to understand the essay you'd have noticed that in the early period I don't credit CBM but rather some combination of Barker, CBM/HJW, and Lloyd/Francis. As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis
I'd like to ask a few questions. I've highlighted some sections in the quote.
Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?
If just representative, what are the other points?
Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from? In your opinion, did CBM draw them? Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?
When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval? In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan. Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?
You've used CBM/HJW collectively. Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too? On a par with CBM?
-
Bryan,
I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use.
That's fine, but I hope you aren't quoting me with your mention of "logical factual analysis." Is that as opposed to 'illogical factual analysis?' Regardless, I doubt I would have written that. But whatever you call it, I don't think there is anything particularly novel about my approach to historical analysis. So far as I can tell is quite similar to your general approach, at least when I am not exchanging insults with these guys and when you aren't taking shots at Patrick or setting out lists "for context" as above.
When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"? Or do you attribute a likelihood to them? What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using? Are you 95% certain? Or 99%? Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?
I think you may be presenting a false choice here. While my goal is to figure out what happened, I generally don't think of conclusions as "factual." And while I may indicate the level of confidence I have in my conclusions, I don't assign specific numerical probabilities. Doing so would be unjustifiable pseudo-science so far as I am concerned.
I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts. Words like "likely" or "unlikely" or "probably" or "possibly" are dirty words to these guys, I guess because they know it all for certain.
Here is an example from my essay:
The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely, unless the Board was engaging in pure hyperbole. Hugh Wilson was by no means an “expert” when it came to planning or building golf courses. Rather, he and his Committee were complete novices. In 1916 Wilson wrote . . . .
As you can see, I did not assert my conclusion as fact. Rather, I wrote that I thought it "possible" but "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson and his Committee as the experts preparing plans for the course. I then went on over the next three or four paragraphs explaining some of the reasons why I thought it was "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson or his committee.
I'd like to ask a few questions. I've highlighted some sections in the quote.
That's fine as well, but there are no highlights that I can see.
Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?
They are representative.
If just representative, what are the other points?
I provided a few representative points because listing them all would be tantamount to another, longer IMO. I am not willing to do that at the moment.
Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from? In your opinion, did CBM draw them? Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?
I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.
When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval? In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan. Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?
See above.
You've used CBM/HJW collectively. Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too? On a par with CBM?
It isn't about recognition as it about understanding what happened. Beyond that see above.
______________________
These are good questions Bryan but there is no way I can answer in them in a sentence or two. You started off questioning me about my methodology but have moved into asking me to provide you with an IMO broader than my first.
Don't get me wrong. If you really want to go through it all, we can, even though most has been covered repeatedly before. But if we do so you are going to need to patient and we need to do it in more manageable bites. And before we get into any of these substantive issues, I'd like to make sure we are on the same page regarding my methodology.
Thanks.
-
If you guys want to exit the conversation, fine. If you figure getting no feedback from me for a day means I'm out, sorry. So let me know if you're done and I'm OK with that.
A couple questions for you to consider if you're interested.
1) Was the "committee" that was formed in January 1911 under the chain of command of the MCCGA? Or just the old MCC?
2) When do you guys think Lloyd found himself "with decision-making authority"?
3) Assuming when Francis says "we had some land to the West" that "WE" he was referring to was Merion (or the committee), do you realize they didn't "HAVE" any land until July 1911? Lloyd took title FOR HDC...not for Merion. It was still under HDC's umbrella until Merion bought it the following summer.
Just some items that might be worth discussing regarding the timeline...
Jim,
I was hoping to bow out, but probably the only reason I'm still in this thing is because I'm hoping to still convince you of the error of your ways. ;) ;D
Seriously, let me have a shot at your questions;
1) I don't know, but do know that ultimately the Committee's report and recommendations needed approval from the Merion Cricket Club Board of Governors. My understanding of the purpose of the MCCGA initially was to create a separate corporation that would lease back the golf course to MCC in perpetuity, so I don't know that it had it's own administration and committee reporting structure, at least initially. What's your thought there?
2) Legally, Francis found himself with decision-making authority after he purchased the land in late December 1910. It was a little tricky if you think about it. Merion announces in November 1910 that they've secured 117 acres and releases that Land Plan we now know and love so well, but it really doesn't go down like that, does it?
Instead, no 117 acres is purchased at first...instead, at the urging of Merion's counsel DeWitt Cuyler, specifically citing the fact that the boundaries of the golf course aren't determined yet...Lloyd goes ahead and purchases the entire 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate. Talk about uncertain borders!
3) Legally, you're correct, but we also know that once Lloyd purchased the 161 acres in December 1910, he was essentially positioned to work both sides of the transaction, and in the position to represent the best interests of the overall project as he saw fit.
I'm sure Merion, for instance, felt comfortable that he wasn't going to sell off their previously secured 117 acres to someone else for his own personal gain, and felt that their interests were covered and represented, and that the land under question was now "theirs", at least some 117 acres of it.
Interestingly, by April, the committee decided they needed a bit more of that 161, and asked the Board of Governors to authorize the additional purchase of 3 acres, bringing to total of their purchase to just over 120 acres, which was formalized in July 1911, as you note.
Still, I'm sure the Committee, of which Lloyd was a member, would have been very comfortable with saying "we had some land" anytime after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910, and really not comfortable saying the same thing at any time before November 15th, 1910.
-
Mike,
I have looked closely at the deeds. Have you? The northern 11 foot strip is 230 feet (76 yards), not 120 yards. You are factually incorrect. I am factually correct.
Consequently the triangle is 233 yards by 130 yards. And, it's not really a triangle.
Not sure what you are trying to get at in the remainder. The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road. IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time. IMHO it may be indicative of Francis' land swap idea, but I don't think it is conclusive. Unlike David, I don't feel that logical factual analysis leads to factual conclusions. I guess, based on what you've written I don't agree that the hypotheses you have come up with are factual conclusions either.
On the matter of when the swap took place (if it even really took place as described) how would you reconcile your "March/April" timeframe with the fact that the road as it now exists was surveyed and built before July 1910? Is it possible, probable, likely or certain that the land swap idea took place in March/April and the the road was surveyed in and constructed before July 1910? It falls in the unlikely category to me. Nevertheless the road was there when the deed to MCCGA was drawn up. Do you know how long it took to build three quarters of a mile of road in 1910?
Bryan,
A couple of things, in response.
I could look at a deed's metes and bounds and it may as well be Latin so I appreciate you bearing with me. ;)
What can you tell me about the average width of the land for the last 44 yards going southward towards today's 16th tee boundary from the initial 11 foot wide 76 yards going south from College Avenue?
Also, I would wholly agree with your statement;
"The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road. IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time."
And isn't that what this whole debate is really about? The contention by some that since this Land Plan indicates that the golf course goes north above the Haverford College southern boundary (and to College Avenue) that it's somehow representative of a fully routed golf course, even though every other single bit of contemporaneous evidence tells us clearly that the course was NOT routed at this time??
Isn't this the whole premise of David's argument that attempts to exclude Hugh Wilson from the original design of the course...the idea that this otherwise "to scale" land plan somehow represents a finalized routing completed prior to it's publication (Nov 15th 1910) despite the obvious facts that;
1) There are no holes indicated on it.
2) It does not reflect the golf course land that the course was eventually built on.
Isn't the entire conspiracy theory based on this single bit of admittedly flawed evidence??
David's theory attempts to negate Wilson's design efforts by trying to move back in time the work to route the course and his entire theory excluding Wilson hinges on this Land Plan, which he argues is proof positive that the course was routed before November 15th, 1910.
As far as the road...I would think that once Merion's Board approved the final plan work on that bordering road could/would commence in the same time frame....around late April 1911.
I have no idea how long it took to build a road in 1911, whether it was asphalt or chip and tar, or even gravel initially. I do know that many of the Merion men like Robert Lesley were engineers (he actually owned a Cement factory) and had access to local labor, so it doesn't seem on the face of it to be preposterous to have it completed in 2-3 months time.
-
Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from? In your opinion, did CBM draw them? Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?
I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.
When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval? In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan. Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?
See above.
David,
I know I'm going to hate myself for asking this question, but once again, here is what the MCC Minutes tell us about the activities of the Merion Committee during the period leading into April 1911;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans (bold mine).
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
When you say you don't think there were five routing plans, would you care to elaborate?
I would also point out that in response to your long post above, Hugh Wilson and Committee did indeed see the template holes prior to designing Merion...they saw CBM's version of them at NGLA as well as his scale drawings of the originals during his overnight stay. It is also virtually certain that other members of the committee like Rodman Griscom were very familiar with the originals from their own overseas visits, as well.
-
Mike,
My thought in asking about the Wilson Committee's reporting chain is that if it were through MCCGA, which Tom has admitted is a real possibility, then of course it wasn't formed until January because MCCGA wasn't formed until about then. It would be unreasonable to think they would sit on the sidelines until the legal paperwork incorporating MCCGA was complete before setting foot on the property. As I've said all along, it's my belief that they began the process of figuring out how to build the course in the summer of 1910.
-
Jim,
I don't know the answer to that question about reporting, but would note that you've clearly been listening to David too long when you use phrases like "they began the process of figuring out how to build the course...". ;) ;D
Me...I'm sticking with "design". ;)
-
Does anyone else find it interesting that they had CBM look at only one parcel of land? To say he selected the site is more than a stretch when he only had one option. Excuse me sir, would you like the steak or the steak?
Along those lines, clearly Lloyd was in charge in the summer of 1910...well before your December date. I think the committee would feel comfortable saying "we had some property" as soon as they had a handshake to buy X amount of land. Considering Lloyd's recapitalization of HDC at this same time, this was likely several months prior to Lloyd's December contract date. At a minimum, we know MCC was comfortable making the purchase public by November 1. None of this proves the swap happened then, agreed, but the dates are not hard and fast boundaries defining when something could have happened before or after...IMO.
-
Jim,
I don't know the answer to that question about reporting, but would note that you've clearly been listening to David too long when you use phrases like "they began the process of figuring out how to build the course...". ;) ;D
Me...I'm sticking with "design". ;)
I see the smiley faces so I trust that post was in jest because my scenario gives a whole lot more design credit to Wilson and committee than your Fabruary - April scenario...
-
Does anyone else find it interesting that they had CBM look at only one parcel of land? To say he selected the site is more than a stretch when he only had one option. Excuse me sir, would you like the steak or the steak?
Jim,
I find it even more interesting that Merion's Site Committee didn't see fit to reproduce CBM's letter (which is really a half-hearted endorsement, at best) in their Board presentation.
Along those lines, clearly Lloyd was in charge in the summer of 1910...well before your December date. I think the committee would feel comfortable saying "we had some property" as soon as they had a handshake to buy X amount of land. Considering Lloyd's recapitalization of HDC at this same time, this was likely several months prior to Lloyd's December contract date. At a minimum, we know MCC was comfortable making the purchase public by November 1. None of this proves the swap happened then, agreed, but the dates are not hard and fast boundaries defining when something could have happened before or after...IMO.
I'm not really sure about that one. Certainly the Site Committee urged quick action due to rising land prices. And in truth, that "handshake" agreement really didn't happen until November with the exchange of letters between Nicholson of HDC and Merion's President Allen Evans.
Interestingly, Nicholson's November 10th letter lists all of HDC's 338.6 acres (holdings) in itemized fashion by parcel and then states that out of said 338.6 acres a tract of 117 acres "we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club", which is not what happened at all.
Why?
Well, because no boundary was determined at that point because the routing wasn't done.
So instead, Lloyd just bought the whole 140 acres of the Johnson Farm and the 21 acre Dallas Estate under his own name in late December as Cuyler advised.
-
I see the smiley faces so I trust that post was in jest because my scenario gives a whole lot more design credit to Wilson and committee than your Fabruary - April scenario...
Jim,
I think we agree that various members of the Committee were out on the property in the June to December timeframe and I think we agree that they would certainly be envisioning possible golf holes and features that could be utilized.
Still I don't think they really got that ball rolling officially until after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910 with the formalization and appointment of a committee in charge of those activities.
I think the MCC minutes make clear what happened...the Committee created various routing plans prior to March 1910, they visited NGLA which certainly had an impact on their thinking...came back and created five different plans, and then enlisted CBM and Whigham to come back down for a day to help them pick the best one.
I don't think that interpretation minimizes the efforts of authorship of the Committee in the least, and is clearly consistent with everyone reporting at the time (including Hugh & Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, AW Tillinghast, and others) that the course was designed by the committee with the most helpful advice and suggestions of those two fine amateur sportsmen and gentlemen, CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham.
-
Mike,
You're muddying the waters on that point...the November letters were not the handshake, they were much more formal than that. The handshake would have come well before that.
And when you say "Interestingly, Nicholson's November 10th letter lists all of HDC's 338.6 acres (holdings) in itemized fashion by parcel and then states that out of said 338.6 acres a tract of 117 acres "we agree to sell to a corporation to be formed on behalf of the Merion Cricket Club", which is not what happened at all.
Why?"
It did happen that way...in July 1911. You're stuck on Lloyd buying the land for Merion in Decemnber and that's not what happened. He "took title for HDC". This is an important fact you need to accept.
-
Jim,
Why do you think that Lloyd didn't just purchase the 117 acres of land that was supposedly representative of a finalized routing at that point?
I also think taking title "for HDC" is misunderstood here.
I think 1) Cuyler wanted Lloyd to take title into his own name THEN rather than waiting until they could go through the trouble of creating a corporation for the purpose, and 2) since the boundaries of the course were not finalized, it would be simpler to eventually untangle if it was just Lloyd operating within/for HDC than bringing Merion's proposed Corp into it at that point.
-
When was MCCGA incorporated?
-
Jim,
One other thought on Cuyler advising Lloyd to take title "for HDC".
Remember that Cuyler was representing Merion's interests here, not necessarily HDC's.
-
I don't recall where Culyer recommended this, can you show us?.
My main point in clarifying Lloyd's technical role here is that I believe this was a very friendly transaction...both sides knew each other and had plenty of desire to make it work well. Would you agree with that?
-
Jim,
Agree with the friendly transaction, but it still was a legal transaction and these guys weren't shy about protecting their interests.
In answer to an earlier question, the MCCGA was incorporated sometime after November 27th, 1910, which is when it was first proposed to the board. The purposes of the organization was to be to be purchasing, holding, selling and leasing real estate, so it's VERY unlikely that the Wilson Committee reported through them.
Check your PM.
-
Jim,
Agree with the friendly transaction, but it still was a legal transaction and these guys weren't shy about protecting their interests.
In answer to an earlier question, the MCCGA was incorporated sometime after November 27th, 1910, which is when it was first proposed to the board. The purposes of the organization was to be to be purchasing, holding, selling and leasing real estate, so it's VERY unlikely that the Wilson Committee reported through them.
Check your PM.
Sent back a PM, thanks.
I agree with the friendly transaction and the protecting own interests.
What real estate did MCCGA purchase, hold, lease and sell? The golf course and associated buildings, correct? Why wouldn't Wilson's committee report through that vehicle?
-
2) Legally, Francis found himself with decision-making authority . . .
. . .
3) Legally, you're correct, but we also know that . . .
The wonders here never cease. Now Mike Cirba is providing his expert opinions and conclusions regarding the legal obligations of the various parties involved in the various Merion/HDC transactions. Who knew Mike was a legal scholar versed in agency law, among many other areas of the law. He must have stayed at one heck of a Holiday Inn last night!
This is too much. Really.
Still, I'm sure the Committee, of which Lloyd was a member, would have been very comfortable with saying "we had some land" anytime after Lloyd's purchase in December 1910, and really not comfortable saying the same thing at any time before November 15th, 1910.
More fascinating analysis. But I am not sure why it matters when the Construction Committee thought the property had been secured. (Wilson stated that 117 acres had been purchased his Feb. 1 letter.) The Construction Committee was not charged with acquiring the land or negotiating the transaction with HDC. Rather, the so-called "'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds'" was charged with finding and securing the land, and Lloyd a member of the the 'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds. Judging from the correspondence first brought to light in my essay, this Special Committee reported directly to the Board of Governors. If my memory serves, H.G. Lloyd was also then a member of Merion's Board of Governors. Also various documents indicate that Lloyd was the Merion's point- person throughout the earlier part of the process!
So despite Mike's charade, it seems pretty certain that Lloyd was the go-to guy from June through the creation of he Construction Committee.
________________________________________
Jim,
I am not sure anyone said that CBM selected the site, and I don't think anyone said he chose between alternate sites. If I wrote either of those things (and I don't think I did), then I let me set the record straight. What I recall writing is that, according to the so-called Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, said Committee recommended the purchase based largely on the CBM's and HJW's opinions of what could be done with the land.
Also Jim, I've tried to quitreading Mike's inane attempts to explain the intricacies of the various legal obligations surrounding this deal because frankly it makes me livid to see him pretending he has the first idea of what he is talking about in this regard. The hubris behind such pretension blows me away, especially when one considers his past failings at incredibly simplistic things compared to this legal analysis.
Anyway, I hope it will suffice to say that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, and I encourage you to ignore him when he starts pontificating about what were the various parties' "legal" obligations.
-
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans (bold mine).
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
After the Committee Reported, a Mr. Thompson proposed the following;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th, 1910, then why did it take another FIVE MONTHS, til April 19th, 1911, for Merion to even propose the aquisition of the land?
If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th 1910, then why did Cuyler say that the boundaries were not determined on December 21st, 1910, further advising that since it was still going to be months away, he would hold off on the second bonds needed by the proposed MCCGA to finance the endeavor;
He wrote on December 21st, 1910;
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon. (bold mine)
Why if the routing was already completed through the brainstorm of Richard Francis, a surveyor and engineer, before November 15th, 1910, was the boundaries of the proposed golf course still undetermined seemingly months later??
-
I see that Mike is done with his cogent legal analysis and is now changing course and launching into another one his fits where he reposts the same old information and re-asks old questions about that information. In an attempt to keep this more productive I propose that we stay away from these digressions and tangents and stay focused Bryan's and Jim's questions. We'll get to Mike's digressions in due course.
-
Jim Sullivan,
why do you think its odd CBM looked at only one piece of property? The record shows MCC was offered a sweetheart deal by a developer to use their property, too good a deal to pass up? It does seem apparent that in June, 1910, CBM did help them realize they needed 120, not 100 acres, and that within the general parameters laid out by the developer for land to use, using the existing farm house as a club house made sense, but only if they got the RR land next to it. Lastly, while speculation, he probably helped them see that the Dallas Estate was required for the best course.
Once again, CBM was not in charge, and many things were set by factors beyond his control, even if they weren't, NGLA was the only project he got involved in where he got to pick land (I think) and even then, on his first go round, he offered for 120 acres within a development, with no mention of a routing plan! He sort of lucked into the ideal method by virtue of land Alvord had available that allowed him to choose his 205 out of 400 acres.
David,
We finally agree on something - Your post 1746 tells us you don't think your conclusions are factual and we all have been saying the same thing for years! Glad to have you on board......
As to not answering Mike's question, in all seriousness, to me its the basic question of this whole debate.
Here we have the most direct, contemporaneous report of what happened and when regarding the routing process, and by implication of the dates and changes of acreage, the land swap. You choose to tell us that the committee preparing five routing plans doesn't mean that they prepared five routing plans. And, by dismissing this direct fact, it allows you to launch into many different directions as you wish with a simple wave of your hand.
I'm like Mike. I simply don't recall what direct documentation you have that is more persuasive than the participants own words, recorded as they happend (in the case of the motion to swap land) or just before?
Why tackle other questions when you can't tackle the most germain, direct question of the entire debate?
I call horse apples.
Do you understand? He basically found his ideal process by ACCIDENT, because others controlled the land.
IMHO, too much has been made of the NGLA/MCC connection in that regard. The record shows why MCC is where it is.
-
Jeff,
You obviously have nothing to add to my discussion with Bryan about proper methodology. It has become quite apparent to me that you have no clue even of what is historical analysis. So why don't you do yourself and us a favor and sit this one out? I have a feeling Bryan and Jim can handle this.
In fact, rather than continuing to insult me and misrepresent both me and Merion's historical record, why don't you let me deal with Bryan's questions in a more coherent and orderly manner than would be possible with you or Mike running the show?
After all, my understanding is that TEPaul is not supposed to participating here. Yet his filthy paw prints are all over your posts, and I'd rather not deal with either of you.
Thanks.
-
David,
These are straightforward questions that go right to the heart of our disagreements.
I can see why you avoid them but please don't tell us they aren't relevant.
-
You obviously don't want to deal with obvious facts either, nor have anything to add to any factual discussion about what happened based on relevant documents.
In all seriousness, your post covering your method was enlightening to me. I still don't agree that your method is sound, but rather than be insulted by your posts I can at least sort of see where you are coming from.
Still, having read all your "contemporaneous docments trump all" posts, I have a hard time reconciling your method here with your method for all other golf courses.
And, I have always been of the opinion that the simplest, connect the dots type answer is most likely to be the actual explanation, and the longer connect the dots process less likely to be true. And it seems your process does ignore things like the committee report in favor of parsing words, figuring out triangle dimensions and what not.
For my money, if the committee reports and legal records describe a final routing in April, and motions on land deeds to support that, its very unlikely that any theory that ignores or deflects that fact as a basis, can only go further astray. But, if you have a similarly convincing and direct documentation of something other than that happening that I don't recall, I would love to see it.
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to take the time to try to understand MY method. (insert smiley) You just assume I cannot come up with my own pithy remarks to challenge your theory, or think for myself. Not true, Not true, I assure you.
-
David,
And you are right about one thing. I don't have a clue about how historical analysis can read "We laid out five plans" to "I don't believe there were five plans." Or how "CBM approved the final routing April 6" can be analyzed as "CBM routed the plan with Lloyd, Francis, and Whigham at some other date" Or how three documented meetings between CBM and the committee can be reasonably construed to mean constant contact. Etc.
You are right...I don't have a clue, but perhaps not for the same reasons you do. I know you hate to assign percentages, but I wonder what percentage of your theory is based on documents of participants being incorrect in some key way that allows you to analyze it to some weird place? From memory, it seems a lot of your theory, but like you, I won't put a percentage on it, other than to say I think its "high."
-
David,
Here are the relevant questions again, in case you missed them;
If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th, 1910, then why did it take another FIVE MONTHS, til April 19th, 1911, for Merion to even propose the acquisition of the land?
If the golf course routing was completed before November 15th 1910, then why did Cuyler say that the boundaries were not determined on December 21st, 1910, further advising that since it was still going to be some months away until cash was actually needed, he would hold off on the second bonds needed by the proposed MCCGA to finance the endeavor, postponing it "until the boundaries of the property have been determined upon"?
Specifically, in that regard Cuyler wrote on December 21st, 1910;
In regard to the title of the property the boundaries of the land to be acquired being as
yet uncertain owing to the fact that the golf course has not been definitely located, it
was found advisable that the Haverford Development Company should take the title in
Mr. Lloyd‘s name, so that the lines could be revised subsequently. I would thank you
to let me know as soon as the boundaries have been determined upon.
I understand that as no cash will be needed for some months, the issuance of the
second mortgage bonds can be postponed until after the boundaries of the property
have been determined upon. (bold mine)
Why if the routing was already completed through the brainstorm of Richard Francis, a surveyor and engineer, before November 15th, 1910, were the boundaries of the proposed golf course still undetermined seemingly many months later??
-
Mike,
From memory, much of David's theory on the golf committee doing only construction came from his tortured definition of the words "Laying Out". I also recall others found several different uses of the word that did NOT entail what David required for his theories to work. In your re-posting of the critical minutes, I noticed this passage:
"Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground".
I think its significant not only that the committee presented a plan (presumably drawn by Francis?) but that they considered the words layout to mean a plan. How much bandwidth was wasted discussing David's contention that they didn't use the word layout in regards to planning?
Again, this all seems simple enough to me.
-
Jeff,
Bingo.
They were not nearly as confused in the use of golf course planning terminology as David and some others here apparently are.
They had five paper "plans" with golf "layouts" drawn on them, and attached the one CBM recommended to their report for the April 19th 1911 Merion Board of Governors meeting.
They also make clear that they "laid out" numerous plans over the course of their assignment, which by definition has not a freaking thing to do with driving stakes into the ground as has been so humorously proposed here.
The funny thing is this;
I agree with you that David can make a legitimate case for an enhanced role for CBM, although I'd argue that it was probably commensurate with the thank you's he received at the time from the Wilson's, Lloyd, and Robert Lesley (although curiously Richard Francis didn't seem to think they warranted mention).
It's just that he (and Tom MacWood) want so badly to eliminate Hugh Wilson and settle whatever old Philadelphia scores they are still holding onto that they drown the baby with the bath water.
-
Jeff,
Well then we are in agreement. You have no clue.
To tide you over while we wait for Bryan to reengage, I'll explain one of the main reasons why, from a from a methods perspective, you are completely clueless. Whether it is because you have become emotion-driven or because of some argumentative need to try and score petty and trite rhetorical points or because you are under the sway of your dishonest pal (and you are,) you have repeatedly proven that you are unwilling and/or incapable of accurately dealing with the the source material and my analysis thereof.
We need go no further than a few posts above for an example of such methodological shortcomings on your part.
In post 1766 you wrote:
Here we have the most direct, contemporaneous report of what happened and when regarding the routing process, and by implication of the dates and changes of acreage, the land swap. You choose to tell us that the committee preparing five ROUTING plans doesn't mean that they prepared five ROUTING plans. (my bolds and caps)
But the source material does not mention five ROUTINGS or ROUTING plans. You added the word ROUTING so you could pretend I was directly contradicting the source material when you knew I was not. Why else add the word?
Then you did the same thing in the opposite direction a few posts later.
In post 1770 you quoted me(!) "I don't believe there were five plans." But that is not what I had written.
What I really had written was, "I don't think there were five routing plans." Five ROUTING plans.
This time you dropped the word ROUTING from my quote so you could again pretend I had directly contradicted the source material.
What I find despicable about this whole thing and your methodology in general is that it seems intentional. One doesn't just accidentally add key words and then drop key words so precisely as you do here. You knew exactly what I wrote and, more importantly, what I meant. Yet you misrepresent for rhetorical gain. First you misrepresent the source material. Then you misrepresented (and misquoted) my position.
So explain how this is an honest and honorable approach to historical analysis? Explain why this isn't, for lack of a better word, disingenuous?
-
Mike Cirba,
Instead of continuing on with the endless rhetoric, why not just wait and see where Bryan takes the conversation? I've obviously touched a nerve with him and he seemed raring to go last night and I am curious as to what set him going. Frankly I am looking forward to a real challenge, and hopefully I'll finally get some real constructive criticism and critique. You two must realize by now that he is far more capable at this sort of thing than either of you, so why not chill for a while?
In the meantime, Mike, why don't you explain to us how you obtained the requisite expertise to pontificate about the rights and obligations of the respective parties to the multiple transactions involving MCC in 1910-11? Villanova Law?
-
Bryan,
I'd like to question the "logical factual analysis" approach that you seem to generally use.
That's fine, but I hope you aren't quoting me with your mention of "logical factual analysis." Is that as opposed to 'illogical factual analysis?' Regardless, I doubt I would have written that. But whatever you call it, I don't think there is anything particularly novel about my approach to historical analysis. So far as I can tell is quite similar to your general approach, at least when I am not exchanging insults with these guys and when you aren't taking shots at Patrick or setting out lists "for context" as above.
When you do this kind of analysis do you assert that the conclusions you draw are "factual" and "true"? Or do you attribute a likelihood to them? What level of confidence do you place on likelihood, if that's what you are using? Are you 95% certain? Or 99%? Do you accept that others might not agree with your logical factual analysis to the same degree as you do?
I think you may be presenting a false choice here. While my goal is to figure out what happened, I generally don't think of conclusions as "factual." And while I may indicate the level of confidence I have in my conclusions, I don't assign specific numerical probabilities. Doing so would be unjustifiable pseudo-science so far as I am concerned.
I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts. Words like "likely" or "unlikely" or "probably" or "possibly" are dirty words to these guys, I guess because they know it all for certain.
Here is an example from my essay:
The Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same. Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. While it is possible that the paper was referring to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, it is also highly unlikely, unless the Board was engaging in pure hyperbole. Hugh Wilson was by no means an “expert” when it came to planning or building golf courses. Rather, he and his Committee were complete novices. In 1916 Wilson wrote . . . .
As you can see, I did not assert my conclusion as fact. Rather, I wrote that I thought it "possible" but "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson and his Committee as the experts preparing plans for the course. I then went on over the next three or four paragraphs explaining some of the reasons why I thought it was "highly unlikely" that Merion's board was referring to Wilson or his committee.
I'd like to ask a few questions. I've highlighted some sections in the quote.
That's fine as well, but there are no highlights that I can see.
Are the three points in your list indicating CBM/HJW's extensive involvement complete or just representative?
They are representative.
If just representative, what are the other points?
I provided a few representative points because listing them all would be tantamount to another, longer IMO. I am not willing to do that at the moment.
Who do you think drew the five routing plans that CBM chose from? In your opinion, did CBM draw them? Did he instruct somebody else on how to draw all five of them?
I don't think there were five routing plans. Beyond that, see the answer above.
When you say that the selected plan was presented to the Board as his plan, are you saying that it was presented as a plan that he personally drew up? Or, was it presented as one of five plans that someone else drew up, from which he selected one and gave it his stamp of approval? In other posts you have described the routing plan as CBM's plan, not just that it was presented as his plan. Do you see a difference between it being his plan vs being presented as his plan?
See above.
You've used CBM/HJW collectively. Do you feel that HJW deserves more recognition too? On a par with CBM?
It isn't about recognition as it about understanding what happened. Beyond that see above.
______________________
These are good questions Bryan but there is no way I can answer in them in a sentence or two. You started off questioning me about my methodology but have moved into asking me to provide you with an IMO broader than my first.
Don't get me wrong. If you really want to go through it all, we can, even though most has been covered repeatedly before. But if we do so you are going to need to patient and we need to do it in more manageable bites. And before we get into any of these substantive issues, I'd like to make sure we are on the same page regarding my methodology.
Thanks.
David,
Upon checking out my quote re "logical factual analysis", you are right, I misremembered it. You actually said "reasonable factual analysis".
Thanks for your further clarification of your approach. I thought that that was the way you were doing it. In my reading of your work you don't state your conclusions as facts. You couch them in caveats. What I find problematic is that it seems to me that you then proceed on in your analysis and in referrals back to your previous conclusions you state them without the caveats, making them sound like conclusive facts. But, that's just the way I read them.
I also notice you sometime say you are trying to figure out what happened, as if it is some mathematical formula that if you study it enough, that it can be figured out. I'm not sure that that applies in this kind of research. Whatever happened back then, happened. Absent "factual" information that documents what happened, I don't think that anybody can figure it out. I didn't think you put probabilities on your conclusions, but I needed to check. Your caveats imply a range of certainties, which is enough I guess. In the end though, I think you need to accept, as do your opponents in this bun fight, that your caveated conclusions may not be the same as another person who is looking at the same information. And, the vice versa is true as well. Your "highly unlikely" may be another persons "likely". I expect you and the Phillie crowd will be throwing this back and forth five years from now, each remaining unconvinced of the other's position. MacWood had it right - is there any new information in the last two years? The Cuyler letter?
I guess you haven't noticed that I have been roundly criticized by Brauer, TEPaul, and Cirba for failing to state my conclusions as absolute facts.
Well, actually, I did notice the criticism, although it didn't strike me that the were criticizing you for failing to state your conclusions as absolute fact. It was, in my reading, for your penchant for caveating your conclusion at one point and then using it as a definitive conclusion later. But, I'll leave you and them to sort that out.
As for the remainder of the post about the 5 plans, I don't get your response. Can we pursue it further? As far as I know, I thought everybody agreed that there were 5 routing plans at that point. As far as I know nobody has any direct evidence about who (specifically) put pen to paper to create the 5 plans or even the one that CBM recommended and the Board approved. If you have further information I'd like to hear and discuss it.
-
David,
If they weren't five routing plans, then what were they?
Bryan,
I agree with your post, re Caveat to Fact in much of David's analysis. I once called him out for using his own essay as a source document (which he does, but denies) and backup to claims of his own essay. He (and most) would demand one source plus a backup source from anyone else.
And, now that you mention it, while he states his essay as opinions, he defends it as a real piece of historic research. So, if I am confused as to which it really is, then I guess he is partly party to that misconception.
He is a real disingenours arguer. Note above where he says I am "unwilling and/or incapable of accurately dealing with the the source material and my analysis thereof." Now in the base of his post he argues that I change his words, etc., but in his conclusion, by adding the that I cannot deal with his analysis, his statement reads as perfectly true, but implies that I can't understand source material. Quite clever, and just one example of how he uses words to convey something, other than real facts and real truth.
Again, I just can't imagine why he won't answer simple questions with simple answer, unless he can't.
-
And Jeff, if you are going to continue to plead with me about how you are your own man and not in cahoots with TEPaul, you might want to have him stop forwarding me his advice to you.
And you may also want to ask him to quite forwarding me YOUR emails to him. Especially the ones where you discuss your take on my position and seek TEPaul's approval for your interpretation! It makes you look even more foolish in my eyes, and it really exposes how little you understand about how historical analysis works.
But then to plead with me that this isn't going on? What is that "D" word again?
-
Mike
Bryan,
A couple of things, in response.
I could look at a deed's metes and bounds and it may as well be Latin so I appreciate you bearing with me. Wink As I thought. ;D
What can you tell me about the average width of the land for the last 44 yards going southward towards today's 16th tee boundary from the initial 11 foot wide 76 yards going south from College Avenue? I think you can measure that yourself. It encompasses the back part of the 16th tee.
Also, I would wholly agree with your statement;
"The land plan you've posted is distorted and bounded by an approximate road. IMHO it is useless as an indicator of where or whether there was a routing at that point in time."
And isn't that what this whole debate is really about? The contention by some that since this Land Plan indicates that the golf course goes north above the Haverford College southern boundary (and to College Avenue) that it's somehow representative of a fully routed golf course, even though every other single bit of contemporaneous evidence tells us clearly that the course was NOT routed at this time??
Isn't this the whole premise of David's argument that attempts to exclude Hugh Wilson from the original design of the course...the idea that this otherwise "to scale" land plan somehow represents a finalized routing completed prior to it's publication (Nov 15th 1910) despite the obvious facts that;
1) There are no holes indicated on it.
2) It does not reflect the golf course land that the course was eventually built on.
Isn't the entire conspiracy theory based on this single bit of admittedly flawed evidence??
David's theory attempts to negate Wilson's design efforts by trying to move back in time the work to route the course and his entire theory excluding Wilson hinges on this Land Plan, which he argues is proof positive that the course was routed before November 15th, 1910.
I don't want to get into your arguments with David. All I'll say is that the land plan could be indicative of one reading of the land swap. We did that debate in detail two years ago. No need to rehash.
As far as the road...I would think that once Merion's Board approved the final plan work on that bordering road could/would commence in the same time frame....around late April 1911. Merion's Board? Even though Lloyd was holding it for HDC at that time?
I have no idea how long it took to build a road in 1911, whether it was asphalt or chip and tar, or even gravel initially. I do know that many of the Merion men like Robert Lesley were engineers (he actually owned a Cement factory) and had access to local labor, so it doesn't seem on the face of it to be preposterous to have it completed in 2-3 months time. Well, that's quick. Road building takes longer today, but then there's probably more regulation today.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the response. I've wasted all my free time with useless banter so I will have to respond later.
Reading how Brauer manipulated my quote and the source material will probably give you a hint where I am coming from on this one.
_________________________
Jeff Brauer,
You wanted to talk about your methodology, so lets talk. Why did you manipulate what the source material said by adding the word ROUTING? And then why did you manipulate what I wrote by removing the word ROUTING?
It seems to me you were playing games for cheap rhetorical gain? Was this your idea or your buddy's?
-
David,
Okay, I won't use the D word again, even when it happens to fit.
As to "routing" what other kind of plan would it be, as I asked above, that would set boundaries and borders? In my world, the only plan it could be would be a routing plan.
So, please enlighten me as to why it wouldn't be that way, and while you are at it, why or what documentation you have to discern that the committee didn't prepare five routing plans?
To me, the simplest explanation is that they prepared five routing plans. The text talks about how placing the last seven holes (the ones in question with the land swap) would make for the finest inland course, etc.
What is that talking about other than routing?
-
David,
OK, I think maybe I get it now. I have interchangeably used "plan" and "routing plan" even though the source document says "plan". So, for future responses, just take my post and forget the word "routing" in front of plan. I do note that you also have in the past inserted "routing" in front of "plan" when referring to the plan CBM chose from the five. For example, in post 1739:
As the project progressed, CBM/HJW's extensive involvement's more evident --the NGLA meetings working on the plans, the return to Merion to reinspect the land and choose the final routing plan, that the plan was presented to the board was presented as CBM/HJW's plan and approved on that basis
-
Maybe we can discuss the word/term ROUTING as specific to the Merion site.
I think we're all familiar with the aerial view of the property so I would like to suggest several distinct plans for the course that would have fallen within the exact same parcel. I would then ask who thinks it is these type of differences that could have been worked through in the winter/spring of 1911.
The second hole and current 6th hole (originally the third) run in the same direction almost end-to-end. If the 2nd were 100 yards shorter and the 6th 50 - 100 yards longer, would this equate to a different plan?
The current 7th, 8th and 9th do the same thing, could different variations on these holes have been considered different plans?
The 12th and 13th do the same...
I understand Jeff and Mike feel a "routing" is a completed project but I'd be curious if anyone else does. Specifically, I'd be curious if a completed routing leaves latitude to add a little width to certain holes...afterall, they were hoping to "shrink-wrap" the road to the course in order to purchase as little land as possible...
-
Jim,
I don't feel a routing plan is a final project. I typically do 10-30 routings before getting to a final. Some only have minor differences (in different areas). Some may have different spacings to save trees, whatever. So, there are preliminary routings and final routings. And again, I don't know that their use or non use of the word routing is signifigant.
Again, what else would they be working on to set final boundaries, if not the routing? And why would anyone spend time parsing whether the word routing meant anything to change the meaning? I know I beat up David for intuiting things from limited data points, but for me, this one is a no brainer, unless I can be proven wrong.
In the case of Merion, they seemed to be looking at five preliminary routings, and selected one with the Francis land swap, got it approved by CBM as the best and only then was it final, and we know it was because they immediately at the same meeting moved to finalized the boundary.
Francis tells us the first 13 holes were "easy" and that side of the road may have been fixed early, or some of the holes might be in the same corridors but reversed, lengthened shortened, etc. Both Francis and the minutes tell us that those last seven holes were on everyone's mind, and it seems many of the differences in plan were probably related to those holes. But, we cannot be sure.
-
Jim,
My take on routing is the exact same as Jeff's, as well as agree with him about Francis telling us where the problem was...the last five holes.
-
Jeff and Mike,
Are you suggesting the "five plans" were only involving the final five holes?
-
Jim,
No. I think the problem of fitting the final five likely drove different iterations of the first 13, as well, particularly those that crossed the road and likely different spins on 12 & 13 as well.
You can't often change one piece without affecting stuff upstream and downstream.
-
Mike,
I agree. So then how do you reconcile that with your repeated claim that the first 13 were routed first?
-
Jim,
Francis told us the first thirteen were routed first. Who are we to disagree?
That said, its hard not to believe on a 123 acre site where the holes fit together snugly, that at least the holes 10-12 that crossed the road didn't impact the exact routings of the last five.
As to your questions whether those five plans were only for the last five holes, while the details are lost to antiquity, I would say no. As you know, I think the part south of Ardmore was four holes wide. But, those five routings may have explored different lengths and combos. Having 2 and 5 run the same direction is somewhat unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some verion flipped four and five around. It would also be possible to vary lengths within corridors.
Would they have wanted another par 5 on the last five holes if they could? One par five on the back nine? In any case, 10-12 are similar lengths, and what if 14, 15, and 16 were different lengths? Would they have changed the exact yardage of a hole on the other side to hit their ideal CBM suggested yardages?
Rule number one of routing is (singing.....) Da Knee Bone Connected to the Thigh bone....Da Thigh bone......
-
Jim,
Well, quite easily actually. ;) ;D
First of all, Richard Francis told us that it was pretty easy to get the first 13 holes in place, and I think they generally liked them as they were, and as I think they ended up being.
I just think that once they couldn't fit the final five they created a number of different iterations that affected those first 13.
I think Francis likely came up with his brainstorm and I think they all implicitly knew it was the best of all, but since it required a land swap and the purchase of additional acreage I think they wanted validation from CBM first before going to the Board.
So, they brought him down, showed him five iterations, and voila!, I think he picked the one they were hoping for.
Of course, this is all speculation, but it is based on factual info that we do know such as Francis's account, as well as the MCC Minutes.
I may be wrong, but this would make a lot of sense to me as projects go.
-
Jeff,
Our posts crossed.
Great minds... ;) ;D
-
I'll hate myself in the morning, but in Re-reading David’s essay again, (just to be sure I am not the imbecile he portrays me as……) I noticed another snippet from the Merion records in his essay that begs to be interpreted:
From the letter recommending purchase of the property, Merion’s Site Committee said this about their two renowned amateur golfers and golf course designers, C.B. Macdonald and H.G Whigham:
“These gentlemen, besides being famous golfers, have given the matter of Golf Course construction much study, and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils, etc. It was Mr. Macdonald, assisted by Mr. Whigham, who conceived and constructed the National Course at Southampton.”
Note that while CBM was clearly a designer, they credited him with conceiving and construction of NGLA, but not specifically mentioning design of the course.
Later, in Wilson’s contribution to Piper and Oakley’s book, he writes:
“May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.”
Do we really think he is recommending a visit to PV or NGLA to learn “construction principles?” Is he recommending committees visit those courses for design ideas they can adopt to their own courses?
And, is he recommending it because that is the way Merion learned the correct design principles. In both quotes, it is clear that they think in terms of getting it built more than designing the course.
And yet, David parses the fine distinction of the “Construction Committee” using modern terms. I believe that the Construction Committee was charged with both design and construction of the golf course, even though they favored the term construction.
When did CBM even coin the phrase “Golf Architect?” Is it possible that it just hadn’t entered their thinking yet?
Just TePaul’s $0.02 worth!
-
Jeff,
I've seen many articles from back then where the term "Construction" incorporated the design process.
For instance, Crump's original committee at PV that designed a number of holes and a routing well before Colt's arrival was also called the "Construction Committee" from inception.
-
I have too. But so much of this three year debate has been driven by the words "construction committee" and "golf course layout." And, only because one person thinks he knows the ONLY way those terms were used 100 years ago, despite being presented obvious evidence to the contrary. At the same time, five plans doesn't mean five plans, somehow.
I read the essay again, as I mentioned. The only thing it convinced me of is the need for blood pressure meds!
-
That is some serious reading in between the lines. Any objective person who reads the P&O account and the numerous Wilson letters realizes his responsibility was construction, at least early on. The turning point for Wilson was his trip overseas, in the Spring of 1912, and after the course had been constructed and seeded. It was from that point on that he began to exert his design influence on Merion, or should I say redesign influence. He also began dabbling in the design of other courses, some successful, some not so successful. The Piper & Oakley book was published in 1917.
-
Tom,
Would you have expected him to discuss routing options and design theory with Piper and Oakley?
You make blanket statements such as telling us when Wilson supposedly became interested in design that have absolutely no basis in fact yet have the audacity to tell us Jeff Brauer is damaging to the discovery of accurate history?
-
TMac,
It does read between the lines, but then again, so do so many things. But I don't think HW was recommending a trip to NGLA or PV to study construction techniques, do you?
And I don't doubt his main focus was construction in the early period. MCC was under contract to get a course built soon. It appears that they felt improvements could always come later, but they had promised to be seeded that year, and that certainly would be a focus.
Even now, getting the dang thing built is always a primary focus, and design is seen as a necessary step in the process in most cases. Not to mention that the greatest uncertainty in that time period for golf course builders was soils, grasses, irrigation, as evidenced by all the early struggles at many previous courses. Design don't mean squat if your grass doesn't grow.
It may well be that we have now officially discussed Merion's original design more than they ever did!
-
Jeff,
Here's two articles about Pine Valley written by Tillinghast early in 1913 several months before Harry Colt arrived.
Note the name of the Committee in the bottom article. It's clear that Crump and his committee were both designing and building the course despite David and Tom's insistence that the terminology only referred to building and not design. In fact, that term "Construction Committee" was one of the linchpins of David's essay that attempted to diminish Wilson's role, relegating him to construction foreman.
It's also interesting that as late as 1913, we're told that "the course is to be planned by the leading exponents of golf in Philadelphia", meaning amateur sportsmen, none of whom had previous design experience but all of whom would have been termed "experts" due to their competitive excellence in local circles.
January 12, 1913
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part2.jpg)
March 23, 1913
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part2.jpg)
-
Jim,
Francis told us the first thirteen were routed first. Who are we to disagree?
That said, its hard not to believe on a 123 acre site where the holes fit together snugly, that at least the holes 10-12 that crossed the road didn't impact the exact routings of the last five.
As to your questions whether those five plans were only for the last five holes, while the details are lost to antiquity, I would say no. As you know, I think the part south of Ardmore was four holes wide. But, those five routings may have explored different lengths and combos. Having 2 and 5 run the same direction is somewhat unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some verion flipped four and five around. It would also be possible to vary lengths within corridors.
Would they have wanted another par 5 on the last five holes if they could? One par five on the back nine? In any case, 10-12 are similar lengths, and what if 14, 15, and 16 were different lengths? Would they have changed the exact yardage of a hole on the other side to hit their ideal CBM suggested yardages?
Rule number one of routing is (singing.....) Da Knee Bone Connected to the Thigh bone....Da Thigh bone......
So which is it guys? Were the first 13 routed and ready to go at the time of Francis' Swap (whenever it was) or not? You've both said yes and yes...
I disagree that Francis said the first 13 were done first, just that they were relatively easy. Agree with that or no?
-
Let's look at Francis' remembrance again...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Does he really say the first 13 were complete and they were trying to figure out how to put in the last 5? Would any sane human being who was tasked with designing or building 18 holes have 13 of them set in stone with no viable solution for the other 5?
My point is, that regardless of the timing, once the swap occurred all other "plans" would have been tweaks within the corridor such as various lengths of 14 and 15 or 2 and 6 or 7 - 9.
Also, I think suggesting the Thompson motion in the April minutes was without a doubt the Francis Swap is a bit aggressive. Could be, but not without question at this point.
-
Tom,
Would you have expected him to discuss routing options and design theory with Piper and Oakley?
You make blanket statements such as telling us when Wilson supposedly became interested in design that have absolutely no basis in fact yet have the audacity to tell us Jeff Brauer is damaging to the discovery of accurate history?
No, I would not expect him discuss routing options with P&O because the course was already routed and staked out by February 1911, and the letters support that as well.
-
I wouldn't expect him to discuss routing options with Piper because Piper would have no advice to offer on that subject, as he wasn't an expert. I do not think the course was routed and staked out by Feb 1911, because there are no documents suggesting it was, and several documents confirming routing was completed on April 6, 1911.
Talk about reading between the lines!
-
TMac,
It does read between the lines, but then again, so do so many things. But I don't think HW was recommending a trip to NGLA or PV to study construction techniques, do you?
And I don't doubt his main focus was construction in the early period. MCC was under contract to get a course built soon. It appears that they felt improvements could always come later, but they had promised to be seeded that year, and that certainly would be a focus.
Even now, getting the dang thing built is always a primary focus, and design is seen as a necessary step in the process in most cases. Not to mention that the greatest uncertainty in that time period for golf course builders was soils, grasses, irrigation, as evidenced by all the early struggles at many previous courses. Design don't mean squat if your grass doesn't grow.
It may well be that we have now officially discussed Merion's original design more than they ever did!
Its difficult to say why he recommended going to NGLA and/or PVGC in 1917. NGLA was a finished product in 1917 (a design and maintenance triumph); PVGC was a complete mess in 1917 (and Crump would kill himself the following year). By 1917 Wilson had redesigned the East course, designed the West and been involved in other design projects. Whatever his reasoning for that particular statement I don't believe it has any bearing on what occured in 1911.
-
Jim,
I guess all we know for sure is that the plan that included the land swap was one of the five presented to CBM on April 6 for review and approval and that is was the final routing plan, approved at the April meeting.
You are correct that his idea could have come at any time, and for that matter, it might not have been the last idea anyone had on the subject. I tend to infer that by the blasting within a few days, which suggests once approved, they were off to the races, but if you think Francis embellished the story a bit in 1950, I would agree its not totally conclusive. Nor is the rush to Lloyd's. I have speculated it was done just before CBM came back on April 6, but maybe Francis just got so excited about his idea he had to tell someone. I have had those moments!
As to the 13/5 routing, as I have mentioned before, I think Ardmore Ave splits the property to the point where they really could nearly finish those holes close to independent of the ones on the other side of the road. But, just think of it - had they figured a way to get 14 holes, the last 4 should have been easy! Who knows what options came up and were discussed.
TMac,
Perhaps. But it would appear Wilson was asked to write his remembrances as a committee chair who got a nice golf course built, and was talking to the same kind of people, wherever they may be. The line may have been a throwaway, or whatever, but if we think he was offering serious advice (and I think he was) I think it was based on the success MCC had, and the process they used, which included studying NGLA for design ideas.
-
I wouldn't expect him to discuss routing options with Piper because Piper would have no advice to offer on that subject, as he wasn't an expert. I do not think the course was routed and staked out by Feb 1911, because there are no documents suggesting it was, and several documents confirming routing was completed on April 6, 1911.
Talk about reading between the lines!
It is clear in those letters there was a golf course on the ground (a staked out course that is) when he first engaged P&O.
-
Regarding the letters to and from P&O, were they found at the Department of Ag. or somewhere similar?
Jeff,
So you think holes 15 and 16 in their current configuration would have only been on one of the five plans? That's what I just can't reconcile in my mind...they would have used that land exactly as they did beginning in November (or earlier) or not at all and I don't understand how they would agree to buy that much land that could not be used. Do that make sense?
-
TMac,
I don't think so.
Mike,
While I appreciate the info on terms and I brought it up, I am actually trying to avoid the constant word parse conversations that TMac and DM engage us in endlessly.
Why should anyone spend time deciding what certain phrases mean in determining history when club minutes tell us exactly when the routing was finalized (April 6) and approved? They can say we don't understand their method, but we understand it all too well - discount contemporaneous official records upon which legal actions were taken (i.e. swap boundaries) but rely on narrow definitions of phrases, ot interpretations of letters to suit your agenda?
What kind of method is that?
-
Jim,
I guess all we know for sure is that the plan that included the land swap was one of the five presented to CBM on April 6 for review and approval and that is was the final routing plan, approved at the April meeting.
IMO the five plans, or whatever they were, is red herring. Has that document ever been reproduced so we can see what exactly it says, and the context? At that time Wilson had already been treating the site, fairways and greens getting slightly different treatments.
-
Jim,
Yes, my understanding is that they were found at the Ag Dept. Or, in Osama Bin Laden's compound, can't recall which.....
Interesting speculation on whether only one of the five routings had the tweaks to 15 and 16. As I said, I have presumed that only one and only the final one was it. Just because once you've hit the mother load, you usually know it. Who knows, maybe they flipped 14-18 on one plan, but with the curve, I know putting the tee in the corner makes sense. In other words, once you have the idea to reshape the corner, you could still do some detail tweaking.
I understand your dilema to a point regarding knowing that they had flexibility along Golf House Road since November and not exploring that option until April. If they were given that flexibility specifically, I agree that their routings would probably explore that from the beginning. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it makes sense.
Again, maybe the recollection had some hyperbole, but the other clue was the idea that the land west of the clubhouse fit no golf plans, before he had the swap idea. So, at least a few plans were examined first within the boundaries tentatively shown on the Nov map.
-
TMac,
So now you are bringing up the old "TePaul altered the documents" argument? Or just your tired "you can't rely on club minutes" argument?
That said, I don't really recall who posted that, if it was retyped, etc. I am sure Mike Cirba has that somewhere on his computer. But, the context has been typed out and it isn't too hard to figure out what they were talking about.
-
Tom Macwood,
I have seen a scanned image of the hand written minutes noting "five plans". I don't have it, and do not have the words in their exact sequence in my mind but I can assure we are getting an accruate understanding of what was written. Other than you, my position has been accepted by both sides as objective so take this post as you will.
-
Jeff,
Doesn't the word "approximate" imply the flexibility you mention right from the beginning?
On a To Scale Map, they don't have the excuse of saying "approximate location of the road" means they just didn't measure it exactly so don't hold us to this precise location. It has to me...this border has some flexibility...
Even if they didn't intend as much flexibility as was ultimately used (~30 yards either way) it sure would have been enough to go up for the green and down from the tee. Merion has 6 other situations currently that use between 85 and 110 yards of width for two side-by-side holes to pass one another and that doesn't count the original 1-10-11-12 sequence/cluster.
-
Jim,
I think we have the same understanding. I believe they had a temporary deed based on the road alignment, which was changed when the final design was agreed to. So yes, I think it was approxmiate as in flexible to be changed, not approximate as in casually drawn.
I don't think there were any huge limits on flexibility other than the club not wanting to buy any more acreage than required because of cost, and maintaining minimum radius alignments on Golf House Road. However, given its not all that graceful near 15 green, the developer obviously was sympathetic and lived up to his end of the deal. I bet they would have preferred the long flowing alignment, or something close to it rather than a near right hand turn. And, as you mention, they lost one potential lot.
-
Jim
If the routing was not finalized how do you explain Wilson preparing the fairways and greens?
-
TMac,
A reasonable question, but its common to turn up the existing sod as soon as possible in spring because it takes a while for the roots and clumps to disintegrate. Given they weren't doing much grading in the fw, and greens were probably not prepared in any special way either, if they were planning on seeding all the areas but the three fw areas with Merion Blue Grass, then it makes sense they would turn all the soil.
Of course, it does beg the question of how they new it was 15 fw, but I think that number didn't come until Wilson's later remembrances, and not from contemporaneous dox, so by then, he knew they had approx 3 fw of existing grass to be used.
-
Let's look at Francis' remembrance again...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
Does he really say the first 13 were complete and they were trying to figure out how to put in the last 5? Would any sane human being who was tasked with designing or building 18 holes have 13 of them set in stone with no viable solution for the other 5?
My point is, that regardless of the timing, once the swap occurred all other "plans" would have been tweaks within the corridor such as various lengths of 14 and 15 or 2 and 6 or 7 - 9.
Also, I think suggesting the Thompson motion in the April minutes was without a doubt the Francis Swap is a bit aggressive. Could be, but not without question at this point.
Jim,
A few things...yes, I think he does say the first 13 were designed prior to the final five. Whether that was by months, weeks, days, or minutes he does say that.
As far as sanity....
Yes, if there was no land of the triangle in play at that time as some have argued, ;) then they would have been absolutely INSANE to box themselves into the remaining property with the final five of their proposed championship course still not routed.
Total and complete bonkers! They should have been taken away in shackles frothing at the mouth!! They would have been the biggest bunch of nincompoops ever to be assembled.
However, I've already shown that if some of that triangle was in play, albeit narrower and longer, it would have been very possible to get five holes in there...they just wouldn't be ideal and they just wouldn't have been able to create an alternate route around the quarry on 16.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4915826639_27ffb7a5eb_b.jpg)
I also think there was one other element you're not considering.
Apparently the Francis routing not only required them to reconfigure the road and adversely affect the real estate element but it also very probably required them to add three additional acres to their purchase! I'd be willing to bet that most of the other options only used the 117 acres originally secured.
That to me is what seems to be a very good reason for working out a few variations. It is also reason to me to bring CBM back down to have him validate their thinking about which routing was best, and help them to sell their case.
***EDIT*** Also, Jim...If you're wondering why they'd have so much unusable land right across the street from the clubhouse, think about the configuration of the original 1st hole.
-
Mike,
That's you combining Francis' Swap into Thompson's motion in the minutes. Certainly possible, but not absolute.
-
Jim,
Actually, no, I'm not doing that really.
I'm saying;
1) Francis told us his brainstorm allowed the placement of the final five holes that completed the routing.
2) Francis's brainstorm routing plan was the one that got implemented.
3) Francis brainstorm routing plan required 120 acres, not the 117 the club had originally secured.
4) The April 19th meeting minutes reflect the need to purchase those additional three acres, wherever they were located.
I guess it's possible that the purchase of the 3 acres additional wasn't necessitated by Francis's brainstorm, or that they gave back land previously purchased somewhere else besides the land across the street from the clubhouse, but circumstantially it's a pretty strong case, I think you'd admit?
-
Jim
If the routing was not finalized how do you explain Wilson preparing the fairways and greens?
Tom,
You tried to sell that one a while back and nobody was buying.
Merion wanted to plow the entire property prior to addiing fertilizer and then manure and seed in the fall, less 20some acres thought to have enough good sod growth to support their needs.
This included areas for roughs, fairways, and greens.
On March 29th 1910 Wilson wrote P&O that they were planning on doing some ploughing and "rough work" within a week.
That never happened, actually. If you have the Morrison/Paul book you'd know that originally Merion thought they'd try to do this inhouse with their own superintendent, but then realized they really didn't have the equipment and manpower to maintain their existing course while building a new one, and the hiring of a contractor was proposed at the April 19th Board Meeting.
-
Jim,
Actually, no, I'm not doing that really.
I'm saying;
1) Francis told us his brainstorm allowed the placement of the final five holes that completed the routing.
2) Francis's brainstorm routing plan was the one that got implemented.
3) Francis brainstorm routing plan required 120 acres, not the 117 the club had originally secured.
4) The April 19th meeting minutes reflect the need to purchase those additional three acres, wherever they were located.
I guess it's possible that the purchase of the 3 acres additional wasn't necessitated by Francis's brainstorm, or that they gave back land previously purchased somewhere else besides the land across the street from the clubhouse, but circumstantially it's a pretty strong case, I think you'd admit?
Mike,
Your points 2 and 3 are not supported by BOTH Francis and Thompson, you're combining their independent words to justify them as fact. Francis does not say his idea required three additional acres and the minutes do not say their were 5 distinct ROUTING PLANS. These are possibilities, but they are not fact.
To answer Tom M, I think they had the bones of the routing complete and the "five plans" were variations on a theme. The course lends itself to many potential tweaks they could have been considering after establishing a basic route around the property. 2 and 3 (current 6), 7 - 8 - 9, 12 and 13, 14 and 15.
-
Jeff,
In Wilson's letters to P&O he doesn't refer to "three fairways", but only to 20-some acres.
In ALL of the letters that passed between the men there is not a single reference to the location of NOT A SINGLE tee, fairway, or green, or any other golf feature.
Instead, Tom argues that because Hugh Wilson refers to it as a "course" as opposed to what it was, a "field", that this is somehow meaningful or indicative of a completed routing.
It's funny he accused me of reading between the lines yet sees Barker on the midnight train to Georgia and Barker's handiwork buried in his Ardmore Corn Field of dreams with less than a shred of evidence. ;) ;D
-
Jim,
We know that on February 1st, 1911 Hugh Wilson wrote that Merion had acquired 117 acres, the same number that they had secured in November 1910.
We know that Francis's routing was the one accepted on April 19th, 1911 and we know that it required 120 acres.
Just saying...
I think the rest is just semantics. If they were five different plans and each had a course layout on it then by definition it's five different routing plans.
I know you say that they were 'tweaks', but I'm not sure we know. Didn't we just agree that making a change in one area by definition created additional changes and considerations up and down the chain?
By the way, did you get my point about the location/configuration of the 1st hole limiting them?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2493/4242617618_2ae8a58b7a_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3010/3638727630_7e94c2423b_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3638727568_25f8a42b88_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3638727610_9a451a5924_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
We know for sure that the final routing required the three acres, and I think the minutes say that. As I said, I think HW referred to our problem in building 18 greens and tees and 15 fw later on in his remembrances. But the letters don't reference specific golf holes, even when doing so to indicate soil samples would have made sense. Thus I think its hard to conclude that on Feb 1 Wilson had a routing that he sent to Piper.
Jim,
Going back to the routing(s) they don't just magically appear all at once. I can think of a lot of routings I have done where at some point I have most of it figured out, or many sections, but am left to struggle with just a portion. And yes, at some points, I decide I am sticking with these 13 (or whatever) holes and confining my changes to the holes I have trouble with.
Its a constant narrowing down process and at some point, you have to leave the good stuff you have figured out alone and fix it within a limited area to arrive at the final. Which is why Francis recollections read to me as if they were fixing the last five holes last or near the end. But, its certainly not clear enough to know that level of detail.
But, I think we are still pretty firm ground when saying they had five plans to present CBM on 4-6-11. I know others will say they are different types of plans (maybe they wanted to show CBM where they were taking soil samples?) but they just have to be routing plans, by whatever name they may have called them. It was the logical step in the process at that time of process.
I wonder if they would do any routing before going to get instructions from CBM at NGLA. However, it seems the minutes recalling the trip to NGLA hint that they had some plans and routings, no? They came back an prepared more plans at that point, indicating they at least noodled on the routing before the March meeting, but CBM's ideas probably showed them they had to go back to square one, using his ideas. (I Know some of the Philly boys say the record shows they did not talk about routing at NGLA, just hole concepts, but I don't see it that way. It would be hard to talk design and not touch on both)
To me, that puts the routing between Feb 1 and April 6, perhaps picking up steam like a locomotvie after returning engergized from NGLA. So, most of the narrowing down process took a month - from my perspective a very real time frame. And, they didn't necessarily need more contact with CBM - they could hhave compared calendars while at NGLA to set up the next meeting.
-
So much for trying to cover all this in a more organized and productive manner.
________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, I am waiting for you to explain what it is about your methodology that would allow you to add key words to the source material and drop key words from my quotes?
- Why did you add the word "ROUTING" to the source material and then pretend that the source material directly contradicted my statement when it did not?
- Why did you remove the word "ROUTING" from my quote and then pretend that the source material directly contradicted my statement when it did not?
I am trying to understand your methodology here, and so far as I can tell it has nothing to do with accurately representing me or the source material and cannot possibly be geared to figuring out what actually happened, but I am waiting for your explanation to the contrary.
________________________________________________________
Bryan,
I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation in this environment, but I guess I will give it a shot.
There is a lot about that Lesley report to the board that I don't understand and a lot of open questions out there about it that people aren't even asking.
1. Is the transcript we have been given accurate and authentic? I've never seen the actual minutes. I have been denied access to them by both MCC and MGC. I know that TEPaul keeps claiming that anyone can look at them, but this is false. Wayne has arranged it so is the minutes are not available through normal channels, or at least they are not available to anyone who might actually view them with a critical eye. So at this point it is impossible to know if what we have been given is an accurate and complete record of what happened.
Unfortunately we have been provided a number of different versions of the transcript of this supposed report over the years, and this only adds to the uncertainty about its authenticity. Add to that the fact that on multiple occasions the Faker Flynn authors have put forth inaccurate and incomplete information and claimed it was authentic. So it is difficult to know whether to trust this information or not.
That said, I hope this latest version in accurate, but I really wonder about what was before and after that report in the records and why the rest of the records for that meeting were not included on the Flynn Faker pdf. Why wouldn't they have included the records where the golf course was actually approved?
As it is we have little choice but to work of of what we have, but we should all keep in mind the possibility that games are still being played with this material, as games have been being played for years.
2. Who is the author of the report?
The answer seems obvious. Lesley is the author. "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds." But in the past TEPaul and Mike have tried to argue that this was something Wilson had written and that Lesley was reading for Wilson. That doesn't make any sense to me and there is no indication of this in any text I have seen. If this is the case then they ought to bring forward information supporting this.
3. What were the many different courses?
From the beginning of the report, "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land . . ." I assume that the "many different courses" were variations on the route of the golf course.
The many "different golf courses" could easily refer to variations of routings. While it is far from clear, the description could refer to the variations up to that point, including Barker's rough routing, CBM/HJW's suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan (including the addition of the land behind the clubhouse,) Lloyd's and Francis' attempts to make this fit onto the pre-swap land, and the post swap routing that Francis figured out.
4. Who from Merion went to NGLA? We've always assumed it was the Construction Committee, but this report casts doubts on that. Lesley wasn't on the Construction Committee, yet he reports that "on OUR return [from NGLA], WE arranged . . ." It sure sounds like he was at NGLA. In Wilson's 1916 chapter makes it sound as if his Construction Committee was there, so there is some confusion in my mind who was actually there. There are other reasons I have my doubts about who was there and who wasn't, but I will hold them for now. Let's just say that it is somewhat of an open question, at least in my mind.
5. What were "his plans?" Lesley reported, they "spent the evening looking over HIS PLANS and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses . . . ." Since all of you guys seem to think "plans' is synonymous with routing, then this ought to settle it right? I didn't think so. Rather you guys have tried to explain this away, arguing these must be plans from overseas or plans for NGLA but they couldn't possibly be plans for Merion - anything but that! But we know that CBM told them he needed a contour map and we know that they had a contour map for months at least. So it seems entirely possible that they were there going over CBM's plans for Merion and data from overseas, on which those plans were based. We don't know, but it is certainly a possibility.
6. What was meant by: "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans?"[/i] This is another statement which is far from clear, yet you some here think it only could mean one thing: Merion came up with five different routings on their own and these routings really must have had nothing to do with the trip to NGLA. I find this preposterous for many different reasons, but mainly because it ignores the first half of the sentence and ignores that these guys had just been going over this stuff with CBM!
a. The reading ignores the first half if the sentence. The "re-arranged the course." Course is singular. Before the NGLA meetings they had tried "many different courses" --plural, as in they had tried a number of routings. But after the NGLA meeting they rearranged the course --singular as in they rearranged the course to fit with what had been decided. If this sentence is talking about routings, this seems to be the place where it is talking about routings.
b. What were these "five plans?" Many have pretended these were distinct routings and that Merion came up with them after and without CBM. But we don't know this, and to me it seems unlikely given that they also rearranged the singular course. The differences could have had to to with hole lengths or green designs (should the 14th hole be the double plateau green and the 15th the hog's back green, or visa versa?) The differences could have had to do with the order in which the holes played. (Should the course start the 14th thus ending with a par 3? Or should it Start on the par 3 13th and end on the 12th? Should the redan come after the 2nd hole? ) We don't know.
c. What is meant by "laid out" five different plans? For that matter, when Lesley used this phrase earlier when speaking of the different courses, and what did he mean there? Were these five different plans that they had developed at NGLA and were laying off on the ground to see how they worked? Were these five different pland the CBM "plans" referred to above? It is not at all clear.
I could go on. There are many more ambiguities. But the bottom line is for me is that rather than excluding CBM from the design process as Mike and Jeff pretend, this Lesley passage puts CBM and HJW right it heart and calling the shots!
In other words, I don't think we can parse out the "five plans" language and pretend that these two words explain how really Merion came up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after! If the trip to NGLA and CBM/HJW's return visit weren't key details of the design process, Lesley wouldn't have explained them, nor would he have thanked CBM/HJW years later for their help!
-
David,
I explained it - in my mind there is nothing else that those could be oher than routing plans.
-
Jeff,
Specific to Merion, if nothing changed other than shortening #2 by 100 yards to a par 4 and lenghening #6 (formerly #3) by 75 yards to a par 5, would that be two distinct routings?
-
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
After the Committee Reported, a Mr. Thompson proposed the following;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
Parse, schmarse...it says what it says.
-
David,
I explained it - in my mind there is nothing else that those could be oher than routing plans.
So then by your methodology, if you think your understanding of something is correct, then it is okay for you to pretend that words are in the source material when you know that they are not? And it is even okay for you to delete words out of your direct QUOTATIONS of my words?
Do I have that about right?
-
David, I think we have asked the questions and answered them to our own satisfaction. As to repeating myself on the deletion of the word routing, I keep asking myself, "Why does he pick on irrelevant items but refuse to answer factual questions, like "if not routing, just what were those plans?"
Actually, you kind of do, or at least speculate in your post above. I agree with lots of what you wrote and don't see the argument that I am trying to cut CBM out of the design process in this period. Point by point:
1. I don’t believe the transcript has been altered.
2. Regarding points 2 and 4, I think it’s clear that Lesley was reading it for the committee, not only because of the committee structure TePaul described once but just from general context. If Lesley was the author, wouldn’t “Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds." Read as Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds." ?
I think this is a case of you outthinking yourself. I don’t know why anyone should bring forth supporting information for a red herring such as you being the only one who doesn’t think it reads the most direct way possible.
Your point 4 is moot if Lesley is reading for the committee, which is the most reasonable interpretation.
3. I agree that the words "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land . . ." could mean a few different things. I will bet donut to dollars it has nothing to do with Barker’s routing, done for McConnell on a different parcel. They had moved on by that point.
Sure, changing from courses to course could be significant, or a careless slip. Either way, they do say they were laying out (routing in my parlance) before the NGLA trip, and I think we can all agree on that, based on their words.
4. Covered Above
5. What were "his plans?" Yes, this can read a few ways, too. Or it could be both his GBI plans, his golf course, and whatever routings had been prepared. We know the committee did some in advance, but only these words suggest CBM did. Possible, but unconfirmed. If we presume the minutes are so carefully worded as to distinguish course from courses, would not the same letter distinguish between the committee laying out plans and CBM?
In my case, I have always thought they were there for free flowing discussion and interested in both routing and the features. I would bet both were discussed at some point, but that two days wasn’t enough to finalize a routing, given how much time we know was devoted to looking at NGLA.
6. Not sure, but if they say they laid out five plans, I figure they laid out five plans. Course and Courses is word parsing. That said, we cannot know how different each of these plans was. And to the degree that (at least for CBM) routing and placing features were intertwined more than most, then it is quite possible that some of these plans, and some of parts of these plans had features on them.
But laying out a golf course usually refers to routing. Feature design is usally called feature design.
As to your last paragraph and your “bottom line”, Mike and I are not excluding CBM from the design process at all. I am not trying to say Merion came up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's in those two visits. No doubt the NGLA trip and subsequent visit were big impacts. I have said that all along and you keep telling me I haven’t.
The record doesn’t show any more contact, but I believe those three contacts over four days were more than enough for CBM to impart what he could impart to Merion to go back and build the course.
-
Jim,
By the way, did you get my point about the location/configuration of the 1st hole limiting them?
No, but I know we've discussed in the past that the first green was built with the drawing of Golf House Road from November right through it...is that your angle?
-
Jeff,
I agree and this is way past the point of ridiculousness.
Why for God's sake would CBM ever have to come back down to "approve" his own plan?
David is just trying to find any way possible to twist every word and meaning to exclude Hugh Wilson and his committee and then turns it around as if we're trying to exclude CBM.
It's pointless and logic doesn't matter, because learning the truth is not the goal...in the least.
-
David, I think we have asked the questions and answered them to our own satisfaction. As to repeating myself on the deletion of the word routing, I keep asking myself, "Why does he pick on irrelevant items but refuse to answer factual questions, like "if not routing, just what were those plans?"
You haven't answered my question at all. You explained that you think you know what was meant, but that is no reason to misrepresent it to us and it is certainly no reason to misquote me, removing the key word from my quote.
This is not the first time you have done this to my quotes Jeff.
Would you explain why you misquoted me? Because you haven't so far.
____________________________
As for the rest. My comments were for Bryan. I really could care less what you think about any of it. We already know what you will believe that the document means whatever you need to to support your conclusion.
It is a bit like you changing my quote. You have your answer already, so you just change my quote to suit your answer. Here you know the answer already, so you just twist the words to suit that answer. You write off some words to typos or mistakes when they clearly are not, you ignore other words, and you tilt everything your way. You have little or no basis for any of it, but you do it because it produces the answer you want.
Yet you have the nerve to attack my essay as without factual basis? A farce.
-
Jim,
The way the first hole was designed and built cuts off access to get to the other side of the property north of the clubhouse in any way other than behind it, where they built 13.
Essentially, it was built in this way to accommodate the need for the road crossings on 10, 11, & 12...those holes would have been too short given property constraints south of Ardmore Avenue at that time for holes running north and south. So, number one essentially was built curving around the 10th green and 11th tee, and pressed so hard against the boundary that they actually needed to get a sliver of land beyond the boundary of the Johnson Farm.
Given that first hole location, how would you ever use the land directly across the street from the clubhouse?? No wonder Francis tells us it didn't fit with ANY GOLF PLANS (again, indicating multiple routings at that point).
So, if you think about it from the perspective of the first 13 holes being relatively easy to locate per Francis, the ONLY place you could be at that point given your first hole is over behind the clubhouse by the 13th green.
Now, I know you've been over there, but think about your options from that point on if you still had five holes to go.
Now, think about your options if there was no land available north of the 17th green, a mere pittance past the quarry.
You are correct...they would have had to have been INSANE if they did this without at least some of the triangle land already available to them in their planning.
I don't think they were insane men.
Here's what they would have had left to work with....for their final five holes.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5687802607_5e893f346d_b.jpg)
Note how much of the remaining land is taken by the quarry.
Recall where the first hole ran, essentially blocking any other route but coming up from 13 behind the clubhouse.
Again, I don't think they were insane men, but if there was no triangle land available to them in their planning prior to Francis they would have been absolutely certifiable.
-
Imagine Dom Toak, the foremost expert in golf design, trying to help out some golfers who admittedly didn't know the first thing about what they are doing.
- Doak visits their site, gives them some advice, maybe makes some changes or additions to a rough routing someone else had done a few weeks before, and tells them that he can't tell them for sure it will work without a contour map.
- They try to use the rough routing and his advice to stake out a course, but it doesn't quite fit, but one of them has a brainstorm about adding a little land to the north so they can get it to fit.
- They still arent entirely sure what they are doing or what they should do, so these guys (who may have already sent Toak the contour map he needed) go visit him at his home course. He likes the change to the routing the one guy came up with and he tells them to go with that. He also takes them around and shows them plans and tells them in more detail what he thinks they should do and where, and he may even give them some different options and choices on how to do certain things. And he tells them to head back, to stake out the different options, and that he would come down in a few weeks and check on it.
- They return home and rearrange the course to include the routing the one had suggested and also lay out some different options pursuant to their conversations.
-Toak comes down a few weeks later as promised and looks at the ground again and how the different options fit on the land and decides on the best option (which may have been a combination of the different options.)
- These guys report to their board that Toak approved the plan they are presenting and that Toak thinks it will make a great course. The board hears this and approves the plan and they build the course according to plan.
-
Mike,
Regarding #1833: They could have buile 14 - 16 quite similar to the end result based on the dimensions of the triangle on the November Map.! That's the point!
You see the narrowness of the drawing relative to the as built triangle as proof that they didn't have it figured out yet. You've said numerous times that they couldn'thave built two holes in that little width. There are 6 other instances on that course of adjoining holes covering a very similar width. How do you explain that? They did it 6 times but wouldn't do it a 7th?
I still don't quite get your angle about #1 though...I have no argument that #1 - 13 were more intuitive, primarily due to the location of the clubhouse and the width of the property (as Jeff has pointed out as a natural asset) and that the last 5 would have been more challenging...but the only improvement YOUR idea of the Swap would open up is the ladies aid around the quarry. You've often asked why these guys would do certain things on their "Championship Course"...well I'll ask you, why does a ladies aid put this Champioship Course over the top?
-
Jim,
On my post #1816 I show how they could have fit two holes into the dimensions of the original triangle as drawn.
It just isn't very good.
You don't see the alternate route around the quarry on #16 as necessary and integral to the routing playability of a hole that was 430 yards with hickory shafts and wiffle balls, but quite obviously THEY did! ;) ;D
They had hundreds of members who were just learning the game who would use the course day in and day out.
Remember the articles from 1915 that said Merion had very few bunkers. Remember why?? Because for the average member it was already a ball buster without them.
Recall also some of what Alan Wilson told us;
These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other...
...The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players....
...We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not..
-
Jim,
My point about the first hole cutting across the property from the clubhouse to the western boundary is that it left only one way to get up to the northern side of the property on the way back...behind the clubhouse where the 13th green was located.
So, given that you're now on the old 13th green, with five holes left to go, can you imagine any possible routing that would/could utilize the land directly across the street from the clubhouse (the land now covered by fine holes along Golf House Road)?
Let me also reiterate that if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue! ;) ;D
-
Mike,
Have you ever heard of laying up?
The carry over the quarry on #16 is about 100 yards from the end of the fairway. If it takes two shots to get to the end of the fairway, so be it. The carry over the quarry on #17 is about 150 and on #18 it's at least that long. The committee built both those holes with no option to go around yet you insist they would never consider doing one of 2/3 that length on #16...I agree that it was off the ground as opposed to off a tee and in the case of 17, downhill but you have to admit the evidence immediately after your 16th hole undermines your position pretty clearly. Jeff? Can you at least admit this?
For the Francis Swap to be as you guys describe, the only architectural benefit to the course is the ladies aid around the quarry on #16...would that truly be worth the memory 40 years later of a guy who accomplished a great deal in golf...especially when his description of the event was specific, and much more influential then this bit???
When you say..."if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue"...how far in the process? It's my contention that this happened in September or October of 1910. The only thing you guys have to argue against that is the quarryman blowing the top off...remember, by this time Lloyd owned (or had an agreement to buy) half of HDC...I think he could authorize a little stone work...
-
Jim,
You're missing my point, I think. ;)
The question isn't whether they needed to build the alternate route or not...the only relevant fact is that they thought they needed to and did build it!
I think they saw the idea that most of their members would be left with a 160-230 yard approach on a 435 yard par four that was all carry to reach the green as untenable. In fact, we KNOW they did because they built the alternate route around.
As far as chipping it down for the second shot, what the hell kind of golf is that Jim? ;)
So once they decided that they needed to build that alternate route, EVEN WITH THE somewhat slimmer, longer triangle land in play, I think it left them flummoxed to fit the rest of the holes until Mr. Francis came up with an elegantly simple idea, the jist of which was;
If we don't have enough land to build the last five holes we want, perhaps we can get more land? ;D
-
Jim,
Mike has been playing this same shell game with the property lines for years now. What he always conveniently forgets is that prior to the swap there was plenty of land to the west and there would have been no need to have the 14th fairway (or whatever was to be there) impinge on the alternate route to the 16th green.
And of course he forgets the Francis statement.
-
Mike,
More to the point, they always had a flexible road so they could add width if needed so there's no reason to feel constrained by Golf House Road as drawn.
-
Why is Francis's 1950 account given more weight than Hugh Wilson's own 1917 account and his contemporaneous letters?
-
One of the non-technical issues that causes me to reflect on the issue was when Tom MacWood asked the following basic question.
And, I'll preface the question by stating that Hugh Wilson was appointed Chairman of the Construction committee.
Tom's question, or statement was, and I'm paraphrasing.
Why would a club that wanted to design/build a world class championship golf course cede that responsibility, the responsibilty of routing, individual hole and feature design to an inexperienced amateur ?
-
Pat (and Tom),
My personal answer to that is two-fold...
First, I think a committee was primarily responsible for the original lay out of Merion East, not a single guy.
Second, once laid out, they relied on Hugh Wilson to construct it to those ideas.
Third, I know...Wilson is primarily repsonsible for the golf course because they knew it would be a long term evolution to the finished product (and it was) and not even Tom or Dave argue that from May 1, 1911 Hugh Wilson gets the lion share of credit through the mid-20's until Flynn garnered some.
-
Pat (and Tom),
My personal answer to that is two-fold...
First, I think a committee was primarily responsible for the original lay out of Merion East, not a single guy.
Second, once laid out, they relied on Hugh Wilson to construct it to those ideas.
Third, I know...Wilson is primarily repsonsible for the golf course because they knew it would be a long term evolution to the finished product (and it was) and not even Tom or Dave argue that from May 1, 1911 Hugh Wilson gets the lion share of credit through the mid-20's until Flynn garnered some.
You didn't answer the question. Why Wilson (or the equally inexperienced committee)?
-
Jim,
I understand your points, but, with acknowledged experts at your disposal, would you entrust the design, the routing and individual hole and feature designs to a novice ?
Once a course is built, almost every green chairman tries to tinker with it.
It's the routing and original design that's the difficult part.
After it's built, tinkering or fine tuning is easy.
-
Jim,
My point about the first hole cutting across the property from the clubhouse to the western boundary is that it left only one way to get up to the northern side of the property on the way back...behind the clubhouse where the 13th green was located.
So, given that you're now on the old 13th green, with five holes left to go, can you imagine any possible routing that would/could utilize the land directly across the street from the clubhouse (the land now covered by fine holes along Golf House Road)?
Let me also reiterate that if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue! ;) ;D
Mike,
You may recall the map below. The acreage below Haverford College and north of Ardmore, including the southern area of JW is no smaller than using the road as a boundary and adding the triangle. With a hundred years of retrospect, it looks like routing the last five holes in there would be difficult. But then they figured that out too. Rather than being lunatics, perhaps they were just totally inexperienced rank amateurs in the time before the Francis swap. They did figure out in a couple of years that they didn't initially know how difficult the process of designing and building a course would be.
As to Tom's question, perhaps the simple answer is that they were successful, rich business men who were good golfers, and they took it on because they could, and they wanted to. I've taken on many projects (not building golf courses) because I thought I could do them and I wanted to. Sometimes it turned out I'd have been better served to get professional help. Other times they turned out just as well or better. Perhaps the Merion men just had enough ego to want to do it themselves.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionAcreageMapv2copy.jpg)
-
Mike, Jeff and your peanut gallery,
As I've asked David, who do you think put pen to paper to draw up the 5 plans, or the plan(s) that preceded them? How confident are you of your answer?
Also, there are a number of references in the posts above to the Francis routing as it relates to the swap Francis proposed. Is there any evidence that Francis had a routing, that he had prepared, when he proposed the swap to Lloyd? Or a routing he personally did after Lloyd agreed to the swap?
If they indeed started blasting the 16th green a day or two after the midnight ride does that not suggest that there was an approved plan showing at least the 16th green before that time? Else, why blast a green site that wasn't approved by CBM or the Board yet?
Just trying to understand the timeline.
-
David,
Not to go all Mucci on you, but I think the easiest way to address your points is to intersperse my comments in your post below. As a general comment, I think it might help lower the temperature of the debate if you didn't use the word "pretend" so much in referring to Jeff and Mike's ideas. The words "infer" or "speculate" are probably more accurate. They have their analysis and you have yours. In either case there is a lot on logical inference that goes on. Saying they pretend is pejorative. Hopefully they will follow suit in their responses to you.
So much for trying to cover all this in a more organized and productive manner.
________________________________________________________________
................................................
________________________________________________________
Bryan,
I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation in this environment, but I guess I will give it a shot. Well, let's give it a shot.
There is a lot about that Lesley report to the board that I don't understand and a lot of open questions out there about it that people aren't even asking.
1. Is the transcript we have been given accurate and authentic? I've never seen the actual minutes. I have been denied access to them by both MCC and MGC. I know that TEPaul keeps claiming that anyone can look at them, but this is false. Wayne has arranged it so is the minutes are not available through normal channels, or at least they are not available to anyone who might actually view them with a critical eye. So at this point it is impossible to know if what we have been given is an accurate and complete record of what happened.
Unfortunately we have been provided a number of different versions of the transcript of this supposed report over the years, and this only adds to the uncertainty about its authenticity. Add to that the fact that on multiple occasions the Faker Flynn authors have put forth inaccurate and incomplete information and claimed it was authentic. So it is difficult to know whether to trust this information or not.
That said, I hope this latest version in accurate, but I really wonder about what was before and after that report in the records and why the rest of the records for that meeting were not included on the Flynn Faker pdf. Why wouldn't they have included the records where the golf course was actually approved?
As it is we have little choice but to work of of what we have, but we should all keep in mind the possibility that games are still being played with this material, as games have been being played for years. If it's not accurate, then this part of the discussion is moot. If someday we discover that it is inaccurate or incomplete then I will join you in criticizing those who put it forth.
2. Who is the author of the report?
The answer seems obvious. Lesley is the author. "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds." But in the past TEPaul and Mike have tried to argue that this was something Wilson had written and that Lesley was reading for Wilson. That doesn't make any sense to me and there is no indication of this in any text I have seen. If this is the case then they ought to bring forward information supporting this. As a neutral reader of the passage, I would say that the Golf Committee were the authors. Practically that probably means one of the members wrote it on their behalf. I've seen no evidence one way or the other to indicate who precisely wrote it. In my working life I prepared many reports that were presented by my superiors in forums that I wasn't invited to. In that context, I'd read it that Lesley was the superior delivering the message from the Committee. Why does it matter to this discussion?
3. What were the many different courses?
From the beginning of the report, "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land . . ." I assume that the "many different courses" were variations on the route of the golf course. I'd agree with that assumption. It seems the most likely.
The many "different golf courses" could easily refer to variations of routings. While it is far from clear, the description could refer to the variations up to that point, including Barker's rough routing, CBM/HJW's suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan (I'm sorry, but I don't recall any specific document that says that CBM/HJW suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan. Is this an inference on your part?) (including the addition of the land behind the clubhouse,) Lloyd's and Francis' attempts to make this fit onto the pre-swap land, (I'm sorry, but I don't recall any specific document that says that Lloyd and Francis specifically were the ones trying to lay out courses on the pre-swap land. Is this another inference on your part?) and the post swap routing that Francis figured out. Again, do we know that there is a post-swap routing that Francis specifically figured out?
4. Who from Merion went to NGLA? We've always assumed it was the Construction Committee, but this report casts doubts on that. Lesley wasn't on the Construction Committee, yet he reports that "on OUR return [from NGLA], WE arranged . . ." It sure sounds like he was at NGLA. In Wilson's 1916 chapter makes it sound as if his Construction Committee was there, so there is some confusion in my mind who was actually there. There are other reasons I have my doubts about who was there and who wasn't, but I will hold them for now. Let's just say that it is somewhat of an open question, at least in my mind. A simple interpretation consistent with my comments above is that Lesley was reporting for the Committee. and that the "our" and "we" refer only to the Committee that wrote the report that Lesley delivered. But, as you say, it is still an open question.
5. What were "his plans?" Lesley reported, they "spent the evening looking over HIS PLANS and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses . . . ." As a neutral reader, I thought it meant either CBM's plans for NGLA or for specific ideal holes that went with the various "data" he had collected overseas. Don't include me in the "you guys" below. I give you this as a neutral reader with no particular bias on this point. Since all of you guys seem to think "plans' is synonymous with routing, then this ought to settle it right? I didn't think so. Rather you guys have tried to explain this away, arguing these must be plans from overseas or plans for NGLA but they couldn't possibly be plans for Merion - anything but that! But we know that CBM told them he needed a contour map and we know that they had a contour map for months at least. So it seems entirely possible that they were there going over CBM's plans for Merion and data from overseas, on which those plans were based. We don't know, but it is certainly a possibility. I agree we don't know. Yours is one possibility. Mine is a possibility. No doubt there are other possibilities. There is no objective way to weigh one possibility against the others without some more information.
6. What was meant by: "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans?"[/i] This is another statement which is far from clear, yet you some here think it only could mean one thing: Merion came up with five different routings on their own and these routings really must have had nothing to do with the trip to NGLA. I find this preposterous for many different reasons, but mainly because it ignores the first half of the sentence and ignores that these guys had just been going over this stuff with CBM!
a. The reading ignores the first half if the sentence. The "re-arranged the course." Course is singular. Before the NGLA meetings they had tried "many different courses" --plural, as in they had tried a number of routings. But after the NGLA meeting they rearranged the course --singular as in they rearranged the course to fit with what had been decided. If this sentence is talking about routings, this seems to be the place where it is talking about routings. I think dissecting the text is not all that helpful. Taken in totality, one possibility for me is that they tried many different routings of the course before NGLA. Perhaps they had focused in on one. When they returned from NGLA they rearranged that one and came up with 5 more routings. Another possibility is that the singular "course" that they rearranged referred to the generic concept of the course and that they had many routings of "the course" before they left and they reduced those many routings to five when they returned. In the end, we don't know that level of detail.
b. What were these "five plans?" Many have pretended these were distinct routings and that Merion came up with them after and without CBM. But we don't know this, and to me it seems unlikely given that they also rearranged the singular course. The differences could have had to to with hole lengths or green designs (should the 14th hole be the double plateau green and the 15th the hog's back green, or visa versa?) The differences could have had to do with the order in which the holes played. (Should the course start the 14th thus ending with a par 3? Or should it Start on the par 3 13th and end on the 12th? Should the redan come after the 2nd hole? ) We don't know. I agree, we don't know. I would infer that when they came back they developed 5 routings or variations on routings. I don't think it really matters that we know in detail what the differences in the routings were. It seems clear that they were after the NGLA visit. Whether CBM was involved in developing the 5 plans after NGLA, nobody knows. You don't know he was involved, and they don't know he wasn't. And back to my initial question to you and recently to them: who do you think actually drew the 5 plans. It seems unlikely to me that it was CBM/HJW. But, I don't know.
c. What is meant by "laid out" five different plans? For that matter, when Lesley used this phrase earlier when speaking of the different courses, and what did he mean there? Were these five different plans that they had developed at NGLA and were laying off on the ground to see how they worked? Were these five different pland the CBM "plans" referred to above? It is not at all clear. I agree that it's not clear. It could be they laid out five plans on five contour maps or just pieces of paper. Or they could have laid out five sets of stakes on the ground under consideration. To me, as a neutral observer, it seems clear to me that the 5 plans were laid out after they came back from NGLA. It seems unlikely to me that they were laid out on paper at NGLA in the two days. I'm don't understand what CBM "plans" you're referring to above?
I could go on. There are many more ambiguities. But the bottom line is for me is that rather than excluding CBM from the design process as Mike and Jeff pretend, this Lesley passage puts CBM and HJW right it heart and calling the shots! I don't think that Jeff and mike have excluded CBM from the design process. I thought both agreed that he provided input and advice in his letter, at the NGLA meeting and in choosing the final plan. Do you want them to accept some additional contributions to the design process? Do you think he drew the five plans that followed the NGLA meeting or the many courses that preceded the NGLA meeting? Do you think that he specifically instructed someone else on how to draw them? You seem to agree that there are many ambiguities and that there are no real answers to a lot of your questions. I'm not sure how you can expect them to agree to additional credit in the design beyond the three items above, when you don't see a clear answer in the evidence. It seems to me we are really nit-picking at this point.
In other words, I don't think we can parse out the "five plans" language and pretend that these two words explain how really Merion came up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after! If the trip to NGLA and CBM/HJW's return visit weren't key details of the design process, Lesley wouldn't have explained them, nor would he have thanked CBM/HJW years later for their help! I think everyone agrees that CBM/HJW made key contributions to the design process through his letter, at the NGLA meeting, and in choosing the final plan. Based on what you've written above, the remaining point of contention around crediting CBM/HJW in the design process is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come "up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!" I see nothing in what you've written or in the documentation that supports that assertion. You may feel it is reasonable factual analysis, but as you've said a number of time above, we just don't know. Until we do know, I don't think it would be fair to claim more credit that the three points above.
-
Mike,
More to the point, they always had a flexible road so they could add width if needed so there's no reason to feel constrained by Golf House Road as drawn.
Jim,
Not sure I understand your point here (or David's) that "there was plenty of land to the west" they could use.
Where?
I've enclosed in blue lines the land they would be left with after routing 13 holes and they could only go as far west as the boundary of the Johnson Farm, which is what I've drawn.
Are you both saying that they could have run some holes east/west north of the clubhouse? How exactly might that have worked?
-
Why is Francis's 1950 account given more weight than Hugh Wilson's own 1917 account and his contemporaneous letters?
Wilson wrote to Piper and Oakley about agronomic issues...they were from the Department of Agriculture. Wilson's 1916 rememberances to P&O were for a publication where they were specifically asked to write about agronomic issues.
Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
Plus, Bryan Izatt and I posted ALL of the P&O letters you sent us here a few years back and I'm pretty certain that nobody interpreted them in the way that you did.
Besides, Tom...Wilson in 1916 DID write that his committee both laid out and built the golf course...two separate steps.
And please don't reiterate the ridiculous notion that these patrician gentlemen were out there driving stakes into the ground to someone else's plans...it's clear from the MCC Minutes that they were quite familiar with the term lay out to indicate the design process on paper.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
As to your other question/statement, now reiterated by Patrick following his man-crush on CBM, it's obvious that you haven't been keeping up with the fact that at that time, ALL of the best courses in America were designed by amateur members for their own clubs.
You also recently asked the same question about Tillinghast at Shawnee, until Phil Young totally repudiated you with a flurry of facts.
Don't you get tired making up baseless accusations and grand proclamations that have no historical basis in fact?
-
Mike,
Well, perhaps not every good course was done by amateurs, but it simply did happen in a few documented cases.
I have to ask TMac and Pat what part of the historic process ignores documents of what happens in favor of opinions of what long ago people should have done according to todays "experts?" (i.e., Pat and Tom)
For that matter, I wonder if CBM was really "at their disposal?" Perhaps a George Bahto could fill us in on how busy CBM was with other clubs, other items in his life (work!) and the like. If he was at their disposal, why is the first meeting after the land purchase in March and not December or January? It could very well be that was CBM's first open day on the calendar, no? I'm not sure, but fact is that is the first day they met with him.
Bryan,
Good question on who drew the maps. It would seem Francis was added to the committee for his ability to draw maps and for his engineering skills. Just a guess, but he probably drew u the plans that were devised by the committee.
Your point by point analysis of David's last point mostly mirrors mine. In re-reading David's post I get even a clearer view of his "process." Basically, to posit that CBM did the routing much earlier than the records show he assisted the committee the following have to be true:
Merion is changing its record on purpose and witholding the truth from him
Merion's record is flawed in that Lesley said he was reporting for the committee, and was the reports author
The committee saying "we routed many different courses" could mean that CBM or even Barker routed them
That the difference between "course" and "courses" is monumentally instructive (there is always just one course, no matter how many prelims you draw for it)
You get the idea. David simply overthinks the little things to try to steer the case his way. But, IMHO, far too many alternate interpretations of simple words and sentences would have to line up perfectly for his theories to be true.
As you say, neither Mike and I are trying to cut CBM out of the process, we are just not trying to expand it along a different time line than the documents show. But, I think those four days were plenty of assistance and no doubt Merion wouldn't be the course it is without them. I am not sure why, but David just isn't satisfied that this is enough credit to CBM.
-
Mike,
You may recall the map below. The acreage below Haverford College and north of Ardmore, including the southern area of JW is no smaller than using the road as a boundary and adding the triangle. With a hundred years of retrospect, it looks like routing the last five holes in there would be difficult. But then they figured that out too. Rather than being lunatics, perhaps they were just totally inexperienced rank amateurs in the time before the Francis swap. They did figure out in a couple of years that they didn't initially know how difficult the process of designing and building a course would be.
Bryan,
As I mentioned to Jim, their problem with routing the final five holes if no triangle land was available wasn't just a question of total acreage necessarily, but available land configuration.
Precisely, there simply wasn't/isn't much room to build a hole going east/west on that part of the property.
David talks about having all this room to the west and Jim mentions that they could have moved the boundary of that road as they saw fit, but exactly how much room would you say there is between your yellow boundary line on the right and the green left boundary of the Johnson Farm land on your map? Enough to get one hole going that way perhaps? And then what?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5689798963_c8c085c76f_o.jpg)
Also, here again is a blow up of the infamous triangle showing exactly how much of the Johnson Land they actually used.
I find it inconceivable that this dramatic boundary change affecting 138 yards of golf course fronting land along the boundary line between the HDC development and the golf course would not have been reflected on the to-scale November 15th, 1910 Land Plan if it had been done by that point.
I can't think of any real reason it wouldn't be...can you?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5690385716_7587773a46_o.jpg)(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5146/5689848251_a7331047f5_o.jpg)
By the way, I thought your answers to David were spot on and very objectively and accurately stated.
-
Mike,
Well, perhaps not every good course was done by amateurs, but it simply did happen in a few documented cases.
I have to ask TMac and Pat what part of the historic process ignores documents of what happens in favor of opinions of what long ago people should have done according to todays "experts?" (i.e., Pat and Tom)
For that matter, I wonder if CBM was really "at their disposal?" Perhaps a George Bahto could fill us in on how busy CBM was with other clubs, other items in his life (work!) and the like. If he was at their disposal, why is the first meeting after the land purchase in March and not December or January? It could very well be that was CBM's first open day on the calendar, no? I'm not sure, but fact is that is the first day they met with him.
Bryan,
Good question on who drew the maps. It would seem Francis was added to the committee for his ability to draw maps and for his engineering skills. Just a guess, but he probably drew u the plans that were devised by the committee.
Your point by point analysis of David's last point mostly mirrors mine. In re-reading David's post I get even a clearer view of his "process." Basically, to posit that CBM did the routing much earlier than the records show he assisted the committee the following have to be true:
Merion is changing its record on purpose and witholding the truth from him
Merion's record is flawed in that Lesley said he was reporting for the committee, and was the reports author
The committee saying "we routed many different courses" could mean that CBM or even Barker routed them
That the difference between "course" and "courses" is monumentally instructive (there is always just one course, no matter how many prelims you draw for it)
You get the idea. David simply overthinks the little things to try to steer the case his way. But, IMHO, far too many alternate interpretations of simple words and sentences would have to line up perfectly for his theories to be true.
As you say, neither Mike and I are trying to cut CBM out of the process, we are just not trying to expand it along a different time line than the documents show. But, I think those four days were plenty of assistance and no doubt Merion wouldn't be the course it is without them. I am not sure why, but David just isn't satisfied that this is enough credit to CBM.
Jeff,
A few things in response.
The three best American courses, by far, at that time were acknowledged to be Garden City, Myopia, and Chicago, all done by amateurs. NGLA was also just soft opening in July 1910, which was the fourth of that type.
The history of Philadelphia golf to that point was very amateur driven, as well, and no need for me to reiterate hundreds of articles produced by Joe Bausch in that regard.
Golf course architecture as a Profession was in its very nascent stage, and I would clearly differentiate men like Ross who made a dedicated profession of it versus the early golf pros who did it as a sidelight in one-day routings as part of their overall teaching, clubmaking, and greenkeeping duties on the early courses...the men MacWood seemingly seeks to elevate for his own reasons that seem to have little to do with actual factual history.
As far as Macdonald having the time, as I mentioned, NGLA only soft-opened in July 1910 and the reports of the course condition were pretty raw. Also, CBM was having to build a clubhouse.
That he gave any time and help to Merion at all while at the realization of his dream course opening is to his credit.
To suggest he was "available" is simply not factual history.
As far as David and Tom MacWood not being satisfied that we give CBM credit, that isn't their goal.
Their goal is to diminish the involvement of Hugh Wilson for their own personal reasons, no matter how many facts we list, and no matter what evidence surfaces that they try to explain away, like the following.
Since we're talking about the land deals and such, what do you make of the fact that Wilson (and Merion) wanted to acquire land south of the Johnson farm originally, where today's 11th green and 12th tee are located?
That sure would have solved the problem of having to cross the road three times.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5189/5690385854_8459c22953_o.jpg)
-
Mike, Jeff and your peanut gallery,
As I've asked David, who do you think put pen to paper to draw up the 5 plans, or the plan(s) that preceded them? How confident are you of your answer?
Also, there are a number of references in the posts above to the Francis routing as it relates to the swap Francis proposed. Is there any evidence that Francis had a routing, that he had prepared, when he proposed the swap to Lloyd? Or a routing he personally did after Lloyd agreed to the swap?
If they indeed started blasting the 16th green a day or two after the midnight ride does that not suggest that there was an approved plan showing at least the 16th green before that time? Else, why blast a green site that wasn't approved by CBM or the Board yet?
Just trying to understand the timeline.
Bryan,
I'm confident the various plans were almost certainly drawn up by Richard Francis, who tells us he was added to the committee specifically for his surveying and engineering skills.
I've referred to the "Francis routing", but only as shorthand for the final approved plan that seems to have been a result of his brainstorm for the final holes.
I do get where you are going with your questions though, and have also considered that his brainstorm could very well have happened AFTER April 19th 1911, during early construction and prior to the final sale and signing over the deed to Merion in July 1911
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything to refute it except the MCC Minutes stating that the final approved plan required the swapping of land, and the addition of 3 acres.
Still, I agree that it is WAY more possible that this happened AFTER April 1911 than by November 1910.
-
Mike
It is healthy to question the story IMO. A few years ago very few knew CBM was involved, and no one knew Barker was involved. They didn't even know who Barker was. And it was thought Wilson traveled overseas prior to designing the golf course. The story of the real estate venture was generally unknown too. We know a hell of lot more today than we knew then, and the emerging story is quite different than the legend. Instead of accusing others of trying to diminish Wilson and endlessly speculating, why not devote our efforts to finding the answers to the remaining unanswered questions.
IMO a good first start would be posting the entire entry that deals with the five plans.
-
TMac,
Despite our differences on the exact subject matter, I couldn't agree with you more that it is always worthwhile to question things again in a fresh light. And certainly, David's essay and your work on Barker sheds a bit more light on the whole era.
To me the unanswered questions would be more like filling in the details - like the lost Barker routing, the lost contour map Wilson sent to Piper, etc. Perhaps poring over the supposed Drexel documents of Lloyd to see if there is any snippet that might help us understand more.
But, as you so wisely said, there isn't any new info at the moment, so maybe these discussions could be on hold for a while?
-
Bryan,
It is very difficult for me to carry on a conversation about this when everyone of our exchanges is followed by the types of misrepresentations and ridiculousness and false accusations that follow your last post. I never claimed Merion was changing their record or withholding anything. TEPaul is not even a member of Merion and doesn't speak for Merion, and I have been told by Merion who has the authority to speak for Merion on these matters and and sure as heck isn't either of the Flynn Fakers. And when Jeff Brauer is going so far as to add and subtract words from what he presents as DIRECT QUOTES of my work, that is not "inferring" or "speculating." If anything, "pretend" is much to kind a word for what these guys are doing here.
Also Bryan, with respect, I don't consider you a neutral reader. I don't believe in such things. Your subjectivities and biases are different than mine or Mike's, but that doesn't make you neutral. You try to keep your subjectivities and biases in check, but then so do I. I don't think your interpretations are any more plausible than mine just because you consider yourself "neutral."
1. We agree that Lesley was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee. My understanding was that he was the chair of that Committee. However, I do not believe that Hugh Wilson was part of the Golf Committee in the spring of 1911 or before. I could be misremembering or mistaken, but I do not think that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee and Merion's Golf Committee were the same thing. I think their only overlap was H.G. Lloyd.
- You say you see no evidence of who wrote it, but there is strong evidence of who wrote it! It is written in first person! First person is a strong indicator that the person delivering the report is the person who wrote the report! That is the way our language works. I have written plenty of things which were ultimately delivered by another, but I have never had anyone ever report on my experiences in first person, as if they were their own!
- But let's just stick to where we agree. Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee. So then, who was it that went to NGLA? The Golf Committee? Or the Construction Committee? Or some combination? Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems to have been there. But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.
- And if Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee, then who at Merion was in charge of getting the course planned? Wilson's sub-committee, or Lesley's Golf Committee?
- It matters to this discussion because it is not entirely clear that Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with the planning even after they were appointed. Based on what we have been told, MERION'S 1910-1911 RECORDS NEVER MENTION WILSON OR HIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO THE DESIGN.
2. As for the "many different courses" we have some agreement. To answer your questions about whether I am just speculating and inferring: We know of the Barker rough routing. CBM/HJW suggested that Merion add the land near the clubhouse. Francis tells that with the swap he changed the routing and that Lloyd approved it.
3. You accuse me of dissecting the text regarding the statement that they "rearranged the course." I don't get this. All the other interpretations just ignore or read this part as meaningless. When Lesley reported on many different courses, you agree he was likely discussing routings. Yet here when he wrote of rearranging the course, he is no longer speaking of routings? I don't get that at all. And I don't think it makes sense for them to say the rearranged the course (singular) if then the also came up with five different routings. Taken as a totality, it seems that they rearranged the course, and that there were five different iterations or variances of this course.
4. As for the five different plans, I think it unreasonable for Mike et. al to conclude that CBM was NOT involved in the creation of those five plans. And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process -- they went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them; he came back to check on them and made the final decision. Not unlike todays architect might direct his associates.
I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation. If Merion wasn't trying to implement what they had learned from CBM then why have him return to go over it again and make the final decision?
5. And that is what I think you are missing. I readily admit we don't know exactly what happened. I am trying to figure out what is most likely given everything we know. Their approach seems to be that if I cannot prove to an absolutely certainty what exactly happened, then we have to accept what they guess happened. That is not the way these things work. The question is, which makes more sense? Whatever disagreements you have with my understanding, there are tenfold problems and shortcomings with theirs.
What is more likely?
-That whoever went to NGLA sat their with ears in fingers not learning anything, then miraculously came up with five wholly distinct routings that had nothing to do with what they learned at NGLA, and then CBM/HJW just happened to show up, saying "Wow, that never occurred to me, but if you do it your course will be great," and they ignored this, too, yet just happened to like the same version without considering his opinion and they went with that?
-Or that they went to NGLA for direction for what to do, and CBM gave him that direction, and they took his advice to heart and returned home to try and implement that advice, but they still weren't sure, so they brought him back again to go over everything again and make the final decision?
It seems a pretty obvious choice to me.
6. You state that the only remaining issue "is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come 'up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!'"
I disagree. I think you are falling into the exact same thing I discuss immediately above. You seem to think the standard for them is one of mere possibility but the standard for me is one of absolute irrefutable proof.
Do you understand what I am getting at here? It is a question of methodology and standards of proof. You seem to have a double standard here. They have proven little or nothing, and it seems from my perspective that my theory is by far the most plausible and reasonable. Yet you say that my theory must fail unless I prove that Merion couldn't have come up with on their own? I don't get it? Since when is that the standard?
Why is mere possibility good enough for their theory? Why is absolute irrefutable proof the standard for me?
Or maybe I have it wrong? What exactly is your methodology here, Bryan?
________________________________
I almost forgot. I don't know who drew up the five plans or when they were drawn up. Given the totality of the Lesley report, it seems that one of two things are most likely:
1.The five variations were conceived at NGLA and then tried out at Merion.
2.The five variations were a product of some ambiguity, confusion, or lack of clarity in the single course they had come up with at NGLA.
-
- But let's just stick to where we agree. Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee. So then, who was it that went to NGLA? The Golf Committee? Or the Construction Committee? Or some combination? Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems (bold mine) to have been there. But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.
I think the last post speaks for itself.
No wonder we can't have a productive discussion here. Suddenly, we have no freaking idea who went to NGLA! ::) :-X
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
"Merion’s East and West Golf Courses
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course." - Alan Wilson
What a bunch of liars those two Wilson brothers must have been!
What the hell is complicated about thsi??
Sheesh... :o
-
More pointless hyperbole by Mike Cirba, who obviously doesn't think my last point spoke for itself, or he would have let it.
Let me clarify. I think Hugh Wilson was there. But I have my doubts about the rest of the Construction Committee, except for perhaps H.G. Lloyd who I believe was also on the Golf Committee.
Can Mike say for certain that all of the Construction Committee was there? He cannot put anyone there except for Wilson. But Lesley seems to have been there as well and his report reads as if the Golf Committee was there.
-
Mike,
Another snippet, but do you find it odd that Alan Wilson would refer to his brother as "Mr. Wilson?" Remind me of the date of this Alan Wilson transcript? Was the last part ghosted? It just seems odd, but then, he did revere his brother and possibly was trying to write an objective piece. Either that, or the last part wasn't really his words.
Just wondering.
As to David characterizing our (my) recent posts as misrepresentation, well I stand by them. We still have many seemingly easy to understand documents, or the possibilities that many of them are simply wrong (albeit, some are and/or are confusing)
And without going into his post in detail again, he says its unreasonable for us to conclude that it wasn't an ongoing process. I don't think either of us has concluded that at all! Of course they brought back what they learned at the National and used it in their five plans. I agree and who could think otherwise.
I just wonder why he keeps saying we don't think that is the case? Either he simply likes to disagree, even when we agree, or he has a way different thought process - perhaps more black and white - than we do.
I will say again that I doubt the Barker routing came up at all at NGLA. I will also say again that there is virtually no chance Leslie wrote that report. It was written in the first person by Wilson (most likely) and read by Leslie in the second person. If he reads it verbatim, of course it sounds like its in the first person.
But overall, no one is saying they didn't learn a lot from the NGLA trip, and yet, it appears that David isn't quite satisfied with most of us agreeing with him. I am trying to understand that portion of his argument.
-
BTW, While MCC's records don't specifically point to Hugh Wilson and design, they don't point to CBM either! Nor Barker, other than to say THEY sure as hell didn't hire him. And, they somehow managed to lose the routing he did (although they lost their own, too)
As to the distinction between course vs courses, after all, there always was just one course to discuss. Talking about five courses is odd verbiage by todays standards, but I don't think its anything other than a minor miscue. But, I will say that this is a case of my interpretation vs David's, so there should be no ill will in any legitimate grey areas.
But I think he misrepresents us guessing at what happened. We believe all the records predominantly point to the committee routing the golf course with CBM's input over 3 days (after land bought, 4 total) Not sure why a simple read of the offical record would be called guessing? It seems to me as if David and Tom are the ones trying to cherry pick through inconsistencies to prove something else. Maybe its not right, but usually the champ (the existing record of events in this case) gets the benefit of the doubt. The record is the record. The majority of the record points to a committee design.
David is trying to challenge it. I do think he has a slightly higher burden of proof, which I don't think has been met, as everyone knows. Not enough documents point to CBM routing it, routing it in 1910, or many of the other things David has proposed, at least not at this time. At the moment, the value in his essay has been all the research and greater understanding of history it spawned, but it is not so far a game changer as to the basic history.
-
What nonsense.
Where in Merion's records does it say that Wilson had anything to do with the planning?
CBM is in the records throughout the process. Merion's records say that CBM and HJW approved the final layout plan!
-
And Jeff, what I said above is what I have always said. If you guys agree with it then why the hell the witch hunt for the past several years? Why the endless self-serving and insulting posts pronouncing me a fraud and my essay an absolute failure?
-
David,
I can only speak for myself, but the only issue I had was all the stuff about CBM doing the routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.
If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!
-
David,
I can only speak for myself, but the only issue I had was all the stuff about CBM doing the routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame.
Here you go again misrepresenting what I said. You just cannot seem to stop yourself!
"All the stuff?" All what stuff? Most of your argument has to to with the timing of the routing, and I stand by my theories on that whether it was CBM who did the early routing or not!
And I never claimed CBM did a routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame. My theory was that Merion started with Barker's routing, that CBM may have changed it (the extent to which we do not know) and Francis and Lloyd changed it further. All before Nov. 15, 1910. You agree that they were likely working off of Barker's routing early on, so what is your problem?
As usual, you just make shit up about my position to make yours sound more reasonable. My argument is much more nuanced that you realize or give credit.
If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!
No thanks. You cannot negotiate what really happened, but then that is obviously not what this is about for you!
-
David,
In the posts above you discuss what they obviously learned and brought back from the NGLA meeting. It doesnn't seem that position is consistent with you believing CBM routed it in 1910. When I say an earlier time frame, I mean the recorded time frame of March-April 1911 as IN THE RECORDS rather than pre-nov 1910.
You make crap up just to argue.
-
If it doesn't seem consistent it is because you don't understand it at either end.
I don't make up crap to argue. Look at your record. You make more misstatements and mistakes in a single day than I made in my entire essay. You change the words of MY QUOTES to try and make your point. Yet you say I am making crap up to argue?
Barker routed it originally.
CBM worked off of that routing, and made changes the extent of which we don't know.
Lloyd and Francis made changes (the swap) allowing the basic routing to fit.
Wilson went to NGLA for more help on the plan.
Merion took what they learned at NGLA with the Francis swap routing settled, and tried a number of alternatives.
CBM/HJW came back and went over everything again and chose the final layout plan.
Merion built the course according to that plan.
-
David,
The fact that three years in, you still have to parse it out and explain it because of its intracasies is proof enough for me that its mostly Moose Farts. (thanks to Jay Flemma for that discrptive term)
We aren't dumb. We just have trouble understanding that it was routed in 1910 and 1911. If you say it was some kind of collaborative effort in those three 1911 days (perhaps more if records show) we can agree. If you are trying to say it was routed in 1910, we don't.
I can understand the idea that it was roughly routed based on the June 1910 meeting, but I just don't see it that way. The prime drivers of the Nov parcel were using the land south of Ardmore, and meeting the 120 acre limit north of Ardmore while getting a development road through there. You say they might have gone west, but not do so and go over 120 acres for the basic plan.
Its not that I don't understand how you intuit your triangle theory either. It's just that my read of actual club documents and knowledge of land planning suggests its more likely that the routing was done after the land was purchased. But, I agree it was a long process of refinement, as I explained to Jim once. I just don't see that it had to be routing before then for erasons I explaine.
Got to go. We should let this drop though, as its clear we will never agree.
-
David mistakes the humble, team-oriented understatement of Wilson's Committee report as lack of evidence of his involvement. Further, his supposed "single effort" timeline is full of gross assumptions, none of which has a shred of physical or anecdotal evidence to support it.
We also have absolutely no idea what specific land of HDC's Barker was looking at or even CBM in June 1910 as the Dallas Estate wasn't under the control of HDC for another five months.
Jeff,
Alan Wilson wrote that in 1926. It was not ghosted but was included in a letter to a Mr. William Philler who was going to write a history of Merion and asked Alan Wilson for his remembrances.
Here it is in entirety;
Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. Wilson
Merion’s East and West Golf Courses
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.
[caps for emphasis mine)
Expect a barrage against Alan Wilson's credibility to follow....
-
Jeff Brauer, Of course it is simple for you. You just misread it to suit your needs, change a word here or there, and volla! you have your answer. At least that is what you have done repeatedly.
I won't comment on whether or not you are dumb, but your approach here is definitely not geared toward getting to the truth. Call it a difference in methodology if you like.
________________________
For Mike Cirba, "humble" and "understatement" is code for when the facts don't support his position but he will carry on anyway. But if fits with their overall approach, overstate what Wilson did, understate what CBM did.
And in a typical botched job, he claims to be posting the complete Alan Wilson letter "in its entirety" yet there are ellipses indicating an omission three paragraphs from the bottom. And how would he know if that is the complete letter? Does he have a copy?
-
So, what's your next essay?
Mr. Pot Meets Kettle?
-
Oh wait...damn, foiled again.
Here's the paragraph I purposefully omitted;
"Of course, I'm only being a shill for my departed brother Hugh, who really was a dunderhead that never showed up for work at our Insurance firm and who had an unnatural fixation with grass and construction techniques. Everyone knows that the genius of HH Barker is really responsible for our golf course but we'd like to fool all future generations. You see, Mr. Barker happened to be traveling on a train from Atlanta when he came near the Ardmore Station and saw a bunch of our members walking around dazed and confused, not sure what they were seeing exactly on the farm field we thought might make a good golf course."
"Within an hour, Mr. Barker had traversed the property, instructing our members to drive stakes into the ground. At first, we were perplexed and somewhat offended, but after a bit we began to see the wisdom of his ways. In particular, my brother Hugh seemed to take great delight in swinging the big sledgehammer, as did Mr. Lloyd, who almost swung with sadistic pleasure. When it was said and done, we had indeed "laid out" the course, which as mentioned, we're hoping to capitalize on in the future."
"Barker's work was so wonderful, indeed, that when our friend Charles Macdonald returned in April and saw where we had driven the stakes into the ground (actually, by that time, we had so much fun as manly men driving stakes into the ground that we tried it ourselves five more times using different color stakes) under Mr. Barker's instruction that he shouted, "MY GoD MAN...where is that Barker..he's a friggin' GENIUS!", and immediately sent Mr. Whigham back to England with the express instruction, "BRING BACK BARKER!"
"Of course, by that time Barker was pretty pissed that he hadn't been given the proper acclaim, and in form of the future American actor Ed Norton, completely disavowed our project at that point. That indeed made it easier for Macdonald to take some credit for himself, but in years later I heard rumors that he was often found muttering into the night, "what i'd give for 1/10th of the design talent of that friggin' Barker!".
"So, given that confusion already reigns around these little known facts, I am instructing future generations of the club to DELETE these particular paragraphs, and hopefully burn all copies. It will be our little patrician secret, and I will heretofore refer to anyone let into our little secret club as the "Philadelphia Mafia."
-
Jeff Brauer, No. I don't think I've ever sneakily added or subtracted words to your quotes or anyone else's quotes. I wouldn't do that because in my mind that sort of thing is incredibly unethical. I don't intentionally misrepresent the source material or other people's quotes to make petty points. That's your bailiwick.
I have ve explained my methodology. You don't understand it and think it it something other than historical analysis, but that is your problem.
I am still waiting for you to explain your methodology. I still don't understand where you get off adding and removing words from my quotes or from the source material? You've mentioned that you believed that this is what you thought it meant, but surely you understand that you cannot change the source material or my quotes to fit with your desired interpretation don't you?
So again, Jeff, why do you add and/or subtract key words when presenting my quotes and the source material? What kind of methodology allows for such things? And how is such methodology geared toward getting to the truth?
______________________________________
And still more nonsense from Mike Cirba. Gee, what a surprise!
-
Mike Cirba,
Where did you find the Wilson letter to Philler ?
-
Bryan,
....................................
Also Bryan, with respect, I don't consider you a neutral reader. I don't believe in such things. Your subjectivities and biases are different than mine or Mike's, but that doesn't make you neutral. You try to keep your subjectivities and biases in check, but then so do I. I don't think your interpretations are any more plausible than mine just because you consider yourself "neutral." I feel that I am neutral in that I don't feel I have a bias - an unfair prejudice - against either your analyses or those of Mike/Jeff. I don't consider that I am on your side or theirs - hence neutral. As for my subjectivities, I'm not even sure what that means in this context.
1. We agree that Lesley was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee. My understanding was that he was the chair of that Committee. However, I do not believe that Hugh Wilson was part of the Golf Committee in the spring of 1911 or before. I could be misremembering or mistaken, but I do not think that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee and Merion's Golf Committee were the same thing. I think their only overlap was H.G. Lloyd. I think there were two committees. According to Allan Wilson: "When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site" Wilson also states that "the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman." I think it likely that the "Golf Committee" and the "Construction Committee" were one and the same. It seems unlikely to me that the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, of which Lesley was chair, would still be involved in March. Their work was already done. They had identified the Ardmore property.
- You say you see no evidence of who wrote it, but there is strong evidence of who wrote it! It is written in first person! First person is a strong indicator that the person delivering the report is the person who wrote the report! That is the way our language works. I have written plenty of things which were ultimately delivered by another, but I have never had anyone ever report on my experiences in first person, as if they were their own! On this point we'll disagree. The report was written in the first person plural since it was a Committee report. Lesley presented the Committee's report. Lesley was not part of that Committee. I think it likely that he merely presented it. In doing that, I don't think he would change the wording. I think his audience would know that he wasn't including himself in the "we" and "our".
- But let's just stick to where we agree. Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee. So then, who was it that went to NGLA? The Golf Committee? Or the Construction Committee? As above, I think it likely that they were one and the same. Or some combination? Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems to have been there. But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well. As above, I think you are reading too much into the fact that Lesley was presenting the Committee's report. The first person plural wording likely refers to the collective Committee, of which Lesley was not a part. I think in this case he was just the messenger.
- And if Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee, then who at Merion was in charge of getting the course planned? Wilson's sub-committee, or Lesley's Golf Committee? Maybe I've forgotten other references to the Golf Committee. Can you point to other documents that mention it and its membership and function. So far, we seem pretty confident there was a Golf Grounds Committee and a Construction Committee. Was there a third Committee - a Golf Committee?
- It matters to this discussion because it is not entirely clear that Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with the planning even after they were appointed. Based on what we have been told, MERION'S 1910-1911 RECORDS NEVER MENTION WILSON OR HIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO THE DESIGN. So, if Wilson's Construction Committee was not one and the same as the "Golf Committee", then who and what was the Golf Committee? Another unknown?
2. As for the "many different courses" we have some agreement. To answer your questions about whether I am just speculating and inferring: We know of the Barker rough routing. CBM/HJW suggested that Merion add the land near the clubhouse. Francis tells that with the swap he changed the routing and that Lloyd approved it. To be semantic, I don't think that Francis said that he personally "changed the routing". He had the idea of the swap which enabled fitting in the remaining 5 holes. Whoever individually or collectively decided on how to route those five holes on the land, including the triangle is, I think, unknown.
3. You accuse me of dissecting the text regarding the statement that they "rearranged the course." I don't get this. All the other interpretations just ignore or read this part as meaningless. When Lesley reported on many different courses, you agree he was likely discussing routings. Yet here when he wrote of rearranging the course, he is no longer speaking of routings? I don't get that at all. And I don't think it makes sense for them to say the rearranged the course (singular) if then the also came up with five different routings. Taken as a totality, it seems that they rearranged the course, and that there were five different iterations or variances of this course. Again, I think the singular "course" refers to the overall concept of a course that would result from all this planning and constructing - Merion East. It doesn't really matter if you get what I'm saying if in the end we agree that coming out of this process there were five plans or routings or variations. I think iterations is the wrong word.
4. As for the five different plans, I think it unreasonable for Mike et. al to conclude that CBM was NOT involved in the creation of those five plans. I thought they agreed that CBM/HJW had input to the plans at the NGLA meeting, but they can agree or disagree with that. I think it likely that he gave them ideas at least at the meeting. And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley Golf Committee report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process -- they went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them; You state the part I've highlighted in red as if it is fact. Where have you seen that they went to him for "direction"? Or that he gave them "direction"? Or, that they tried to impliment (sic) what he told them? Did you intend to put "likely" or "probably" in front of these statements? he came back to check on them and made the final decision. Not unlike todays architect might direct his associates.
I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation. If Merion wasn't trying to implement what they had learned from CBM then why have him return to go over it again and make the final decision? I think it quite likely that they were trying to develop a design that incorporated the principles of good design that he had passed on to them. As to whether he provided them specific routing recommendations on their property or designed specific holes for the property - that, I think is unknown. Why ask him to return and choose a routing from among the five - one plausible/possible reason is that he had been most helpful looking at the land and offering advice at NGLA and it's always good to get third party opinions about your plans when your not sure what you're doing.
5. And that is what I think you are missing. I readily admit we don't know exactly what happened. I am trying to figure out what is most likely given everything we know. I'm not missing it. I understand your approach. The only real reservation I have with your approach is that you tend to take what you think is the "most likely" conclusion and subsequently state it as conclusive and then be surprised and distressed that the others don't agree with you. I'm sure you've heard of the "fog of war". The concept could apply to history as well. The history of Merion in some respects is still foggy despite all the research and analysis by the regular found ins here. In that fog, you, Mike, Jeff, and even Tom should accept that your individual "reasonable factual analyses" might not always align. In my opinion, there is reasonable doubt about everybody's conclusions on the points of disagreement. Their approach seems to be that if I cannot prove to an absolutely certainty what exactly happened, then we have to accept what they guess happened. What is your objective in this multi-year effort? I ask in all sincerity. If you are trying to change Merion's official history, then trying to get agreement from Tom, Jeff and Mike seems like a waste of time. Sell it directly to Merion. If you're trying to get the three of them to agree with your conclusions then you have to deal with what it will take to get them to agree. If you are trying to persuade the larger population of gca.com then you should conduct some kind of poll to see if anyone is interested and is convinced or not. That is not the way these things work. I'm not sure what to make of this statement. How are "these things" supposed to work? What are these things? Look again at the Bin Laden thread. Do you see a variety of opinions? Do you see anyone being moved off their position by logical arguments? That is how these things work. The question is, which makes more sense? With all due respect, that probably isn't the question. The question is what happened back then around the specifics of the initial design. You've said from time to time that we don't know. Your opponents don't seem to seem to to want to accept what makes more sense to you in the same way that you don't want to accept what makes more sense to them. I believe its called an impasse. Absent new information the impasse will not be resolved either way despite however many words and logical arguments are put forward. Whatever disagreements you have with my understanding, there are tenfold problems and shortcomings with theirs. In your opinion, but not in theirs.
What is more likely?
-That whoever went to NGLA sat their with ears in fingers (now that's an interesting anatomical construct to consider ;D) not learning anything, then miraculously came up with five wholly distinct routings that had nothing to do with what they learned at NGLA, and then CBM/HJW just happened to show up, saying "Wow, that never occurred to me, but if you do it your course will be great," and they ignored this, too, yet just happened to like the same version without considering his opinion and they went with that?
-Or that they went to NGLA for direction for what to do, and CBM gave him that direction, and they took his advice to heart and returned home to try and implement that advice, but they still weren't sure, so they brought him back again to go over everything again and make the final decision?
It seems a pretty obvious choice to me. It is to you, but not to them.
6. You state that the only remaining issue "is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come 'up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!'"
I disagree. I think you are falling into the exact same thing I discuss immediately above. You seem to think the standard for them is one of mere possibility but the standard for me is one of absolute irrefutable proof. I think you missed my point. It's not about irrefutable proof.
Do you understand what I am getting at here? It is a question of methodology and standards of proof. You seem to have a double standard here. They have proven little or nothing, and it seems from my perspective that my theory is by far the most plausible and reasonable. Yet you say that my theory must fail unless I prove that Merion couldn't have come up with on their own? I don't get it? Since when is that the standard? Again, I think you misinterpret what I am saying. I am not on their side. I don't have a different burden of proof for you than I have for them. I've been challenging Mike for years now on those areas that I care to address with him. If I could offer one suggestion to you, it would be that you always insert the word probably or likely when your analysis leads you to a conclusion. The problem I have with both sides of this battle are statements that are written like fact, but are really logical inferences. As to whether you feel your conclusions are the most plausible and reasonable, I can only say that I'd be surprised if you didn't feel that. You shouldn't be surprised if others don't agree with you though and think that something else is more plausible and reasonable. You've been at this for a couple of years at least. You proven some points and they have accepted them. Other points they don't accept, and it appears they never will based on a plausible and reasonable arguments approach. For you and them, I am reminded of an old saying - Only a fool does the same thing the same way and expects a different result.
Why is mere possibility good enough for their theory? Why is absolute irrefutable proof the standard for me? I never said that, and I am not a surrogate for them. I question their stuff the same as I question some of yours.
Or maybe I have it wrong? What exactly is your methodology here, Bryan? I hadn't thought of it as a methodology. I try to listen to the positions and do as you do - apply reasonable logical analysis based on the facts we know. But, I recognize that I'm not going to win the hearts and minds of any of you with conclusions based on a balance of probabilities. All of you (with the exception of Jim) are too entrenched. I expect I won't be conclusively drawn to one side or the other until there is some new information that "proves" a point.
________________________________
I almost forgot. I don't know who drew up the five plans or when they were drawn up. Given the totality of the Lesley report, it seems that one of two things are most likely:
1.The five variations were conceived at NGLA and then tried out at Merion.
2.The five variations were a product of some ambiguity, confusion, or lack of clarity in the single course they had come up with at NGLA. OK, thanks. It doesn't seem "most" likely to me, but I doubt that I could persuade you otherwise.
On a broader level, what change to the Merion history would you like to see based on all this analysis and debate? If you had a free hand, what sentence or two or paragraph would you add. What key parts of the history would you change. Just curious. It seems to me that there is agreement on many points, but I am losing sight of what remains in dispute. I'm not talking about details, such as the date of the land swap, but rather higher level stuff - the attribution of the original design for instance.
-
Bryan,
Thanks again for bringing some objectivity and sanity into this thread. We don't always agree with the evidence and what it means but I have no doubt that you're unbiased against anyone's opinion here.
I would contest one of your points, though. I do think Jim Sullivan is entrenched into a position, or belief, and frankly the fact that Jim is still struggling with this is the only reason I've chosen to participate in this again.
In my opinion, Jim can't get over the fact that guys like these (and CBM) would secure a certain undetermined acreage out of a bigger tract of land without having first routed the golf course.
I can see why he thinks that's ultimately a bad idea for them, but perhaps we only differ by degrees.
I contend instead that they looked at the property at a macro level....does it have enough acreage...are there natural features that can be used for golf...is it too flat and/or hilly, in total or in stretches....does it have access to transportation....are there existing structures that could be utilized for a clubhouse...does it have utilities....is there access to water and is there too much or too little of that available....and most importantly at that time, soil quality.
Once they were satisfied that all of those qualities could be met, they moved to secure, and I don't find it any surprise at all that both NGLA and Merion secured "UNDETERMINED" plots of land...a total acreage at a fixed price, for sure, but with the final boundaries to be determined.
I think the historical record for both courses then clearly shows that both Macdonald at NGLA and the Committee (with CBM's advice and suggestions) at Merion spent the next several months working out the exact holes, routing, and boundary lines.
If anything has been proven on this thread, I'd venture to say that this has.
Both efforts were a reaction against the courses that had been built prior in this country, most of which were routed in a day or two by a professional from abroad or a local committee. No one knew that a quality course REQUIRED more than that!
That's why it's absolutey preposterous to think that CBM would lay out any course in a day...I think if someone suggested that to him there might be fisticuffs!
So, although I see Jim's point, I do think it's something he can't get over, and I do think the contemporaneous evidence all flies in the face of his belief that these guys first routed the course and then secured the land.
-
Mike Cirba,
Where did you find the Wilson letter to Philler ?
Patrick,
That's a transcribed version sent to me long ago by Tom Paul. I did add a phrase to mine that he had inadvertently neglected to type when he typed the lengthy letter.
All,
Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.
Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding. Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course.
If travel is a problem, I'd also recommend the Morrison/Paul book, "The Nature Faker" the describes all of the courses William Flynn was involved with (including a very comprehensive Merion history that shows the evolution of every hole on the course as well as copies the documents in question) in a very factual manner. The book is a virtual treasure trove of original materials.
-
Mike,
Anybody that's come this far in these threads that hasn't formed an opinion of what MAY HAVE happened is of a different mindset than I. To say I'm entrenched is merely an over-reaction, a defensive reaction, to my criticism of you when you say some piece of information "PROVES" something else. It sounds like Bryan is similarly motivated by both sides making procimations of proof with evidence that comes far short of proof.
I have an opinion, sure, but it's not so entrenched that I can't take the time to consider anyone else's.
Bryan,
A day or so ago you and Mike were discussing the last measurement on the July deed and it's 76 yard straight shot up to College Ave. The immediate prior measurement was a 62 yard curving stretch (Tom Paul sent an email about this, not sure if you were copied) and that this was proof that the total length from College Ave was 138 yards and not the 120 we've been assuming. My question from the deeds is two-fold; does the Eastern portion of that 62 yard stretch track the western part with the same 3.667 yard width? Or does it continue straight South which would obviously add to the width of the top of the triangle well North of the 16th tee? Second, how many yards does that arching 62 yard stretch of road cover in a straight line continuing down to the 16th tee?
Hope those were clear and if you don't have time to look and figure it out, no sweat.
-
Jim,
Now you're not only being stubborn and entrenched but you're disingenuous, as well. ;) ;D
Agreed with your questions to Bryan...I asked something similar the other day and also shared offline to him the email we received.
-
Jim,
Looking at it, I'm betting that the property line continues straight south at the point GHR starts to curve but also then extends west to the middle of GHR.
The red line I drew is 130 yards end to end. It certainly seems simpler for them to have just purchased all of it (including the yellow triangle created when the road was dramatically re-routed to the east in what I believe was the Francis land swap) rather than to leave that little piece of yellow corner next to Haverford College "unpurchased" in the deal...
I mean, what are you going to do with it, sell it back to HDC? ;) ;D
Why do you think that Pugh & Hubbard wouldn't have reflected such a significant change between the real estate and golf components on their Land Plan if that change too place prior to November 1910? I mean, shoot, Jim...at 130 yards of difference they could have put today's 13th hole in there!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3594/5694189310_0c1ebbe3ae_b.jpg)
-
Bryan, as neutrality goes, I know what you mean. My only point is that your neutrality does not give you any special insight into the matter. What you "think" isn't necessarily any more sound than what I think. It all depends upon our respective familiarity with and understanding of the source material and of course the quality of your analysis. I am pretty comfortable with my analytical abilities, as I am sure you are with yours.
The reason I mention this is because I thought we were going to have a conversation about my methodology, and whether I had support for my conclusions. That you think something different happened really is of little matter to me. I respect your opinion more than some others here, but I don't automatically cede to any upper hand as analysis goes, and while your opinion is worth consideration, but far from dispositive. And so far as I can tell, it has no more of a sound basis than mine, and perhaps less so.
Your point-by-point disagreements are odd given that you criticized me for piggy-backing my conclusions upon my previous conclusions. Aren't you doing that exact thing, only moreso? And even about matters where not even I have drawn a definite conclusion? Take the issue of the Lesley report and who went to NGLA. I don't know who went to NGLA, but you seem to think you do! I know you can't possibly think your opinion on this is "fact," many of your assumptions are built to get to this one, and more are built on its back. And I am not sure your assumptions are the best ones given what we know.
1. Your support for your opinions seems to be the Alan Wilson letter, written over 10 years after the fact, by a person who has never been linked to any of the events in question, who is admittedly relying on on second hand accounts for at least some of what he is writing, and whose description contains mistakes. And he was the brother of the recently deceased Hugh Wilson and is making the case for Hugh Wilson's place in Merion's history. So far as I can tell, Wilson is trying to piece it together much like we are, but doesn't quite have it right. So your reliance on him for details is shaky at best.
2. You think there were two committees, the Golf Committee and what Alan Wilson calls the "'Special Committee on New Golf Grounds.'" I'd say there are least two committees and possibly three, but on what basis do you think there were only two? Aren't there mentions of a Golf Committee, what we have called the Site Committee, and the Construction Committee?
3. You "think it likely that the 'Golf Committee' and the 'Construction Committee' were one and the same." Really? What is your basis for so concluding? Because I think this unlikely. It seems more likely to me that there were either three committee or the Golf Committee and the Site Committee were one and the same. For one thing, Lesley was the chair of the Site Committee and I believe he was also the chair of the Golf Committee. Yet he was not even on the Construction Committee, was he? Why would he be reporting for a Committee on which he was not even a member?
4. "It seems unlikely to [you] that the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds, of which Lesley was chair, would still be involved in March. Their work was already done. They had identified the Ardmore property." Yet Lesley is the one reporting to the board in March, which makes this quite an assumption on your part. What makes you think their "work" was only limited to identifying the property? According to Merion's Board their job was to secure the property and according to Mike et al. the final boundaries weren't even yet established. Also, as I explain immediately above, I find it more likely that the Golf Committee and the Site Committee were one and the same than the Golf Committee and the Construction Committee. Golf and Site both were chaired by Lesley and reported to directly to Merion's Board. I thought the Construction Committee was a sub-committee reporting to either the Golf or Site Committee (if there were two.)
5. Then you address who gave the report and in so doing you roll all your previous assumptions into your conclusion that while Lesley was giving the report, "Lesley was not part of that Committee." This makes no sense to me. He was not part of the Construction Committee but I believe he was the CHAIR OF THE GOLF COMMITTEE and reporting for the GOLF COMMITTEE. I see no justification for treating the Golf Committee and the Construction Committee as the same. What facts support this? And even if Lesley was not on the Golf Committee (I think he was the Chair) what would he have been doing giving a report for the GOLF COMMITTEE? That makes no sense to me at all. Did they just pull him out of the clubhouse?
Now it is possible that Lesley is reporting on the activities of a sub-committee and I think the Construction Committee was a sub-committee, but that is not what the report says. If this was the case, then it would have been easy enough for him or the minutes to say so. And Lesley was an intelligent and articulate man. I don't think it reasonable to speculate that he would give a report in first person if he was not the author.
6. You then build the remainder of your opinions on these various opinions above.
- You don't have to consider who actually went to NGLA because of your opinion that the Construction Committee and the Golf Committee were one and the same.
- Same goes with who was designing the course. (Although given that you tended to agree with me that the "different routings" may have included early routings, this is potentially inconsistent. The Construction Committee reportedly didn't come into existence until 1911, so how could they have been coming up with different routings before then?)
7. Then ask if there was a third committee called the Golf Committee. So far as I can tell the Golf Committee was the committee in charge of golf and was one of the committees appointed by the Board of Governors. My understanding is that some Committees appointed by the Board were internal Board Committees consisting entirely of Board Members such as the Executive Committee, Finance Committee, etc., and then there were main committees appointed by the Board consisting of members from within and without the Board such as the House Committee, the Golf Committee, the Cricket Committee, etc. These committees could create sub-committees and I believe that the Construction Committee was such a committee. The main question to me was whether the committee appointed by the board to secure the land was actually (or became) the Golf Committee or whether there was a Golf Committee and a Site Committee both reporting directly to the board. Either way, Lesley was on both those committees but NOT THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
8. Your reading of what was meant by them having rearranged the course is another assumption on your part. I don't see the support for thinking this refers to a generic course as in Merion golf course, especially after you generally agreed that they were likely using "course" to mean routing earlier in the same report. And under your reading what was rearranged if not the routing? They didn't move the location did they?
9. I don't agree that there were five different and distinct routings. I think at this time they had one "course" and the plans were variations within that frame work. I think your theory only works if you read away them rearranging the course, and I am not willing to do that.
10. Throughout your last two posts you consistently give Mike and Jeff way too much credit for agreeing with me when they have not. Rather than go through it, I'll ask you the same question I asked Jeff. If they agree with me, then why the multi-year witch hunt and the seemingly never ending attempts to undermine my essay and my credibility?
11. Your next point is rather odd. You accuse me of stating "as if fact" the following: They went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them. In so doing you simply ignore my words above and below this section!
- Immediately before this I had written, "And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley Golf Committee report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process --"
- Immediately after this I wrote, "I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation."
- So I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that I stated this "as if fact." How many more qualifiers do I have to attach before it is clear that this is my opinion? I would have thought the "IMO" would have given it away, or the fact that I say "I don't know for sure" and have never said I did. Or the fact that I said it is "the most reasonable."
- Finding the "most reasonable interpretation" is a far cry from stating something as absolute fact, isn't it?
In this regard, I think you drastically overstate my penchant for stating opinions as fact. No doubt I have done this in the heat of the battle, but I don't think it is nearly as prevalent as you make it out to be.
More than that, I think you are reading to find me doing this whether I am or not. Look at this example! How many more disclaimers could I have included before you understood that this was my opinion based on, as you would say, a balancing of probabilities?
12. You then pronounce my opinion above as "unknown" as if the standard was whether I had proven it as "fact." That isn't the standard and I didn't state it as fact. The standard for me is what is most likely. What you call a balancing of probabilities. And here is where I think you have a double standard.
- If my opinion is "unknown" then everything you "think" above is unknown. You think it, but that doesn't make it so. You could be wrong on a lot of it, and I think you are wrong on some of it. But should we throw it out because it is unknown? Or should we try to figure out whether it is the best explanation out there?
- I assume the latter, and that is all I am asking for here. We don't know exactly what happened, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to determine what is the best, most reasonable explanation of what happened.
- Of if we are only dealing in absolute facts, then lets throw out all the babies with the bath water. Throw out everything where anyone is trying to draw any sort of reasonable conclusion based on an imperfect factual record. Because as it is, they and you seem to want to dismiss my reasonable conclusions outright as "unknown" but you don't seem to be doing the same with your own, whether as reasonable or not.
That is why I am claiming a double standard. It is not as if you and they are dismissing all theories as "unknown." You are only dismissing my theory as "unknown." You are quite comfortable with the backdrop of your own "unknowns" that you use to fill in the story --that Wilson wrote the Lesley report, for example. Generally standard seems it be that unless it is absolutely proven and known what CBM was doing every step of the way, then we must conclude that Wilson was responsible for everything we don't know. I think that is an unreasonable analysis at this point. There are many more unknowns about Wilson's involvement than CBM's.
So I ask you again, Bryan, to reconsider your methodology here. Because sometimes you seem to be doing a balance of probabilities standard, especially when it comes to your own theories. But at other times you seem to be using some absolute proof standard, as in the case where you dismiss my theory as "unknown."
-
Robert Lesley was an officer of the club and would have been at the Board Meeting no matter what month of the year it was.
Besides, why create confusion about Lesley's role when Mr. Lesley clearly told us who designed Merion, as well, as did AW Tillinghast who was there and saw the plans prior to construction and personally spoke about the project with CBM.
Golf Illustrated – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast
“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth. Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much. It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3474/5694252688_a01ee1f70a_b.jpg)
-
Patrick.
You asked Mike where he got that Alan Wilson letter, and he answered . . .
That's a transcribed version sent to me long ago by Tom Paul. I did add a phrase to mine that he had inadvertently neglected to type when he typed the lengthy letter.
What he neglected to mention is that the portion TEPaul and/or Wayne "inadvertently neglected to type" just may have been the most important phrase in the entire letter. Here it is, in bolds . . .
". . . their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value."
So they just happened to "inadvertantly neglect[] to type" the portion of the letter making clear that their CBM and HJW were helping them with the lay-out of Merion East. Just like TEPaul just happened to inadvertently provide us with a phony S. Dacre Bush quote in the Myopia discussion? Or how he inadvertently misrepresented what he had seen in the Myopia archives? Or how he inadvertently posted various versions of the Lesley report?
Their inadvertance seems to be remarkably precise and always focused on improving their argument!
_____________________________________
On a related note, Mike tells us yet again that we should all run out and purchase the Flynn Faker pdf. I didn't know Ran's website was a place to constantly shill the commercial projects of members, much less non-members. The pdf only contains transcripts, and as Mike's post just discussed evidences, the Faker authors have been known to leave out a few key words here and there. Not only that, but most of the documents they transcribe were discussed in my essay and transcribed by me here years ago and for free. In fact I sent many of them to Wayne at his request. Now they are for sale in his pdf? Go figure?
In the same post, Mike Cirba offers the following invitation to all of us regarding Merion's Archives:
Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.
Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding. Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course.
Congratulations to Mike Cirba on joining Merion. Nice to see his loyalty has finally paid off. And to rise so quickly through the ranks there that you are comfortable speaking on Merion's behalf and offering up their Archives for our review! Quite impressive!
Or, if Mike isn't a member of Merion, then where does he get off telling us what we can view at Merion's archives? What is the basis of his invitation and your description of what is available. Because I suspect that unless Merion has changed their policy in the past few months, his claims are INACCURATE AND MISLEADING. As of a few months ago many of Merion's records - including most of those at issue here - were entirely unavailable for review.
Mike Cirba, who is your source? And where do you get off speaking for Merion?
_________________________________
Mike, you state Lesley was "an officer of the club." What office? Was he on the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors? Was he a Governor? Do you deny he was Chairman of the Golf Committee?
-
Jim,
Why didn't Francis say they swapped for land all the way up north over 300 yards to College Ave??
-
Jim,
Looking at it, I'm betting that the property line continues straight south at the point GHR starts to curve but also then extends west to the middle of GHR.
The red line I drew is 130 yards end to end. It certainly seems simpler for them to have just purchased all of it (including the yellow triangle created when the road was dramatically re-routed to the east in what I believe was the Francis land swap) rather than to leave that little piece of yellow corner next to Haverford College "unpurchased" in the deal...
I mean, what are you going to do with it, sell it back to HDC? ;) ;D
Why do you think that Pugh & Hubbard wouldn't have reflected such a significant change between the real estate and golf components on their Land Plan if that change too place prior to November 1910? I mean, shoot, Jim...at 130 yards of difference they could have put today's 13th hole in there!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3594/5694189310_0c1ebbe3ae_b.jpg)
Thanks for that image Mike, that's what I was wondering about but not sure I had worded my question well. Looking at it I'm guessing the yellow area is about a third of an acre so barely important in the scheme of things.
I think the Pugh & Hubbard Map didn't reflect Golf House Road as it was eventually built because they didn't know it's exact location because they didn't have the width of 1, 14 and 15 determined yet, even though I think they knew where those holes were going to go.
Your suggestion that the as built GHR was a "dramatic re-route" is what continues to baffle me. The road was never built or in any way fixed in the location from that November Map...it says "Approximate"...so why would you think they had to re-route something that hadn't actually been routed?
If you're serious about the 130 yard question I'll answer it, but I suspect you're not.
Mike, just saw you latest post as I was typing this one...so I'll address it now.
-
Jim,
Why didn't Francis say they swapped for land all the way up north over 300 yards to College Ave??
I'm not sure what you're asking...I don't think they did. The 3.67 yards of width for the top 75 - 125 yards wouldn't be on anyone's mind as being Merion's at that point in time. In fact unless GHR were to be dug up and not replaced, why would anyone think of it...
-
Jim,
Remember that the whole literal interp of Francis theory says they had no land north of the south end of Haverford College prior to the swap.
-
Jim,
Remember that the whole literal interp of Francis theory says they had no land north of the south end of Haverford College prior to the swap.
That is not what it says at all, Mike. Why do you make this stuff up? It says that they traded for land across from the clubhouse for land they could use, the approx. 130 x 190 triangle were the 15th tee and 16th green are located.
-
You're both right! So let's move on to the question of...
Why is that a problem Mike?
-
I got this from Wiki, so take that for what its worth. I will say that in many respects, David understands the historic method, but the question remains if he applies it in an unbiased way.
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]
• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
• Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
• The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
• A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
• If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
• The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
• If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
Procedures
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[2]
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Looking at the fifth bullet point, we see that if many sources say the same thing, they can be given great credibility.
The Merion record contains reports that the golf committee laid out the course with assistance from CBM, and records the time frame as 1911. Participants including Lesley, Francis as well as close observers like Tillie have told us that Wilson was most responsible for laying out the course, again with assistance from CBM.
On the other hand, we David Moriarty telling us things might be along a different because he doesn’t know if Lesley authored the report, and even though he really has no direct records supporting CBM’s involvement at other times. He does have Whigham’s eulogy to counteract Alan Wilson’s report, which might have tried to build up Hugh Wilson a bit.
So, we have participants recollections, from immediate to 3 to 50 years later. And we have David 100 years later and a non-participant.
Looking at the principles above, it appears David likes to forego the number of independent sources that provide a similar message in favor of textural analysis, based on extrapolation beyond (IMHO) a reasonable degree, the assumption of wrong or altered records and the like, none of which he can prove. Even when small mistakes have been made, he presumes that a few words among hundreds can change the meanings of all accounts dramatically.
I understand he believes CBM was more involved than the record show, and should get more credit. I understand it’s a worthwhile exercise to reexamine history. The only real issue here is that after three years, even with no new evidence, he told us his theory is stronger than ever.
I don’t mean to be insulting, and post the above snippet concerning historic methods so others can make their own judgments, which may differ from mine.
Cheers.
-
Jeff,
One thing i'll mention is that the contemporaneous material (the April board minutes) do not suggest the planning began in 1911...they merely state what had been done prior to the March visit to NGLA.
The January 1911 timeline was created when Hugh Wilson said (in 1916) that's when the committee was formed...which makes legal/technical sense because that's when MCCGA was formed. Frankly, that doesn't have much to do with when work on the plans began because they were discussing the concept of MCCGA a couple months prior to the legal incorporation at least.
-
Jeffrey Brauer,
For the sake of fairness and completeness you ought to add that until your latest foray to Wikipedia you had no concept whatsoever of what you call "the historic method," and that much of your criticism of me and what you have been demanding of me has been absolutely absurd.
But then of course instead of learning anything you jump right back into misrepresenting my position, the source material, and now you have something else to misrepresent!
So far as I know I am the only one who takes Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and Francis at their word! You pretend they say something they don't. And the Tillie to which you refer was written in 1934 and was probably a reference to William Flynn trying to steal credit for Wilson's work at Merion (who else?) There is little reason to believe it had anything to do with CBM. As for Alan Wilson, you misread part of it and ignore other parts! He said that of those on Merion's Committee Wilson deserves the most credit, and I agree.
And the Whigham Eulogy doesn't need to counteract Wilson's report, because A. Wilson's report doesn't really contradict it. Besides, WHIGHAM WAS AN EYEWITNESS. HE WAS THERE. What does your little excerpt say about eyewitnesses?
The twisting you are doing is quite pathetic. Again you broad brush everything into something that it is not to try and make your petty points. My theories are based upon and true to the sources who were there at the time. I don't need to resort to the likes of attacking Whigham's character or assuming that everything anyone from Merion wrote was just because they were so humble!
You are too much. You find some 'History for Dummies' snippet and even that confirms my approach as sound and portrays your past comments as downright foolish, but you go right on twisting everything to try to make me me look bad.
As for your no new evidence claim, think again.
-
Mike,
To expand on my question..."Why is that a problem?"...of course there would have been no agreed MCC land North of Haverford College's South border prior to the swap, it's exactly as Francis said...I don't know why you will not take these guys at their word...
-
David, about 30 years after the fact, upon CBM's death, Whigham called Merion (among others) a "Macdonald/Raynor course" despite the fact that there is no record of Raynor ever having visited the property and we know CBM was there twice for one-day visits, ten months apart, before the course was built., and despite the fact that NO ONE EVER claimed that CBM designed it, including CBM himself over the course of his lifetime or in his comprehensive book, while the course hosted various US Opens and Amateurs and everyone from the local press to TIllinghast credited Hugh Wilson and his committee.
So what do we make of that statement?
Logically, I think the answer is two-fold; i think it was simply reflective of the fact that Merion, like CBM modelled prior, went into the project looking to copy famous hole principles from abroad but also reflective of the fact that CBM and Whigham provided the Merion Committee with valuable suggestions and advice throughout their design process.
-
Mike,
To expand on my question..."Why is that a problem?"...of course there would have been no agreed MCC land North of Haverford College's South border prior to the swap, it's exactly as Francis said...I don't know why you will not take these guys at their word...
Jim,
I absolutely believe Francis at his word. He swapped land along Golf House Road for land 130x190 up where 16 tee/15 green exists today.
I just think prior to then it was longer and thinner and didn't fit the proposed holes well.
Let me ask you a question...
From the get-go, HDC owned the Johnson Farm which was about 150 yards wide by 327 yards long at the northern end, extending to College Avenue.
We know in December 1910 that HG Lloyd bought the ENTIRE Johnson Farm, including that portion extending to College Avenue.
Do you seriously believe that with that dynamic, and THAT land available to them, that prior to the Francis Swap, that Lloyd and HDC thought that the best way to divide the land between the two entities for golf course and real estate purposes ACTUALLY looked like THIS?
Why in God's name would they ever truncate their access like that?? At ANY point in the planning process??
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/5695084116_cf95593ae3_b.jpg)
If you don't believe that, would you or David please show us what you think the proposed pre-Francis property split looked like?
-
David,
We KNOW that Whigham was there one day with CBM to view the property before it was purchased in June 1910.
We also KNOW he came back with CBM on April 7th 1911, almost a year later, for a single day with CBM to help the Merion Committee pick the best of their plans.
We have NO IDEA if he was at NGLA when the Merion Committee visited in March 1911. If he was, no one thought to mention him.
THAT is what you call an eyewitness to the design process??????????
Did he see Raynor there too, because he said it was a "Macdonald/Raynor course"? Was he perhaps hallucinating at the time???
Yet, his obviously erroneous statement delivered 30 years after the fact is supposed to have some credence here when it flies in the face of 30 years of documented contemporaneous history?!?!?!
Eyewitness???!?!?!? Are you kidding us?? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
This is what you call a valid historical research approach???
-
Remember that the whole literal interp of Francis theory says they had no land north of the south end of Haverford College prior to the swap.
That is not what it says at all, Mike. Why do you make this stuff up? It says that they traded for land across from the clubhouse for land they could use, the approx. 130 x 190 triangle were the 15th tee and 16th green are located.
Poppycock, David....bull feathers! Piles of horse feces, I say.
Are you really contending that they had their eye on land north of the south boundary of Haverford College prior to the execution of your interpretation the Francis Swap?
Can you point out to us where that land might have been.
Please, you are quite gifted at using programs to show us what you think.
Please show us what land north of the south boundary of Haverford College you believe they were considering prior to your interpretation of the Francis Swap.
-
Whigham didn't call Merion a Raynor course. As usual these guys read confusion and nonsense into a clear text to try and manipulate the argument. They seem to think if they can possibly read it to NOT make sense, then that must be the correct reading, and they have the nerve to discount the article as inaccurate. The only thing inaccurate is their strained interpretation.
_________________________________
Similarly, Mike's convoluted theory of the small strip of useless land between Haverford College and Golf House Road MAKES NO SENSE.
-- Why would Merion want to by a strip of land useless to their golf course?
-- Why would the developer want to give up land (including land fronting the golf course) that they could otherwise develop when the golf course couldn't even use it?
__________________________________
Cirba also drastically mis-measures the width of of the land to suit his purposes.
_________________________
And Whigham was there enough to know whether CBM designed the course, that is for sure! To argue otherwise is just more ridiculousness!
_________________________
Cirba's last post doesn't even make sense. I was responding to a specific claim he made that was false. I don't think they were considering anything of substance, but I don't know whether they were going to have responsibility of 1/2 of the access road to College Ave.
-
That is not what it says at all, Mike. Why do you make this stuff up? It says that they traded for land across from the clubhouse for land they could use, the approx. 130 x 190 triangle were the 15th tee and 16th green are located.
David,
Where does Richard Francis say that?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
-
Whigham didn't call Merion a Raynor course. As usual these guys read confusion and nonsense into a clear text to try and manipulate the argument. They seem to think if they can possibly read it to NOT make sense, then that must be the correct reading, and they have the nerve to discount the article as inaccurate. The only thing inaccurate is their strained interpretation.
David,
Are you telling us that Whigham didn't call Merion a "Macdonald/Raynor" course almost 30 years after the fact, after CBM's death??
Your own essay quotes Whigham, as follows;
The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of Saint Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at the expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars.
-
You are a charlatan, Mike. You left out the explanatory sentence above what you quoted and if you look at the actual document the context is quite clear. He did not describe Merion as a Raynor course.
As for the rest, read it and figure it out for yourself.
-
David,
Are you going to show us what land north of the southern boundary of Haverford College you think Merion was considering prior to your interpretation of the Francis Swap?
While you're at it, perhaps you can tell us why you think they would unnaturally truncate the Johnson Farm property that ran north to College Avenue and that was easily wide and long enough to be useful for golf as it was?
Please show us how you think HDC and Merion had the property divided between the real estate and golf components prior to your interpretation of the Francis Swap.
I believe it will be very illuminating.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3554585981_bc8b0f0298_o.jpg)
-
I've repeatedly shown you all of that and more. I am not getting sucked back into rounding up your wild geese. Read the past threads only this time pay attention.
-
Mike,
Your bright colored map may be the most convincing item yet that the road was simply drawn as a nice curve with no real thought to golf by the land planner, pure and simple. BTW, I haven't been to that part of the site (even though I have played and toured Merion) but besides lining up the interesection, there are also topographical concerns in locating it in what turned out to be an inconvenient place for golf.
Basically, if not on top of a hill, or bottom of a valley, intersections need to be far enough from the top of a hill for site distance to prevent accidents. Someone in that area could probably go confirm that as a reason for why that intersection was located there by the engineers, resulting in the odd triangle.
David,
While you are wrong that I just started looking into the historic process, guessing like you do at most other things you call fact, the question is still legitmate as long as you are telling us that your process and analytical abilities are superior to those of others.
It appears to me that you start the process by ignoring the big picture, which is that participants and first hand observers like Wilson, Francis, Alan Wilson, AWT, and others say Wilson designed the course. Of course, you do, because your theory really got started in a two fold basis - TMac found one of the many long existing articles linking CBM to Merion that were news to him in 2003, and you found the manifest records for Hugh Wilson's trip contradicted the time frame you had read in Tollhurst, written in 1988.
IMHO, that started your search to see what else was wrong with MCC's history. All that is fine, but after three years, you still have no first person documentation at all that CBM was involved more than the record shows. NONE.
And most of your theories depend on those participants and all of their observations and records to be wrong, which would be a fantastic coincidence or conspiracy. None of the detail twisting YOU do can really change the big picture, and I think you direct the discussion to little details and inconsistencies (which would be natural in four independent accounts) because you don't have any big picture evidence. Again, NONE that show CBM was more involved than the record shows.
Take for example your argument that Tilly was talking about Flynn. I see your point, but he still says Wilson designed the course! If he wanted to remind people that Flynn was not the designer of Merion, but that CBM designed it, he would have said so! Tilly wrote that Wilson was primarily resonsible for designing that course, not CBM. But, you ignore that and deflect away from the most obvious point.
You argue vociferously around the direct words of Tillie to tell us they means something slightly different that only your historic skills can interpret.
None of your theories has direct documentation, and when asked to show it, you never do. They all derive from your reading of any inconsistency you can find in the record, and are extrapolated from there. You cannot show us a fact or document that says CBM was involved between June 1910 and March 1911 (other than a phone call/letter to set up that meeting)
Its that simple. You can argue all you want but yours is more a docudrama than a historical chase. Maybe its your Hollywood location and all the entertainment industry work your former law firm did, that makes that sort of reasoning come naturally to you! I don't know, of course, nor am I really a qualified historian (just like you, TMac and the rest of us) I do suspect that if we brought some history professor in here to grade your essay like an term paper, the grade would range between D and F, but that is just my opinon.
BTW, if you think new evidence has been brought up here recently, take it up with TMac, as he is the one who stated that recently. I just agreed.
It really is time to end this charade, with you either posting the evidence you say you have, and it should be first person documentary evidence of further CBM involvement or the timing of the triangle, because we have seen none.
I half think you (and maybe TMac) have notes written to be opened after your death that say "We can't believe we were able to turn sane and productive people into insane and unproductive people with our lon running hoax on golf club atlas.com. Ha Ha! It was just a joke."
-
I've repeatedly shown you all of that and more. I am not getting sucked back into rounding up your wild geese. Read the past threads only this time pay attention.
David,
I clearly recall your former attempt to show us what you think the 117 acres Merion secured before the Francis Swap looked like (given your theory that Merion and HDC truncated their own property on the northern end, essentially binding their own hands).
The only problem is the land in question you speculated about was nowhere near 117 acres once measured by Bryan Izatt.
That might have been a clue that something was wrong with your theory, don't you think?
Once again, I really think you've brought some interesting focus on the activities of CBM and the Merion Committee through your work, particularly in the spring 1911 timeframe.
While I don't see CBM's role anywhere near as primary as you do (why, for instance, would Richard Francis not even mention CBM or Whigham if they were the drivers or architects??), at least that is a reasonable position worthy of discussion and even some speculation.
However, this whole "course was routed before November" theory based on that triangle of land formed by an approximate location of a road drawn on the November Land Plan really is unsupportable and as I said, drowns your baby in its own bath water. By starting with the premise that Hugh Wilson couldn't have been the architect, as argued against all contemporaneous physical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary by Tom MacWood, you instead compromise the validity of your overall essay because your whole premise becomes that the routing had to have been done prior to November 1910, which the facts simply don't support.
Perhaps instead of golf course fronting homes along the border HDC really wanted homes facing McFadden and Catherwood's places as a novelty marketing idea?? ::) ;)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/5695084116_cf95593ae3_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
This is actually one of the kinds of details that I am actualling railing against arguing about as proof one way or another, but here goes:
I have seen roads aligned slightly away from other peoples property because they won't pay their half of the road. At MCC, in some ways, giving McFadden and Haverford College access to the back of their property might have made sense. On the other hand, we know that Golf House Road ended up half on MCC property and half on the development (in and of itself, perhaps enough to make up the extra three acres, as we showed years ago, but off point here).
So, in addition to topo considerations, alignment considerations, etc. allowing or denying access to McFadden may have played a role in that Nov alignment.
As you know, I have felt all along that this alignment was made by the developer (who, as we know owned and controlled the land at this time) for his own reasons. MCC may have realized the triangle was useless as aligned though, and thus inserted the right to realign the road. It wouldn't actually take a full routing to understand that, necessarily.
Or, they just did it because they hadn't started routing at all.
-
Not that it means anything necessarily, but I note that the ROW width of golf house road is narrower than Turnbridge to the north. Odd, as they are the same kinds of roads by the same developer. Another detail for us to wonder about.
Also, it looks like perhaps the intersection might have anticipatec McFadden getting half a ROW. I can't tell from this last iteration because Mike's colorful artwork covers it up.
-
Mike Cirba,
Could you do me a favor and retitle this thread ;D
Or, bifurcate its title ;D ;D
-
Patrick,
At this juncture, I'm not sure what to call it, but it wouldn't be nice.
-
TEPaul/Brauer,
You have no idea how this project came about for me. It is and always has been a big picture project, based on a better understanding of the "big picture" of what was going on during this early time period. You continue to misrepresent the views of those who were there. And Jeff, you should really do try to do a better job of hiding TEPaul's input given that he is not supposed to be posting here.
Brauer/TEPaul/Cirba,
You guys are like drowning men flailing and trying to get a grip on anything. It is quite clear that after years of this nonsense you have nothing really to add to productive conversation. At its core, Merion East was intended to be a CBM golf cours. This is nothing of which to be ashamed, but you guys can't let go of your legends and your antipathy towards me.
-
David,
I speak for myself, think for myself.
More lashing out, more accusing.
If you had it, you would provide some documents that proved your point.
What document from MCC or other contemporaneous accounts says it was intended to be a CBM course? PLease provide one, because we have provided many that say it was intended to be a committee designed course.
I agree it would not be anything to be ashamed of to be a CBM course, its just that you have provided no proof of it, period. If we missed it, please show us one contemporary person who said it was "at it's core, intended to be a CBM golf course?"
No need to tell us we are flailing. We have history on our side, documents on our side. If you want productive conversation, please provide some proof of your latest contention, which actually sort of ups the ante from your earlier positions that CBM was more influential than already believed by MCC. Once again, that is easy to accept, but rather than that, you strike even further afield with your new statement of "Merion's Intent" that you have devined.
-
Another silly Brauer challenge, where you demand just ONE example? Gee that's a tough one. I don't know how to limit it to just one.
Uhhhh let's see . . . . how about the one where an EYEWITNESS with a depth of experience and knowledge of these things stated that MERION WAS A CBM COURSE? . . . or how about the one that puts CBM/HJW in charge of choosing the final layout plan? . . . . Or the ones documenting that a few weeks before he was helping a novice committee with that layout plan? . . . and how about the ones from the opening that describe most of the holes on the course being based on the great holes abroad?. . . and the various ones describing many features on the course typical of his courses? . . . and the ones where Merion says they are basing their purchase of the land largely on his (and HJWs) advice . . . and the ones indicating they realized the value of his advice and were following his directions throughout . . . and the ones acknowledging and thanking him for his help . . . and the ones crediting along with the committee for the course?
It is the "Just give me a sign" joke again and again. You guys have been struck down by lightening time after time and yet you are still saying, "just give me a sign, any sign, and I'll believe you."
As for TEPaul's input, we both know that you and TEPaul are corresponding about this on a constant basis. Mike too. Others get the emails and know. Plus, for every group email there are many more.
If I were you guys I wouldn't distance myself from his input. But then I wouldn't want to take responsibility for coming up on such foolish things on my own!
-
David,
As to the picking the final routing, we have always agreed on that. And yet when I posted that if that was all you were saying, you replied (and I quote)
YOU - And I never claimed CBM did a routing nearly by himself in an earlier time frame. My theory was that Merion started with Barker's routing, that CBM may have changed it (the extent to which we do not know) and Francis and Lloyd changed it further. All before Nov. 15, 1910. You agree that they were likely working off of Barker's routing early on, so what is your problem?
As usual, you just make shit up about my position to make yours sound more reasonable. My argument is much more nuanced that you realize or give credit.
Quote
ME - If (for now and barring more documents becoming available) we agree the routing was done at NGLA and beyond, and that CBM was invaluble in ways we can't quite measure and detail out, then I am all for a Mary Tyler Moore style group hug!No thanks. You cannot negotiate what really happened, but then that is obviously not what this is about for you!
Your essay CLEARLY says the routing was done pre Nov 1910, and your posts above say BOTH that he did it pre Nov 1910 and that YOU NEVER CLAIMED HE DID IT IN A PRIOR TIME FRAME. In all seriousness, nuance seems garbled on my computer screen, but I doubt that I am the only one.
Maybe you think I am thinking of some other prior time frame, but I reference the MCC records that talk about starting in December (Culyers) and minutes regarding the March and April CBM visits.
So which is it David - CBM, Francis and Lesley routed it Pre- Nov 1910 or CBM and the committee routed it at NGLA and beyond. Or is your "nuanced position" that he started early, and it continued for a long time with refinements?
You know, some days I actually wake up thinking about whether it was intended to be a CBM course. Could the lack of mention in the contemporaneous records be at CBM's request because of the amateur status or related issues? But, they do mention his assistance, although that could be a reason for downplaying it, and after he started designing more the very next year at Piping Rock, and particularly in the remembrances of Tilly and Wilson and Francis after his death, wouldn't it be likely that someone fessed up?
-
You of all people should understand that it was a process. I do think they had the basic routing before mid-November but a lot remained to be done. You guys always seem to forget that CBM was in the middle of revolutionizing the way golf courses were created, and was doing things quite differently than the way things had been done and for much different reasons. These guys at Merion were novices, especially when it came to creating first class golf courses based on the underlying fundamental principles of the great golf holes, and if Merion was to have a truly first class course - one based on CBM's ideas and advice - then they certainly needed more than just a rough routing.
I think that they started with a Barker routing and I think that CBM's and HJW's advice (and while we don't know the extent of their advice we do know their advice extended further than that letter) changed that. I think that Merion was having trouble fitting the course on the property and changed it further through the swap. We know that Merion went to NGLA for further help and guidance on the layout and CBM gave them further guidance. I think they came back to Merion and rearranged the course (my speculation is that CBM had tentatively signed off on what they had figured out with the swap and they rearranged the course accordingly) and that they had several iterations, options, or versions either because they left NGLA with these various options in mind or because whatever they came up with at NGLA wasn't quite clear so they tried things different ways. Whichever it was, CBM was coming back anyway to reinspect the land (while he most likely had a contour map long before then, it should be of no surprise if he wanted to see the land again before finalizing anything) and to choose the final routing. It is not clear whether he chose one of the plans or some combination thereof or even something different from all five, but whatever he chose Merion went with the plan he chose and apparently BECAUSE HE CHOSE IT. And the apparent intent was the BUILD THE COURSE ACCORDING THE PLAN CBM CHOSE.
No doubt throughout this process those at Merion had significant input, especially Lloyd who was involved throughout, Francis who came up with the swap, and of course Wilson who was not only involved in the planning at NGLA and the follow-up iterations, he was involved in executing the plan CBM chose - building the course according to plan - and there was certainly much creative input in that process.
Disclaimer for Bryan: The above is a rough, off the top of my head, summary, it is my opinion of what happened. The basis for that opinion is in my IMO, in the hundreds of pages of threads, and in other information and knowledge I have gleaned from spending thousands of hours looking into this period of history at Merion and elsewhere. But it is still my opinion and should be taken as such.
-
David,
Thanks, and I better understand your opinions.
It is fascinating to contemplate what the Barker routing might have looked like. As you know, I believe it almost had to be four holes wide south of Ardmore, but perhaps shorter (pre Dallas Estate) than desired and maybe flipped and flopped. It was a one day sketch, so its value might be much less, but it could have been pretty good for the property looked at.
Likewise, while CBM didn't have a topo map at the meeting or at least upon his return, he was able to determine that they needed the RR land and I beleive they looked at Barkers map and determined the need for the Dallas Estate that day as well.
I agree it was a long refinement process, and that some work could have been done all along the way, irrespective of official dates listed in the records. I do recall getting lampooned by someone (seriously don't recall who) for suggesting that Wilson, knowing in Dec that he would be appointed to the committee might have started routings during Xmas day. While I don't know that, anyone on that committee might have done the same if they had maps. We don't know their process - sitting in a room together, or each independently bringing in a plan (hmmm, five committee members, five plans?) to take to NGLA or prepare for CBM's return.
And no doubt that CBM picked the final plan. We know it had to be some iteration of the one with the Francis land swap, but having been involved in the process at many other places, I agree it could have been "one from column A, one from column B" type deal for CBM.
Why didn't they keep those plans? As you and I discussed off line, keeping documents or trashing them is an interesting sujbect for gca's. Traditionally every Xmas, we would pare our files, often throwing out many design iterations and just keeping the final plans. I may be causing a debate 100 years from now, should anyone get interested in one of my courses!
I just got my new issue of Landscape Architecture and it implores LA's to keep all their files, saying architects tend to, but landscape designers do not. They mention the dilemma of landscape architecture historians, and I didn't even think there were such a thing.
-
There are such things as landscape architecture historians. In fact I provided Merion's archives with a very early landscape plan for the plantings around their clubhouse at the Merion East site. I had obtained it from a repository of such things in Northern California. I was of course looking for a different type of plan. It was a neat drawing, though, and I paid for it, and wish I still had it.
Unfortunately this was when I though Wayne Morrison was at least somewhat honorable and honest. I had obtained what is known as a "research copy" as opposed to an "archival copy" suitable for archiving. Wayne was quite excited about seeing it, so I sent him my copy (I cant remember exactly, but I think it was too large for me to make him a copy) along with the information on where I had obtained it and what it was, and I specifically requested that he return my copy to me after he obtained a suitable archival copy for Merion's Archives or made a copy of mine. Rather than so doing, he just kept it.
Part of the terrific experience I had trying to deal with Wayne Morrison as if he was a person of integrity. Oh well, my fault for ever believing that he had the authority to speak for Merion or act on their behalf.
-
Avid,
I understand your opinion and simply don't agree with it. Everyome back then told us it was primarily Hugh Wilson yet strangely your synopsis neglects to mention any of that.
Still, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
On a week of closures, unless Jim or Bryan have any responses related to the questions that came up in the past day or so around the triangle, I think this is as good a spot as any to say adieu.d
-
NOBODY who was actually there credits Wilson as being primarily responsible for the initial layout plan. Not Hugh Wilson, not Lesley, certainly not H. J. Whigham! And not even Alan Wilson, unless you twist his words to include CBM where Alan Wilson explicitly excludes him.
As for your thousandth claim that your done with this conversation, I wish I could say "good riddance" but I know we won't be so lucky!
-
David,
You have no idea if anyone who credited Wilson was there or not, but we do know Tillinghast saw the plans prior to construction and we know he talked extensively about the project with CBM yet saw fit to name Hugh Wilson as the architect.
In fact, his opening review of the course in American Cricketer doesn't even mention CBM at all.
Also, we KNOW ALL the members of the Merion Committee credited Wilson, and they did it at repeated times.
-
David,
Why on earth would you take on the task of suggesting HJ Wigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was? I know what your primary premise is, but without the mother lode of correspondance the "Drexel Letters" may have been it's pointless.
Mike and Jeff,
Why would the developer draw a line that has no meaning and label it "approximate"?
Why would a developer create a boundary that unecessarily eliminates access to Haverford College's land?
-
Jim, why in heavens name would they care about access to Haverford College? I mean, good school and all but...
They already owned the Johnson Farm land UP to College Avenue, approx. 150 x 327 and we know certainly very good for golf.
Why truncate that plot artificially?
If both parties desired golf course fronting lots how would that possibly make any sense?
Can you show me on that land plan what you think the plan looked like prior to November? Remember, however you slice it you are telling us they originally thought it worked best to meet golf and real estate needs.
-
Jim,
I agree its pretty hard for David to sell HJW's recollections as an eyewitness while simultaneously discounting Alan Wilson's, AWT, or even Francis's in 1950. If that is all the evidence David has from his now unseen footnotes, I personally think its not a game changer for Merion.
I think I answered your second question, but its not uncommon for a developer to not give another property owner access, especially if they aren't paying for any of the road! I would guess the college had a cumbersom process to decide such things, or just wasn't interested so they left that little gap specifically to not give them free access. Just think of the "fine home" that might be affected by who knows what coming out of the college property entrance.
As to approxmiate, I think we all have the same understanding - at the time it was drawn, it was understood that it would change subject to golf course needs, as per the land agreement. It just says what everyone knew.
The only debate between the parties is why it is siutated in that location and with the gentle curve. As you know, I believe it was potentially to give McFadden access, because of topo/intersection alignment and sight line considerations, and to tie into whatever they had planned for Turnbridge Road across college ave and to provide a nice road alignment suitable for fine homes. The old maps show some apparently existing lots that Turnbridge touched, and that might have been a factor in the location of that road, which then affected the intersection for Golf House Road.
While none of us knows for sure, based on my experience in land planning and routing, that is the most likely scenario. And, as I have said, I suspect that the developer drew that plan, with general agreement from MCC, to use the general land specified, and to meet the 120 acre sale, along with considerations above. I do not think a routing was done, but I bet when members saw that triangle, even without a routing, they knew they had a problem dimensionally, and that was part of the reason for the December letter saying they needed the flexibility to move the road.
However, that is just one possible scenario. Others might have happened, too.
Hope that helps.
-
It's sort of funny actually.
For those who are buying David's latest "Long process" theory that suggests CBM started by using Barker's June 1910 routing and then worked from there, you also have to believe that these supposed "experts" didn't have the slightest clue how to use the quarry, as evidently none of them was bright enough to suggest purchasing land north of the quarry for purposes of golf! ;)
Apparently they needed a rank novice to help them out of the incredible "paint ourselves in a corner" mess the supposed combined expert efforts of Barker, CBM, and Whigham had produced.
Of course, that's preposterous but it is what some here would have us believe.
-
Mike,
When I was answering either David or Jim the other day, I was going to mention the probability of using Barker's routing for anything.
I have seen it both ways. For example, when I won the Fortune Bay job in a competition, the Owners showed me the other routings, and while I had a free hand and had to connect the dots, showed me a few holes from another plan (really more of an area they wanted used somehow).
Right now I am sitting in the office preparing a prelim routing plan on a project where other architects have tread and the client refuses to "taint" my process with the older routings, although they did give me the clubhouse location.
It might have gone either way on whether they showed CBM the Barker routing and whether any of it survived into the final plan. I am just guessing that the committee would have at least looked at it, even if they did or didn't show it to CBM. As newbs, I would guess the more starting info the better, but I could be wrong.
-
David,
Why on earth would you take on the task of suggesting HJ Wigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was? I know what your primary premise is, but without the mother lode of correspondance the "Drexel Letters" may have been it's pointless.
Seriously? Among other reasons . . .
1. Because Whigham was an EYEWITNESS of what went on at Merion and also a participant.
2. Because Whigham was extraordinarily knowledgeable about the process of creating golf courses.
3. Because Whigham was a trained and well respected reporter, writer, and editor.
4. Because given CBM's extraordinary accomplishments and course list, he had little reason to falsely exaggerate CBM's accomplishments.
5. Because HJW's comments about Pine Valley suggest that he was not one to credit CBM with a course were only some of CBM's advice was followed.
6. Because Alan Wilson was NOT AN EYE WITNESS.
7. Because I have never seen any source material even suggesting Alan Wilson was there or had anything to do with the early creation of Merion East. No one even mentions him!
8. Because even Alan Wilson - in his own letter - makes it clear that he is relying on second hand information!
9. Because Alan Wilson was not just addressing the initial creation of Merion East but was talking about BOTH COURSES over time, after things had "evolved."
10.Because the errors in Alan Wilson's letter cast doubt on the accuracy of his account regarding this very early period.
11.Because Alan Wilson was attempting to secure a place for his recently deceased younger brother in Merion's history.
As if that weren't enough (it is more than enough) I DON'T THINK THAT THE ALAN WILSON LETTER MEANS WHAT THESE GUYS CLAIM IT MEANS!
1. The letter described CBM's and HJW's contribution and then excepts them from further consideration! With my bold: "Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee . . . " - The Committee is responsible for everything that CBM and HJW didn't do!
2. The letter then divides the division of labor amongst the Committee. Again with my bold: "On his return [from overseas] the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."
- The entire committee contributed, but of the committee Hugh Wilson was the person in the main.
- Note that Alan Wilson didn't even seem to know when this is happening! He thinks it was after the trip when we know the course was built before the trip! Yet you think he is a more reliable source than the person right there than one of the foremost experts on golf courses and the person right there at Merion with CBM advising them!
Far from excluding CBM/HJW, Alan Wilson's letter confirms that they involved. Their contribution to the layout plan was "of the greatest help and value." The contributors were CBM/HJW on the one hand, and the Committee on the other hand. But of the Committee, Hugh Wilson was the person in the main responsible.
In any reasonable conversation, such a statement by a man of the stature of H.J. Whigham in golf and journalism would close the issue unless the facts were overwhelmingly to the contrary. But there is nothing reasonable about this conversation. This was H.J. Whigham for goodness sakes. His family was golfing royalty in Scotland, and he was one of the pioneers of golf here. He had been building courses in the United States since the mid-1890's and had been working with CBM on CBM's courses since since the late 1890's. He not only knew CBM well and was his son-in-law, he was working with CBM on his designs and had been for years, and was eve a co-author of the article where CBM/HJW discuss Merion's Redan!
And, above all else, HE WAS THERE. HE WAS AN EYEWITNESS WITH A STRONG BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS ONGOING. HE WAS AT MERION WITH CBM BOTH IN THE SUMMER AND IN THE SPRING. HE TOO WAS ADVISING MERION!
These attempts to minimize him and his word are just a continuation of the nasty crap Mike, TEPaul, and Wayne have been writing about this guy for years.
-
" I DON'T THINK THAT THE ALAN WILSON LETTER MEANS WHAT THESE GUYS CLAIM IT MEANS!"
David,
Of course you don't! It seems to be an integral part of your method, determining that what people say isn't really what they say.
FWIW,
Since AW used the term "evolved" I think he was likely referring to all the bunker additons, etc. known to be done after Hugh got back from Scotland. It does presume the routing had already been done (and built) but it doesn't read to me as if AW was confused at all.
Also, I agree on Whigham being a stout individual, but those involved in Merion, AWT, and others were in the same company. The Whigham eulogy, while interesting, given CBM never claimed credit for MCC, is not that convincing to me given other equally impressive individuals (including Alan Wilson, no slouch and long time member on many committees) said something different, and many years closer to the events.
Just saying.
Hope you had a good Mothers Day in your family.
-
Typical Brauer. Never stops misrepresenting me so he can throw out another cheap-shot insult. I didn't misrepresent what AW said at all. I quoted him exactly. I don't sneakily change quotes like you do. You guys just keep twisting it try and make it mean something else.
It matters not to me whether he was describing what happened later or if he was confused about what happened initially. Either way,the bit about HW being the person in the main is about his work relative to the Committee, and not about CBM's involvement. And even while insulting me you inadvertently conceded my main point. Good thing you didn't the fact that you agree with me get in the way of your insults, or you might have changed your position!
And AWT was NOT INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL CREATION OF MERION EAST. Ironically, according to him, whatever he knew of the initial project - and whatever plans he saw - came from CBM! Yet you guys try to twist some statement he made 20+ years later (after the course had been changed significantly at HUGH WILSON'S DIRECTION) as a direct statement about what happened in 1910-1911?
You guys need to step back and and look at how desperate your position has become.
-
And I quoted you exactly, so the same applies. I didn't misrepresent you at all.
I understand that AWT got info on the early days of MCC from CBM, and then still wrote his article about Hugh Wilson designing the course!
As to your claim of never adding words to quotes, the actual Wilson quote was:
They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value.
Your quote was:
Their contribution to the layout plan was "of the greatest help and value."
Not sure if that changes the meaning in anyone's mind but there you have it - inadvertant slip we all make, or attempt to change the nuance, you changed a word. I have actually noticed it many other times, as well as slipping in your opinions as accepted fact. I generally let it go as human foible, but of course you point out every instance of it, all while declaring your total purity and ethcial nature because that is how you roll.
And we have recently seen articles by Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley (who were very active partipants) which say the committee laid out the course with the assistance of CBM. Why would you shift the argument to a passionate defense of HJW's stature, especially, when, as I pointed out, the Merion guys were of equal stature over the biggest participants?
The participants all say clearly that the committee designed the golf course. Again, the eulogy is an interesting twist, but far from convincing. Certainly no more than Alan Wilson's letter, who spent many years at MC ,vs 4 days for HJW. I stand by my statement that most of your position on MCC comes from cherry picking the most obscure points.
For that matter, while you seem to think everyone is dissing CBM by only giving him credit for assistance rather than full routing/layout, whatever, you actually are really dissing the history of Merion.
After all, with you saying so many documents don't say what they seemingly say, either the old MCC guys were (in your opinion) dumber than a stump, in a long time conspiracy to hide the truth of CBM's involvement, or just all coincidentally mistaken. Could any reasonable historical theory really think any/all of that happened? Really? And yet you think we are desparate just because we read the most contemporaneous documents and take them at their word. (another thing you DONT do, and they scream that you are the only one who does.
Its time to move on if your only evidence of more involvement by CBM is the eulogy. Hopefully, more documents will come to light, but rehashing that one after three to five years is really a waste of time and we have come the full circle - again!
-
Jim,
Sorry for not responding earlier. I see some further posts on your query, but wanted to respond anyway.
......................................
Bryan,
A day or so ago you and Mike were discussing the last measurement on the July deed and it's 76 yard straight shot up to College Ave. The immediate prior measurement was a 62 yard curving stretch (Tom Paul sent an email about this, not sure if you were copied) and that this was proof that the total length from College Ave was 138 yards and not the 120 we've been assuming. My question from the deeds is two-fold; does the Eastern portion of that 62 yard stretch track the western part with the same 3.667 yard width? Or does it continue straight South which would obviously add to the width of the top of the triangle well North of the 16th tee? Second, how many yards does that arching 62 yard stretch of road cover in a straight line continuing down to the 16th tee?
Hope those were clear and if you don't have time to look and figure it out, no sweat.
The dimensions from the July 1911 deed are as follows. The first measurement is from the middle of College Ave going south (all directions approx.) along the Haverford College boundary for 983.48 feet (328 yards). It is initially along the eastern edge of GHR. The metes and bounds track clockwise along the boundaries of the MCCGA property. The third last measurement is a curve to the left with a radius 200', a chord of 209' and an arc of 220'. The second last measurement is 230 feet (76.6 yards) going north up the middle of GHR and parallel to the first measurement and ending in the middle of College Ave. The last measurement is then east 11 feet along the middle of College Ave to meet the beginning of the first measurement.
On the following map the first measurement of 328 yards is in red. The second last measurement of 76.6 yards is in purple. The 190 yards dimension of the Francis triangle is in blue. Tom subtracted the 190 yards and the 76.6 yards from the 328 yards and came up with the 62 yard dimension in the middle. He was referring to the quasi-triangular area in yellow. He said it hasn't been a functional part of Merion for a century. Nevertheless MCCGA owned it when they were deeded the property in 1911. They also owned half (11 feet) of GHR. GHR was built by the time the survey for the deed was done sometime before July 1911.
This deed provides no further insight into when exactly GHR was planned in this configuration. I agree with you that it was not a major rerouting from the Land Plan map.
For those pondering access to the Haverford College property, have a look at the 1908 or 1913 RR maps. There is clearly a road into that property off of Haverford Road. There was no need for one from GHR.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merionminitriangle.jpg)
-
Mike,
No need to get hysterical, just askin'
Jeff,
Thanks, makes sense.
David,
Yes seriously. I didn't say anything about Wigham's writing, rather the likelihood that Alan Wilson didn't know what was going on. More importantly, I see that debate as a diversion so why introduce it?
Bryan,
Thank you. Is there any reason to think the extra 3 acres purchased in July is just Merion's share of road space? This has probably been covered through the years but I don't remember it. I did a rough estimate of GHR and their half was about 1 acre, do they also have to buy their share of Ardmore Ave?
-
Jim, why in heavens name would they care about access to Haverford College? I mean, good school and all but...
They already owned the Johnson Farm land UP to College Avenue, approx. 150 x 327 and we know certainly very good for golf.
Why truncate that plot artificially?
If both parties desired golf course fronting lots how would that possibly make any sense?
Can you show me on that land plan what you think the plan looked like prior to November? Remember, however you slice it you are telling us they originally thought it worked best to meet golf and real estate needs.
Jim,
I'm sorry, but how is this hysterical?
I'm not sure why you won't answer my questions, particularly the one about what you think the Land Plan looked like prior to November?
Here's the Johnson Farm property north of Ardmore Avenue (seeing the Haverford College road the Bryan mentioned) in 1908.
How do you think HDC and Merion had that tract subdivided roughly prior to Francis's brainstorm and what do you think their thinking was, since CBM had already told them that "much could be made" of the quarry as a hazard?
By the way, for everyone...CBM told them that he and Whigham thought it could be done provided the acquire a little more land near where they propose making their clubhouse. How do we know he isn't talking about the land of Haverford College along the tracks north of the clubhouse extending up past the quarry or perhaps THAT land as well as the railroad land southeast of the clubhouse??
We don't really know, do we? Yet, it would certainly seem logical to want land on both sides of the creek all along that stretch running to the railroad along the entire Johnson Farm.
Thanks.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5646491528_d52fe496b0_o.jpg)
-
David,
Yes seriously. I didn't say anything about Wigham's writing, rather the likelihood that Alan Wilson didn't know what was going on. More importantly, I see that debate as a diversion so why introduce it?
Jim, You asked why on earth I would take on the task of suggesting that HJWhigham was closer to the action at Merion than Alan Wilson was?
I didn't introduce the comparison but was rather responding to the claims that somehow a second hand account by AWilson ought to be given more weight than an expert eyewitness!
But in answer to this revised question, it is unlikely that Wilson knew what was going on. He wasn't there. He was obviously relying on what other people told him and his account of the timing either makes no sense or it only deals with H Wilson's accomplishments from spring 1912 on!
This is in sharp contrast to Whigham who was not only there, he was an expert on the subject matter from a variety of angles.
So when Brauer and Cirba dismiss and ignore and minimize Whigham's account, or try to raise their other question intepretations of various accounts to the level of an expert eyewitness, I need to bring attention to it. There approach is all about twisting. Like above how Brauer implies there was a hierarchy of who did what in the articles by Lesley and AWilson. That is his twisted reading. There was no hierarchy. CBM was right there with the Committee. The question is who was the one actually guiding the process and calling the shots. And various documents - Merion's minutes, Hugh Wilson's statements, Whigham's article - all strongly suggest that it was CBM/HJW. Mere secondary and peripherally involved assistants aren't put in the position of CHOOSING THE FINAL ROUTING PLAN.
-
And AWT was NOT INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL CREATION OF MERION EAST. Ironically, according to him, whatever he knew of the initial project - and whatever plans he saw - came from CBM! Yet you guys try to twist some statement he made 20+ years later (after the course had been changed significantly at HUGH WILSON'S DIRECTION) as a direct statement about what happened in 1910-1911?
David,
Why do you continue to make blanket statements that have no bearing on reality?
You have NO IDEA whether Tillinghast was there or not at any time prior to the course being built. Not a clue.
In fact, in late April 1911 when he tells us he has already seen the plans for the new course it wasn't even under construction yet. And, the article strongly infers that he saw them in Philadelphia AND, more importantly, had already been in direct communications with Hugh Wilson's Committee.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3726705533_c7b47c1289_m.jpg)
In fact, it's very clear that Tillinghast was directly tapped in to the entire Planning process, as he reported again the next month that CBM was "aiding" the Committee
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3450594315_6c50f0347e_o.jpg)
By the way, if Tilly got all his information from CBM, why did he neglect to even mention CBM in his Opening Day review of the course for American Cricketer magazine, instead citing the work of Wilson and his committee?
If CBM had indeed designed it, as arguably the most important man in golf in America in 1912, don't you think that little tidbit might have been important?
-
David,
By the time Whigham wrote that in late 1939, almost 30 years after the fact and with Hugh Wilson and others related to the event dead and gone, and with Merion having already hosted the 1916, 1924, and 1930 US Amateurs, as well as the 1934 US Open, as well as many other events of importance, and with ALL of the reports of the course over that 30 year period attributing it directly and clearly to Hugh Wilson and his Committee, and without a single person EVER attributing it to CBM...
Don't you think it was a pussy move? I mean, seriously...if there was a time to speak up he had thirty freaking years to do it yet sat quiet as a door mouse.
I mean, that was a manly thing to do? Are you kidding me?
And the other day you accused me of taking his statement out of context, so here's the prior paragraph, which should be viewed as historically accurate according to you.
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."
By 1939 Merion bore very little resemblance to the course that had opened in 1912 and Whigham had to have known that. Signficant routing and bunkering changes had taken place, mostly over the period of the first dozen years.
Yet, Whigham seemingly has no desire to either note those changes nor to credit them accurately.
He also seems to have included under the "Macdonald" umbrella, not just every course designed by Raynor, Banks, Barton, and probably Emmet, but also every course built in America where copies of famous holes or their principles from abroad were consciously used. While that is arguably justifiable to some extent, it also shows how far Whigham was reaching in his eulogy.
In the next paragraph, he also tells us that Pine Valley was started with the idea of "emulating the National". Interesting...that's the first time I've ever heard that before.
Was there a course built between 1910 and 1940 that Whigham didn't credit Macdonald for?
-
Jim,
Sorry for not responding earlier. I see some further posts on your query, but wanted to respond anyway.
The dimensions from the July 1911 deed are as follows. The first measurement is from the middle of College Ave going south (all directions approx.) along the Haverford College boundary for 983.48 feet (328 yards). It is initially along the eastern edge of GHR. The metes and bounds track clockwise along the boundaries of the MCCGA property. The third last measurement is a curve to the left with a radius 200', a chord of 209' and an arc of 220'. The second last measurement is 230 feet (76.6 yards) going north up the middle of GHR and parallel to the first measurement and ending in the middle of College Ave. The last measurement is then east 11 feet along the middle of College Ave to meet the beginning of the first measurement.
On the following map the first measurement of 328 yards is in red. The second last measurement of 76.6 yards is in purple. The 190 yards dimension of the Francis triangle is in blue. Tom subtracted the 190 yards and the 76.6 yards from the 328 yards and came up with the 62 yard dimension in the middle. He was referring to the quasi-triangular area in yellow. He said it hasn't been a functional part of Merion for a century. Nevertheless MCCGA owned it when they were deeded the property in 1911. They also owned half (11 feet) of GHR. GHR was built by the time the survey for the deed was done sometime before July 1911.
This deed provides no further insight into when exactly GHR was planned in this configuration. I agree with you that it was not a major rerouting from the Land Plan map.
For those pondering access to the Haverford College property, have a look at the 1908 or 1913 RR maps. There is clearly a road into that property off of Haverford Road. There was no need for one from GHR.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merionminitriangle.jpg)
Bryan,
Thanks for the additional information and for confirming that all Merion bought north of the 16th tee was the right half of Golf House Road and the little triangle of land to the east of it where the road swung back to the west. Of course, that triangle pretty much had to be included, yes? I mean, I don't think they could/would have said, oh...we'll just give that little morsel back to HDC! ;) ;D
In any case, do you really think that this isn't a "major rerouting from the Land Plan Map"? Maybe it's me, but when a plan is altered by over 100 yards in length and eliminates golf course facing properties, I'd say most real estate developers would see that as significant.
More importantly, if this change already happened by November, 1910, why do you think Pugh & Hubbard erroneously represented it on their scaled Land Plan Map? After all, they apparently surveyed the property, yes?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/3532451510_42f386a5bd_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2090/5703216281_559bfc19c1_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
The length wasn't altered at all. It still goes all the way to the center of GHR.
-
Jim,
What do you think the proposed Land Plan looked like before November if you think that date and Land Plan represented Francis's swap?
Under that Plan, would Merion have been responsible for purchasing the right half of Golf House Road up to College Avenue?
Would you think this accurately represents what you're thinking?
Recall that CBM had already told them in June 1910 that much could be made of the quarry as a hazard.
Do you think CBM would have advised them to artificially truncate the northern portion of the Johnson Farm that provided access to the quarry for golf holes? Why would he do that?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/5695084116_cf95593ae3_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
What makes you think there was a land plan before Nov 1910?
They finally get the Dallas Estate in October, if memory serves, and getting the property survey, developing the plan according to the agreement worked out for 120 acres, etc. etc. etc. easily would have taken a month for Pugh and Hubbard to put together.
This stuff just takes longer than DM seems to realize. As he says, and I agree, its a process, including getting the planning map put together even at that preliminary stage.
-
As far as others who were there, we know Alex Findlay was in town and visited with Hugh Wilson. Any mention of CBM and/or Whigham in his Opening Day article?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5637359475_94036cf3d2_o.jpg)
How about "Far and Sure", who wrote for Walter Travis's "American Golfer" magazine. While telling us that;
Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen, but every new course is "one of the best in the country" and one must see to believe after trying it out.
...then tell us that the holes themselves are but rough drafts of the problems that have been CONCEIVED by the Construction Committee. One must have to wonder what driving stakes into the ground to someone else's direction and "conceive"ing of problems of golf holes have to do with each other, but alas...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4338093278_fd77ac034f_o.jpg)
Evidently this whole idea of driving stakes into the ground must have been quite the impressive feat. Shortly after Merion opened, one of the richest men in the country, Clarence H. Geist, decided to build his dream course and resort at Seaview near Atlantic City which started in the spring of 1913.
Despite the fact that according to some here, Hugh Wilson had accomplished nothing by that point architecturally (the West course at Merion wouldn't open to members until Memorial Day 1914), we find out in this October 1913 article that indeed Hugh Wilson has laid out the golf course for Mr. Geist.
Here's the relevant portion;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/3153151393_8210e69b66_m.jpg)
Here's a July, 1914 Philadelphia Record article that provides additional information;
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Seaview/07261914_PhilaRecord_p1.jpg)
-
Mike,
What makes you think there was a land plan before Nov 1910?
They finally get the Dallas Estate in October, if memory serves, and getting the property survey, developing the plan according to the agreement worked out for 120 acres, etc. etc. etc. easily would have taken a month for Pugh and Hubbard to put together.
This stuff just takes longer than DM seems to realize. As he says, and I agree, its a process, including getting the planning map put together even at that preliminary stage.
Jeff,
I wholeheartedly agree, which is my point. ;) ;D
The idea that the November 15, 1910 Land Plan represents a border change of any sort initiated by Richard Francis's Brainstorm presupposes that some type of fixed or working border existed prior to that time!
Of course, that's preposterous, and not supported by anything at all in the way of evidence, records, deeds, correspondence, et.al.
-
Another barage of newspaper articles? Really?
Jeff,
Is it in any way significant to you that the committee only took CBM / HJW to one site?
Also, for the Dallas deed to be transferred in October, when do you think they verbally agreed with the executor of Mr. Dallas' estate to buy his land? August?
Mike,
Why would "it seem logical to want land on both sides of the creek"?
In answer to earlier questions, it's clear from Francis' comment that the 15th green and 16th tee were newly acquired land after his idea. Beyond that, I don't wish to draw a line. Clearly the line you guys are using as a hard boundary was not intended to be...
Do you think the entire area or road coverage MCCGA was required to purchase could have totaled 3 acres? GHR and Ardmore Avenue in total...
-
Jim,
The sale of the Dallas Estate to HDC took place in November.
The advantage of having land on both sides of the creek is that it can be used as a crossing hazard, i.e. the 11th hole at Merion built in 1924 or the original 13th. It doesn't quite have the same strategic impact as a backstop.
If you don't agree, witness the article I posted last week that told us Hugh Wilson wished to purchase the land where today's 11th green and 12th tee are located back when the course was first conceived, but that was not possible at the time. So, the original 11th green had the creek behind it, which nobody thought was a particularly stellar hole.
There was absolutely no property configuration between golf and real estate, fixed, or otherwise, prior to the exchange of letters between HDC and Merion in mid-November and the subsequent issuance of the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan that would have necessitated any type of swap at all.
Why would Merion then have land ("we had some land") prior to then to swap for the triangle land, in your view? For that matter, why would they need to swap for the triangle land at all as the terms of the agreement, even as late as December, indicated that there was no fixed boundary at that time, only the agreement to purchase 117 acres once those borders were determined?
-
Mike,
You run into problems when you make each piece of material an absolute beginning AND ending point. Each step took weeks or months from inception until the asset we see, whether it's a letter or a map, to fully materialize. As an example, you'll agree that HDC and MCC didn't decide on that Map on November 15th, correct? That conversation began much earlier.
Another example is your comment that..."There was absolutely no property configuration between golf and real estate, fixed, or otherwise, prior to the exchange of letters between HDC and Merion in mid-November and the subsequent issuance of the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan that would have necessitated any type of swap at all." Merion didn't have any land until July 1911...how do you reconcile that with your strict reading of every piece of information?
-
Here we go again with Mike's endless parade of pointless and tangential articles, and the kind of cherry picking and misrepresentation that rises to the level of sleaziness in my book.
He accuses me of making "blanket statements that have no basis in reality" for stating that AWT was not involved in the initial creation of Merion East and that AWT's source of information regarding the project was CBM. Then he cherry picks passages and quotes to create the false impression that AWT might have been involved.
None of the oft posted articles put AWT into the mix at Merion. None of them have AWT getting information from anyone other than CBM. Mike knows this. He knows that the other articles show that CBM was the source of the information, yet he tries to create the false impression otherwise.
He has been arguing that "Far and Sure" was AWT for years now, yet Mike manages to dance around the fact Far and Sure admittedly had never seen the course until after it was opened! Funny he was so involved in its creation and in the middle of what was ongoing that he had never even been there! Similarly, Mike posts one Findlay article without mentioning the one which indicates that CBM was responsible for the layout of some of the holes at Merion. And he ignores that the article states that the construction committee BUILT the course and if anything gives credit to his pal Pickering!
This is the best case that he can come up with for Wilson? A bunch of tangential arguments none of which were written by anyone who was there and NONE of which directly address the questions at issue?
What is wrong with this picture? Why are we even discussing this? If this is the case for Hugh Wilson, then there really isn't anything to discuss.
____________________________
As for Mike's continued attacks on Whigham. PURE SLEAZE. Now Whigham is a "PUSSY"? Add that to the list of insults Mike and his pathetic Philly buddies have hurled at one of the greatest men in the history of American Golf!
And for what exactly is Whigham a "PUSSY?" Mike think he should have objected to the statements about Hugh Wilson having been involved at Merion throughout the years? Why? Hugh Wilson was involved. THERE WASN'T EVEN ANYTHING OUT THERE CLAIMING THAT HUGH WILSON CAME UP WITH THE INITIAL PLAN! Nothing.
______________________________________
The most telling ridiculous statement among many might be Mike's claim that I "have NO IDEA whether Tillinghast was there or not at any time prior to the course being built. Not a clue."
First I do have an idea because if we look at all his articles we can figure out where he got his info. From a conversation with CBM at Garden City. And also because if, as Mike says, Far and Sure was AWT, then he had never been there during the time in question.
Second, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, Mike's statement is indicative of their methodology. They think that they can just make things up - pretend facts into existence - and then treat them as true unless someone refutes them! And yes I think that "pretend" is the right word because Mike's argument for AWT's involvement is that he (wrongly) thinks there is no evidence that AWT wasn't involved. He thinks that whatever he writes is true until proven otherwise. He cannot meet any reasonable standard on his own, so he tries to shift the burden. He spouts off and then leaves it to others to disprove. That is what he had done time and again. How many times has he announced things were "obvious" or beyond challenge only to have those things eventually be proven false?
And that is what they are doing here with these repeated claims that the record establishes that everyone wrote that Hugh Wilson and not CBM came up with the plan. That is not what the record establishes. Not when Brauer broad brushes it or when Cirba does his tiring parade of articles. There is no meat in any of it. Nothing close to the Whigham article. Nothing close to Merion's own Board Minutes. Nothing close to Hugh Wilson's own tribute to CBM and HJW. Nothing close to even A.Wilson's acknowledgement.
It is a farce. It is like Brauer's Birthers or the idiots demanding a photo of Bin Laden before they will believe him dead. No proof will suffice. No reasonableness will prevail. They will continue with tangents and misrepresentations to keep their legend alive no matter what. Just like Cirba did for years with the legend of the overseas trip! Just like TEPaul, Wayne and Cirba did with the legend of Merion buying the land in 1909 or before! Just like they have done with false portrayals and character assassination of H.J. Whigham!
-
Jeff,
Is it in any way significant to you that the committee only took CBM / HJW to one site?
Also, for the Dallas deed to be transferred in October, when do you think they verbally agreed with the executor of Mr. Dallas' estate to buy his land? August?
Jim,
Not at all, even if David's events happen to be the correct interpretation.
They were going to buy land along the main line, where they were going to locate the course because their membership already lived there (unlike NGLA where CBM would develop the membership, and even then, being too far out was a consideration)
They got a sweetheart offer for land at sub-market value from a developer. Would you take CBM to some other land that would cost you 2-3X to build your golf course? Frankly, the land was good for golf, but just gently rolling like most other land along the main line. There were no alternate ocean front or Pine Valley sites to choose from where they were committed to build.
This is how most golf course deals in history go down. It is just wrong to compare the unique NGLA model to other courses, and even if you did, please recall that CBM first offered on 120 acres WITHOUT doing a routing plan that he mentioned. He lucked into the ideal situation, but he didn't expect it. We do not know just how much evaluation of that 120 acres he did, but I suspect it was a lot like what happened at Merion, making sure it was of regular dimensions, making sure it enclosed some good features to use, and probably, leaving some wiggle room.
I agree that they were talking, secretively through their buyer about the land for a long time, and the deal was announced earlier than the actual purchase, which I thought was in October, but Mike corrects me that it was November, when things then obviously started moving quickly.
The question is whether they would have sent the surveyors out there, etc. I wouldn't say the actual sale date precudes earlier work, but do believe the secretiveness they used might - if word got out, the seller could always change their mind until the names were on the dotted line.
Mike,
Your parsing of Francis words makes sense to me, but like the swallows returning to Capistrano, David has come out to tell us just how evil you are in twisting yet another bit of the Merion records. BTW, did you notice that when I impolitely caught him changing the record, he doesn't even mention it, apolgize, whatever? Like everything else, he just ignores the inconvenient truth.
BTW, from the private emails we have all been getting, it appears that David has finally pissed off Merion enough for them to undertake their own point by point rebuttal. It might be as logical a spot as any to hand off the battle to those more closely invested in what David has been saying about them all these past few years.
I thhink you hae done your job! Time to bow out because there is no sense being a diaper to the baby that is David.
-
David,
It was a pussy move.
You don't assign credit after everyone else is dead.
If you felt CBM was the true author of Merion, which NO ONE ever said was the case prior, he had 30 years and multiple major tournaments to cough it up and have that discussion.
Instead, he pussied out, and then buried it deeper than Osama bin Laden, hoping no one who knew better would notice.
But Jeff is correct...it's time to move on. Good luck getting anyone besides Mucci and MacWood to believe your specious theories, but you may first want to tell the latter that Barker didn't design Merion during his December train ride if you're going to credit CBM and consider that the former has a man-crush on CBM deeper and stronger than a post-pubescent girl on Justin Bieber. ;D
Adieu.
Jim,
You can't swap land that you don't own. Nor can you swap that land for other land if the whole property is open to having the boundaries subsequently defined with a fixed acreage limit.
I think we've made our points and hanging around this thread any longer is not going to be productive.
Thanks.
-
Jeff,
The point of my question was...if they were looking for CBM to select the parcel for them, they would have taken him to more than one. I think they knew this is where they were going and were happy to have his affirmation...little else.
Why do you think the land they bought was "sub-market value"? They do say the ~$750 an acre was half the average or somehting like that, but this particular 120 acres would have been well less desireable than the rest of the plot, no? A quarry! Low lying and creek infested! I think better for golf AND worse for housing.
Mike,
"We" didn't own the land until July 1911.
-
Would you tell HJW's great grandchilden that that their grandfather was a pussy and a liar, Mike?
Just imagine the reaction if tried to assassinate the character Hugh Wilson or call him names like this!
All you guys have is name calling and character assassination and lies. That's what has happened toward CBM and HJW for years, and what Mike, TEPaul, and Wayne have been doing with me for years. If you want your man to stand tall, just try to knock down everyone else.
_____________________________________________
Can anyone come up with any legitimate reason for discarding Whigham's words? Mike obviously cannot.
-
Mike,
Not really wanting to prolong this, and am repeating a point I made before, but at lunch, I re-read George Bahto's book and he notes Raynor was hired in 1910, and the Piping Rock and Sleep Hollow designs started then, with construction going on the next two years. How does that tie in?
Did HJW just recall working somehow on all three that year and lump them together?
On the other side, if CBM had actively assisted and advised many clubs prior, but started fully designing courses at the same time, was Merion simply the last assist he did without full control? (George reports frustrations at both PR and SH) with members limiting his input and directing his designs in different ways)
So, we can add "CBM never took credit at nearly the exact same time he did take credit for other courses" to the litany of people who say he just advised them. And, as David reminds us, CBM was there and an active participant!
To be fair, it seems that David is (IMHO) fixating on the title of adviser over designer. But, perhaps there was a real reason given the timing of him starting his full time work with Raynor that CBM himself preferred to be credited that way, no?
-
Yes David, I can.
Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.
It's worth saying, this is only discarding your interpretation of Wigham's words...there's every chance he knew exactly what CBM did for/at Merion and it's exactly what Merion has always credited him with.
Why would CBM go from "calling all the shots" in April 1911 to never showing up again? The construction phase lasted a while if I'm not mistaken...
-
Jim,
Good point and the last sentence or yours is related to my post just above yours.
Why would CBM do that on what would arguably be his first CBM-Raynor collaboration. Why wasn't Raynor ever there, despite having just been hired by CBM at the same time? I suppose its possible that CBM offered to do the whole job, but pulled back when the two closer jobs swamped Raynor's capabilities.
Or, MCC simply signed on before Raynor, when CBM was in the adivse and assist mode for so many other clubs. Why is it so hard to believe that if he did it for dozens of friends (and Lloyd was at least an acquaintence) that he didn't do it at Merion?
HJW words are interesting but taken in an analysis of all other facts, certainly cannot be taken as the last word on the matter.
-
My reading of CBM's June 29th letter is that of a man happy to have visited and to give some advice, but not actively involved.
Ironically, the timeline that has all work taking place in January - April 1911 puts alot more weight onto David's argument in my opinion...but that's just an opinion...
-
Jeff,
CBM himself tells us exactly what courses he designed after the National soft-opened in July 1910 in chronological order. Not surprisingly, he doesn't mention Merion.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5637184905_ebfac28e0d_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5637184919_1fd4dede3c_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5637184943_4f33143de1_b.jpg)
-
I think we've made our points and hanging around this thread any longer is not going to be productive.
Something tells me that north of 1000 people hereabouts are in complete agreement with that statement!
Adieu.
-
I noticed that George credited the hire of Raynor to 1910, and it took two years for construction, as opposed to one for Merion. Not sure if that was due to the more excessive earthworks at a true CBM course, bad luck, or maybe, while committed in 1910, design work really didn't get started until 1911.
Again, CBM was there. He says what he says. He doesn't say what he doesn't say.
Doesn't it take a fantastic imagination to ignore CBM, and take HJW's word over CBM's writings?
I think so, but obviously one person differs.
-
Terry,
Obviously yes.
It gets to be an interesting dilemma. Do we let David's statements go (and to be fair, him let ours go) and hope they will be ignored (like Obama and the birth records) or do we go Bill Clinton style, and set up the war room to refute anything written within an hour or two?
Obviously, we went with the Clinton option.
-
Yes David, I can.
Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.
Jim I wish you would lay this all out for me because I don't think that Whigham contradicts anyone actually involved!
And I don't mean just parading out all of Cirba's tangential articles. I mean listing and explaining where those involved are in significant contradiction with H.J. Whigham on the issue. And if possible addressing my explanations as to why this is not the case.
That is what I have done with each of these questions and issues over the years, and I'd like to see someone on the other side actually try the same. Not with Brauer's broad brush or with Cirba's unsupportable claims or lists, but an actual intelligent presentation of where THOSE AT MERION WHO WERE INVOLVED contradict Whigham's assertion or my paper.
That isn't too much to ask, is it?
As an aside, I came across and considered the Whigham Eulogy rather late in the process. It is buried in the back of George's book and I don't have access to the old Country Life magazines so I had never seen it. My theories were in place without Whigham, and based almost entirely on the very documents you claim contradict Whigham. That is what blows my mind. It is as if we are reading different documents. Everyone pointed to CBM/HJW showing the way and Wilson doing the work on the ground and you guys see it as someone excluding CBM and HJW!
It's worth saying, this is only discarding your interpretation of Wigham's words...there's every chance he knew exactly what CBM did for/at Merion and it's exactly what Merion has always credited him with.
I don't get this. I don't think there is much controversial about my interpretation. Merion is included in a list of famous courses designed by CBM and/or Raynor or both. So what am I missing?
Why would CBM go from "calling all the shots" in April 1911 to never showing up again? The construction phase lasted a while if I'm not mistaken...
Because he wasn't interested in building a course in Philadelphia. CBM/HJW had helped them design it and left them to it. He wasn't a professional architect or even a full time amateur architect. He had a day job in New York City and he spent much of his time on Long Island. He was getting his clubhouse built and tinkering with NGLA and was or soon would be helping Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow with their courses.
I never said he built the course, did I? But, by the way, we do know that during construction he was still involved and communicating with Hugh Wilson because Wilson forwarded one of his letters (a letter suggesting earlier correspondence) to Piper Oakley. We don't have the Wilson CBM correspondence, only suggestions of it and an example from the Piper Oakley Letters. But we do know how much Hugh Wilson liked to write letters, so it is difficult to imagine there were only these few.
-
But Jeff is correct...it's time to move on. Good luck getting anyone besides Mucci and MacWood to believe your specious theories, but you may first want to tell the latter that Barker didn't design Merion during his December train ride if you're going to credit CBM and consider that the former has a man-crush on CBM deeper and stronger than a post-pubescent girl on Justin Bieber. ;D
Mike, you might recall that I differed with David, early on, regarding CBM's involvement with Merion.
But, How do you explain the original 10th hole at Merion if Macdonald wasn't involved in the design ?
How do you explain the existance of the other CBM template holes at Merion.
Jim,
You can't swap land that you don't own.
Actually, you can, under conditonal agreements
Nor can you swap that land for other land if the whole property is open to having the boundaries subsequently defined with a fixed acreage limit.
I think we've made our points and hanging around this thread any longer is not going to be productive.
Why are you so anxious to force the termination of this thread ?
Threads die of disinterest or due to their shelf life expiring.
Let this thread expire of natural causes, and not a mandate from parties with a vested interest.
Would you shut down a Justin Bieber concert during intermission ? ;D
This thread and the history of Merion reminds me of a quote alleged by Mao Tse Tung, when asked about the consequences of the French Revolution, he responded, "it's too early to tell"
Let things play themselves out without any assisstance from anyone
-
Terry Lavin,
The reason this got started again is because the entire thread was about NGLA all along with Mike trying to discredit something or another that he never quite understood about my IMO. Then Cirba and Brauer launched into name calling and attacks on my IMO with Mike calling it "absurd" and "asinine" and Jeff Brauer, who has little or no understanding of what historical analysis even is, ridiculously asserting that I had provided no BASIS for my conclusions. And since then it has been them spewing out one repeated claim after another.
I said then and will say again that I don't care if I ever convince these two and if I did convince them it would probably mean I was wrong. But I am not going to let them malign me and my IMO without a fight.
Also, it is worth noting that TEPaul is pulling the strings here. These two are his lackeys. I haven't counted them or read most of them, but I'll bet I have received over 50 emails from TEPaul and Morrison in the past few weeks alone.
___________________________________________________________________________________
As usual Jeff Brauer has never quite got his hands around who CBM was or what he did for a living. He wasn't a professional golf course architect and so far as I know he only hired Raynor at NGLA and that was in 1906 or 1907. They were not a design team in the way Brauer and his associate might be. CBM was a very successful player on Wall Street, a speculator. Golf course design was never his primary calling. He never had a firm or a company or a business partnership or employees.
NGLA was not a comparable project to Merion as construction and grow in were concerned but since this thread has never been about NGLA I won't go into the differences except to say that I am not surprised that Brauer has no clue as to the differences.
Again, CBM was there. He says what he says. He doesn't say what he doesn't say.
Doesn't it take a fantastic imagination to ignore CBM, and take HJW's word over CBM's writings?
I think so, but obviously one person differs.
What a surprise! Jeff Brauer drawing faulty conclusions from a lack of understanding of the underlying source material.
Scotland's Gift was not a complete account of everything CBM had done in golf design or golf. If it had been, it would have as long as the Faker Flynn, but accurate and well written. Plenty of his projects aren't even mentioned.
___________________________________
Patrick,
I've noticed they are decidedly uninterested in discussing the actual golf course. I think you should start a thread and ask those questions. I'd like them to explain the CBM holes at Merion to a larger audience.
-
Contemporaneous reports from Tillinghast, Findlay, and everyone else in Philadelphia at the time were "tangential"
National magagine accounts crediting the Committee are "tangential'.
An obviously erroneous blurb 30 years after the fact where Whigham essentially credits Macdonald with every US Course created after 1910 is a gem.
I think that's enough....
It's funny...
I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".
Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.
First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.
Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association, to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?
It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.
Good night.
-
One need only examine the reasonableness or lack thereof in Mike's arguments to tell who has the upper hand in this discussion.
Although there may be a fair question as to my sanity after I have even bothered to engage with this clown.
-
Jim Sullivan,
It seems to me that CBM's style evolved from a "hands on" style, to a more distant, "concept" style.
In his writings CBM indicated that he crafted the concepts, gave the plans to Raynor, and Raynor implemented them.
Raynor carried out CBM's concepts/plans so well that he rarely had a question about them.
I've always been interested in the connection and any communications between Raynor and Francis, two civil engineers.
One would think that these two men had to be in touch with one another on the Merion project.
-
One need only examine the reasonableness or lack thereof in Mike's arguments to tell who has the upper hand in this discussion.
Although there may be a fair question as to my sanity after I have even bothered to engage with this clown.
Ditto on your last point.
As far as who has the upper hand, I rest confident that no history books will be re-written any time soon, nor have you swayed anyone here not already so inclined, like Patrick, who is now creating man-love between Raynor and Francis, although it's funny.
Richard Francis doesn't even mention CB Macdonald in his account of the creation of Merion, much less Seth Raynor.
But, that's never mattered much here apparently.
Jim,
I'll leave this thread with this last thought...
I think it's much more likely that the Francis Swap happened after April 1911 than before November 1910.
-
I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".
Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.
First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.
Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association, to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?
It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.
Good night.
I realize some of you might not understand what I mean when I refer to the foolishness of Mike's arguments, although if at this point you don't then there may be no hope for you.
Nonetheless I wondered where he had gotten this bit about his supposed epiphany moment, when he realized he had have enough of me? I couldn't recall saying any of the garbage he accuses me of, so I thought I'd go back and check it out. It provides in interesting example of how his brain works, and a good example of how NOT to approach historical analysis:
- Mike Cirba claims that his epiphany about the horrors of my position came when Joe Baush first posted the above article by Evans.
- Joe posted this article before I returned to the website and BEFORE my IMO had been posted.
- Ironically, I think this makes Mike's point about the timing TRUE. As was obvious to anyone there at that time, Mike dismissed my argument as unreasonable before I had even made it! So he thought it "was enough" regardless of what I claimed. No matter the support.
- Also ironic is the fact the discussion wasn't about whether Merion designed the course, it was about whether Wilson went abroad before building Merion East! (It had leaked out that my paper would make the claim that he didn't.)
- What happened was that Joe mistakenly misread and misquoted the Evans Article as saying "the new Merion course" as opposed to what it really said, which was "the new Merion courses." He was talking about both courses, and I corrected this:
Hi Joe. Thanks for all the legwork and old articles, especially the ones from the Ledger, most of which I have never seen.
One thing though, I think perhaps you may have unintentionally misread the piece you copied above. In a previous thread you quoted it as referring to the "new Merion courses." In fact, it refers to the "new Merion course." In Oct. 1913, the new Merion course was the West, which had been constructed and seeded earlier that year.
I believe the correct reading complete negates the conclusion many have drawn.
The author does not write that Wilson went overseas before he built the East Course. Why wouldn't he have so written, if that was in fact the case?
- It should be obvious to by now to anyone but Mike that I was correct about this. Wilson went abroad to study before building the West Course, not the East Course.
And there you have Mike's big epiphany, the moment where be had had enough of me and my arguments! I corrected Joe on what I was sure was an honest error (although none of the true believers caught it) and would teach Mike and his cronies (and everyone else) that they were mistaken in their belief that WILSON WENT ABROAD TO STUDY BEFORE BUILDING THE EAST COURSE.
Never mind that it took Mike thousands of posts and various wild goose chases to finally believe this (if he does) or that he used to parade out the same lists of documents that in his mind proved beyond all doubt that Wilson went abroad before! Never mind that this current argument parallels that one to such a degree that not even Mike can tell them apart!
That is Mike's approach in a nutshell.
1. Misrepresent what my views.
2. Misunderstand and misuse the source material.
3. Rail at me.
4. Dismiss my arguments no matter how sound.
5. Stick with the legend no matter what!
-
By the way, here is the link to the post
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=820784051c5b4759a96f88b3c226a750&topic=34035.msg682042#msg682042
It is interesting to read the "David Moriarty" thread again.
Among other things, notice that Wayne Morrison and Joe Bausch bet me about whether I would prove correct regarding the Wilson trip. I have proven correct but because Wayne Morrison's word isn't worth a piss (not even one on CBM's grave) he has never paid up.
-
Mike Cirba,
I find it interesting that you're willing to dismiss what Francis didn't write while at the same time dismissing what Whigham did write.
Surely, even you see the flaw in your logic and intended position.
-
David,
Good luck.
-
Mike's last few posts reminded me of some things I left off the list above, such as the immature stunts, fits, grandstanding, renaming threads, and time after time when he has indicated he was done with the issue only to return a few posts later.
As for the last one, I really wish he wouldn't get our hopes up like that.
-
Yes David, I can.
Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.
Jim I wish you would lay this all out for me because I don't think that Whigham contradicts anyone actually involved!
David,
That's a fair request and I'll work on it. I don't have any of this stuff handy so it'll take some work so be patient.
One thing first; are you only looking for information directly from the committee members? And only up through April 6, 1911?
-
Jim Sullivan,
It seems to me that CBM's style evolved from a "hands on" style, to a more distant, "concept" style.
In his writings CBM indicated that he crafted the concepts, gave the plans to Raynor, and Raynor implemented them.
Raynor carried out CBM's concepts/plans so well that he rarely had a question about them.
I've always been interested in the connection and any communications between Raynor and Francis, two civil engineers.
One would think that these two men had to be in touch with one another on the Merion project.
Perhaps, but the tone of reference to CBM is different than David's suggestion that he was "calling the shots"...that's what I can't reconcile...their tone.
-
That is a fair request and I'll work on it. I don't have any of this stuff handy so it'll take some work so be patient.
One thing first; are you only looking for information directly from the committee members? And only up through April 6, 1911?
Take your time.
I was hoping you'd focus on anyone directly involved with the initial creation of the course. That includes not only the members of the Construction Committee but also CBM and HJW and Lesley. Or anyone else so long as there is substantial evidence indicating that the person was actually involved.
Not sure what you are asking regarding the date. I don't care if the source material is from before or after April 6, 1911 but it ought to address what happened during the planning stage of the course. For example, I'd include the 1914 Lesley introduction the Merion courses to the golfing world in Golf Illustrated, because it discussed the initial creation of the East Course.
Most importantly, I'd was hoping for some analysis of why you think each source contradicted Whigham's words and my claims. For example Robert Lesley wrote, "The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."
I read this statement as meaning that the Committee was responsible for laying the course out on the ground and that CBM and HJW advised them as to the layout. I don't see this is contradicting Whigham's words or my claims. In fact I think that it provided a pretty sound basis for crediting them right along with Hugh Wilson. But if you see it differently, then I'd you to explain exactly how it contradicts Whigham's words and my claims. Make sense? Same goes for the rest of these sources you claim contradict Whigham.
___________________________________________________________
By the way I've always found Lesley's further acknowledgements at the conclusion of the description to be particularly interesting. To me it reads as if he is thanking three distinct groups of men, which I have highlighted in different colors:
So much for the history that led to this remarkable development in American golf. And to the men who built the courses, to the men who subscribed to the stock, to the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem, the Merion Cricket Club owes its sincere thanks, and Philadelphia golf as a whole is also indebted.
Who were these three groups? And where do CBM and HJW fit?
1. The men who built the courses? Hugh Wilson and his Committee, along with whoever they hired.
2. The men who subscribed to the stock? H.G. Lloyd and those who supported his financial plan.
3. The men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem? Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham.
While it sounds strange now, phrases like "working out the problem" were often used to describe planning a golf hole or golf course.
______________________________________________
Not sure what you mean by a "tone difference" or "their tone." Whose tone?
I will say that "tone" is an easy thing to mistake when reading these old source materials, and thus probably the easiest place for us to substitute in our own beliefs. IMO this is what Mike, TEPaul, Wayne, etc. are doing when they insist that Hugh Wilson, Merion, Robert Lesley, and Alan Wilson were all just being modest and polite when they told us how important and valuable CBM's guidance was to the process.
To me a more respectful and honest way to read it is to take them at their word where at all possible. And when we do that then the tone changes from excessive and dishonest politeness (because this view holds he wasn't really all that helpful) to that of graciousness for his great contributions and sincere acknowledgement that they could not have done it without CBM and HJW.
In other words they are all going out of their way to credit CBM and HJW. So rather than try and parse and whittle down CBM's and HJW's contributions to a bare minimum of what is explicitly documented in the very limited record, shouldn't we give credit where they all gave credit?
For example, you keep trying to minimize CBM's and HJW's contribution to the decision of whether to purchase the land. But Lesley's 1910 report to the Board tells us that the Golf Committee's decision to recommend the purchase was based largely upon CBM's and HJW's advice regarding the purchase! So shouldn't we respect this? Or do you understand his tone to mean something different?
-
David,
Re Whigham, in the eulogy he has CBM and himself horses riding around the NGLA property in Sept 1907 - a clear error. Could be he was in error on CBM designing Merion too. I agree that Mike has gone a little overboard with his characterization of Whigham. But then the faux indignation level on both sides is really high and becoming increasingly tiresome on both sides.
Would it be fair to say that in your opinion CBM/HJW designed the initial course based on Barker's original plan with assistance from the Construction Committee? Would it be fair to say that in the opposition's opinion that the Committee, led by Wilson, designed the course assisted by CBM/HJW? Just trying to parse down the disagreement to its most basic element.
-
Bryan, I don't know how you can say that was "a clear error." It may have been an error, but I am not so sure. They very easily could have been riding around NGLA in September 1907.
But assuming it was an error, do you really think being off on a date by a year is comparable to being wrong about whether CBM designed a course or not? We aren't dealing with a senile old man here, but rather the editor of a major magazine. Confusing a year is pretty common stuff, but forgetting whether CBM designed a course? I for one don't think it reasonable to assume he was might have been wrong about Merion just because he may have been wrong by a year when describing riding around NGLA. Especially given that the article seems to be otherwise accurate.
Would it be fair to say that in your opinion CBM/HJW designed the initial course based on Barker's original plan with assistance from the Construction Committee?
While I don't know who exactly from Merion was involved in the design besides Wilson, Francis, and Lloyd, I wouldn't reduce their role to that of assisting CBM/HJW. I'd put them side by side. Wilson and others from Merion designed Merion East with CBM/HJW, much like Raynor would later design courses with CBM and then build them. But like CBM with Raynor, when it came to the plans I think that CBM/HWJ were calling the shots.
As for Barker's routing, it seems to have been a starting point, but it seems impossible to say what of it survived the process.
Would it be fair to say that in the opposition's opinion that the Committee, led by Wilson, designed the course assisted by CBM/HJW? Just trying to parse down the disagreement to its most basic element.
You'd have to ask them about this. At times they haven't gone nearly that far, but have rather continued to deny that CBM/HJW had any real input into the design or that Merion followed CBM/HJW's guidance as to the design at all. I'd like to hear specifically what they say once and for all, because they've been all over the place on this issue.
-
David,
Well, hopefully Mike and/or Jeff will respond to the last section. We've become so lost in the details and the slanging back and forth that I think that perhaps everyone has lost sight of what the central issue is that's being heatedly debated. In the end, it may make no difference if my two synopsis statements characterize the two viewpoints. Both sides are entrenched. You have stated many times now that your view is in your opinion, based on your analysis, but that we don't know for sure. I suspect they would say exactly the same thing about their view. In the end, neither matters - it is the history of the Merion Golf Club and they will publish and maintain their history as they wish. If they revise it to include some of your good research then that is a victory of sorts. If the real Merion Golf Club rejects your central thesis that CBM was calling the shots in the original design, then there's not much you can do about that. It'll be interesting to see if there is a new history published for the Open and what it says if it is.
-
Bryan,
First, I am not sure how you could call me entrenched when my actual position was substantial more toward the middle than the one you attributed to me. Plus, I have always been willing to consider new information and analysis, and unlike the other side on this I readily admit that there is much we do not know. In contrast those opposed here have fought every single little thing tooth and nail for years. Look at the issue of the timing of the trip for goodness sake! Or Mike's unwillingness to deal realistically with Whigham. One need only look at how long and bitter their battles have been about even the most obvious points to see that! As you may recall, I was first called a liar in these debates and a very long battle ensued when I accurately informed Wayne Morrison the correct yardage of Merion's 10th hole! They couldnt not even accept something as objective as a measure!
Second, I strongly disagree with you about what matters and what doesn't. History doesn't belong to anyone, not even Merion Golf Club. What happened, happened. No matter what they write in their history book. They can publish what they wish but their doing so doesn't mean that their view is accurate or correct or the view that will ultimately prevail.
Convincing Merion has never been my goal, nor was changing the credit.
_____________________________________
As for whether there will be a history for the Open, something is obviously in the works. In his late night rants TEPaul keeps bringing up some dastardly plan that will be hatched around the time of the Open to embarrass me good and put me in by place once and for all. Promises, promises. Pathetic and juvenile stuff, I know. And I seriously doubt that Merion has any inkling of TEPaul's twisted view on it, but they are probably working on something.
But I thought that TEPaul and Wayne were going to address it all and put it all to rest in their long awaited Faker Flynn pdf. Boy was I wrong about that!
-
Mike,
Bryan,
Thanks for the additional information and for confirming that all Merion bought north of the 16th tee was the right half of Golf House Road and the little triangle of land to the east of it where the road swung back to the west. Of course, that triangle pretty much had to be included, yes? I mean, I don't think they could/would have said, oh...we'll just give that little morsel back to HDC! Wink Grin Yes, I think the little triangle had to be included (and was) when the road configuration was decided and MCCGA decided they were going to buy half of it up to College Ave. Do you attach some significance to that little triangle?
In any case, do you really think that this isn't a "major rerouting from the Land Plan Map"? No, I don't think it's a major rerouting. If you look at the Land Plan, they aligned GHR with Turnbridge. If you look at the current, as built aerial, GHR is displaced all of 10 or 15 yards to the east of Turnbridge. As built it goes down a bit straighter than the Land Plan and then arcs west a bit wider. In my book that's a pretty minimalistic realignment. As I recall, you were trying to say that little tuck in here and let out there at the northern end of GHR constituted Francis' land swap. In my opinion it is not. Maybe it's me, but when a plan is altered by over 100 yards in length and eliminates golf course facing properties, I'd say most real estate developers would see that as significant. I'm not sure what you mean by 100 yards of length. The as built GHR doesn't really align with the Land Plan throughout its entire length. It's a little bit in here and a little bit out there. But then the Land Plan road was approximate, so it has little real meaning a s a basis point. As to eliminating golf facing properties, where exactly would those be. On the 1913 RR map, there is only one single solitary lot at GHR and College that would not look over the golf course. On the land plan, how wide do you think the top of the triangle was (say, anywhere along the McFadden property line)? Maybe 70 yards wide. Do you really think any designer could fit a piece of the golf course in a narrowing sliver of land that is 70 yards wide at its widest? And get the routing back out of the corner? Jeff could comment. Do you really think that one lot could have looked over the golf course even on the Land Plan configuration. I don't think so.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1913RRMap.jpg)
For Jeff's entertainment, following is a picture of the corner of College and GHR. Doesn't look like any topographical issues here that would have weighed on where GHR would be located. No hills, no dales, no curves.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/CollegeAveHaverford.jpg)
More importantly, if this change already happened by November, 1910, why do you think Pugh & Hubbard erroneously represented it on their scaled Land Plan Map? After all, they apparently surveyed the property, yes?
I don't think they erroneously represented it. It is possible that Francis had his idea before November 15th, but they had not evolved the detail of the plan enough to go with more than an approximate road. For an approximate road, it is damn close to the reality. Perhaps the pressure was on from both HDC and Merion to get on with the subscriptions and real estate selling and hence a desire to get out the land plan. It was only days before November 15th that HDC actually owned all of the Johnson Farm and the Dalles Estate (well, actually PALCO owned the Johnson Farm).
Sure they surveyed the property for the deeds. I don't know if they surveyed the as built GHR. They certainly didn't survey the Land Plan approximate road. When do you think that P&H drew the Land Plan? November 14th? A week before? A month? More? Somebody had to tell them the boundaries. They had to draw the Plan. They had to make copies for the announcement on November 15th. Whoever in Merion instructed P&H had done enough planning to know that they were likely to go up into the odd triangle. It seems just as likely to me that Francis' triangle swap told them they needed that land up there, than they knew they needed to go up there and Francis just figured out that he needed to tweak it a little east at the top and a little west lower down. I recognize that you will not be convinced.
-
David,
Second, I strongly disagree with you about what matters and what doesn't. History doesn't belong to anyone, not even Merion Golf Club. What happened, happened. No matter what they write in their history book. They can publish what they wish but their doing so doesn't mean that their view is accurate or correct or the view that will ultimately prevail.
I'm not surprised you disagree. If history is the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events, then yes, no one owns history. Anyone can discover, collect, organize and present past events. But, as we see in current (e.g. the killing of Bin Laden) or past (e.g. the assassination of Kennedy) history, the true history depends on what information you discover and how the historian chooses to present it. As I'm sure you're aware it is known that multiple people can be witness to the same event and yet have different understandings of the event and what they think they saw happen. And, that can happen in very public and well documented historical events such as Kennedy and Bin Laden. In the case of Merion, I think we see this in spades - there are multiple sources that oftentime seem to be in conflict with other sources. Which are true and which are skewed views? Realistically we'll never know. And, worse, we have huge gaps in the information that has been discovered.
Indeed "what happened, happened" no matter what they write in their history, the same as it happened no matter what you write in your history. But we don't know with any certainty what really happened. So, Merion will have their history based on what they've discovered, collected and presented. Their historian will introduce their biases on top of the biases of the original source material. You will have your history with your biases on top of the biases of the original source material.
That's an interesting concept about whose history of Merion will "prevail". In what forum did you envisage the true history (whatever it is) prevailing? In the Merion history book? I guess not. ::) On here at gca.com? Somewhere else? How will we know that it has prevailed?
On a slight tangent from these philosophical musings, since some part of the disagreement is over how much CBM/HJW were "calling the shots", could you be more specific about what that means to you around the specifics of the initial design. I'm back to not who physically drew the 5 plans, but who provided the input and gave the direction for the drawing of the routing plan and individual hole designs. Did CBM take the contour map and direct Francis (or whomever) to draw the first hole from here to there, and then the second from there to the next green and on. Did CBM instruct someone on how to draw each and every hole lay out, including a concept for each hole, giving fairway widths, hazard locations, green contours, etc? What do you mean by "calling the shots" as it relates to the initial design?
-
Bryan,
Your questions are ironic ones considering that Richard Francis told us that the Merion Committee were "IN CHARGE of laying out and buiilding a new course."
Of course, he doesn't mention a single word about Macdonald and/or Whigham being involved in laying out or building the new course, and the tasks Francis describes that the Committee did all involve golf course routing, strategy, and hole design.
When David tells you that he interprets the Lesley article as saying that the Merion Committee "laid the course upon the ground", that's simply his shorthand for telling you that they had nothing to do with the design, save whatever he thinks Francis's little brainstorm was. He is teling you that they were in charge of constructing that course to someone else's design, pure and simple.
Of course, that's not true either.
In fact, right after the Merion Board of Governors approved the final routing plan, that set in motion other events, such as the hiring of a contractor to actually "build" the course on the ground. We also know that Fred Pickering was in charge of that construction, and he had way more experience in building golf courses than anyone in the country at that time, including CBM and Whigham.
But, David knows this.
So, a good question for him might be, if CBM and/or Barker designed the course and were "calling the shots", and we know that Pickering and outside contractors were hired to lay the course out on the ground, then what exactly does he think the Merion Commttee did? Use their business contacts to buy grass seed at discount prices? ::)
For that matter, can anyone find a single statement by anyone that says that the Merion Committee laid out the course "on the ground"? What does "on the ground" mean anyway? Why did David make up the term out of thin air when no one else ever used it? Why is his entire theory reliant on creating terms no one used that are the product of his own invention? Does he think if he repeats them long enough someone will think someone back then actually said that?
Further, David also knows that the Merion Committee were well-versed in how to use the term "layout", or "laid out", and referred to those multiple layouts that we know were paper course design plans, one of which was attached to the Wilson Committee report to the Board which was read by Robert Lesley. No matter how David wants to try to apply the language, it does not fit, and make no sense. If he wants to talk about who "laid out the course on the ground", then he should assign proper credit and responsibility to Fred Pickering, operating under the control and direction of the Merion Committee, but also, as Alex Findlay told us, given latitude to use his experience to do what was best. We also know that Hugh Wilson told us that the Committee's charge was to "lay out and build" the golf course, indicating two separate processes.
Finally, David knows that not a scintilla of evidence exists that shows any involvement of CBM with Merion between June 29th, 1910 and March 1911, a full NINE MONTHS later when the Committee visited him to see NGLA. Anyone who has ever had their wife go through the birthing process knows how long that is!
Yet, without a single shred of evidence, David would have us believe that CBM was remotely "calling the shots".
Ask him if you don't believe me. Ask him to produce some evidence here besides twisting of others words and his own supposedly logical arguments.
You'll be waiting forever, because they don't exist.
There is also no evidence that CBM and/or Whigham ever returned after April 1911. These supposedly proud papa's, who had been "calling the shots" from afar, do not even bother to come back and see their own course??
Then, when Merion needed a second course almost immediately because of the popularity of the first, who did they turn to? The same "experts" who designed Merion from afar? No, they turned to Hugh Wilson and his Committee.
Then, when mega-mogul Clarence Geist at the same time decided to build his dream resort/course did he go after the supposed secret creators of Merion? No, he used Hugh Wilson.
Then, when Merion needed changes for the 1916 US Amateur to toughen the course for competition, did they bring back their deadbeat dads who evidently did a single day, slam-bam, thank you ma'am routing for Merion? No, they used Hugh Wilson.
Why in heaven's name would they use Wilson? Because he went to Europe for a few weeks and had Fred Pickering build the course for him?
It's funny actually...as I said back a few weeks when this thread was unfortunately turning towards Merion...
Never has so much been written about so very little.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-3.jpg?t=1243443487)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
Fred Pickering's role and the latitude he was given is discussed in the last paragraph here in Alex Findlay's article. We know that Findlay was there in Philadelphia during construction.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5637359475_94036cf3d2_o.jpg)
Here's Hugh Wilson telling us what the Committee was charged with. Notice again that "lay out" and "build" were two separate processes under the purview of the Wilson Committee. More importantly, he tells us precisely where and when he got his advice from CBM. Notice he doesn't tell us that it's over some lengthy period of time, or that they were directed on what to create by someone "in charge", but instead is quite clear that it all happened during his overnight at NGLA.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
-
Bryan,
To answer your question, yes, that seems to be the primary difference. I believe the committee was in charge and did most of the work on designing and building Merion East, and obviously sought input from experts like Piper, Pickering, and CBM to fill in whatever gaps they couldn't handle completely.
Contrary to David's opinions, I do not think I have ever moved all over the place on that. I never sought to diminish CBM no matter how many times he says I did, and I understand exactly how he worked, or at least as well as anyone else. His essay tried to prove greater involvement by CBM but I think it fails in the respect that there is no documented evidence of it, and most of his conclusions are extrapolations. But, in the four days he did spend, I always thought his influence was substantial, and the Merion committees respect for him immense, in that they did wait for him to choose among their routings just to be sure they had the best one.
I hate to fan the flames any more here, but chuckle that David now uses the idea that CBM was a busy stockbroker to explain why he didn't like to go to Philly. I actually said the same thing a few posts earlier and before, but find it strange that in order to insult me, David is now saying that he was more involved at Merion, with supporting "evidence" that he was too busy to go there! Such is what we think we have been dealing with. (BTW, I can envision scenarios where DM or others would still believe CBM was more involved, but the irony of the basic argument is strking)
And, earlier in this thread, he argued that Scotlands Gift was CBM telling us how it went down and shouldn't be doubted, at least when we were talking NGLA. Now he tells me that I misunderstood CBM and it was only a broad brush of his career. Again, while I agree, he splits his career into two phases - assisting friends and designing cousres on his own in his arrangement with Raynor. Given the timing of Piping Rock, if he considered Merion his first, he almost certainly would have mentioned it.
I guess I cannot know for sure, but I am not aware of any gca memoirs that start out " I sure remember the second course I designed." I would say even in a summary of his designs, he would start at the first, no?
Listen, I agree with David that for all the arguing we might be closer than we think. Its hard to measure CBM's influence based on fragmentary documents, and while I have no doubt that the committee put in most work, were obligated to the club to finish what they started, whereas CBM was not, etc. allows them to take credit, acknowledging an assist from CBM. Like everyone else, I would love to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings.
-
March 1911
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
S M Tu W Th F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Again, don't recall the exact dates of the CBM visits but these two 1911 calendars should show if they are on a weekend
-
Jeff,
Wilson wrote P&O on Monday, March 13th that "I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald (sp) at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity of going over the course and seeing his experiments with the different grasses."
Given that, I think it's likely they visited him on the weekend just prior.
Later he tells, P&O;
"He is coming over in a couple of weeks to help us with some of his good advice and we had hoped that you would be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that account. I expect to get that this week, however, and will forward to you."
Macdonald's return visit was on Thursday, April 6th.
It was his second time on the property, his previous being ten months prior, on June 29th, 1910.
He would never return.
-
Bryan,
Call me a romantic but I like to think that ultimately the truth will prevail. That is all I meant by the use of the term. Unfortunately given the sway certain Fakers have at Merion, I doubt that it will prevail an any upcoming Merion history.
As for what I mean by "calling the shots" I think that CBM/HJW were advising Merion on what to do and Merion recognized the value of their advice and did what CBM/HJW instructed. At every stage where we have direct evidence of CBM's/HJW's involvement, we see Merion acting as CBM/HJW had instructed them to act.
- According to Merion, they bought the land based largely on CBM/HJW's comments about the land.
- According to Merion, they budgeted $40,000 to build the course because Whigham estimated that it would cost about $40,000 to create the course.
- According to Wilson, he was contacting Piper because CBM had advised it and Wilson recognized the value of this advice.
- According to Wilson, CBM taught them what they should try to accomplish with their natural conditions, etc.
- According to Merion, CBM chose the plan which was submitted to the board for approval.
- According to Alan Wilson, their advice and suggestions as to the layout of the course were of the greatest help and value.
So it seems to me that they weren't exactly collaborating like two designers on equal footing and equal experiences might collaborate. CBM was instructing them, advising them, telling them what he thought they should do. And, they were doing what he told them! Of those involved in the design, he and Whigham seem to have been the ones who were leading the process and calling the shots.
That is all I mean by calling the shots. Given that even Merion's minutes indicate that CBM selected the final layout plan, this doesn't seem to be an outlandish proposition to.
As for how this manifested itself in the initial design process, we obviously don't have all the details of that, but it is easy to see how it manifested itself in the initial design.
- The hole distances match what CBM/HJW recommended.
- They added the land behind the clubhouse as CBM recommended.
- At the opening many of the holes were reportedly based on great holes abroad.
- Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses!
That is pretty strong indication of who was calling the shots with the design to me.
-
David,
Quixotic was the word I was thinking of more than romantic. Your internet persona doesn't really align with what I think a romantic is like. In any event, it would help these threads if everyone had more of a sense of humor.
Vis-a-vis "calling" the shots, thanks for the explanation. Sorry if I'm persistent in trying to burrow in to determine what outcome exactly you or your opponents want to see. Would you be satisfied if your dashed points were all accepted by the participants here as added color to what CBM contributed to the project? You are not satisfied that CBM is acknowledged to have been very helpful and offered good advice. Would the additional depth of your dashed points be enough added recognition?
As always, I am wary of some of your wording, for instance: "I think that CBM/HJW were advising Merion on what to do and Merion recognized the value of their advice and did what CBM/HJW instructed". The first two points are easy to accept. But, I trip over instructed. Is it in the sense of he taught them the principles of great holes, or is it in the sense of he told them how to do the specific routing and the hole designs. It strikes me that the Merion men were happy to take advice and learn about golf course building, but I suspect that they would not easily take to being told (instructed) or ordered to do. The choice of words is important.
Again, your quote: "we see Merion acting as CBM/HJW had instructed them to act" conveys the sense of boss and subordinates. I don't think it likely that that is the way it went down.
If by "CBM was instructing them, advising them, telling them what he thought they should do." you mean in a general sense, rather than a specific sense of routing and individual hole design within the routing, I could agree. As long as instructing means teaching as opposed to ordering, and telling them what he thought they should do means principles and general concepts rather than again specific routing and hole designs in the routing.
"Of those involved in the design, he and Whigham seem to have been the ones who were leading the process and calling the shots." At this point I still remain unconvinced that CBM was leading the "process", if the process is the routing of the holes over the topography and land they had, and the internal design of each hole in that routing. "Calling the shots" is an unfortunate choice of words, in my opinion. It is too nebulous and subject to interpretation.
"As for how this manifested itself in the initial design process, we obviously don't have all the details of that," I agree with this statement. The second set of dashed points indicates to me that they listened to his advice on the land behind the clubhouse and the principles of great holes he told them about at NGLA. The hole distances is arguable - and has been argued to death. No need to do it again. The list is indicative to me that they listened to his good advice and that it was helpful to them. They are not indicative to me that CBM was the leader of the band and giving them orders on how to lay out the specific routing and hole design within that routing.
I'm going to go watch The Good Wife. If you've ever watched it you'll know that there is a judge that requires the lawyers to start all their arguments and statements with "In my opinion". I found that amusing whenever I think of this and other Merion threads. So, consider everything here that I've said to be prefaced by "in my opinion". ;D
You also remind me of Fox Mulder - the truth is out there.
Good luck on the quixotic quest to have the true truth prevail.
-
Bryan,
The bit about me being a romantic was an attempt at a little self-deprecating humor. As usual such attempts around here just add fuel to the fire. You repeatedly knock me for being "quixotic" and throw in some related insulting comparisons as well. I am not sure what of value such disparagement adds to the discussion. It certainly doesn't address anything of substance, that is for sure. To be quixotic is to be excessively idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical; overly romantic and naive. Were I actually here to change Merion's mind or convince Mike Cirba then I'd agree that my mission would be quixotic. But that is not my goal nor has it ever been.
And there is nothing quixotic about my analysis. I think it represents the most reasonable, logical, realistic, and practical take on all of this. Given what we now know, the overly romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, and quixotic view is this continued speculation that Merion mostly went it alone and mostly figured it out for themselves with only minimal and general advice from CBM and HJW. And it is here that I think you are falling into the old and discredited romantic notion of what happened at NGLA and at Merion.
And that is one of the two main areas where I disagree with your latest comments. You seem to be clinging to this notion that somehow the meeting at NGLA was only dealing with vague and general concepts of design rather than specifics of Merion's design, and I don't buy it. More than that, I don't think the evidence supports it. It seems a left over notion from back in the days before my essay when everyone thought Hugh Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip and for general advice about golf course design.
The second issue involves your changing of my words and my intentions. For example, you somehow twist my statement that was instructing them into him ordering them what to do. I don't recall ever saying he ordered them what to do. Yet you throw that in there. You also throw in the words "boss" and "subordinates." Those are your words, not mine. I agree that the choice of words is important, which is why I don't understand why keep changing my words.
The reason CBM/HJW were instructing is because CBM/HJW were the foremost experts on this sort of thing and Merion was there for instruction. This was no two way exchange of information and ideas, and it is excessively unrealistic to think it was. The reason CBM/HJW were calling the shots is because those at Merion knew the value of their instruction and advice and were deferring to it.
The third involved a combination of the two, where you are equating the nature of the relationship with the degree of specificity of advice, and then presenting a false choice. You don't think he was their boss, ordering them how specifically to route and plan the course. Instead, you think he was their friend offering advice about general principles. Well I think this is a false choice and don't think it was either. I see no connection between the nature of their relationship (instructor, advisor vs. "boss") and the degree of specificity of the advice. I think this is a rhetorical ploy to make my position out to be dogmatic where it was not.
As I see it, the tone was friendly and advisory, but the content was quite specific. It doesn't get much more specific than traveling back to Merion to choose the final plan! Merion could have ignored the advice and called the shots themselves, but obviously they didn't, and it is quite fortunate for Merion and for golf that they didn't.
____________________________________________________
Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses.
Given all else we know, is it more reasonable to believe that he did so based on some general advice about basic prinicples, or about specific advice and instruction about what Merion should do with their land?
-
Bryan,
The bit about me being a romantic was an attempt at a little self-deprecating humor. As usual such attempts around here just add fuel to the fire. You repeatedly knock me for being "quixotic" and throw in some related insulting comparisons as well. I am not sure what of value such disparagement adds to the discussion. It certainly doesn't address anything of substance, that is for sure. To be quixotic is to be excessively idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical; overly romantic and naive. Were I actually here to change Merion's mind or convince Mike Cirba then I'd agree that my mission would be quixotic. But that is not my goal nor has it ever been. Sorry that you took MY attempts at humor badly. It certainly wasn't intended to be disparaging.
And there is nothing quixotic about my analysis. I think it represents the most reasonable, logical, realistic, and practical take on all of this. Given what we now know, the overly romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, and quixotic view is this continued speculation that Merion mostly went it alone and mostly figured it out for themselves with only minimal and general advice from CBM and HJW. And it is here that I think you are falling into the old and discredited romantic notion of what happened at NGLA and at Merion.
And that is one of the two main areas where I disagree with your latest comments. You seem to be clinging to this notion that somehow the meeting at NGLA was only dealing with vague and general concepts of design rather than specifics of Merion's design, and I don't buy it. More than that, I don't think the evidence supports it. It seems a left over notion from back in the days before my essay when everyone thought Hugh Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip and for general advice about golf course design. I never subscribed to the theory that they went there to plan the trip. I also don't subscribe to your logical analysis that the meeting at NGLA was about the specifics of Merion's design. I respect your right to espouse that theory.
The second issue involves your changing of my words and my intentions. For example, you somehow twist my statement that was instructing them into him ordering them what to do. I don't recall ever saying he ordered them what to do. Yet you throw that in there. You also throw in the words "boss" and "subordinates." Those are your words, not mine. I agree that the choice of words is important, which is why I don't understand why keep changing my words. I don't think I twisted your words. I was trying to clarify what you meant with some of your statements. As I'm sure you know, there are two definitions of "instruct", one is to "teach" and the other is to "order". From the context of your "calling the shots" premise, I was trying to clarify if you meant "order". Perhaps if you had used the word "teach" rather than "instruct" your meaning might have been clearer to me. Not only are words important, but their context is too.
The reason CBM/HJW were instructing teaching is because CBM/HJW were the foremost experts on this sort of thing and Merion was there for instruction to learn. This was no two way exchange of information and ideas, and it is excessively unrealistic to think it was. The reason CBM/HJW were calling the shots is because those at Merion knew the value of their instruction and advice and were deferring to it. I made two changes in the first sentence. It's not an attempt to twist your words, but rather a way to seek clarification if my version is what you are really trying to say. I never suggested the meeting was a two way exchange of information. Your use of the word "deferring" in the context of "calling the shots" suggests to me that you're using the humble submission definition of "defer". Dis you intend to mean humble submission. Can you understand that I might read that as inferring a superior/inferior relationship, a boss/subordinate?
The third involved a combination of the two, where you are equating the nature of the relationship with the degree of specificity of advice, and then presenting a false choice. I don't think I did that. It certainly wasn't my intent. You don't think he was their boss, ordering them how specifically to route and plan the course. In my opinion, no, I don't. But I was more interested in whether YOU did believe that he was directing them on the routing and hole designs. Instead, you think he was their friend offering advice about general principles. I don't think he was their friend. How would you infer that? Wilson didn't even know how to spell Macdonald's name in the Oakley letters. Some friend. Well I think this is a false choice and don't think it was either. You made this choice up, so you can think whatever you want. Don't attribute it to me. I see no connection between the nature of their relationship (instructor, advisor vs. "boss") and the degree of specificity of the advice. Neither do I. Do YOU believe that CBM gave them specific directions on the routing of the course and the design of the holes within that routing? I think this is a rhetorical ploy to make my position out to be dogmatic where it was not. It was not a rhetorical ploy on my part since I never had your construct in my mind. I never said you were dogmatic.
As I see it, the tone was friendly and advisory, but the content was quite specific. It doesn't get much more specific than traveling back to Merion to choose the final plan! These two statements are confusing to me. What was the content that was quite specific about the routing and the hole designs? If his advice was so specific, why did they go back and create 5 more plans? Are you saying that because CBM chose the final plan that he therefore was the creator of the routing and hole designs? Merion could have ignored the advice and called the shots themselves, but obviously they didn't, and it is quite fortunate for Merion and for golf that they didn't. Or, they could have accepted the advice and the teachings and called their own shots, using your vernacular.
____________________________________________________
Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses. And the attempts were not so good as I recall. Does this mean that CBM was a bad teacher or that Wilson et al were lousy students. I'm still not sure that that this point, if true, establishes that CBM was the designer of Merion East. It is arguable that he gave them advice and information about these "ideal" holes and they routed and designed some variation of them into their design. CBM wasn't a believer in exact replicas of the ideal holes was he? So, did his specific advice on these holes include the version that Wilson et al actually built?
Given all else we know, is it more reasonable to believe that he did so based on some general advice about basic prinicples, or about specific advice and instruction about what Merion should do with their land? Like so many things in this discussion I'd have to say that I don't know which is more reasonable. And, what difference would it make - if I thought it was more reasonable does not make it true.
Since the other side appears to have taken their marbles and gone home for the moment, why don't we call it a day on this thread about NGLA. Of course, you can have the last word based on my comments above.
-
Bryan,
No one has taken their marbles and gone home...just not sure what more to add as the evidence has all been presented and it's very clear what that evidence supports and what it doesn't, no matter how "logical", or "reasonable" it seems to certain people, or whether certain people "buy" it, or not.
It has been postulated here that CBM was guiding the Merion Committee over many months and through all of the planning process, yet there is no evidence at all to support that theory.
Further, it has been postulated that CBM was "calling the shots", or otherwise creating the plans for the Merion course and telling the Merion Committee what to do, where to place golf holes, what golf holes to build where, etc.etc., although once again, there is no evidence at all to support that theory.
We know that CBM helped the Site Committee in June 1910, and we've seen the results of that visit in a very generic letter he sent back to HG Lloyd that contained a somewhat guarded recommendation to proceed.
The next documented activity was nine months later, in March 1911, with the Committee's visit to NGLA. Hugh Wilson tells us quite specifically 1) what advice they got from CBM and Whigham, but just as importantly, the duration of that advice. Notice he doesn't tell us that CBM was involved at every planning stage for days, or weeks, or years, as has been proposed without supporting evidence. He also tells us specifically what that advice entailed, which was a discussion of the principles of the great holes abroad and how Merion should try to apply them to their natural conditions (i.e. inland, clay-based soils), followed by a day seeing CBM’s own application of those principles on his golf course.
The MCC Minutes reflect that exact same itinerary/scenario, which shouldn’t be surprising as both were written by Hugh Wilson. They tell us that through Macdonald’s drawings and materials (photos, et.al.) of the great holes abroad they discussed the key principles of those holes.
Finally, we know that CBM came back for a single-day visit on April 7th, 1911 to help the Merion Committee pick the best of their five plans, or in the words of Alan Wilson, “to consider and advise about OUR plans.”
We also know that Richard Francis seemingly didn’t think CBM and Whigham’s contributions to the golf course were significant enough to mention them. However, we do know that the Wilson Bros., Robert Lesley, and AW Tillinghast (as well as “Far and Sure”) saw fit to credit them with helpful “advise and suggestions”.
I have to ask…does someone “calling the shots” offer “advice and suggestions”? Of course not.
In closing, I’d simply refer again to read what Hugh Wilson told us about where, when, and for how long, and in what matters CBM and Whigham advised them, and I think you’ll know the entire story you need to know. It’s fitting that he should have the last word here, in my opinion, after what his memory and reputation have been dragged through.
The rest is really pointless and baseless speculation that lacks any evidentiary support, either physical or anecdotal.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
-
Bryan,
I think I am having trouble understanding what points you are trying to make and your methodology for trying to make them. I have a few theories about what happened at Merion, I think I have offered plenty of support for those theories. I think my theories are the most reasonable and straightforward explanations of what happened at Merion. You aren't convinced and I can live with that. But all this dissection of what words I have used and what words your would prefer I use? What you can come up with to disagree with is that you prefer the word "teach" to "instruct?" I was hoping for a bit more of a substantive critique than this sort of nit-picking and word parsing.
You can describe the dynamic of the relationship however makes you most comfortable. I think the most reasonable understanding of the source material is that CBM/HJW were providing Merion with specific guidance/ advice/ instruction/ teaching/ direction/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it as to what Merion ought to do with their land, including which holes they ought to build and where they ought to build them. And Merion acted accordingly.
It is certainly your prerogative to disagree, but you've never really offered or explained a more viable or reasonable alternative, and have never really explained your justification for viewing CBM/HJW's contributions as of a more general nature. Merion's internal Board records apparently never even mention Hugh Wilson, much less give him credit for coming up with the holes they out to try and build and their locations! Where is the direct evidence that Wilson and his committee came up with this stuff on their own?
In other words, you are again holding me to what I consider to be an unreasonable standard where you will not accept any theory or conclusion that builds on what we specifically know. Yet the alternative is one big tenuous house of cards, a pile of suppositions supported more by disproven legend and wishful thinking.
I thought your approach was a balancing of probabilities where you were trying to determine what is most likely? That doesn't seem to be the case. Does it? Or perhaps I have misunderstood.
What was the content that was quite specific about the routing and the hole designs?
This is what I am talking about. I don't think this is a reasonable standard or requirement, and it only seems to apply to one side of the argument. Surely I can come to a reasonable conclusion about the topic of the NGLA meeting without you producing for you a precise description of what exactly they discussed at NGLA! I base my conclusion about the specificity of the discussion on the Hugh Wilson chapter, the Alan Wilson letter, the Whigham article, the vast disparity in knowledge and experience between CBM/HJW on the one hand and those at Merion on the other, the timing of the meeting, the Lesley report on what preceded and what followed, the subsequent trip to Merion by CBM/HJw, the existence of a contour map at the time, the descriptions of the course in the Ag letters, the previous comments by CBM, the previous inspection of the site, the subsequent inspection, the knowledge of how CBM worked in analogous circumstances with Raynor, etc. Not enough for you without a transcript? Then I cannot help you.
Moreover, there is NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION. Did they just happen to rearrange the course after the NGLA meeting with no specific input from CBM? If they were so little concerned with the specifics of his advice why burden him with yet another trip down to choose their final routing?
If his advice was so specific, why did they go back and create 5 more plans?[/color]
Where did I claim that every single specificity was settled at NGLA and why would you hold that out as some sort of requirement of specificity? Surely it is reasonable to think that they were working on the specifics but hadn't worked everything out, isn't it? And it is a big assumption on your part Merion created five more plans independent of CBM's advice and direction, and one I am unwilling to accept without some support beyond your interpretation of the report. I read it differently and think it more likely that they laid out the five variations of "the course" according to CBM's advice or five variations of "the course" because of ambiguities or unforeseen issues in CBM's advice. Either of these would explain why he had to come back down to choose which one was best. In contrast, I just cannot figure out under the other theory why they needed CBM/HJW after the NGLA meeting at all.
Are you saying that because CBM chose the final plan that he therefore was the creator of the routing and hole designs?
I don't understand why you would isolate out this one event from what had immediately preceded it? It is not as if he hadn't been involved up until this point but was just passing by and stopped in and chose the final plan. He had been working with Merion since they chose the land based on his advice back in June of the previous year, and he had been working on the layout with them at NGLA a few weeks before. His choosing of the final plan was the culmination of a long design process stretching back to June.
That CBM/HJW apparently had final say as to the layout plan informs us as to the level of his their involvement in the entire process. It doesn't get any more specific than choosing the final layout plan, does it? Yet you think it reasonable to believe that in the events leading up this he wasn't providing specific advice or instruction as to which holes they should build and where they should be located? Given that CBM/HJW were in put charge of choosing the final plan, I think it safe to assume that they had specific input into the process of creating that plan.
____________________________________________
Like so many things in this discussion I'd have to say that I don't know which is more reasonable. And, what difference would it make - if I thought it was more reasonable does not make it true.
You seem to be having trouble sticking to any particular methodology here. Aren't you the one who is supposed to believe in the balancing of probabilities here? Yet it doesn't matter which is more reasonable? You lost me here, again.
While the link between what is reasonable and what is true can sometimes seems a bit tenuous, the former can be an effective tool in trying to figuring out the latter.
-
Jeff,
I think David has presented an extensive premise in a reasoned manner.
It's an opinion piece, the first one of its kind that I've seen on this site.
Some take exception to David's premise, in whole or in part, but, I think, for the most part, that he's put forward a resoned synopsis, absent access to Merion's or MCC's archives.
You can nit pick the language, the interpretations, the nuances and conclusions, but, on balance, between his opinion piece and his responses in threads lke this one, I don't think you can dismiss the entire body of his work on a whim or on the basis of personailty conflicts.
Let the readers/participants/lurkers make up their own minds on the basis of his presentation/s and the ensuing refutations.
In terms of this website, GCA.com, I think David's efforts and product/s have represented a valueable contribution/s. irrespective of you and others disagree with him.
-
Contemporaneous reports from Tillinghast, Findlay, and everyone else in Philadelphia at the time were "tangential"
National magagine accounts crediting the Committee are "tangential'.
An obviously erroneous blurb 30 years after the fact where Whigham essentially credits Macdonald with every US Course created after 1910 is a gem.
I think that's enough....
It's funny...
I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".
Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.
First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.
Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association, to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?
It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.
Good night.
Mike
I'm not aware of any contemporaneous reports by Tilly, Findlay or anyone claiming Wilson designed the East course. He was in charge of building the East, and those are the reports I recall. The national reports accurately credit the committee for construction.
Regarding Seaview I believe those Evans reports said Wilson was responsible for the new Merion course, which is pretty vague if you ask me. That same report said Wilson went abroad before the new Merion course was constructed. Which course is he referring to? Joe B also produced reports that claimed Bill Robinson was involved, and we know Geist must not have been totally satisfied with either man because he brought in Ross, Reid, and Connilan in short order. You need to get your facts straight.
I've been gone for a week and it appears not single bit of new information has been brought to the table.
-
Tom,
You can spin things as you like and choose to believe as you wish but the facts don't support you. You ignore basic facts such as Fred Pickering actually being responsible for constructing the East course and hope that casual observers here aren't keeping up with the fact that other design committees such as Crump's at Pine Valley were also named the Construction Committee, months before Harry Colt even saw the pine straw there.
That's ok...far as I can tell you, David, and perhaps Patrick (hoping and praying that he can claim another great course for his idol CBM) still cling to your theories. The rest seem anywhere from rejecting to unconvinced, and that's not surprising considering the actual factual evidence, or lack thereof, on which you and David have tried to build your respective cases.
I do recall back a few years ago when the email flurry began and you and David shared all of this with Tommy and Patrick and some others and i was tipped off that you guys had dynamite and an explosive story that was going to change history and make Wayne and TePaul's research efforts and resistance to your ideas look absolutely foolish in their own backyard.
Whether you were justified or not, or who was right or wrong no longer matters. The bottom line at the end of the day is that this whole thing ended up in too much loss and bloodshed here on GCA, and a general worsening of the site over time.
As far as the supposed dynamite, it turned out, upon careful examination, to be just a loud firecracker. The absolute lack of physical and anecdotal evidence supporting either the Barker in December "Midnight Train To Georgia" theory or the CBM "calling the shots" theory, or the "ABC (anybody but Wilson) theory all turned to be based on not much more than circumstantial evidence and a torturning and twisting of the language and evidence..
Further, since that essay was released, 95% of the additional evidence produced here has been by me, by Joe Bausch, or through Wayne and/orTom's research.
So, if you're looking for new facts or evidence to appear here supporting your position, I'd simply say, go find it Tom, because you haven't so far.
-
Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.
When was the last time new info was brought to the table?
-
Mike Cirba,
I see you are returning to your pathetic witch hunt about my intentions. So much for all those insincere apologies of yours. This whole thing turned ugly because of you and your pals' desperate and dishonest attacks on me, so it is appropriate you have returned to it now.
But you should really start getting your facts straight. Tom MacWood had little to do with my essay except for providing the background information on H.H. Barker and for proofing it. (The discovery of Barker's involvement with Merion was all mine, although it may have fit with what MacWood suspected. You'd have to ask him about that.) Patrick had a look at the IMO as well and it was he and Ran who convinced me to post it here. I never gave it to Tommy to proof, and I don't think he saw it before it was posted. I know the identity of slime who "tipped you off" and he is nothing but a self-important gossip and is as sleazy as you guys!
I told Patrick that I was hesitant to come back because I didn't think you Philadelphia boys could deal with an honest and frank discussion about Merion's history, but Pat convinced me to give it shot. He was obviously mistaken on that one, as you guys have proven repeatedly and continue to prove with garbage such as your previous post.
-
As I have long said, I think the disagreements may be a matter of semantics, as DM believes CBM was more involved than some at Merion gave credit for. I think that much is clear, although I also think its reasonable for MCC to have called him an advisor over DM's phrase "calling the shots" which as a lawyer, David knows might have carried some ramifications, but even in lay terms, it’s a fine line.
- Merion came up with a land deal on their own. ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised on acreage requirements, good hole distances, etc., but they didn’t follow exactly, even if close. ADVISOR
- Merion prepared many routings. ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised on routings, then approved one. ADVISOR (but closest to being the actual designer)
- Merion came up with the land swap on their own. ACTION
- CBM/HJW reviewed and signed off (final advice) on that plan from among five for the committee, which took their plan to the board for final approval, including buying three extra acres at additional cost. (Not sure, but I suspect that it might not have been a foregone conclusion that the board wouldn’t reject that plan and tell them to select one within their original allotted acres. Either way, CBM had no authority to spend other people’s money in this scenario, as an architect with a budget would. ADVISOR
- Merion set a budget, allocated funds of $40,000 ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised that a budget of $40,000 was probably adequate, but did not prepare a detailed budget, nor did they have any real say in how it was spent, as they most likely did when Raynor was building to CBM's designs. ADVISOR
- CBM/HJW advised them to get agronomic help from Piper. ADVISOR
- Merion (Wilson) writes Piper back and forth hundreds of times for his advice. ACTION
- CBM/HJW probably advised to get an engineer type on staff. Maybe even Raynor! ADVISOR
- Merion adds Francis to committee, hires Pickering to Construct. ACTION
- CBM/HJW advised committee as to best hole types to build, and possibly on which holes to build them. ADVISOR (but closest to being the actual designer)
- Merion builds course with Pickering, but CBM never comes back in field. They use about 7 of CBM’s template holes, and others do not get included. Are these field decisions by Pickering, the committee? Do field conditions affect the design? We don’t know but the primary final design edits done without CBM. ACTION
At the very least, it is semantics. By modern standards, I do believe CBM probably deserves some design credit, for the approval of the routing at the least. At the least, I understand how some feel about his contributions. On the other hand, from the way I phrase the words above, advisor seems like the right title, even though, there is no doubt MCC wouldn’t look like what it looked like initially or today without CBM’s advice.
But, MCC was in charge to a larger degree than I suspect happened at Piping Rock and other CBM full designs.
That it doesn’t look much like Piping Rock, done by CBM at the about same time seems simplistic enough evidence that CBM wasn’t quite as fully engaged. That CBM wasn’t around for construction, and the committee did so much work seems evidence enough.
However labeled, I believe MCC will more fully acknowledge the role of CBM and HJW moving forward. They did it initially, and it fell by the wayside over time, and the Tollhurst Club History has a few mistakes the club would probably like to correct for the increased interest in Merion of the 2013 US Open.
-
Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.
Tom,
You really ought to take this latest comedy act on the road. ;) ;D Seriously.
So, Barker and/or CBM did the design?
Fred Pickering and Johnson Contractors built the course?
Why did Hugh Wilson and his Committee get all that credit again? Why did Merion use him immediately to design and build a second course and mega-moguul Clarence Geist use him to design and build his dream course immediately after the East course opened?
Oh, they "oversaw" Pickering.
I see.
Are you allergic to Pennsylvania, or get in a car accident or something here? Seriously, I question your sanity with statements like that Tom.
You really are a piece of work.
-
Jeff,
As I said about a zillion times here, I think the record of CBM's contributions is pretty clear and Hugh Wilson tells us exactly what he helped with, and we have his June 1910 letter and we know he helped them select the routing that required 3 additional acres, so his gravitas in the golf world was definitely something the Committee was hoping to leverage with the Board.
I would also agree that those contributions weren't well known in modern times and I do think David helped to bring that to light, despite his very over-reaching essay that also sought to elmininate Hugh Wilson and the Committee's early design contributions (with the exception of the Francis Swap).
Some of David's most recent posts now seem to at least concede that CBM was not in charge, but that perhaps he and Wilson's Committee were working in tandem on the design phase, or "side by side" as I think he put it at one point..
I do wish he'd change his Opinion Piece on this site to reflect his change of thinking because right now it is still as incorrect as the day it was posted. One would think Ran might also want to get a fresh copy that reflects a LOT of evidence and information that David didn't have at his disposal when he originally wrote the piece.
-
Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.
Tom,
You really ought to take this latest comedy act on the road. ;) ;D Seriously.
The only thing humorous about this is the fact that you had no idea of Pickering's background and experience, but that is what happens when one becomes so emotionally invested in a legendary tale.
So, Barker and/or CBM did the design?
I think it is likely Barker routed the course, CBM overlayed his design concept upon that routing and Wilson later redesigned the course. Based upon what we know right now I think that is the most likely (and logical) scenario.
Fred Pickering and Johnson Contractors built the course?
Johnson contractors and Fred Pickering built a lot of courses around that time. That would be my educated guess, but I don't have access to Merion's internal records so I could be wrong. What do you think?
Why did Hugh Wilson and his Committee get all that credit again?
Credit for what?
Why did Merion use him immediately to design and build a second course and mega-moguul Clarence Geist use him to design and build his dream course immediately after the East course opened?
Once he traveled overseas and began redesigning the East I think he proved himself to be a very competent designer. I'm not sure if that confidence was completely warrented, I think the West turned out well relatively speaking, but Seaview required the intervention of Ross and others.
Oh, they "oversaw" Pickering.
I think that is pretty obvious. Have you read the P&O letters?
I see.
So you think they designed the golf course, but had no oversight on Pickering? Clear thinking and defending legends are obviously not compatible.
Are you allergic to Pennsylvania, or get in a car accident or something here?
Huh?
Seriously, I question your sanity with statements like that Tom.
My track record has been pretty good over the years when it comes to figuring out who did what and when. After looking at these things for so many years you start to get a sixth sense, that is once you put emotions on the back burner, and allow logic to dominate.
You really are a piece of work.
-
Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee brought in Fred Pickering who constructed the course, or 'laid it out upon the ground", if we want to be literal in terms of the construction and building process. According to Alex Findlay, Pickering had constructed literally hundreds of courses by that time and had knowledge of construction and agronomy said to be unequaled in this country.
Hugh Wilson also employed Fred Pickering to construct the course he designed at Seaview in 1913. He was also hired for Merion West in late 1912/early 1913 but quickly let go due to excessive drinking, according to a 1924 letter from an aide to Hugh Wilson to P&O. It seems the Seaview gig was meant to be a second chance of sorts, but perhaps Alex Findlay had a bit more tolerance for that sort of thing and continued to use Pickering for a number of years after to good success.
This article from April 1914 in the Chester (PA) Times discussing extensive changes made by Findlay (with Linaweaver) at nearby Springhaven GC, and speaks about Pickering's role at Merion East and Seaview;
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5124/5723325334_a691ddd686_o.jpg)
-
It seems as well that H.J. Whigham's 1939 claim that Pine Valley was started with the idea of "emulating the National" was more of the same overreaching hyperbole that permeated that eulogy.
It seems Whigham wanted to give credit to every course designed in the US after 1910 that had features or principles modeled after famous ones abroad directly to CBM as the originator of the idea.
However, as the following article shows, even within that construct, there was ample room for debate and disagreement and certainly Herbert Fowler's ideals that were studied and emulated by Crump and Smith differed widely with not only St. Andrews, but NGLA, as well.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/5723437590_89e0c1b725_b.jpg)
-
Tom MacWood,
Please use "yellow" overwrite, as I can't read the green.
Plus, my patent on the use of green doesn't expire for another 27 months.
Thanks
Mike Cirba,
While newspaper articles shouldn't be automatically dismissed, we know that they can be erroneous, flawed at the fact and conclusive base. Hence, I wouldn't offer them as absolute proof without corroborating evidence.
-
Mike
Thank you proving my point with that first article. I'm not sure the purpose of the second article other than a diversionary tactic...a common occurrence with you.
Johnson contractors and Fred Pickering built a lot of courses around that time. It would be my educated guess that they built the course, but I don't have access to Merion's internal records so I could be wrong. What do you think?
-
Mike Cirba,
Why are you blatantly misrepresenting what Whigham wrote about Pine Valley? Do you think we haven't read it? You continue to convolute, stretch, and twist with impunity. When are you going to stop with your outrageous smear attempts? Is there anything you won't misrepresent to try and score your petty and tedious points?
And why are you again posting articles without proper attribution? Unless you wrote that second article you need to provide a paper and a date. Stop with the bush league games.
On the bright side, I love how you of all people continue to use phrases like "overreaching hyperbole" as if Whigham was the crackpot with the irrational devotion and undying agenda, and you are the experienced, eye witness expert reporter and writer.
-
It seems as well that H.J. Whigham's 1939 claim that Pine Valley was started with the idea of "emulating the National" was more of the same overreaching hyperbole that permeated that eulogy.
It seems Whigham wanted to give credit to every course designed in the US after 1910 that had features or principles modeled after famous ones abroad directly to CBM as the originator of the idea.
However, as the following article shows, even within that construct, there was ample room for debate and disagreement and certainly Herbert Fowler's ideals that were studied and emulated by Crump and Smith differed widely with not only St. Andrews, but NGLA, as well.
What does this have to do with Merion and/or Whigham? What Crump and Smith were looking at was an article written by Fowler that appeared in the Illustrated News of London in 1913 (it included a photo of a plasticine model of this hypothetical ideal course). I'm not sure how much influence the article ultimately had on Crump because he ended hiring Colt to design PV.
-
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."
'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National. Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."
"...Here again he was right. For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style. Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example. Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie. But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."
So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy? ::)
I wonder if Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy?
What's your question about Pickering?
-
Sorry Tom, but Crump already had a basic routing and five holes in place months before Harry Colt arrived. I'm not sure why you relish telling tall tales and misrepresenting history so much...does the truth of what actually happened simply bore you?
That is interesting speculation about the routing, but speculation nonetheless. It is a fact Crump & Co hired Colt to design the course, but I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Merion, and my question to you about Pickering.
The article was from the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 15th, 1914, not that either of you are interested in the truth or contemporaneous accounts.
As far as Whigham and his statements 30 years after the fact, it is filled with over-reaching hyperbole, such as his statement that George Crump was "emulating the National" when he built Pine Valley. In that same article, one would think that CBM built a Ross-like architectural practice spanning the globe as he's given credit for courses from sea to shining sea.
PV did share some commonalities with the National, for example Crump's trip overseas, the consortium of investors, the testing nature of the design and the difficulty growing grass. At the time wouldn't the National have been the inspiration for anyone interested in building a world class design in America?
I copied the relevant portions of Whigham's article above. If there is doubt about what he wrote, simply look back a page or two.
And finally...
Quit the feigned audacity about citing articles...when was the last time either of you two put forward a piece of evidence or meaningful information on ANY topic?.
It seems the both of you have simply been relegated to trying to shout down others historical research, ala Phil Young's piece on SFGC, or the both of you here, yet again espousing the same disproven theories on the same tired topic.
Phil's piece was interesting, but unfortunately it was full of errors and questionable information, which I detailed. The history of golf architecture is not really Phil's strength, and I beginning to wonder about you too based oh your confusion about Pickering, Fowler, et al. Its pretty obvious you prefer your local legends to historical research.
-
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."
'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National. Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."
"...Here again he was right. For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style. Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example. Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie. But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."
So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole and poetic exaggeration when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy honoring his recently deceased Father-in-Law? ::)
I wonder if Alister Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or Harry Colt, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy THIRTY YEARS LATER?
What's your question about Pickering?
btw...thankfully, we have the contemporaneous records of Pine Valley as they were designed and built, chronicled by Tillinghast, and months before Colt arrived. Thankfully, as well, we have Joe Bausch finding those articles to offset the incredible attempts at misguided historical revisionism that seem too often to permeate and contaminate this site.
-
Mike Cirba,
Historical analysis and interpretation of these old documents require a modicum of common sense, intelligence, and reasonableness. The reader must make a genuine, good-faith effort to actually try and understand the message the author was trying to convey.
This is in sharp contrast to your what seems like your agenda-driven numbskull approach, where all common sense is checked at the door and the source material is interpreted with purposeful obliviousness to the intent and meaning of the author, and where you consistently ignore the meaning and context and twist cherry picked passages beyond all recognition. In short, you treat the source material as if it were fodder in a food fight. Never mind what it really is, you just want to find a hand-full to hurl in the hopes it will look messy and maybe even stick.
Your treatment of the Whigham article is a perfect example. Whigham never tried to give CBM credit for creating Pine Valley and it is really preposterous for you to pretend he did. (In fact you must have even realized how asinine your attempts were --I see you deleted one of your posts in its entirety two hours after posting.) Whigham made it quite clear that, while Crump brought in CBM and CBM gave some advice, Crump set out to build Pine Valley "out of his own inner consciousness" and that "to all intents and purposes Pine Valley was a George Crump creation and a nobel work of golf architecture."
In fact, Whigham's treatment of Pine Valley is striking for its contrast with his treatment of Merion. In both cases CBM was brought in to give advice on the course. In Pine Valley's case, Crump only followed a few of CBM's suggestions and therefore in Whigham's mind Pine Valley was not a CBM course, it was a "George Crump creation." But Whigham did consider Merion to be a CBM course, and by comparison this gives us some idea of the input and influence CBM must have had.
Likewise, Whigham never claimed that MacKenzie "would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way" or anyone else for that matter. This is just your bullshit attempt to make out the Whigham article to be something that it wasn't. Were you not such a pathetic homer and Wilson sycophant you might actually do some reading and come to understand the various connections between CBM's work and what happened at at Cypress Point. And you might want to read a bit about what MacKenzie thought of CBM's work as well.
After all this time you have spent trying to trash CBM and Whigham, you still apparently have no clue as to just how revolutionary NGLA was and CBM/HJW were for golf design in the United States. Yet, ironically, those at Merion understood this, which is why the brought in CBM and HJW to guide them through the process of creating their first class course, and why they made a point of thanking him for his contributions.
_________________________________
I have to laugh about the date of that article! Everytime you "forget" to properly attribute an article it is for a reason --you want to pass it off as something it is obviously not. It is a lot like when TEPaul and Wayne "forget" to include critical language from some A. Wilson quote, in that there is no way it is ever an accident! So here you pass off a 1914 article as if it had something to do with what was going on at Merion in 1910 and at NGLA before! Typical of your duplicitous and downright slimy approach to all of this.
-
David,
Would you expect that an article about Crump's influences on Pine Valley would pre-date 1910? Really??
No, instead it goes straight to the point of Whigham's obviously over-reaching article where he states that Pine Valley (and EVERY other great course in the US between 1910 and 1940) is directly the result of NGLA, going so far as claiming that George Crump was emulating the National.
Gvien that it took you about 2000 words to tell us what Whigham really said and spin it to some type of reasonable seeming-opinion, I think it's pretty obviously the case.
-
It didn't take me 2000 words to explain what Whigham really meant. That is clear from Whigham himself. My 2000 words barely begin to explain the slimy nature of your approach. But my words fall well short of doing your approach the injustice it deserves.
-
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."
'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National. Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."
"...Here again he was right. For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style. Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example. Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie. But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."
So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole and poetic exaggeration when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy honoring his recently deceased Father-in-Law? ::)
I wonder if Alister Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or Harry Colt, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy THIRTY YEARS LATER?
What's your question about Pickering?
btw...thankfully, we have the contemporaneous records of Pine Valley as they were designed and built, chronicled by Tillinghast, and months before Colt arrived. Thankfully, as well, we have Joe Bausch finding those articles to offset the incredible attempts at misguided historical revisionism that seem too often to permeate and contaminate this site.
Mike
It all seems pretty reasonable to me. What exactly are you referring to that rises to level of hyperbole? He gives Mackenzie his due, but I reckon Whigham had some personal insight about the origins of CPC seeing that Raynor was the original choice. I recall seeing photographs of Robert Hunter, Marion Hollins and Whigham at the site as well.
Regarding PV there is no disputing Colt was hired to design the golf course, and regarding the other stuff there plenty of conjecture floating around, but that is all it is.
-
David/Tom,
Have a nice day! ;D
-
David/Tom,
Have a nice day! ;D
Typical Mike. Throw out a bunch of nonsense and when challenged, run away. Unfortunately it is only a matter of time before he throws out the exact same nonsense again. Presenting accurate reading Whigham is obviously not in his interest.
-
Tom
This is the Julian Graham photo of Whigham on site at Cypress in 1928 while construction was underway, accompanied by Mackenzie, Hunter and Hollins. Whigham would have had a better than average insight into the project. In another photo, without Hollins, he is described as the editor of Town and Country magazine.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/3DrAlisterMacKenzieMarionHollinsHJWhighamEditorofTownandCountryRobertHunterSronfuture18thfairwayatCypressPoint1928_WM.jpg)
-
Neil,
Good to see you here.
Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration?
-
Against my better judgement!
Mike, the Whigham eulogy mention of Cypress Point I read as being more about the inspiration of NGLA in the overall project sense, rather than specifically the course and its architecture. Whigham would have known a good deal about Cypress Point, the project, the course and its architects, far more than any of us have been able to dig out 80 years hence. Whigham specifically refers to the conception of Cypress, which as we know, belongs to Marion Hollins.
Mackenzie was no doubt familiar with NGLA, although we have no specific date found yet for him visiting there. In Spirit of St Andrews he describes CBM as "the father of golf architecture in America". Mackenzie would have been influenced in some way by CBM and the National.
-
Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration?
Mike Cirba, This is just more idiocy on your part, and not what Whigham wrote. Talk about "gross hyperbole and exaggeration."
__________________________________
Neil,
I agree with your reading. I'd add the following . . .
In Spirit of St. Andrews MacKenzie wrote of how CBM built a version of his prize winning "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido. From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA): "The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career. C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine."
Also, as you know, MacKenzie referred to NGLA as a "masterpiece," and noted his preference for NGLA over Pine Valley:
North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland. The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World. In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example. My personal preference is for the National. Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.
It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem. At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them.
And . . .
In the United States, golf courses are becoming more and more perfect. American golfers owe a debt of gratitude to Charles Blair Macdonald, who was not only the first United States Amateur Champion but the father of golf architecture in America.
He had an uphill fight in educating American golfers to an appreciate of a really good golf courses. On the National Golf Links, Lido, and other links he made copies of famous holes of the old British Championship courses, which was an expensive way of constructing golf courses, but probably the only means of combating criticism and familiarizing players with real golf. One learns by bitter experience how difficult it is to escape hostile criticisms when one makes a hole of the adventurous type.
. . .
A first class golf hole must have subtleties and stragetic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to to be condemned at first site by even the best players. One can omly escape hosticle criticism by point out that a hole is a copy of such and such a hole like "the Road," "Eden," "Redan" or some other equally famous.
It was in this way that Macdonald was able to familiarize American players with real golf and make the work easy for other architects that followed him.
And . . .
The trouble in those early days was that all golfers except a very small handful of pioneers belonged to the penal school. Today we have no such battles to fight. I hardly come across a thinking member of a committee who does not belong to the strategic school.
Owing to the example and writings of C. B. Macdonald, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, and other able American golf course architects, the United States are absorbing the real sporting spirit of golf so rapidly that today, with the exception of St. Andrews and a few similar clubs, American committees have sounder views than have committees in the "Home of Golf."
I wonder if Mike will now accuse MacKenzie of engaging in "gross hyperbole and exaggeration" about CBM as well?
As for Merion Hollins, for what it is worth her father was one of the Founders of NGLA and CBM and Raynor were involved in the creation of her Women's National Golf Course. And of course Seth Raynor was reportedly in charge of building CPC.
________________________________
-
David,
Would you expect that an article about Crump's influences on Pine Valley would pre-date 1910? Really??
No, instead it goes straight to the point of Whigham's obviously over-reaching article where he states that Pine Valley (and EVERY other great course in the US between 1910 and 1940) is directly the result of NGLA, going so far as claiming that George Crump was emulating the National.
Mike, that's not what he said.
He said that NGLA was the "inspiration" for every great golf course in America, subsequent to NGLA.
Given the time frame between the creation of NGLA and the creation of great courses subsequent to NGLA and the date of Whigham's statement, I think you'd have to concede that his statement wasn't hyperbole
-
Not only that, but the underlying Fowler article wasn't about Pine Valley and according to TomM was from 1913. So Fowler wasn't writing about his ideal holes contemporaneously with CBM. By then the horse had long left the barn.
-
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/3DrAlisterMacKenzieMarionHollinsHJWhighamEditorofTownandCountryRobertHunterSronfuture18thfairwayatCypressPoint1928_WM.jpg)
Neil
That is a great photo. You have some of the biggest personalities and egos of the game apparently in total comfort amongst one another.
-
Neil,
Deftly handled, but my question was rhetorical as Whigham's statement was so over the top as to be clearly hyberbolic exaggeration, essentially crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940. ;) ;D
It does raise an interesting question of what would have happened had the National never been built?
Would Donald Ross simply have vanished? Mackenzie? Colt?? Others like Fownes, Emmett, and Travis whose work preceded CBM?
All,
Everyone has heard of the Three Blind Mice, and here on GCA we seem to have our own version of the "3M's".
In this case, they are just as blind, yet not nearly so benign.
It seems to me that everyone actually interested in the truth here...Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer...have all left town and probably wisely so.
So, with just our three M's left...Mis-Information, Mis-Anthropic, and Mis-Taken, I'm going to take their lead and I'll be very certain that I won't be Mis-Sing anything of worth.
Thanks to all who contributed here in a productive way.
-
Mike,
I have been following along as time allows, but nothing really to add and my tolerance for constant insults has diminished a bit. As to your latest "hyperbole" I know what you mean, although I think Neil sums up the general feeling well - CBM was a general inspiration and already called the Father of Golf Architecture by the time of his death, and perhaps JHW just thought it was the right time to highlight that. Did he go over the top? Not if you consider it was a eulogy!
David,
I appreciate the quotes from Mac to underscore your opinion on this one. It occurs to me that a thread tracing some of the specifics of how CBM influenced gca in America, with similar quotes from others, would be instructive. I don't know if you have any more specifics, but I enjoyed seeing the Mac quotes relative to CBM and wonder if Ross, or others have similar quotes?
-
Jim,
A while back you indicated that you would try to pull together segments of the source material which specifically contradict Whigham's article.
I have been patiently waiting and will continue to so do, but I was curious whether this was something you were still planning to do? If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
Thanks.
-
Jim, While you are working on the issue mentioned immediately, I thought I'd pull up another view from he same aerial as above. This one shows the shape of the Golf House Road. While Mike has always told us that he knows the timing of the swap because of the free flowing curves of the road, I am not so sure this look supports that notion. To me it looks as if a big bite got taken out of the golf course across from the clubhouse, about where I would expect given my understanding of the swap.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=12.50000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=119&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=588&DMY=471&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Yes, it was taken from across the street from the clubhouse and added up along the upper end of the 14th fairway, the entire 14th green, and almost the whole left side of 15, so that alternate routes could be provided around the quarry on 16. The whole course needed to bow out at the top to facilitate play around the quarry holes.
It's ridiculousy obvious when compared to the parallel roads drawn on the November Land Plan.
The road in the development got built as planned, with curving symmetry. You can see it in the picture, as well. Look how it runs up to College Ave., exactly as planned.
The one bounding the golf course needed to be revised as is obvious in those photos. Look how they cut it off before College Avenue, creating a triangle that was 130x190 at its base, which differed from the original plan that was certainly longer and narrower.
I'm amazed how little common sense is exhibited here.
I also posted this picture here years ago to make the same point.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=12.50000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=119&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
Funny stuff when Mike Cirba lecturing us about common sense. He is about as qualified to speak about "common sense" as Osama Bin Laden is qualified to speak of non-invasive eye surgery.
Francis described the land Merion received in the swap as "land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long -- the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."
Somehow, in Mike's version of "common sense" he thinks this means "up along the upper end of the 14th fairway, the entire 14th green, and almost the whole left side of 15." In other words, he completely ignores Francis and just makes a bunch of shit up.
While this may be "ridiculously obvious" to Mike, it is just ridiculous to me.
-
David,
I do intend to do this but haven't spent any time on it yet. To be clear, my effort isn't targeted at discrediting Wigham, just to highlight some key differences of opinion from your interpretation that CBM was "calling the shots" and the committee's view that CBM was helpful in an advisory way. I think the Road Hole conversation will be important in making the distinction...as will any of the template at Merion.
You can do something to help...you can give me the Lesley article, and anything from those four or five known committee members, Sending privately or publicly is fine with me.
Thanks.
-
Jim,
As you know, I think advisor is the right title, even if when it comes to routing they allowed or relied on CBM to pick the final from among their 5. I say that because he didn't have the responsibility to come up with any final decision or take any action leading to the final construction, land selection, etc.
I know it was not as formal an agreement as I would have today, but still, there were contracts in place for everything at MCC, from land transfer to construction, and CBM (for his own reasons) didn't have a contract there, nor was there one for his just hired associate Seth Raynor. But, no doubt he was a very trusted advisor.
Hence, I believe the original accreditation is correct, although like everyone, love to think about the details of his advice.
-
Jim,
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/5750663775_f88af9b22c_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5106/5750663913_6578726bb3_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/5751208236_65fd43a6c2_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/5751208436_bcbf41da27_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/5751208638_2abb8ba9e2_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2193/5751208806_b92a0c3004_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
I wouldn't mind seeing it again, but hope you don't get lambasted for posting the same article over and over again!
If I would have known these things would go on so long, I would have cut and copied every document to my computer. My bad.
-
Jeff,
It's posted, thanks.
They can lambaste me all they want...I keep going back to facts which is why I post them.
One thing I noticed in reading it again....Lesley makes the point with some amazement how different the two courses are from one another, yet doesn't attribute that to different architects, or the influence of CBM; instead he tells us that they were purposefully made different for variety. He also continues to use terminology consistent with the times, citing "construction" and the men who "built the two courses", seemingly not differentiating between design and build in the least.
There has also been some discussion whether the safe, alternate route around the quarry on #16 was determined a necessary feature by the Merion Committee, with some like Jim Sullivan contending that they didn't "have" to do it. I think Jim is simply not imagining the difficulty of that hole without it for the average club member playing with hickory.
As you know, I contend that the whole reason the course needed to be broadened in that area and 14 and 15 swung out well to the west of where originally intended (and thus, the Francis Swap) was simply the need to create an alternate route for average members to navigate "around" the quarry on 16.
In any case, Lesley gives us a clear indication;
Pictures show these holes, the
sixteenth being the first of them. It is a long drive
that will land the player anywhere down the fairway
in view of the green which beckons him on to it across
a deep gulley or quarry bottom, filled with sand and
long grass, the jagged rock walls of which present
moral hazards, which to the ordinary golfer seems
terrible. A good second, with a brassie, flying across
these difficulties, finds its way on to the green where a
large undulating surface welcomes the courageous
player who has found his way home in the two
orthodox shots.
-
Francis described the land Merion received in the swap as "land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long -- the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."
David,
The only problem with that theory is this isn't what Merion actually purchased.
If you're telling us that prior to the Francis Swap Merion had not originally intended to purchase any land north of the south boundary of Haverford College, only giving themselves about 80 yards beyond the quarry to work with (despite CBM's admonishment that "much could be made of the quarry" as a hazard ::)), and despite the fact that the Johnson Farm ran for 328 x 150 yards north to College Avenue, then it still makes no sense..
As Bryan Izatt pointed out last week, Merion didn't buy a 130x190 parcel of land in some swap, if that's how you're interpreting Francis.
Instead, as part of their overall purchase they bought a triangle of property that is 130 yards at the base (southern boundary of Haverford College) and goes 328 yards to the north, encompassing the right side of Golf House Road the entire length, and maintaining the existing historic eastern Johnson Farm boundary along the entire length.
In fact, Merion ended up purchasing the Johnson Farm to its historic original boundaries on the east, on the north, on the south, and on the western portion below Ardmore Avenue. The only border that wasn't simply the historic existing border was the western side above Ardmore Avenue where the property was sub-divided for real estate development.
Are you saying that Merion didn't originally intend to purchase any of the Johnson Farm land north of the south boundary of Haverford College prior to the swap?
At the end of the day, they still ended up purchasing a narrow triangle of land 138 yards long beyond that 190 cited by Francis, 76 of which only included the right side of Golf House Road, and the next 62 gradually widening to include the curve of Golf House Road to the west and running along the existing historic eastern boundary of the Johnson Farm.
Are you saying that if Merion had found a way to fit the final five holes into the cramped space south of Haverford College, that they would not have purchased any land north of there? If so, how do you think Golf House Road would have been configured and would Merion be on the hook for the right half of the 328 yards of Golf House Road north of there?
Why do you think they wouldn't have wanted to use any of the 328 yards x 150 yards of the Johnson Farm north of the Haverford College boundary?
-
David,
I do intend to do this but haven't spent any time on it yet. To be clear, my effort isn't targeted at discrediting Whigham, just to highlight some key differences of opinion from your interpretation that CBM was "calling the shots" and the committee's view that CBM was helpful in an advisory way. I think the Road Hole conversation will be important in making the distinction...as will any of the template at Merion.
Jim, This is fine, but let me clarify a few things as well.
1. This all started because you claimed that Whigham's statement was in "significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved." I don't blame you for backing off of this because it obviously is not the case, and no evidence exists supporting your original claim.
2. As for your new, watered down claim, I am still interested in seeing you try to support it, but I'd appreciate it if you not stack the deck before you even start. You present the issue as my view versus the committee's view. But in my mind, my view and the committee's view are one and the same! You may disagree, but that makes it my view of what the committee meant vs. your view of what the committee meant.
3. As for your request for more information from the Committee, Mike posts the Lesley article but apparently he hasn't read it. Lesley distinquishes between those who constructed the course and those who figured out the problem when he was thanking the various groups for their contributions.
4. As for additional information from those on the committee, there is the Hugh Wilson chapter and Francis' Merion Memories article, both of which have been posted repeatedly. They are your claims, so what else backs them up?
______________________________________
Mike Cirba
I am done responding to your nonsense. As a friend reminded me recently you have been proven wrong on almost every position you have ever taken, yet you have learned nothing at all and are still as likely as ever to pretend like you have all of the answers despite your track record! The fact that you cannot even make a point without grossly misrepresenting my position (as you do immediately above) ought to tell you something about the merits of your positions, yet you remain oblivious. I do your ridiculous claims more justice than they deserve by even responding.
-
Yes David, I can.
Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.
It's worth saying, this is only discarding your interpretation of Wigham's words...there's every chance he knew exactly what CBM did for/at Merion and it's exactly what Merion has always credited him with.
Why would CBM go from "calling all the shots" in April 1911 to never showing up again? The construction phase lasted a while if I'm not mistaken...
Here's my entire post David.
My argument is, and always has been with your interpretation of HJW's words as "calling the shots"...nothing watered down about it. It's always been about your interpretation versus my interpretation.
-
3. As for your request for more information from the Committee, Mike posts the Lesley article but apparently he hasn't read it. Lesley distinquishes between those who constructed the course and those who figured out the problem when he was thanking the various groups for their contributions.
I am done responding to your nonsense. As a friend reminded me recently you have been proven wrong on almost every position you have ever taken, yet you have learned nothing at all and are still as likely as ever to pretend like you have all of the answers despite your track record! The fact that you cannot even make a point without grossly misrepresenting my position (as you do immediately above) ought to tell you something about the merits of your positions, yet you remain oblivious. I do your ridiculous claims more justice than they deserve by even responding.
David,
I must say, that is an absolutely ludicrous interpretation of the Lesley article, which should come as no surprise to anyone.
Once again, when confronted with actual facts versus specious speculation, of which you are the acknnowledged Master, you have no cogent response but simply resort to insults.
So be it.
-
___________________________________________________________
By the way I've always found Lesley's further acknowledgements at the conclusion of the description to be particularly interesting. To me it reads as if he is thanking three distinct groups of men, which I have highlighted in different colors:
So much for the history that led to this remarkable development in American golf. And to the men who built the courses, to the men who subscribed to the stock, to the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem, the Merion Cricket Club owes its sincere thanks, and Philadelphia golf as a whole is also indebted.
Who were these three groups? And where do CBM and HJW fit?
1. The men who built the courses? Hugh Wilson and his Committee, along with whoever they hired.
2. The men who subscribed to the stock? H.G. Lloyd and those who supported his financial plan.
3. The men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem? Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham.
While it sounds strange now, phrases like "working out the problem" were often used to describe planning a golf hole or golf course.
______________________________________________
David,
This partial excerpt from Lesley is probably a good place to distinguish the committee's use of the term "adviser" and your stated "calling the shots".
The article spends the entire first page discusing the initial problem of poor golfers in Philadelphia, connects the cause of that to poor courses and then gets into the congestion at Merion's old course being the impetus for searching out new golf grounds and then soon after the 1912 opening dealing with the same problem. The problem was overcrowding of the golf courses at Merion and the third group being credited in that paragraph are the people that found the land and solved hat problem for them. Lesley had every opportunity in this article to credit CBM and HJW for any portion of the creation as he wanted and he left it as the committees adviser's.
The problem globally of no good golfers coming out pf Philadelphia was solved in large part as the result of the events that took place after this articles problem of over-congestion of Merions courses.
-
David ignores the first page, where Lesley tells us the committee laid out the course, which to everyone in the world other than David, means designed it, and focuses on parsing some convoluted thank yous instead to make a point.
Is anyone surprised? Yet he tells us that these articles don't say what they appear to say, that they are always really saying something different. I guess only he has the crystal ball. But, at some point, like my father told me, usually, if the whole world disagrees with you, its time to start thinking you may be wrong. Yeah, there are many films celebrating the guys who are right despite all odds, and it happens occaisionally in real life, but not that often.
The article says the committee laid it out with CBM and HJW as advisors, and Lesley was a main cog. As David would say in any other case, its hard to beat contemporaneous evidence like this when evaluating history.
-
David,
Listen to Jim and Jeff.
And Bryan.
-
Mike,
I'm always baffled by your thought that the need for the lades aid around the quarry on 16 was the sole reason for the land swap and as such all that was required was added width to an already existing triangle. There are about 5 reasons his baffles me but the leader in the clubhouse is certainly your comments about how long the second shot over the quarry would be in those days. Have you ever really considered the playability of this option? For the players that cannot make the carry on their second shots this option is only "better" for those that can also not reasonably expect to keep a ball in the air for 100 yards becasue that's all it takes after a layup to the end of the fairway...and the angle in from there is greatly superior than off by the 15th hole somewhere.
-
duplicate post.
-
Jim, You provided your answer, but left out the question. I asked "Can anyone come up with any legitimate reason for discarding Whigham's words?"
I don't think your current quest goes as far as your answer to this question, but no matter. I am still interested in your list and explanation of the the sources supportint your understanding and discounting my understanding.
Your speculation about "the problem" is rather stretched, don't you think? To "work out the problem" was sometimes used to connote planning a golf hole or golf course.
Rather than get lost piecemeal in each document, perhaps you can set all the the sources and explain then all?
-
Mike,
I'm always baffled by your thought that the need for the lades aid around the quarry on 16 was the sole reason for the land swap and as such all that was required was added width to an already existing triangle. There are about 5 reasons his baffles me but the leader in the clubhouse is certainly your comments about how long the second shot over the quarry would be in those days. Have you ever really considered the playability of this option? For the players that cannot make the carry on their second shots this option is only "better" for those that can also not reasonably expect to keep a ball in the air for 100 yards becasue that's all it takes after a layup to the end of the fairway...and the angle in from there is greatly superior than off by the 15th hole somewhere.
Jim,
Sure, I'd be happy to answer that question, but I'm frankly surprised David hasn't weighed in yet in my defense on this one.
If memory serves, when David played Cypress Point (using hickory shafts) he came to the mighty 16th hole. Eschewing the ego-driven attempts that most mere mortals are too weak to resist, David instead played the alternate fairway, choosing to bite off the legendary hole in more manageable 100 or so yard chunks.
Now, that might be my memory failing me here, but I do seem to recall that story being recounted here on GCA.
As far as my own speculation, I do understand your point about someone being able to chip down their second shot perhaps 100 yards or so leaving them a carry of about 100 yards uphill all-carry over the quarry to the green. But boy, that sure is boring golf, and it also assumes that all ladies and seniors back then could make the carry with hickory, which as David's example shows, is certainly not an assured thing! ;) ;D
Seriously, I do think that the Merion architects felt that a large enough percentage of their members couldn't make that carry, and had to give them a way around that was grass instead of rocks, sand, rough, and all the other stuff growing in that part of the quarry. The fact that they DID build it indicates to me that they felt it was necessary.
Now, I know you'll say to yourself, aren't the carries on 17 and 18 longer? Well, I'd answer that in a few ways.
First, there's NOWHERE to build an alternate fairway on either of those holes. Second, from the 17th tee one 1) Places the ball on a tee, 2) is elevated high above the target, and 3) early pics of the hole show the quarry below pretty "cleaned up" and playable, a fact bemoaned by Tillinghast. Ditto on 18. For that matter, we know that 18 only played about 405 yards so the carry was not nearly as significant as today's, and we really don't know where tees were placed for ladies, but I'm betting they were atop the hill.
In either case, we know what they built. We can question whether this was "necessary", but it doesn't alter in the least the fact that they felt it was, and the evidence is simply the fact that it's there.
I'd also question whether the carries for the members were actually longer on 17 and 18 from their tees, as seen in this 1916 drawing by William Flynn;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3507806192_fb08a2d604_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Lesley clearly identifies the Redan and the Alps holes.
We know, from your timeline in post # 124 that the routing, along with the individual holes designs, including tees and greens, and seeding, was completed in the fall of 1911, six months prior to Wilson's trip abroad.
So, Wilson's trip had nothing to do with the final routing, nothing to do with the individual hole designs, nothing to do with the location/siting of 18 tees and 18 greens, which, by your own admission, were all completed and seeded by the fall of 1911.
We also know from Lesley's account, and I'm assuming that you view it as the gospel, that the course opened on 09-04-12, less than 4 months after Wilson's return. Hence, it's doubtful, on opening day, that any substantive changes in routing, hole design, and the location of tees and greens occured.
Lastly, Lesley's article isn't about architectural attribution, although he does reference the Redan and the Alps, which were all conceived and built before Wilson departed for the UK.
To declare, because Lesley doesn't discuss architectural attribution, that CBM couldn't have been involved and influential is disingenuous.
Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer and David,
The phrase "laid out upon the land" created controversy long before this thread was initiated.
Some felt is described the design process, others the construction process.
What's always bothered me is WHY did Merion name the committee the construction committee ?
A reasonable person could conclude, because the course had already been routed and designed, and therefore, the task falling to that committee was to get the course in/on the ground.
I'm also curious about Francis's role. I know he pooh pooh's it, but, as an engineer, he had to be a vital cog.
With Raynor an integral member of CBM's team, it would be hard to believe that these two engineers didn't communicate with one another.
And, the inability to produce communication between them, doesn't mean that they weren't in contact with one another.
All of you cretins and morons (there is a distinction) seem to rely solely upon written correspondence and articles in newspapers and magazines, completely neglecting that a sophisticated telephone system was in place in and between NY and Philadelphia, allowing these parties to communicate on a hourly basis if need be.
The complete disregard and disavowing of any phone communication between the parties is stunning.
Your collective opinions seem to be that if it isn't in written form and signed, then the committee members and CBM & HJW couldn't be in contact with one another and nothing could be further from the truth.
David Moriarty, subpoena the phone records !
-
Jim,
These descriptions of the holes as they played in the 1916 US Amateur that shows some of the design thinking may help as well....the description of the options on the 16th is particularly telling;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3540562952_4308e81b3e_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/3539752433_546efb4024_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
You're holding a pair of two's and clinging desperately to a rapidly sinking ship.
Time to fold. Wise men admit when they are wrong.
-
Mike,
Are you suggesting the quarry on 17 and 18 was cleaned out for playability but they neglected to do this on 16? I wonder about that line of reasoning.
David,
"Stretched"?
Did you read the first page of that article?
Lesley spent the entire first page laying out their problem and used the word problem to do it...it does not matter that people would occassionally use problem to discuss the strategies of golf holes. Lesley was no yet discussing golf holes...he was describing the problem that enabled/predicated Merion's leadership role in the creation of better courses in the region.
The last few words of that first page and first few of the next...
"The Merion Club is celebrated for doing things, and when a situation confronts it its members act and talk about it afterwards. The men who had waited for the opening of the new course, the men who were enjoying their golf on the new course, the men who had given time and trouble to the construction of the new course, were all confronted with the problem of congestion and spoiled sport by reason of congestion and the greatly increased membership."
-
Just FYI - I believe some of us concluded a long time ago that CBM identified many potential greens/hole sites during his visit to Merion, based on his concepts of ideal/template golf holes (thus Whigman's eulogy for him); and that Wilson and the Committee then used several of those potential green sites/holes as part of the 5 routings that they, the Committee, designed/planned out (thus the early and still traditional accreditation); and that CBM then chose the best of the Wilson Committee's 5 potential plans/designs (thus the forthright thanks and praise for CBM by Wilson); and that Wilson then travelled overseas to study how fairway and greenside hazards/obstacles and contouring in general were an essential part of the greatness of golf's great holes, and came back to truly finish/complete Merion East based on this enriched understanding (thus the compliments for Wilson in particular found in the co-temporarneaous news articles of the day, and his future work/assignments on other golf courses). It's a shame that this debate/discussion from the very beginning was framed by two stark and extreme and diametrically opposed positions -- as without the blinkers of either agenda the most likely scenario/history seems pretty clear, at least to the outside eye. See you all in another 6-8 months or so....
Peter
-
Peter,
If you're going to insist on being reasonable, I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread.
Jim,
Why do you think they built the alternate route on 16?
More importantly, do you think that their purposeful decision to build the alternate route on 16 affected the possible placement of holes 14 AND 15?
-
Peter...God loves you!
-
Paul,
I agree that a wise God would have to love Peter.
I'm pretty sure a wise God wouldn't give a flying flip who designed Merion, however. ;) ;D
-
Lastly, Lesley's article isn't about architectural attribution, although he does reference the Redan and the Alps, which were all conceived and built before Wilson departed for the UK.
To declare, because Lesley doesn't discuss architectural attribution, that CBM couldn't have been involved and influential is disingenuous.
Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer and David,
The phrase "laid out upon the land" created controversy long before this thread was initiated.
Some felt is described the design process, others the construction process.
Pat,
It may not have been about attribution, but Lesley certainly weighs in with his opinion of how attribution should be allocated.
Mike,
I think they built that option because they could...
I read you version, if I boil t down, to say that they had a fixed boundary based on the November Map and had to change deal to enable some of the members to go around the quarry when thay would have a longer carry on each of the next two holes. Seriously! I saw your drawing from Flynn, not to scale by the way. But I've also seen Google Earth. It's actually no too close.
I'm not perfectly clear on your question of how I think the building of that ladies aid affected 14 and 15. Clearly it would have effected 15 but at that time people played crossing holes all the time...also wasn't the tee originally over by the road?
-
Patrick,
You're holding a pair of two's and clinging desperately to a rapidly sinking ship.
Time to fold. Wise men admit when they are wrong.[
Mike, I quoted YOUR time line.
It's YOUR declaration on the chronological order of the design, routing, construction and seeding of the golf course, all of which occurred six months PRIOR to Wilson's trip to the U.K.
I'd say that's equivalent to a royal flush, an unbeatable hand.
If you can point out any flaws in my facts or logic, please do so.
Failure to identify any flaws in my facts and/or reasoning would mean that my facts and reasoning are sound.[/b]
-
Jim,
No way did people play crossing holes at that time coming at each other from directly opposing directions, essentially shooting right each other!
Not sure I understand your question about playing over the road? The alternate route necessitated the 14th green being moved well to the west of it, and check out the location of the 15th tee, as well.
If one holds any stock in the November 1910 Land Plan, the ENTIRE 14th green would fall outside of it, as would the 15th tee and the entire left half of the 15th fairway.
I don't think that Land Plan was the exact Contour Map they were working with in early 1911, but they were certainly trying to work within some 117 acre boundary (plus three acres leased from the RR company) for 120 total.
Given that the property was made up of;
21 acres of the Dallas Estate
3 acres of RR land
And given that they used the historic eastern, southern, and northern boundaries of the Johnson Farm (as well as the western border below Ardmore Avenue), they certainly wanted to keep the western border above Ardmore Avenue within the 96 acres they originally agreed to purchase in November 1910, and which their agreements with HDC were based on.
As things happened, they needed an additional three acres to complete their desired routing, for a total of 123. That happened on the Johnson Farm property along the western boundary above Ardmore Avenue.
THAT is indisputable.
Where do you think that additional three acres came from?
-
Peter,
X2. I have been saying for a while that perhaps in many respects we are closer than we think. But, some argue the time line (well, like me!) and others argue triangles or alternate fw. CBM was a valued advisor and the course wouldn't have looked like it looked oriiginally (and in many ways, as it does now) without his valuble advice.
David,
I am still trying to understand why all the contemporaneous comments aren't reason enough to discard Whigham many years later. Again, I can see some middle ground, because as time went on, it appears CBM didn't do a lot more for other clients than he did with Merion, but he had his own guy Raynor do the bulk of the work, and simply red marked the plans, etc.
But, in the end, so many folks said that the committee was responsible, I think its more than reasonable to say the committee was largely responsible.
-
Jim,
Actually, in thinking about it, your argument that they created the alternate fairway on 16 because they "could", is belied by the fact that they had to go back to the board in April 1911 and request permission to purchase an additional 3 acres beyond what they had originally secured in November 1910.
How big is that alternate fairway again?
We know the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate and the 3 acres of the RR Land were fixed amounts.
The only variable was the western edge of the Johnson Farm above Ardmore Avenue. They believed they'd need 96 acres, but instead needed to buy 99 acres.
The triangle above Haverford College is 4.8 acres
What does that tell you?
btw, Jim...what does the knowledge that they bought the Dallas Estate in its entirety, leased the RR property in its entirety, and also purchased the Johnson Farm in its entirety to EVERY historic border (north, east, south, west below Ardmore Avenue) except that on the western edge adjoining the real estate property of HDC above Ardmore Avenue do to your theory that they only bought the specific land they needed for their previously routed golf course?
-
btw, Jim...what does the knowledge that they bought the Dallas Estate in its entirety, leased the RR property in its entirety, and also purchased the Johnson Farm in its entirety to EVERY historic border (north, east, south, west below Ardmore Avenue) except that on the western edge adjoining the real estate property of HDC above Ardmore Avenue do to your theory that they only bought the specific land they needed for their previously routed golf course?
It confirms it.
-
Mike,
What would you say if I told you the end result was that Merion had to buy 3 acres or roads for their share of these transactions? How would it impact yourvision of Mr Thompson's April motion to 'exchange already purchased for adjoining and buy three more acres'?
-
Jim,
1. I understand what you are saying about "the problem" but don't agree that it fits in the context of the acknowledgement. We'll have to agree to disagree.
2. Can you explain to me where "Lesley certainly weighs in with his opinion of how attribution should be allocated?"
"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."
I agree with every word.
____________________________________
Jeff Brauer wrote:
David,
I am still trying to understand why all the contemporaneous comments aren't reason enough to discard Whigham many years later. Again, I can see some middle ground, because as time went on, it appears CBM didn't do a lot more for other clients than he did with Merion, but he had his own guy Raynor do the bulk of the work, and simply red marked the plans, etc.
But, in the end, so many folks said that the committee was responsible, I think its more than reasonable to say the committee was largely responsible.
You guys keep making such claims but I don't think you can support them. That is was Jim is supposed to be doing, and so far he has come up with only the Lesley article, yet Lesley credited CBM and HJW right along with the Committee!
I'd like to see a list of every instance where someone directly involved wrote that the committee and not CBM/HJW who designed the course, but you guys have not ever come up with such a list.
-
How many times are we going around this circle?
The club minutes say they prepared many plans, etc. and then CBM came back and approved them. What happened happened and it is all pretty well documented. There are also many articles crediting Wilson and the Committee, with an assist from CBM for the course.
I understand your position that many say they constructed the coruse, and they did. But, there is no real reference to CBM designing it either, other than Whigham's contention many years later. I happen to believe (and this pains me as a gca!) that getting the damn thing constructed was foremost in everyone's mind, and design was almost a necessity, and a means to the end, rather than the exhalted thing we discuss it as today.
Looking for someone to use our exact phrases back then is imposing a will on them that just annot be done.
IMHO. What happened happened and its well documented, word parsing aside.
-
There are also many articles crediting Wilson and the Committee, with an assist from CBM for the course.
Not true. At least not if you are talking about articles written by those who were there and involved. Hugh Wilson thanked CBM and HJW profusely. Lesley thanked CBM and HJW right along with the Committee. Whigham credited CBM.
And Merion's board Minutes do not even mention Wilson's Committee, yet you claim that the board minutes credit them? Not so. The board minutes do acknowledge that CBM and HJW chose the final plan.
-
David,
Its late here. You know the document (the Lesley report) which I presume got put into the club record somewhere, even if minutes is the wrong phrase. And I am not sure how it is you cannot read those articles as attributing design, creation, construction of MCC to the committee because its mentioned several times. As I said, if the word design isn't mentioned every time, I think it says more about how they viewed the whole thing as a process, but parse the words any way you want, I have a plane to catch.
And yes, they all thanked both the committee and CBM profusely for the few days he spent. If I recall the words were that he gave them a good start in the principles, picked the final plan (that the committee had drawn) among others.
WTF does that prove? As I said, what happened happened, and those reports tell us what it was. This is a circle. No word on who the biggest jerk in it is......(just to clarify, not a shot at you....there are several candidates! Not as funny in print as it sounded in my head.....) :)
-
Mike,
What would you say if I told you the end result was that Merion had to buy 3 acres or roads for their share of these transactions? How would it impact yourvision of Mr Thompson's April motion to 'exchange already purchased for adjoining and buy three more acres'?
Jim,
Let me think about that one. My first gut reaction would be something I've suspected but can't prove....that the Francis Swap happened during construction AFTER April 1911, not before.
I have to ask you to explain your contention that "it confirms it".
How does buying whole tracts of land in their entirety represent just picking out the necessary features for the golf holes they envisioned? As it is, it's a very tight fit...wouldn't this support the notion that they bought the land and then fit the golf holes as opposed to the opposite?
In other words, why buy ALL of the Dallas Estate? Why buy all of the Johnson Farm to every border but the one split between real estate and golf? Wasn't their land available from HDC's holdings somewhat predetermined by the portions seemingly pre-ordained for real estate?
-
Jim,
1. I understand what you are saying about "the problem" but don't agree that it fits in the context of the acknowledgement. We'll have to agree to disagree.
2. Can you explain to me where "Lesley certainly weighs in with his opinion of how attribution should be allocated?"
"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."
I agree with every word.
____________________________________
David,
Can you clarify why you think my interpretation of the word problem is out of context? Lesley uses the word problem to describe the congestion issue they were trying to solve righ in that first page and a half.
Regarding the "Adviser" title given, I don't disagree either but then I assume our disagreement will be on how to define the word. I looked at a few online dictionaries and they all support the use of "adviser" as offering advice and consulting. None of them hint at t leadership role being the advisory role. What definition are you using?
-
A leader, or someone in charge or any project or endeavor does not offer "advice and suggestions" which is what EVERYONE said M&W did at Merion.
It's the exact opposite of a leader or decision-maker, in fact.
-
Thanks Mike but I think we all knew where you would come down on this question...
How about the 3 acres?
-
How does buying whole tracts of land in their entirety represent just picking out the necessary features for the golf holes they envisioned? As it is, it's a very tight fit...wouldn't this support the notion that they bought the land and then fit the golf holes as opposed to the opposite?
In other words, why buy ALL of the Dallas Estate? Why buy all of the Johnson Farm to every border but the one split between real estate and golf? Wasn't their land available from HDC's holdings somewhat predetermined by the portions seemingly pre-ordained for real estate?
Mike, the answer is simple.
Because that's how the REAL WORLD works.
Do you think that property owners are going to subdivide their land and sell off parcels to interested parties ?
Do you really think that's the real world ?
At a club I"m very familiar with we tried to buy three small strips from three different property owners whose land bordered the golf course. Each one, indepenednt of the other said, "sure, I'll sell you my land, all of it. No one is interested in selling a small parcel of their land when it compromises the remaining large parcel of their land. Land is valuable and people don't sell off small strips to entities that can only compromise the interest of the remaining parcel
20+ years ago, I advised Joe McBride to try an buy a narrow strip of land from the neighboring property owner, a strip that bordering Joe's club.
The neighbor's parcel of land was well over 300 acres and I told him to try to buy a narrow strip, a 25-50 yard strip that bordered about 7 holes.
As plan B, I advised him to see if he couldn't get an option on that strip in the event the land was sold or offered for sale at some point in the future.
And, the price that could be paid, for what seemed like useless land was considerable, making it attractive to the seller.
Had either Plan A or Plan B been executed, NGLA and Sebonack would have a nice buffer today.
Mike, NO ONE in their right mind sellls strips of their bordering land to their neighbors.
That's why they had to buy the entire parcel/s
-
Jim,
I thought I answered your three acres question above? Did you see it?
In any case, I'll re-copy my answer and expand on what I think is a very possible theory. I wrote;
Jim,
Let me think about that one. My first gut reaction would be something I've suspected but can't prove....that the Francis Swap happened during construction AFTER April 1911, not before.
Why do I say this? Well, we all seem to think that the Thompson Resolution in April 1911 that talks about swapping land for land already purchased and the need for three more acres is the Francis Swap, correct?
Personally, I always was a little uncertain about that one...something didn't quite make sense and when Bryan Izatt looked at the proposed metes and bounds it seemed there was never a scenario where an additional three acres would be needed no matter how we logically figured it...and if three more acres were needed, then was it really a "swap"?
Besides, at the time of the resolution, Merion (Lloyd, actually) owned ALL of the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate. So why would Merion need to swap for land outside of those parameters??
Instead, let me offer another theory that I think is very, very possible.
We also know that the land of the original (and today's) first green went beyond the boundary of the Johnson Farm, into adjoining HDC property on what was originally the George Taylor Estate. I'm recalling it was about 10-20 yards from that point to Golf House Road, and today even the property stone marking the divide between the Johnson Farm and the Taylor Estate is still evident along the street adjacent to the 1st green.
Don't quote me on the exact yardage, but Bryan's measurements confirmed that some portion of the Merion property around the 1st green extended beyond the boundaries of the Johnson Farm into the Taylor land.
So, if that's the case, couldn't that be what was referred to in the Thompson Resolution? Now, that would certainly require some type of swap, because they'd be needing land that 1) wasn't under Lloyd's direct ownership and control, and 2) that would require either a purchase or a swap.
Now, that in and of itself would not make up the entire 3 acres, but I'm starting to think that the 3 acres is sort of a red herring here. It could be simply that they miscalculated originally in what they thought they needed for the course (securing 117 but finding that it was too tight and needed to buy 3 more for 120 + 3 Leased RR Land for 123). Or, as you suggest, it could be the additional 3 acres of roads they hadn't figured on.
Recall also that the November 15th, 1910 Land Plan, as best as Bryan was able to measure it, was around 124 acres, not 117.
Confused yet? ;)
Ok...let's read what Francis wrote one more time. Doesn't it sound from his descriptions that he's possibly talking more about "fitting" the course onto the land (the construction process) than about a theoretical paper layout?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
In the first paragraph he talks about getting the first 13 holes in position (with the help of a "little ground" north of Ardmore Avenue). What if this land was that small portion of ground that allowed them to fit the first green? Recall that the original first hole ran from the clubhouse and then ran around the original 10th green and 11th tee, which was a very tight fit. Here's a view of the 1st, showing the original 10th green and 11th tee (as well as today's) from 1924.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3470579907_9e171f6452_b.jpg)
Here's the hole description;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3478178220_9452651b71_b.jpg)
The rest of Francis's description about having land west of the clubhouse (Johnson Farm Land) that wasn't used for any golf layout and trying to fit the final five holes could well be about the construction process. Certainly blowing the top off the quarry within a day or two of getting Lloyd's approval (who still owned the property until Merion purchased in July) sounds like construction was underway, yes?
I think the only thing that you'd have to adjust is your idea that the swap was for the entire 130x190 triangle and not just a realignment of the original 117 (by this time, 120) acres within that western border, most likely to accommodate the additional width needed up top to allow members to negotiate around the quarry. ;) ;D
Blast away! ;)
So...
I have to ask you to explain your contention that "it confirms it".
How does buying whole tracts of land in their entirety represent just picking out the necessary features for the golf holes they envisioned? As it is, it's a very tight fit...wouldn't this support the notion that they bought the land and then fit the golf holes as opposed to the opposite?
In other words, why buy ALL of the Dallas Estate? Why buy all of the Johnson Farm to every border but the one split between real estate and golf? Wasn't their land available from HDC's holdings somewhat predetermined by the portions seemingly pre-ordained for real estate?
-
David,
Can you clarify why you think my interpretation of the word problem is out of context? Lesley uses the word problem to describe the congestion issue they were trying to solve righ in that first page and a half.
In short, I think you are convoluting his explanation of the need for a 2nd course with his acknowledgement of those who actually contributed to the creation of two courses.
The first use of the word "problem" directly referred to the need for a new course due to the overcrowding of Merion East brought on by the success of that course; "the problem of congestion and spoiled sport by reason of the greatly increased membership." The second use was in the context of thanking three discrete groupings of people who had specifically contributed the creation of both courses.
I've told you what I think it means, but it is not worth laboring over. My understanding is informed by my having read multitudes of accounts of the creation of golf holes and golf courses during this time period, but if you read it otherwise, so be it. Convincing you that my reading is more sound given the context would mean taking you back through hundreds of descriptions I have read so that you could better place yourself in their shoes when interpreting these documents and frankly it is not worth it to me. My position in no way hinges on this interpretation.
Regarding the "Adviser" title given, I don't disagree either but then I assume our disagreement will be on how to define the word. I looked at a few online dictionaries and they all support the use of "adviser" as offering advice and consulting. None of them hint at t leadership role being the advisory role. What definition are you using?
It all depends upon the identity of the advisor, the content of the Advice, and whether or not that advice is followed.
- In this case the Advisors happened to be considered the foremost experts on the creation of golf courses in the Country.
- The content of the advice covered the gamut of just about everything to do with creating a golf course, from choosing the land, to planning the layout, to growing the grass, to contacting other experts.
- Every indication we have is that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's advice and followed it, even going so far as to have CBM/HJW choose the final routing plan.
You guys throw around "advisor" as if it discounts and minimizes their contribution. I don't read it that way at all. It is merely a description of their relationship to the process. They weren't members of the club (the Committee) and they weren't hired by the club because they were Amateurs, and CMB and HJW did not lay the course out on the ground like the construction committee. The club sought out their advice and they provided advice. And fortunately the club had the good sense to listen!
The mere fact that they are even discussed in this article indicates to me that their contribution was damn important. They and the committee are the only ones mentioned by name in the entire article. No mention of Barker, Flynn, Pickering, Piper, Oakley, Findlay or anyone else.
-
Was CBM called the "advisor" at Piping Rock? At Sleepy Hollow?? Lido?? Mid Ocean?? St. Louis??? White Sulphur Springs??
Did he offer "suggestions and advice" at those courses, or was he in charge??
-
He and Raynor built those courses. Merion built Merion, according to the plan cbm had chosen.
CBM may have had less direct input at a few of those.
-
It has entered the dogma that CBM/HJW chose the final routing plan. Can anybody post the source document that supports that point. Just wanted to look at how it was presented in context.
Jim,
Re your question about the 3 acres and whether it could be the purchasing of their half of the roads. I think not. One half of GHR works out to about an acre and Ardmore works out to less than an acre, so I don't think that the roads could account for the 3 acres.
-
He and Raynor built those courses. Merion built Merion, according to the plan cbm had chosen.
CBM may have had less direct input at a few of those.
advisor:
i
advise/ədˈvʌɪz/
▶verb
1 recommend (a course of action), ESPECIALLY if no building was involved.
■ offer advice to, ESPECIALLY if no building was involved.
2 inform about a fact or situation, ESPECIALLY if no building was involved.
– derivatives
adviser (also advisor) noun.
David,
Does your neck hurt when you stop spinning? ;)
-
Was CBM called the "advisor" at Piping Rock? At Sleepy Hollow?? Lido?? Mid Ocean?? St. Louis??? White Sulphur Springs??
Did he offer "suggestions and advice" at those courses, or was he in charge??
None of those courses and their development were analogous to the course and development at Merion, so why would you expect the same nomenclature ?
-
Bryan,
Here you go, from the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
While we're considering definitions, which of these would you feel is appropriate to the context?
ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Mike,
Or is the use of the word "advisor" at Merion similar to the use of the word "advisor" when the Green Berets were "advisors" to the Montagnard tribesmen.
The Green Berets did everything, including teach, instruct, plan, command and participate.
-
None of those courses and their development were analogous to the course and development at Merion, so why would you expect the same nomenclature ?
Patrick,
I agree with you for once...none of those course were analogous in the least, which is why they didn't use the term "advisor" there.
CBM was the architect of those courses.
And no, our historic use of military "advisors" to fight wars in foreign countries without Congressional authorization is not analogous either.
-
Mike,
The Green Berets were authorized for the conduct of their activities
-
Patrick,
That's fine...I'm just aware that we've sent military "advisors" into any number of foreign countries who actually had combat roles.
I'm not passing a value judgement here, simply stating it's not analogous. "Mercenaries" and/or "Soldiers of Fortune" aren't as politically palatable terms as "advisors".
In any case, the analogy is not applicable.
-
Mike,
Lloyd didn't buy the land on behalf of Merion in December, he took title for HDC and paid them $85K for the priveledge.
David,
It looks like your position would hinge somewhat on this interpretation when you put CBM/HJW in the third category as you've already speculated. Your interpretation has Robert Lesley saying CBM/HJW solve the problems of the hole designs. You say your reasoning for interpreting "problem" in the context written in that article is due to the hundreds of other articles of the time in which "problem" referred to the strategic architecture, can I ask, was it ever used to simply discuss a problem...as defined as a difficult situation?
-
Jim,
Lloyd bought the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate in December. Lock, stock, and Barrel.
-
Jim,
Lloyd bought the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate in December. Lock, stock, and Barrel.
On behalf of HDC, not Merion. You've repeatedly said Merion bought their land in December and used this technicality as a drop dead date for any activity on the land. You can't have it both ways.
-
Jim,
That"s correct...they did buy it in December, or at least Lloyd did.
-
Jim,
That"s correct...they did buy it in December, or at least Lloyd did.
They who?
-
Jim,
Re your question about the 3 acres and whether it could be the purchasing of their half of the roads. I think not. One half of GHR works out to about an acre and Ardmore works out to less than an acre, so I don't think that the roads could account for the 3 acres.
You're probably right, but my measures are:
GHR - 3,870 X 11 ft.
Ardmore Ave from the train tracks to GHR - 1,161 X 34 ft.
Ardmore Ave from GHR to the 6th green - 1641 X 17 ft.
That's about 110,000 square feet, or about 2.5 acres.
Did they have to buy all of Ardmore Ave when they owned both sides?
Did they have to buy half the of a road that may have been built between the tracks and the 12th hole?
Just thinking...wondering how they decided 117 was the right number in the first place...
-
Jim,
Technically, Merion secured 117 acres on November 15th, 1910 when President Allen Evans accepted in writing Mr. Nicholson's (of HDC) offer to sell a tract of 117 acres at 85,000 out of the 338.6 acres they had available.
In December, due to the fact that the borders of the purchase had not yet been determined, Cuyler recommended that Lloyd take title in his own name "so that the lines (boundary) could be revised subsequently."
I'm not sure if this is what Cuyler had in mind, but on December 21, 1911, Lloyd bought outright the Johnson Farm and the Dallas Estate.
That still doesn't explain how Merion got control of that little piece of land behind the first green that was part of the Taylor Estate. How do you think that happened?
-
Mike,
"Technically", Merion bought 120 acres in July 1911 and didn't own anything prior to that.
The gist of what I am saying is that once an agreeable price for land near the creeks and quarry was established (what? July 1910?) these were two very closely linked organizations that had every reason to make this deal work out and these hard and fast timelines you, Tom and David have been married to could be thrown out.
It was made a big deal that Merion was able to acquire their parcel for half the average rate of the total 340 HDC would spend. Do you think the lowlands, the quarry surrounds and the stretch along the creek and tracks were worth the same as the rest? No way. They paid mrket value and sold their members on the value of the property based on the "average". This is one example o why I think HDC would have been motivated to let Merion do just about anything they needed to figure out how to fit a course on the land they were offering...the lower value land.
-
Thanks Mike. As I recall, this is one piece of information where we were relying on a transcription of the original by Tom. Do you now have the original minute document that you could post an image of? For what its worth (not much), I would think that definition 1 is as likely as definition 2, but we really don't know what they meant when they wrote the minute. It just strikes me as strange that one point of agreement around here is that this minute means that CBM "chose" the final routing and had some kind of authority to do it.
Bryan,
Here you go, from the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
While we're considering definitions, which of these would you feel is appropriate to the context?
ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Jim,
Your numbers for the acreages of the roads look more accurate than mine. In any event, they don't add to 3 acres. I don't know whether they would have to have bought both sides of part of Ardmore. Ardmore predated the golf course or HDC. I guess it depends on whether Ardmore had already been dedicated to the town or township by that time.
Just thinking ................ that 117 acres is such an odd number that maybe they had a plan for the golf course that they felt fit on 117 acres when they "secured" the 117 acres in November.
Mike,
I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer? The 338 acres wasn't available at that time. HDC didn't own it at that point.
Re the little piece of land around the first green, which piece did you have in mind that was on the Taylor estate? You'll remember this map from a couple of years ago which demonstrates what was sold to Lloyd in December 1910.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionLloyd161Acres.jpg)
-
David,
It looks like your position would hinge somewhat on this interpretation when you put CBM/HJW in the third category as you've already speculated. Your interpretation has Robert Lesley saying CBM/HJW solve the problems of the hole designs. You say your reasoning for interpreting "problem" in the context written in that article is due to the hundreds of other articles of the time in which "problem" referred to the strategic architecture, can I ask, was it ever used to simply discuss a problem...as defined as a difficult situation?
1. My position doesn't hinge on fitting CBM/HJW into the third group. Lesley tells us that CBM and HJW were advisors. They advised the Committee.
You guys try to read this as if "advisor" was some sort of diminutive characterization. I disagree. Advisors are oftentimes experts who provide expert recommendations as to the proper course of action. While CBM/HJW provided expert advice free of charge, advising clients is at the root of many professions. Attorneys advise their clients on legal matters, accountants advise their clients on accounting and tax matters, doctors advise their patients on medical matters, financial planners advise their clients on financial matters, consulting architects advise their clients on architectural matters. In all these instances the "client" may have final say, but it is the expert advisor who came up with the plan of action. Clients ignore expert advice their peril.
Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice. Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA. Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan.
2. "Problem" usually means "a difficult situation." My "problem" with your understanding is that I don't think Lesley's acknowledgements make sense with your reading.
First, Lesley seems to be thanking distinct groups for specific contributions. Was he thanking the men who built the courses, the men who bought the stock, and the men who gave time and trouble to the securing of the land and to the working out of the problem of congestion and spoiled sport by reason of the greatly increased membership? I don't think so. Does that even make sense?
Second, I don't think that "the working out of the problem" meant solving the problem. Working out the problem could mean solving it, but I think that "the working out of the problem" meant that they created the problem. They came up with "the difficult situation" that others would have to try and resolve.
But under your reading, who exactly gave their time and trouble "to the working out of the problem" and what exactly would this have entailed? And why was only the third group thanked for giving their time and trouble? Didn't those who built the courses also give their time and trouble? Or were a few deserving special recognition for giving their time and trouble?
Again Jim, I understand your interpretation and you might be correct, but to me your reading doesn't make as much sense as the one I have suggested. Reasonable people can disagree.
________________________________
Bryan, I am not sure if the definitions make very much of a difference.
But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.)
Was this just idle chat? Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier?
For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?" And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned? If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan?
-
David,
Once again, both the MCC Minutes as well as Hugh Wilson's account are clear.
They did NOT spend two days at NGLA working on plans for Merion.
Both tell us that the first night was spent looking over CBM's drawings and materials and photos from famous holes and courses abroad and learning about their principles. The next day was spent on the ground seeing CBM's application of those principles on his course at NGLA.
Why did he need to come back to Ardmore?
Why, that's obvious, isn't it? He hadn't been there in almost a year, had seen the property one day, and this committee now asked him to come back and look at their various plans and help them to choose the best one. Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand?
Bryan,
ALL the letters are in Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison's book. Is there particular information you're hoping to find that I can help with?
As far as the 117 acres, it's no mystery.
As far back as July 1910 the committee thought they'd probably need about 120 acres. That was based on any number of discussions with local and other experts. If they had in mind that they needed to rent 3 acres of RR land, then they'd need to buy 117 from HDC to get to that number.
As it turned out, they needed to actually buy 3 acres more, for a total of 123. Therein lies part of the remaining mystery.
But 99% of this is cut and dried and much ado about NADA.
-
David,
Your paragraph about different types of advisors sheds a different light on this whole tpic to me. I agree with every word of what yousaid. I think they viewed CBM/HJW in that capacity and even though we only know with certainty about the four instances of direct communication (the June visit, the June 29 letter, the March NGLA visit and the April 6 MCC visit) I'm as positive as you are that there were other touches. The substance of them is yet to be determined but I'm certain the Merion committee(s) thought of CBM/HJW as they would any other professional advisor.
As you said however, the advisor doesn't call the shots. In this instance did Merion follow alot of what they offered? Sure. But it goes back to my question about how important is it that MCC only showed CBM/HJW one possible site to build their course. Even though they used CBM's approval in thei letter to the membership one cannot argue that CBM actually selected their site for them.
The final five plans is a similar possible scenario, we just don't know what that conversation entailed.
In any event, I have a different, and I believe better, perspective on your postion now, thanks.
-
Jim,
Your numbers for the acreages of the roads look more accurate than mine. In any event, they don't add to 3 acres. I don't know whether they would have to have bought both sides of part of Ardmore. Ardmore predated the golf course or HDC. I guess it depends on whether Ardmore had already been dedicated to the town or township by that time.
I don't know. I added 50% to the width of Ardmore Ave as compared to GHR because it was an established road...maybe a bit aggressive. Google Earth looks like it's 28 feet across, not 34. You'd have to get into the ditch to equal 34. What's the proper way to do it? Along these lines, if you use another few feet outside the pavement on each side we would get to 3 acres...but I'm not sure this is the right trail...
-
Jim,
I believe I was possibly wrong earlier on my speculation about the Francis Swap possibly taking place sometime AFTER April 1911.
I say that because of something Francis said that I forgot about. He said that the land across the street from the clubhouse did not fit with any golf plans, which to me connotes that there were still more than one possible plan at that point. Of course, once one sees how the first hole was routed across the property, which dictated having to come up the back side of the clubhouse to get to the land north of the clubhouse (as happened on 13), it's pretty obvious why that land across the street from the clubhouse didn't fit with any golf plan!
Of course, we know that after April 19th, 1911, there was only one plan, not multiples. Unless Francis was simply stating that the land over there never fit with any plans they conceived of, and part of his brainstorm was to jettison it to open up the northern end a bit during construction, it likely happened before April, and not after.
In any case, given the rest of the timing that we know about and which is detailed in the MCC Minutes, I think it's highly likely that the Francis Swap happened after the NGLA visit in March 1911.
If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, and Francis already had his brainstorm that necessitated a land swap (although they nor Lloyd owned NOTHING at that time, which makes even talk of a swap a bit preposterous) that got the last five holes in place, then I can't imagine what they were doing for the next five months working on five different golf course plans and waiting til April 19th to bring the matter to their Board?
-
Thanks Mike,
I'm open to the swap occurring aftrer 11/15 but I've never quite figured out how you and Jeff think it was possibly after April 19th.
Jim,
Technically, Merion secured 117 acres on November 15th, 1910 when President Allen Evans accepted in writing Mr. Nicholson's (of HDC) offer to sell a tract of 117 acres at 85,000 out of the 338.6 acres they had available.
When do you think the absolute earliest possible date would be that Merion felt they had a deal in place to buy the amount of land they would need ot build the course? Serious question, and I'm not going to hold you to your answer. I'm just trying to establish an understanding of how the transaction may have played out.
-
Jim,
One other thing that makes no sense to me if the Francis Swap happened before November 15th is why that western boundary was still not determined six weeks later, per Cuyler's letter....and months later, actually, if one reads the MCC minutes. Francis was an engineer/surveyor looking at a map of the property when he had his brainstorm..would he not have been very precise, especially as relates to a land swap??
One advantage we should have in trying to figure all of this out, as well as the timelines, is that we're working with fixed historical borders and known quantities on every side of the equation with the exception of the western boundary separating golf course from real estate north of Ardmore Avenue. We know that Merion originally secured 21 acres of Dallas Estate, leased 3 acres of Railroad Land, and thought they would need 96 acres of the Johnson Farm (117 secured, 3 leased).
Since the only moveable boundary was that northwestern border of the Johnson Farm, we know at the end of the day that they needed 99 acres of that, not 96, so we know that this was where it had to come from. We also know that it wasn't the "triangle" because that portion is 4.8 acres, not 3. And in any case, Francis talks about a "swap", which one would guess meant that it was an even trade so that doesn't explain it either.
It may be roadways that make up the three acres as you're speculated, but I'm not sure. This should be easy enough to determine though, yes? Bryan Izatt has the July 1911 metes and bounds and if they include the roads in the 120.1 acre purchase that might be the difference. Bryan?
As regards your question about when Merion felt comfortable that they had a deal, it's hard to say, exactly. Although much of the initial discussions with Connell and Nicholson of HDC seem to have taken place in the June/July 1910 timeframe, it seemingly wasn't until HDC was actually able to get the Dallas Estate under their wing in November that things started actually taking off. At that point, on November 10th, Nicholson sent Evans a letter stating that they were offering an organization MCC might create for the purpose the ability to purchase 117 acres of Lloyd's choosing for $85,000 out of the 300-plus they had available, and itemized each of the respective properties under their control along with the acreage of each.
A few days later, Evans wrote back telling Connell that Merion would form a corporation that would make that purchase.
Then, Cuyler wrote his letter essentially saying that Lloyd should take title. On December 21st Lloyd purchased the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate.
You really should purchase Wayne and Tom's book...much of what you're hoping to find in terms of documentation is in there.
The following is from Tom Paul, which I'm happy to relay to clarify a few matters on questions that were asked.
Jim Sullivan said this:
"Lloyd didn't buy the land on behalf of Merion in December, he took title for HDC and paid them $85K for the priveledge."
Technically that is not accurate. Lloyd did not pay anyone $85,000 when he took deed to 161 acres on December 19, 1910 from James Rothwell (a transfer agent). Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1) was not actually paid until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000. So what were the payments of $60,000 and $34,000 that Lloyd's December 19, 1911 deed was SUBJECT TO? I would assume the $34,000 was for the 21 acre Dallas estate and the $60,000 was for the approximately 40 acres of the original Johnson farm that MCC (MCCGA Corp) did not use and would not buy (it probably was transferred back to HDC or perhaps held by Lloyd since he essentially was a large part of HDC). I could determine at some point what the deed transfers were with the remainder of the Johnson Farm (app 40 acres) in the future by simply going to the County Recorder of Deeds and checking that 40 acres since all specific land transfers are recorded in Pennsylvania.
Bryan Izatt said this:
"I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer? The 338 acres wasn't available at that time. HDC didn't own it at that point."
HDC did not technically need to own those 338 acres at that point as they had all of it in five parcels "secured" with a purchase by a "purchase agent" (Freeman with the Dallas estate) and deeds and options "assigned in blank" for the Davis and Taylor farms and the land north of College Ave. The transfer of the Johnson farm was basically between two development entities that were the same or an evolution of one into the other (Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co into the Haverford Development Co).
All this stuff is essentially Real Estate 101. This is what I used to have to get involved with when I sold real estate, mostly farms. So why go through all these technicalities with transfer agents and purchasing agents and deed transfers between various people the same day for a payment of $1.00 "SUBJECT TO" a later payment for the agreed upon price between ultimate buyer and seller? It is generally done that way between development sellers and potential buyers and entities such as golf clubs because it often takes some time for the buyer (in this case the MCCGA Corp) to raise the money by stock and bond subscription or cash generation or to raise the money by mortgage placement (in MCCGA's case the Girard Trust Co). This was the case with the MCCGA Corp and if you will note Cuyler's correspondence with MCC (Evans) he mentions precisely this (that MCCA has some months to actually come up with the money to buy the land and raise money to construct the course and redo the potential clubhouse et al). The other reason deeds are transferred back and forth like this for $1.00 is so that real estate transfer taxes are essentially negated in these kinds of technical business transactions.
-
We often talk about Wilson and his Committee having learned the "principles" of what made up an "ideal" golf course from CBM, but how many of us actually know what that means?
I believe the following 1926 article by Dr. Piper, a long-time friend of Hugh Wilson's with the USGA, give us some inkling into how the thinking on these matters had evolved by that point. To a large degree, and in applied practice, I think the article could have been written by Wilson himself, so well does it articulate what one finds on the ground at Merion and other courses Wilson was involved with designing.
Several items struck me, including the mention of a "year" spent by one amateur architect in routing a particularly challenging course.
There is also a Part 2, that was published in Golf Illustrated in March 1926 (searchable on the USGA Seagle Electronic Library website), sadly finished just a few days before Piper's death. While it is interesting, it mostly just talks about different types of par 3, par 4, and par 5 holes.
One item of note is that it bemoans the modern practice of building up artificially created greens sloping from back to front as too similar and predictable and argues that natural-grade greens should always be considered due to variety. Those having played holes like the 5th at Merion, or many of the greens at Cobb's Creek would feel likewise.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/5759011504_c8b6b9f8de_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/5758467503_be4d56505c_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/5759011694_a1d8491890_o.jpg)
-
Bryan, As usual Mike is playing games. None of these letters and board minutes are in the Flynn Faker pdf. There are only transcriptions of the letters. And who knows how much material is not transcribed.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jim, I am glad you better understand my take on CBM being an advisor. I am not sure why the disagreement over the phrase "calling the shots." In all those examples, the reality is that it is often the advisor who is calling the shots as I understand the phrase. Perhaps our disagreement is more semantic than anything else.
___________________________________________________________
Above Mike Cirba scoffs and mocks the idea of an advisor planning a golf course, and suggests that CBM was much more than this at the courses he actually planned. Mike rhetorically asked:
Was CBM called the "advisor" at Piping Rock? At Sleepy Hollow?? Lido?? Mid Ocean?? St. Louis??? White Sulphur Springs??
Did he offer "suggestions and advice" at those courses, or was he in charge??
CBM was a member at some of these courses (like Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow,) and working directly with Raynor at all of them. But out of curiosity I took a look at reports about one of these early courses where CBM was not a member. Turns out that Mike's latest attempt at a rhetorical question backfired again . . .
Golf Illustrated, October 1914. About White Sulphur Springs. (My emphasis)
The distance for the eighteen holes will be 6,250 yards, an ideal length for a first class course. And the holes will embrace many of the features which are associated with the National Golf Links at Southampton, L. I. Mr. C. B. Macdonald, the founder of the National, who is recognized as the greatest authority on golf architecture in the country, has kindly lent his assistance, and his advice has been carried out by Mr. Seth Rayner, who did a great deal of work on the new Piping Rock course on Long Island. As might be expected, many of the holes will be reminiscent of the National and Piping Rock. The short holes, by which a golf course generally stands or falls, are all first class. They include a "Redan" and an "Eden" hole, and a full drive hole taken from Biarritz in France which has also been used at Piping Rock.
Golf Illustrated, October 1915, again about White Sulphur Springs (my emphasis):
Nothing could demonstrate better the difference between how to make a golf course and how not to do it than the making of this links. For many years the old "White" beloved of Southerners and almost unknown to the North had been content with a nine-hole course which though exceedingly pretty to look at was about as unsatisfactory as any resort golf links could be—and that is saying a good deal. The holes were poor in length and the putting greens were bad and the fair green was inclined to be muddy. When the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Undertook to bring White Sulphur within the ken of the Northerner it became apparent that an eighteen-hole course was one of the essentials; so the old nine were extended by laying out nine new holes across the river. But the nine new holes were flat, stale and unprofitable. And it looked like a pretty hopeless job. Pessimistic people said that so long as the river flowed down the valley the links would always be wet, and where the ground was dry the fair green would always consist of stones and crab grass. Fortunately it occurred to Mr. Fred Sterry, the progressive manager of the Greenbrier, to ask the advice of Mr. C. B. Macdonald of "National" fame. Mr. Macdonald sent down Mr. Seth Rayner to report on the situation, and between them they discovered the simple fact that it was not the river that made the old course muddy but the healing springs in which the place abounds. And since the springs could not be moved the only practical thing was to move the golf course. Thereby the first principle of laying out a golf course was exemplified; and that is to choose for your links a place where golf can properly be played.
The next rule is to cultivate the land before laying out a course on the top of it. In the good old days this little matter was generally overlooked, partly because the makers of golf courses did not realize that fine grass will no more grow on barren soil than fine roses or fine vegetables, and partly because the expense seemed prohibitive. They did not realize that the subsequent expense of the superficial method was bound to be much greater. Mr. Macdonald figured out what it would cost to convert stones and stubble into fine turf, and expected to stagger the directors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad with the estimate. But they were not staggered. They wanted as good a golf course as could be made, and they wanted it made properly from the beginning and they swallowed the estimate. The money was spent, and now at the end of two years they have a real golf course, one of the best inland courses in America. If they had gone on tinkering with the old course they would soon have spent just about as much money, and they would have ended exactly where they began with a links that would just have enabled them to advertise golf among the attractions of White Sulphur without positively perjuring themselves.
More than a fair green, however, is necessary to make a golf links. It went without saying that when the founder of the National and the Lido lent his advice there would be plenty of character as well as fine grass in the new course. We find here many traces of the National, especially in the short holes which are exceptionally fine. The first to be encountered is the eighth, a very pretty modification of the Redan. The next is the fifteenth, a fine example of the Eden hole at. St. Andrews with the river as a hazard for a topped ball. And the third is the mashie pitch across the river at the eighteenth to a plateau green almost surrounded by bunkers as at the sixth hole of the National course. Only here there is no bunker in front of the green, but only a grass bank, a weakness which will doubtless be remedied; for it allows many a bad shot to struggle on to the green. Take them all in all, however, and the three short holes are about as good as any to be found on any course. The long one shot hole is rather lacking, since the third hole of 210 yards is not very interesting. Here again refinements will doubtless be made.
By its natural features, however, a course makes its chief impression . . .
So let's see . . . Mr. Sterry "ask[ed] the advice of Mr. C. B. Macdonald of 'National' fame" and CBM "lent his advice" and "lent his assistance." Not only that, but holes featured on other CBM courses were also found at White Sulphur.
By the logic around here, there is only one possible conclusion. White Sulphur is NOT a CBM course and that CBM have very little to do with the design.
This has gotten a bit silly, hasn't it?
-
Yes, David, it's gotten more than silly.
If you have any information that details the advice and suggestions that CBM provided to Merion, beyond that which is clearly documented and available for anyone to see (i.e. the generic June 29th, 1910 letter), and the references to what he provided during the Committee visit to NGLA included in Hugh Wilson's 1916 account and the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes, please provide them.
It's been years now you've been looking for this stuff, to absolutely no avail...apparently you've spent the last 24 hours doing Google searches on "Macdonald" "advice", "advisor", "suggestions", "golf", and "fill in the course name". Apparently you've struck gold, as at least one writer in one setting at one golf course saw fit to call what Macdonald provided as "advice". Hurrah.
When was the last time you produced ANY evidence here of ANY type that actually provided insight on any remaining questions about Merion? A TON of information has been uncovered and disseminated here since you originally wrote your paper and I don't recall any of it coming from you.
If you have ANY evidence that CBM participated at Merion at any time for any purpose between June 29th, 1910, and his hosting the Merion Committee overnight around March 7th, 1911, it's time to produce it.
If you have ANY evidence that CBM visited Merion at ANY time beside looking at the raw land in June 1910 and coming back for a day in early April 1911 to help them pick the best of their five routings, it's time to produce it.
If you have ANY evidence that CBM had any ongoing communications or involvement in the building of the course at Merion, or at ANY time after that, it's time to produce it.
Otherwise, your continued twisting and shading of actual facts, word meanings, and history has not only gotten old, it's gotten incredibly boring.
As far as the letters and board minutes, if you're really interested then make some arrangement with the club to see the scanned originals, as you seem to have found a way to procure the book.
The only one who is playing games is you and it's boring, David. Really really childish. If you are truly interested you'd go to the source and end the nonsense.
-
...
"The next rule is to cultivate the land before laying out a course on the top of it. In the good old days this little matter was generally overlooked, partly because the makers of golf courses did not realize that fine grass will no more grow on barren soil than fine roses or fine vegetables, and partly because the expense seemed prohibitive.
...
Good post David. This sentence from ther middle of it also caught my eye as it's context is similar to that of Wilson's February 1 letter to Washington.
-
Here we have articles using the same and similar terminology as was used to describe CBM's involvement at Merion. Typically, Mike's response is to fly off the handle and to try to change the subject. I really like when Mike throws these little fits. It shows my point has really hit home and must be so crystal clear that even Mike can understand its significance.
Mike tries to discount the articles by wrongly claiming it must have taken me 24 hours of google searches to find these articles, as if trying to understand how the terminology was actually used is some sort of degenerate activity. It didn't take long at all, but who cares other than Mike, who apparently prides himself in his ignorance about such things? The point is that these are good examples of how CBM's contributions were described during this early time period.
Mike also tries to dismiss these articles as being the the views of "one writer in one setting at one golf course saw fit to call what Macdonald provided as 'advice'." In fact there are quotes from two different articles from Golf Illustrated, published a year apart. The first is an unattributed one page profile describing the course. The second is from "Our Green Committee Page" which is commonly thought to have been authored by Max Behr. These were hardly one-off mentions, which is why they were so easy to find.
___________
In closing Mike again spouts off about access to Merion's documents. In fact he has no idea about this topic and apparently his cronies have no idea either. It is really bad form for them to pretend that they know when they don't. They should let Merion speak for Merion.
-
Mike Cirba,
You stated to David:
"If you have ANY evidence that CBM participated at Merion at any time for any purpose between June 29th, 1910, and his hosting the Merion Committee overnight around March 7th, 1911, it's time to produce it.
If you have ANY evidence that CBM visited Merion at ANY time beside looking at the raw land in June 1910 and coming back for a day in early April 1911 to help them pick the best of their five routings, it's time to produce it.
If you have ANY evidence that CBM had any ongoing communications or involvement in the building of the course at Merion, or at ANY time after that, it's time to produce it."
Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?
-
Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?
Patrick, this is what Mike always does when we take a step toward understanding what really happened, he falls back into his standard argument that if I cannot prove CBM did every last list thing from beginning to end then he must not have been the driving force behind the design. Well one need only look at the course, with its Redan, its Alps, its Road, its double plateau's, etc., to understand that CBM was the driving force! It would be one thing if Merion had come up with these things without involvement from CBM but this is definitely not the case!
It wouldn't matter how much evidence there is, these jokers will always demand more.
And by the way, there is evidence that CBM was involved in between the July and March, and even evidence that he was involved after he chose the final routing. Mike always chooses to forget or ignore facts he doesn't like.
_____________________________
And ask Mike those questions about Wilson. While CBM and HJW are mentioned again and again in Merion's meeting minutes, Wilson isn't even mentioned during the relevant time!
CBM chose the final routing. Not Wilson. And the routing was presented to the board as the one CBM had approved! How much more evidence of CBM's involvement could they possibly want?
-
I am definitely not choosing a dog in this fight, but the query "Do you have any evidence that he didn't?" calls to mind a letter that appeared in the WVU student newspaper the Daily Anthenaeum nearly forty years ago.
In what was purported to be a report, by a pre-law student nonetheless, from a council meeting, the phrase occurred that "it was emphatically not stated."
I no longer recall what it was that was emphatically not stated, but we conjured for sometime with what facial contortions must perforce accompany emphatically not stating something. It was the first and last time I ever worried about someone pulling a muscle in his face.
Carry on.
-
Ah yes, the Mucci and Moriarity special - just because I can't prove my, doesn't mean it isn't true. Tough to prove a negative, but I would think that most would intuit that if you take the contemporaneous evidence at face value - i.e. the committee routed five layouts, including the land swap layout, and then asked CBM for his advice on which one was best - would trump eulogies and what not.
What happened happened. What they wrote is what happened, not some twisted verion that requires a captain marvel decoder ring to unravel......not something that no one kept records of, and worse yet, kept wrong records of.
With that kind of logic, its no wonder these threads go on forever.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I never asked for proof that he wasn't involved. But at some point after so many gaps have been filled in, it is reasonable to infer what else might have happened during those periods when we have less than perfect records. We are well past that point here, especially given the utter lack of contemporaneous information that Wilson or anyone else planned the course! Mike's questions have been answered repeatedly. That you guys don't believe Wilson when he indicated he was talking to CBM is really your problem and has nothing to do with what happened.
And your incessant habit (and Mike's) of misstating the record has much more to do with why these things go on for so long. There is no indication that it was Wilson's committee who came up with those plans or that there were five distinct plans rather than five iterations of one routing. Given that they "rearranged the course" after the NGLA meeting it is more reasonable to infer that at NGLA they had chosen one routing and were laying out five iterations, either according to CBM's instructions or because CBM's instructions left some holes for them to fill in.
And it is not clear that all CBM did was give advice on which one was best. He approved the plan. Even TEPaul has acknowledged that CBM may well have altered these plans, combined them, or came up with some things that weren't in any of the plans. Of course we don't know what it is that prompted TEPaul to admit this, but surely it wasn't out of his sense of reasonableness.
What we do know is that the committee went up to NGLA so CBM could help them plan the layout and then a few weeks later they needed CBM to come back down and choose the final plan. You think he was there for moral support?
Everything points to CBM, including the golf course.
-
Jeff,
My query to Mike was meant to put us on an equal footing when it comes to burdens of proof and the production of supporting documentation.
I think that's reasonable, don't you ?
-
Patrick,
No, its not reasonable. Saying "Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?" when the record shows he didn't is...well, I won't go there. Its argument by trying to prove a negative. The documents that have been availalbe for 100 years show what days CBM was there and involved. If they aren't going to show up by now, they ain't gonnar show up (most likely)
Please don't ask anyone to prove a negative. Its not history.
David,
Well, you jumped on the bandwagon. I won't keep repeating the opinion that reasonable inference from thin air doesn't equate to good history either. Let's face it, Mike is right. If, at least for now, there are no documents saying CBM was involved more than he was involved, its time to let that drop until some come to light.
And as you know, I believe the time line portion of your theories always seem to be prefaced with the "facts" that none of these men ever seemed to write what they meant, that they don't mean what they say, etc. Seriously, I would think most would feel that those portions of your essay aren't nearly as strong as finding ship manifiests for Wilson's trip.
By finding those, you set a pretty high standard for yourself, and fail to match it consistently throughout the essay. When some parts are supported by undeniable fact, its only natural that the theories made up of what you consider to be plausible inference come under more scrutiny.
-
Jeff,
I didn't jump on any bandwagon. I just pointed out a different reason why Mike's questions aren't worth addressing.
New information has come out. New to you at least. There has been new information further proving that Merion built an road hole to go with their other "template" holes. What better indication of CBM's involvement could you want than CBM holes on the course? And there are the quotes from two articles above indicating that "advice" was not the slight you guys pretend it is, but was rather used in a manner consistent with my theory.
Of course you guys just ignore, belittle, and dismiss new information you don't like.
And I am still waiting for this supposed list of contemporaneous articles where Wilson was acknowledged as the designer by those involved. So far the only article that has been suggested and it has provided good evidence supporting my theory and little information supporting the alternative.
As for what you believe about my theories, I could not care lass. I don't know a thing about your design work, but when it comes to dealing with this stuff I have seen enough of your analytical abilities here to know better than to take what you think seriously.
-
David,
It looks like your position would hinge somewhat on this interpretation when you put CBM/HJW in the third category as you've already speculated. Your interpretation has Robert Lesley saying CBM/HJW solve the problems of the hole designs. You say your reasoning for interpreting "problem" in the context written in that article is due to the hundreds of other articles of the time in which "problem" referred to the strategic architecture, can I ask, was it ever used to simply discuss a problem...as defined as a difficult situation?
1. My position doesn't hinge on fitting CBM/HJW into the third group. Lesley tells us that CBM and HJW were advisors. They advised the Committee.
You guys try to read this as if "advisor" was some sort of diminutive characterization. For the record, I don't read the use of the word "advisor" as a diminutive characterization. I read it as written - CBM/HJW gave them advice. While I agree that accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc provide advice in their respective specialties, they also provide services such as tax returns, trying cases, performing surgery, etc. I guess the point of contention is whether CBM/HJW provided advice or service or both around the routing and design of Merion. We're back to the question of who drew the 5 plans. At the moment we don't know definitively. In that circumstance how can we give primary or equal credit to CBM/HJW for the routing and design. Equally, I guess, we cannot give the Committee (whichever one it was) primary or equal credit. I disagree. Advisors are oftentimes experts who provide expert recommendations as to the proper course of action. While CBM/HJW provided expert advice free of charge, advising clients is at the root of many professions. Attorneys advise their clients on legal matters, accountants advise their clients on accounting and tax matters, doctors advise their patients on medical matters, financial planners advise their clients on financial matters, consulting architects advise their clients on architectural matters. In all these instances the "client" may have final say, but it is the expert advisor who came up with the plan of action. Clients ignore expert advice their peril.
Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land. These are both suppositions on your part. In the former were they not brought in to advise on the suitability of the HDC land for a golf course. That's not the same as advising on what land to purchase. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice. Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA. Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan. As they said, they valued CBM's advice. Perhaps they brought him back to assure themselves that their plan was good and right. That he approved of it. No response required; I know you don't agree.
..................................
________________________________
Bryan, I am not sure if the definitions make very much of a difference.
But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.) Because the Committee on whose behalf Lesley was reporting, felt that CBM approving "of" the plan would help them sell it. As good an explanation as any. Do you really think that CBM had some formal hierarchical authority over the Committee's work to approve it or disapprove it before it was submitted to the Board? Do you not think that the Committee may have just wanted their expert adviser to tell them that the plan was right and good?
Was this just idle chat? Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier? No, it wasn't just idle chatter. They wanted to know that their expert adviser felt the plan was right and good and fit on their land.
For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?" As debated ad nauseum, we don't know what his plans were of.And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned? If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan? Wasn't Lesley reporting to the Board on the Golf Committee's behalf. Why would he need to mention Wilson was running the show. The Board already knew that. Lesley was presenting their report. Mention of CBM was noted because they weren't part of the Committee and as I suggested above, it would no doubt have helped sell the Board on the plan knowing that the expert advisers were in favor of it.
With my few little editorial changes, here is the minute as transcribed by Tom. BTW, why do you accept on faith the "approved" statement when you question virtually everything else that Tom has put forward from the minutes?
Bryan,
Here you go, from the April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that the Committee after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground of NGLA studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we the Committee re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the one plan they approved felt was right and good, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
-
Mike,
It may be roadways that make up the three acres as you're speculated, but I'm not sure. This should be easy enough to determine though, yes? Bryan Izatt has the July 1911 metes and bounds and if they include the roads in the 120.1 acre purchase that might be the difference. Bryan?
As far as I recall there has never been a definitive conclusion on where the 117 acres was or what the 3 acres was. In any event, the July deed metes and bounds shows 120.01 acres (not 120.1) and includes half of GHR as well as a 11 feet of half of College Ave and half of Ardmore to the west of GHR and all of Ardmore to the east of GHR. Not sure how that helps you out with the Cirbian New Math. ;)
-
....................................
The following is from Tom Paul, which I'm happy to relay to clarify a few matters on questions that were asked.
Jim Sullivan said this:
"Lloyd didn't buy the land on behalf of Merion in December, he took title for HDC and paid them $85K for the priveledge."
Technically that is not accurate. Lloyd did not pay anyone $85,000 when he took deed to 161 acres on December 19, 1910 from James Rothwell (a transfer agent).
Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Technically these were two separate transactions, one for the Johnson Farm and the other for the Dallas Estate, both on December 16, 1910. The Johnson farm transaction was with the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land company, not HDC, to be accurate. For clarity, PALCO and HDC were not one and the same company, they had different Presidents and different Secretarys. There is no mention of an indenture of $85,000 for 117 acres in either transaction. Perhaps Tom has some other document that these numbers are coming from.
Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1) The deed has no mention of 117 acres (or 120.1) or that it was for what would be the MCCGA. was not actually paid How do you know that? until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000 What makes you say it was an immediate payment? .
So what were the payments of $60,000 and $34,000 that Lloyd's December 19, 1911 deed was SUBJECT TO? I would assume the $34,000 was for the 21 acre Dallas estate Why would you assume this? The Dallas estate was already in the 117 (or 120) acres paid for by the $85,000. Why assume there was an additional charge? The mortgage on the Dallas Estate when HDC got it was $14,020) and the $60,000 was for the approximately 40 acres of the original Johnson farm that MCC (MCCGA Corp) did not use and would not buy (it probably was transferred back to HDC or perhaps held by Lloyd since he essentially was a large part of HDC). Beats me what the $60,000 and $34,000 payments were for. Why bother speculating. Seems likely to me that Lloyd transferred the leftovers to HDC. Otherwise he would be personally liable for paying out the indentures. Why would he want to do that.
I could determine at some point what the deed transfers were with the remainder of the Johnson Farm (app 40 acres) in the future by simply going to the County Recorder of Deeds and checking that 40 acres since all specific land transfers are recorded in Pennsylvania.
Bryan Izatt said this:
"I don't suppose you have an image of the November 1910 Evans letter "securing" the 117 acres or Nicholoson's offer? The 338 acres wasn't available at that time. HDC didn't own it at that point."
HDC did not technically need to own those 338 acres at that point as they had all of it in five parcels "secured" with a purchase by a "purchase agent" (Freeman with the Dallas estate) and deeds and options "assigned in blank" for the Davis and Taylor farms and the land north of College Ave. Where is this information coming from? The transfer of the Johnson farm was basically between two development entities that were the same or an evolution of one into the other (Philadelphia and Ardmore Land Co into the Haverford Development Co). They both existed at the same time in December 1910 and they had different officers, so it seems unlikely that they were the same company at that point. Perhaps they merged later - who knows?
All this stuff is essentially Real Estate 101. This is what I used to have to get involved with when I sold real estate, mostly farms. So why go through all these technicalities with transfer agents and purchasing agents and deed transfers between various people the same day for a payment of $1.00 "SUBJECT TO" a later payment for the agreed upon price between ultimate buyer and seller? It is generally done that way between development sellers and potential buyers and entities such as golf clubs because it often takes some time for the buyer (in this case the MCCGA Corp) to raise the money by stock and bond subscription or cash generation or to raise the money by mortgage placement (in MCCGA's case the Girard Trust Co). This was the case with the MCCGA Corp and if you will note Cuyler's correspondence with MCC (Evans) he mentions precisely this (that MCCA has some months to actually come up with the money to buy the land and raise money to construct the course and redo the potential clubhouse et al). The other reason deeds are transferred back and forth like this for $1.00 is so that real estate transfer taxes are essentially negated in these kinds of technical business transactions.
-
Patrick,
No, its not reasonable. Saying "Do you have any evidence that he didn't ?" when the record shows he didn't is...well, I won't go there.
Jeff, if the documented record showed he didn't that would be sufficient proof.
But, the documented record doesn't show that
Its argument by trying to prove a negative.
NO, it's not,
If you,me, Dave and Mike played in a foursome and the NewYork post reported that Jeff, Pat and Dave were seen playing golf at Bethpage
yesterday and someone says that there's no evidence that Mike was there, than I can say with absolute certainty, that there's no evidence that
Mike wasn't there. That's not proving a negative as you declared
The documents that have been availalbe for 100 years show what days CBM was there and involved. If they aren't going to show up by now, they ain't gonnar show up (most likely)
So, it's your position that for well over a year Macdonald never spoke on the phone to anyone at Merion ?
As to the documents, they're of little help in determining attribution
Please don't ask anyone to prove a negative. Its not history.
David,
Well, you jumped on the bandwagon. I won't keep repeating the opinion that reasonable inference from thin air doesn't equate to good history
either. Let's face it, Mike is right. If, at least for now, there are no documents saying CBM was involved more than he was involved, its time to let that drop until some come to light.
And as you know, I believe the time line portion of your theories always seem to be prefaced with the "facts" that none of these men ever seemed
to write what they meant, that they don't mean what they say, etc. Seriously, I would think most would feel that those portions of your essay aren't nearly as strong as finding ship manifiests for Wilson's trip.
By finding those, you set a pretty high standard for yourself, and fail to match it consistently throughout the essay. When some parts are
supported by undeniable fact, its only natural that the theories made up of what you consider to be plausible inference come under more scrutiny.
-
Byran, et. Al.,
Aren't the half dozen or so template holes the "smoking gun" ?
Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?
-
Pat,
I think the sum total of the documents is pretty damn good at providing attribution. The people involved wrote repeatedly who was involved, and it all seems to come back to the committee. They were there, and based on what the club did and what CBM did, they wrote he was an advisor. Contemporaneous stuff, not 100 years later murder mystery stuff of "what did the secret code really mean."
You have to read what a lot of folks wrote in very obtuse ways to come up with a conclusion different than theirs. Even with the few isolated instances (like the HJW eulogy) that contradict and we have to parse out why, there is just a lot to say the committee did the bulk of the work, and used CBM as a trusted advisor at key checkpoints along the way. And, BTW, it was still theirs to make, just as a Donald Trump can choose to credit himself with designing a course now.
Was CBM's help really more than in the record? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Why would they write in detail about the three meetings they did have with CBM but leave out others? As to phone calls, no one can know. But, it would be hard to approve a routing over the phone, wouldn't it? And the record says that is not what happened. However, I have already admitted they probably rang him up or vice versa to set up the NGLA meeting, although, in those days, that might have also been done by letter. Maybe they got some other clarifications along the way, about soils or what not. I just don't know. I just don't think it matters.
CBM was of great value to MCC and many other clubs, and was later a golf course architect. If he himself never publicized it, why should we?
Just saw your question to Bryan, and no doubt he gave those ideas to MCC. They went there to get those ideas. So, if they implement a basic idea - like a Redan - using Pickering to and themselves to interpret, is CBM the designer because he came up with the idea of copying classic holes? IMHO, he is the designer if he picked the specifically for Merion (which he may) and executed them to his (or his staffs) satisfaction.
So, no, the template holes are not to me a smoking gun that CBM designed MCC. For that matter, I think it makes more sense as evidenec that those rank ams designed MCC. I would be incredulous as you that they did it if they came up with 18 original holes withough some help. But, again, all semantics.
-
Patrick--
Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks? I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive. Just curious as to your thoughts.
-
Jeff,
That really says. It all.
David,
Are we supposed to be surprised to learn the CBM was the architect of White Sulphur using Raynor as a surrogate?
Are we supposed to be surprised that an architect can also give "advice", such as suggesting an existing golf course be moved because of fundamental drainage issues?
What does any of that have to do with Merion?
We're still waiting for actual evidence from you...if you dont believe in what's been published then you should make arrangements to go there yourself.
-
Mike,
I think it does. In Scotland's Gift, CBM mentioned many clubs he assisted and many he designed. Why in God's name wouldn't he claim credit for Merion when he had the chance?
David says its only an overview, and I agree. That said, I don't know too many career recollections that start with their second course designed..... :)
-
Bryan,
This is from Tom Paul. I hope it helps. Thanks.
In post #2110 Bryan Izatt asked me a series of questions interspersed into what I said about the technical details of the land transfers involving HDC, Lloyd and MCCGA.
The following are my answers to his questions in the first two paragraphs:
"Rothwell took deed to the 161 acres (the entire 140 acre Johnson farm and the 21 acre Dallas estate) from HDC on the same day SUBJECT TO the payment of $85,000 for 117 acres. Technically these were two separate transactions, one for the Johnson Farm and the other for the Dallas Estate, both on December 16, 1910. The Johnson farm transaction was with the Philadelphia and Ardmore Land company, not HDC, to be accurate. For clarity, PALCO and HDC were not one and the same company, they had different Presidents and different Secretarys. There is no mention of an indenture of $85,000 for 117 acres in either transaction. Perhaps Tom has some other document that these numbers are coming from.
Lloyd took deed to 161 acres from Rothwell for $1.00 (the minimum payment to constitute a formal real estate contract). Lloyd took that deed (161 acres) SUBJECT TO three payments----eg one for $85,000, one for $60,000 and one for $34,000. The $85,000 for the 117 acres for MCCGA Corp (actually 120.1) The deed has no mention of 117 acres (or 120.1) or that it was for what would be the MCCGA. was not actually paid How do you know that? until Lloyd (The Grantor) transferred the property (120.1 acres) by deed back to Rothwell on July 19, 1911 for $1.00 who transferred it by deed to MCCGA Corp the same day SUBJECT TO an immediate payment (by mortgage et al) of $85,000 What makes you say it was an immediate payment? .
Bryan:
The land transfer and deed you're referring to of Dec 16, 1911 is the land transfer and deed between HDC (Dallas estate) and PALCO (the Johnson farm) which is a total of 161 acres. This deed took two separate land parcels and put them together in a deed as a single land parcel in the name of a "transfer agent" (James Rothwell). I do not have that deed because it does not technically involve MCC or the MCCGA or Lloyd at that point (of course I could get it at the Delaware Co. Recorder of Deeds but that isn't really necessary). Three days later (Dec. 19, 1910) Rothwell transferred the same 161 acres not as two separate parcels but as a single land parcel (161 acres) to Horatio Gates Lloyd (that is actually explained in that Dec 19, 1910 deed). The "consideration" (price) on the Dec 19, 1910 deed from Rothwell (Grantor) to Lloyd (Grantee) was for one dollar ($1.00). However, in that Dec 19, 1910 deed from Rothwell to Lloyd there is language that the deed is "SUBJECT TO" three separate payments----eg $85,000, $60,000 and $34,000. That deed does not specify or identify which specific parcel of the 161 acre entirety those three separate payments pertain to. It doesn't have to at that point because the entirety was technically "undivided" by deed or otherwise at that point and for the next seven months. We can also understand why it was done this way because MCC's lawyer (Cuylers) explained to MCC (president Allen Evans) on Dec 23, 1910 that it was being done this way for some months so that Lloyd could be in a position to move boundaries around at will for the specific land of the golf course. We also can understand that neither Lloyd nor MCCGA paid the $85,000 for their land (agreed upon in Nov. 1910 in an "agreement in principle" with a letter from HDC making an offer for 117 acres and in a letter from MCC accepting HDC's offer) because in that same Cuylers letter he explained to MCC that the new corporation (MCCGA) that was in the process of being formed and in the process of raising capital to buy the land and pay for the construction of the course and clubhouse had that much time to raise the money to pay the agreed upon price of $85,000). Consequently, there would not be a separate parcel transferred by deed of 117 acres (actually 120.01 acres) until July 19, 1910 when Lloyd transferred that amount of land back to Rothwell who the same day transferred it by deed to the MCCGA Corp for a payment of $85,000 in Dec 1910. Those deeds also have a "consideration" (price) of $1.00 on them but the deed from Rothwell to MCCGA Corp. on July 19, 1911has a clause that explains that the transfer and deed is SUBJECT TO a payment of $85,000 by mortgage (to the Girard Trust) or principal payment of $85,000 that is also to be recorded on July 19, 1911. Obviously Lloyd did not pay $85,000 for the land in Dec. 1910 to go to MCCGA in July 1911 because HDC did not ask him to and there is no principal payment recorded with that Dec. 19, 1910 deed.*
*The reasons HDC did not ask him to make that payment at that time should be pretty obvious to all who are familiar with Lloyd's position with the corporation of HDC at that point (Dec 1910 and on----eg he essentially was responsible for underwriting a capitalization of $300,000 for HDC. In 1910 and 1911 Lloyd was a partner in Drexel & Co, a financial firm (stock underwriters and such) based in Philadelphia. In 1912 Lloyd would transfer as a partner to J.P. Morgan & Co----not an uncommon practice with those two firms as their partners were somewhat transferable because in the 19th century for a time one iteration of them was Drexel, Morgan & Co. It is probably interesting and significant to note that Macdonald's letter of June 29, 1910 that was his response to MCC following his initial visit to Ardmore with Whigam was written not to MCC or to the chairman of the MCC "Search" Committee but to Lloyd c/o Drexel & Co, Philadelphia. George Thomas Jr's father, George Thomas Sr., was also a partner of Drexel & Co at this time and one of the reason George Thomas Jr was wealthy and apparently never took a nickel directly for anything he did in architecture which was the same with Macdonald, Wilson and his committee members and all those responsible for the creation of Merion East and West at this time. The club was very clear, as was Macdonald with his NGLA, that they would not be using a professional architect with the development of those golf courses (NGLA, Merion East and West) at that time. The long time secretary and eventual president of MCC, Edward Sayers, articulated this point in writing as did Hugh Wilson's brother, Alan Wilson, in writing.
-
Patrick--
Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks? I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive. Just curious as to your thoughts.
Adam, other architects used them, such as Tillinghast, but, I don't think that other architects used them as the central theme of their design.
I think that's what seperates CBM/SR/CB's use of the templates versus other architects
-
Mike Cirba,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but, I think you should remove TEPaul's comment or quote.
If he wants to post on GCA.com, he shouldn't be doing so through a surrogate.
Let him come back to the site and post on his own as he did for years.
Posting selective material, without any opportunity to question the author, isn't in the spirit of this website.
I don't know if others agree, and I don't care if others agree, this is improper and self serving.
I've asked him to come back, publically and privately, so you know my feelings about TEPaul participating again, but posting on his behalf is improper.
Please delete your quote.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
Arguably, there were three template holes at Merion...the redan (today's 3rd), the Alps (original 10th), and the Road (today's 6th).
We have clear evidence that two of the three of them were "constructed" after Wilson's return from abroad through the building of essential bunker and mounding schemes that defined their characteristics. We KNOW this because Richard Francis and Alex Findlay told us so.
We do not know if the 6th was originally designed as a Road Hole because no one mentioned it as such in the early accounts. The first we heard of that was 1915 and who knows if the tee was moved over by OB and a left bunker built into the greenside any time after Wilson's return from Europe. To claim that it happened before then is PURE speculation.
We also know that Wilson incorporated other "features" from abroad, but they do not fit the CBM orthodoxy. For instance, the 15th green is supposedly an "eden" (because of the sloped green or the rote bunkering pattern we don't know), but how many par four Edens did CBM create? Ditto the supposed Biarritz on the 2nd hole, a par five!?
We also know that many Philadelphians either peripherally or directly involved had direct knowledge of the template holes and travelled abroad frequently, among them Tillinghast, Findlay, Robert Lesley, and Francis Griscom.
Smoking gun? Patrick, it's not even a pea shooter.
As relates to posting for TePaul, I have some misgivings being a courier as well.
I decided as long as it's simply reiterating factual material in answer to a direct question that I'll do it....opinion pieces and counterarguments, no.
-
Byran, et. Al.,
Aren't the half dozen or so template holes the "smoking gun" ?
Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?
A smoking gun of what? That they went to NGLA and talked to CBM about template holes? Sure, they did that. It would have been a surprise if they hadn't named some of their holes after the famous holes. Is it a smoking gun that CBM routed the course and designed the holes? Not to me. And, based on what I've read about the supposed template holes that got built, they weren't very good or near what I'd expect of a template hole. For instance, the Alps was found wanting and got ripped up in relatively short order, didn't it. If CBM designed it, surely it would have been better.
As a tangential thought, if CBM did the original routing and design, and he was the supreme expert designer of the age, why did so much of the course get "renovated" in the following years?
As another tangential thought from the other thread where you are debating the Committee's (Wilson's) ability to come up with 5 routing plans in 30 days, what is your alternate theory? Did CBM/HJW draw up the 5 plans in 30 days. Did CBM give instructions to the Committee on the phone on how to do it over those 30 days? Some other way? Do we accept that there were 5 plans developed in that time frame?
-
Byran,
So, it's your position that a one night stay qualified them to construct and design template holes without any further assistance ?
Mike,
I think it's wrong, but, you have to decide for yourself.
It makes you look like a flunky, a shill for TEPaul.
And, it's a method that prevents an honest exchange.
Unless he's paying you a handsome sum, I'd suggest that you resign the position.
Mike,
The ROUTING was in place a year before Wilson left for the UK.
As were the individual hole designs>
-
Patrick,
Seriously, how much TIME do you think it would take a Princeton man to grasp the concept and look of a road hole or an Alps, or Eden, especially surrounded by others like Findlay, Tillinghast, Lesley, Griscom and others who had surely seen them prior? And ESPECIALLY after seeing CBM's own versions (many improved on the originals, by the way) on the ground at NGLA.
I mean, it's not like they were discussing brain surgery!
And Patrick, what exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?
With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank. Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed. They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is no like a redan.
With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place? What made that an Eden?
The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making". When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100. Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind. THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.
And so on...
-
Patrick,
Perhaps it was enough for them to design and construct not-so-good template holes. ;) If I was David, I would also accuse you of twisting my words. But, I'm not, so let's just say that I didn't say that they had no more contact with CBM. Too bad that we don't have an ancestry.com for telephone calls from that era.
As another tangential thought, if Wilson was in frequent (or even not so frequent) contact with CBM, do you think he would have learned how to spell his name. In the Oakley letters he misspelled it on the two occasions that he mentioned CBM.
-
Bryan,
I think we've been through this before, haven't we? You don't like the conclusions I draw from the factual record and want to substitute your own conclusions for mine. Well I am not convinced that yours are better. I think they are worse.
We're back to the question of who drew the 5 plans. At the moment we don't know definitively. In that circumstance how can we give primary or equal credit to CBM/HJW for the routing and design. Equally, I guess, we cannot give the Committee (whichever one it was) primary or equal credit.
I am glad that you finally seem to agree with me that crediting the committee over CBM is not a viable default position. If we don't know what happened we don't know it for both.
We don't know definitely, but looking at the context gives us a good idea of what is most likely to have happened. Merion laid out the plans after having just spent two days with CBM where CBM was helping them plan the layout! So I think it unreasonable to think that these plans were created without the input of CBM. Also, these plans were created in the context of a rearranged course, so I think it unreasonable to think there were five distinct plans rather than variations.
In short, I don't think you can insulate the "five plans" from CBM and the trip to NGLA that they had just taken.
Merion called CBM and HJW "advisors" because Merion sought out their expert advice on what land to purchase and how to lay a first class golf course out on that land. These are both suppositions on your part. In the former were they not brought in to advise on the suitability of the HDC land for a golf course. That's not the same as advising on what land to purchase. And all indications are that Merion realized the value of CBM/HJW's expert advice and acted according to that expert advice. Merion was so dependent upon their advice that Merion wouldn't even go it alone after having spent two days working on the plan with CBM at NGLA. Instead they brought CBM and HJW back to the site so CBM/HJW could choose the final lay out plan. As they said, they valued CBM's advice. Perhaps they brought him back to assure themselves that their plan was good and right. That he approved of it. No response required; I know you don't agree.
I think the evidence directly supports my statements. CBM and HJW did not just rubber stamp what Merion was going to buy. The recommended the purchase of the additional acreage behind the clubhouse.
Your supposition about why they might have brought him back is contrary to the record, to who CBM was, to how he worked, to how Merion treated him, to the context of the times, etc.
But why do you think Lesley's report mentioned that CBM approved the plan? (Not approved of the plan. Approved the plan.) Because the Committee on whose behalf Lesley was reporting, felt that CBM approving "of" the plan would help them sell it. As good an explanation as any. Do you really think that CBM had some formal hierarchical authority over the Committee's work to approve it or disapprove it before it was submitted to the Board? Do you not think that the Committee may have just wanted their expert adviser to tell them that the plan was right and good?
Why do you keep saying approved "of" the plan? Is there yet another version of this thing floating around out there?
Your explanation is NOT as good as any. At least not in my opinion. This was CBM. He didn't need "formal hierarchical authority" in order to call the shots when it came creating a golf course. They realized the value of his advice and they followed his direction. Had he not had a real role, Merion not have brought him down and he wouldn't have come down! Had he not played a real role then he would not be mentioned again and again in the minutes as playing a real role! He made the decision as to what plan would go to the board for goodness sake! How much more in charge could he be?
Was this just idle chat? Why do you suppose Merion brought CBM/HJW back to Merion after just having spent two days with them a few weeks earlier? No, it wasn't just idle chatter. They wanted to know that their expert adviser felt the plan was right and good and fit on their land.
Interesting speculation, but WHY? Unless they were planning on following their advice, then why ask, and ask, and ask? Why go see him for two days? Why bring him and Whigham back down? Why not just show them THE plan instead of the five versions? Why waste the time of of these men if they were just there for rhetorical support?
For that matter, why include the bit about going to NGLA and "looking over his plans?" As debated ad nauseum, we don't know what his plans were of.And why are CBM and HJW the only ones mentioned? If Wilson was running the show, then why isn't Lesley telling the committee whether Wilson approved the plan? Wasn't Lesley reporting to the Board on the Golf Committee's behalf. Why would he need to mention Wilson was running the show. The Board already knew that. Lesley was presenting their report. Mention of CBM was noted because they weren't part of the Committee and as I suggested above, it would no doubt have helped sell the Board on the plan knowing that the expert advisers were in favor of it.
Again, Lesley and Wilson were not on the same committee. Wilson was not on the golf committee, which was the committee for whom Lesley was speaking.
Help sell the board? Now that is some speculation. H.G. Lloyd was a governor of the club. Lesley would be President of the club and was chair of the Golf Committee. Yet they didn't have the chops "to sell the Board on the plan" without dragging CBM and HJW into it? Was the board so hostile to the idea that they needed to call in the biggest name in golf to lobby for the plan? Were they just using CBM for name recognition at the highest level of the board?
Before construction, who do you think the Board would have thought had called the shots on the design? And what is your basis for so thinking?
With my few little editorial changes, here is the minute as transcribed by Tom. BTW, why do you accept on faith the "approved" statement when you question virtually everything else that Tom has put forward from the minutes?
Bryan, Are you really rewriting the report to your liking? I thought only TEPaul tried such stuff. It is hard enough to trust without you now changing it to suit your purposes.
And I do have a problem with everything in that report, including the way they have played with "approved." I think reviewing the actual records would help tremendously in figuring this out but unfortunately the History Fakers have arranged it so that an impartial review of the actual documents is impossible.
That said, these guys have always manipulated the evidence to try and help their case. I can't imagine why they would change it to "approved," unless it formally said something that made it even clearer that CBM was calling the shots.
_______________________________________________________________
Adam Messix asked:
Are using template holes exclusive to MacDonald/Raynor/Banks? I ask for two reasons; one I just played a Ross course that a pretty definitive redan on it so I'm curious as to where he got the idea and two, don't MacDonald/Raynor/Banks template have a particular style to them that is pretty distinctive. Just curious as to your thoughts.
1. Interesting question as to Ross. He was probably familiar with many of the holes early on, but after NGLA got going and designing based on the great holes became the rage, even Ross traveled back abroad to (further?) study the great golf courses. When was the course to which you refer built? Was he working with anyone else?
At Merion, given CBM's extensive involvement with Merion throughout the process there is little or no doubt as to where the ideas for the "template" holes at Merion came from.
2. Most or all of what we think of as CBM courses were built by Raynor and Raynor had a recognizable aesthetic style. Merion was NOT built by Raynor or Banks, so I don't think we ought to expect that same aesthetic style. Besides there are plenty of design features at Merion that are distinctive of CBM's style, just not aesthetic stylings.
__________________________________________________
Bryan,
You are wrong about the template holes and features. Most are still there but in need of a haircut. The Alps was was one of the highlighted holes early on, lasted a dozen years, and got ripped up because it crossed a road, not because it was a bad hole.
What is your ultimate theory?
-
Patrick,
What exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?
With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank. Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed. They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is not like a redan as the green tilts back to front.
With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place? What made that an Eden?
The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making". When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100. Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind. THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.
On the road hole, they could have built a tee behind the OB fence and a bunker to the left at ANY TIME. We also know that green was reconstructed and the bunker was enlarged in 1915.
The par five second hole had a green originally that had three levels. David says that must mean it was a Biarritz (as if multi-level greens didn't exist prior to CBM) but when routed, it was simply an uphill par five.
And so on...
-
Byran, et. Al.,
Aren't the half dozen or so template holes the "smoking gun" ?
Or, do you think the design and incorporation of those holes into the routing was just a mind boggling anomaly, a one in ten billion random occurrence ?
A smoking gun of what? That they went to NGLA and talked to CBM about template holes? Sure, they did that. It would have been a surprise if they hadn't named some of their holes after the famous holes. Is it a smoking gun that CBM routed the course and designed the holes? Not to me. And, based on what I've read about the supposed template holes that got built, they weren't very good or near what I'd expect of a template hole. For instance, the Alps was found wanting and got ripped up in relatively short order, didn't it. If CBM designed it, surely it would have been better.
So, as a designer CBM excelled, but as an advisor he was terrible ?
The land forms didn't lend themselves to template holes like NGLA did.
There you might remember, CBM found a lot of the templates sitting naturally upon the land.
As a tangential thought, if CBM did the original routing and design, and he was the supreme expert designer of the age, why did so much of the course get "renovated" in the following years?
I explained that previously. The phenomenon has also been indirectly explained by Mike Sweeney.
It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.
As another tangential thought from the other thread where you are debating the Committee's (Wilson's) ability to come up with 5 routing plans in 30 days, what is your alternate theory?
Did CBM/HJW draw up the 5 plans in 30 days. Did CBM give instructions to the Committee on the phone on how to do it over those 30 days? Some other way? Do we accept that there were 5 plans developed in that time frame?
None of the above.
My theory ? My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs. I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.
And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later. A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.
Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?
I don't.
I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.
I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-
Patrick,
What exactly about the routing being in place determined what type of holes they were?
Mike, that has to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked.
Think about what you just asked.
Please think GLOBALLY (MACRO) first, and MICRO second
With the Redan, you had a tee in a valley and a green on a hill that was a barn bank. Francis tells us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and that it's location suggested that perhaps a redan touch was needed. They built the defining corner bunker, but the rest of the hole is not like a redan as the green tilts back to front.
With the Eden, there was a par four dogleg uphill in place? What made that an Eden?
The Alps, Wilson told Findlay on his return, would take a "lot of making". When routed, it was a par four that went down then back uphill for about 250 yards, then flattened out for the last 100. Lesley tells us that the Alps principle there was defined by the front cross bunker and the mounding behind. THOSE features could have been added ANY TIME.
On the road hole, they could have built a tee behind the OB fence and a bunker to the left at ANY TIME. We also know that green was reconstructed and the bunker was enlarged in 1915.
The par five second hole had a green originally that had three levels. David says that must mean it was a Biarritz (as if multi-level greens didn't exist prior to CBM) but when routed, it was simply an uphill par five.
And so on...
-
Patrick--
The hole in question is the 9th at Biltmore Forest. It has been the subject of some argument on this site regarding whether it's a redan or not, but everything from the bunker placement to the green slope has it following the principles of the redan with the exception of the lack of a rear bunker. The original drawing hanging in the clubhouse says "Donald Ross--Walter Hatch."
Your answer leads me to a second question...
Leaving Merion out of this for the moment; From NGLA onward, were there any MacDonald courses where Raynor and/or Banks weren't involved in the construction and/or design?
-
Bryan - re routing 5 different layouts in 30 days, I would suggest that its not that difficult, particularly if several of the routings had similar elements to them. The real question is whether they would be any good. I would have thought, and here Jeff can advise, that you would likely come up with two or three different basic routings fairly quickly when looking at a tract of land and from that choosing the best and refining it from there.
Template holes and CBM - has anyone considered that Merion already had a Scottish pro at the time they were conceiving the course and that furthermore when Wilson visited the UK, as well as bringing back plans he also brought back George Sayers, son of Ben Sayers, long standing North Berwick pro and golf architect. George Sayers stayed at Merion as pro for a good number of years thereafter and it occurs to me that if I was looking to incorporate a Redan into my course I would be saving myself the price of a phone call to Long Island and instead asking the resident pro if he didn't mind giving me the benefit of his thoughts.
Niall
-
Niall,
I think your timeline of events might be off. I don't think Sayers was hired until later. And Wilson hadn't yet studied the holes abroad before building Merion East.
- CBM approved the plan submitted to Merion's board in Spring of 1911.
- Construction began shortly thereafter.
- The greens, tees, and all but three fairways were seeded in September 1911. (They would try (unsuccessfully) to use the existing grass on the 10th, 11th, and 12th fairways.)
- Wilson traveled abroad in the Spring of 1912.
- Merion East opened in September 1912.
- George Sayers came to work for the club in, I believe, 1913.
In the spring of 1912, before Wilson returned from his trip, it had already been reported that many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad.
There are a lot of mysteries surrounding Merion East, but the source and inspiration of the template holes is not one of them. CBM was involved with the project from before they purchased the property! The committee traveled to NGLA so that CBM could help plan the layout and so they could study his holes. A few weeks later CBM went over Merion's land again and approved the layout plan which would be submitted to the board!
So it is a bit far fetched to think it some sort of coincidence that all these template holes got built at Merion, and that the source must have been anyone other than CBM!
-
Leaving Merion out of this for the moment; From NGLA onward, were there any MacDonald courses where Raynor and/or Banks weren't involved in the construction and/or design?
According the H. J. Whigham, with the creation of NGLA Macdonald became inundated with requests from around the country from those who wanted him to design or redesign their courses. He was never a professional architect and couldn't (and/or didn't want to) spend all his designing courses for other people, so he would instead send Raynor to be the person on the ground, and CBM would correct the plans. CBM hired Raynor on behalf of Piping Rock (CBM was on the Green Committee there as well) on all CBM projects subsequent to Piping Rock, Raynor seems to have been involved. While there might have been some overlap, the timing of CBM's involvement at Merion predates that of his involvement at Piping Rock.
Whigham listed some of the more famous post-NGLA courses, and Merion is the only one mentioned where Raynor was not involved.
_____________________________________________
Also Adam, Biltmore Forest was built in 1922. CBM and NGLA popularized this notion of building golf holes based on the great holes abroad starting in 1906 when writing about his plan for NGLA. At the time Merion was built this was still a very novel idea.
-
Here is an excerpt from the December 1914 Golf Illustrated, "Our Green Committee Page" about the state of golf course architecture in America at the time. (my emphasis.)
There is no excuse now for any new golf club making the mistakes which were sure to be made ten years ago. From Long Island to St. Louis there are courses which bear the imprint of Mr. C. B. Macdonald and the National. And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, and they also form living text books of the agricultural side of course making. The chief rules are gradually getting to be stereotyped among the experts; but they are not written down anywhere. And there will always be wide scope for improvement and for imagination. For example it is only written the last three years that the wisest green committees are beginning to realize the necessity of watering the fair green in summer. The initial expense of the water plant is amply covered by the annual saving of good turf. We are indeed in a new era of course making and course keeping; but there is still much to be done that is new; and the results of experience are not tabulated. That is why a forum in GOLF ILLUSTRATED for the ventilating of ideas may be made a most valuable asset to the green keeper; and for that reason we welcome any enquiries and any information that may come to us; so that this department may become a circulating medium of ideas.
-
Along the same lines, from the same issue of Illustrated by John G. Anderson:
The highest sort of advancement has been made this year in the architecture of courses. The members of clubs all over the United States have been obsessed with the idea that they must have the best course that money could buy and have it quick. The demand for course architects has exceeded the supply, but the results are seen on every hand. Visitors from across the water confess that The National Golf Links of America is just about the best course that there is to be found anywhere. New courses in the Philadelphia district are going to surpass anything which they have and thereby increase the ability of the golfers; away out in St. Louis there is a new course which promises to become the rival of any in the land; the war hasn't affected the pocketbooks when it comes to needed golf improvements. The golf course to-be at Long Beach, when finished, will be the last word in architecture and prodigious labor; there never was a greater attempt anywhere to bring order out of chaos, to shape and mold a golf links out of such perfectly apparent difficulties. Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has its geniuses; golfing America should be proud of the fact that she has the finest golf architectural genius of modern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled.
Surely it is just another coincidence that in this apparent tribute to CBM the courses mentioned are NGLA, Lido, St. Louis, and new courses in the Philadelphia district.
-
Bryan - re routing 5 different layouts in 30 days, I would suggest that its not that difficult, particularly if several of the routings had similar elements to them.
Niall, not difficult for whom ? A seasoned architect, or a group of novices who had never done this in their life ?
Circa 1911 ?
And, I'll add another complication to the equation, the cross overs and/or need to walk through the clubhouse to get from green to tee.
This wasn't an easy piece of land upon which to lay a routing. Perhaps that's why there were five versions.
The real question is whether they would be any good.
That also goes to the complexity of the site, crossovers and use of the clubhouse to get from green to tee.
This wasn't a simple parcel of land
I would have thought, and here Jeff can advise, that you would likely come up with two or three different basic routings fairly quickly when looking at a tract of land and from that choosing the best and refining it from there.
Template holes and CBM - has anyone considered that Merion already had a Scottish pro at the time they were conceiving the course and that furthermore when Wilson visited the UK, as well as bringing back plans he also brought back George Sayers, son of Ben Sayers, long standing North Berwick pro and golf architect.
The routing and individual hole designs had already been bult and seeded six months before Wilson left for the UK.
The die was cast in terms of routing and hole design.
George Sayers stayed at Merion as pro for a good number of years thereafter and it occurs to me that if I was looking to incorporate a Redan into my course I would be saving myself the price of a phone call to Long Island and instead asking the resident pro if he didn't mind giving me the benefit of his thoughts.
Sayers appeared after 1911, when the plans for the course had already been approved and the course already constructed and planted.
-
"And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, "
And you could also read this many ways - such as that CBM merely hosted tours of NGLA often, but other committees designed the courses, no? Would CBM get design credit for inspiring others by giving the standard tour?
-
Jeff,
So I guess Mike Pascucci spent a lot of money unnecessarily when he hired Doak and Nicklaus.
All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion. ;D
-
"And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done. Then there are a number of golf courses dotted about the country such as that of the Old Elm Tree Club near Chicago and the Detroit Country Club. They have not, perhaps, quite the variety and boldness of the courses inspired by the National; but they are very good, "
And you could also read this many ways - such as that CBM merely hosted tours of NGLA often, but other committees designed the courses, no? Would CBM get design credit for inspiring others by giving the standard tour?
Such a reading might make sense for someone like Perry Maxwell, a non-golfer who became inspired to build a golf course because of the Scribner's Magazine article on NGLA by H.J. Whigham, illustrated by Franklin Booth. After reading the article Maxwell set out to NGLA and other courses to better understand how to build a golf course. But CBM should NOT get credit for designing Maxwell's Dornoch Hills; he didn't help Maxwell choose the land, or help come up with the rough layout, or again go over the land and choose the final layout plan, but Maxwell's experience is indication of just how broad was CBM's impact on golf in America.
Given what else we know about what happened, applying such logic to Merion would be more than a little disingenuous.
________________________________________
Patrick brings up a good point.
Jeff Brauer splits his time around here between conflicting agendas. On the one hand, he often tells us just how little we really know about creating quality golf courses. On the other hand, he tells us that a NGLA course tour prepared self-described novices to design and build one of the World's great golf courses.
Which is it Jeff? Does designing and building a World Class course really require any sort of expertise? Or is it enough that one simply takes a tour of NGLA? I've visited NGLA a few times and I couldn't have asked for more educational tours. So am I ready to design a World Class course? Somehow I don't think so. How about you? Have you been to NGLA? If so, did the World Class courses just flow out of you after? Or does it only work with novices?
Maybe a NGLA tour is the gca equivalent of having stayed in a Holiday Inn last night.
-
David,
As an aside, many years ago Rees Jones told me that every time he visited NGLA he saw and learned something new about it.
I feel the same way
There are so many unique subtleties that I think it's impossible to drink them all in in one day, or two days or a week.
I think that's one of NGLA's endearing qualities, that you discover more about it with return visits.
The notion that CBM was invited by Merion to help locate, route and design their golf course, but after visiting, went incognito, and was unreachable by Merion, only to briefly resurface thereafter, for the purpose of reconnecting with the committee for a brief period,
then disappearing again, then reappearing to approve/execute the final plan, seems preposterous.
-
David,
Bryan,
I think we've been through this before, haven't we? You don't like the conclusions I draw from the factual record and want to substitute your own conclusions for mine. Well I am not convinced that yours are better. I think they are worse.
Yes, we have been through this before. Much like the other thousands of posts on the subject. I kind of knew you wouldn't agree. I can live with you thinking that your theories are better than mine. But in the end you can't say with certainty that your theories are the truth. So, this member of the jury remains out on your theories.
Re the committees at MCC, do you have any source documentation about what they were and who was on them. You seem to think there were at least three - the Golf Grounds Committee, the Golf Committee, and the Construction Committee. Were there more that are relevant to this discussion? The mandates and membership of the Golf Grounds Committee and the Construction Committee seem pretty clear. The Golf Committee was chaired by Lesley, but who else was on it and what was their mandate? Perhaps Mike has something or can get something from the peanut gallery.
-
Patrick,
Wow. I'm almost speechless, but not quite. You have certainly colored in many of the blank parts of the picture.
My theory ? My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs. I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.
And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later. A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.
Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?
I don't.
I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.
I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.
Which "committee" do you suppose CBM was working with from June to March?
Do you think they knew which 117 acres they were going to use in June 1910?
Why, after 9 months of design effort, would the "committee" go to NGLA to see CBM's overseas research stuff? Surely after 9 months the routing and design would have been fairly far along.
Why would they have to do 5 more plans if they'd already spent 9 months on working up a plan with CBM?
_____________________________
I don't believe that I had previously seen your "belief" about Merion trying to eradicate (forgive the choice of word) the CBM identity of the course. This seems preposterous to me. You would have us believe they worked with the preeminent architect of the time to route and design a course that is described as among the best in the world, and then the amateurs deface it to eradicate the CBM identity and somehow still end up with a best-in-the-world golf course with a new identity. Wow. :o :o :o :o
______________________________
All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion. ;D
Perhaps you are just no Hugh Wilson. ;D
-
Niall,
How are things at Glasgow Gailes these days. Are you still there? Over here, we're shortly going to need row boats to get around our courses.
I agree with you that doing 5 plans or variations on a theme is doable in 30 days. They did say that they did it, so it was possible. Perhaps if they had consulted with Sayers more when he arrived they might have got a redan that actually had the fundamental principle of the redan hole - a green that is angled and tilted away from the tee shot.
-
Not that this whole thread hasn't been ridiculous, but its getting even moreso, IMHO.
Why should we even worry about Patrick's speculations about how long it took to route Merion? Barker routed one version in a day, Bendelow would have done the same. Why would it take CBM over nine months to route MCC if he really did start in June, if he had so much experience?
But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened? Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National? Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?
I have always said that the last 100 pages or so of any thread occur mostly because we like to argue, and not because we have anything new to say!
-
Jeff,
Once again, you are spot on, as are many of Bryan's observations.
After reading Patrick's latest WHALE TALE, perhaps the best thing I can do is just remain quiet and let the absolutely ridiculous absurdity of his theories and obvious Bromance with CBM speak for themselves. ;) ;D
As far as the Golf Illustrated articles, who has ever argued that the amateur sportsmen at Merion weren't directly inspired by what the amateur sportsmen at NGLA (Macdonald, Whigham, Emmet, Travis) did, and looked to emulate their efforts?
All the early Merion articles also cited two other superior courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen that they hoped to emulate, which were Myopia and Garden City.
But since the article cited new courseS in Philadelphia, I have to ask...
What other Philadelphia courses besides Merion in Philly do David and Patrick want to give CBM sole design attribution for?
And what about poor HH Barker....I'm imagining somewhere Tom MacWood is still looking for that train ticket. ;) ;D
Carry on...
-
Mike,
I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.
As far as I can tell, the mistakes in the history re the Wilson trip occurred in Tollhursts club history in 1988. Before that, it is true that the club had heard about their committee design over the years and CBM suffered from some benign neglect, but the 3M crowd is really arguing that the big lie started from the very beginning.
Look who had to be in on it - CBM for ignoring it in his own book, Tillie and others for not putting it in any articles, and so forth. All of the astute members of Merion (who until these threads probably never had their truthfulness questioned so brazenly) who, we need to recall, would have to have kept their stories "straight" for many years. But, HJW "cracked the code" in his eulogy, and that is what counts!
It is a shame (or a sham) that the 3M boys have decided to use their time on Merion. Roswell NM is more their caliber of subject to attack.
-
Jeff,
It's sad that due to his man-love of CBM, Patrick, who's often a nice, reasonable, sensible guy, has hitched his wagon to the wildly careening trainwreck of absurd and historically-inaccurate speculation perpetuated here by the other two over the years.
Sadder still is that he has used this thread from the beginning to personally insult me time and again as lying about the facts, or making stuff up, and/or being "disingenuous" when I've been about the only one here who has actually produced hard evidence and documentation.
I still love the big guy, but it's been painful to witness.
-
Yes, the best thing about these threads is that I have learned a bit about Merion and a lot about being disingenous!
-
Bryan,
I am fine with you not being convinced. Given the burden of proof you require of me, I am not counting on convincing you. Convincing you or any other "jury" was never my goal. Besides, the burden of proof you are requiring is much more demanding than would be required by any jury.
What surprises me about your approach is what seems to me to be a double standard, where you impose almost impossible burden of proof on me, but comparatively lax standards for you and others. For example above you note that I cannot say "with certainty that [my] theories are the truth." Of course I can't! That is the nature of historical analysis.
But while you hold me to this impossible standard, you and others go on loosely speculating about all sorts of things, none of which you can say with certainty. For example, you seem to think that it was Wilson's committee who came up with the five plans or iterations? You cannot say this with any degree of certainty, and I think it extremely unlikely, yet it is apparently good enough for you.
But maybe I just misunderstood your methodology. I thought you were actually trying to figure out which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened. Yet your approach seems to be very similar to that of Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba. You all seem to think that if you can conceive of any sort of alternative theory - no matter how unlikely - then my theory must fail. In other words, my burden is to prove my theory as an absolutely certainty --you state as much above. Yet your own burden seems to be that of mere possibility.
As for your questions about the various committees, I don't have that in front of me right now. We know the members of Wilson's Construction Committee. Lesley was not among them. Somewhere I have the identity of Lesley's Committee, and Wilson was not a member. I don't recall offhand if the Golf Committee and what you call the Golf Grounds Committee were the same. Lloyd was on both Wilson's Committee and Lesley's Committee.
_________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer wrote:
But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened? Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National? Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?
One of the big fictions around here is that, 100 years ago, Merion credited Hugh Wilson and not CBM as designer of the course. This was not the case. Brauer, the Philadelphia Posse, and even many legitimate historians had misread the record for years as if this is what it said, but it does not. Take the Hugh Wilson chapter for example, long misinterpreted as being about preparation for the trip abroad until I set the straight. Or take the Lesley report, twisted by them to diminish CBM's contribution when the article itself does nothing of the sort. Or take the Alan Wilson document, where Wayne and TEPaul went so far as to doctor their presentation of the text to hide the extent of the CBM and HJW's involvement in the design process. The reality is that Wilson and his Committee were not singled out for design credit over CBM and HJW. All of the early accounts - including Merion's Board Minutes - highlight CBM and HJW's contributions - but few even mention Wilson.
I keep asking them for a list of these early sources that single out Wilson and his Committee for design credit over CBM and HJW, but none has been forthcoming, and none will be because such documents do not exist. CBM is mentioned again and again during the PLANNING, in the press and in Merion's internal administrative records, but not Wilson.
My judgment, 100 years later, is entirely consistent with Hugh Wilson's words, and Robert Lesley's, and Whigham's, and with Alan Wilson's. It is Brauer, Cirba, and their cronies who have to discount and twist the words of these men to make their case! They are the ones who won't take the words of those who were there! \\
________________________________
Cirba asks "who has ever argued that the amateur sportsmen at Merion weren't directly inspired by what the amateur sportsmen at NGLA (Macdonald, Whigham, Emmet, Travis) did, and looked to emulate their efforts?
Has he forgotten the past many years? His posts do not deserve addressing.
-
Hoooooi boy....what can you say to that?
Someone cue the Twilight Zone theme perhaps?
As i said, perhaps the best thing to do is simply just let these guys post their increasingly bizarre rants and just stay out of the way. They make the case for the how ridiculous these alternative theories are far better than i ever could.
-
Yes, the best thing about these threads is that I have learned a bit about Merion and a lot about being disingenous!
Jeff, I see you're perfecting that trait.
You didn't mind it when Mike Cirba declared that David and I were lying, but, somehow you took great offense, when in the same thread and only a few replies later, I said that Mike was being disingenuous.
How do you reconcile, in terms of objectivity and even handedness, the double standard you apply ?
-
Patrick,
Wow. I'm almost speechless, but not quite. You have certainly colored in many of the blank parts of the picture.
I told you that it was my theory. I didn't ask you to embrace it.
I think it's a reasonable possibility.
It's just as reasonable as a complete novice getting together with 4 other rank amateurs and routing and designing a golf course.
My theory ? My theory is that CBM began the routing process from the get go and that he worked with the committee via the phone, AND/OR that committee members visited him, eventually resulting in a meeting at NGLA to go over plans, routings and individual hole designs. I think from June of 1910 to March of 1911 the parties worked on routing and hole design, culminating in the meeting at NGLA where CBM showed the committee the product of his research abroad.
And, that the committee, so enamored of NGLA, (and whom in the last 100 years hasn't been) that they began finalizing CBM's vision for Merion.
Culminating with the selection of the final plan less than 30 days later. A plan that was almost immediately approved by the board.
Now stop and think for a second.
Today, if a committee came in and presented five plans or iterations of the same basic plan, do you know of any board that would rubber stamp it in a heartbeat ?
I don't.
I don't think this was an "instant" golf course, crafted in an overnight visit.
I think it was crafted, by CBM or CBM and the committee prior to the March meeting at NLGA.
I think the March meeting at NGLA solidified the committee in terms of the proposed plans and that upon seeing NGLA in the flesh, they were significantly impressed and convinced that they had done their job, that they agreed on their final plan and course of action, returned to Merion, got immediate informal approval, subsequently made their final presentation to the Board which approved it on April 19th.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
It's my belief that they looked to CBM to build their course (route & design) and he did so, but, as time went on, they didn't want to be identified as a CBM course, they wanted their own identity, and as such began their modification process.
Which "committee" do you suppose CBM was working with from June to March?
Members, prominent members and perhaps even some who would be on the committee.
Do you think they knew which 117 acres they were going to use in June 1910?
I couldn't tell you the exact date, but, at some point, prior to the official acquisition, they pretty much knew what land would or could be at their disposal. That's why I brought up the point, the issue that Merion's Board officially approved the plan on April 19th and that they began construction almost immediately thereafter. But, they didn't own the land at the time., so they're building/constructing a golf course on land that they didn't officially own, since the official titles weren't passed/executed/recorded until July 19th, three full months later
Why, after 9 months of design effort, would the "committee" go to NGLA to see CBM's overseas research stuff?
Is it your theory that that's the only reason they went to NGLA ? To see CBM's overseas research ?
I think they went for reasons beyond that.
Surely after 9 months the routing and design would have been fairly far along.
Wouldn't that depend upon how much time was directly devoted to those pursuits.
Why would they have to do 5 more plans if they'd already spent 9 months on working up a plan with CBM?
Who said that they did 5 more plans ?
How do you know that the other plans weren't just variations of the "core" plan
I don't believe that I had previously seen your "belief" about Merion trying to eradicate (forgive the choice of word) the CBM identity of the course.
I never used the word "eradicate", that's your word, a word with built in bias to further your views.
This seems preposterous to me.
Not to me, I've seen it happen at a number of clubs.
Perhaps I just have a little more experience in this area.
I wonder how the original members at Piping Rock would view my theory
You would have us believe they worked with the preeminent architect of the time to route and design a course that is described as among the best in the world, and then the amateurs deface it to eradicate the CBM identity and somehow still end up with a best-in-the-world golf course with a new identity.
"Deface" ? Another absurd choice of words on your part.
Why the need for exageration with your response ? Why not just use the same word I used, "distance"
All he had to do was approach me, TEPaul, Chip Oat, Gib and or any GCA.com'er in the NGLA parking lot after we had spent a few days playing golf there and any of us would have been capable of designing a world class golf course on a piece of property that was far superior to Merion. ;D
Perhaps you are just no Hugh Wilson. ;D
But, If I had Pete Dye or Tom Doak or Coore & Crenshaw as my "advisor" maybe I would have been. ;D
Of course, Merion wasn't parked next to Sebonack.
-
Not that this whole thread hasn't been ridiculous, but its getting even moreso, IMHO.
Why should we even worry about Patrick's speculations about how long it took to route Merion?
Jeff, I stated it was a theory. I never asked or demanded that you accept it. You're free to craft your own theory.
Barker routed one version in a day, Bendelow would have done the same.
But Jeff, Mike Cirba's told us that's impossible.
Why would it take CBM over nine months to route MCC if he really did start in June, if he had so much experience?
What's the rush ?
Were they going to build the course over the winter ?
There are many reasons that could explain the time frame, one of which is that it wasn't as if CBM didn't have anything else to do.
He didn't have a penalty clause for not producing the routing and design by a set date.
But mostly, why should anyone substitute either their own judgement 100 years later, or word parsing of old articles that have nothing to do with MCC when the club records and many other articles over time show exactly what happened?
But, they don't tell you what happened.
Even Wayno Morrisson stated that so much is unknown.
And, we KNOW that Merion got their history wrong on Wilson's trip.
Their website declared that Wilson took his trip before the course was routed and designed, and we know that Wilson didn't take his trip until 1912, AFTER the course was routed and designed. So, I'm not as willing as you are to accept everything that Merion states, as the Gospel
Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when. You don't know who crafted the plans. Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ? Whigham ? All of them, none of them ?
So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.
In an email to me, Wayno declared, that for over one year there was never any phone contact between the parties because there's no record of those calls. Can you imagine the absurdity and bias behind that statement. No paper trail certifying phone calls ? ? ?
Is it REASONABLE to believe, that for over a one year period, the people in Philadelphia didn't use the phone to communicate with the people in New York about a joint venture project they were involved in ?
Yet, Wayno claims, with imperialistic authority, that it never happend because their no supporting paper trail to prove it.
I mean, you can't make this stuff up
Why would Hugh Wilson in his Piper article not tell committees to hire CBM if they were going to design a course, rather than say they should visit the National?
I don't know, you'd have to ask him.
Why would CBM NOT claim credit for designing Merion in Scotland's Gift?
There could be a number of reasons.
"Scotland's Gift" was written almost two decades after Merion was crafted and recrafted. Perhaps in its altered state, CBM didn't want to take credit.
We know that Whigham, who was there every step of the way, stated that Macdonald did design Merion. Whigham gives him full credit.
I have always said that the last 100 pages or so of any thread occur mostly because we like to argue, and not because we have anything new to say!
Is that why you've continued to post on these last 100 pages, just to argue ?
-
Mike,
I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.
As far as I can tell, the mistakes in the history re the Wilson trip occurred in Tollhursts club history in 1988. Before that, it is true that the club had heard about their committee design over the years and CBM suffered from some benign neglect, but the 3M crowd is really arguing that the big lie started from the very beginning.
Jeff, now you're both lying and being disingenuous.
I NEVER stated that.
And, you know, from a shared group email that TEPaul asked me that question and that I answed it correctly.
So you KNOW that I NEVER stated that the Wilson trip error was from the very begining.
Look who had to be in on it - CBM for ignoring it in his own book, Tillie and others for not putting it in any articles, and so forth. All of the astute members of Merion (who until these threads probably never had their truthfulness questioned so brazenly) who, we need to recall, would have to have kept their stories "straight" for many years. But, HJW "cracked the code" in his eulogy, and that is what counts!
It's bad enough that you lied when you declared that I stated or believed the error in the Wilson trip date occured at the very begining, but, to piggy back an absurd scenario on top of it is beyond disingenuous, it's dishonest. You're so desperate that you've compromised your integrity to try to make your point, or worse yet, to fabricate and distort my point. And you, you're the one always claiming to be holier than thou. That's a joke.
It is a shame (or a sham) that the 3M boys have decided to use their time on Merion. Roswell NM is more their caliber of subject to attack.
I put forth a theory. I think it's a reasonable theory.
You should admit that your position, your tone and attempts at ridicule are based solely on your personal dislike of David and myself.
-
Jeff,
It's sad that due to his man-love of CBM, Patrick, who's often a nice, reasonable, sensible guy, has hitched his wagon to the wildly careening trainwreck of absurd and historically-inaccurate speculation perpetuated here by the other two over the years.
Mike,
I haven't "hitched my wagon" to anyone's premise.
I presented my theory, one I believe is reasoned.
Sadder still is that he has used this thread from the beginning to personally insult me time and again as lying about the facts, or making stuff up, and/or being "disingenuous" when I've been about the only one here who has actually produced hard evidence and documentation.
Mike,
You're being disingenuous again.
When you stated that David and I were lying, I didn't take it personally. So, a few replies later, when I stated that you were being disingenuous, you shouldn't either. I mean, you can't call someone a liar, and then take offense when they indicate you're guilty of same.
Truth be told, it was Jeff Brauer who fanned the flames on that issue.
He transitioned the word, "disingenuous" to "liar" and has been beating the drum of righteous indignation ever since.
I think you and I were OK with some flippant name calling during the heat of the debate.
It's Jeff who's continued to fan the flames on that issue.
I still love the big guy, but it's been painful to witness.
Mike, I"ve never presented my theory as anything other than my theory.
I never insisted it was fact, I never insisted that you accept it.
It's a theory, a reasoned position.
That Jeff, Wayno, TEPaul and others want to ridicule it is there privilege.
Let me ask you this.
If you retained me as your "advisor" and we had a project of major undertaking, do you think that I'd go incognito, hiding in a closet in New York City and Southampton for a year, or, do you think that I might just pick up the phone and talk to you about our project, our joint venture, on an ongoing basis ?
The notion that CBM and the committee played hide and seek is preposterous.
By the way, David Moriarty has executed a subpoena on AT&T and obtained teh phone records between Philly and New York for Calendar years 1910, 1911 and 1912. There are 875 calls from Philly to Southampton and 697 calls from Southampton to Philly.
Strangely, all of the calls made from Philly were collect calls.
-
David,
Bryan,
I am fine with you not being convinced. Given the burden of proof you require of me, I am not counting on convincing you. Convincing you or any other "jury" was never my goal. Besides, the burden of proof you are requiring is much more demanding than would be required by any jury.
I know you have stated before that you are not trying to convince anyone, rather you are trying to figure out the truth of what happened in the initial design. I got that, believe it or not. But, you'll forgive me if I read the thousands of posts by all concerned and not come to the logical conclusion that you are all trying to convince each other that your theory is the most likely and theirs is not. Since you seem to feel I am pointing at only you in this, let me be explicitly clear - it's not just you it's everybody involved. It doesn't take thousands of posts to explain anybody's research and findings and conclusions. It apparently does to convince the other side that they are most likely wrong and you are most likely right, and vice-versa.
What surprises me about your approach is what seems to me to be a double standard, where you impose almost impossible burden of proof on me, but comparatively lax standards for you and others. For example above you note that I cannot say "with certainty that [my] theories are the truth." Of course I can't! That is the nature of historical analysis.
To be clear, I don't think that the other side's theories are proved with certainty either. I don't think any of us know with certainty about who did what to whom regarding the routing and hole design. You feel your theory is the most likely. Mike, Jeff and their peanut gallery think their theory is the most likely. Even Pat feels that his theory is the most likely. And, of course, there's TMac and his Barker theories. But, I challenge any of those theorists to post here that there theory is the absolute truth. The truth is we don't know. The search for the truth is interesting though. Too bad it gets so emotional.
But while you hold me to this impossible standard, you and others go on loosely speculating about all sorts of things, none of which you can say with certainty. For example, you seem to think that it was Wilson's committee who came up with the five plans or iterations? You cannot say this with any degree of certainty, and I think it extremely unlikely, yet it is apparently good enough for you.
You are wrong about what I seem to think. I don't know with any certainty that Wilson's Committee did the 5 plans or variations or whatever they were. I am agnostic - I don't know. You and the others all have the right to question my speculations or anyone else's. We've all been doing that for years and thousands of posts.
But maybe I just misunderstood your methodology. I thought you were actually trying to figure out which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened. Yet your approach seems to be very similar to that of Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba. You all seem to think that if you can conceive of any sort of alternative theory - no matter how unlikely - then my theory must fail. In other words, my burden is to prove my theory as an absolutely certainty --you state as much above. Yet your own burden seems to be that of mere possibility.
I sense that you feel victimized by what you feel is a burden of proof I am imposing on you. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure what burden of proof means to you. I do recall a good book by that name of some years ago. But, to clarify again, I am NOT trying to figure out "which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened". What's the point in doing that? The most reasonable and most likely may not be the truth. Is it not better to continue pursuing more of the truth of what actually happened that to surmise what happened through inference and interpretation? In the meantime, the analysis of the information we do have is enlightening and entertaining. Debating is fun on its own merits, as long as it doesn't get too emotional.
As for your questions about the various committees, I don't have that in front of me right now. We know the members of Wilson's Construction Committee. Lesley was not among them. Somewhere I have the identity of Lesley's Committee, and Wilson was not a member. I don't recall offhand if the Golf Committee and what you call the Golf Grounds Committee were the same. Lloyd was on both Wilson's Committee and Lesley's Committee.
If you can find the information on the committee structures at MCC, at the time, it would be helpful. At the very least we could then debate about who on those committees might have done the routing and design work and/or worked with CBM/HJW on the routing and design work depending on which theory you believe in. If Mike is reading this, maybe you could weigh in with the official MCC version of the committee structures. Surely it is in the MCC archives/minutes somewhere.
-
Patrick,
Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when. You don't know who crafted the plans. Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ? Whigham ? All of them, none of them ?
So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.
So, you agree that we don't know the "details, specific details. of who did what and when". I think as I parse through David's theories and postings that he would agree too. I agree. Do you suppose if Mike and Jeff and the peanut gallery agreed, that we could all agree that we are just all speculating, looking for what seems to each of us to be the most likely scenario?
In any case, let the speculating and the debate continue.
-
Niall,
How are things at Glasgow Gailes these days. Are you still there? Over here, we're shortly going to need row boats to get around our courses.
I agree with you that doing 5 plans or variations on a theme is doable in 30 days. They did say that they did it, so it was possible. Perhaps if they had consulted with Sayers more when he arrived they might have got a redan that actually had the fundamental principle of the redan hole - a green that is angled and tilted away from the tee shot.
Bryan
Haven't been down to Gailes in about 8 or 9 months as I'm now more or less spending most of my time in the north of Scotland. They do tell me though that the greens are now in the best nick that they have been in years. Now a member at Moray so next time you're over come up for a game.
With regards to my Sayers comment, while it wasn't entirely facetious, I was trying to suggest that perhaps the Merion Committee had more sources on how to design a Redan and do other things than just CBM.
David/Patrick,
Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.
David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee. I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true. From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.
Patrick - re routing. A good number of years ago when I flirted with getting into gca I did a course along with seven others. During the course we did a number of routing exercises, some from plans only, others with plans and access to walk the site. Most of the sites chosen had severe restraints for obvious reasons. Each exercise was done over a couple of days. From that I can assure you that coming up with a basic routing or several based on roughly the same idea wasn't that difficult. What was interesting was that others in the group would have a completely different take and would route the course in the totally opposite direction say. So very quickly you would have 8 routings.
Now I imagine the exact sort of thing would happen with the Merion Committee in that they each would do there own routing and then discuss the respective merits, refining them, and then choosing what they considered the best to show to CBM for comment. The question however, as I stated before, was whether they were any good, and whether the one chosen had any alterations made by CBM.
Niall
-
I asked TMac about when the "big lie" must have started, and I guess I will ask it of Pat, too.
Wilson designed the West course and significantly redesigned the East course; Wilson was in charge of construction of both courses. What big lie? Golf architecture history is replete with confused attributions and no one refers to them as 'big lies.' This is another example of the emotional illogical reaction one gets when a legend is questioned, especially a Philadelphia legend.
-
TMac,
Why do you think I am or would be emotional about Hugh Wilson? I'm not, and your postulation that I am (as a Chicagoan/Texan) is as ridiculous as your HHBarker designed Merion theory.
-
I sense that you feel victimized by what you feel is a burden of proof I am imposing on you. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not even sure what burden of proof means to you. I do recall a good book by that name of some years ago. But, to clarify again, I am NOT trying to figure out "which among the various theories is most reasonable and is most likely to have happened". What's the point in doing that? The most reasonable and most likely may not be the truth. Is it not better to continue pursuing more of the truth of what actually happened that to surmise what happened through inference and interpretation? In the meantime, the analysis of the information we do have is enlightening and entertaining. Debating is fun on its own merits, as long as it doesn't get too emotional.
Victimized? I don't think so. I am asking you to give some consideration to your own methods and standards, because when it comes to methods and standards you seem to be all over the place, and it makes it difficult to have a productive conversation. If you are not trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely, then why are you speculating and surmising and inferring and interpreting? Does saying it is "enlightening and entertaining" somehow free you from any standards or consistent methodology?
I guess my ideals are rather Socratic in that I think that while figuring out the absolute truth may be impossible, a reasoned debate ought to help us at least move in the right direction. So I don't get why you keep challenging me to state my points as absolute certainties. I don't see this as productive or reasonable within the context of the conversation. I know my points are not absolute certainties, which is why I am engaging in debate about them. So then the question becomes which among the various claims make most sense, and how do those claims match up with the facts as we know them.
How can you productively participate if you aren't trying to figure out what is most reasonable and most likely? You seem to be of the notion that if we cannot come up with absolute certainties then one theory is as good as any other, but I disagree with this. This has been Mike's approach for years, where he comes up with a theory, no matter how outlandish, and sticks with it no matter what as if it has equal merit with all the rest. All this does is stall and derail productive conversation, which may serve his purpose but doesn't serve mine.
________________________________________________________________
Niall wrote:
Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.
The course certainly evolved over the years, but this conversation (or at least my part in it) has generally focused on the initial creation of the course. And before Merion even opened - before Wilson had returned from his trip abroad - it was already being reported that most of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad. Think about that. They were modeling their course on holes that Wilson had never even seen. Based on what? With regard to the initial creation of the course there is little mystery as to from where these ideas came. Hugh Wilson told us they came from CBM. Lesley confirmed this, as did Alan Wilson and others.
So when they told us from where the ideas came, why would we not listen to them? Why would we try to hypothesize from where else they might have gotten their ideas? Is it possible they could have figured it all out without CBM? Very unlikely but also irrelevant, because they told us they were listening to CBM!
David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee. I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true. From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.
I don't think that exactly what he said. I believe he said nearly every hole commands a view of the entire hole from the tee. There are some blind shots at NGLA where the strategy of the hole dictates a blind shot (the Sahara, Alps, and Punchbowl for example) but for the most part I found the visibility to be pretty good. As for the Redan (or any other hole) CBM and HJW were not designing exact copies but rather were incorporating the basic strategic concepts as they fit with the landscape. From the 1914 article CBM and HJW wrote for Golf Illustrated:
The principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made. Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland was almost exactly like the North Berwick original. All that had to be done was to dig the banker in the face, and place the tee properly. . .
There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.
As you can see by the description of the various examples (including Merion) they were not looking for exact copies.
Here is a photo from the tee of the hole from the same article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/NGLA1914Redan.jpg?t=1306601966)
___________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, You aren't emotional about Hugh Wilson but you certainly are about me, Tom MacWood, and your pal TEPaul. And you are increasingly emotional about CBM. I came across some of your messages and comments from early on in this debate before you started running with TEPaul. That Jeff Brauer didn't agree much with this Jeff Brauer, but then he didn't personalize this stuff as much either. Of course you think it was the evidence that changed your mind, but your behavior on this issue and others suggests it is more about loyalty than anything else.
-
I guess this leads to another question....
If CBM was significantly involved in the design part of the East Course at Merion, why didn't they bring him back to lay out the West? Even more pertinent, given that CBM was already sending design requests of him to Seth Raynor, wouldn't this have been a great opening for Raynor, especially early in his career?
These questions may have been answered somewhere along the line, but it's difficult to wade through all of the land swaps, Cuyler letters, Dallas estates, multiple newspaper articles that don't always to agree with each other; etc.
From reading David Moriarty's response to my earlier question, leaving Merion out of the discussion, it appears as if Raynor was involved in every MacDonald project post NGLA, am I reading that correctly?
-
Adam,
Yes, you've read it correctly. EVERY course designed by CBM starting with NGLA in 1906 used Seth Raynor as some combination of co-designer, and/or onsite shaper and constructor.
Also, your question will get some ridiculously contrived answer. One could also ask why Merion didn't bring back the supposed father of their course when they revamped it significantly for the 1916 US Amateur, or again in 1924 when they significantly changed the routing.
The answer is simple. Macdonald was not the designer, router, or architect. He advised during a few short moments during the course creation and from the advice I've seen, it was primarily about agronomic concerns as well as sharing the principles of great holes abroad, the brunt of it taking place seated at his home course at NGLA.
-
David,
Your characterization of me is about as appropriate without meeting me as your characterization of Merion's history without ever having been there, or to their archives. Both make big leaps of faith not based on fact.
BTW, thank you for clearly articulating in post 2148 what I have been hinting at for years - basically that post clarifies in a better way than I could that this whole silly debate has been driven mostly by your ego and arrogance, together with all too little ability to admit you might be wrong. Simply put, you believe you are smarter than almost everyone (combined) for the last 100 years who was involved or interested in Merion.
Where I have taken offense, its at being called dumb (basically) and disingenuous to further your agenda. Basically, being here for fun and interest, I have never, ever considered lying or twisting to make a point, nor can I concieve of an advantage in doing so. And, as far as analyticals, I did go back to your essay and basically find it had very little back up documentation, except the mythical stuff where you claim "Ran ate your homework." It was all extrapolation, which when you do it is reasonable, and when anyone who disagrees with you is "just makig sh*t up."
As I said once, my Dad always told me that if the whole world disagrees with you, you are probably ought to question if you are wrong. You are in a postion of being the Lone Ranger of Merion history, but not ready to consider that maybe those hundreds of astute people could have known what they were writing about.
While there are dramatic examples of my dads advice being wrong, and you probably think this is one shining case, I think further historical review of your opinion vs all the opinions you said were written wrong by participants and contemporaries or interpreted wrong subsequently by everyone will determine you have basically zero chance of being right. Of course, that is just a theory I am putting forth and you are free to disagree, having already crafted your own theories on the matter.
As to being offended or emotional about/by Patrick, I will say that I sort of agree with your "Socratic Method" analogy. For most of us, we seemed to be narrowing the discussion down a bit. I think most agreed that by modern standards CBM may deserve more credit, even if still called an advisor (but I would have no problem is some elevated him to co-designer status) and you backed of the certainty of your timeline which was a point of contention.
To my way of thinking, Patrick sort of jumped in and set the discussion back, but that is the nature of a discussion board.
Cheers.
-
I have nothing left to add here to what's been said, but received this from TePaul in a group email and I think it really punctuates what Jeff just wrote.
I guess at the end of the day I'm glad I started this thread because it has certainly been illuminating.
Hopefully we can now all lay this whole divisive matter to rest and may it rest with the fishes;
The Big Lie
"Wilson designed the West course and significantly redesigned the East course; Wilson was in charge of construction of both courses. What big lie?"
Tom MacWood:
The big lie that Jeff Brauer is referring to is the presentation and perception put forward by MCC and Merion GC that Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses, that he should be considered the designer and architect of Merion East and West. As the chairman of the committee that was charged by the club to create the East and West courses that seems to be the story that has always been presented by MCC and Merion.
Of course Wilson was in charge of the construction of both courses.
But the story that he was only in charge of the construction of the East course and not its routing and design is a theory and scenario that has not ever been found in the administrative records of those clubs or anywhere else at any time and right from the very beginning. It is a theory and story that was first floated in April, 2008 in the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that you and Pat Mucci still appear to endorse.
That Wilson was the designer and architect of the East and West courses was the perception from the very beginning by the club, by its administration, by the press back then and by numerous fellow architects and friends back then that Hugh Wilson was the one who was "in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses"----all of it----every phase of it----that included routing (laying out routings and design plans previous to construction) and the construction and agronomic development phases. But of course right from the very beginning and always afterwards in any comprehensive account put out by the club it was also mentioned that Macdonald and Whigam lent their advice and assistance three times for a total of fours days over ten months between June 1910 and April, 6, 1911.
Therefore, the "Big Lie" Jeff Brauer refers to is the idea that MCC and Merion had always tried to create the perception that Hugh Wilson was in charge of all of it even from the very beginning when in fact that may not have been the case in 1910 and 1911----as an example, that it was someone else such as Barker or Macdonald that MCC put in charge and recorded was in charge of the routing and design plans for the East course that would then be turned over to Wilson and his committee to simply construct that routing and design plan of the East Course.
THAT is what Moriarty tried to suggest and conclude in his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."
And NOW, as of yesterday, Moriarty has summarized his belief and conclusion that the records of MCC, administrative and otherwise from back then and the very beginning, actually DO SAY that Macdonald was in charge and was the one responsible for the design of the East Course, if only one understands how to read them correctly!
And Moriarty went on to say yesterday (clearly unbelievably) that for many years everyone, including the club, competent historians et al seem to have misread and/or misunderstood what those records do say! And that it was never known until Moriarty himself pointed all this out in 2008 and yesterday, 98 to 101 years after the fact that everyone had either misread those records or misunderstood what those back then wrote or said about them that the truth of who the designer of Merion East was----FINALLY EMERGED!
I'm sorry, but if you cannot even begin to suspect how preposterous and comical this all sounds from Moriarty, I doubt there is much hope for you as a golf architecture historian and analyst.
It after this you still have to ask what the "Big Lie" means, and if after this if you still do not understand what Jeff Brauer meant by the "Big Lie" I suppose you never will.
-
Adam,
I don't think there is any reasonable question as to whether CBM was significantly involved in Merion's design. By now that is well documented. The only remaining questions involve some of the details and the exact extent of the involvement.
We haven't gotten into too much discussion about what happened at the West. I assume it was designed by Wilson but could not tell you whether or not he consulted with CBM or Raynor during the process. I think George Bahto suspected that Raynor was at the West at some point, but I know nothing of it.
At any rate, by this time Wilson had studied with CBM, built the East Course based on the plan CBM had chosen, and gone abroad to study the courses in Europe (commenting that they confirmed what CBM had taught him.) So he was much better equipped to try and design a course than before. Still, while the West is a lovely member course, not many would put in in the same category as the East. One could just as easily flip your inquiry; if Wilson was responsible for both, then how come they weren't of more comparable quality? The same could be asked of Seaview . . . I haven't played Seaview but I don't think it was ever thought to be among the elite courses like Merion or NGLA. So why the drop-off?
As for Raynor, George Bahto wrote that he wasn't planning on a career as a course designer, but CBM brought him into the project at Piping Rock on Long Island. So at the time CBM and HJW were helping plan Merion, it is not at all clear that Raynor was looking to make a career of traveling around the country building courses. My guess is that while CBM was willing to help Merion plan their course, he was not interested in building a course in Philadelphia. If I recall correctly, Merion did hire the same construction company as NGLA had used. I don't know that anyone can say for certain if Raynor ever had anything to with any of it or not, nor do I think his lack of involvement says much about the level of CBM's involvement. CBM wasn't in charge of building Merion, so what would have been Raynor's role?
I know Patrick has speculated about contact Raynor may have had with Francis given their similar backgrounds, but while it is interesting to consider I have always avoided this avenue as too speculative.
__________________________________
Jeff Brauer. I stand by my post, and note that it is appropriate that your response is more about your personal feelings than it is about substance.
You are wrong when you say that the whole world disagrees with me. You'd be surprised who agrees with me. Others are smart enough to keep their heads down and not face the wrath of the small band of Philly Psychos.
You are also wrong when you say I have never been to Merion. Besides, much of the material about the creation of the course in the Faker .pdf came from me first. The Faker authors have spent plenty of time at Merion yet they still thought CBM was nothing but a glorified travel agent to Wilson, and had failed to understand much of this early history. So perhaps being there isn't the end-all-be-all they make it out to be.
And, Jeff, whether you like or not there is a talent to this sort of thing, just like there is a talent to playing golf or designing courses. Some are better at this than others, and my record on this stuff is pretty damn solid. I'd put my analytical abilities up against the lot of you any day.
__________________________________
Mike Cirba. It is my understanding from Ran that TEPaul is not a member of this discussion board and is not supposed to be posting here. You have no business posting his rants for him.
I'll no more read his ridiculous rants here than in his never-ending emails. The guy has obviously got some problems and you shouldn't be enabling him.
-
TMac,
Why do you think I am or would be emotional about Hugh Wilson? I'm not, and your postulation that I am (as a Chicagoan/Texan) is as ridiculous as your HHBarker designed Merion theory.
Referring to one of many misattributions during that era as 'The Big Lie' shows how hypersensitive and emotional those defending it have become. For whatever reason you have thrown your lot in with the usual suspects from that region and have caught whatever they have. Referring to the misattribution as a 'big lie' almost makes it sound as if there was some kind of organized conspiracy, which is ridiculous and illogical. These misattributions are quite common for a number of reasons, not including organized conspiracy.
-
I guess this leads to another question....
If CBM was significantly involved in the design part of the East Course at Merion, why didn't they bring him back to lay out the West? Even more pertinent, given that CBM was already sending design requests of him to Seth Raynor, wouldn't this have been a great opening for Raynor, especially early in his career?
These questions may have been answered somewhere along the line, but it's difficult to wade through all of the land swaps, Cuyler letters, Dallas estates, multiple newspaper articles that don't always to agree with each other; etc.
From reading David Moriarty's response to my earlier question, leaving Merion out of the discussion, it appears as if Raynor was involved in every MacDonald project post NGLA, am I reading that correctly?
I don't believe Raynor was involved at Merion, East Lake or Greenwich with CBM, all around the same period. And I don't believe CBM was involved Fairfield, Westhampton or the mystery course in Maine (among others) with Raynor.
CBM did not design many 36 hole complex for understandable reasons considering of the nature of his courses. An 18 hole course made up of the standard prototypes is good, 36 holes may be overkill. To my knowledge Yale was the only 36-hole project he designed, and the second 18 was never built.
-
Patrick,
Now I know that TEPaul and Wayno are frothing at the mouth as they read this, and typing as fast as their little fingers will go, but, none of this discussion would have occured if we really knew the details, specific details. of who did what and when. You don't know who crafted the plans. Was it one committee member ? three ? CBM ? Whigham ? All of them, none of them ?
So, reasonable men can speculate with regard to the missing details.
Why not ?
So, you agree that we don't know the "details, specific details. of who did what and when".
Bryan, I've stated that from the begining.
The historical difference in my opinion versus that of others is that the "others' have been trying to ram down our throats the notion that Wilson/Committe did everything.
We simply don't know "who did what and when", which inherently leads to speculation.
You are free to speculate, to put forth your theory and to disagree with the speculation and theories of others.
If, through the presentation of facts or reason, a theory can be either reinforced or debunked, that's part of the debating process.
I put forth a theory. Y0u don't have to accept it and if you can disprove it, all the better, as that process distills or filters out the weaker theories allowing anyone to focus on the stronger theories.
I think I postulated a reasonable scenario which caused the Philly Phanatics to go apoplectic.
I"m entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.
I'm under no obligation to submit my theory to TEPaul and Wayne Morrisson for their approval prior to presenting my theory on GCA.com.
They LEFT GCA.com.
Their imperialistic attitude has taken on comedic proportions.
The volume of emails I receive from them has become intrusive and burdensome.
But, through it all, I continue to like TEPaul and Wayno.
I have lots of friends who are deranged, misguided and/or disoriented and I count TEPaul and Wayno amongst them.
It's obvious that we disagree on this subject, but, I'm entitled to my opinion, as they are theres.
I think as I parse through David's theories and postings that he would agree too. I agree. Do you suppose if Mike and Jeff and the peanut gallery agreed, that we could all agree that we are just all speculating, looking for what seems to each of us to be the most likely scenario?
Bryan, the only two objecting to what you suggest, seem to be TEPaul and Wayno.
I've never presented my theory as fact. I've speculated under what I would consider the prudent man rule.
In any case, let the speculating and the debate continue.
Agreed.
But, I'd like to add that I think we've come to a far greater understanding of the early history of Merion and NGLA through these threads.
I've enjoyed them, despite some acrimony, and I've learned a great deal from them.
So, as you stated above, let the speculating and the debate continue. ;D
-
Adam,
Yes, you've read it correctly. EVERY course designed by CBM starting with NGLA in 1906 used Seth Raynor as some combination of co-designer, and/or onsite shaper and constructor.
That's a misleading, catch-all, multiple combination statement. Why don't you list the courses where Raynor did the design work, or where he was the co-designer and not the engineer, or person in charge of construction.
Also, your question will get some ridiculously contrived answer. One could also ask why Merion didn't bring back the supposed father of their course when they revamped it significantly for the 1916 US Amateur, or again in 1924 when they significantly changed the routing.
Probably for the same reason that Piping Rock wouldn't bring him back.
It has nothing to do with original design credit, it has to do with club politics.
The answer is simple. Macdonald was not the designer, router, or architect.
You don't know that, that's just wishful thinking and/or speculation on your part.
He advised during a few short moments during the course creation and from the advice I've seen, it was primarily about agronomic concerns as well as sharing the principles of great holes abroad, the brunt of it taking place seated at his home course at NGLA.
You don't know that either, that's just speculation on your part.
Bryan, this is exactly what I was referencing.
Mike continually speculates and postures that his speculation/s are fact, when nothing could be further from the truth, and that's what I object to and push back on.
-
David/Patrick,
Many thanks for the timeline comments about Sayers arrival etc. See my comments to Bryan above. I was vaguely aware that the course was routed and largely built before Sayers arrival but was under the impression that various tweaking went on over the years and therefore what was built first off was subject to (continual ?) change that others apart from CBM might have played a part in.
David - interesting you mention the HJW's Scribner article which I managed to track down just this morning. A very interesting read and one comment he makes that I think worth mentioning is his comment that on every hole at NGLA you can see the entire ground up to the green from where you stand on the tee.
I assume therefore he includes the Redan in this comment. I've never been to either Merion or NGLA but interested to hear from you or others as to whether this general rule holds true.
Niall, I'm really puzzled by the comment because it's so far removed from being accurate.
You lose tee to green visuals, partial or complete, on holes # 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18.
In addition, there are parts of the fairway that get hidden from the tee on # 14 and # 15.
So, the statement is beyond wild. However, the inverse seems to be true, so maybe someone misunderstood or incorrectly edited the statement.
From my half a dozen plays of the original Redan at North Berwick, the last a couple of weeks ago, I certainly don't remember it being anything like HJW describes for NGLA.
Patrick - re routing. A good number of years ago when I flirted with getting into gca I did a course along with seven others. During the course we did a number of routing exercises, some from plans only, others with plans and access to walk the site. Most of the sites chosen had severe restraints for obvious reasons. Each exercise was done over a couple of days. From that I can assure you that coming up with a basic routing or several based on roughly the same idea wasn't that difficult. What was interesting was that others in the group would have a completely different take and would route the course in the totally opposite direction say. So very quickly you would have 8 routings.
Now I imagine the exact sort of thing would happen with the Merion Committee in that they each would do there own routing and then discuss the respective merits, refining them, and then choosing what they considered the best to show to CBM for comment. The question however, as I stated before, was whether they were any good, and whether the one chosen had any alterations made by CBM.
Niall, I think we tend to forget that this took place over 100 years ago, in 1910.
I don't know what aspect of modern technology aided you, aerials, topos, etc.., but, in 1910, GCA was in its infancy with not a lot of local product to study and learn from. In addition, none of these men were golf course architects. None were schooled in GCA. None had studied GCA.
And, Merion to me, seems to have enough quirk in the site configuration as to cause one pause in terms of producing and exceptional routing.
The use of crossovers seems to tell me that routing was a difficult process, in part solved by employing crossovers.
I would agree that many could route a course in short order.
Let me rephrase that. I think all but Mike Cirba woud agree that many could route a course in short order.
But, could they solve the idiosyncracies that a site might present. And, as you say, could they produce a routing where the quality of the routing and individual hole designs presented a superior course by almost any standard ?
I'll tell you what else bothers me about this project.
When you take a novice, or a group of novices, and you charge them with the responsibilty of designing a terrific golf course for the club and their fellow members, there's a tremendous amount of pressure that comes with that task.
None of those guys could have been very confident.
They were totally inexperienced in this endeavor and had to be very concerned about the daunting task in front of them.
So, who would you lean on ?
The architect deemed to be the most skilled and competent in all of America ?
Years ago, when Arther Goldberg, CEO of Bally's/Hilton fired Rees Jones when AG was going to renovate ACCC, he turned to the Head Pro, Billy Ziobro, and said, can you take care of this project. Billy said: "Yes, on one condition, that you keep the "suits" away from me and that I have continuous and direct access to you" AG said "Go ahead, but, I'll just tell you one thing. you'd better not F__k it up"
Billy was pleased to be in charge, but nervous as hell about the task he had just committed to.
So, what did he do ? He went out and hired Tom Doak and let Tom Doak, a pre-eminent architect in America, do what he does best, design a golf course. So, put yourself in the shoes of these five novices. Consider the task at hand in 1910 and then tell me if you wouldn't retain CBM and listen to every word he spoke.
I've been through this process.
The responsibilty is awesome/burdensome.
You immediately realize what Donald Rumsfeld stated.
"There are things you know, and there are things you don't know" and for the things you don't know, you sure as hell better get/hire/retain the best experts in the field to handle the things YOU don't know.
Hope that helps.
Niall
-
Mike Cirba,
I know you'll be shocked by this, but, I agree with David regarding your posting of statements sent to you by TEPaul
TEPaul left this site.
I've asked him to return, publically and privately.
But, until he does, I think you should refrain from posting statements that he's sent to you for the express purpose of posting on this website.
It makes you look like a lackey, and as I stated previously, there's no ability to engage in dialogue.
Being a surrogate isn't in your best interest.
So, again, I'll suggest that you end the practice.
-
Patrick,
When you, David, and MacWood stop mentioning Tom Paul and Wayne Morrision in every other post, then I'll stop posting what they write.
You guys can write your absurd, revisionist, historically-inaccurate theories all you wish, but when you attack others personally, as you've all done here for the past year to me and others, it's time to put up or shut up.
Obviously, none of you have anything factual to put up and instead are left to your own twisted logic, bastardization of standard language and terminology, and contrived, tortured reasoning.
On this issue, I'm pretty confident that i speak for the vast majority here when I say I think you should all shut up.
I'm pretty confident they think we all should, frankly. Personally, I'd be very happy to stop spending my time correcting your collective agenda-driven distortions of the truth and defending myself and others against your personal attacks that you resort to in lieu of producing actual facts and evidence.
-
Patrick
Thanks for your comments. Re HJW's Scribner article, I may have misread or mis-stated what he said but I don't think so. Haven't had a chance to check but will do and will send you a copy. Its a very interesting read (and well written) which explains the strategies of the various template holes. It is entirely possible that he qualified his statement in a way which I don't recall.
The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.
Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really. Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it. Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.
I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?
Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?
Niall
-
When you, David, and MacWood stop mentioning Tom Paul and Wayne Morrision in every other post, then I'll stop posting what they write.
I'll stop mentioning them when they stop sending me dozens of emails every week, sometimes ten a day.
They can't have it both ways.
They can't send me emails, and have you, like a shill, post for them on GCA.com and not expect a reply.
Yet, you, like a "bought" man, you continue to post their messages.
Do you think that by posting their "messages' you weren't going to get responses that mentioned them ?
The didn't post anonymously through you, you cited them as the authors, so why on earth would you demand that David, Tom and I cease mentioning them by name. You can't be that obtuse.... can you ?
How is it that two guys who claim that they don't tune in to Golfclubatlas.com, email me 30 seconds after I make a post on GCA.com ?
How is it that I'm inundated by inane, rambling emails from them ?
And, you know I'm telling the truth because you've been copied on many of them. Not all of them, but, many of them.
So, if you want to continue to be a lackey, a shill
You guys can write your absurd, revisionist, historically-inaccurate theories all you wish, but when you attack others personally, as you've all done here for the past year to me and others, it's time to put up or shut up.
Several things need correcting.
First, you were the one who accused David and I of lying.
Subsequent to that, I stated that you were being disingenuous.
That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.
As to the personal attacks, TEPaul and David engaged in those. On numerous occassions, on this site and in IM's and emails to both parties I asked them to cease and desist with their personal vendetta. Evidently, They couldn't, hence, I believe that Ran put them in the penalty box and suspended them temporarily.
Then, they came back on the site, but, again couldn't conduct themselves properly, so I think that again, Ran removed them temporarily, resulting in TEPaul withdrawing completely. So, if you're going to lecture anyone, make sure that you do so to all parties, including yourself.
Obviously, none of you have anything factual to put up and instead are left to your own twisted logic, bastardization of standard language and terminology, and contrived, tortured reasoning.
I think my reasoning has been reasonably sound.
You seem to be the one making blanket declarations that lack substance.
On this issue, I'm pretty confident that i speak for the vast majority here when I say I think you should all shut up.
Once again you're wrong.
You don't speak for anyone other than the Merionettes.
I've gotten a good number of IM's and emails from participants and lurkers supporting the quest for information and understanding on NGLA and Merion.
Last I looked, you're not the moderator on this site.
On both NGLA and Merion you've attempted, time and time again, to present your theories, which you purport as fact, while at the same time attempting to stifle debate and silence any and all opposition through your absurd attempt at censureship.
Now, are these the marching orders you've been given by the Merionettes, or did you come up with this latest attempt at cutting off the discussion on your own ?
I'm pretty confident they think we all should, frankly. Personally, I'd be very happy to stop spending my time correcting your collective agenda-driven distortions of the truth and defending myself and others against your personal attacks that you resort to in lieu of producing actual facts and evidence.
Would you be so kind as to point out, just two incidents where you've corrected any of my statements ?
Just two will do for now.
You post speculations and present them as if they're facts.
You're guilty of the very issues you're complaining about.
Let me ask you, is it unreasonable to postulate that Merion and CBM spoke on the phone over the roughly two years they were involved in a major Joint venture project ? YES or NO ?
Wayne, Bryan and I have all indicated that much is unknown.
Yet, you continually declare that it's "case closed" that there's nothing more to discuss.
But, no one other than the Merionettes seems to agree with you.
It's almost as if you're afraid that any additional probing may lead to a discovery that doesn't jive with your adamant position.
Me, I'd like to see if more can be uncovered.
I think someone may be researching to see if AT&T kept LD records dating back to the early part of 20th century.
Does any of the Merion stationery or Merion records contain the Club, club officers and Committee member's phone numbers circa 1910-1912 ?
-
The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.
Niall, there's a good degree of varying blindness at NGLA on almost every hole.
# 6 and # 13 may be the only holes were it's not normally in evidence.
Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really.
Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it.
Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.
Niall,
As to routings, anyone can sink a 4 foot putt in a casual setting, but, if you'll lose the U.S. or British Open if you miss, or you'll lose 10,000 if you miss, that putt brings with it untold pressure, so, as an exercise with no consequences for screwing up, anyone can route a golf course, but, when you're doing it for real, and the product is permanent, the pressure is enormous for member-novices.
I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?
Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ? Fight with him on the routing ? Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?
I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.
Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?
Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?
I don't think you can compare agronomic advice with architectural advice, they're far removed from one another in terms of disciplines.
-
Mike Cirba,
I agree with most of what Patrick wrote, but will add the following.
Shortly after TEPaul supposedly left the site, I made a concerted effort to only discuss him when he was injected into the conversation by you, Brauer, or someone else. But through his emails and corresponding posts, it quickly became obvious that he was not gone at all, he was monitoring the posts constantly, harassing me and insulting me regularly, and was still participating on an almost daily basis through you and Jeff Brauer. It is unreasonable to expect us not to comment when he continues to participate through his lackeys and continues to harass us via private email. He obviously has some serious problems and is so delusional he thinks he can control this conversation from afar by trying to censor me while posting through you guys. But we aren't idiots and neither is Ran.
Also, as laughable as it may be, TEPaul and Wayne have held themselves out as experts on on various gca topics by "publishing" their pathetic Faker Flynn pdf. If they are going to pretend that they are "published" authors because Wayne dumped the contents of his hard-drive onto a cd, then they should expect their views to be dissected and discussed. The treatment they have received so far has been respectful and muted compared to the garbage you guys have written about my IMO.
Lastly, you and TEPaul have a lot of nerve demanding my silence. I certainly wasn't accorded any such treatment during my long absences from the website. In fact you guys continued to blast me and my work while I was gone, and I was really gone, not monitoring the site and posting though various shills.
The reality is TEPaul is far from gone. We should be so lucky. If he ever manages to pull himself away here, then he won't be worth discussing.
-
David,
I don't believe I have ever posted two words from TePaul here. In general, I agree with Patrick that doing so is not quite right, AND that the private email threads are pretty ridiculous, too. I have deleted all of them immediately after a quick and not so thorough read.
And once again, whatever I write is purely my opinion, which sometimes mirrors Mike's or TePaul's but not always. I am smart enough to think and type for myself. If you want nerve, how about you criticizing my last post for lack of substance and then bothering to respond with your post above? Or espousing that others hold them selves out as experts because of what they pubish, when you did the same with the "Missing Faces of Merion?" Or arguing with me or even Mike when we post something that agrees with you about 90%, just to argue? How much agreement do you want, 110%? Or do you just want to be crowned the King of gca history? (insert smiley)
I agree with you we should ignore those emails on this thread. Or just end it completely in both emails and cyberspace, at least until there is something new to discuss. We are ALL being quite silly. Cheers.
-
Patrick,
Your memory is failing here.
I never said you and David were lying through your teeth until after BOTH of you, first he, and then YOU, in your posts 161 and 163, called me first "disengenous", and then "intellectually dishonest".
I'm not going to bother going back and figuring out which post of David's he said that in first....for over a year now he hasn't let a single post of his go without a personal insult so it gets difficult to keep track. (EDIT - Actually, he first said it in post his #68 and henceforth)
Now you can attach whatever euphemisms you like, but Jeff was right in pointing out that you both were calling me a liar.
So please drop the feigned innocence here...it doesn't wash and it's not the truth. At least I have the decency to blame it on your faulty memory of the subject.
As I said, I have no problem with either you or David or MacWood or anyone continuing to speculate pointlessly on this subject until the cows come home. Without any evidence of any of it I doubt it will have much effect on anyone except perhaps to take up more of Ran's bandwidth and depending on the mood, I may decide to post to correct your collective misinterpretations of facts and/or mis-characterization of evidence, but honestly I've grown pretty bored at this point of continuing to kick this dead horse.
You may think there are unanswered questions, but this has been the biggest to do about nada since Christopher Cross. Without any factual evidence, a tale was spun from shreds of cheesecloth, and it's not only wafer thin but falling apart like a wet cracker. So, speculate about all these supposed continual communications all you like but ask yourself why the Wilson Brothers and Merion ONLY saw fit to mention CBM's initial visit to see the property in June 1910, the committee's overnight stay in early March 1911, and CBM's one-day visit to Merion on April 7th, 1911 where he helped the committee pick the best of their five routings.
It's simply because that's all there is and there ain't no more. But, as I said, don't let me stop you because as your collective theories go further afield into literally thin air without any factual or evidential support, the absurdity of the case you're all trying to present becomes more self-evidently wrong.
But, the personal attacks need to stop, and from around post 160 you were questioning my "sources", so give that a break too. I speak for myself, except in those few cases where I've posted for someone else, and clearly indicated that I did so.
So does Jeff....it's just more games by you and David trying to deflect from the fact that neither of you has any actual evidence to defend your ridiculous theories.
-
Jeff,
I indicated that I'll no longer respond to the voluminous number of emails I've receive and continue tp receive (as many ad five just this morning by 10:30)
Mike's decision to post for TEPaul is just another case of poor judgement on his part.
My objection to having someone who left the site post through others is that it's wrong in principle and violates Ran's decision
If Ran removes someone and another participant continues to post for that person it's wrong on several levels.
1. It ignores Ran's decision
2. It undermines his authority.
3. It allows the banned or resigned person to continue to post without any accountability and responsibility.
To insure that there's no misunderstanding this has NOTHING to do with any given subject, not Merion, not NGLA, not drainage and not any architect, it's strictly a matter of principle, and not topic or poster oriented.
Personally, I'm very fond of TEPaul, we've been friends for about ten years and have enjoyed our time together on GCA.com, over the phone, at dinner, at GCA.com events and on the golf course. I've tried repeatedly, privately and publicly, to convince him to return, but alas, to no avail.
What Mike Cirba doesn't understand is that if he continues to post for TEPaul, there's NO incentive for TEPaul to return to GCA.com.
So there are a number of reasons as to why Mike should discontinue this practice
The question is, will he figure it out before Ran figures it out for him.
-
Patrick,
I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?
Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ? Fight with him on the routing ? Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?
I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.
Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?
In your analogy you are retaining Tom Doak as a "consulting architect". In Merion's case we don't know that CBM was retained (or selected) as a consulting architect. The record seems to indicate that they asked for advice and that they took at least some of his advice - like buying land by the clubhouse or contacting Piper and Oakley, etc. What we don't know is whether he offered any specific advice on the routing or individual hole designs in that routing.
-
Mike,
In an attempt to get back to factual matters - or even speculation on the subject - do you have, or can you get any information on the Committee structure and their mandates at MCC in the 1910 - 1912 timeframe. I am still perplexed as to who the "Golf Committee" was and what their role was. There was a Committee that was tasked with finding the land for the golf course, and there was the construction committee, but was there another committee that was tasked with the design that fit in between the committee that found the land and the construction committee that built the course?
Or, anyone else who has any insight on this could respond.
-
Bryan,
You point/question is one of form versus substance.
The form is almost irrelevant, irrespective of whether he was called an "advisor" , "consultant" or "non-member committeeman" his role and activity level didn't change.
In my analogy, Tom Doak's title is irrelevant.
What is relevant is his value as an expert.
And that was CBM's value, that of the expert amongst a group of total novices.
I have always been troubled by the name of Wilson's committee.
Since some are clinging to semantics in terms of CBM's title, they must also cling to the semantics in terms of the "construction" committee.
One has to know that these were educated men, clearly aware of the definition of the words "construction", "design" and "golf" .
Yet, they chose Wilson to head up the "construction" committee.
I understand Francis's appointment to any design or construction committee, his area of expertise was vital to both.
Nowhere does the record identify any specific design work done by Wilson, either on the general routing or on the design of individual holes.
But, the record is clear that Wilson was appointed Chairman of the "CONSTRUCTION" Committee.
-
Patrick,
I'm again disappointed, if not really surprised anymore that you can't just man up and admit you were wrong.
You and David both called me disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and a bunch of other euphemisms for liar for weeks before I said you were both lying through your teeth.
But for days now you're going around telling anyone who will listen both here and in private emails that I said you guys were lying first.
Then, when I prove you were WRONG in your contention, you simply choose to ignore it instead of acknowledging your mistake, whether it was intentional or not.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chose to say you must have forgotten.
Rather than admit that you chose that tone here very early on this thread, you continue to play as if you're some innocent broker of good will and diplomacy when you have an agenda as obvious as the day is long.
Sad, to see how the mighty have fallen.
Have a good Memorial Day anyway, Patrick.
-
Patrick,
I'm again disappointed, if not really surprised anymore that you can't just man up and admit you were wrong.
There's a reason for that.
I wasn't wrong.
You were being "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" and you "lied".
If you commit those transgressions are w e to sit back and accept them as "The Gospel", as you would like ?
Or do we have an obligation to challenge the false statements you've made ?
When you're "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" and lie, there's an obligation to identify and challenge your misrepresentations, which is what I did. That's not a personal attack. That's simply an attempt to correct misinformation that's been deliberately presented as fact.
No one can deliberately misrepresent the facts and take offense when they are challenged, which is what you've done, over and over again.
Evidently, we don't debate and abide by the same standards or code of ethics.
Whenever you declared that I was lying, I asked you to cite, with specificity, where I lied.
In each and every case you failed to provide the supporting citation.
When party "A" makes misrepresentations and or false statements, or claims of "fact" that don't exist, every participant on this site who is aware
of the breach has an obligation to "call it out".
As to personal attacks, what TEPaul and David engaged in are personal attacks.
They were vile, venomous exchanges and I tried on several occasions to get them to cease and desist.
But, they wouldn't, so Ran threw them off the site.
If I lie, call me on it
If I engage in vile personal attacks like TE and David did, I expect to be thrown off the site.
But, don't admonish me for pointing out when you're "intellectually dishonest", "disingenuous" or "lying".
You knowingly shaded the truth on more than a few occasions.
You've declared as fact, unfounded positions.
As I've stated, if I engage in similar conduct I expect you and others to call me to task on it.
Lastly,stop trying to stifle continued discussion on this and other topics
And please, comet your senses and stop your role as a surrogate, a conduit. I know it will be a difficult to cease that function, but it's in everyone's best interest.
Have a great Memorial Day weekend while it lasts
-
Jeff Brauer,
I stand my what I wrote about TEPaul using you as a shill. You apparently forget that (inadvertently or not) he sometimes sent me his exchanges with you where the two of you would discuss various matters before you took it public.
As for my holding myself out as an expert, I wrote an IMO piece and put out out there for comment free of charge to everyone, in the hopes that my doing so would prompt a discussion advancing our collective understanding of early gca. I never asked to be shielded from critique like these two arrogant Fakers and their $70 pdf.
-
The other aspect to it is how to you define blindness. For me because you can't see every inch of a hole or indeed a green, doesn't make it blind. I think if you can get an idea of the lay of the land for what is concealed then it isn't entirely blind. That said I think HJW was quite explicit in what he said but again speaking from memory.
Niall, there's a good degree of varying blindness at NGLA on almost every hole.
# 6 and # 13 may be the only holes were it's not normally in evidence.
Re routing a course, I note what you say and if you have actually been responsible for designing/constructing a course then you are way ahead of me. Anything I did was sadly only an academic exercise. In terms of what we used, from my dodgy memory all we used OS plans (1:5000 ?) with 5m (?) contour lines and a scale rule, nothing more than that really.
Of course we could use Google Earth but it was really just an aide memoire to recall what the vegetation was like in various parts of the site. The Merion gang wouldn't have had that but then they would have been on site so wouldn't need it.
Again we routed some fairly restrictive sites and came up with a variety of solutions, some of which worked better than others, but the point is that its not rocket science. These were educated men with an interest in golf course design, they would have read all the articles about ideal hole lengths, the ideal holes even, and would have been more than equipped to give it a go.
Niall,
As to routings, anyone can sink a 4 foot putt in a casual setting, but, if you'll lose the U.S. or British Open if you miss, or you'll lose 10,000 if you miss, that putt brings with it untold pressure, so, as an exercise with no consequences for screwing up, anyone can route a golf course, but, when you're doing it for real, and the product is permanent, the pressure is enormous for member-novices.
I've no doubt CBM could offer some practical tips but I'm kind of struggling to imagine him riding roughshod over there ideas (my words). As you say also, this was a hundred years ago. How much earth were they shifting ? How sophisticated was the drainage ? Did they not do a lot of the bunkering after the course was built as was the fashion of the time ? In summary, how big an engineering project was this compared to modern course building, do you really think they couldn't have done it ?
Niall, "riding roughshod" is a poor choice of words, one that predisposes the reader.
But, pretend for a second that you were charged with designing a course, and Tom Doak was selected as the consulting architect.
Are you going to ignore his advice ? Fight with him on the routing ? Disagree with him on the individual hole designs ?
Contest his placement of features ?
I wouldn't think so, but, as the Professional, the expert, you're going to listen to Tom Doak, especially if you and your committee, individually and collectively have zero experience in this area, yet you have the enormous responsibility of producing a quality product for your club.
Why would you expect any less from Merion and it's committee members and Charles Blair Macdonald ?
Also wiith regards to getting assistance, I thought that is what they did by going to Oakley and Piper for agronomy advice ?
I don't think you can compare agronomic advice with architectural advice, they're far removed from one another in terms of disciplines.
Patrick
Re your 4 foot putt analogy, how permanent was the routing/course ? Has not been changed and altered since it was first laid out ? Indeed, how good a course was it when it was first laid out and how much was that down to the routing anyway ? Did they declare before they started that they were going to build a world class golf course ? Or did they simply set out to do the best they could ? When in fact did Merion become "great" ?
Patrick, if there's one thing I've learned reading over old articles and news reports, its how frequently courses were altered, almost from the point they were first laid out. In fact it was still common for courses at that point to have the bunkers put in afterwards which from memory might have happened at Merion, so I really don't think your extreme pressure argument holds up. You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch. Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience, didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design, had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously ?
Niall
-
Patrick,
Your purposeful refusal to acknowledge and accept the obvious truth of the evidence I've presented throughout this entire thread should not be construed as my shading of it.
-
Niall,
"You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch. Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience, didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design, had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously ? "
Now THAT is an interesting perspective I don't think we have considered here. Yes, having made the first trip to Scotland to map out the best holes made CBM famous, but was he considered a more expert router by those guys back in those days, with his sum total of what, 3 courses routed (2 at Chicago Golf plus NGLA)? Granted, they did ask him to come back and review/approve their routings, but it strikes me that the rush to NGLA was more for the hole study than routing advice, as reported in Merion's Lesley report, read to the board.
And, it may just well be that his inspiration was both the study of famous holes and the desire to route one's own dream course, such as he did.
-
Pat--
Interesting point.... But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you. That, of course, didn't happen. To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done. Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible. Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?
If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?
David--
I see where you're headed with the Merion West/Seaview argument that they weren't of the quality of Merion East? Then again, how many course are that good? But, with this in mind, Hugh Wilson's talents that were so highly thought of that he and HIS BROTHER ALAN were the ones brought in to finish Pine Valley; not C H Alison, H S Colt, C B MacDonald, Tillinghast or anyone else. Some food for thought.....
-
For those who wonder whether Wayne and TEPaul have really ever left the site, and for those who are curious about the quality of intellect of these two "gentleman," here is a message received from Wayne Morrison in response to my comments a few posts ago:
Subject: "The Missing Brain of Moriarty
. . .
You owe the beard you used to buy the Flynn book for you $5. The price of the book is and always has been $75 and not $70. You are too much the wimp, I guess it comes from wearing the dress in the family, to purchase it directly yourself. By the way, at free, you still overcharged everyone for that poorly researched and analyzed crap you call an essay."
It seems our resident (in hiding) Merion expert has the sensibilities and maturity of a grade schooler. Those who have bothered to look at the $70 $75 Faker pdf aren't surprised, I am sure.
________________________________________________
Niall,
I'll comment further on your posts when I get the chance, but I will say that I believe the gulf in knowledge was much greater between Merion and CBM/HJW, as compared to Tom Doak and many of those here.
______________________________________________
Adam,
There aren't to many courses of the quality of Merion East, but there are no other great courses designed by Hugh Wilson. And at the time Merion East was built and for a few years after, there were very few approaching its quality. Generally, judging from the various reports at the time, there were perhaps a few by Colt and Ross, maybe a few oldies but goodies (Garden City and Myopia) and then the various CBM courses. Pine Valley was already hyped but not anywhere near opened, and even there one of he great designers, Colt, had been involved.
My understanding is that the Wilsons were brought into Pine Valley for their agronomy expertise. The issue there was not one of design - numerous reports were that the the course was to be finished according to the Crump/Colt plan. Pine Valley had serious agronomy issues because of the pure sandy soil. And Hugh Wilson (and perhaps to a lesser degree Alan) were among the foremost agronomy experts of their time. Given the region and their relationship with PV, they were logical choices to get the course in shape for play.
As an aside, the later history of Pine Valley seems to be another classic case where people convolute design with construction and even grow in. Everyone on wants to put their guy's name on that course as designer. In my opinion carrying out the Crump/Colt plan on the few holes remaining does not make those later involved the designers of the course. At least not in my mind.
This was common during this era though. The person who did the building often receives the credit for coming up with the idea.
-
When Merion East opened it was not acknowledged as a great golf course.
Not even close.
It was acknowledged as having considerable potential, but all conceded that would take time and effort and no one, not Tilinghast, nor Findlay, nor Evans, nor anyone else gave anything but guarded, faint praise.
The Merion East we know today resembles the Merion East of 1912 in the way a beautiful 45 year old woman resembled herself when she was a skinny nine year old kid.
The routing dramatically changed over the years, many greens were rebuilt and/or moved, whole bunkering strategies were created and/or changed, and new tees were adapted to changing technologies.
To compare Merion East in its final Championship course product, having been a labor of love for Hugh Wilson for 14 years, and William Flynn continuing that work for the next six, to Seaview and or Merion West is simply asinine and shows both the historical ignorance and frankly the stupidity of those making that argument.
Yes, stupidity. In bucketfuls, no matter how cleverly argued.
Because one would have to either be stupid, willfully ignorant of early golf course history, or wholly and purposefully disingenuous and deceptive to make that ridiculous argument.
-
Mike,
Well, the evolution of Merion West is of interest to me also. Did it get the constant makeovers like the East, or was that a result of the staging of many tournaments at the East Course? I know some say the West is the equal of the East, but it never gets much national attention. What is the highest level tourney it has hosted, if you know?
BTW, I know you were thinking of DM's last post above, but I will say this - his opening a reexamination of CBM's role at Merion East is not a ridiculous idea at all, not was it total folly. He did find some new or forgotten things. Arguing that CBM was largely forgotten is not totally nuts either, because he sort of was. Arguing that he might, under modern standards, have gotten more design credit is not totally wrong either.
In other words, there was nothing wrong with DM's original premise of research. We all agree/disagree with his conclusions to different degrees, oft expressed here, but the real problem here is a bunch of childish personalities, including, to various degrees, you, me, TePaul, Wayne, TMac and David. (I will not analyze just who is more or less childish, but we all are for letting this come to this point)
I say we all try to reduce the use of disingenous, liar, ridiculous, etc. We are all guilty.
Or better yet, just stop the nonsense!
-
The red pen/blue pen drawing of Pine Valley is the one that you really find out what Colt did and the number of changes in terms of strategy and in terms of 12-14, hole placement. From that you can find out how the course evolved from Crump's plan to what was finally put in place and if the Wilsons made any adjustments in the field which if memory serves they did. Pine Valley's histories document the Wilsons' involement in finishing their course and that's a pretty good barometer. I can't see a club saying, "Hey let's give someone credit when their involvement was minimal."
The one other thing that may be affecting how we today perceive a project like Merion in 1911-12 is that the early 20th century was a totally different era in terms of how people operated in society and also how golf and sports in general were handled. With the exception of Raynor, Ross and Flynn, these guys were all amateur sportsmen and were friends to varying degrees. They were all more than willing to help each other with their projects. Just look at the pictures of MacKenzie with Thomas at Riviera. NGLA was a team effort to some extent although it was definitely MacDonald's deal, Pine Valley was a team effort of Crump who brought Colt in and then had Tillinghast, Thomas, Ross, and I'm pretty sure MacDonald who all offered advice and counsel. There's no debate that MacDonald and Whigham were advising the Merion Committee, I'm not sure their involvement is as much as you're going with it though. There are way too many questions marks and things that go opposite of MacDonald's track record. We look at all of this in the more professional light of the late 20th and early 21st century where golf design became big business starting with RT Jones and Dick Wilson and working through today with Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio with Doak, Crenshaw and Coore, Hanse, and many others.
I would guess that "golf course architecture" in the US began with Scottish emigre professionals coming and spreading the game and designing courses, maintaining them, playing exhibitions, and teaching the game. I guess starting with Dev Emmet you started seeing the "amateur sportsman" who started desiging and building courses for their club and for their friends. CBM, HJW, Crmp, Hugh Wilson, The Fownes, and Thomas laid out courses but weren't getting paid for their work. I think that you have to put yourself in the mindset of that era to try to figure out how things happened and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.
Mike--
Interesting point, they were trumpeting Pine Valley's quality barely into construction.
-
Re your 4 foot putt analogy, how permanent was the routing/course ?
Permanent. The Board approved it. You can't get much more permanent than that.
Has not been changed and altered since it was first laid out ?
Very little.
Indeed, how good a course was it when it was first laid out and how much was that down to the routing anyway ?
Not having played it, I couldn't offer my evaluation of how it played.
Since the essential routing has lasted for 100 years, I'd have to say that that's a major part of it.
Did they declare before they started that they were going to build a world class golf course ?
No, they declared that they wanted to build a lousy golf course, mediocre at best.
That's why they called in Charles Blair Macdonald to advise them.
Certainly he could provide routing plans and hole designs that would forever doom the course to mediocrity, at best.
Or did they simply set out to do the best they could ?
Isn't that what every architect aspires to ?
To create the best they can ?
When in fact did Merion become "great" ?
I guess that answer lies within the eye of the beholder.
Patrick, if there's one thing I've learned reading over old articles and news reports, its how frequently courses were altered, almost from the point they were first laid out.
Then why don't you tell us, without the help of the Merioniettes, how the course was altered and the date upon which it came to be recognized as great ?
In fact it was still common for courses at that point to have the bunkers put in afterwards which from memory might have happened at Merion, so I really don't think your extreme pressure argument holds up.
Bunkers are a micro feature.
Your position is absurd. Anyone who's a member of a club that's been charged with the responsibility of creating a golf course or redesigning a golf course knows how pressure packed the burden is.
You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch.
They were.
NONE had every designed or built a golf course.
That' makes them novices when it comes to designing and building a golf course.
Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience,
I believe Francis was a civil engineer.
didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design,
NO, I don't believe he did.
Would you cite his previous experience in course design
had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?
And you think that playing courses abroad, and reading books qualifies you to design and build a golf course ?
Please, stop the absurdity.
You've already drawn your conclusion and now you're searching for info to fill in the blanks
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ?
YES. Don't forget, this is 1910.
Seriously ?
Seriously, YES
-
Pat--
Interesting point.... But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you. That, of course, didn't happen.
It didn't happen because the construction committee already had an engineer on site in Francis.
I've brought up the point, time after time, that it would be worth exploring possible communication between Raynor and Francis.
Lawyer to lawyer, doctor to doctor, engineer to engineer, the professionals talk to each other differently than they talk to lay people.
To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done.
Not at all. It's in perfect harmony. You wouldn't need Raynor for engineering since Francis could fill that bill.
Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible.
Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?
Eventually they did, in the form of Pickering.
If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?
Not at all, why would he be, Raynor's counterpart was already on site and available to be on site 24/7.
Why do you and others seek to dismiss CBM's involvement rather than engage in due diligence to ascertain a better understanding of his role ?
-
Patrick,
Your purposeful refusal to acknowledge and accept the obvious truth of the evidence I've presented throughout this entire thread should not be construed as my shading of it.
Mike, when I have the time, I'll reread every post and cite specific examples, unless they've been edited out..
-
Both Rodman Griscom (second nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course in 1901) and Dr. Harry Toulmin (Belmont Golf Club) had previous design and course construction experience. Griscom had been head of the Green Committee since the inception of golf at Merion and the building of the original Willie Campbell nine-hole course in 1896.
Hugh Wilson was a member of the Green Committee at Princeton during his junior and senior years, and his tenure was smack dab while the club was building its new course that was designed by Willie Dunn and modified by home pro James Swann.
HG Lloyd may have been on the Green Committee at MCC who designed and built the second nine holes...I haven't been able to verify yet but he was a member of the Merion Green Committee by 1903.
Francis, as Patrick mentioned, was a surveyor/engineer. There is no record at all of Francis contacting Raynor, nor does Francis mention CBM, Whigham, much less Raynor in his remembrances, instead clearly crediting Hugh Wilson's committee for the design and construction of Merion East. But, what would he know? He was only there every day through the entire design and construction. ::)
The five committee members were 5 of the top 6 golfers (by handicap) of the hundreds of players at Merion, with the 6th, Howard Perrin, being a relative newcomer in 1910.
Lets stick to facts instead of the speculative CBM-hero-worshiping dream world that some insist on taking this thread into.
-
Mike,
In your last sentence you admonish everyone to stick to the facts, but, in the very same post, just a few lines above, you resort to speculation.
How do you reconcile that disparity.
Or is it simply a double standard, "do as I say, not as I do"
You should heed your own advice ;D
-
Patrick,
I stated clearly what was fact and what was speculation, that's how.
I've been trying to verify if HG Lloyd was on the Merion Green Committee in the 1900-02 timeframe when the second nine at the original Merion Cricket Club was DESIGNED AND BUILT BY THE MERION GREEN COMMITTEE...I know he was on by 1903.
Rodman Griscom, on the other hand, was the Chairman of said Green Committee at the time the second nine was designed and built.
Hugh Wilson's very modest, self-effacing statement that the members of his committee had the same knowledge of construction and agronomy as the average club member was simply being humble, yet it had some element of truth as much had been learned about soil content and grass-growing in the ten years between then and the creation of Merion East.
You'll notice almost every reference to CBM made within the Merion records cites his study and knowledge of agronomy and soils, as well as other agronomic issues.
-
Mike,
If you think that being on a green committee qualifies someone to route and design a golf course, you're in for a big surprise.
However, I'll defer to the architects on this site, who have to interface with green committees on an almost daily basis, to answer that question.
I'd like to know, in their opinion, does serving on a green committee automatically qualify the green committee member to route and design a golf course ?
The other issue that should be brought up is the stifling of the creative process inherent within committees and consensus management.
Tom Doak, if given the choice will never, or probably never embark upon another joint venture project.
There's a reason for that.
I've often stated that I've seen a lot of statues honoring a leader, mounted on his steed, leading the charge, but, I've never seen a statue commemorating a committee. Why is that ?
The forced compromise inherent in the committee structure stifles and often mutes or destroys creativity.
Think for a second about designing a golf course by committee.
Think of the problems associated with that process.
So, who made the design decisions ? Who crafted the routing ?
Were there 3-2 split decisions, 4-1, 5-0.
Or, did CBM craft the routing and individual holes ? Did he represent the creative process, with the committee reviewing and discussing the relative merits and voting accordingly ?
If other committee members had more experience than Wilson at design and construction, then why weren't they appointed Chairman ?
There is a great deal that is unknown about the creation of Merion.
You and the Merionettes want to cease all future discussions. WHY ?
If you stifle, censure and end all discussions, surely nothing will be discovered.
But, if there's are ongoing efforts, like your current effort to ascertain information relative to the committee, then nothing will be learned.
WHY is it OK for you to continue to research this issue, but, forbidden for anyone else to engage in any research.
I'm sure one or more of the Merionettes will assist you in your efforts, whereas David and Tom MacWood have to access other sources in their efforts to conduct research.
-
Pat--
Interesting point.... But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you. That, of course, didn't happen. To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done. Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible. Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?
Probably because Raynor was basically an unknown untested commonity in early 1911. He was involved at the NGLA but there was another group in charge of construction.
If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?
Based on what I have seen and read CBM was a lot more generous and a lot less demanding than what you believe. What do you base your opinion upon?
David--
I see where you're headed with the Merion West/Seaview argument that they weren't of the quality of Merion East? Then again, how many course are that good? But, with this in mind, Hugh Wilson's talents that were so highly thought of that he and HIS BROTHER ALAN were the ones brought in to finish Pine Valley; not C H Alison, H S Colt, C B MacDonald, Tillinghast or anyone else. Some food for thought.....
Are sure about that? I thought they brought in CH Alison to finish the course.
-
The red pen/blue pen drawing of Pine Valley is the one that you really find out what Colt did and the number of changes in terms of strategy and in terms of 12-14, hole placement. From that you can find out how the course evolved from Crump's plan to what was finally put in place and if the Wilsons made any adjustments in the field which if memory serves they did. Pine Valley's histories document the Wilsons' involement in finishing their course and that's a pretty good barometer. I can't see a club saying, "Hey let's give someone credit when their involvement was minimal."
The one other thing that may be affecting how we today perceive a project like Merion in 1911-12 is that the early 20th century was a totally different era in terms of how people operated in society and also how golf and sports in general were handled. With the exception of Raynor, Ross and Flynn, these guys were all amateur sportsmen and were friends to varying degrees. They were all more than willing to help each other with their projects. Just look at the pictures of MacKenzie with Thomas at Riviera. NGLA was a team effort to some extent although it was definitely MacDonald's deal, Pine Valley was a team effort of Crump who brought Colt in and then had Tillinghast, Thomas, Ross, and I'm pretty sure MacDonald who all offered advice and counsel. There's no debate that MacDonald and Whigham were advising the Merion Committee, I'm not sure their involvement is as much as you're going with it though. There are way too many questions marks and things that go opposite of MacDonald's track record. We look at all of this in the more professional light of the late 20th and early 21st century where golf design became big business starting with RT Jones and Dick Wilson and working through today with Dye, Nicklaus, and Fazio with Doak, Crenshaw and Coore, Hanse, and many others.
I would guess that "golf course architecture" in the US began with Scottish emigre professionals coming and spreading the game and designing courses, maintaining them, playing exhibitions, and teaching the game. I guess starting with Dev Emmet you started seeing the "amateur sportsman" who started desiging and building courses for their club and for their friends. CBM, HJW, Crmp, Hugh Wilson, The Fownes, and Thomas laid out courses but weren't getting paid for their work. I think that you have to put yourself in the mindset of that era to try to figure out how things happened and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer.
No one knows who is responsible for the red or the blue drawings, but I've got to give you credit for some fantastic speculation.
-
Adam,
You seem to be judging CBM's involvement at Merion based on Raynor's involvement, or lack thereof. I don't understand this logic at all.
Would have CBM and HJW made their involvement contingent upon Raynor building the course? Obviously not, because they were involved at Merion, they went to Merion to help Merion choose the land, CBM hosted the committee at NGLA where CBM provided them with valuable help planning the layout of the course. As if that weren't enough, they returned to Merion a few weeks later and chose the final routing plan! The plan went to Merion's Board as the plan approved by CBM and HJW. Hugh Wilson was not even mentioned.
Obviously, had Raynor built Merion in his usual style, we wouldn't have to have this conversation. And it is interesting to speculate why Raynor didn't built Merion. But to jump from Raynor didn't build Merion to therefore CBM didn't have much influence? I don't buy that at all, nor do I think you have justified it.
Interesting point.... But if you're going to use that argument, why didn't CBM and HJW go the committee and say, we have a guy here who helped put our ideas on the ground at NGLA in Seth Raynor, you guys are too busy in your professional lives to be worried about doing this, let's bring Raynor in and he'll put my ideas on the ground for you. That, of course, didn't happen.
First, as I said above I don't understand your justification for the imposition of this somewhat arbitrary condition.
Second, I believe CBM and HJW did send him the same construction crew they had used at NGLA --Pickering and Johnson Construction. CBM also sent them to Piper and Oakley. Whigham estimated their budget for them. (This may be the one thing I learned about Merion from the Faker book. Thanks guys!)
To argue for significant MacDonald involvement works completely against the grain of everything else he's done. Also, the argument has been made that the Merion Committee were novices and needed as much as help as possible. Why didn't they bring in an "expert" to construct the course too?
I am not sure what you mean here, but by "everything else he's done" it sure seems like you simply mean that Raynor didn't build the course. Is there more to this? If so, then what?
The reason I ask is that there is a heck of a lot that is entirely consistent with what else he had done and would do. The hole lengths for example, were not only as recommended by CBM, they were also typical of CBM. And then there are Merion's attempts at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM.
Look at that list. A Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, a biarritz oriented double plateau, an Eden Green. Do those ring familiar to you? There are more, but how many more do we need? These ones require no speculation!
If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?
Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?
Keep in mind that this was 1910 and early 1911. The landscape was filled with dark ages courses, and reportedly things were especially dire in Philadelphia. Hugh Wilson had not yet gone abroad to study the great courses. Despite the speculation about what this committee might have known, WILSON TOLD US THEY WERE COMPLETE NOVICES WHEN IT CAME TO THIS STUFF. Wilson is quite clear that it was CBM who brought these concepts to Merion, so why should we doubt him?
And again, I may be misremembering, but I believe that Merion did bring an expert builder- I believe the same ones used at NGLA. And Merion brought in the agronomists that CBM recommended as well.
http://If CBM were as involved with Merion as your side is arguing, and given CBM's track record of being very much in control of golf course design projects, don't you think he would have been vociferous and downright demanding in wanting Raynor to be involved?
I suspect you might have bought into many of the inaccurate caricatures of CBM. At the very least, I don't think you have accurately portrayed the way CBM operated at all. So far as I can tell, he didn't operate that way either before or after NGLA.
Your speculation about the necessity of Raynor is really way out there
-
Niall,
As I read your various comments on this thread I cannot help but think back to your "Template Holes: Did CBM really invent them?" thread and on the related threads. I think that, generally, you may be discounting just own revolutionary NGLA was to American golf course design.
I'd like to ask you the same basic questions I asked Adam. What about Merion's attempt at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM?
If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?
Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?
I haven't counted, but I wonder if Merion had more typical CBM holes than either Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow? Except not in the Raynor style, of course.
A few comments on your post to Patrick:
- It was Hugh Wilson who claimed they were novices and Hugh Wilson who said that it was CBM who taught them. Who are we to question Hugh Wilson on this fact?
- As for the Doak analogy, as I said above I think the gap in knowledge was greater for CBM and Wilson's Committee than for Doak and some here. You are underestimating CBM, and over estimating those at Merion. Wilson said they were novices and that they were in way over their heads, until CBM set them straight. He said they learned more from CBM than in all the years of playing. Why don't you believe him?
-
Patrick,
When you're talking about leaders and decision-makers, did you ever read what Max Behr wrote about Hugh Wilson back then?
I don't think you'd be asking the questions you did in your last post if you had.
David,
Were there any multi-level greens in the US before Macdonald built NLGA? Why or why not were any of them "Double Plateau"s or "Biarritz" greens? At the time Merion built the second green at with a dip in the middle CBM had yet to build a Biarritz hole. Where would Wilson have seen that before? Care to guess?
I also see that you contend Whigham "estimated their budget for them". Why wouldn't you produce the whole segment? Robert Lesley makes clear that they've also talked to Philadelphian Samuel Heebner in that regard, the Heebner who was involved in designing the first Philly Cricket course, who was involved in designing Whitemarsh Valley, the Heebner who was involved in designing Spring Lake and Sunnybrook, as well.
Hugh Wilson told us in 1916 that he conferred with CBM, Whigham, and all the local experts around Philadelphia, such as EK Bispham, Heebner, and others. WHy was this a revelation to you and why would you not share the entire passage in the Paul/Morrison book and share the entire story instead of simply telling us that Whigham did their budget? All Whigham produced was a single estimated number for the entire project...that's quite a bit different from what you've implied.
Also, could you show us what evidence you have that CBM used Johnson Contractors and Fred Pickering to build NGLA??
All along I thought that was Mortimer Payne, a local contractor, working under Raynor's direction? That's what George Bahto's research indicates, and this 1908 article seems to concur. Where's Pickering?
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/NGLA/08231908_NewYorkTribune_600.jpg)
-
Mike
Here is a link to what Max Behr wrote in December 1914. How does what Behr wrote in 1914 relate to Pat's point?
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23g.pdf
-
Tom MacWood,
Thanks for the link...here is the article.
As far as your question, I think it relates in many ways to both this thread, as well as Patrick's last set of questions about design by "committee" vs having a "dictator" in charge.
It's interesting that Behr uses that word, dictator, to describe Hugh Wilson in 1914. What month was that article written? Was the West course at Merion even open yet and had Behr seen it? He had to be speaking about the East course, no?
Comparing Wilson as being like Leeds at Myopia and Macdonald at NGLA, Behr writes;
These dictators have not been averse to seeking advice. In fact ,they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before.
It's also interesting how even by 1914 Behr rages against using a "professional" golfer to design a course simply because they have the ability to hit a ball. I thought you told us that NOBODY used amateurs to design golf courses after 1910?
It's also interesting how Behr expands on his original statement about the course at NGLA "laying itself out", saying that while the "main outlines" at National were obvious at first glance, but the details took 'months of study".
It's also interesting that Behr points out the problems that have plagued most Green Committees to date at that point...1) Selecting a "pro" and assuming he knows what he's doing, 2) Not taking time to understand the soil and general features of the landscape prior to proceeding, and 3) Not taking the time to actually understand agronomy and construction themselves, all of which combined to create situations that took thousands of dollars over time to correct.
It also answers the question of when the National was actually routed and laid out. It tells us "seven years ago when the National was being laid out", which would have been 1907, consistent with the articles I've posted here.
As you know, Macdonald secured the property in December 1906, but at that time the course had not been yet "laid out", and the articles tell us that Macdonald said the work of defining the holes and their lengths would take place over the next several months.
I've tried to make this point to Jim Sullivan, who has assumed that one needed to fully route a golf course prior to securing property back then. Especially in those cases where one could secure some fixed acreage of land at a fixed price out of a larger parcel (as was the case at Merion and NGLA), the historical record shows, I believe, that acreage was first procured with undetermined boundaries, and then the courses were routed over the next several months.
I think the article is fabulous, Tom, and makes many points I've been driving at for a long time here. Thanks, again.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/5780725397_539c21aa94_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5780725403_2d84606a23_o.jpg)
-
Maybe I'm confused. The article Tom linked has Robert White's name at the end.
-
Jim,
Robert White wrote the article on natural bunker construction. The first article is Behr, although not apparent unless one is familiar with the format of the magazine. Behr always wrote the "Our Green Committee" page as the Editor.
Hope that helps!
-
Jim
There are actually two articles. The second article was written by White.
Mike
Most of the Behr articles deals with issues of maintenance, and the part dealing with design emphasises CBM's importance in that area (and Colt's). You didn't really answer my question. How does this article relate to Pat's questions about qualifications and fitness to design a golf course. This article was not written in 1911; it was written in 1914.
-
Tom MacWood,
I think my answer and its relevance is clear to everyone, but perhaps...let me guess...you, David, and Patrick? ;) ;D
That's ok.
Perhaps you can tell us where Hugh Wilson magically acquired course architecture skills between 1911 and 1914 if all he had done to that point was "lay the course upon the ground" (for some strange reason that term reminds me of the scene in "Silence of the Lambs" where the crazy killer keeps repeating "it rubs the lotion on itself"), to someone else's plans, especially when we know that he had an expert in Pickering to oversee that operation?
Was it simply his two-month vacation abroad that caused what you've been claiming is an alchemic transformation from mild-mannered Insurance Man to renowned Architectural Superman?
Are you really still telling us that all this acclaim came his way because he designed the West course?
Give us a break, Tom.
-
Magically acquired golf architecture skills? I don't think there was any magic involved. This is what Wilson said about his and the others qualifications when the process began (1911): "The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."
From that point he was mentored by CBM at the NGLA and at Merion, over a period of months. Traded hundreds of correspondences and wet with Piper & Oakley, over a period of years. Corresponded with Reginald Beale, one of the foremost grass and constrcution experts in the world. Met with Colt either in America or Britain or both. Traveled to the UK to study the latest in modern golf architecture. Oversaw the construction of the East, acquiring experience through success and failure. Designed and built the West and was involved with the Seaview project, again gaining experience through success and failure. And last but not least became green committee chairman of Merion. I'd be hard pressed to cite anyone with a similar wealth of quality experience over a realtively brief three year period.
I also think the jury is out on how much skill Wilson actually had...his results appear to be a mixed bag.
-
"You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch. Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience, didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design, had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?
Jeff,
Here's how Wilson characterized his committee.
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."
Would you say that MY characterizaion and WILSON'S characterization are in PERFECT HARMONY ?
Stop looking at things in only one light, to prove me wrong and start trying to discover who did what and when. ;D
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ?
Again, here's what WILSON said:
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member."
So, would you equate your knowledge of GCA to that of the average club member ?
Now THAT is an interesting perspective I don't think we have considered here. Yes, having made the first trip to Scotland to map out the best holes made CBM famous, but was he considered a more expert router by those guys back in those days, with his sum total of what, 3 courses routed (2 at Chicago Golf plus NGLA)? Granted, they did ask him to come back and review/approve their routings, but it strikes me that the rush to NGLA was more for the hole study than routing advice, as reported in Merion's Lesley report, read to the board.
The study of holes that were incorporated into the design of Merion ?
What you forget, or exclude is Macdonald's status in golf in the U.S. at the time.
He was a nationally prominent golfer.
He was at the epicenter of the formation of the USGA.
He was one of the signatories of the five clubs that began that organization.
He wasn't just some guy who spent time abroad studying golf holes.
He was one of, if not THE preeminent figure in American golf at the time.
He was in charge-co-chair of the rules committee.
He began studying golf/golf courses in the UK in 1872, 38 years prior to being invited to Merion.
I know that you've always discounted or dismissed the ODG's, but, your attempt to minimalize his status and influence is misguided.
-
David Moriarty,
In your reply # 2203, you state that Whigham did the budget estimate for Merion for the golf course.
You also state that you learned this from reading Wayne's and TEPaul's book/DVD.
If that's true, that means that Wayne and/or TEPaul withheld that information from the discussion.
All along their claim has been that CBM and HJW visited the site twice, and that the committee visited them once.
But, here we have Whigham's direct involvement with planning the course (budgetary), now, I'm sure he didn't do this on his first visit and he probably didn't wait until his last visit to prepare the budget, so, it must have been an ongoing exercise in conjunction with the committee.
Could you expand more on the time frame in which this occured and how you/they know the extent of this work ?
Why would they withhold evidence of Whigham's involvement ?
Which goes to a question you had at the very begining of this debate, which ties into a statement I made about your concerns.
You were concerned that information regarding CBM's and HJW's involvement might be being meted out selectively.
I opined, that perhaps, like the tip of the iceberg, there was more information beneath the surface.
The revelation that Whigham prepared the budget for the committee is an interesting revelation and raises more questions about the existance or extent of any additional information that might be being withheld.
I'm very surprised that any of the Merionettes who were privileged to this information didn't reveal it at the appropriate time.
And, WHY didn't they reveal it ?
Instead, they continued to argue that CBM and HJW were held at arms length from committee involvement.
Interesting.
Have you accessed the AT& T records yet ?
-
Pat,
In his reply #2205 Mike indicates it was hardly a budget provided by Wigham, rather it was a rough guess at the total dollar amount to complete the task. A budget should have the items broken out, no?
I don't have the "whole segment" Mike refers to, but I assume it puts this budget estimate into a different perspective than you are implying.
In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model. We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!
Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...
-
Jim,
In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model. We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!
Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...
Hopefully, Mike or David will produce the source document about the "budget" and put this little tidbit to rest one way or the other. I'm surprised that Pat is on about information being suppressed. Surely he remembers that Tom P wouldn't share the publicly accessible deeds to the Merion land transactions.
Re your quote above, I agree that it would be interesting to focus in on the templates, although I would think that even a dissection of the supposed ones on Merion East will only lead to more rancorous argument, and would not prove that CBM "designed" the specific holes within the routing. No doubt he "educated the Committee" (whoever they were) on the concepts of template holes and their principles, but that does not mean that he actually designed those specific holes into the Merion routing or on the specific ground at Merion. The Committee may have taken their education to heart and designed the concepts into their holes and routing. None of this said to diminish CBM's role.
I was wondering why you say definitively that "We know that CBM didn't route the golf course". I thought that David, Tom M and Patrick think that he did to some degree.
As to why the template holes needed work after being built, it seems to me it could possibly be because the inexpert construction committee didn't exactly get the concepts, as taught by CBM right, when they laid them out on the ground. Arguably this doesn't mean that CBM designed those specific holes, and it was just a less than ideal construction job. You think we could limit this to a decade, eh ..................... ;D
-
David,
Yes, please show us Whigham's "smoking gun" budget.
If you would. Please include the itemized version.
You may just want to include the whole section, including the Sam Heebner portion.
Im sure it will be enlightening.
-
Re your 4 foot putt analogy, how permanent was the routing/course ?
Permanent. The Board approved it. You can't get much more permanent than that.
Has not been changed and altered since it was first laid out ?
Very little.
Indeed, how good a course was it when it was first laid out and how much was that down to the routing anyway ?
Not having played it, I couldn't offer my evaluation of how it played.
Since the essential routing has lasted for 100 years, I'd have to say that that's a major part of it.
Did they declare before they started that they were going to build a world class golf course ?
No, they declared that they wanted to build a lousy golf course, mediocre at best.
That's why they called in Charles Blair Macdonald to advise them.
Certainly he could provide routing plans and hole designs that would forever doom the course to mediocrity, at best.
Or did they simply set out to do the best they could ?
Isn't that what every architect aspires to ?
To create the best they can ?
When in fact did Merion become "great" ?
I guess that answer lies within the eye of the beholder.
Patrick, if there's one thing I've learned reading over old articles and news reports, its how frequently courses were altered, almost from the point they were first laid out.
Then why don't you tell us, without the help of the Merioniettes, how the course was altered and the date upon which it came to be recognized as great ?
In fact it was still common for courses at that point to have the bunkers put in afterwards which from memory might have happened at Merion, so I really don't think your extreme pressure argument holds up.
Bunkers are a micro feature.
Your position is absurd. Anyone who's a member of a club that's been charged with the responsibility of creating a golf course or redesigning a golf course knows how pressure packed the burden is.
You characterise Committee as novices which suggests they were starting from scratch.
They were.
NONE had every designed or built a golf course.
That' makes them novices when it comes to designing and building a golf course.
Didn't some members of that committee have engineering experience,
I believe Francis was a civil engineer.
didn't Wilson for one not have some previous experience in course design,
NO, I don't believe he did.
Would you cite his previous experience in course design
had none of the members really not been abroad and played the great holes in GB&I (and indeed elsewhere in the US) and did none of them ever read any golfing literature on ideal hole lengths etc. ?
And you think that playing courses abroad, and reading books qualifies you to design and build a golf course ?
Please, stop the absurdity.
You've already drawn your conclusion and now you're searching for info to fill in the blanks
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ?
YES. Don't forget, this is 1910.
Seriously ?
Seriously, YES
Patrick
Bunkers are a micro feature ? I suggest you visit the 4th hole at Woking.
With regards to how the course changed over time, I note what you say. I also note you haven't played the course either but seem fairly sure of its evolution. I won't even pretend I know any detail about the evolution of the course but I do recall the praise Flynn was getting for changes he did and some of the wonderful old photographs with their crude features which David has produced in the past. I also note Mike Cirba's post on how the course has evolved and how it was rated back then. So respectfully, maybe you want to rethink that one.
I have to tell you Patrick, that I've got no real interest in Merion or NGLA specifically and frankly I don't recall all the detail that has been produced in these threads. I'm more interested in the general ideas. The general idea that you have that you can compare the gca's of back then to the work guys like TD, Jeff or Robin Hiseman or whoever are doing now is interesting. I would suggeast that the construction/design of the average course back then compared to the average course now would be like night and day. Back then they were only just getting into using heavy equipment but still largely went with the lay of the land. These days building a course is a much bigger engineering project. To suggest that CBM, an amateur in the field of construction, compares to a moden gca just doesn't hold up.
As for your contention that playing courses abroad and reading books doesn't qualify you to design and build a golf course, well, how did CBM get started ? As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.
Niall
-
In his reply #2205 Mike indicates it was hardly a budget provided by Wigham, rather it was a rough guess at the total dollar amount to complete the task. A budget should have the items broken out, no?
Jim, to whom did HJW provide this information ?
To the committee ?
To Wilson ?
And, when did he provide it ?
In 1910 would we expect that a budget be broken out on a line item basis on an excel spreadsheet ?
I'd like to see a copy of the breakdown.
I don't have the "whole segment" Mike refers to, but I assume it puts this budget estimate into a different perspective than you are implying.
Again, you'd have to see the document or documents and how they were communicated to the interested parties before drawing a final conclusion.
In my opinion, the best place for these conversations to get to the heart of CBM's contribution is through the actual holes produced. David has identified a handful of template, or template like holes. Nobody is denying that CBM was involved in some capacity. Determining just how much those holes (and any other ideas) were from his hand should be the focus for those of you who know the template model.
Jim, even contemporaneously, it's difficult to quantify attribution on individual hole designs.
Just look at Hidden Creek and Sebonack
But, with the incorporation of template holes, in either faithful or hybrid iterations, one can't deny CBM's influence.
Whether that influence was direct, in terms of hole design, or indirect, in terms of hole design, remains a mystery.
But, If I was designing and building a golf course and my architectural expert had previously studied and replicated specific holes (templates) I'd certainly defer to his concepts and designs in formulating the individual replica holes. Hence, I'd be more prone to heighten his involvement in the routing and individual hole design process. Especially when the Chairman of the committee defines the committee as "novices" in the world of GCA.
We know CBM didn't route the golf course and to say he approved of a routing means he routed it would be a stretch to just about anyone paying attention so the words of the committee on the reason for going to NGLA should be heeded...to learn the principles of building golf holes!
Do you really think that that task can be accomplished with just an overnight vist ?
Do you really think that you could, starting from scratch, learn the principles of routing and building golf holes in an overnight visit ?
I can't state who routed the golf course
I can't state who designed each of the 18 holes.
But, with the incorporation of templates you can't discount or dismiss CBM's influence.
The question remains, what's the extent of that influence ?
And by that, I mean, "specific influence" not "general influence"
Once that's determined however, we'll have to look into who Wilson thought his Apls would 'need alot of work' and why the double-plateau oriented like a Biaritz was later called a mess by Francis and the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication...but that can take up the next decade...
Jim, did you ever consider that the reason for those less than spectacular holes might be rooted in the "committee" system of design ?
That a concept was presented, vis a vis drawings, maps and on site examination, but, upon construction, internal compromises were agreed to which might have transitioned a pure template to a hybrid template to a mongrelized template ?
Don't forget that the committee was composed of five guys who were well intended, but, had the collective knowledge of the average member.
So, why would you expect a perfect product, especially on that terrain, from that committee ?
Even after Wilson's return from the UK, assuming that he had visited Prestwick, his alterations to the 10th hole (alps) was less than creative, functional or artistic in terms of the basic concept.
While CBM went on to design other courses with his templates, this wasn't his course, he wasn't the sole party responsible, and as such, he might have encouraged hybrid or mongrelized designs rather than his purebreds
-
Niall,
Patrick's contention that the routing of Merion has changed "very little" since inception simply shows you exactly how LARGE the gap is between how his actual knowledge of golf course history versus the way he presents himself here.
Seven of the holes have been significantly re-routed, most in whole.
Several other holes had their greens completely rebuilt and reconfigured.
The bunkering patterns of Merion, the "White Faces" of Merion, are generally acknowledged to largely create the strategy and challenge, and were virtually all added AFTER the course first opened. In fact, most didn't come until over three years later, in 1915/16 for the first US Amateur and were added and refined for at least the next 15-20 years by Wilson and Flynn.
To say otherwise betrays both an agenda as well as a complete misunderstanding of the course evolution in totality.
-
What course(s) of renown did CBM design/build prior to the opening of NGLA in 1910 and when?
Should I post the routing of the original Chicago GC?
I keep hearing that Merion had the best architect in the world at their disposal in 1910 but he was extremely busy trying to get NGLA opened....so what exact courses did he build that reputation on?
There is no question that he made a great study and put in an enormous effort to route, design, and build NGLA, as well as to get grass to grow, but what other golf course design and creation efforts can we point to that would have illustrated his genius as of June 1910?
-
Bunkers are a micro feature ? I suggest you visit the 4th hole at Woking.
Yes, they are.
What's applicable at the 4th hole at Woking isn't necessarily applicable to Merion.
With regards to how the course changed over time, I note what you say. I also note you haven't played the course either but seem fairly sure of its evolution.
Where did you get the notion that I never played Merion ?
I've played Merion dozens of times over a long period of time.
I won't even pretend I know any detail about the evolution of the course but I do recall the praise Flynn was getting for changes he did and some of the wonderful old photographs with their crude features which David has produced in the past. I also note Mike Cirba's post on how the course has evolved and how it was rated back then. So respectfully, maybe you want to rethink that one.
Tom Doak was praised for the changes he made to Atlantic City Golf Club, but that doesn't mean the golf course was inferior or mediocre to begin with. ACCC was a terrific course prior to Tom Doak's involvement. Just because an architect or an architect's work is praised, doesn't automatically mean that the prior course was inferior in quality.
I have to tell you Patrick, that I've got no real interest in Merion or NGLA specifically and frankly I don't recall all the detail that has been produced in these threads. I'm more interested in the general ideas. The general idea that you have that you can compare the gca's of back then to the work guys like TD, Jeff or Robin Hiseman or whoever are doing now is interesting.
I would suggeast that the construction/design of the average course back then compared to the average course now would be like night and day. Back then they were only just getting into using heavy equipment but still largely went with the lay of the land. These days building a course is a much bigger engineering project. To suggest that CBM, an amateur in the field of construction, compares to a moden gca just doesn't hold up.
Niall, CBM studied courses in the UK an the U.S. for 38 years prior to setting foot on Merion.
His involvement with golf is legendary.
But, since you want to diminish his expertise and accomplishments, tell me, over the last 100 years how have his design principles and the courses he designed, routed and built held up ?
A century later NGLA is still a top 10 golf course.
How do you reconcile your position that CBM, and amateur, compares to the modern GCA ?
How does CBM's body of work compare to modern day architects ?
Will their courses remain in the top echelon of golf courses a century from now ?
As for your contention that playing courses abroad and reading books doesn't qualify you to design and build a golf course, well, how did CBM get started ? As you're fond of saying, you can't have it both ways.
Sure I can.
What you conveniently forget is that CBM spent 38 years playing and studying before setting foot on Merion, NOT a day, or a week or two weeks, but 38 years. Tell me you understand the distincition between a fleeting glimpse at architecture and the life long study of architecture.
-
What course(s) of renown did CBM design/build prior to the opening of NGLA in 1910 and when?
Mike, that's a disingenuous question.
The question has nothing to do with the opening of NGLA, it has everything to do with the opening of Merion.
CBM had conceptualized, designed and built NGLA.
In addition, CBM and others were playing NGLA in 1909.
The proof is in the pudding. CBM designed a masterpiece, a course for the ages. And, he did it after 38 years of study.
His work at NGLA remains critically acclaimed a century later, with the golf course ranked in the top 10.
That you continue to try to devalue his work at NGLA and elsewhere is comical.
Should I post the routing of the original Chicago GC?
I keep hearing that Merion had the best architect in the world at their disposal in 1910 but he was extremely busy trying to get NGLA opened....so what exact courses did he build that reputation on?
His 38 years of study, his position with the USGA, his status as a golfer, and the courses he designed and build previous to the building of Merion.
There is no question that he made a great study and put in an enormous effort to route, design, and build NGLA, as well as to get grass to grow, but what other golf course design and creation efforts can we point to that would have illustrated his genius as of June 1910?
Mike, didn't CBM design the first 18 hole golf course in the U.S. ? Chicago
Would that feat seperate him from others ?
In addition, CBM was a member of Shinneock, GCGC, Chicago and perhaps other courses.
He was enormously prominent, as a golfer, an administrator and as an architect.
Only you and the other Merionettes would attempt to diminish his accomplishments and stature in the golf world circa 1910.
If he was so insignificant as you absurdly suggest, why did Merion invite him it to help them ?
Why did Merion recruit him to guide their group of five novices who admittedly knew little more than the average member ?
-
Bryan,
I say, definitively, that CBM did not route Merion because of the Francis contribution. What's ironic, is that his contribution is greatly reduced, IMO, by Mike and Tom's interpretation of the Swap. Regardless, if CBM had participated in actually creating the routing and couldn't figure out a way to actually fit the holes on the property as they are now, well then he doesn't get credit. More likely, in my opinion, is that the committee did alot of trying and reconfiguring and would occassionally bounce ideas or problems off CBM/HJW.
Pat,
Regarding the budget, let's agree that seeing it will help the conversation of its importance tremendously. I believe it was a reference from CBM, was it in the June 29, 1910 letter? I don't have that copy handy but will look.
On a different track, have you closely read the letter CBM wrote HG Lloyd on June 29, 1910 after visiting the site that MCC would purchase? Someone here has it, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about it...specifically if you think the tone is one of a team member or of a friendly advisor.
-
Niall,
Patrick's contention that the routing of Merion has changed "very little" since inception simply shows you exactly how LARGE the gap is between how his actual knowledge of golf course history versus the way he presents himself here.
Mike, in your fervor to diminish CBM's contribution you've completely misread the exchange between Niall and myself.
You've ignored Niall's question about permanency and taken my response out of context.
Why don't you go back and reread Niall's question and my response.
Niall wasn't referencing changes from inception to current date, he was referencing changes shorly after the course was constructed and opened for play.
When he asked if the plan/routing was permanent, I responded by stating that the Board approved it, and that's an indication that it was intended at the permanent routing.
I'll chalk your error on this one up to your seriously flawed reading skills, absent any motive.
Seven of the holes have been significantly re-routed, most in whole.
Several other holes had their greens completely rebuilt and reconfigured.
So that Niall can understand how off base you are, why don't you cite the dates of those changes for him.
They didn't happen shortly after the course opened.
The bunkering patterns of Merion, the "White Faces" of Merion, are generally acknowledged to largely create the strategy and challenge, and were virtually all added AFTER the course first opened.
The "White Faces" refers to the style of bunker, not their strategic relevance.
The "pattern" has nothing to do with the "style"
In fact, most didn't come until over three years later, in 1915/16 for the first US Amateur and were added and refined for at least the next 15-20 years by Wilson and Flynn.
Mike still doesn't get it.
Niall asked how permanent the plan was, the routing and individual holes, he didn't ask about the style of bunker or their locations.
His concern was permanency in the "PLAN"
If it was a temporary plan, the Board would have approved it as such, but, they didn't.
Tell me that you and the other Merionettes understand the difference
To say otherwise betrays both an agenda as well as a complete misunderstanding of the course evolution in totality.
The only misunderstanding is yours.
Please go back and reread Niall's question and my response and try to get some grasp of the context before answering.
-
Bryan,
I say, definitively, that CBM did not route Merion because of the Francis contribution. What's ironic, is that his contribution is greatly reduced, IMO, by Mike and Tom's interpretation of the Swap.
Jim, I agree.
I've maintained from the begining that Francis may be the key to the puzzle.
I'm keenly aware of his self depricating report/letterl
Yet, he was a surveyor/engineer, a critical player.
I can't imagine that he and Raynor didn't communicate on a frequent basis.
Regardless, if CBM had participated in actually creating the routing and couldn't figure out a way to actually fit the holes on the property as they are now, well then he doesn't get credit. More likely, in my opinion, is that the committee did alot of trying and reconfiguring and would occassionally bounce ideas or problems off CBM/HJW.
While others disparaged my use of words, I theorized that this was a collaborative effort, a joint venture of sorts.
Pat
Regarding the budget, let's agree that seeing it will help the conversation of its importance tremendously. I believe it was a reference from CBM, was it in the June 29, 1910 letter? I don't have that copy handy but will look.
OK,
Again, what bothers me is that neither Wayne, TEPaul or Mike presented this information when they had the opportunity.
This isn't/wasn't classified information and they weren't under a gag order from MCC not to mention that HJW had assisted with a budget, but yet, they never revealed the information.
In fact, I can't recall them revealing any information that would enhance CBM's role in the creation of Merion.
David has always hinted that perhaps information is being revealed selectively.
When you find a copy, I'd be interested in seeing how detailed it is and if it was addressed to a specific party and if it is dated.
On a different track, have you closely read the letter CBM wrote HG Lloyd on June 29, 1910 after visiting the site that MCC would purchase? Someone here has it, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about it...specifically if you think the tone is one of a team member or of a friendly advisor.
I believe I did some time ago.
But, if I did, I've forgotten the specific content and couldn't quote it for you.
If you could reproduce it that would help.
After NGLA, with CBM's playing record (National Amateur Champion amongst others), his involvement with the formation and ongoing interests with the USGA, his reputation as a student if not a professor of architecture with 38 years of study under his belt and his being in demand to design other courses, I think you can appreciate the reverance in which he as held.
As to his tone, he was a deity of sorts, and he was comfortable and accepted in the highest circles.
I don't know if the tone of the letter would be that revealing.
Have you ever attended a meeting with your golf course's superintendent and the USGA's consulting agronomist ?
Have you read the subsequent reports summarizing that meeting ?
The tone of those letters is sometimes a product of the chemistry of the meeting.
If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, IM or email me and I'll explain.
-
Pat,
As you recall, in the weeks and months following David's initial release of his essay there was a ton of activity and easity a couple dozen thread related to it. In that timeframe Wayne escalated his research efforts both at Merion Golf Club AND Merion Cricket Club. He initially posted what he found on here. This includes the April Board minutes which also credit CBM/HJW with assistance (the degree of which is obviously still in debate...) and I beieve a couple other pieces of information. It was the debate about the meaning of these assets that prompted Wayne to stop posting anything proprietary, in part because they were assets of a club he does not belong to (MCC).
I had heard of this budget mention before today and this is the only lunatic asylum I participate in so it was on here at some point.
-
Mike,
Can you post the June 29 CBM to Lloyd letter? I would appreciate it.
-
Pat,
As you recall, in the weeks and months following David's initial release of his essay there was a ton of activity and easity a couple dozen thread related to it.
Jim, I have a number of things going on in my life, a family, business, hobbies, golf, etc.,etc.. If you think I recall any of the information posted early on, or even a few days ago, you're laboring under a false impression. Like many, I have to go back and review the replies in order to get current.
In that timeframe Wayne escalated his research efforts both at Merion Golf Club AND Merion Cricket Club.
I do recall that as a result of David's opinion piece Wayne escalated his research efforts.
He initially posted what he found on here. This includes the April Board minutes which also credit CBM/HJW with assistance (the degree of which is obviously still in debate...) and I beieve a couple other pieces of information.
Was HJW's contribution with the budget included ?
David's post indicated that he learned of that through reading Wayne and TEPaul's Flynn book/DVD, which led me to believe that Wayne didn't post that in one of the exchanges. So, did David learn of it in the DVD or did he overlook Wayne posting it in a reply ?
It was the debate about the meaning of these assets that prompted Wayne to stop posting anything proprietary, in part because they were assets of a club he does not belong to (MCC).
I understand that, but that wouldn't preclude Wayne from mentioning that HJW had assisted with budgeting for the golf course.
I had heard of this budget mention before today and this is the only lunatic asylum I participate in so it was on here at some point.
I don't recall it, but perhaps you're correct.
Let's try to see if it was disclosed.
Certainly, ANY assistance that CBM or HJW would provide, should be listed.
You may recall that there were many attempts to limit their involvement to two trips to Ardmore and one committee trip to Southampton.
The revelation of the production of a budget would seem to increase their level of involvement beyond two or three commutes.
-
David,
Were there any multi-level greens in the US before Macdonald built NLGA? Why or why not were any of them "Double Plateau"s or "Biarritz" greens? At the time Merion built the second green at with a dip in the middle CBM had yet to build a Biarritz hole. Where would Wilson have seen that before? Care to guess?
The above was Mike's response to my pointing out that Merion's original course included attempts at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM. The course may have had more attempts at typical CBM features than other contemporary CBM courses, yet all Mike can come up with in response is to suggest (without any evidence whatsoever) the mere possibility that Wilson could have been exposed to a "multi-tier" green somewhere else?
This goes back to what I was saying to Bryan about the double standards at work here. Those who think CBM was significantly involved are being held to a standard proving each design contribution to an absolute certainty, while those who disagree think they have made their case by suggesting the mere possibility that it didn't happen exactly as theorized! Such a double standard is misplaced.
To put this in proper perspective, let's pretend this was not Merion but some other course outside the Merionettes' fiefdom. Would there be any question that this was a CBM course in the sense that CBM played a significant role in designing it? Whigham's statement alone would establish this. Yet, in addition to Whigham's statement, we have CBM's design fingerprints all over the place, such as Merion's attempt at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, and an Eden green. And there are plenty of other CBM "tells" that I haven't even mentioned in this thread so as to not derail the conversation! And this is leaving aside all the other evidence of CBM's and HJW's direct involvement. CBM and HJW chose the final layout plan.
Yet, in the face of this, Mike thinks that if he can find another "multi-tier" green that maybe Wilson saw, then this means that CBM didn't have substantial say as to the design of the course? No way.
As to Mike's specific questions, it is largely irrelevant whether another "multi-tiered" green existed around this time. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle pointed out, the 2nd green at Merion resembled the 6th at Sleepy Hollow, which was built within a few years of Merion. Regarding Mike's speculation and questions about the biarritz-like orientation of the swale, he is probably barking up the wrong tree. The 6th at Sleepy Hollow was NOT Sleepy Hollow's biarritz hole. The hole was 400+ yards and offhand I think I read that it was called something like "plateau." If anything, the inclusion at Merion of a typical CBM green not used at NGLA suggests that CBM's involvement went much deeper than merely discussing broad ideas and concepts. As for what constituted a "Biarritz" in 1910 Mike has himself confused. I didn't say the 2nd was a biarritz. All I said was that the swale on the 2nd green was oriented like a biarritz swale, meaning it was horizontal across the green. As some of you may recall, I suspect that CBM's first designed a "biarritz" based upon his early biarritz concept at Merion, but it was not the 2nd hole. But let's stick with what is most obvious for now.
_________________________________________________
Whigham's Estimated Budget.
Mike is also playing his typical games regarding the Whigham statement about the budget. He is demanding that I produce the "itemized verson" of Whigham's "smoking gun" budget, but I never made any claim that Whigham produced an itemized budget. All I know is what the Fakers tell us was in Lesley's report to the Committee written after CBM's first visit, where Lesley wrote that Whigham estimated it would cost $25,000 to put the ground into condition for play, and $5000 to bring water for the site.
As usual, Mike overstates the record in his favor, writing: "All Whigham produced was a single estimated number for the entire project..." First, this is false on its face. He reportedly produced at least two numbers, one for the cost of getting the ground in shape and one for irrigation. Second, Mike's claim is not only false on its face, it is purely speculative. We have no way of knowing whether or not the Lesley contained the same level of detail as Whigham provided or whether Lesley was summarizing more detailed information. Mike pretends he knows for sure, but he does not.
Anyway, regardless of whether Whigham listed just two line items or whether he listed twenty, my points remain the same:
1. Whether during the visit Summer 1910 visit or by separate letter or communication, Whigham's advice evidences that additional communication between CBM/HJW and Lesley's committee, aside from that letter.
2. Along the same lines, Whigham and CBM's advice was NOT limited in topic to only that which shows up in CBM's letter.
3. Even early on, Whigham and CBM were not just advising them generally about vague principles, they were instructing them on the specifics of how to create their golf course.
Mike makes a big deal about how Lesley also mentions how much it cost Mr. Heebner to build Whitemarsh. So what? But I wonder if Mike noticed that Heebner's estimate was on the low end when compared to Whigham's and Merion apparently trusted HJW and went with the high end.
_________________________________________
Patrick,
While they have obviously been playing games with the source material throughout (see Bryan's comments for just one example), I don't recall exactly whether these guys had previously told us about this particular report or not. Wayne certainly didn't, but with as much as TEPaul posted on the issue he may have. If so, then I am wrong about having learned something about Merion from the Faker pdf.
__________________________________________
Jim Sullivan,
1. Your recollection of the circumstances surrounding Wayne's exit from the website is quite different than mine.
2. The mention of Whigham providing a cost estimate was NOT in the posted transcription of CBM's letter from late June 1910.
3. Regarding the routing, I agree that CBM/HJW were not solely responsible for routing the course. It seems most likely to me that they would have worked off of Barker's routing to come up with their rough routing, and then Francis/Lloyd modified the rough routing with the swap to make the holes in the corner fit, and then the details were worked out at NGLA and subsequently. If you recall, CBM mentioned that without a contour map CBM and HJW could not say for sure whether the course would fit on the land. They thought it would fit if Merion added land behind the clubhouse (likely the additional three acres for which you guys are searching,) but it apparently was going to be a tight squeeze.
Apparently Merion couldn't make the last five holes fit, thus necessitating the swap.
That all said, I don't see it is all or nothing and don't understand how you can definitively exclude CBM/HJW from the routing process based on the swap. You stated: "Regardless, if CBM had participated in actually creating the routing and couldn't figure out a way to actually fit the holes on the property as they are now, well then he doesn't get credit." Really? Such an all or nothing requirement seems rather arbitrary and penal to me. Hypothetically, what if CBM and Raynor had explained the routing they envisioned to the committee in June but when Merion tried map this out, it didn't quite fit, so Merion swapped land to lengthen 15 and 16 (and maybe 14) to make it fit? If this was the case then how could you say that CBM and Raynor were not among those responsible for the routing?
4. Regarding your suggestion that we should be discussing the actual holes, I keep throwing them in but Mike doesn't seem to be capable of discussing them in an intelligent and productive manner, and Niall and Adam did not answer my questions. While I am glad to discuss them, maybe it is for the best that the other side has been unwilling or unable to do so. I don't know that this is the right format, and I am pretty sure this is not the right thread.
That said, what is there to talk about, really? CBM's fingerprints are all over the course in terms of its design, Merion tried to build a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, a biarritz oriented double plateau, and an Eden Green. Again, there are more, but shouldn't that be more than enough? There were only four or five actual "templates" at NGLA (not coincidentally some of these same holes as at Merion.) So how many typical CBM concepts and combinations must we find at Merion before we acknowledge that Merion attempted to build a course based upon CBM's ideas?
5. Like Mike, your reading of the Hugh Wilson chapter is rather selective. He not only wrote about how CBM taught them the principles, he also wrote about how CBM taught them how to apply those principles on Merion's site. If there is any doubt, look to Alan Wilson, who is quite clear that CBM was providing valuable help planning the layout of Merion East at both NGLA and on the subsequent visit to Merion.
6. As I explain above, Mike was just guessing when he claims that it was a "rough guess at the total dollar amount" and he guessed wrong. Whigham provided a separate estimate for preparing the land and for the irrigation, and since we are not privy to his communications with Lesley's committee we don't know the amount of detail beyond this. Why would Lesley report it to the board, if Lesley thought it was nothing an unworthy and rough guess?
7. Regarding the "tone" of CBM's letter, I think you may be reading your own subjective feelings into the letter. At the very least, don't you think you are drawing a rather broad conclusion about the relationship based on what is at best a speculative interpretation? This was a letter after CBM's and HJW's first visit. It is reasonable to judge the entirety of the continuing relationship based on a letter at the opening? We know a few things that bring your conclusion into question.
- According to Merion, CBM and HJW "c[a]me over from New York" to help them. Why would they they have bothered if your reading of the "tone" is correct?
- And CBM and HJW obviously continued to be involved throughout the planning. Again, if your reading of the tone is correct, then why would they have bothered? It sure seems like they gave Merion plenty of their time and trouble, and I am not sure that is consistent with your reading of the "tone."
- Perhaps you should compare the "tone" of this letter to the tone of CBM's later letter to Wilson about agronomy matters (after the course was designed.)
8. You make a number of statements about the evolution of course with which I might not agree, among them your statement that "the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication." Here is a photo of Bobby Jones on the green from 1924. Note that orientation is as before and the expanded bunker is still very much playing the role of a hell bunker.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion19246th.jpg?t=1306893066)
-
David,
The longer your answer to any direct question the more we know you're bullshitting everyone!
Where's the Whigham budget??
Why wouldn't you transpose what Lesley's wrote here and answer Patrick's frothing questions?? Why don't you trust everyone here to read it with their own eyes?? Is it because only YOU, in the past 100 years, has been able to interpret all of this correctly as you've now repeatedly claimed??
As regards the Road Hole, the 1915 William Evans article I posted said the green was extended and the bunker enlarged in 1915. It was the third green at the time, not the sixth. We really don't know when it became a road hole, do we? Here's the article again;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3396440071_96261f7f50_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3473/3397289532_03d3a05e58_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3396440077_8feb20b58b_o.jpg)
And in that same vein, you mentioned the Brooklyn Eagle 1915 article that mentioned a green at Merion being like "Sleepy Hollow". Why did you neglect to mention that other holes in the article were compared to holes at Baltusrol, Wykagyl, Garden City, and Fox Hills, courses around the NY metropolitan area the writer was obviously trying to give his readers a flavor for, all of which had absolutely NO INPUT from CBM? Why wouldn't you mention that??
Patrick,
You have been ranting like this for weeks and you don't even know what CBM wrote to the Committee after his June 1910 visit to Ardrmore??!?!?!?!?!? ::)
Recall that he wasn't back there for 10 months, when his second and FINAL visit took place on April 7th, 1911?
And you don't know what he wrote, even though it's been posted here at least TWENTY times?!?!? :o
You guy are hysterical...I mean that VERY literally.
-
Mike,
Between the replies on this thread and the 50 lengthy emails I've received from TEPaul and Wayne in the last few days it's hard to keep track of everything.
Since when does not committing various documents to memory indicate that one's position is flawed ?
You're getting more desperate with each non-relevant post, and you've once again put forth the absurd notion that Merion and CBM didn't have any contact, phone or otherwise, in those intervening 10 months.
-
Mike,
Since I posted reply # 2232 at 7:04 am today, I've already received an email from Wayne by 7:46 am.
You can confirm that since you were copied on that email, as was TEPaul
For a guy who claims that he's abandoned GCA.com he sure stays tuned in and ready to dispense emails at the slightest comment he disagrees with.
He even missed a critical word in my post to DM, namely the word "IF"
Speaking of "IF", if Wayne and/or TEPaul want to discuss golf course architecture, I'd be happy to do so ON GCA.com.
I told them that I would no longer engage in emails, and to stop sending me emails, time and time again, but evidently they don't understand plain English. Now if they don't understand plain English, are we to trust them with reading and interpreting the Merion and MCC documents ? ;D
I'd like nothing more than to see TEPaul and return to this site, but if they won't do that, would they please stop sending me emails about:
Merion
Moriarty
MacWood
Escaping from HappyDale Farms
Thanks for your consideration and please don't forget to tip your waitress
-
David,
Were there any multi-level greens in the US before Macdonald built NLGA? Why or why not were any of them "Double Plateau"s or "Biarritz" greens? At the time Merion built the second green at with a dip in the middle CBM had yet to build a Biarritz hole. Where would Wilson have seen that before? Care to guess?
Mike
On April 14, 1912 the Philadelphia Inquirer reported: "Many of the holes at Merion are patterned after the famous holes abroad and the rolling country has contributed largely towards making the course excellent." That was a month before Wilson returned from his trip to Europe.
-
Mike,
Uh oh, I got another email from Wayne.
You weren't copied.
But it was informative.
Wayne informed me that the ONLY reason he tunes in to GCA.com is to see how I lie and disparage him.
Do you buy that ?
Me neither.
I wish someone would cite where I lied.
Maybe you could "channel" for him.
And, I'd like to know how I've disparaged him.
I won't repeat the names he's called me because it serves no purpose, but it's clear that he doesn't understand the term "double standard" or "do as I say, not as I do"
And don't forget, they always have the option of returning to GCA.com ;D
I wonder if the Merionettes are familiar with email blocks ? ? ?
-
Patrick,
Calm yourself, I have nothing to do with Tom or Wayne but if you really wanted them to come back to this site you should have taken a much different approach because I think you've lopped off those ties for good...that's what I'm reading anyway.
Now, back to facts.
And to jog your memory, here is the SHOCKING RESULTS of CBM's first of two visits to Ardmore, this one to view a proposed site for a golf course.
Nine months later, Hugh Wilson's Merion Committee would travel to NGLA for an overnight stay. Wilson and the MCC Minutes tell us that they spent the first night viewing CBM's drawings, maps, and photos of great holes abroad and learning about their principles. The next day they viewed Macdonald's applications of those principles in person while touring his new golf course.
Merion's Committee had been working on various plans for their golf course before the NGLA visit and after returning the MCC Minutes tell us they created five different plans.
A month after that, CBM returned for the second and LAST time to Ardmore, where the MCC Minutes tell us he reviewed those plans, and viewed the ground, and helped the Merion Committee select the best of those plans. The selected plan required Merion to purchase 3 acres beyond what they had originally secured of the Johnson Farm land, which was approved by the Merion Board of Governors later that month.
That's it....
This is much ado about nada. There is not a single shred of evidence of any additional contacts, messages, phone calls, or correspondence. NONE.
By the way, Patrick, why don't you follow-up and ask David to transcribe the new "smoking gun", the now infamous Whigham Budget? Why doesn't he trust all of us to read it with our own eyes??
I need a good laugh today...thanks. ;D
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
-
Mike,
I forgot, Wayne claims that the other reason he's emailing me is because I won't return his phone calls.
I want to state, unequivocally, that I've NEVER failed to return a phone call from. Wayne or TEPaul.
The other FACT is that Wayne has NOT called me in quite some time.
Another fact is that in one of these earlier email exchanges I invited the Merionettes to call me.
I would be only too happy to take their call, as I would yours or anyone else's
My dad taught me to ALWAYS return phone calls, good, bad or neutral.
-
Mike,
Thank you for posting that.
Pat,
If CBM were an active leading participant in the design of Merion's new course I would think his "tone" would have been a great deal more inclusive. He is clearly discussing each item as the their's..."the land you propose buying"..."the most difficult problem you have"..."it would be wise for your committee to confer with the Baltusrol committee". In my opinion, as of June 29, 1910 CBM did not feel he was designing Merion.
David,
I'll address your post in the next post.
-
Jim Sullivan,
1. Your recollection of the circumstances surrounding Wayne's exit from the website is quite different than mine.
2. The mention of Whigham providing a cost estimate was NOT in the posted transcription of CBM's letter from late June 1910.
3. Regarding the routing, I agree that CBM/HJW were not solely responsible for routing the course. It seems most likely to me that they would have worked off of Barker's routing to come up with their rough routing, and then Francis/Lloyd modified the rough routing with the swap to make the holes in the corner fit, and then the details were worked out at NGLA and subsequently. If you recall, CBM mentioned that without a contour map CBM and HJW could not say for sure whether the course would fit on the land. They thought it would fit if Merion added land behind the clubhouse (likely the additional three acres for which you guys are searching,) but it apparently was going to be a tight squeeze.
Apparently Merion couldn't make the last five holes fit, thus necessitating the swap.
That all said, I don't see it is all or nothing and don't understand how you can definitively exclude CBM/HJW from the routing process based on the swap. You stated: "Regardless, if CBM had participated in actually creating the routing and couldn't figure out a way to actually fit the holes on the property as they are now, well then he doesn't get credit." Really? Such an all or nothing requirement seems rather arbitrary and penal to me. Hypothetically, what if CBM and Raynor had explained the routing they envisioned to the committee in June but when Merion tried map this out, it didn't quite fit, so Merion swapped land to lengthen 15 and 16 (and maybe 14) to make it fit? If this was the case then how could you say that CBM and Raynor were not among those responsible for the routing?
4. Regarding your suggestion that we should be discussing the actual holes, I keep throwing them in but Mike doesn't seem to be capable of discussing them in an intelligent and productive manner, and Niall and Adam did not answer my questions. While I am glad to discuss them, maybe it is for the best that the other side has been unwilling or unable to do so. I don't know that this is the right format, and I am pretty sure this is not the right thread.
That said, what is there to talk about, really? CBM's fingerprints are all over the course in terms of its design, Merion tried to build a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, a biarritz oriented double plateau, and an Eden Green. Again, there are more, but shouldn't that be more than enough? There were only four or five actual "templates" at NGLA (not coincidentally some of these same holes as at Merion.) So how many typical CBM concepts and combinations must we find at Merion before we acknowledge that Merion attempted to build a course based upon CBM's ideas?
5. Like Mike, your reading of the Hugh Wilson chapter is rather selective. He not only wrote about how CBM taught them the principles, he also wrote about how CBM taught them how to apply those principles on Merion's site. If there is any doubt, look to Alan Wilson, who is quite clear that CBM was providing valuable help planning the layout of Merion East at both NGLA and on the subsequent visit to Merion.
6. As I explain above, Mike was just guessing when he claims that it was a "rough guess at the total dollar amount" and he guessed wrong. Whigham provided a separate estimate for preparing the land and for the irrigation, and since we are not privy to his communications with Lesley's committee we don't know the amount of detail beyond this. Why would Lesley report it to the board, if Lesley thought it was nothing an unworthy and rough guess?
7. Regarding the "tone" of CBM's letter, I think you may be reading your own subjective feelings into the letter. At the very least, don't you think you are drawing a rather broad conclusion about the relationship based on what is at best a speculative interpretation? This was a letter after CBM's and HJW's first visit. It is reasonable to judge the entirety of the continuing relationship based on a letter at the opening? We know a few things that bring your conclusion into question.
- According to Merion, CBM and HJW "c[a]me over from New York" to help them. Why would they they have bothered if your reading of the "tone" is correct?
- And CBM and HJW obviously continued to be involved throughout the planning. Again, if your reading of the tone is correct, then why would they have bothered? It sure seems like they gave Merion plenty of their time and trouble, and I am not sure that is consistent with your reading of the "tone."
- Perhaps you should compare the "tone" of this letter to the tone of CBM's later letter to Wilson about agronomy matters (after the course was designed.)
8. You make a number of statements about the evolution of course with which I might not agree, among them your statement that "the Road Hole green was pretty soon altered to reduce it's implication." Here is a photo of Bobby Jones on the green from 1924. Note that orientation is as before and the expanded bunker is still very much playing the role of a hell bunker.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion19246th.jpg?t=1306893066)
1 - Fair enough...not something I'm interested in debating. I consider Wayne a friend, and I respect what you're doing on this topic so I'd rather stay out of those details.
2 - I guess you're right, I remember it being referenced at some point but can't remember the setting.
3 - I was not trying to paint an all or nothing scenario. As you know, I think the basic routing work went on in late summer and fall of 1910 prior to the cor land purchase. I also thin it's highly likely during CBM's visit they sketched some ideas of how the holes should flow. His mention of getting a little more land near the clubhouse makes that case for me. While I don't know for certain where that "little more land" is, the three acres behind the clubhouse and the three additional acres menioned in the April Board minutes are not the same because they obviously would have figured out in the meantme that the three acres of railroad land behind the clubhouse were not for sale. My suspicion is that the 3 acres referred to in April were just a more accurate remeasure of what they were buying once they had their course completely planned out...whether it was acreage devoted to roadspace or not, I think they had the general idea of buying 120 acres, subtracted 3 because of the leased railroad land and by the time they worked out the course it was 120 acrss plus the 3 of railroad land.
4 - Nobody is denying that CBM's fingerprints are all over the course, even Mike's position is just to take the opposite of your's and Pat's. You guys are suggesting that because they tried to build a handful of templates AND CBM was involved in some capacity it means CBM was calling the shots. That's as extreme as Mike suggesting that if Wilson had seen a double plateau somewhere else, that might have been his inspiration. Both arguments are seriously flawed. The source documents clearly suggest that the committee spent time learning about these template holes...that alone is almost definitely the inspiration for what they put in the Board Approved Plan AND what they initially put in the ground. That does not imply calling the shots!
5 - I forget what I said to diminish/discount CBM's efforts. I figure the committee spent their time at NGLA and back at Merion looking at and learning about the strategies and the construction techniques of a good number of template type holes...I also figure they would have their contour map with them and the topic would have been specifically where these holes could potentially go on the property.
6 - What does it say?
7 - I think they were friendly with at least a coupleof the committee members or other Merion members and were doing alot of things (for free) in alot of places to help develop the game of golf in the States...why wouldn't they come in to provide the benefit of their experiences? To suggest that Merion woulf have asked them to design their golf course and never once mention that fact is a much more eggregious claim IMO!
Can you post CBM's later letter to Wilson about agronomy matters? I don't recall seeing it. If you want it privat, send an IM and I'll respect the privacy.
8 - When I said the Road Hole, I believe I meant the Road Bunker, I'll go check and edit, but if it's enlarged and shifted to the left that's clearly a reduction of the imitation of the original, no? I do agree that your handful of different images of this hole over the last couple weeks has certainly proved to me that a real effort at a Road Hole was made...but I also think it's highly possible for someone to explain the key features to me on paper and then show them to me on the ground the next day an let me get after it...it is very possible.
-
On July 1, 1910, two days after receiving CBM's SHOCKING letter, Robert Lesley and the Merion Site Committee reported the following to the Merion Board of Governors;
Lesley first mentions that Mr. Whigham estimated the cost of putting the ground into play would be $25,000, and irrigation might cost $5,000.
Lesley goes on to say that he feels that would be a very liberal estimate, as Samuel Heebner at Whitemarsh Valley spent $12,000 the first year, and Heebner believes that he will need to spend $8,000 over the next two years, requiring a total of $20,000 for three years.
He then says that an outside estimate of the cost of doing ALL the work required to put the PROPERTY in condition, INCLUDING work on the CLUBHOUSE, and ROAD BUILDING, etc., would be between $30,000 and $40,000, but closer to the former.
THAT is the supposed smoking gun, the vaunted and much-ballyhooed "Whigham Budget". :P
So rather than accept Whigham's estimate, as David told us, Merion instead rejected his estimate as overkill.
The exact wording is in the Paul/Morrison book, so if David feels I've misrepresented what it says he can certainly quote it verbatim here as he has a copy.
But about the contents, I'm not sure why any of this should surprise anyone? ::)
Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 that not only had they gone to CBM and Whigham for advice, but also said they he/they collected all the information they could from local committees and greenkeepers.
Similarly, contemporaneous articles said that not only did Wilson go abroad in his studies, but had also studied all of the best courses in this country. The bi-level and/or multi-level green was NOT something introduced to this country by CBM.
-
Similarly, contemporaneous articles said that not only did Wilson go abroad in his studies, but had also studied all of the best courses in this country. The bi-level and/or multi-level green was NOT something introduced to this country by CBM.
Mike,
Are you actually arguing that CBM had no influence on the original hole designs?
-
Jim,
Not at all. Only that the Merion Committee's experiences and influences were broader than that and citing a specific multi-level green as evidence of CBM and calling it a Biarritz at a time when CBM had yet to build a Biarritz green himself is simply the type of egregious over-reaching and overkill that I'm challenging.
Wilson and the others were well-familiar with what Travis had done at Garden City, for instance.
Clearly, the Committee was hoping to build some template holes, no question, and after viewing CBM's versions at NGLA I'm sure they were excited to try some themselves.
Personally, I think the record shows they quickly became less enamored of trying to make the holes fit the land instead of visa versa and the idea was largely abandoned, except in principle.
-
Mike Cirba,
1. Whigham's Estimates. I answered Patrick's question above, but here it is again, this time with quotation marks and bolds so you don't miss it again. After CBM and HJW's trip in June 1910, Lesley reported, "Mr. Whigham estimated that the cost of putting the ground into condition for play would be $25,000.00, and the introduction of water $5000.00, making a very liberal estimate . . .." This is almost exactly what I wrote above.
As even you can see, your claim that Whigham provided a only single dollar amount is inaccurate. Not only that, but you are just guessing as to the level of detail (or lack thereof) Whigham provided to Lesley. You weren't privy to their communication. All we know is that, at the very least, Whigham provided a estimate of what it would cost to get the ground ready for play and an estimate for the cost of installing irrigation.
As for your demands on me to post the parts not concerning Whigham's estimate, you are just playing games. Otherwise you'd have posted the excerpt yourself instead of demanding that I do your work for you. I am not your research assistant. You certainly aren't shy about shilling for the other Merionettes, so why don't you post the entire excerpt of the report from their Faker pdf?
2. Merion's Road Hole. You are back to misrepresenting the facts, for transparent reasons. The Evans article you posted indicated that the bunker was expanded and plateau extended in 1916, not 1915 as you claim above. You fudge the year because you know that, on July 6, 1915 the same paper had described the hole as "a reproduction of the famous "road hole," the 17th hole at St. Andrews-Across-the-Pond."
Also, the same paper later noted that the work did not actually take place until the fall of 1916 and early 1917. Compare the photos from 1916 with the photos from 1924 and you can see the changes to the bunker, and you can also see that even after the expansion it was still a road hole.
As for your question, this hole was a Road Hole from the beginning, which is why the put the tee behind the corner Your claims last week that they moved the tee back there and completely redesigned this hole before the Amateur were just more misrepresentations.
__________________________________________
THAT is the supposed smoking gun, the vaunted and much-ballyhooed "Whigham Budget". :P
A typical Cirba ploy. He repeatedly pretends that I had treated the Whigham estimate as "a smoking gun" when I had not, and then has the nerve to deride it as a "supposed smoking gun."
Mike is the only one who called it that, and the only one who pretended it had been vaunted and much ballyhooed.
This is why we call him disingenuous. He is disingenuous, although that might be too kind a word for this kind of slime. He will try to twist anything and everything, no matter how absurd, to make his rhetorical point.
So rather than accept Whigham's estimate, as David told us, Merion instead rejected his estimate as overkill.
They didn't "reject[] it as overkill" it at all. It looks like they used the two estimates to set the range, and it looks like they ultimately went with the high end of the range. Whigham estimated $30k ($25k + $5K,) Heebner had spent $20k. It looks like Lesley added $10k for the other stuff onto these and Lesley came up with $30K to $40k, "probably nearer to the former." But despite Lesley's comment that he thought it would be nearer to the former, Merion ultimately went with the higher amount, $40k. (They ultimately negotiated 85k for the land and budgeted $40k for the rest, and planned to raise $125k.)
But this is all just Mike spinning his wheels with irrelevancies. My point was and is rather straight forward. There was more early communication about creating the course that just what was in the letter.
The exact wording is in the Paul/Morrison book, so if David feels I've misrepresented what it says he can certainly quote it verbatim here as he has a copy.
Are you kidding me? Mike scolds me for not producing a report from their book, and then has the nerve to rather loosely paraphrase it, and then scolds me again for not citing in verbatim.
Mike is the Merionette. Let him post the excerpt of the report from the .pdf.
The bi-level and/or multi-level green was NOT something introduced to this country by CBM.
More typical Cirba. State some misleading irrelevancy without any support whatsoever as if it means something.
-
David,
You wrote;
2. Merion's Road Hole. You are back to misrepresenting the facts, for transparent reasons. The Evans article you posted indicated that the bunker was expanded and plateau extended in 1916, not 1915 as you claim above. You fudge the year because you know that, on July 6, 1915 the same paper had described the hole as "a reproduction of the famous "road hole," the 17th hole at St. Andrews-Across-the-Pond."
Also, the same paper later noted that the work did not actually take place until the fall of 1916 and early 1917. Compare the photos from 1916 with the photos from 1924 and you can see the changes to the bunker, and you can also see that even after the expansion it was still a road hole.
As for your question, this hole was a Road Hole from the beginning, which is why the put the tee behind the corner Your claims last week that they moved the tee back there and completely redesigned this hole before the Amateur were just more misrepresentations.
David,
NOBODY knows when they built the tee behind the fence and NOBODY knows when they built the bunkering scheme to make it play like a Road Hole.
You don't, I don't, Merion doesn't.
We DO KNOW that none of the early opening articles that cited the redan and alps and "eden green" mentioned the Road Hole. None of them until 1915, as you mentioned. And I did make a mistake about the year, remembering but failing to re-read that the article stated a number of changes had been done "last year". I agree that it was early 1916, not 1915, but that wasn't intentional.
However, you are wrong when you say the work didn't get done until 1917. You are misreading the 1917 article that refers to re-grassing the "6th green", which at that time was today's fifth hole.
We know that Evans wrote early in 1916 that "this year" work was done to enlarge the 3rd green, enlarge the left front bunker, and add a bunker in the driving area.
We can also clearly see that the work was indeed accomplished prior to the US Amateur in the fall of 1916 in this schematic, and we can see indeed that the holes were numbered differently back then.
And yes, it was a road hole, as I agreed with you years ago. We just don't know when it became one.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3507806192_fb08a2d604_o.jpg)
-
David,
So you agree that Whigham did not provide Merion a "budget", and you agree as well that they didn't use his guesstimated numbers for their own estimate as you originally contended, correct?
You could have just said that and saved yourself a lot of typing.
As far as the hype around the Whigham Budget, you knew better yet let Patrick take it and run with it until I brought him back to reality today. You would have thought he'd found an extra 30 yards off the tee!!
-
Quote from Patrick
"Niall, CBM studied courses in the UK an the U.S. for 38 years prior to setting foot on Merion.
His involvement with golf is legendary.
But, since you want to diminish his expertise and accomplishments, tell me, over the last 100 years how have his design principles and the courses he designed, routed and built held up ?
A century later NGLA is still a top 10 golf course.
How do you reconcile your position that CBM, and amateur, compares to the modern GCA ?
How does CBM's body of work compare to modern day architects ?
Will their courses remain in the top echelon of golf courses a century from now ?"
Patrick, firstly not looking to knock CBM who clearly had a huge impact on Amercian golf but trying to put his ability at that time into some sort of perspective for the benefit of assessing his potential imput into Merion. Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles.
When you say CBM had been studying architecture for 38 years, do you really mean that or do you mean he had been playing for 38 years and had an opinion on what constituted a good hole and what was a bad one ? To claim he had been studying gca for 38 years is a stretch when you think he spent his working life as a stockbroker and had many years when he went back to the US when he didn't play golf due to lack of courses. That hardly sounds like a guy who spent his life on the links developing ideas. Let me tell you I've been playing for 41 years (OK only 28 as an adult :) ) and have tons of ideas about what constitutes a good feature/hole/course some of which I have developed in in exchanges on sites like this, or in discussion with other like minded souls but that does not make me a gca.
Patrick, let me ask you a question, if CBM was magically transported into todays world, who would you choose to design your course him or TD ?
Niall
-
Mike Cirba wrote:
NOBODY knows when they built the tee behind the fence and NOBODY knows when they built the bunkering scheme to make it play like a Road Hole.
Here again Mike seems to think that I need to prove to an absolute certainty that Merion did NOT redesign this hole in 1913-1915, or else he can just assume that it must have been changed during this time period. This is yet another attempt to refute the highly probable with the barely possible.There is no evidence this hole had changed at all during between 1913 and July 1915. If Mike wants to claim that there were changes, let him prove it.
Mike posted a sketch of the layout and claims it proves the changes were made prior to 1916. The trouble is I posted the photo from 1916 that contradicts the sketch.
So you agree that Whigham did not provide Merion a "budget", and you agree as well that they didn't use his guesstimated numbers for their own estimate as you originally contended, correct?
You could have just said that and saved yourself a lot of typing.
Typical Mike. He is again blatantly misrepresenting what I wrote. Disingenuous.
As far as the hype around the Whigham Budget, you knew better yet let Patrick take it and run with it until I brought him back to reality today. You would have thought he'd found an extra 30 yards off the tee!!
Patrick's comments were about whether the Merionettes were playing games with this particular report. I don't monitor the board like Mike does, but I soon as I saw Patrick's post t I told him I wasn't sure whether they had previously posted it or not. Mike took it in a totally different direction.
__________________________________________________
Niall wrote:
Patrick, firstly not looking to knock CBM who clearly had a huge impact on Amercian golf but trying to put his ability at that time into some sort of perspective for the benefit of assessing his potential imput into Merion. Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles.
Niall, I am not even sure where one would begin to address this statement, but for now let me just say that I believe you may be drastically underestimating CBM's importance to golf course architecture in America.
Also, I suspect you may be overestimating the state of knowledge of those at Merion with whom CBM and HJW were working. Wilson said they only knew as much as the average club member, and in 1910 in America that meant they didn't know much. Wilson wrote they learned more from CBM than they had learned in all their years golfing. Do you think that if you spent a few days with Tom Doak you would learn more than you had learned in all your years golfing?
Patrick, let me ask you a question, if CBM was magically transported into todays world, who would you choose to design your course him or TD ?
Not sure I can explain why, but this hypothetical strikes me as somewhat ironic given Doak's recent creation of Old Macdonald using the fundamental ideas underlying CBM's work. I am pretty sure that the course was not a homage to CBM's record as a player or an administrator.
-
1 - Fair enough...not something I'm interested in debating. I consider Wayne a friend, and I respect what you're doing on this topic so I'd rather stay out of those details.
I understand. I just wanted to put it on the record that I disagree with you on this without getting into it.
2 - I guess you're right, I remember it being referenced at some point but can't remember the setting.
3 - I was not trying to paint an all or nothing scenario. As you know, I think the basic routing work went on in late summer and fall of 1910 prior to the cor land purchase. I also thin it's highly likely during CBM's visit they sketched some ideas of how the holes should flow. His mention of getting a little more land near the clubhouse makes that case for me. While I don't know for certain where that "little more land" is, the three acres behind the clubhouse and the three additional acres menioned in the April Board minutes are not the same because they obviously would have figured out in the meantme that the three acres of railroad land behind the clubhouse were not for sale. My suspicion is that the 3 acres referred to in April were just a more accurate remeasure of what they were buying once they had their course completely planned out...whether it was acreage devoted to roadspace or not, I think they had the general idea of buying 120 acres, subtracted 3 because of the leased railroad land and by the time they worked out the course it was 120 acrss plus the 3 of railroad land.
We may be saying the same thing here. I agree with the part of your post I underlined. I agree that there are two different "three acres;" the three acres RR land and then three acres when the finally got around to doing an accurate measure of what they measure.
But when Lesley referred to "acquiring three acres additional" in April, I assume he was still talking about the RR land. Here is what he reportedly wrote:
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.
I may be wrong, but I think he means that in order to do what CBM wants us to do, we need to add the three acres near the clubhouse. And the same day the board reportedly approved the purchase of "about three acres additional to cost about $7500.00." I think this was the RR land, but they ended up leasing it, not purchasing it.
Should be easy enough to determined by looking at the purchases. I can't remember if they ever actually paid $7500 for the additional three acres that we think was due to a more accurate measurement. What did they end up paying for the 120 acres? It wasn't $92.5K (85k+7.5k), was it? I don't remember offhand.
4 - Nobody is denying that CBM's fingerprints are all over the course, even Mike's position is just to take the opposite of your's and Pat's. You guys are suggesting that because they tried to build a handful of templates AND CBM was involved in some capacity it means CBM was calling the shots. That's as extreme as Mike suggesting that if Wilson had seen a double plateau somewhere else, that might have been his inspiration. Both arguments are seriously flawed.
I disagree with your statement that no one is denying CBM's extensive influence. The Merionettes have been denying that CBM's fingerprints are on the course for years. While it is foolish for them to continue to do so, they don't seem to have stopped. Look at Mike's ridiculous speculation regarding "multi-teir greens" and his lame attempts to distance Merion's Road hole from CBM.
Perhaps we are still caught up on the "calling the shots" terminology. Let me see if I can find some middle ground.
CBM and HJW didn't work for Merion. They did not build the course for Merion. They were expert advisors, and advised Merion on what land to acquire and how to create a first class course on that land. Merion could accept or reject CBM's and HJW's advice as Merion saw fit. So in a very real sense it was Merion who ultimately "called the shots" in that they they were not formally bound in any way to follow the expert advice of CBM and HJW.
This is why in his letter CBM wrote "your course," "your committee," and the land "you propose" buying. It was not CBM's course and he wasn't going to build them their course and he wasn't going to grow grass for them. He was an expert advisor. He would tell them how, but they would ultimately build it themselves.
That said, CBM and HJW were among the foremost experts on this sort of thing, and had just pioneered a rather novel approach to creating first class golf courses. And Merion recognized the value of CBM's and HJW's expert advice and acted accordingly. In other words, they listened to CBM and HJW for the same reason they brought in CBM and HJW in the first place, and the same reason they traveled to NGLA to work on the layout plan, and the same reason that the had CBM and HJW come back down to Merion to choose the final plan. Merion wanted the best and these guys were the best. They were the foremost authorities and Merion had great respect for this and followed their advice. That is why CBM's fingerprints all over the course. Because Merion was deferring to their authority on these matters. That is all I mean when I say that CBM and HJW were calling the shots. Merion recognized them as authorities on these matters and deferred to their opinion. Just like patients/clients follow advice from their doctors and lawyers.
The source documents clearly suggest that the committee spent time learning about these template holes...that alone is almost definitely the inspiration for what they put in the Board Approved Plan AND what they initially put in the ground. That does not imply calling the shots!
They did spend time learning about the concepts from CBM. Wilson would have needed to have some understanding of these concepts to build his versions of the holes. But if he was only was interested in the general concepts he could have simply read Whigham's Scribner's Article and CBM's Outing article. Why go all the way to NGLA and burden CBM for two days when they just could have read a few articles?
Hugh Wilson told us that he didn't just learn concepts, he also learned how to apply those concepts at Merion. This is where I think CBM was providing direct influence over the design. Remember how CBM needed a contour map back in June? Well they had a contour map by March and were at NGLA with Charles Macdonald, who had already been over their land! I think it unreasonable to believe they weren't working on how CBM's concepts could specifically apply at Merion. Especially given what Hugh and Alan Wilson wrote.
Your position and that of others seems to artificially bifurcate what happened at NGLA from what happened after NGLA. I think it makes more sense to read it as a continuation of a process. They were working on the plan at NGLA and when they got back, based on what they had done at NGLA, they rearranged the course (the routing) and came up with five different plans (the details and/or alternatives.) In other words I don't think it reasonable to believe that "rearranging the course" had nothing to do with the planning that went on at NGLA. Likewise regarding the five plans. Do you really suppose that they hadn't come up with at least some of this stuff at NGLA, do you?
But the kicker for me is that Merion brought them back to the site to again go over the land. If CBM was only teaching them principles, then his job was done at NGLA and there was no need to go over the land for a second time. Why would they again go down to Merion and again go over the land and the various potential options if they had not been involved in the planning up to that point? And, by itself, isn't going over the land and various alternatives and choosing the final plan an extremely integral part of the planning process?
Likewise, with regard to the first letter, if CBM and HJW were NOT involved in the specifically locating the holes on the property, then why bring up the need for contour map? For what would they have used a contour map, except to see whether the holes they had in mind would actually fit? And how would CBM have ven estimated what was possible had he not considered if holes would fit? If he hadn't considered how the holes would fit, then at what was he looking when he was wandering over the land? And how did he know they would need more land by the clubhouse?
In both instances there is more than just general advice or principles, there is strong indication that CBM was teaching them what to do with their land.
5 - I forget what I said to diminish/discount CBM's efforts. I figure the committee spent their time at NGLA and back at Merion looking at and learning about the strategies and the construction techniques of a good number of template type holes...I also figure they would have their contour map with them and the topic would have been specifically where these holes could potentially go on the property.
I think what you said was at NGLA they were studying principles. I agree with this but note that they were also learning how to apply those principles to their land. I think that both Hugh and Alan indicate that they were working applying these principles to Merion's natural conditions. In other words, they were working on the layout plan and how to create the holes planned.
6 - What does it say?
"Mr. Whigham estimated that the cost of putting the ground into condition for play would be $25,000.00, and the introduction of water $5000.00, making a very liberal estimate . . .."
7 - I think they were friendly with at least a coupleof the committee members or other Merion members and were doing alot of things (for free) in alot of places to help develop the game of golf in the States...why wouldn't they come in to provide the benefit of their experiences? To suggest that Merion woulf have asked them to design their golf course and never once mention that fact is a much more eggregious claim IMO!
I think you are speculating as to whether they were friends or not at this point (although I think some of them may have become friends at some point.)
I also think you are putting this in a modern context. It doesn't surprise me that they didn't refer to CBM as "the designer" or "architect" of Merion, and I don't think it was a slight. At the time they didn't call Wilson or anyone else the "designer" or "architect" either. It wasn't really they way they described such things. I think CBM/HJW advised them how to build the course, but to Merion creating the course was the really big deal. While CBM was rapidly changing this, designing golf courses hadn't yet become appreciated in the way we appreciate it. That is why this early stuff is so difficult to figure out.
8 - When I said the Road Hole, I believe I meant the Road Bunker, I'll go check and edit, but if it's enlarged and shifted to the left that's clearly a reduction of the imitation of the original, no? I do agree that your handful of different images of this hole over the last couple weeks has certainly proved to me that a real effort at a Road Hole was made...but I also think it's highly possible for someone to explain the key features to me on paper and then show them to me on the ground the next day an let me get after it...it is very possible.
I think that the 1924 photo shows the expanded bunker and it still looks like a road hole to me.
I also think here you may be trying to trump what is likely with what is "possible."
- Let's assume it was "possible" to explain the road hole to to a self described novice, show it to them then next day, and then have them get at it.
- Wasn't it at least as "possible" that CBM explained the road hole to them, show his Road Hole to them then next day, showed them on a contour map where to put theirs, then went there to the and make sure they got it right and that it was going to work, and then told them to get at it?
It seems reasonable to me to think that CBM played a role in placing these holes. I'll go further and say it seems unreasonable to think that he did not play a role in placing these holes.
-
David,
Why wouldn't you quote the entire paragraph related to the supposed Whigham Budget that sent Patrick into a whirling dervish of accusations and triumphant proclamations?
After all, you are the one who told everyone that Whigham provided Merion with a budget that they followed. This is what you wrote;
Second, I believe CBM and HJW did send him the same construction crew they had used at NGLA --Pickering and Johnson Construction. CBM also sent them to Piper and Oakley. Whigham estimated their budget for them. (This may be the one thing I learned about Merion from the Faker book. Thanks guys!)
and then later...
Mike makes a big deal about how Lesley also mentions how much it cost Mr. Heebner to build Whitemarsh. So what? But I wonder if Mike noticed that Heebner's estimate was on the low end when compared to Whigham's and Merion apparently trusted HJW and went with the high end.
So please produce the entire segment David...I'm sure everyone is curious to see it.
Also, you wrote;
They did spend time learning about the concepts from CBM. Wilson would have needed to have some understanding of these concepts to build his versions of the holes. But if he was only was interested in the general concepts he could have simply read Whigham's Scribner's Article and CBM's Outing article. Why go all the way to NGLA and burden CBM for two days when they just could have read a few articles?
Hugh Wilson told us that he didn't just learn concepts, he also learned how to apply those concepts at Merion. This is where I think CBM was providing direct influence over the design. Remember how CBM needed a contour map back in June? Well they had a contour map by March and were at NGLA with Charles Macdonald, who had already been over their land! I think it unreasonable to believe they weren't working on how CBM's concepts could specifically apply at Merion. Especially given what Hugh and Alan Wilson wrote.
Why would they need to go to NGLA? Why, to see Macdonald's amazing golf course, I'd think! What better classroom than to see Macdonald's application of the principles espoused in those magazines in person for themselves?
As far as how Merion's Committee learned how to apply those principles to their natural conditions in Philadelphia?
Here's what Hugh Wilson said about that;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
I think if he was sitting there with a contour map having CBM show them where to place the holes (essentially route the Merion course) that Wilson would have said exactly that.
I think if Merion went to NGLA to have CBM work on their routing on a map that Hugh Wilson would have said that.
That's not what he said, is it?
No, he said "through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad, we learned what was right and WHAT WE SHOULD TRY TO ACCOMPLISH with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes."
Not a single word about working on Merion's routing, is there?
Not even an intimation, or suggestion, or hint.
Do you think he would purposefully omit that critical information if indeed it had happened as you suggest? Why would he ever do that??
-
Mike,
I've provided my take on the Whigham estimated budget repeatedly. I never expected you to agree or even understand it. But stop with this endless game playing. If you want to post the entire passage, then post it. I am not stopping you.
As for the rest, you still don't understand what Hugh Wilson was talking about, but that should be of no surprise to anyone. either. Alan Wilson confirms my reading. They were working on the layout plan.
-
David,
Was Alan Wilson at NGLA? I don't believe he was.
In any case, here's what he wrote on the matter in 1926 when asked for his remembrances for a Merion History Book;
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR PLANS. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman. (caps for emphasis mine)
-
Mike,
Contemporaneously, was Alan Wilson connected in any way with the creation of Merion ?
Did he sit on the Board ?
Was he part of the construction committee ?
Was he a member of Merion ?
Did he attend any of the meetings with Macdonald ?
-
Patrick,
In answer to your questions;
1) Yes, his brother and business partner Hugh was the primary architect of both golf courses as they were designed and built over a period of four years.
2) Very possibly, as he was one of the Philadelphia "old guard" going back to the earliest days of the game in the city, but I'm not certain.
3) No
4) Yes, for a number of years at that point, although he had been a member of Philadelphia Country Club for a number of years prior and played on their golf team in GAP matches for a number of years.
5) There is no record of that, and Hugh Wilson tells us that his Committee visited NGLA, so it's almost certain that Alan Wilson wasn't at that meeting.
William Philler, who was the long-time Treasurer of Merion (as far back as 1903 and perhaps longer) asked Alan Wilson to write his remembrances of the beginning of the two Merion courses in 1926.
That fact is very pertinent considering that at the time, everyone else on the Merion Committee; Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin, were all still alive and members of the club as was Robert Lesley.
To therefore suggest that Alan Wilson had no inside knowledge of the events surrounding the architecture and creation of the two courses is pretty preposterous.
Also alive at the time were CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham.
This is what Alan Wilson also wrote about his brother's role;
On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course.
-
To therefore suggest that Alan Wilson had no inside knowledge of the events surrounding the architecture and creation of the two courses is pretty preposterous.
So then why do you ignore Alan Wilson when he tells us that at NGLA, CBM and HJW were advising them "as to the layout of Merion East" and that their advice and suggestions were of "the greatest help and value?"
I've never understood why you think you can pick and choose within this letter, or even why you think that this Alan Wilson letter helps your case. Even your fellow Merionettes realized that this letter was ultimately damning to their claims. Why else would they have conveniently deleted the phrase "as to the layout of Merion East" when they presented their transcription of the letter here?
While obviously written to emphasize the contributions of his recently deceased brother, even Alan Wilson cannot help but place CBM and HJW in the thick of the design process. He credits the Committee with everything except for what CBM and HJW contributed. Of the Committee, Wilson was the person in the main responsible.
I agree with with him on both points.
-
Somewhat ironically, given the nature of these discussions that shamelessly seeks to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of what all these men recorded in their own time, this is the cover page of what Alan Wilson wrote to Mr. Philler;
Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. Wilson
-
David,
No one is arguing that CBM and Whigham didn't provide valuable "advice and suggestions" to the Committee about the design of their golf course.
Everyone told us they did...both Wilson brothers, Robert Lesley, AW Tilinghast, "Far and Sure", and William Evans, also I believe. Richard Francis never mentioned them, but clearly enough evidence exists from the others to solidify their role.
I think you're wrong in suggesting that I don't believe that, because if I ever thought otherwise I've learned differently and stated it as fact myself here.
The problem begins when we try to overreach and then suggest that Wilson and his Committee's role was strictly construction and agronomy, and that they were simply tasked to build the course to someone else's plans.
That was the theme of your essay, it still exists as the "Synopsis" statement on this site, and I believe that the evidence shows that they in fact routed and designed the golf course with helpful advice and suggestions from CBM and HJ Whigham.
If you no longer believe that Wilson's role was strictly construction, then I think you should update your essay, frankly, because a lot has been learned and revealed since you first wrote it, evidence not available to you at that time.
But, that's your choice, obviously.
-
Mike one of the many ironies of these discussions is that you have spent hundreds of hours attacking me and my IMO, but you never bothered to actually take the time to try understand it. You seem to have blown a fuse somewhere in the middle of the synopsis and never read any further, because you guys only cite the synopsis and never show any understanding of anything beyond that.
I have always maintained that Wilson and CBM were working on the details of the plan at NGLA. From the essay: ". . . it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald. . ."
-
Mike,
Your mention of David's piece got me to go back to read it again. It is quite a remarkable piece that could have been the basis for positive updating. Unfortunately much of what has followed is personal attacks.
-
David,
I've read your essay at least five times start to finish and if I fail to understand it properly I don't think the fault lies with me.
But, I think these paragraphs are pretty clear;
Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. (bold mine) H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course. Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East.
...
And again in the body...
Or so the story goes. But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality. In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East. The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course. They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.
Mike Malone,
While I think that's regrettable, I think both sides took some extreme positions, but I also think that was due to many suppositions being presented as factual and the fact that there was already a contentious history between several of the participants that led to this point.
-
The fault does lie with you Mike. Because even when I explicitly tell you what I think and what I thought, you come back and tell me that you know what I think better than I do.
For example, above I told you that I have always maintained that Wilson and CBM were working on the details of the plan at NGLA, and cited from my essay where I say ". . . it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald. . ." Yet you ignore this and once again return to quoting from the synopsis and not only ignoring the rest of the essay, ignoring me when I tell you exactly what I mean.
This is disingenuous Mike. It is crap. I've explained myself to you repeatedly, but you have an agenda and it has nothing to do with trying to understand my point or giving my ideas a fair shake. You are a homer of the worst sort.
-
David,
Was Hugh Wilson and his committee responsible for creating the golf course routing? Yay or nay?
-
"Niall wrote:
Quote
Patrick, firstly not looking to knock CBM who clearly had a huge impact on Amercian golf but trying to put his ability at that time into some sort of perspective for the benefit of assessing his potential imput into Merion. Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles.
Niall, I am not even sure where one would begin to address this statement, but for now let me just say that I believe you may be drastically underestimating CBM's importance to golf course architecture in America.
Also, I suspect you may be overestimating the state of knowledge of those at Merion with whom CBM and HJW were working. Wilson said they only knew as much as the average club member, and in 1910 in America that meant they didn't know much. Wilson wrote they learned more from CBM than they had learned in all their years golfing. Do you think that if you spent a few days with Tom Doak you would learn more than you had learned in all your years golfing?
Quote
Patrick, let me ask you a question, if CBM was magically transported into todays world, who would you choose to design your course him or TD ?
Not sure I can explain why, but this hypothetical strikes me as somewhat ironic given Doak's recent creation of Old Macdonald using the fundamental ideas underlying CBM's work. I am pretty sure that the course was not a homage to CBM's record as a player or an administrator."
David,
First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?
Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?
What those two questions are aimed at are at addressing the question debated by myself and Patrick on whether the gulf between the Merion Committee and CBM (and HJW) was as great say as between myself and TD or JB or RH (why shouldn't living gca's be known by their initials ;D ) at the time of when Merion was designed and built. Now they say that in a debate, you shouldn't ask a question unless you know the answer, well in this case I am sticking my neck out on these two questions. I can tell you that as far as the British golfing press were concerned CBM's fame prior to NGLA was entirely based on his rep as a player and dare I say the grand old man of US golf. I can also say that in reference to stories about NGLA they referred to CBM and his rep as a player and administrator. I can't recall any articles referring to him as a gca. The press in the US may have said something completely different and all CBM's best work maybe was pre Merion, I don't know, but would be interested to hear.
As an aside, as someone who has undertaken some formal study in gca I'm pretty sure that a modern practising gca with the experience of those previously mentioned could still teach me a damn sight more than CBM could the Merion Committee.
Niall
-
David,
Was Hugh Wilson abd his committee responsible for creating the golf course routing? Yay or nay?
Mike,
I am not here to answer your quizzes or play your games. I have repeatedly explained how I think the routing progressed, starting with Barker, possibly modified or changed by CBM and HJW, modified Francis and Lloyd with the swap for the land up in the corner. In other words, I think that there was a rough routing in place before Wilson became involved in the project. Wilson and his committee probably had input into in when be came on board, but then CBM and HJW had further input into it as well. As far as who was responsible? Well as I read Robert Lesley, it was CBM and HJW who were responsible for determining the final routing plan.
I know you disagree and I know why you disagree, and I don't care. I don't want to backtrack and go through this with you again. You are incapable of reasonably discussing it. I have no respect for you or your opinions.
-
David,
Thank you for your answer.
Francis tells us at the time of his brainstorm the first 13 holes were already routed and he helped solve the puzzle of fitting the last five so I'm not sure what you mean by a "rough routing" if you still believe that all happened before Nov 15, 1910?
Presuming Francis was accurate and a finalized routing resulted from his efforts, then your answer to my question would still be "no", Wilson's committee was not responsible for creating the routing, correct?
-
Niall,
The gap between CBM and the committee was enormous.
Wilson stated that their knowledge base was equivalent to the average member in 1910.
CBM had designed the first 18 hole course in the U.S. and had designed NGLA which was already world renknowned.
CBM had studied for 38 years prior to Merion.
He had visited and studied the great courses in the U.K. and the U.S. and belonged to several of them.
1. Do you feel that your knowledge of Golf course architecture is equivalent to that of the average member of any golf course ?
2. Or, superior to it ?
If it's # 2, you've answered your own question.
If you answer # 1, you're being disingenuous ;D
Hope that helps
-
David,
First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?
Niall, you had written: "Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles." I took this to mean his overall reputation, and that you were not limiting it to is reputation in 1910.
Still, as strange as it may sound, his reputation was well established as the leading figure in golf design in America even in 1910. He had created the first eighteen hole course at Chicago, had been instrumental in getting other courses going in the Chicago area, and reportedly advised clubs up and down the eastern seaboard about their own courses. Plus, due to his successes, his personality, his experience in St. Andrews, his dual positions at the USGA and the Royal and Ancient, his relationships with the leading clubs and men in the game, etc., he was considered one of the foremost experts on all things golf, including courses. (Likewise, in addition to being a Champion golfer Whigham was also prominent in the development of some of the Chicago clubs, and because of this, his famous golf lineage, his writing, and his extensive experience in golf world wide, he was also considered expert on golf courses.)
And then there was NGLA. Like Pine Valley, NGLA was one of those courses which became famous before it was even completed. Only moreso. NGLA was famous before they even had a location. I believe the first article I found on the course dates to 1904, and from then on, papers around the country followed the progress. The 1906 trip abroad was covered here and abroad, and contributed to his notoriety. By the time CBM penned his "Ideal Golf Links" article in 1906, and the land was finally found and purchased in 1906-1907, and the course developed over the next few years, it was world famous in golf circles and CBM was famous for having brought it to fruition.
You have to understand that, before NGLA, it was widely believed that there were no truly first class courses in the United States. Long before it was even completed, NGLA was not only expected to be the best course in America, it was expected to be the first World Class golf course in the US. And by 1910, it was already well on its way to fulfilling those expectations. And over its first few years of existence even a number of British experts - Hutchinson, Darwin, Ben Sayers, and others - pronounced it as good (if not better) than the best links courses. And it wasn't just that it was better, it was different. It represented a new approach to golf design based on patterning holes after the strategic principles underlying the great links courses. It instantly became the model for how things ought to be done here. In fact it became the model before it was even completed.
With someone as prominent as CBM in golf, it is difficult to divvy up his reputation between different areas. But by 1910 he 15 years beyond his prime as a player and the USGA had been long established. But CBM was known as the man behind NGLA and in golf course design this made him the the most prominent figure in America.
Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?
Not sure I agree with your presumption. While he was involved with a number of great courses, I think his prominence in golf course architecture was based primarily upon NGLA. As for other courses before and after he is known for building the first 18 hole course and the Lido was quite a big deal when it was created and for a long time after, but I don't think anything compared to NGLA. NGLA changed the game. NGLA paved the way for the golden age and it set the stage for everything following, his courses and everyone else's as well.
What those two questions are aimed at are at addressing the question debated by myself and Patrick on whether the gulf between the Merion Committee and CBM (and HJW) was as great say as between myself and TD or JB or RH
I understand, but I may even be further away from you on this than Patrick. I don't think you understand just how revolutionary NGLA was, and how it changed golf design in America. It wasn't just that NGLA was good golf course, it was an new approach to creating golf courses, at least over here. The change was so dramatic and successful that it almost completely wiped the previous era off the map. Much of that old "dark ages" stuff was other significantly altered, plowed under, or abandoned. New courses were built with an eye to strategy and ideas and interesting golf. NGLA ushered in the golden age of design over here. It started a whole new conversation. It changed the entire context.
No doubt golf design has changed since CBM built NGLA. It has certainly become more complicated. But I am not so sure that the core principles of what makes a golf course great have changed all that much. At least not compared to the changes that NGLA helped create.
Here is one way to think about it. When it comes to what makes them great, I think Tom Doak's courses have much more in common with NGLA than NGLA had in common with most of the courses in the US at the time. If reports were correct, then this was especially true of courses in and around Philadelphia. That is how significant was the change.
So in 1910 when you compare CBM to average clubman, you are likely comparing across eras. You are likely comparing someone with an enlightened view of what a golf course could be to someone who probably hadn't considered it much at all. You are likely comparing someone who had not only played great courses he had actually studied them and figured out what made them great, with someone who played most their golf on "dark ages" golf courses and probably didn't give these things much thought one way or another. These weren't common ideas. At this time, a golf course wasn't yet considered art. It wasn't a means to express sophisticated strategic concepts which had proven successful over centuries.
When Wilson said he had learned more from CBM in than he had in all his years of golf, I don't think he was exaggerating.
Just for fun, and to give you an idea of what passed for cutting edge architecture before in Philadelphia before CBM helped Wilson and co design Merion, here are few photos of a few changes made to Huntington Valley in 1909.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC14th.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC17th.jpg)
-
This is a part of what Bernard Darwin wrote about CBM at the time of his death:
"If any one man can be called the father of American golf, Mr. Macdonald has a first claim to the paternity of that lusty infant that is still growing out of its clothes at so amazing a rate. He was the first official amateur champion of the United States, after having been runner-up in both of the two unofficial championships of 1894. He is the designer of two out of the three greatest courses in America and of a number of others of lesser but still considerable renown. And, more than all this, he has breathed into the game all over the country something of his own feeling for it, for its friendliness and its vigor and the spirit in which it should be played.
Mr. Macdonald, as a golfer, should be considered in three different characters: as a founder and prophet of the game in America, as a player of it, and as a creator of golf courses...."
-
First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?
Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?
In late 1910 there were two golf architectural projects that were being hailed as cutting edge and potentially revolutionary: the building of the NGLA and the redesign of GCGC. Those projects received more attention and publicity than any projects before in American history. As a result, during the early 1910s, CBM and Travis (though his proxy Barker) became the two most prominent figures in golf architecture in America and were in great demand for their talents.
-
I agree with Tom MacWood, but would also add Myopia and am a bit surprised to see him make a point I argued some time back.
Many of the foreign luminaries who came to these shores cited Myopia as equal to courses in their homeland, and superior to the other American courses by a long shot.
So yes, by 1910 the three best courses in the US were Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA, with probably Ekwanok, and perhaps Chicago a rung behind, ALL courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen architects.
Interestingly, strategic golf had been widely discussed among American luminaries like Travis for a number of years, and he and Donald Ross were doing cool stuff at Pinehurst by then, even with the deficit of sand greens.
Certainly NGLA was a landmark achievement that set the bar with the idea of creating 18 ideal holes, but strategic golf was already being practiced and written about fairly extensively by then.
I guess a good question is simply this...if CBM had never built NGLA, would Donald Ross, Walter Travis, Alister Mackenzie, Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, the Fownes family, George Crump, Harry Colt, and many others have arrived at the classic age of golf regardless? We'll never know, but it is both undeniable that NGLA set a new standard, and that it perhaps rode a wave whose momentum was already inevitable given the leading thinkers of the game at that time.
-
David,
I know you're smart enough to realize an obvious contradiction in your stated opinions here, so I hope we can have this discussion.
On one hand, you contend that the Francis Swap and thus the routing of Merion was completed before November 15, 1910.
Francis himself tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the first 13 holes were already in place and after Mr. Lloyd agreed with his idea, the last five fell into place and workmen were out on the property in the next day or two blasting the site for the 16th green.
So, whatever we know, we know that this was not a "rough routing". We know that Francis' idea created the FINAL routing.
We also know he found it while looking at a map, and was a surveyor/engineer, so it was obviously a drawing exercise, not a construction one, and from the nature of his work it is unlikely that he was being imprecise. Francis also tells us that at the time of his idea, the land across the street from the clubhouse was not being used "for any golf plans" (plural), so there were more than one still in play.
So if you believe that all happened before November 15th, 1910, and you cite as your evidence the existence of a long, narrow triangle (95x320) on the north end of the November 15, 1910 Land Plan drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, then that begs a lot of questions, does it not?
For instance;
1) There is absolutely NO evidence of any activity on the property by CBM and Whigham between July and November 1910. Not a single word written, and we KNOW they didn't visit during that time. There is no mention of any further correspondence in any of the paperwork submitted to Merion's Board of Governors in November of that month, only the initial one-day site visit in June of that year. If the course was routed during that time as you contend, what exactly is your evidence that CBM and Whigham did it?
2) We know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after "laying out many different courses" prior to their visit to NGLA, Wilson's committee went up to NGLA in early March and spent the night viewing sketches of the best holes abroad and learning about their principles from CBM. We also know they spent the next day on the ground touring NGLA. If the routing was already completed FIVE MONTHS prior as you contend, then what did this exercise have to do with placing template holes at specific locations on the ground at Merion?!?
3) We also know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after their return from NGLA, Wilson's Committee "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans". We also know that this was not "laying out holes on the ground, but instead on paper, because the Minutes go on to say that CBM and Whigham came down on April 7th, and "after looking over the plans, and the ground itself", they determined that the best one would yield the best seven finishing holes of any inland course they'd seen. Further evidence that those plans drawn by the Committee were laid out on paper is simply that they were attached and "submitted here-with" to the Board of Governors at the April meeting. If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, as you seemingly still contend, why would CBM need to come to Merion in April and help them pick the best of their five routing plans??
4) Further evidence that the selected routing plan presented to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th, 1911 was on paper is evidenced in what was known as the "Thompson Resolution". Remember, it is now FIVE MONTHS after the course was supposedly FINAL routed based on what you've argued was the timing of the Francis Swap, prior to November 15th, 1910, presumably to purposefully preclude Hugh Wilson's involvement in that routing. So after ALL of that time, and after promising HDC that they would get right to work on the golf course as soon as the paper's were signed, and supposedly with an already routed golf course, why would Merion in April 1911 still be debating routings? The Thompson Resolution reads; "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground (so much for Tom MacWood's contention that there was already a golf course staked out on the ground when Hugh Wilson began work in January - comments mine) which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of three acres additional ...". Given that it's clear that as of April 19th, 1911 there was 1) No golf course "on the ground", and 2) still discussion and needed approvals of the final layout plan, and 3) clear documentation that the Committee authored the plans in question, with CBM's advice and suggestions, would you still contend that the Francis Swap and thus the final routing took place before November 15th, 1910?
While you contend that 1) I don't understand, and 2) I continually misrepresent your essay, I'm only reading what you wrote, David, and what still exists on your Opinion piece on this website.
For instance, your main contention is that the Francis Swap and thus the golf course routing was completed before November 15, 1910, and on that basis you seek to exclude Hugh Wilson from any routing credit.
That's a fact. It is indisputable.
Here is your summation of the routing of the golf course;
Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed.
Here again is your synopsis and another paragraph from the body of your essay.
Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. (bold mine) H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course. Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East.
...
And again in the body...
Or so the story goes. But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality. In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East. The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course. They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.
I'm not sure how that can possibly be misconstrued?
-
Patrick/Niall,
Hugh Wilson, who if you know anything about him was a very humble, self-effacing man who eschewed the spotlight. In many ways, he was almost the opposite of CB Macdonald in temperament and demeanor.
This 1924 article give some insight into his persona;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3395607670_bf47d8aac8_z.jpg?zz=1)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3467/3394799759_66496a75ef_z.jpg?zz=1)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3394802335_bfcbd84bc8_z.jpg?zz=1)
In 1916, he was asked to write an article about golf course agronomy by Piper and Oakley. In that article, he included the line, which has been used out of context for political hay here repeatedly and without any real understanding;
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out if we had realized one-half the things we did not know."
Now, when one considers all the letter from Wilson to P&O from February 1911 onwards related to soil types, fertilizer, manure mixes, grasses, seed merchants, etc., one would know EXACTLY what he's talking about.
Virtually ALL of these men had prior experience in course construction back around the turn of the century. However, those were relatively primitive courses, and much had been learned in the evolving state of golf course agronomy and construction techniques in the ensuing decade, so yes, to that extent they all were very much just learning about construction and agronomy techniques when they started the project.
BUT, one bright note Wilson then goes on to cite, shifting gears;
"Our ideals were high, and fortunately, we did get a good start in the principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham."
And how did they convey those principles??
"Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural (inland - comment mine) conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes."
Once again, you'll note that there is not a single mention of any time spent laying out the Merion course, or even discussing their project in anything but general terms of how you might want to apply the principles of holes.
The Merion Committee members were five of the six best golfers in the club (by handicap) out of a membership roll in the hundreds.
Each had long history in Philadelphia golf, Griscom and Toulmin had been involved in design effort in early courses, Griscom had been the Chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since its inception, and Francis had surveying skills. Wilson had been on the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior/Senior years of college while a new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.
If these men had the knowledge of "average members", then the state of American golf in 1910 was far beyond what it is today! ;) ;D
To not recognize what Wilson was actually trying to convey in very modest terms is to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what he wrote as well as an ignorance of the history of the men on the Merion committee.
Here's the relevant parts of the article...the rest is about soil issues and growing grass.
Note the title;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
-
Niall,
The gap between CBM and the committee was enormous.
Wilson stated that their knowledge base was equivalent to the average member in 1910.
CBM had designed the first 18 hole course in the U.S. and had designed NGLA which was already world renknowned.
CBM had studied for 38 years prior to Merion.
He had visited and studied the great courses in the U.K. and the U.S. and belonged to several of them.
1. Do you feel that your knowledge of Golf course architecture is equivalent to that of the average member of any golf course ?
2. Or, superior to it ?
If it's # 2, you've answered your own question.
If you answer # 1, you're being disingenuous ;D
Hope that helps
Patrick
On the first point, that the Merion Committee knew as much about course design as the average club member I tend to think that the members of that Committee would likely have been ahead of the game given there previous limited experience in other golf projects, and that Wilson's later comment was borne out of a natural modesty as Mike suggests.
However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM. We've gone back and forwards on this one a couple of times now and I doubt either of us will change out position so suggest we agree to differ.
One other point, following last nights post I took the opportunity to flick through Scotlands Gift and particularly the section on NGLA where he says he started examining the classic courses in the UK during several trips to UK starting from 1902. So I would suggest that this was when any serious study started as opposed to 1872.
Niall
-
Patrick/Niall,
Hugh Wilson, who if you know anything about him was a very humble, self-effacing man who eschewed the spotlight. In many ways, he was almost the opposite of CB Macdonald in temperament and demeanor.
Mike, I just finished reading the exact same drivel from TEPaul in an email a few minutes ago, of which you were copied, so please stop being a shill, parroting TEPaul's every word.
If the committee was sophisticated, then Wilson lied in his contemporaneous desription of their lack of ability, comparing them to the average member. And, if he lied about that, what else did he lie about ? False in one, false in many !
And, if he lied about that,
;
To not recognize what Wilson was actually trying to convey in very modest terms is to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what he wrote as well as an ignorance of the history of the men on the Merion committee.
Now you're saying that Wilson was a moron, that he didn't know how to convey his thoughts. That he misrepresented the abilities of himself and his committee members when it came to architecture and building a golf course
Here's the relevant parts of the article...the rest is about soil issues and growing grass.
We know how flawed newspaper articles are.
I prefer to take Wilson at his written word, unless of course you and the Merionettes feel that he was lying.
You can't have it both ways.
Either Wilson was telling the truth about the committee's abilties or he was lying.
And, if he was lying, what else did he lie about ?
-
Patrick
A couple of other things I wanted to say but posted before I remembered to write them was firstly, in previous posts you have suggested that the Merion Committee would have needed CBM to route the course because of the difficulty of routing a course on that tight a site, I paraphrase but that is the gist of what you have said I believe.
From memory the Merion course is situated on c.120 acres of gently rolling land which is of a regular shape, or probably more accurately two adjoining regularly shaped sites. Certainly the quarry and the brook would have provided some constraint but that would have been outweighed by the opportunity they offered as features to the course. For courses back then 120 acres wasn't really that tight a site, and neither was it unusual for clubs to do it themselves without reference to CBM. After all, I doubt CBM routed every course course of 120 acres back then because he was the only one that could.
Secondly, I also seem to recall TD making some comment on one of the earlier Merion threads that it wouldn't be that difficult to route a course on the land at Merion.
Niall
-
Patrick,
You're now accusing not only me, but Hugh Wilson of lying. You grow increasingly hysterical and desperate in the face of actual facts and evidence and the fact is that Hugh Wilson and his committee were NOT and did NOT have the knowledge of average members but were in fact humble, gracious gentlemen, and not self-promoting blowhards.
Your complete ignorance of golf course history is only matched by the misplaced arrogance of your arguments.
Do you think the man who had been chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since 1896, and whose committee had designed the second nine holes and modified the first nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course, Rodman Griscom, had the knowledge of the average club member in construction and agronomy?
How about Dr. Harry Toulmin, who had been one of the earliest founders of golf in the city and had co-designed the original Aronimink course (when the club was known as Belmont)?
What about Engineeer/Surveyor Richard Francis? Another ignorant club member?
How about Hugh Wilson, who had been on the Green Committee at Princeton for two years while their new Willie Dunn course was being built?
What about HG Lloyd, who had served on the Merion Green Committee since at least 1903?
Average Club Member?? Are you kidding me??
Now, did they know the latest in grasses, fertilizers, construction techniques? No, they didn't, and it's clear that's what Wilson was talking about.
Patrick, you really need to get a grip and try to learn something here.
-
Mike it is you who portrays Hugh Wilson as a liar, not Patrick. Patrick is taking him at his word.
Likewise it is you who won't believe what Alan Wilson wrote. Or H.J. Whigham. Or A Findlay. Or Francis. Etc.
You guys just twist away all the statements you don't like and in the process you disrespect the words of your supposed heros.
-
David,
Drop the agenda and constant insults and quit ducking the obvious questions I've outlined in post #2270.
The rest of your constant feigned outrage and indignation are simply a smoke screen, and neither you or Patrick or Tom MacWood have a shred of evidence which is why we see all this bluster and flurry from you, signifying nothing.
By the way, what were those 1909 pictures of the Willie Campbell designed original Huntingdon Valley GC supposed to add to this discussion?
-
Patrick
On the first point, that the Merion Committee knew as much about course design as the average club member I tend to think that the members of that Committee would likely have been ahead of the game given there previous limited experience in other golf projects, and that Wilson's later comment was borne out of a natural modesty as Mike suggests.
Niall,
You were copied with the same inane email from TEPaul that Mike was, earlier today.
Now, you're telling us that Wilson wasn't candid, that he did not describe the abilities of his committee properly.
That he's not to be taken at his word.
In 1910, I accept Wilson's written, contemporaneous words on the abilities of his committee, including himself.
That you, Mike and TEPaul don't believe him is your perogative.
However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM.
Niall, your lack of familiarity with NGLA is hampering your ability to understand the issues and CBM's abilities.
Secondly, you've changed your question, so to remind you, I'll repost your question in it's original form.
Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously [/quoe]
What advancement in design ?
If design has become so advanced over the last 100 years why isn't NGLA a forgotten relic ?
Why has it maintained its lofty position as one of the great golf courses of all time.
You're confusing hi-tech irrigation systems with the talent for designing great golf holes.
Ditto for construction.
NGLA, which you've never set foot on, is a highly constructed golf course.
Again, you're complete lack of familiarity is impeding your understanding of what took place at NGLA.
So, tell me, what are these great advances in construction ?
A D-6 or a D-8 isn't much different from the early dozers.[/b][/size][/color]
We've gone back and forwards on this one a couple of times now and I doubt either of us will change out position so suggest we agree to differ.
I can guarantee you that I'm not changing my position.
One other point, following last nights post I took the opportunity to flick through Scotlands Gift and particularly the section on NGLA where he says he started examining the classic courses in the UK during several trips to UK starting from 1902. So I would suggest that this was when any serious study started as opposed to 1872.
That's your interepretation.
I prefer to rely on what CBM wrote in the begining of "Scotland's Gift", on page 14 to be precise, where he states that he fell in love with golf immediately after arriving in St Andrews in 1872.
Then read further on page 18. second paragraph.
CBM was an intelligent man, his view of golf extended far beyond "keeping his eye on the ball"
Gotta run.
Niall
-
I agree with Tom MacWood, but would also add Myopia and am a bit surprised to see him make a point I argued some time back.
Many of the foreign luminaries who came to these shores cited Myopia as equal to courses in their homeland, and superior to the other American courses by a long shot.
So yes, by 1910 the three best courses in the US were Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA, with probably Ekwanok, and perhaps Chicago a rung behind, ALL courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen architects.
Interestingly, strategic golf had been widely discussed among American luminaries like Travis for a number of years, and he and Donald Ross were doing cool stuff at Pinehurst by then, even with the deficit of sand greens.
Certainly NGLA was a landmark achievement that set the bar with the idea of creating 18 ideal holes, but strategic golf was already being practiced and written about fairly extensively by then.
I guess a good question is simply this...if CBM had never built NGLA, would Donald Ross, Walter Travis, Alister Mackenzie, Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, the Fownes family, George Crump, Harry Colt, and many others have arrived at the classic age of golf regardless? We'll never know, but it is both undeniable that NGLA set a new standard, and that it perhaps rode a wave whose momentum was already inevitable given the leading thinkers of the game at that time.
In 1910 there were two American projects that received attention as cutting-edge/modern golf architecture and Myopia was not one of them. Myopia was altered over a period of years starting in the 1890s and never got the attention NGLA and GCGC received circa 1910. In the US if you were interested in building a premier modern golf course in 1910 you would turn to CBM or Travis/Barker, unless you were Toronto, Detroit or PV, then you would import the premier man in the UK.
The question about what if the NGLA never happened is impossible to answer, and really sheds no light on the subject of Merion, and their decision to turn to the two foremost experts on the subject.
-
No Tom, no one mentioned Myopia in 1910, which was a work in progress by Leeds until his death in 1930.
That's why Myopia had hosted its 4th US Open in 1908 and why all the associated articles about Merion (as well as Barker himself) mentioned that the goals were a course in the league of Garden City and Myopia.
If you recall, Barker was brought in by Joseph Connell of the Real Estate Company to assess the land for a golf course as part of HDC's efforts to entice Merion to purchase their land and thus increase the value of their development. Barker also drew a rough sketch routing for Connell, which has not been found.
Not surprisingly, with that kind of incentive, Barker found the land to be among the best of it's kind he'd seen anywhere! ::) ;)
HH Barker wrote this in June 1910;
I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.
-
Mike Cirba,
I cannot help it if you are you are insulted by the truth. You and the Merionettes refuse to believe those who were there. Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Alex Findlay, R. Francis, and H. J. Whigham, etc. It is ironic that you claim to look up to some of these guys yet you won't even take them at their word. The legend has always been more important to you guys than the truth.
As for your long post above, I haven't read it, nor will I. I told you I am not going over the swap again with you. I don't care what you think and am not interested in discussing it with you. As I said I have no respect for you, your intellect, or your intentions. Discussing it with you gives you and your rhetoric more credence than it deserves.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Garden City and Myopia were well respected and considered among the best before NGLA, but NGLA was largely considered to have been on an entirely different level. Moreover, even Myopia and Garden City were impacted by what was ongoing at NGLA, and were went through their own changes as a result. While the Boston press complained bitterly about Myopia having been slighted by Hutchinson when Hutchinson (and CBM) visited Myopia, Myopia nonetheless took the criticism to heart and made a number of changes to the course.
Likewise, Garden City had been going through a series of changes to try and bring the course into the modern era, and Tom MacWood was correct to point out that Garden City's changes were well publicized. Travis was to have been working with CBM at NGLA at the time and so this should be no surprise that he was simultaneously trying to update Garden City. And as TomM suggests, Barker probably had a hand in these changes as well, and they were part of this same movement away from the dark ages and toward more strategic golf.
In 1908 (the year after CBM had built his Eden at NGLA) Garden City even went so far as to create its own Eden hole at their last. At the beginning of that year, it was reported that the hole would be remodeled into a Redan, but apparently the plan changed. At that time it was reported: "No other famous holes are to be copied at present, but it is whispered that others may be, to offset the competition of the National Course of America, which will go into commission next summer at Shinnecock Hills. "(Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Jan. 7, 1908)
If there is any doubt about where NGLA stood in relation to what else was out there, we can go to Travis himself. In the May, 1909 issue of The American Golfer, titled The Constituents of the Good Golf Course, Travis was already writing that National would be the finest course in America. When discussing the placement of hazards, Travis wrote, "But any one who has played over the new course at Pinehurst will have had an opportunity of seeing how a course should be laid out on proper lines. Another fine example is the Salisbury Links at Garden City and soon, another, the finest of all, will be open for play, the National Golf Links at Shinnecock Hills." (my bolds.)
Here is Travis in the August 1910 American Golfer, with my bold:
Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.
. . .
It is not too much to say that none of the most famous courses abroad have more than four or five holes at the outside which stand out as being pre-eminent —the others are more or less tinged with mediocrity. Here we have eighteen holes which constitute perfection, or as near thereto as it is possible to attain in any single course.
. . .
A great deal of credit is due to Mr. Macdonald for providing such a classical links, which will ever remain a monument unto himself, and much good will be done to the game as a whole in the way of furnishing such a magnificent object lesson of what a first-class course should be in suggesting ideas to those interested in the lay-out of new courses or the improvement of existing ones throughout the country. The name, The National Golf Links, is appropriate by reason of the fact that the sixty-seven founders, each of whom has put in $1,000, and in whom the ownership of the property is vested, reside in various parts of the country; while as to the term "Links" it is really about the only course on this side which is deserving of such a title.
I don't mean to disrespect either Myopia or Garden City, but regardless of our opinions today, they were not widely considered to on par with NGLA. Not even close. A few may have had that opinion, but by and large NGLA was considered well beyond anything else out there.
-
David,
It is not surprising that you choose to avoid the pertinent subject and obvious related questions about your theories and essay and instead spend multiple paragraphs restating the obvious (i.e. NGLA was a landmark course that set the bar higher than anything before it in America and had a lasting impact on architecture), but that doesn't mean that your obfuscation and obstructionism aren't obvious to everyone else here.
You can choose to just keep firing insults and childish names ("Merionettes") at me in each response post but it only really shows how little evidence you actually have at your disposal to support your theories.
Reducing yourself to that level has no effect on me, I can assure you. I prefer to discuss the facts.
Here again are my very straightforward, factually based questions. There are no insults or derogatory names, and I'd appreciate hearing your responses so we can put this matter to rest;
On one hand, you contend that the Francis Swap and thus the routing of Merion was completed before November 15, 1910.
Here is what your essay reads, in part, on that matter;
Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property. Property records confirm this. The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.
Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land. Francis described his epiphany as having occurred while he was looking over a “map of the property.” He also noted that the land Merion gave up “did not fit at all in any golf layout.” So by this time the planning process was well underway, and the “swap” allowed them to better fit the last five holes into the plan for the routing. “It was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.” The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.
So, by mid-November 1910, the layout had already been planned. I have found no evidence that Hugh Wilson had been at all involved in the purchase or the planning at this early date. To the contrary, as will be discussed below, the historical record indicates that Wilson became involved in early 1911, after the purchase was finalized.
Francis himself tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the first 13 holes were already in place and after Mr. Lloyd agreed with his idea, the last five fell into place and workmen were out on the property in the next day or two blasting the site for the 16th green.
So, whatever we know, we know that this was not a "rough routing". We know that Francis' idea created the FINAL routing.
We also know he found it while looking at a map, and was a surveyor/engineer, so it was obviously a drawing exercise, not a construction one, and from the nature of his work it is unlikely that he was being imprecise. Francis also tells us that at the time of his idea, the land across the street from the clubhouse was not being used "for any golf plans" (plural), so there were more than one still in play.
So if you believe that all happened before November 15th, 1910, and you cite as your evidence the existence of a long, narrow triangle (95x320) on the north end of the November 15, 1910 Land Plan drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, then that begs a lot of questions, does it not?
For instance;
1) There is absolutely NO evidence of any activity on the property by CBM and Whigham between July and November 1910. Not a single word written, and we KNOW they didn't visit during that time. There is no mention of any further correspondence in any of the paperwork submitted to Merion's Board of Governors in November of that month, only the initial one-day site visit in June of that year. If the course was routed during that time as you contend, what exactly is your evidence that CBM and Whigham did it?
2) We know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after "laying out many different courses" prior to their visit to NGLA, Wilson's committee went up to NGLA in early March and spent the night viewing sketches of the best holes abroad and learning about their principles from CBM. We also know they spent the next day on the ground touring NGLA. If the routing was already completed FIVE MONTHS prior as you contend, then what did this exercise have to do with placing template holes at specific locations on the ground at Merion?!?
3) We also know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after their return from NGLA, Wilson's Committee "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans". We also know that this was not "laying out holes on the ground, but instead on paper, because the Minutes go on to say that CBM and Whigham came down on April 7th, and "after looking over the plans, and the ground itself", they determined that the best one would yield the best seven finishing holes of any inland course they'd seen. Further evidence that those plans drawn by the Committee were laid out on paper is simply that they were attached and "submitted here-with" to the Board of Governors at the April meeting. If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, as you seemingly still contend, why would CBM need to come to Merion in April and help them pick the best of their five routing plans??
4) Further evidence that the selected routing plan presented to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th, 1911 was on paper is evidenced in what was known as the "Thompson Resolution". Remember, it is now FIVE MONTHS after the course was supposedly FINAL routed based on what you've argued was the timing of the Francis Swap, prior to November 15th, 1910, presumably to purposefully preclude Hugh Wilson's involvement in that routing. So after ALL of that time, and after promising HDC that they would get right to work on the golf course as soon as the paper's were signed, and supposedly with an already routed golf course, why would Merion in April 1911 still be debating routings? The Thompson Resolution reads; "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground (so much for Tom MacWood's contention that there was already a golf course staked out on the ground when Hugh Wilson began work in January - comments mine) which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of three acres additional ...". Given that it's clear that as of April 19th, 1911 there was 1) No golf course "on the ground", and 2) still discussion and needed approvals of the final layout plan, and 3) clear documentation that the Committee authored the plans in question, with CBM's advice and suggestions, would you still contend that the Francis Swap and thus the final routing took place before November 15th, 1910?
While you contend that 1) I don't understand, and 2) I continually misrepresent your essay, I'm only reading what you wrote, David, and what still exists on your Opinion piece on this website.
For instance, your main contention is that the Francis Swap and thus the golf course routing was completed before November 15, 1910, and on that basis you seek to exclude Hugh Wilson from any routing credit.
That's a fact. It is indisputable.
Here is your summation of the routing of the golf course;
Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed.
-
Mike,
I also believe the Swap happened prior to November 15th but do not believe CBM/HJW were directly involved in it.
An answer to many of your questions in that post regarding all the action in the Spring if the Swap/Routing were complete by November is two-fold.
1 - Is it possible that a "different plan" as referenced is simply slightly different hole lengths on connecting holes such as 2 and then 3, current 7 - 8 - 9, 14 and 15? Wouldn't the courses plan be different if #2 were 400 yards and current 6 were about 525?
2 - I still disagree with your reading of Francis in that the first 13 were fixed before the Swap. We even went through the exercise of discussing how could/would those 13 be fixed if they didn't have the last 5? What would they do if the suggestion of the Swap was rejected by Lloyd/HDC? Have you thought about it in that respect? He said they were fairly easy to fit but the last 5 were another matter...that does not mean they were fixed and locked.
-
Jim,
I'll try to answer that more comprehensively shortly but I'm pressed for time at the moment.
I would agree with the fact that there is no record or shred of evidence of any contact or involvement of Macdonald and/or Whigham with Merion during the entire second half of 1910.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the idea that's been suggested here that CBM used the time of the Committee's visit to NGLA to route the Merion course on a contour map as he supposedly placed the pre-defined template holes in proper positioning across the landscape?
-
I think the routing process began in June 1910 and that by March 1911 they would have had a good idea of the bones of each hole. In that context, combined with the resulting Board Approved Plan, I think it's unreasonable to think CBM didn't suggest the tee placement for the3rd (current 6th) hole and the shelfed green...similarly, the structure of the original 10th and it sounds like there's a real case for the Hell Bunker on the current 4th.
-
Mike Cirba,
I have been entertaining your idiotic theories, your misleading and disingenuous interpretations, and your repetitious and barely tangential wild goose chases for years now. Like everything else we have discussed you don't seem to understand this either, but me be clear. Conversing with you is entirely unproductive. I don't want to waste my time with you anymore. I'll stick with what Francis said about the swap. You make believe whatever you wish.
_________________________________________________________
Jim,
A while back you were going to produce a list of source material you believed clearly pointed to Wilson as opposed to CBM as the person mainly responsible for the design. Thus far you have put forth the Lesley article which tells us, I think, that CBM and HJW advised Wilson and Co. how to lay the course out upon the ground.
Anything other contemporaneous source material out there you'd like to put forth?
-
David,
Duck, bob, and weave all you like. The obvious contradictions in your theories are simply more apparent to everyone else here. Frankly, other than you and the other 2M boys, (MacWood and Mucci), I can't recall anyone else who seems to think I'm off base. IN fact, quite the opposite. Given the reputation of your supporters, I'm quite confident that I'm on the right side of history.
Since you came back to this site last spring, you've followed me around on every single thread I've posted on and sat back and flung cheap shots and insults. This began back on the old Cobb's Creek public course thread, and has persisted since. It's time to have it out and move on, David. Put up or shut up. Shit or get off the pot.
I'm game...are you?
At this point, your personal insults have become like comfortable friends to me, like sitting around a roaring fireplace with a glass of wine. They've appeared in every post of yours for the past year and I almost wait in gleeful anticipation to see what type of wildly defensive and creative obfuscation you'll come up with next! ;D
Thanks for the warm glow.
So....since you seem to be sticking to your "course routed by November 1910" theory, please show us all your evidence for CBM's invovlement between July 1910 and November 1910.
Or, did your dog eat it? ;)
-
Jim,
I am not longer reading Cirba's posts and I guess I missed your post above where you mention the hell bunker on Merion's "long" hole. I agree with you. It is another telltale CBM characteristic, especially its placement. But I am not exactly sure I understand the methodology of picking out certain features and attributing them to CBM. For example, take the hole called a Redan by just about everyone, including CBM and HJW. I really don't care to again go through the arguments whether it qualified as a Redan in todays terms as that is entirely irrelevant to the inquiry. The question is, did it qualify given the understanding of the time, and it surely did. Isn't this another instance where it would be unreasonable to assume that CBM did NOT place the hole? If not then why not?
-
Patrick
Re your post 2278, and on the question of Wilsons remarks on the experience of the Merion Committee, I think as always it comes down to interpretation and in interpretating the comment I think you need to put it into context. Mike's post 2197 suggests that the Committee had a good bit more experience and exposure to course design/construction and maintenance issues than the average club member, unless of course the average club member back then routinely did a turn on the Greens Committee.
I also note that Wilson's comments came some time after the course was "completed". In answering an enquiry about the Committee's input and his own personal input into the course, I think it entirely plausible that Wilson was being modest given what we know about the Committees previous experience as outlined in Mike's post. People react to that type of question in different ways. Some people answer with a frank honest assessment (as they see it), others in a self-promoting way and yet again others in a more modest way, which I believe may have been how Wilson answered the question. Would he be lying in answering the question like that if the Committee had in reality more experience than the average club member ? Well not if the questioner (and Wilson) knew Wilson was being modest and therefore the questioner made allowances. As I said, it comes down to interpretation. You choose to take his words literally whereas others including me having considered other factors such as the Committees previous experience and have allowed that he was likely being modest.
However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM.
Niall, your lack of familiarity with NGLA is hampering your ability to understand the issues and CBM's abilities.
Secondly, you've changed your question, so to remind you, I'll repost your question in it's original form.
Patrick
I'm not aware that I have changed my question. The basic question concerned the difference in experience/ability between the Merion Committee and CBM compared to myself and TD or any other similarly experienced/working GCA.
Firstly, CBM had the experience of creating a couple of courses before NGLA, neither of which I believe made any great advancements in golf course design at that time. As I understand it at NGLA he had the luxury of picking out 200 (?) acres out of what, a couple of thousand acres ? to ideally suit his purposes. Furthermore he was basically building on sand so I presume drainage wasn't an issue. We know from his own writings that he was able to pick out parts of the site with features suitable for his template holes which suggests to me he was largely laying the course over the land. Now tell me what modern day gca wouldn't give his right arm for that kind of opportunity.
The real test of CBM's ability would be to see how he would have coped with a far smaller site with issues on drainage/topography etc. Basically, he didn't have to deal with the same issues that modern day gca's regularly do. Remember, we are talking about 1910 and CBM's experience up to that point. There is no question that CBM achieved great things at NGLA. He raised the stakes, both literally in the sense that he raised the money for the project and figuratively in the way he put strategic hole design at the forefront of the design. Patrick, I get all that but please don't tell me that CBM of 1910 was better equipped than a modern gca to design and build a course, its simply a ludicrious proposition for all NGLA's greatness.
And as for the proposition that designing a course on 200 acres of sand based ground with no restrictions making you uniquely qualified to route a course on 120 acres of farmland, that just doesn't stack up IMO.
FWIW, my take on CBM/HJW's involvement was that the Merion Committee got the VIP tour of NGLA and were blown away with what they had achieved. They no doubt asked hundreds of questions and got loads of info back in response. They would have likely gone away totally inspired by what they saw and what they had learned about the principles of the design of NGLA and then gave a lot of thought to the lessons learned and how they could be applied at Merion. In short CBM was likely an inspiration to them, not the only inspiration no doubt, but an important one, but where I disconnect from what you and David and others are saying is in the idea that CBM basically routed and designed the course. That he had a hand in showing them how it could be done, I'm fully on board with, but that is different to CBM actually doing for them.
Niall
-
David,
I think this will be my last post on this thread but before I go let me thank you for your post 2266 on CBM which I greatly enjoyed and there is very little in it I would quibble with. Certainly NGLA was well noted over here before and after completion. Much of the early comment was patronising and condescending, as it missed the intent that CBM was seeking to take the strategic intent out of the classic holes rather than simply trying to reproduce them in their entirety. Many of those that CBM contacted from the UK in relation to the project made a point of visiting and playing the course and comment was generally favourable although not universally without criticism. If memory serves me right Hilton may have been one of those that made some critical remarks.
It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.
Niall
-
No Tom, no one mentioned Myopia in 1910, which was a work in progress by Leeds until his death in 1930.
That's why Myopia had hosted its 4th US Open in 1908 and why all the associated articles about Merion (as well as Barker himself) mentioned that the goals were a course in the league of Garden City and Myopia.
If you recall, Barker was brought in by Joseph Connell of the Real Estate Company to assess the land for a golf course as part of HDC's efforts to entice Merion to purchase their land and thus increase the value of their development. Barker also drew a rough sketch routing for Connell, which has not been found.
Not surprisingly, with that kind of incentive, Barker found the land to be among the best of it's kind he'd seen anywhere! ::) ;)
HH Barker wrote this in June 1910;
I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.
No doubt Myopia was considered a great golf course, but Myopia was a methodical redesign over a period of two decades +, and none of those individual changes drew the attention of the golf world like the changes made to GCGC or the design of the National circa 1910. That is a fact. By the way Leeds retired in 1917 and that year was the last of his changes. The NGLA project received international attention, and largely thanks to Travis being editor of American Golfer, the redesign of GCGC received widespread attention in America.
In the US in 1910 if your intent was to design a modern world class golf course you turned to CBM or Travis/Barker. No one was asking Leeds to help design their golf course.
-
Niall,
You're a very bright fellow and your instincts and interpretations are right on the money. Thanks for weighing in here and shedding some much needed sanity on the proceedings.
-
David,
I think this will be my last post on this thread but before I go let me thank you for your post 2266 on CBM which I greatly enjoyed and there is very little in it I would quibble with. Certainly NGLA was well noted over here before and after completion. Much of the early comment was patronising and condescending, as it missed the intent that CBM was seeking to take the strategic intent out of the classic holes rather than simply trying to reproduce them in their entirety. Many of those that CBM contacted from the UK in relation to the project made a point of visiting and playing the course and comment was generally favourable although not universally without criticism. If memory serves me right Hilton may have been one of those that made some critical remarks.
It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.
Niall
Niall
Have you read what Horace Hutchinson wrote about the NGLA in 1910?
-
Niall,
I thought you might enjoy this 1898 article from "The Golfer" that references a few of these "average club members" twelve years before they designed Merion East.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/5796303253_f9661106c2_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/5796303415_a0deced4b7_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Are you calling Wilson a liar ? ? ?
-
Mike
I believe that is the seventh or eighth time you have posted that same article from 1898 and each time it continues to underwhelm. Didn't Joe B post an article that claimed Willie Campbell was involved at Belmont, although I think you disputed the report.
If you were given the task of constructing a modern state-of-the-art golf course in 1911 (as opposed to 1898) would you place the task of designing it at the feet of five relatively inexperienced members (one of which may or may not have been involved in the design of a golf course of dubious reputation in 1898) or would you seek out the best golf architects in the country?
-
Tom MacWood,
If all of the best courses in the country by 1910 had been designed and built by amateurs for their own clubs with little or no previous experience at the time...men like Leeds, Emmet, Travis, Fownes, Macdonald, then I certainly would seek to emulate their model.
Which is exactly what Merion did.
Your incredulity doesn't change that.
Actual factual evidence to the contrary to support your position might, but it seems the dog ate that, no?
Patrick,
When that's all you guys have left, I think it's officially "case closed".
-
It was also interesting to get your take on the impact of NGLA in the US. Was it such a night and day event ? Had courses not been evolving along more strategic and naturalistic lines before the completion of NGLA ? I wonder if sometimes we look at these milestones, which NGLA surely is, and look back on them in such a before and after way when the matter is more smudged than that.
Niall
Niall, I don't think I portrayed it as "a night and day event" in terms of the timing. In my post 2266 I gave a brief idea of what was ongoing, starting in about 1904. But in terms of golf courses NGLA was considered night and day, at least if we are to believe the many reports of actual experts who had seen it and what else was out there. Garden City was scrambling to try and catch up, and Myopia was good but undergoing its own continuing evolution, and not widely considered to be anywhere near the same level of golf course. But no, I don't think there had been much of a gradual evolution going on. So in terms of advancing the genre, NGLA was indeed "night and day." At least it was widely considered to have been at the time.
One can get some understanding of the gap by looking at Mike's rather silly attempts to establish those at Merion as some sort of experts comparable to CBM and HJW. Sure they had been around golf courses but the golf courses they had been around were a far cry for NGLA. As I said above, it was a different era before NGLA so whatever it was that Cirba thinks they knew in 1898 didn't translate to what CBM was teaching in 1910. Thus Wilson's clear statements about the state of their knowledge in comparison.
Here is a photo from another course where Cirba and the Merionettes would have us believe that that Wilson became an expert designer before having met CBM. A typical "bunker" at Dunn's Princeton, from 1902, where Wilson served as golf team captain and student representative on the green committee for a year. I believe that may be Wilson 3rd from the right.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1902Princeton4thholebunker.jpg)
-
And Niall, I have tried to patiently answer your questions as best I can, so I was hoping you could answer just a few of mine from well above before you disengage.
If CBM and HJW were not directly involved with the design at Merion, then how do you explain Merion's attempt at a Redan, an Alps, a Road, a double plateau, another double plateau oriented like a biarritz green, an Eden green, and other features typical of CBM?
If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a course with strategic features typical of a CBM course?
Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?
-
Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell in 1894; Leeds began redesigning it 1897 and continued for the next twenty years. Emmet and Hubbell originally laid out GCGC in 1897 and were advised by Alex Findlay. Walter Travis (and Barker) began overhauling the course ten years later. Macdonald et. al. laid out Chicago in 1895. The course was tweaked numerous times over the years. Oakmont was laid out in 1903 and had little or no reputation. It was redesigned in 1909-10, and its reputation was made when it was chosen to host the US Am in 1915 (postponed to 1919) or fours years after the Merion membership were making their decisions.
None of these are good examples of the state of the game or golf architecture in 1911. Do you believe the membership of Merion were stuck in some kind of time warp and thought they were operating in the 1890s? I don't, which is why they engaged the two biggest names in the game, and the top construction company as well.
I'll ask you again, if you were given the task of constructing a modern state-of-the-art golf course in 1911 (as opposed to 1898) would you place the task of designing it at the feet of five inexperienced members or would you seek out the best golf architects in the country?
-
David,
Thanks for trying to find some middle ground in post 2248. As you know, I did have trouble with your phrase "calling the shots" which, despite agreeance on several points you make regarding CBM's involvement the latter parts of that post, and others, the phrase just doesn't ring as true to me as "advisor." As I have always said, in many ways, its just semantics. No one denies CBM being involved (despite your protests to the contraray) but just how much is up for debate. It is ridiculous to take a hard line (they only looked at the GBI plans while at NGLA, for instance) when human nature suggests a free form discussion (providing there was free flowing booze.....)
As to semantics, isn't it is as easy to interpret six template holes in a design as Merion taking some advice but not following it completely, substituting their own judgement in spots, as they would do if he advised, but not if he designed (to such a large degree?)
BTW, at one point you postulated that MCC had more templates than CBM's first claimed design for others, (Piping Rock) but in checking George's book, it appears PR had the full complement, including the first Biarritz. Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way, if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?
And I believe they took some completed routings to NGLA, and also "rearragned them" upon return. No doubt it was because of what they learned from CBM via discussion. However, if they routed, he critiqued, and they routed some more, it seems plausible that, given the times and nature of architecture accreditation, they thought of him as only the advisor.
It even occurs to me that if we take the Francis story at face value, they had the final routing, and Lloyd had approved it. No word on Wilson and the committee, but its not too unreasonable to assume they saw the brainstorm the next day or so, and had all agreed before CBM got there. It is quite possible that they set up the return visit by CBM while at NGLA, wondering if they would have any routings at all, but by the time CBM got there, they had figured it out themselves thanks to Francis and CBM's "approval" was not much more than a rubber stamp/confirmation of what they were already 90% sure of, despite what the original intention of the meeting was. It appears that they did the bulk of the work, and he edited to some degree.
Just a few thoughts.
-
Jeff Brauer,
As you may recall, I think Merion too had an attempt at CBM conception of a Biarritz. The 17th. It is quite as obviously recognizable as such, but then I wouldn't expect it to be given that Wilson had no Biarritz to view at NGLA and given that CBM hadn't yet built a course with his own version.
CBM's original conception of the Biarritz as expressed 1906 and by HJ Whigham after Piping Rock's got built was quite a bit different that a hole with a swale running through the green. The swale was before the green and it was about 30 yards from beginning to end. Alot like the swale fronting Merion's 17th hole.
Below are Merion's 17th, the plasticine model of Lido's Biarritz, and Piping Rock's Biarritz. The Lido Biarritz was listed at 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line of the other two are each 230 yards.
Look how crazy the first section (the "hogsback") was meant to be at the Lido.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/BiarritzThree.jpg?t=1259811449)
You ask: "As to semantics, isn't it is as easy to interpret six template holes in a design as Merion taking some advice but not following it completely, substituting their own judgement in spots, as they would do if he advised, but not if he designed (to such a large degree?)"
Given that NGLA only had four or five true template holes, six is a hell of a lot don't you think? And as I have said there were more than six, So far I've just stuck to the most obvious ones and those directly called by the name of the template, so as to avoid the inevitable pettiness that will follow. (See what happens with by Biarritz post above.)
But they certainly could have put in their own touches and altered things here and there. And as time went on they did. But even here there are remnants of CBM's ideas. I've said that from the beginning that my concern has always been with two things and two things only: The strategic concepts underlying the holes, and their general location on the ground.
CBM didn't build the course and I doubt he ever worked up an exact detailed blueprint to use in construction. But so far as I can tell, Merion attempted to build a CBM course, which has been my main point all along.
And this said, at some point there has to be a tipping point where we stand back and say, "Holy Shit, there were CBM strategies and tells all over this place. It was obvious he was very much involved in the design." I think we are well past that point.
Or are there any non-CBM courses from around this time with attempts at a Road Hole, a Redan, an Alps, a double plateau green, an Eden green, another double-plateau with a biarritz-like orientation, a long hole with a properly placed hell bunker, a hole fitting the description the Biarritz concept (yet to even be built by CBM)? And more.
You ask: Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way, if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?
Can you readily identify 16 or 18 "templates" at Sleepy Hollow's original course? Can you readily identify 16-18 at Piping Rock? If so, please do and describe their defining characteristics for me? Thanks.
But I don't think you will succeed, because I don't think that CBM was building 16-18 replica holes at this time. I think there are certain core holes and features that show up again and again, and the rest are combinations or concepts. Merion has the core holes, and then many of the concepts. Like Merion's 7th hole. It wouldn't necessarily jump out as a copy of anything, but it is a perfect utilization of the bottleneck concept utilized by CBM on some of his designs.
-
Patrick,
You're now accusing not only me, but Hugh Wilson of lying.
No Mike, you are.
You and the Merionettes have claimed that his statement wasn't true, that he lied in the name of modesty.
Why would he do that ?
If the committee was intelligent, skilled and experienced, why wouldn't he simply say, "my committee was composed of intelligent, skilled and experienced members" ?
Why wouldn't he tell the truth, instead of lying, as you and TEPaul insist, for the sake of modesty ?
Your problem is you blindly accept everything the Merionettes claim.
You grow increasingly hysterical and desperate in the face of actual facts and evidence and the fact is that Hugh Wilson and his committee were NOT and did NOT have the knowledge of average members but were in fact humble, gracious gentlemen, and not self-promoting blowhards.
Anyone who's read the vile emails from TEPaul and Wayno knows who's hysterical and who's rational in this debate and in life in general.
To make my case, should I publish them ?
Or do you want to reconsider and restate who you think is "hysterical"
Mike, stop the nonsense. As it typical of you and the Merionettes, you exagerate to the point of extremes.
One can accurately assess the abilities of the committee members while remaining humble, gracious and gentlemenly, without self promotion.
It's you and the Merionettes who now claim Wilson was lying when he described the abilities of his committee.
Wilson claimed that they had the expertise/talents/experience of the average member.
I'm content to accept his word, that Wilson was telling the truth.
It's you and the Merionettes who claim his writings were false.
Unfortunately, you and the other agenda driven Merionettes, can't accept Wilson's written statement because it undermines your position and magnifies the need for the committee to call on the recognized expert in the field at that point in time, Charles Blair Macdonald.
Your complete ignorance of golf course history is only matched by the misplaced arrogance of your arguments.
Mike, if it wasn't for the Merionettes, TEPaul and Wayne Morrisson who have been sending an inordinate number of emails on this particular topic in the last 48 hours you wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on. Stop being their stooge !
Unfortunately, because Wayno and TEPaul continued to send email after email after email, I had to finally put a "block sender" on my computer.
In addition, you know that other recipients of those group emails took offense to what Wayno wrote and that they asked Wayne to cease and desist, and take them out of the loop, just as I had requested dozens of times previously..
And, that other person was not David Moriarty or Tom MacWood, but someone you considered an ally.
The conduct of the Merionettes has been reprehensible.
WHY ? Because others disagree with them ? And you think that that justifies the vile emails emanating from TEPaul and Wayno ?
You've chosen, foolishly, to continue "channeling" and being the shill for TEPaul and Wayno.
But, after the last few emails from Wayno and TEPaul, which were grossly inaccurate with respect to Wayno's reckless and irresponsible allegations toward me, and his wild accusations that Ran was guilty of lying, I'd suggest that you exercise extreme caution and give considerable thought to what you type before you hit the "send" button, lest you find yourself joining the Merionettes in their banishment and exile from GCA.com
The accusations in that email were beyond hysterical, they were wild, reckless, irresponsible and insane, and you're directly contributing to the problem by being their shill, their stooge.
So, be guided accordingly
Do you think the man who had been chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since 1896, and whose committee had designed the second nine holes and modified the first nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course, Rodman Griscom, had the knowledge of the average club member in construction and agronomy?
Mike, I've been on green committees for over 45 years and have served as Chairman and I can tell you that being on a green committee or serving as chairman, doesn't qualify you for squat when it comes to designing and building an 18 hole golf course.
Especially circa 1910
What's amazing about this debate, is that you're categorizing Wilson as a liar.
You're unwilling to accept HIS written word.
What's even more amazing is that the irony of that is completely lost on you and the Merionettes.
How about Dr. Harry Toulmin, who had been one of the earliest founders of golf in the city and had co-designed the original Aronimink course (when the club was known as Belmont)?
Do you have the specifics of his involvement at Belmont, or just general references through more newspaper articles ?
What about Engineeer/Surveyor Richard Francis?
I've always acknowledged his area of expertise.
But, what did Francis write about his role ?
He minimalized it didn't he.
Another ignorant club member?
Those are your words, not mine
How about Hugh Wilson, who had been on the Green Committee at Princeton for two years while their new Willie Dunn course was being built?
Two year Green Chairman are a dime a dozen, there are gazillions of them and the great majority don't know squat about designing and building a golf course, at the begining and at the end of their two year term..
Most of them take two years just to be brought up to speed to begin with.
How many green committees have you served on ?
What about HG Lloyd, who had served on the Merion Green Committee since at least 1903?
Would you enlighten us with respect to his duties while on the green committee ?
Could you address his experience in designing and building an 18 hole golf course on his own ?
Average Club Member?? Are you kidding me??
NO, Wilson wasn't kidding and he wasn't lying as you and the Merionettes claim.
Now, did they know the latest in grasses, fertilizers, construction techniques? No, they didn't, and it's clear that's what Wilson was talking about.
Patrick, you really need to get a grip and try to learn something here.
Mike, having been involved, intimately involved, in every phase of significant projects, from planning to budgeting, to contracting, to bidding to construction, I can state, without fear of contradiction, that you and the Merionettes have a lot more to learn than I do.
You're all out of your league in this area.
And, you're all out of your minds in many others ;D
As I stated above, unfortunately, I had to implement the "Block Sender" feature with respect to receiving emails from TEPaul and Wayne.
They've lost any sense of control, relativity and reality.
I'd be happy to continue to discuss/debate with you or anyone else, but, please, stop being the stooge of the Merionettes and put forth your own arguments, and not arguments you receive in hourly emails from them.
Thanks
-
Mike,
I also believe the Swap happened prior to November 15th but do not believe CBM/HJW were directly involved in it.
Jim,
What makes the date of the swap so important ?
We know that Merion began building the course shortly after the April 19th Board meeting despite the fact that they didn't come into title to all of the land until July 19th.
Is it not probable that the legal date of the swap is less important than the date the swap was conceptualized and agreed upon ?
Your thoughts ?
An answer to many of your questions in that post regarding all the action in the Spring if the Swap/Routing were complete by November is two-fold.
1 - Is it possible that a "different plan" as referenced is simply slightly different hole lengths on connecting holes such as 2 and then 3, current 7 - 8 - 9, 14 and 15? Wouldn't the courses plan be different if #2 were 400 yards and current 6 were about 525?
2 - I still disagree with your reading of Francis in that the first 13 were fixed before the Swap. We even went through the exercise of discussing how could/would those 13 be fixed if they didn't have the last 5? What would they do if the suggestion of the Swap was rejected by Lloyd/HDC? Have you thought about it in that respect? He said they were fairly easy to fit but the last 5 were another matter...that does not mean they were fixed and locked.
-
"Given that NGLA only had four or five true template holes, six is a hell of a lot don't you think?"
David,
How do you figure NGLA had only 5 template holes? Besides most of the classics being there, it is by definition, "the" template course and all they had to study at the time, regardless of what happened later on with CBM/Raynor.
-
Wow...
Go away for a day or two and the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Too funny!
-
(I thought this thread was about National Golf Links of America?)
-
BTW, at one point you postulated that MCC had more templates than CBM's first claimed design for others, (Piping Rock) but in checking George's book, it appears PR had the full complement, including the first Biarritz. Sleepy Hollow may have had a few less, but again, we can ask the question in 2299 the other way,
if CBM was calling the shots, then why NOT 16-18 templates found before and after in CBM's design work, and not just 6?
Jeff, the answer is obvious.
Because Merion didn't want to be known as NGLA South or NGLA Philadelphia.
-
How do you figure NGLA had only 5 template holes? Besides most of the classics being there, it is by definition, "the" template course and all they had to study at the time, regardless of what happened later on with CBM/Raynor.
I guess it depends upon what you mean by template holes, but there were only four or five readily recognizable copies of great holes abroad.
However you define template holes, what were the 16-18 template holes at each of Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, and what were the distinguishing characteristics of these holes? Should be easy enough exercise, given you theory that a CBM designed course from around this time would have 16-18 template holes.
-
Wait,
I though the multi-level green on the par five second hole at Merion was the "Biarritz"??
Or was that one the "Double Plateau"?
Or wait, was the that the multi-level green on the 14th?
Wasn't the par four 15th the "Eden"?
Who's on First?? ;) ;D
Now, how about a few actual facts instead of this ongoing ridiculous speculation...
The seventeenth green at Merion was completely reconstructed in 1915/1916 for the US Amateur.
At the time, the green was enlarged, ("lengthened and widened") and "lifted", and two brand new bunkers were dug to the right, which can be seen in David's aerial.
Also, the back was built up a bit and a mound was constructed behind the green, which is a bunker today
Prior to the 1916 US Amateur, the hole played as a par four at 230 yards, but was shortened to 215 for the Amateur.
Between 1916 and 1924 the left greenside bunker was enlarged and extended forward.
A second bunker was dug just off the green to the left.
A fairway "landing area" in the hollow just short of the green was created, which had previously been simply rough grass all the way to the green.
Some "Biarritz"! ::) ::) ::)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/BiarritzThree.jpg?t=1259811449)
-
As we consider what were attempts to build template holes, it is important to note again the Opening Day articles by men who clearly had traveled abroad and due to their close contacts within the club, also distinctly understood both the terminology as well as what Merion had actually attempted.
In that regard we have three accounts, plus Richard Francis' first-person account years later, and they all mention the same very few templates that seemingly existed when Merion opened;
The men were A.W. Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure", whoever he may have been;
Findlay mentioned in 1911 after Wilson's return from abroad that to create an Alps hole, Wilson agreed it "needed a lot of making".
Findlay's Opening Day article mentioned the redan and the Alps only.
Tillinghast's Opening Day article talked about many holes, but mentioned only the "Eden Green" at the 15th as some sort of template, which he felt was one of the only flaws on the course as the green was banked too much back to front.
"Far and Sure" mentioned the "Eden Green" on the 15th (he didn't care for it either), and some other foreign touches (largely in the form of mounding and hazards), but that's it.
Here's some of what "Far and Sure" wrote. He was particularly perceptive in noting that the best holes weren't some type of forced designs, but instead used the natural landforms to create original holes.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4338093278_fd77ac034f_o.jpg)
And here's what Richard Francis told us about the template holes. Note that it became a "redan" hole AFTER Wilson's return from abroad. It's LOCATION AFTER IT WAS BUILT suggested a redan type hole, and the classic deep, low-side corner bunker was built in what had been a bank barn.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
-
Wait,
I though the multi-level green on the par five second hole at Merion was the "Biarritz"??
Or was that one the "Double Plateau"?
Or wait, was the that the multi-level green on the 14th?
Wasn't the par four 15th the "Eden"?
Who's on First??
Another example of Cirba's sleazy tactics. I have repeatedly explained that the 2nd green with the swale with the biarritz orientation was not the "Biarritz Hole," and that CBM was building such greens on non-par threes. Sleepy Hollow, for example, had a green with a swale so oriented in addition to their Biarritz hole. And it was either Travis or Tillinghast who noted that the 15th green was an attempt at the Eden Green. And the 14th was clearly a double plateau green.
Mike knows all this well. Yet he tries to make a mockery of it in the hopes of fooling someone into confusion about what really happened. This is the sort of sleazy non-discussion in which he has engaged for years.
As for the 17th (Merion's early Biarritz) he is just flat out twisting what happened. It was always intended to be a one shot hole and reported as such, it always had a swale short of the green, and it was always fairway short of the green. As usual with the early measurements of Merion, they are off. The shortened version of the hole (for the Amateur) couldn't have been much over 200 yards to the middle of green but was listed at 215. Extrapolating backwards, that would would make the original about 215-220. In 1934 the hole was listed as 230 yards, but in reality it was about 215.
The "rebuild" was because of agronomic concerns, NOT as a redesign. See Hugh Wilson's chapter for details on what more of what this entailed, but it essentially entailed adding some subsurface drainage and sodding. There is no indication that the hole substantially changed in strategic character at this point. Also his statement about the rough running right up to the green unsupported. There are reports of "fairway" short of the green. Do you think Mike will insist they listed the hole as a par 4 but then made it all carry? That'd have been a novice move, but these guys had CBM so they didn't make such foolish mistakes.
In short, it is Mike twisting again. What we had with Merion's 17th hole was a hole that was a very good match to what CBM had described of his early Biarritz concept, especially the distance of the hole, the character of the necessary shot, and the swale for 30 yards short of the plateau green. It was not a perfect Biarritz as we have come to think of them, but we ought not to expect to to be. CBM and/or Raynor did not build it, and CBM had never even built one of his own yet!
____________________________________________
Mike's latest post is more of the same, and his information selective and misleading.
In the spring of 1912 (before Wilson had even returned from his trip) it was reported that most of the holes at Merion were modeled after the great holes abroad.
At the opening it was reported that many of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad. In his earlier article Findlay had acknowledged that many of the holes as laid out by CBM were based on holes abroad.
How were these guys to right about a Biarritz hole? It was a concept in CBM's and HJW's mind, not anything they had ever seen before!
_____________________
I also just noticed he is mischaracterizing what Francis wrote yet again. Francis didn't write that the 3rd became a redan after the trip. He said it "benefitted" by the trip but he didn't say how. It is absurd to suggest the hole became a redan later. The green and fairway (there was one) and tees had already been built. And the bunker was a barn! Do you think they would leave the barn there, or is it more reasonable to think that they removed the barn and threw in some sand?
-
One of the problems here is that Mike seems to be totally reliant on the Flynn Fakers, and they have cherry picked the sources to the extent that little of what they say or think is complete or reliable. For example, they have insisted that the 17th was a par 4, until it was changed for the 1916 Amateur. Of course as usual they don't clarify their source but I suspect it was from a map in one of the articles written preceding the tournament. (I don't have the map in front of me, but I recall one having some questionable par designations.) In fact the hole had long been considered a one shot hole.
Here is the description from Robert Lesley's article from 1914.
Standing upon a precipice 100 feet in the air with iron railings to prevent the far-swinging player from falling into the depths of the quarry beneath, the golfer finds himself facing the seventeenth green some 220 yards away. Over the quarry, over an intervening hill, over an intervening valley the ball flies to the big seventeenth green, where two putts make the par three.
The component parts of a Biarritz are there, even the chasm - or in this case the quarry - is present.
-
Here is the 17th hole from the tee prior to the changes made to the hole for the 1916 US Amateur. Note the yardage, as well as the lack of bunkering, as well as no abrupt terrace rise in the green.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3574371011_5246b6453d_o.jpg)
Here's a picture of the 17th green looking back to the tee taken around the course opening.
It's clear that the ridge and drop off short of the green were natural to the quarry and not something manufactured to create the swale as every Biarritz green I've ever seen uses.
It was simply a matter of placing the green just beyond it.
Also note that the green then did not have the abrupt front rise, or terrace, but simply used the existing low-lying terrain.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2464/3574416285_2fa2630790_o.jpg)
-
In his earlier article Findlay had acknowledged that many of the holes as laid out by CBM were based on holes abroad.
David,
Please show us where Findlay wrote that. Thanks.
Regarding the topic, you keep firing insults and pointless, agenda-driven speculation and I'll keep providing facts and evidence, deal?
As far as there always being fairway in front of the 17th green, please see William Flynn's 1916 drawings and hole descriptions;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3507806192_aa5da47cc9_z.jpg?zz=1)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3540562952_4308e81b3e_b.jpg)
Here's a blown-up shot of the hole as originally designed before Hugh Wilson revised the green and bunkering.
Sorry for the size, but the details are important. I have to ask...is the 16th with it's carry over a quarry and huge false front and bi-level green a "Biarritz" too?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5801734117_50bd7a831c_o.jpg)
-
David,
I would be glad to discuss the template holes at NGLA, but don't you think we should start a separate thread devoted to the creation of that course to do that? Oh, wait......
-
I don't know what Mike thinks he is looking at in those photos, but it is certainly not the same thing I am looking at.
As for the Flynn drawings of the holes in 1916 the rough and rough lines are nowhere near accurate. Lesley described the hole, a par 3, in 1914.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I didn't ask about the template holes at NGLA. I asked about the template holes at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.
Start a new thread to discuss these is you like.
-
Mackenzie wrote this in the 'Spirit of St. Andrews':
"In a former chapter it has been suggested that in the nature of things no changes to a golf course originated by a green committee in consultation with a professional or greeenkeeper can ever be a complete success. The only exceptions I have known to this rule when any real improvements resulted have been when the committee has been dominated by some benevolent autocrat who has made a lifelong study of the subject. Woking and John L. Low, Sunningdale and Harry Colt and the Merion Cricket Club and the Wilson Brothers are cases in point."
Low redesigned Tom Dunn's Woking; Colt redesigned Willie Park's Sunningdale; the Wilsons redesigned...
-
Tom,
Yes, Hugh Wilson redesigned Merion East a number of times, primarily in 1915/16 and again in 1924.
When was SOSA written?
-
Speculation concerning, "Why didn't Merion hire the best?" forgets one very important fact.
They did.
At the time Fred Pickering was brought in to build Merion, according to accounts he had built over 100 courses and was the country's preeminent grass-guy.
He had traveled extensively, and worked primarily with Bendelow, Findlay, and others.
If Merion had wanted to build an "Eden green", or a "Redan-type" hole, or an "Alps", Pickering and Findlay were certainly well acquainted with how to do that, as was Tillinghast, who was also around at times prior to construction.
This is not to minimize the consultative role provided by CBM, but merely to supplement it with "on the ground" experience that was vast and arguably even greater than Macdonald's experience.
As far as "Alps" holes, they dated back to the Ardsley Casino course and Shinnecock in this country, and when the Ideal Golf Holes were tabulated in GB, the Alps headed the list of par fours. They were a dime a dozen here by the time CBM built his, yet his was clearly superior.
Here are three articles written by Alex Findlay between June 1912 and September 1912 when Merion opened. It's clear Findlay spoke to Hugh Wilson before he went abroad, again after, and advised him as well. Joe Bausch found these articles and posted them prior, but they do provide interesting insight.
It is somewhat curouss that a man like Alex Findlay, arguably the most experienced man in American golf at the time, would 1) equate Wilson with what Leeds and Macdonald had done, simply for going abroad for a few weeks, and 2) Would still feel that Myopia was our greatest course even after the National was built.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5803990148_6555f14444_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/5803430881_81228c0383_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2233/5803430977_73292e1a68_o.jpg)
-
The Spirit of St. Andrews was written in the early 30s. In the previous chapter Mackenzie said normally it was a bad idea to allow a committee to alter existing course designed by a first class architect or to allow a committee to build a golf course designed by a first class architect. Mackenzie was friends with Alan Wilson and I am assuming he had intimate knowledge of how the course evolved. He is categorizing the Wilsons with Low and Colt as unique committee chairs who successfully carried out or redesigned an architects design.
-
Tom,
It would help our understanding if you quoted what was said exactly instead of paraphrasing between chapters. Thanks.
-
He discusses it in the chapters dealing with general principles and economy in golf course construction. If you don't have the book, you should pick it up, it is one of the more interesting and informative books written during the so called golden age.
-
Tom,
I have the book...just thought you might have the passages conveniently handy to reference for us. Thanks.
-
It's hard to tell from that article if Findlay is referring to other Alps holes CBM laid out elsewhere, or if he is saying CBM laid out the other template holes at Merion. I can see where David believes the latter, but I am not 100% sure we can know.
It also occurs to me that, given their admitted desire to collect information from as many sources as possible, that the choice of Pickering, and his grass knowledge, over CBM/Raynor, whose NGLA was struggling with its turf at the time, was probably a very deliberate attempt to use the biggest experts available. (i.e. 100 courses built vs 3, with the one they saw struggling at the time with its turf)
And, by extension, with Pickering seemingly given some free reign in the general makeup of the course, as reported by Findlay, it would explain the differences in design/construction style. As Patrick argues, I have always believed that they were in fact, very concerned about not just copying the NGLA style, but having their own.
And again with the semantics, but if they hired Pickering and his experience in course making, which seems to include building to a certain style (hey, all shapers have a style) all that would argue against calling CBM more than an advisor, but I know others will see it differently. No doubt they relied on him a lot for design ideas, even though we cannot know the detail of who picked the Redan hole for 3, the Road Hole for 6, etc.
BTW, I recall being told that there was a letter between CBM and Wilson regarding turf issues through June 1911, but in the end, they disagreed strongly on some of his turf advice and its the last correspondance noted between the parties on the matter. That suggests that Pickering took on a bigger and bigger role in their minds, although it doesn't diminish whatever CBM did to guide them earlier.
-
Jeff,
It's interesting to read Robert Lesley's definition of the Principles of an Alps Hole, which he defined with a large front crossing bunker and a large mound behind. Given the topography of Merion's 10th, it would have been difficult to hide the flag/green without also creating some type of concave punchbowl.
Given that definition, however, it's pretty easy to see how any number of holes could have been called "Alps", including the one under construction at the time at Piping Rock. Did Chicago have an "Alps" hole, or any of the other courses CBM was credited for advising at?
I also find it telling that Findlay 1) first tells us he's not ready to "talk about the possibilities" of the Merion course, so I doubt he's then in the next breath saying many other holes at Merion are already "great", and 2) that there isn't a single mention of CBM in his "Opening Day" article that again mentions Wilson and his Committee's great work on par with what Leeds did at Myopia.
-
Mike,
I don't know who decided to make the 10th the Alps at MCC, but I suspect that they looked at the road crossing, and figured it wasn't the place for a run up shot so the Alps was the perfect choice to force an aerial shot over the cars......
I agree that CBM would have been mentioned more often. However, while I don't agree, I can see why anyone who thinks there was a mindset at Merion to take credit themselves at the expense of CBM could argue that they purposely downplayed his role at the opening. And, in reality, as David pointed out once, I really think the idea of designing and building a great course weren't separated in nearly anyone's mind at that time as much as it is now. Hence the "construction committee" tag vs the design and construction committee, etc.
I appreciate the old articles again. I am leaving town once again, but when I have some time, I swear I am going to copy all of those on my hard drive at some point so no one has to post them again, at least for my benefit.
-
Mike,
It seems as though a good deal of the debate may be hidden by semantics and subjectivity.
So, to get things on a more finite basis.
As a percentage, what percentage of the golf course circa 1912, opening day, would you attribute to the committee and what percentage to CBM & HJW ?
You can even poll the Merionettes in exile.
I"d be curious to know what you and others feel is the appropriate number.
David Moriarty & Tom MacWood,
While I'm guessing that your attribution breakdown will be higher than Mikes and the Merionettes, I'd appreciate you're holding off with your response until after they've quantified their attribution based on their research and opinions.
Thanks
-
Mike says that he is not trying to minimize CBM's contribution, but what other point could their possibly be to this scattergun, Anyone-but-CBM approach to Merion's history.
Pickering? He built the course according to the plan CBM had chosen. No one at Merion ever mentioned that Pickering had anything to do with the design.
Findlay? There is no indication anywhere that he had anything to do with the design of the course. In fact, when he was not indirectly plugging his own business by heaping praise on his business partner Pickering, he indicated that CBM laid out many of the holes, at least.
Tillinghast? How desperate can they get? Tillinghast's sole source of information on the design seems to have been CBM himself. How ironic is that? CBM tells AWT about the project and shows him plans, and because of that we are to assume that AWT had influence and CBM didn't? It is ridiculous.
Those at Merion tell us where they got their ideas. From CBM and HJW. All this speculation and inflation of Anyone-but-CBM just goes to show what is really going on here.
__________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
I think you may be letting your imagination run away a bit in some of your posts above.
Merion hired Pickering over CBM? What are you talking about? CBM was involved in the planning and chose the final routing plan. CBM was not in the course building business like Pickering. It is quite clear from all of we know that he never intended to build Merion's course (thus his repeated references to what Merion ought to do.) Pickering, on the other hand, was a course builder and brought in to build the course. Or as Merion's minutes say and as my essay said, to build it according to plan, the plan CBM had chosen.
You also mistakenly speculate about the later letter from CBM and HJW. In their zeal to besmirch CBM, the Merionettes had blatantly misunderstood and misrepresented that letter and ignored the accompanying letter which explains it quite well. In context, about all that letter establishes is that CBM was still working closely with Wilson well into the construction of the course. There was no evidence of a fight or falling out, nor any reason to think that the letter represented the last of their communication. The only reason we have the letter is that Wilson happened to forward it to Oakley.
(I don't have the two letters handy, but the gist is that Beale, the British seed guy, had met with Wilson and would later be meeting with CBM, so Wilson asked CBM to try to get and forward Beale's candid opinion on some agronomy issues at Merion. After meeting with Beale, CBM was passing along what Beale had told him about the Merion project. Far from being evidence of a fallout, the letter is evidence of a close and continuing advisor relationship.)
-
Wait a second...
I thought the Merion Committee was the one whose role was simply to "build the course according to the plan CBM selected", not Fred Pickering!
Or, in David-Speak, they "laid out the course upon the land", aka "it rubs the lotion on it's skin". ;) ;D
What exactly do you think it was that Hugh Wilson's Committee did again?? ::) ;) ;D
No one is claiming that Pickering and/or Findlay and/or Tilinghast had anything to do with the design, but they certainly were all there to advise on what building an Eden Green might entail!
And there's another reason I'm mentioning them, David...
THEY WERE THERE!!! :)
At the very minimum, we KNOW that Alex Findlay was there AT LEAST two times, which is PRECISELY the number of visits that CBM made.
CBM's first visit was June, 1910, and he returned again for a single day TEN MONTHS LATER to help the Merion Committee select the best of their five final routing options.
Pickering was there all through construction and his vast experience in construction and agronomy dwarfed anyone else involved with the project.
And, you have no idea how many times Tillinghast met with the Committee or anyone at Merion while the project was being planned, do you? You tell us that CBM showed him the plans but you don't have any evidence of that. Tillinghast told us he talked about the Merion project with CBM while at Garden City, but he also told us in 1911, concerning the Merion Committee;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3726705533_b16d8fd1eb_o.jpg)
When Merion opened Tillinghast wrote a lengthy review of the course in the American Cricketer. There is not a single word about CBM and/or HJ Whigham, even though, as you point out, he spoke with them about the project.
Instead, Tillinghast wrote;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/3704164849_04494fd679_z.jpg?zz=1)
In 1934, in the US Open preview, Tillinghast wrote;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3600480402_f6db6a808d_b.jpg)
Again, not a single word about CBM and/or Whigham and their supposed design of Merion.
Are you trying to tell us that Tillinghast didn't know that Hugh Wilson didn't actually design the golf course?? ::)
-
More sleazy deception and misinformation.
Tillinghast wrote that he had seen the plans. Cirba knows from what else he wrote around that same time that if he saw the plans it was most likely CBM who had shown him the plan. Cirba also knows that if Tillie was who Cirba thinks he was, then Tillie had not seen the course until after it opened. And of course Mike forgets that Tillie had already written that that CBM had been working with the committee and had been of great help.
Findlay was there after the course had already been built and the greens and tees seeded.
Pickering was hired to build the course according to plan. The plan CBM had chosen. (What else would one call reviewing a number of plans and then approving either one of these, some combination of these, or something else entirely?)
-
David,
Tillinghast did NOT see the course between the time the plans were approved at the start of construction until he played it shortly after it was finished.
But, he LIVED in Philadelphia. Are you telling us that during the winter months and GAP meetings that he had no discussions with his closest friends like Rodman Griscom and/or Robert Lesley?? Are you losing it??
Tillinghast told us precisely what everyone else did...that CBM advised the Committee...big whup!!
But, he also told us that Hugh Wilson and Committee were the ARCHITECTS of the golf course, and whatever advise and suggestions that CBM provided Tillinghast didn't think they warranted mention in an extensive review of the entire golf course for American Cricketer. Do I need to re-post the entire article again??
You keep using words like "chosen".
CBM had absolutely no such authority, I'm sorry to say. If he did, the Merion Committee wouldn't have had to present their proposal to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th 1911 for ACTUAL approval.
Instead, it's very clear that without such authority, the meaning of the word is the first one, not the second, because CBM had no ability to function within the second definition.
ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.
As far as Findlay, once again you're talking out of your blow hole.
You have absolutely no idea when Alex Findlay was there, how many times, who he met with, over what period, or anything other than what we all know...he was there at least TWICE, just like good Old Macdonald!
-
Mike just keeps twisting. I point to the words of those who were there and to the course itself to make my case. Mike has to go on these great tangents, pretending people were there who weren't, mincing words, dissing CBM and HJW, contradicting those there, exaggerating the involvement of those not at all involved in the planning.
Tillinghast lived in Philadelphia therefor he must have been involved?
Tillinghast never saw the course and apparently only reported what CBM told him about it, yet we are to believe that Merion was following his advice - and not CBM's?
Twenty some years later, AWT warmly remembers Wilson and defends his reputation against usurpation by Flynn, and we are to believe this was a statement about the level of CBM's contribution?
And to hear Mike tell it, apparently CBM and HJW just showed up at Merion one spring day, uninvited, snuck onto the land to go over it again, forced the committee to show them the various plans, and then "approved" what they saw fit, all without Merion's consent, invitation, or involvement?
Bullshit. CBM and HJW were there because Merion wanted them there. They approved the plan, because Merion obviously put it in their hands to decide what was best to do with the land. CBM and HJW were following up on their meetings a few weeks before where CBM was teaching them what to do with their land. And those meetings were a follow up on CBM's and HJW's earlier involvement. CBM had been involved from the beginning and was making sure Merion had it right, and signing off on what they (including CBM) had come up with. There is no other reasonable way to read it. But then for the Merionettes, this isn't about reason, it is about plausible deniability.
-
David,
Tillinghast did NOT see the course between the time the plans were approved at the start of construction until he played it shortly after it was finished.
But, he LIVED in Philadelphia. Are you telling us that during the winter months and GAP meetings that he had no discussions with his closest friends like Rodman Griscom and/or Robert Lesley?? Are you losing it??
Mike,
Surely you see the double standard you adhere to.
Now, you're insisting that AWT, who wasn't officially connected with Merion or the Committee, spoke to them, but, CBM who was officially retained by Merion, never spoke to them by phone.
You can't have it both ways.
Tillinghast told us precisely what everyone else did...that CBM advised the Committee...big whup!!
But, he also told us that Hugh Wilson and Committee were the ARCHITECTS of the golf course, and whatever advise and suggestions that CBM provided Tillinghast didn't think they warranted mention in an extensive review of the entire golf course for American Cricketer. Do I need to re-post the entire article again??
You keep using words like "chosen".
CBM had absolutely no such authority, I'm sorry to say. If he did, the Merion Committee wouldn't have had to present their proposal to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th 1911 for ACTUAL approval.
Instead, it's very clear that without such authority, the meaning of the word is the first one, not the second, because CBM had no ability to function within the second definition.
ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.
As far as Findlay, once again you're talking out of your blow hole.
You have absolutely no idea when Alex Findlay was there, how many times, who he met with, over what period, or anything other than what we all know...he was there at least TWICE, just like good Old Macdonald!
-
Mike & Jeff,
Would you please list your attribution percentage.
Thanks
-
By the way, if Tilly said the CBM was the architect of Merion, I'd believe him.
He saw the plans, he spoke with CBM and Merion, and he still credited ONLY Wilson and his Committtee.
And, he wasnt fooled by the terminology as his good friend George Crump's design team was named the exact same thing at Pine Valley...the Construction CoMmittee.
-
Whigham said it, and unlike AWT, Whigham was there. Yet you don't believe him.
Given Colt's input, I am not sure Pine Valley is the best example for you.
-
Mike & Jeff,
Could you please quantify the relative contributions to the routing and design of Merion. (committee % vs CBM %)
List as a percentile (and the inverse) that which you attribute to the committee and that which you attribute to CBM and HJW.
It's a rather simple task and given your ardent support for Wilson and his committee, should be a simple, quick reply.
Thanks
-
Whigham said it, and unlike AWT, Whigham was there. Yet you don't believe him.
Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course. Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.
-
It appears Findlay considered 17 a par 3 in 1912
-
Whigham said it, and unlike AWT, Whigham was there. Yet you don't believe him.
Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course. Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.
This is typical of the kind of twisted approach to interpretation prevailing on one side of the discussion. Ignore the interpretation that makes sense, and go with the interpretation that renders the article nonsensical. That way you can both make your point and portray Whigham as a fool, thus reinforcing your point. Whatever it takes to reach the desired result.
_________________________________
John Collum,
Yep.
________________________________
Alex Findlay, after spending an hour on the links with Wilson in 1912:
Wilson "is now convinced that [Merion's Alps] will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
So what exactly is there to argue about?
-
Whigham said it, and unlike AWT, Whigham was there. Yet you don't believe him.
Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course. Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.
This is typical of the kind of twisted approach to interpretation prevailing on one side of the discussion. Ignore the interpretation that makes sense, and go with the interpretation that renders the article nonsensical. That way you can both make your point and portray Whigham as a fool, thus reinforcing your point. Whatever it takes to reach the desired result.
So I take it you don't believe Raynor worked on Merion. Just what is the interpretation "that makes sense?"
-
Can one of you sort of circle the green in this picture. I can't make anything out of it, yet both of you seem to see something different there.
Also in the Lesley quote, what do you make of the supposed 100 foot precipice that needs to be guarded by an iron railing to prevent golfers from falling into the depths. Isn't the depth of the quarry more like 25 or 30 feet?
Standing upon a precipice 100 feet in the air with iron railings to prevent the far-swinging player from falling into the depths of the quarry beneath, the golfer finds himself facing the seventeenth green some 220 yards away. Over the quarry, over an intervening hill, over an intervening valley the ball flies to the big seventeenth green, where two putts make the par three.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3574371011_5246b6453d_o.jpg)
-
Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course. Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.
Give me a break. That is like someone calling an Alison course, like Burning Tree or Knollwood, a Colt & Alison course. Everyone knows they worked as a team for years although they did not collaborate on every design.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3507806192_aa5da47cc9_z.jpg?zz=1)
Mike
Is that a Principal's Nose in the middle of the 5th fairway?
-
Byran,
The only thing I could think of was maybe he was talking about 100' ASL, or exaggerating to add drama.
Mike & Jeff,
Why are you suddenly silent and afraid to quantify your long standing position, one you've argued for during this entire thread ?
-
Patrick,
Of all the ridiculous questions you've asked here, this one might be the topper.
If you can show me proof that CBM designed one hole, one feature, or was responsible for the position of one blade of grass on the original Merion course I might start deducting points from the man in charge, Hugh Wilson, who with his Committee were responsible for 100% of the Merion Golf course that opened in 1912.
I await your vain attempts to prove otherwise. ;) ;D
Tom MacWood,
It might be a "Principal's Nose"....haven't you been following along?
Although I think David called it a "Hell bunker" feature previously, so who really knows?? We can play this game all day and just make it up as we go along.
Didn't you see where Tillinghast wrote that Merion planned to add sorts of "experimental" touches to the golf course in years to come after it opened in 1912? Here it is again for you;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/3704164849_04494fd679_z.jpg?zz=1)
Of course they wanted to try to add some features and such from holes he'd seen abroad...that's clear.
And as romantic, quaint, nostalgic, and familiar as those type of features may make us feel today when we see them on vintage courses, I think the record at Merion is also clear that pretty quickly Hugh Wilson and William Flynn realized that adding such unnatural touches as "Mid-Surrey Mounding" really didn't add much and were sort of ungainly truth be told and they were better off just going with what the natural features of the land dictated.
Certainly holes like the original Alps, interesting as they might be to us geeks, were really blights on the landscape in that environment.
All,
Not since Marc Antony gave Julius Caesar post-mortem oral have we seen such an over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic eulogy as what HJ Whigham delivered to his late Father-in-law, where he essentially credited him with every good course built in America from 1910 to 1939. More on that later...
-
Mike,
Thanks,
so your position is Wilson and committee 100 %, CBM & HJW 0 %.
Interesting that you give CBM absolutely no credit for the routing and design of Merion.
If I'm not. Mistaken, this was the reason that David crafted his opinion piece.
So, it's your contention that CBM' visits, correspondence, phone calls and supplied sketches along with the committees two day visit to NGLA had no influence, no impact on the routing and design of Merion.
By the way, Your continued attempts to force your opinion on others is falling on deaf ears
-
Patrick,
"Advice and suggestions" does not equate to responsibility and attribution.
Still waiting on your evidence and proof otherwise.
-
Didn't you see where Tillinghast wrote that Merion planned to add sorts of "experimental" touches to the golf course in years to come after it opened in 1912? Here it is again for you;
Where have you been? I've always maintained Wilson's design influence began after he returned from the UK.
-
Tom,
You have absolutely no idea when Wilson's interest in architecture began, do you?
Reports tell us he also visited all of the best courses in the US as well, prior to the development of Merion East.
You have no idea when that activity took place, do you?
Such blanket statements without a hint of supporting evidence is the heart of the problem here.
-
Patrick,
Sometimes real life intervenes. But, this is an interesting excersize and here goes:
Routing (by days) - CBM 4 days max. Committtee from Feb 6-April 6 (presuming time to get topos in January) 60 days.
Merion Committee 93%-CBM 7%
Routing (by hours)- Merion Committee twice a week for 8 weeks, 4 hours per night, 64 hours x 2 (Assumes Wilson equaled all other committee input) for 132 hour. CBM - again 32 hours max, although we know some time was devoted at NGLA to teaching hole designs, if not all. Give him 20 hours.
Merion Committee 87%-CBM 13%
Routing by Plans - Merion Committee- Many before NGLA visit, 5 After. CBM - None known, but give him come credit.
Merion Committee 95%-CBM 5%
Routing by Holes Figured Out - Merion Committee- From Francis, at least the last 5. Give CBM credit for the short 13th based on the June 1910 visit, and maybe seeing first that the Dallas Estate was necessary, so by Extension the Road Hole3. Of the known holes figured out, its a 5:2 ratio. It could be a 16:2 ratio given CBM did no known plans, but we will give him credit for the same ratio throughout the course.
Merion Committee 73%-CBM 28%
By Approvals - Both Lloyd and CBM approved the final routing(Lloyd from the sense that the swap and extra land was okay. We really don't know how finalized the land swap plan was by the time CBM showed up for his scheduled April 6 meeting, but we'll split the difference.
Merion Committee 50%-CBM 50%
Giving each category equal weight, it appears the ratio overall is for the routing plan is Merion Committee 77.5%, CBM - 22.5%, giving CBM every benefit of the doubt, even when not fully supported by the record.
As to features, even allowing for the Principle's nose TMac just points out, giving Merion 7 Templates, I will go with Merion 62% and CBM 38%. If routing and features are weighted equally, then it's about Merion 75% overall and CBM 25% overall.
Just my best attempt at a very speculuative matter, but a fun excersize. Hope I don't get called a lying, disingenous sleaze for trying to answer your question in an intelligent way.
-
Byran,
The only thing I could think of was maybe he was talking about 100' ASL, or exaggerating to add drama.
...........................
Patrick, I'd go with the "exaggerating to add drama". Surely Lesley knew better. But, that's the trouble with so many of the contemporaneous reports and remembrances, many seem to have exaggerations or misstatements. How do we know what is true and accurate and what is not?
-
Jeff,
Disingenuous and liar are redundant. So, let's just call you a disingenuous sleazy dog for this piece of new math on the attribution. ;D ;) (Just kidding, if case you don't get the emoticons). You forgot to add the statistical caveat that your analysis is only accurate 19 times in 20, although in this case more like 10 times in 20. As you note several times, we don't know much directly about who did the routing and design of the holes, so it is really a shot in the dark.
Patrick,
I assume you are trying to put a numerical value on this so that we could see how far apart the two warring sides are on the attribution. I'm not sure of the efficacy of this approach. I think they are closer than they'll ever admit.
Just to add my 2 cents to the new math exercise, I'll go with the Pareto Principle - Merion Committee 80%; CBM/HJW 20%.
I assume that you will add your own guesstimate and that you expect David and Tom M to also weigh in.
-
Jeff,
I think your approach, vis a vis, compartmentalization and summary is reasonable.
As to being called a lying, disingenuous sleaze, I think we can eliminate the redundancies in their entirety, and just stick with "sleaze" ;D
Bryan,
I was trying to distill the rhetoric down to a numeric expression, which as you pointed out would quantify the differential in opinions.
Mike's numeric attribution is at odds with his earlier rhetoric, so, until he matches up and consolidates the disparity in the two, we'll have to place his numeric assessment on the sidelines.
I'd prefer to hold off on my opinion until after David, Tom and others, including the Merionettes, if they're so disposed, provide theirs.
Since Mike is so good at "channeling" the Merionettes, it shouldn't be too difficult to have them provide a simple number.
With the voluminous amount of lengthy emails, a one, two or three digit number shouldn't be difficult to type or "channell" ;D
-
Patrick,
CBM had a lot of advice and also a working design committee at NGLA that included Dev Emmet, Walter Travis, and HJ Whigham, and we know he also said he took a lot of advice from Horace Hutchinson and others, particularly on green design which he sites in his book.
How would you proportion design attribution of NGLA among the participants and why?
I believe you earlier told us that you gave FULL attribution to CBM because he was the guy responsible...the guy who took the advice of others, considered it, distilled it against alternatives, and made the decisions.
Isn't that what Max Behr told us that Hugh Wilson did at Merion?
Until you can show us proof of CBM and/or Whigham designing a blade of grass at Merion, I have to stick with 100% attribution to Hugh Wilson and his Committee for the design and 100% to Hugh Wilson as the man in charge and chief decision-maker.
Seems wholly consistent with your benevolent dictator philosophy, no?
-
Patrick,
Of all the ridiculous questions you've asked here, this one might be the topper.
I think it's one of the most intelligent questions asked on this thread.
If you can show me proof that CBM designed one hole, one feature, or was responsible for the position of one blade of grass on the original Merion course I might start deducting points from the man in charge, Hugh Wilson, who with his Committee were responsible for 100% of the Merion Golf course that opened in 1912.
If you can show us proof that Wilson designed one hole, one feature, on the original Merion course I'll do the same.
Your 100 % is at odds with your previously admitted position regarding CBM's role at Merion.
I await your vain attempts to prove otherwise. ;) ;D
Tom MacWood,
It might be a "Principal's Nose"....haven't you been following along?
Although I think David called it a "Hell bunker" feature previously, so who really knows?? We can play this game all day and just make it up as we go along.
Didn't you see where Tillinghast wrote that Merion planned to add sorts of "experimental" touches to the golf course in years to come after it opened in 1912?
Mike, I could be wrong, but, I don't think this debate has anything to do with what happened at Merion after 1912
Certainly holes like the original Alps, interesting as they might be to us geeks, were really blights on the landscape in that environment.
All,
Not since Marc Antony gave Julius Caesar post-mortem oral have we seen such an over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic eulogy as what HJ Whigham delivered to his late Father-in-law, where he essentially credited him with every good course built in America from 1910 to 1939. More on that later...
Me thinks that Cirba doth protest too much
-
One of the most frustrating yet telling of Mike's characteristics is his near complete lack of self-awareness in a his posts. He has no sense of irony, proportion, or self-reflection whatsoever. He will write and say anything if he thinks it might sell, no matter how hyperbolic, exaggerated, and misleading it might be.
Take his treatment of the Whigham remembrance. He his trying to convince us to disregard Whigham's inclusion of Merion on the list of famous courses by CBM and/or Raynor by falsely portraying the entire article as an "over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic eulogy" where Whigham "essentially credited [CBM] with every good course built in America from 1910 to 1939." Apparently Mike's point is that we ought to discount "over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic" statements and their authors as overly emotional, too attached to the subject matter, inherently unreliable, and unworthy of any real consideration. I am all for this generally, but Mike ironically focuses on the wrong author.
Here is what mike wrote, his bold:
"All, Not since Marc Antony gave Julius Caesar post-mortem oral have we seen such an over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic eulogy as what HJ Whigham delivered to his late Father-in-law, where he essentially credited him with every good course built in America from 1910 to 1939. More on that later...
The irony is that Mike's representation suffers from the exact same defects which Mike falsely attributes to the Whigham article. The Whigham articleis pretty damn reasonable given the context. Mike's claim is the only thing "over-the-top, over-reaching, [and] hyperbolic." Whigham did not credit CBM with designing every good course in America. He credited CBM and NGLA for laying the groundwork for the golden age courses that followed. He essentially highlighted the groundbreaking and conversation changing nature of CBM's work at NGLA, and that, in my opinion, is a reasonably accurate claim, especially within the context written.
In fact, Whigham not only specifically discussed other great courses for which CBM was not responsible, he demonstrated, unequivocally, that he knew the difference between a CBM course and a course at which CBM had merely offered advice, only some of which was followed. Pine Valley. According to Whigham, CBM inspected the land at Pine Valley and offered his opinion on what should be done, but only some of that advice was followed. Whigham readily acknowledged that while considered one of the best three courses in America, Pine Valley was NOT a CBM course, but sprang from the mind and ideas of Crump. But Merion was a CBM course. Whigham was there and he knew firsthand that this was the case.
So the "over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic" statements? All Mike's. Same for the outright false and/or blatantly exaggerated and misleading statements. Mike's claim(s) deserve the same treatment he suggests for Whigham. He should be dismissed as a partisan hack who is way too caught up in the emotion of the situation and who cannot help misrepresenting the truth to make his case. The constant "over-the-top, over-reaching, hyperbolic" crap is ample evidence that he deserves no place in this conversation.
____________________________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
Instead of trying to mock me for calling out Mike for his less than productive tactics, wouldnt it be more productive if you would join me? Use kinder words if you like, but surely you can see what he is doing here. You have admitted it before. Take a look at any point above where I call him out, and tell me that the substance of my criticism is misplaced. So scold me for my word choice all you like, but don't go on ignoring the obvious. I'll bet I'd be a lot less harsh and a lot less negative if others like you didnt turn a blind eye to what we all know is ongoing here.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bryan,
The photo you posted was apparently taken with a wide angle. The green is the light colored patch in the back center of the photo close to the center trees, much further away than one might expect to find had it been taken with a narrower lens. While it is difficult to make out much, one can just make out the front ridge of the plateau green. I may have a better copy of the photo somewhere, or when I get a chance I will try to make a better copy from an actual magazine from which it came.
The 100 ft. drop figure gets thrown around elsewhere as well. Merion was none to good at accurate measurements. At least they didn't pretend there was an Ocean crashing below like the chasm hole at Biarritz.
-
David,
Do i need to reproduce Whigham's remarks in full again?
On what scientific basis did he claim that NGLA was the "inspiration" for Pine Valley and every other good course built over almost three decades??
That is your factual proof and evidence? That's it??
Also,
Please keep the insults coming because your evidence is so thin it at least gives you something to type..
-
Patrick,
Jeff and i have answered your attribution question.
Where are you?
Shouldn't you be now pressing David and TMac to do the same, oh paragon of unbiased fairness and objectivity?
As far as others who don't participate here any longer, if you want their % attribution you have their contact info, no?
-
Whigham also called Merion a CBM/Raynor course. Unless you believe Raynor also worked on Merion, the eulogy is already wrong.
Give me a break. That is like someone calling an Alison course, like Burning Tree or Knollwood, a Colt & Alison course. Everyone knows they worked as a team for years although they did not collaborate on every design.
I disagree. Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together. He said Raynor did the groundwork, and CBM corrected the plans. He specifically named Merion as one of these courses.
So we know Whigham mistakenly attributed Merion to Raynor. We know the eulogy was mistaken on at least one point. To call it "twisted" to point up factual errors -- in a document held up for its alleged historical accuracy -- is a serious case of pot and kettle.
-
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect. He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad. Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country. Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography. The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars. From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses. And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."
'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National. Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."
"...Here again he was right. For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style. Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example. Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie. But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."
-
Bryan,
Quick, and what I hope will be an easy question for you.
I believe you attempted to measure this drawing in the past and came out somewhere around 124 acres for the golf course, correct?
Were you able to tell if all of the "overage" was north of Ardmore Avenue?
In other words, there was consistency between the time of "securing" and the time of purchase a fixed amount of acreage south of Ardmore Avenue that was made up of the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate, and X acres of the Johnson Farm below Ardmore. Those boundaries were always fixed by the historical property lines.
If you measured out the acreage south, did that match up exactly with the historical acreages of those properties or was that off as well, and if so, by approximately how much?
Also, did your acreage estimates include the eastern half of Golf House Road and/or any of Ardmore Avenue?
Thanks for your help!
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
As regards your question on the 17th, here's my very rough drawing although it's probably a bit generous on the front right center. Thanks.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/5808976235_2f8356290b_b.jpg)
-
On what scientific basis did he claim that NGLA was the "inspiration" for Pine Valley and every other good course built over almost three decades??
I wonder if Mike ever bothers to consider a thing he writes? The "scientific basis" for Whigham's opinion on the importance place of NGLA in the history of golf course design?
As for how Whigham could have come up with the outlandish opinion that NGLA was generally inspirational to courses that followed, perhaps it was because Whigham's opinion on the matter was commonplace. As has been repeatedly discussed, the National had been widely acknowledged among the experts as a groundbreaking, conversation-changing, revolutionary course from its inception! And perhaps it was because Whigham had witnessed, first hand, the incredible changes which occurred as a result of CBM's efforts at NGLA.
And who better to comment on NGLA's profound impact than Whigham? He not only witnessed the changes first hand, he had been writing about the evolution of America's golf courses and their shortcomings since the mid-1890s --over 40 years. Even early on, Whigham far from a complete neophyte like so many here. He was very familiar not only with the great golf courses in Scotland, but with golf courses worldwide, and came here having grown up in one of the truly great golfing families in a home overlooking one of the great links courses. He had designed courses himself at the dawn of golf in America, and been side-by-side with CBM at NGLA, Piping Rock, and others. He had articulated many of the underlying concepts at NGLA in his tremendous and influential articles, and had remained active and interested enough in the evolution of American golf design throughout his life to have been at Cypress during its construction. After CBM's death, was there anyone in America more qualified to discuss the evolution of American Golf course design than H.J. Whigham? If so, who?
Yet Mike demands the "scientific basis" of Whigham's opinion regarding the general impact of NGLA? Preposterous.
While Whigham did write about NGLA as being an inspiration for the courses that followed, he obviously meant it was inspiration in a general sense(my underline): "For the National has been much more than just a good golf course: it has been a the inspiration of every great course in the country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style." And as mentioned above, the National had been widely acknowledged among the experts as an inspirational course from the opening of the course and for decades thereafterfter!
From his post, Mike would apparently have us believe that Whigham held up Pine Valley as an example of a course inspired by NGLA. Not so. As you can see above, CBM holds up Cypress Point, not Pine Valley. But what of Mike's intimation that Whigham was giving CBM credit for Pine Valley? Mike just happened to leave out the part of the quote above where Whigham left no doubt that, in his opinion, "Pine Valley was a George Crump creation and a noble work of golf architecture." Cirba makes claims about how Whigham overstated CBM's influence over Pine Valley and then leaves out the part of the quote directly about Pine Valley? Despicable.
_____________________________________
I understand why Mike wants to deflect attention away from the real example, Cypress Point. Not long ago, Mike was up to his usual tricks, and made some self-serving statement about how Whigham "was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration." Only he put it the form of a question to Neil Crafter, who knows a thing or two about MacKenzie and Cypress Point.
Mike Cirba: Neil, Good to see you here. Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration?
Neil Crafter: Against my better judgement! Mike, the Whigham eulogy mention of Cypress Point I read as being more about the inspiration of NGLA in the overall project sense, rather than specifically the course and its architecture. Whigham would have known a good deal about Cypress Point, the project, the course and its architects, far more than any of us have been able to dig out 80 years hence. Whigham specifically refers to the conception of Cypress, which as we know, belongs to Marion Hollins. . . .
So unlike Mike, Neil is capable of understanding that Whigham was speaking of NGLA's general influence, "in the overall project sense, rather than specifically about the course and its architecture," and that Whigham would have known about the project and was in a better position to comment than we are.
Rather than heed Neil's answer or consider Neil's reading, or heeding the quotations from Spirit of St. Andrews were Mackenzie largely confirms what Whigham wrote, Mike simply ignores it all and dismisses his own question as rhetorical:
"Neil, Deftly handled, but my question was rhetorical as Whigham's statement was so over the top as to be clearly hyberbolic exaggeration, essentially crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940."
This is what I am talking about when I refer to his complete lack of self-awareness and his pathological inability to exercise even the least bit of self-reflection! Mike cannot even acknowledge or even begin to deal with Neil's reasonable interpretation of the passage. Instead he ironically retreats back to his own "hyperbolic exaggeration" and misrepresentation, discussed further below.
__________________________________________________________
Jim Nugent is following the same type of reasoning than Mike. They both seem to think that if they can come up with any sort of interpretation with any plausibility whatsoever, then they can treat their interpretation as the correct and only interpretation. This involves ignoring the overall context and focusing on particular potential ambiguities (real or perceived) to find the meaning they are determined to find. It essentially calls for what might be termed "a bad faith reading" where instead of trying in good faith to understand what the author meant, they try in bad faith to distort the facts to suit their purposes.
That is how Mike goes from an article where Whigham portrayed NGLA was an seminal and inspirational course, to his bizarre rantings about how Whigham was "crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940." And it is the exact same sort of reasoning that Jim Nugent has used to support his bizarre beliefs about how Obama may be a non-American and an extremist Muslim terrorist.
Both require a interpretive methodology set up to skew toward their underlying beliefs, and one which ignores a fundamental precept of reasonable good faith interpretation. In the face of vagueness or ambiguity, one must give the author the benefit of the doubt and, where possible, avoid interpreting the document in a manner which renders it nonsensical, absurd, and/or self-contradictory on its face.
Here we have a situation where Whigham compressed a number of years of CBM's and Raynor's working relationship into a couple of sentences, and because he wasn't writing a treatise on the history of their relationship or even a history of Raynor's development, he didn't cover every intricacy of how that relationship evolved and changed from Raynor the "surveyor" who "knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links" to Raynor the "golf architect" who could take the holes at NGLA "and adapt them to almost any topography." Given the context, there is reason to expect Whigham to have gone into it in any more detail than he did.
And Whigham's points regarding Raynor were clear. He was not only of great help to CBM in doing the field work, he also eventually became a tremendous architect himself, and one who was building courses modeled after NGLA whether CBM was involved or not! That is what he means by "Macdonald-Raynor courses." Courses modeled after NGLA. It shouldn't be so complicated, given it is the same thing we mean when we lump Macdonald and Raynor together --courses modeled after NGLA are Macdonald-Raynor courses, or as some say, "MacRaynor courses." Makes no difference whether both were involved in their creation or just one.
If this were not what Whigham meant, then why would have listed "the two beautiful courses at White Sulphur?" CBM was not involved in the design of the second course at White Sulphur, was he? The second course at White Sulphur was NOT designed and built by Raynor and Macdonald, it was designed and built by Raynor alone, wasn't it? Yet it was Macdonald-Raynor course in Whigham's eyes. Likewise, Whigham mentions "the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia" even though Raynor at this time there is no direct evidence linking Raynor to the design or construction of the course. Yet again, it was a Macdonald-Raynor course even though Whigham knew the extent of CBM's involvement because he was there.
Jim Nugent's and Mike Cirba's reading is untenable because it is directly contradicted by the very examples of Mac-Raynor courses provided by Whigham. In other words, the reading unnecessarily renders the passage nonsensical, absurd, and contradictory on its face. While this may serve their purposes, to read it as though it was absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory is entirely unreasonable. Whigham wasn't a fool and he shouldn't be protrayed as such because these guys can't come to grips with the extent of CBM's involvement at Merion!
-
David,
Holy Cow...it takes you that much typing to tell us what Whigham really meant?
His statements were over-reaching and hyperbolic, and frankly, a pussy move to mention it for the first time 30 years later after multiple major championships and after nearly everyone was dead and buried if that is what he really believed.
-
Patrick,
Jeff and i have answered your attribution question.
Where are you?
Shouldn't you be now pressing David and TMac to do the same, oh paragon of unbiased fairness and objectivity? ;) ;D
As far as others who don't participate here any longer, if you want their % attribution you have their contact info, no?
-
Whigham was quite clear. He called Merion a CBM-Raynor course. He even explained how CBM and Raynor worked together. There is no ambiguity. And he is clearly wrong, about this material fact.
I see this as more than trivial. One of the key documents offered as evidence is flawed. In at least one important way, and perhaps several others. That has to cast doubt on other claims in the eulogy. Especially ones that have little to no evidence behind them.
David can bob and weave all he likes. He can rant, rave, insult and impugn the intentions/intelligence of those who disagree with him. But he is the one who must give his interpretation of what he thinks Whigham really meant. He also must pick and choose what is true in the eulogy, and what is not. It's obvious to me who has the agenda here.
Funny thing is, I have always thought (and still think) David's essay cast Merion in a new, more accurate light. CBM clearly played a more important role than most previous history gave him. It would amaze me if he didn't have some ideas about the routing; and he obviously gave Wilson & Co a crash course in templates and turf management. He clearly approved the final routing. For all this, I commend David.
But he did not make his main case. In fact, IMO he did the opposite: he showed how Wilson, partly under CBM's watchful eye, designed and built Merion East into one of America's great courses.
-
Jim Nugent,
I was always intriqued by the potential Raynor-Francis connection.
It always seemed logical to me that those two men would be in communication with one another from the get go.
If Raynor was involved at Merion, it would seem to signal significantly more involvement on the part of team Macdonald.
David and Tom MacWood,
If you could post your percentile attribution it would be helpful.
Thanks
-
David,
Holy Cow...it takes you that much typing to tell us what Whigham really meant?
His statements were over-reaching and hyperbolic, and frankly, a pussy move to mention it for the first time 30 years later after multiple major championships and after nearly everyone was dead and buried if that is what he really believed.
Typically, rather than actually consider or address any alternate reading, Mike does the same thing with my post thathe did with Neil Crafter's. He ignores it and returns to his bombastic claims, even throwing in some additional insults directed at a very important figure in the history of American golf. Anything goes in service of the agenda.
Rather than providing an honest account of CBM's life in golf, Mike thinks that Whigham waited in the wings and tried to dishonestly distort the record by pulling a fast one. As if CBM's reputation just wasn't incredible enough without the Merion feather in his cap. The concept is too insulting and absurd to address substantively, but it is worth pointing out because it demonstates the lengths to which Mike will go to distort the record.
----------------------------------------------------
Contrary to Jim Nugent's claims, the phrase "Macdonald-Raynor courses" is by no means self-evident. Fortunately all ambiguity is removed by Whigham's examples of "Macdonald-Raynor courses." The examples inform the reader what Whigham meant, and include courses by one but not the other, as well as courses by both.
Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.
-
Patrick,
I think the question you should be asking David and Tom MacWood is this;
What percentage of the initial routing was done by Hugh Wilson?
The whole percentage of design thing gives them a convenient loophole to say that Wilson contributed something...anything...after Feburary 1911, when the whole crux of the disagreement is related to the routing that David contends (as does MacWood) took place prior to then.
Also...
Why do you think Richard Francis, in writing a fairly extensive piece about the origins of Merion East credited Hugh Wilson and his committee with "laying out and building Merion East" (note, two separate processes).
There is no mention of Macdonald and Whigham, much less Seth Raynor.
If you don't see that as telling I'm not sure why..
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
-
David,
I think the fact that Merion originally wanted to emulate CBM's approach of copying great holes and features from the best courses abroad and solicited his advice is why Whigham cited Merion as a "Macdonald/Raynor" course.
I really think it's that simple. If you read the rest of his essay he's de facto crediting CBM with every redan and Alps hole built in the states, and so on.
I think the fact Merion copied, or at least originally wanted to copy, CBM's idea of creating a course of ideal holes is why Whigham wrote what he did.
I think it was really overreaching, and if he really believed that he should have written something to that effect during the previous three decades when the protagonists were alive.
There was certainly great opportunity to do so as Merion was regularly hosting prestigious national events throughout the period.
-
As usual Mike is simply scrambling from one thing to another hoping something, anything, will stick. And as usual he doesn't notice the inherent contradictions in his various positions. Yesterday and before Mike was trying to distance Merion from any influence from CBM, even denying CBM's involvement at Merion with even such obvious holes as Merion's Road Hole, Redan, and Alps. Now he admits "the fact that Merion originally wanted to emulate CBM's approach of copying great holes and features from the best courses abroad and solicited his advice."
Did you all get that? No doubt he will be rapidly back-peddling soon enough, but Mike has just conceded one of my main points: Merion originally wanted a course like NGLA, one based upon CBM's interpretations of the great holes and features from the best courses abroad, and they went to CBM to advise them how to do it. In other words, Merion was trying to build what we commonly think of as a CBM-type course.
This brings us back to questions I have asked a few times which have yet to answered.
If CBM/HJW weren't significantly involved in the design, then why did Merion try to build a CBM course?
Or alternatively, if Merion wanted to build a CBM course, then would they have shut CBM and HJW out of the design process?
As for the rest of his post, more of the same ridiculousness. Whigham was not "de facto crediting CBM with every redan and Alps hole built in the states." Mike is just shamelessly making shit up.
-
I disagree. Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together. He said Raynor did the groundwork, and CBM corrected the plans. He specifically named Merion as one of these courses.
So we know Whigham mistakenly attributed Merion to Raynor. We know the eulogy was mistaken on at least one point. To call it "twisted" to point up factual errors -- in a document held up for its alleged historical accuracy -- is a serious case of pot and kettle.
Jim
Is this what you are referring to?
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
-
Tom,
You have absolutely no idea when Wilson's interest in architecture began, do you?
Reports tell us he also visited all of the best courses in the US as well, prior to the development of Merion East.
You have no idea when that activity took place, do you?
Such blanket statements without a hint of supporting evidence is the heart of the problem here.
There is no indication his interest occurred prior. I have not seen anything...have you? And please don't post another article about Princeton. In 1916 he wrote about his knowledge at the time on the subject. Should we disregard it?
-
David and Tom MacWood,
If you could post your percentile attribution it would be helpful.
Thanks
Pat
I know David and I will differ on this, but that is fine, and neither one of us has a problem with that. I break the attribution into two parts, routing and hole designs. The routing 90% Barker and 10% CBM and/or CBM/committee. The individual hole designs 90% CBM and 10% committee.
-
Why do you think Richard Francis, in writing a fairly extensive piece about the origins of Merion East credited Hugh Wilson and his committee with "laying out and building Merion East" (note, two separate processes).
I just noticed more of Mike's questionable tactics. On the Myopia threads Mike had conceded that my understanding of the verb "to layout" was the most reasonable and that it often did not include the planning process, and he readily adopted this meaning suit his purposes. Yet here is he back to his old ways. I guess I shouldn't expect any sort of intellectual honesty or intellectual integrity from him at this point, but his sleaziness is frustrating nonetheless.
Merion's board minutes indicate that Merion would "lay out the course" according to "the plan" CBM had approved. And as Francis said, Merion laid out and constructed the course. That doesn't at all address CBM's involvement in the planning process.
-
David,
Are you going to answer Patrick's questions? At least Tom MacWood has come forward with a strong, if unconvincing entry.
You talk about intellectual integrity yet you're the guy who simultaneously tries to tell us the course was fully routed before November 15th, 1910 while also telling us that CBM was working on the routing with the Committee at NGLA in March of 1911, and conceding that CBM helped the Merion Committee to pick the best of their five routings in April 1911!
Please, which is it.
And none of this crap about a "rough routing", please. It's clear from Francis that his brainstorm was the final piece of the routing puzzle, not some interim step.
It's also clear from Francis that laying out and building the course were two very separate steps and that he credited the Merion Committee with doing both.
It's also very clear from Francis that he knew exactly what "laying out" meant as he used the term and his examples throughout indicate design efforts, not construction.
It's also very clear from Francis that whatever CBM and Whigham's advice and suggestions, he didn't think them noteworthy to mention.
Tom MacWood,
Wilson, in an article about golf course agronomy for Piper & Oakley, told us that the Committee's knowledge in greenkeeping and construction were that of the average club member, which given advances over the years was mostly true, if modestly self-effacing.
He said nothing about whether they knew a good golf hole from a hole in the ground.
-
Mike,
You seem to rely solely on writings that favor your position while dismissing writings that refute your position.
What first struck me about the Francis article is that he couldn't remember if it was 1909 or 1910 that the old course became antiquated and it was decided to build a new course.
If he can't remember that detail, why do you maintain that his ommisions present or prove any facts ?
I don't have the time to look it up, but, when was that article written ?
-
So what is really at stake here?
Great people got together, maybe at arms length or closer to create something beautiful. It worked. Where is the victory for those of us watching 100 years later?
-
Jeff,
You may be right, but, it looks like "pride of authorship" is at stake. ;D
-
Patrick,
Sorry, but I am not going to pretend like I can attach exact ratios the each party's contribution. There is no basis for it and no reasonable methodology, and I don't think it adds anything to the conversation when we pretend we are being scientific when obviously we are not.
Cirba's petty posturing with his 100 percent proclamation may suit his agenda just fine, but I am just here to figure out what happened, not to assign percentage credit, so I will take a pass.
Besides, I've been quite clear about what I think happened from the beginning.
__________________________________________________
Jeff Taylor,
I originally started looking into Merion's history as part of the larger topic of the evolution of golf course architecture in America. In this regard, have largely accomplished what I set out to accomplish in that I have a pretty good understanding of where Merion fits in to this larger story, and have largely amended the story and tried to give Merion credit for being the pioneering course it really was.
As for victory, there is none, but the clear winner ought to be Merion and its legacy, as quite a lot of misinformation about the origin of the course has been cleared away, and some of us not only have a better understanding Merion's proper place in history, we also better understand the foundation of Merion's lasting greatness.
-
Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.
Some other possibilities: 1) Whigham was confused. Not the first time that has happened in a man nearly 70, recalling events that took place 29 years earlier; 2) Whigham was exaggerating. He took CBM's important but advisory role at Merion, and inflated it into the preeminent one, where Macdonald designed the holes and routed the course, and Wilson mostly carried out his marching orders. Exaggerations are not unheard of in eulogies, especially involving someone you idolize. See if you can guess who these eulogies, written by admirers, are talking about...
1. "(he) was a warrior for humankind and a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations"
2. "through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage....He has pointed the way to peace - to friendly co-existence - to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions - to the end of war and destruction."
The first was for Adolf Hitler, the second for Josef Stalin.
The source of any document must be considered. I'm imagining how the eulogy for David might read, 40 or more years from now, as written by Tom MacWood: "He rewrote Merion history, tearing down phony walls the entrenched establishment and good ole boys network erected, paving the way to a new understanding of one of the world's hallowed courses."
Now I'm imagining another eulogy for David, written by Tom Paul: "The !X%@*?! needed his #!X@-ing brain examined. Maybe medical science can finally put the damn thing to good use."
Who would be right?
-
Bryan,
Quick, and what I hope will be an easy question for you.
I believe you attempted to measure this drawing in the past and came out somewhere around 124 acres for the golf course, correct? Yes.
Were you able to tell if all of the "overage" was north of Ardmore Avenue? "Overage" from what? The 117 acres? Nobody has ever posted or even claimed to have (except for TEP a few years ago) the 117 acre boundaries and their metes and bounds.
In other words, there was consistency between the time of "securing" and the time of purchase a fixed amount of acreage south of Ardmore Avenue that was made up of the 21 acres of the Dallas Estate, and X acres of the Johnson Farm below Ardmore. Those boundaries were always fixed by the historical property lines.
If you measured out the acreage south, did that match up exactly with the historical acreages of those properties or was that off as well, and if so, by approximately how much? As far as I recall, the property lines from the the Johnson Estate and the Dallas Estate are the same as for the 161 acres that Lloyd bought. So, the acreages would be the same.
Also, did your acreage estimates include the eastern half of Golf House Road and/or any of Ardmore Avenue? Yes for GHR, and yes for the parts of Ardmore that lie partially or fully within the property boundaries. As you'll recall (maybe), I don't think any of us felt that that map could accurately and successfully be superimposed on the current aerial to allow an accurate assessment of the acreage. So, take the 124 acres with a grain of salt.
Thanks for your help!
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
As regards your question on the 17th, here's my very rough drawing although it's probably a bit generous on the front right center. Thanks.
Thanks for outlining it. I have no idea how either you or David can try to make intelligent assessments of that green from that picture. If David has a better version and posts it, then we could revisit. Off this picture I see nada.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3503/5808976235_2f8356290b_b.jpg)
-
David,
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
- Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.
Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes. There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article. That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original. But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.
-
To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf. The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:
"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."
Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table. Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland? Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America? It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA. Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed? I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture. I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.
-
David,
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
- Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.
Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes. There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article. That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original. But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.
Bryan, problem is, to my knowledge CBM had only built one Alps at that time. NGLA's. So what are the many other CBM Alps holes he could be referring to? Seems to me he is referring to other holes at Merion.
-
Bryan,
So are we saying that due to the orientation of the photograph, that November 1910 Land Plan may be unmeasurable, and may actually measure exactly 117 acres as reported if we had the original scaled drawing? Thanks.
Bryan and Jim,
I'm not sure we know how many Alps holes CBM had been responsible for at that point? Are there any Alps holes at any of his versions of Chicago GC? One was under construction at Piping Rock at the time, which Findlay may have seen (seems the guy was everywhere), and a 1905 article I have mentions that CBM had been called in as a "friendly advisor" (sound familiar?) whenever an important course was being built in the east.
So I don't think we really know, at least from Findlay's perspective, how many Alps holes he may have considered to be generated by CBM at the time.
Patrick,
Again, here's the Francis article. Your efforts to make him sound like a doddering old fool ring hollow. He remembers very precise detail and is accurate in his recollections.
Besides, exactly what other documents besides Whigham's Eulogy has anyone presented as evidence to the contrary? Anything?
Also, although David claims he's made his views clear, I know you know that he's dodging your questions, I know you know he's been all over the map and anything but straightforward and expect you to be fair and equitable in calling him out.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-3.jpg?t=1243443487)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
-
Jim Nugent doesn't seem to grasp that, where possible, interpretations ought NOT make a liar and/or an fool out of the speaker. When a certain interpretation renders the work absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory on its face like in the case of Jim's reading here, then it is likely a failure of interpretation by the reader.
Some other possibilities: 1) Whigham was confused. Not the first time that has happened in a man nearly 70, recalling events that took place 29 years earlier; 2) Whigham was exaggerating. He took CBM's important but advisory role at Merion, and inflated it into the preeminent one, where Macdonald designed the holes and routed the course, and Wilson mostly carried out his marching orders. Exaggerations are not unheard of in eulogies, especially involving someone you idolize. See if you can guess who these eulogies, written by admirers, are talking about...
1. "(he) was a warrior for humankind and a preacher of the gospel of justice for all nations"
2. "through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage....He has pointed the way to peace - to friendly co-existence - to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions - to the end of war and destruction."
The first was for Adolf Hitler, the second for Josef Stalin.
The source of any document must be considered. I'm imagining how the eulogy for David might read, 40 or more years from now, as written by Tom MacWood: "He rewrote Merion history, tearing down phony walls the entrenched establishment and good ole boys network erected, paving the way to a new understanding of one of the world's hallowed courses."
Now I'm imagining another eulogy for David, written by Tom Paul: "The !X%@*?! needed his #!X@-ing brain examined. Maybe medical science can finally put the damn thing to good use."
Who would be right?
Jim
There is plenty of evidence CBM was involved at Merion, and so was Whigham. Its not like this is second hand information, or second hand knowledge. He was there.
The more likely possibility is your confusion, or wishful thinking. At the time Whigham wrote that bio he had been a journalist since 1896, and for the majority of the years as an editor. I would suggest he was not prone to errors or exaggeration. And apparently you found nothing in that fairly long biographical piece in error or exaggerated, otherwise you would have brought it to our attention. Based on the last few lines of your post you seem to be grasping for straws, and seem a bit desperate. While I enjoy your fantasizing about future events, for the sake of this historical discussion I think it would be best if we try to stick with the facts.
I'll ask you again is this the part you were referring to when you said Whigham described how Raynor and CBM worked together, and specified Merion?
"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses. Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."
-
To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf. The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:
"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."
Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table. Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland? Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America? It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA. Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed? I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture. I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.
Bryan
I'm confused. Is the history of golf architecture a new interest for you?
-
I'm not sure we know how many Alps holes CBM had been responsible for at that point? Are there any Alps holes at any of his versions of Chicago GC? One was under construction at Piping Rock at the time, which Findlay may have seen (seems the guy was everywhere), and a 1905 article I have mentions that CBM had been called in as a "friendly advisor" (sound familiar?) whenever an important course was being built in the east.
So I don't think we really know, at least from Findlay's perspective, how many Alps holes he may have considered to be generated by CBM at the time.
The NGLA was Macdonald's first template course so no need to look back to the 1890s. CBM's first four designs all had Alps - NGLA, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Merion. I'm not sure about St. Louis or Old White.
-
Tom,
I'm glad you finally went on record with what you believe here in terms of Barker being responsible for Merion, with touches afterwards by CBM and Whigham. At least you have the courage of your convictions...we may disagree but at least we all know where you stand.
I wish your buddy would do the same but that would prevent him from taking more varied and unnatural positions than the Kama Sutra, as has been his forte.
In any case, so much for Patrick's theory that we're merely all off by a matter of a few degrees. ;) ;D
Personally, I'm quite comfortable with the record as it has always been presented...the course was designed (as was the routing) by Hugh Wilson and Committee with valuable advice and suggestions from CBM and Whigham and believe the VAST preponderance of evidence clearly supports that. I also believe the vast majority of onlookers here believe that to be the case, as well.
As far as Alps holes, holes called Alps had been built in this country as far back as 1898 at least with Ardsley.
CBM had been fascinated with the Ideal holes going back to the very early 1900's and I have no reason to think he wouldn't have suggested them on courses where he advised.
Also, recall that most Alps holes did not feature a large, blind hill approach, but instead usually the green just beyond a rise with a fronting cross-bunker and mound behind. If you don't believe me, read George Bahto's interview here, or better yet, read Robert Lesley's description of the principles of an Alps hole at the time.
How many of those type of holes do you think there were between 1890-1910?
-
Courage of my convictions? I've been putting forth that theory for a couple of years now, and I don't recall you ever commending me. What gives?
As far David is concerned he wrote a lengthy well researched essay. My percentages based on my long standing theory hardly compares, and obviously you have nothing to hang your hat on as far as an essay, or even a well-reasoned theory is concerned, so I don't know where you get off being critical of others.
-
David,
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
- Alex Findlay, 1912, on Merion's Alps Hole & other holes at Merion.
Your new tag line more likely should, in the context of the paragraph, be read to mean many other CBM Alps holes. There is no mention of other template holes in the paragraph or article. That paragraph seems to be exclusively about Findlay's advice, prior to Wilson's trip, to look at the Alps hole at Prestwick, and Wilson reporting back that the Alps at Merion (which he may have designed based on advice from CBM) was lacking compared to the original. But, that there were many other good CBM Alps holes.
Bryan, problem is, to my knowledge CBM had only built one Alps at that time. NGLA's. So what are the many other CBM Alps holes he could be referring to? Seems to me he is referring to other holes at Merion.
Jim,
I'd agree.
In 1910-11 what other good "alps" holes were completed by CBM ?
As to your multiple choice on Whigham's eulogy, you left off an option.
3. His statement was accurate.
The combination of
Whigham's eulogy
Findley's declaration
Other credits
The template holes
All seem to point to CBM' s role having been much greater than he was previously given credit for
-
Patrick,
So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;
I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall. It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."
and then said, after a discussion comparing the Alps at Prestwick to what seems to be a sorry version Wilson is building..
"But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
he was talking about other holes at Merion?
Interesting.
Besides, if Findlay really thought that Merion was laid out by CBM, wouldn't he have mentioned that in his Opening Day article instead of citing the work of Wilson and Committee (comparing it to Leeds work at Myopia) as well as Fred Pickering's construction success?
Tom MacWood,
I commended you on your ability and willingness to answer a direct question with a direct answer.
Of course, I don't agree with you...frankly, I believe you are the only person on the planet who believes that creation story, but so be it.
I'm sure we could argue about it for the next hundred years and barring new evidence, we wouldn't change each others minds.
-
Jim Nugent, Regarding the Whigham remembrance you seem to have tried to switch horses midstream. We were talking specifically about your conclusion that "Macdonald-Raynor" courses definitely meant courses by CBM and SR working together, and couldn't possibly have meant courses by CBM and/or SR. That was obviously to what the portion you quoted referred. Yet you have twisted that and are now talking about something completely different.
Meanwhile my point remains unaddressed and unscathed. Read in context, "Macdonald-Raynor courses" must have referred to courses by one or both of them, otherwise the passage is absurd, nonsensical, and self-contradictory.
As for the rest of your post, nothing can be gained here by discussing Hitler, Stalin, or TEPaul.
___________________________________________________________________________
Bryan,
Findlay's statement is not all that difficult to understand, especially in context. The paragraph was about Merion. Findlay essentially opined that while Merion's alps hole sucked, many of the other of Merion's holes, as laid out by CBM, were quite good.
-
If you guys want to discuss the meaning of the Findlay comment, or David wants to use a completely out-of-context snippet as his new tagline to drive his agenda, have at it.
There already was a 19-page thread on the subject, so you can read multiple interpretations by lots of folks there if you're so inclined;
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39341.0.html
Personally, I believe that Findlay was referring to holes and courses laid out for Wilson to see in his overseas visit by CBM. For some reason he seems to think based on his description that the Alps hole is really not well suited to the inland Merion landscape (duh!), mentioning that "famous old spot", but then says "others as laid out by CBM are really great, and launches into a list of them.
However, it is anything but clear and various interpretations could easily apply.
Nevertheless, I find it incomprehensible that Findlay would not have mentioned that CBM designed the course in his Opening Day article if he really believed that to be true.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5803990148_6555f14444_o.jpg)
-
If you guys want to discuss the meaning of the Findlay comment, or David wants to use a completely out-of-context snippet as his new tagline to drive his agenda, have at it.
Mike is scouring the countryside from the mid-1890's speculating about super-secret Alps holes scattering the landscape, even throwing in unrelated holes designed by Willie Dunn 15 years before, yet I am the one who is reading it completely out of context? Interesting.
1. The context of the passage was a discussion about Merion's golf course. Findlay and Wilson had just been over it.
2. The context of the sentence in question was again Merion's golf course, particularly Merion's 10th, and generally the others.
3. To read the sentence as an aside about CBM makes no sense in the context of a passage about Merion's god course.. Why discuss CBM at all if Wilson was responsible? Why blame CBM if it wasn't his hole? And why praise him if the others weren't his either?
4. I would be surprised if Findlay had even seen NGLA at that point.
All this speculation by Cirba and others is grasping at straws, again. It is historical analysis by plausible deniability. They ignore the most reasonable reading and try to come up with any other possibility, no matter how unlikely or attenuated, and then treat that alternate as if it must be the only reading.
-
To try to take this thread off on another tangent that is less repetitive and unenlightening, could you learned folks weigh in on CBM and what are the essential contributions to golf course architecture that lead to his being anointed the Father of American golf. The World Golf Hall of Fame profile summarizes his contributions to golf as:
"Championship golfer. Golf course architect. Organizer. Bigger-than-life character. Esteemed author."
Focusing in on the architect part, what exactly did he bring to the table. Was it just the use of templates of ideal golf holes from Scotland? Or the idea that the principles of these holes should be incorporated in all holes built in America? It has been argued interminably here as to whether his fingerprints are all over all the fine golf courses in America that followed NGLA. Regardless of whether everybody can see those fingerprints, what lasting characteristics of course architecture that he created made their way into the courses that followed? I'm not trying to make a point here, or win an argument, but I would like to better understand what it is that he brought to golf course architecture. I understand that the preceding courses in America were considered to be crap compared to the old links courses of Scotland, but building a course that was considered (or advertised) to be ideal because it emulated existing Scottish links doesn't seem like that large a leap.
Bryan
I'm confused. Is the history of golf architecture a new interest for you?
Tom,
Sarcasm is not an appealing characteristic.
-
David,
The context and focus of the article was about Wilson's trip abroad, not the Merion Golf course..
In the very first paragraph Findlay tell us the course is so immature that he's not even prepared yet to discuss "the possibilities" of the new course. That is very clear.
Findlay tells us he "visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent to the making of good golf holes."
Findlay then relates that prior to Wilson's trip he had advised him to take special notice of the Alps at Prestwick, as Wilson "really imagined" he had one going on his course but clearly Findlay disagreed and was making clear that it had missed the mark, likely because the original hole requires an approach over a large blind sandhill, not a feature found often in farmland Pennsylvania.
On Wilson's return, now he agreed that "it will take a lot of making", to equal that "famous old spot".
But others, which I read as other courses/holes abroad as laid out by CBM (for Wilson during his visit to NGLA) are really great, and then begins listing which ones Wilson liked, as well....Prestwick Troon, Formby, Hoylake, etc., but was disappointed in St. Andrews, which Findlay agreed with.
The rest of the article goes on to compare Wilson's approach to visit courses abroad with Leeds at Myopia and CBM at National.
I don't see at all how the focus of the article is the Merion golf course. He barely mentions it, and then only to say that he isn't ready to pass judgement yet.
Does anyone else think the focus of the article was about the Merion Golf Course??
-
Bryan,
So are we saying that due to the orientation of the photograph, that November 1910 Land Plan may be unmeasurable, and may actually measure exactly 117 acres as reported if we had the original scaled drawing? Thanks.
................................
Mike,
It's not the orientation. It is skewed. David has a better version that is less skewed. In any event, there is no doubt a margin of error in measuring the acreage from that map. I don't think it is 7 acres, though. Therefore, I do not think that that map portrays 117 acres.
-
Bryan,
If Pugh and Hubbard measured 117 acres without considering the additional acreage of the road(s), might it have been 117 acres?
Would you see that within the margin of error due to the skewed perspective of the photo of the map?
-
I see that while I was typing my last post Mike went back and significantly edited his previous post. In so doing, he provides another perfect example of his problematic methodology he and the Merionettes commonly employ. All they are out to do is some up with any alternative to the most reasonable reading of the passage, no matter how attenuated that reading may be.
If you don't believe me just look at how Mike made an about face on what the passage meant, hopping from one extremely unlikely reading to another. Mike had been arguing that the passage referred to other unidentified Alps holes CBM might designed or suggested over the years. Now, he apparently realizes that this makes no sense, but instead of going with the reasonable interpretation he throws out a rather absurd reading which again relegates CBM to his role of travel agent.
"Personally, I believe that Findlay was referring to holes and courses laid out for Wilson to see in his overseas visit by CBM. For some reason he seems to think based on his description that the Alps hole is really not well suited to the inland Merion landscape (duh!), mentioning that "famous old spot", but then says "others as laid out by CBM are really great, and launches into a list of them."
So "laid out" means planning Wilson's trip for him? Again with the CBM as travel agent theory? Absurd, even for Mike. It goes to show how desperate he and the Merionettes are to convolute the record. But that is their approach. They think that if they can come up with any other conclusion, no matter how attenuated, convoluted, and absurd, then their conclusion offsets the more reasonable reading. It doesn't work that way.
It is not that complicated. Read it without the clause mentioning CBM if it makes it easier, because the sentence still makes sense without it. Merion's 10th hole isn't good. "But many of the others [] are really great." "The others" are the other golf holes at Merion. One is bad, BUT many of the others are good.
____________________________________________
Mike's REAL PROBLEM with the passage is that he disagrees with the ramifications if one reasonably interprets the the passage to mean what it says. That CBM laid out the holes at Merion. Mike just cannot believe that CBM designed the course, therefore Findlay must have meant something else. His desired conclusion shapes his interpretation every time.
_________________________________________________
Mike makes a big deal out of the fact that Findlay did not mention CBM in a later writeup. He fails to mention that, in that article, Findlay completely avoided the topic of who was responsible for the design of the course or even who "laid out" the course. He compared the construction committee to Leeds, noting that both had built the finest courses in their respective states, and then went on to effusively praise his business partner, Pickering, as Findlay was wont to do, calling Merion his "latest creation" and noting:
"He had has much of his own way in the planting of the right seed and in the general makeup of the course, and to him we owe thanks for one of the prettiest golf courses in America."
Mike and the Merionettes have tried to read this last bit as some sort of statement as involving Pickering in the planning process but that is stretching beyond all plausibility and typical of their Anyone-But-CBM approach to interpretation. There is nothing in Merion's records indicating Pickerings involvement in the design, and we know from Merion's records and Wilson's letters that the plan was approved by CBM then Merion's Board before Pickering even became involved. While Findlay was certainly putting a broad spin on it, he seems to have been talking about agronomic issues --growing grass, and aesthetic stylings --making it one of the prettiest courses in America.
None of this contradicts what Findlay had written about CBM before.
________________________________________________________________
Now I see Mike is pretending that the Findlay passage wasn't about Merion's golf course at all, but was rather about "Wilson's trip abroad." Pretty strange interpretation given that Wilson's trip abroad was supposed to be about bettering Merion's golf course.
Anyway, Findlay does eventually regress into to a discussion of the trip abroad, and throws in many of his own opinions about the courses over there, but much of the passage, including the specific discussion of Merion's 10th hole and general discussion of the others, was squarely about Merion.
The first part is all about Merion East.
- Wilson and Findlay had just spent time "wandering over the new Merion Golf Course."
- Wilson has spent so much of his time working on the course.
- Wilson wants to make the the new course the best in Pennsylvania.
- Findlay is not yet read to judge the course because it is still growing in and Pickering has yet to add the final touches.
- The new course will be ready to reveal all in the fall.
- Wilson had just returned from studying courses abroad abroad where he gathered data on how to make good golf holes, and Findlay had advised him what to look at before the trip
- Merion's Alps hole didn't stack up to the original, but the other holes, as laid out by CBM, were really great.
After this, the article goes into the details of the trip, with lots of Findlay's opinions scattered about.
-
-Findlay wrote that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
-Whigham wrote that Merion was a CBM course.
-Lesley wrote that CBM and HJW advised Merion's Committee as to how to lay the course out on the ground.
-Hugh Wilson praised CBM and HJW for, among other things, teaching the committee how to incorporate the fundamental principles into Merion's natural setting.
-Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW were advising the committee as to the layout of the course, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
-Tillinghast's source of information about planning was CBM and he and others noted that CBM and HJW were advising Merion as to the plan.
-Merion's board minutes acknowledge that "the Committee" went to NGLA for help with the plans and then had CBM and HJW follow up with a return visit to Merion to reinspect the land, go over several options, and decide upon the final routing plan.
-Merion's board was presented the plan which had been approved by CBM and HJW and voted to lay out the course according to that plan.
-Merion tried to build course where many of the holes were clearly based upon CBM's understanding of the principles underlying the great holes abroad.
I don't understand why this is even an argument. Sure we can debate when certain things happened, or debate exact percentages, but the evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process is overwhelming.
Why are Cirba and the Merionettes continuing to pretend that Merion East was not a CBM course at its bones?
-
David,
Where did Lesley write that CBM advised the Committee as to how to lay the course upon the ground?
-
David,
Where did Lesley write that CBM advised the Committee as to how to lay the course upon the ground?
He wrote that the course was laid out upon the ground by the committee who had CBM and HJW as advisors. About what do you suppose they were advising the committee who laid the course out upon the ground? Hair products?
"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham."
______________________________________________________
By the way, like Findlay, Lesley wrote he wasn't going to discuss the courses in detail, right before he began discussing golf holes: "No detailed description is intended to be given of the two courses, as it would only becloud the reader's mind." Come to think of it, didn't Far and Sure write something similar in the same article where he discussed a number of the holes? By Cirbaian logic, shouldn't we conclude that any such discussion of the holes must have been about something else, probably holes abroad, or plans for travel, or about anything but the golf holes which were obviously discussed?
-
David,
So, they advised the Merion Committee.
Is this something new?
I'm pretty sure everyone here has agreed that they gave valuable "advice and suggestions" to the Merion Committee? Why are you still arguing that point?
I think we've heard the same words from Lesley, the Wilson Brothers, Tillinghast, "Far and Sure"...really everyone except Richard Francis.
If you believe CBM and Whighm routed the golf course, then show us some indication or evidence of how they did that before November 15th, 1910, because you also have argued that the golf course was routed at that point as evidenced by the November 1910 Land Plan.
Why do you keep stooping to personal insults? Is that in lieu of providing any physical or factual evidence?
If you now agree that the golf course was not routed by November 15, 1910 then let's have that discussion, ok?
Because as long as you keep telling us that the course was routed before then I'm going to keep asking for your physical evidence of CBM's invovlement, of which there is precisely NONE, and you know that. I can say that confidently because the Merion Minutes tell us precisely when the routing was done, and it wasn't until the spring of 1911.
You've just created a trap for yourself, because if you admit the course wasn't routed before November 1910, you can't by implication exclude Hugh Wilson and his Committee from the routing and design process, and what would be the point of that?
-
Mike Cirba, I was answering your question. I had listed some of the overwhelming evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process at Merion East. You asked me a question about one item and I answered it.
The rest is just your lame attempt to change the subject.
___________________________________________
Here again is the list.
-Findlay wrote that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
-Whigham wrote that Merion was a CBM course.
-Lesley wrote that CBM and HJW advised Merion's Committee as to how to lay the course out on the ground.
-Hugh Wilson praised CBM and HJW for, among other things, teaching the committee how to incorporate the fundamental principles into Merion's natural setting.
-Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW were advising the committee as to the layout of the course, and their advice was of the greatest help and value.
-Tillinghast's source of information about planning was CBM and he and others noted that CBM and HJW were advising Merion as to the plan.
-Merion's board minutes acknowledge that "the Committee" went to NGLA for help with the plans and then had CBM and HJW follow up with a return visit to Merion to reinspect the land, go over several options, and decide upon the final routing plan.
-Merion's board was presented the plan which had been approved by CBM and HJW and voted to lay out the course according to that plan.
-Merion tried to build course where many of the holes were clearly based upon CBM's understanding of the principles underlying the great holes abroad.
The evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in and influence over the design process is overwhelming.
Why are Cirba and the Merionettes continuing to pretend that Merion East was not a CBM course at its bones?
-
Mike Cirba,
How do you reconcile the fact that according to you, CBM and HJW advised the committee, and subsequently, a good number of Macdonald template holes are incorporated into the routing and design ?
Was that a coincidence ?
Or, is cause and effect in play ?
-
Patrick,
So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;
I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall. It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."
On what date was that written ?
It seems to me that he's referencing the playing qualities based on the grow in.
and then said, after a discussion comparing the Alps at Prestwick to what seems to be a sorry version Wilson is building..
"But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
he was talking about other holes at Merion?
Absolutely.
Especially since CBM hadn't crafted any other Alps holes circa 1910-11
Interesting.
I think it's beyond interesting
Besides, if Findlay really thought that Merion was laid out by CBM, wouldn't he have mentioned that in his Opening Day article instead of citing the work of Wilson and Committee (comparing it to Leeds work at Myopia) as well as Fred Pickering's construction success?
I don't know.
You'd have to ask him.
But, why do you always rely on what someone didn't say, versus what they did say ?
-
Patrick,
So, you believe that right after Findlay wrote;
I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of the new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it his final touches in the late fall. It will then be time to reveal to the world it's features, etc."
On what date was that written ?
It seems to me that he's referencing the playing qualities based on the grow in.
Patrick, the article was from June 22, 1910 almost three months before the course would be read to open for play. In the previous sentence Findlay had just indicated that Wilson wanted the course to be the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania" and so it seems that Findlay was understandably withholding judgment on any such pronouncements until after the course had grown in. Mike tries to twist this into meaning that Findlay was unwilling to discuss anything about the layout , but Findlay's discussion of the Merion's Alps hole undermine's Mike's tenuous interpretation.
-
David,
To my knowledge, in June 22, 1910, there was ONLY one CBM "Alps" hole in existance, the 3rd at NGLA.
Hence, there's NO other way to read/interpret the passage.
Does anyone disagree with that ?
-
The article would have been June of 1912 at the earliest, no? Don't know how that effects CBM's Alps production.
Re: interpretations of that article. If CBM had only built a single Alps Hole prior to that writing, and we assume Findlay knew that, it would be tough to argue the point...
But why would Wilson be so surprised at how far his Alps Hole was from the original in terms of quality and/or similarity if CBM had designed it? And as a follow up, if CBM had simply said this is a good place for an Alps Hole because roads make useful hazards to force an aerial shot...AND the committee decided to route and build an Alps hole there does that mean CBM called the shots?
Imagine we all take every singl person at their word in all of this.
>the committee sketches out a few routings and one (or more) of them include a green where th 9th green and they're a little jammed due to a lack of yardage to the road and CBM suggests the opportunity to build an Alps Hole across the road and they try it themselves after seeing his version and his drawings of it. Who designed the hole? He certainly provided significant advice in solving that specific problem (I'm sure there were many others he helped with) but would you then call it a CBM designed hole?
David,
I still haven't taken the time for the project we discussed and can't see when I will in the immediate future. I will say, your couple of posts in the immediate day after my offer took the wind out of my sails. You said you didn't want to argu interpretations (which is fair enough) and I realized that's all we have. I wonder, has any single outside interpretation influenced your thoughts on any of this over these few years?
-
IMO this Alps sidetrack is a complete red herring.
-
Bryan,
If Pugh and Hubbard measured 117 acres without considering the additional acreage of the road(s), might it have been 117 acres?
Would you see that within the margin of error due to the skewed perspective of the photo of the map?
Why wouldn't they have considered the roads. All the metes and bounds of the deeds go up the middle of roads or include the roads in their entirety if they are within the boundaries.
I don't think it would have been 117 acres. No, I don't think it is within the margin of error. Also, margins of error work both ways - it may be less than 124 acres, but it could also be more. The 124 acre estimate should be taken as that, an estimate based on a skewed original map.
-
The article would have been June of 1912 at the earliest, no? Don't know how that effects CBM's Alps production.
Above I mistakenly wrote 1910. It should have been 1912. The article was published on June 22, 1912. Sorry about that.
Re: interpretations of that article. If CBM had only built a single Alps Hole prior to that writing, and we assume Findlay knew that, it would be tough to argue the point...
CBM had not created "many" other Alps holes as of June 22, 1912. Aside from Merion, I believe as of that date the only one was CBM's Alps hole at NGLA. While Piping's Rock's golf course may have been in the works, it wouldn't open for play for almost a year. (According to the April 29, 1913 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Piping Rock's golf course would open informally on May 1, 1913, and then officially open on Decoration Day (Memorial Day) 1913.) As for NGLA, I would be extremely surprised if Findlay had even been there.
But the bottom line for me has nothing to do with counting Alps holes. I just don't see the article as all that confusing. Findlay wrote that Merion's Alps hole was bad, but many of the others were great. Simple. We shouldn't behave like fools when we read these things and we shouldn't treat others, such as Findlay, as fools, either.
But why would Wilson be so surprised at how far his Alps Hole was from the original in terms of quality and/or similarity if CBM had designed it?
Remember that this isn't Wilson speaking here, it is Findlay speaking for Wilson. I try to take him at his word, but it isn't easy to tell where his opinion stops and Wilson's starts. If Wilson really was "surprised," we can only speculate as to why. Maybe he didn't think that Prestwick's Alps looked all that much like NGLA's Alps or Merion's Alps. Or maybe he was surprised at how much more accurate the tee shot had to be at Prestwick.
And as a follow up, if CBM had simply said this is a good place for an Alps Hole because roads make useful hazards to force an aerial shot...AND the committee decided to route and build an Alps hole there does that mean CBM called the shots?
I think we may be getting caught up on the "calling the shots" terminology. Did you happen to read the post to you a while back where I tried to reach some middle ground regarding the terminology? If by "many of the others" Findlay meant "other holes at Merion" did Findlay think CBM was calling the shots?
Imagine we all take every singl person at their word in all of this.
>the committee sketches out a few routings and one (or more) of them include a green where th 9th green and they're a little jammed due to a lack of yardage to the road and CBM suggests the opportunity to build an Alps Hole across the road and they try it themselves after seeing his version and his drawings of it. Who designed the hole? He certainly provided significant advice in solving that specific problem (I'm sure there were many others he helped with) but would you then call it a CBM designed hole?
This is why I have always tried to avoid questions of design attribution. They end up being battles about semantics. My contention from the beginning has been that CBM and HJW were integral in placing the holes (routing) and the original hole concepts. In your hypothetical CBM placed the Alps hole and came up with the concept. Whether that means he designed the hole depends on one's methodology for making such determinations.
As for me, I would have no problem crediting Wilson and Merion with working out the exact details (if they did) and I think this is an important part of the design process. But it is really outside my focus here. My focus remains on the routing and hole concepts.
David,
I still haven't taken the time for the project we discussed and can't see when I will in the immediate future. I will say, your couple of posts in the immediate day after my offer took the wind out of my sails. You said you didn't want to argu interpretations (which is fair enough) and I realized that's all we have. I wonder, has any single outside interpretation influenced your thoughts on any of this over these few years?
I understand. I asked you to go through the exercise because I knew that there were no statements by those involved directly crediting Wilson as opposed to CBM. This notion (the supposed existence of many documents by those who were there directly crediting Wilson but not CBM) gets thrown around, as if I was ignoring these piles of direct information, but no such documents exist.
I am not sure what you mean by "outside interpretation." Can you clarify.
Believe it or not, I have been influenced by a few of the interpretations and theories of others, but I am not sure if that is the same as being influenced by "outside interpretations" of the source material.
-
I'm not sure where we get the idea that NGLA was the first course ever that used template holes, or even the first one that CBM was involved with that used template holes.
What made NGLA unique and original is that CBM originally planned/attempted? to create EIGHTEEN IDEAL holes based on great holes abroad, but even that plan was eventually scrapped faced with the realities of doing that on any one piece of ground. So CBM ended up with a hybrid, largely, with a few direct copies, a few close adaptations, and some wholly original holes. By and large, he did succeed in creating almost eighteen great holes, although some may quibble with his Eden, or Long, as not being particularly stellar.
Irrespective, by 1910 holes called "Alps" existed on many courses, from Ardsley to Tuxedo. There was a hole named "redan" at The Country Club in Brookline, so this whole idea of direct copying was not original, nor did it start with CBM. As Niall Carlton points out, it had been done in GBI for some time.
This 1905 article below is interesting from any number of aspects, but it does point out that CBM had been interested in the whole idea of identifying the very best golf holes for some time and the whole topic had a lot of discussion from multiple parties both here and abroad.
But what I find most interesting is the statement that by 1905 CBM already "has wide experience in planning out links" and has been called in as a "friendly adviser whenever a noted course has been in construction in the east". The article does mention that "he laid out the first course of the Chicago Golf Club", seemingly to differentiate it from those courses where he had wide experience as an "adviser". This is particularly interesting in light of Shivas's recent finding that CBM was involved in laying out Exmoor.
So where else did this "wide experience" take place, and at what other "noted course"(s) did CBM advise while they were being constructed?
I think we have to consider that we really have only scratched the surface in terms of his architectural involvement before NGLA, and truly have no idea if he had created prior template holes at courses where we still don't know that he was involved with.
From my perspective, I still believe that the Findlay article was talking about various courses that Macdonald had opined that Wilson visit while abroad (David seems to think this is an insult to CBM somehow, but can anyone here actually imagine that CBM wouldn't have provided Wilson with an itinerary or that Wilson wouldn't have asked for one??) because the whole topic of the article centers around the trip abroad and Wilson's experiences with various courses there, but no matter....it is certainly open to a number of interpretations.
Finally, Alex Findlay in 1912 probably had more golf experience than any man in this country. He had created courses from Florida to Maine to Nebraska (his first in 1887), but not only that...over his lifetime he claimed to have played more than 2400 courses and was one of the most traveled men on the planet. To say that he probably hadn't even seen NGLA by 1912 is ludicrous.
In any case, we have three articles by Findlay concerning Merion and this brief, almost non-sequiter statement inserted into an article praising Hugh Wilson and describing his trip abroad is the only mention of Macdonald.
The others...one talking about what a great set of greens Fred Pickering created as the construction man responsible for laying out the course on the land, and the third, the Opening Day article that doesn't mention Macdonald but does praise Hugh Wilson and his Committee for doing what Leeds did at Myopia...created the best courses in their respective states.
You have to wonder...
If Findlay seriously thought that CBM had designed Merion, and that Fred Pickering had constructed it...
...what the hell did he think Hugh Wilson and his committee did?? ::) ;) ;D
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5362494918_e8497c4d1a_o.jpg)
-
Can someone humor me and tell me which templates were on the original 1911 Merion East design -- and how well done they were?
-
Why wouldn't they have considered the roads. All the metes and bounds of the deeds go up the middle of roads or include the roads in their entirety if they are within the boundaries.
I don't think it would have been 117 acres. No, I don't think it is within the margin of error. Also, margins of error work both ways - it may be less than 124 acres, but it could also be more. The 124 acre estimate should be taken as that, an estimate based on a skewed original map.
Bryan,
Here's what I don't understand about the November 15, 1910 Land Plan.
Someone went through the trouble of hiring Pugh and Hubbard to survey the entire site and put together a Scale Map.
While the road location might be marked as "approximate" (because the road didn't actually exist yet), the map was not meant to be an approximation, it was meant to be exact, and it was meant to accurately illustrate the entire 338.6 acres under HDC control, as well as accurately illustrate the 117 acres that were planned to be used for the golf course.
Here is what the accompanying letter read, in part;
"It is proposed to form on behalf of The Merion Cricket Club, a Corporation which will buy outright, the 117 acres, shown on the plan in green, and marked ―Golf Course."
I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the entire colored areas of the map actually measure out to 338.6 acres! If I knew how to do it I would myself.
So, I don't think there is any uncertainty about what this map was meant to illustrate, and that it was meant to accurately depict acreages and planned divisions of property between real estate and golf.
Within about two months, we know Merion also had a contour map of the property (we know because Hugh Wilson sent a copy to Piper and Oakley), but we don't know what that map indicated in terms of either the boundary lines, or who measured and drew it. (Pugh & Hubbard or Richard Francis?)
But, what are the odds that the proposed property line on that map differed from the line drawn on this one in the form of an approximate road?
I ask because in late December we know that Cuyler wrote that the boundaries for the golf course had not yet been determined, meaning that they had not yet figured out the northwest boundary of the Johnson Farm (all the other boundaries were fixed on the original historic lines).
But, for practical purposes, they still had to have some working boundary to indicate the limits of their secured 117 acres, no?
And if they did, what are the odds that it would have been somehow different from what P&H had surveyed just a few weeks before, especially since it doesn't seem that the design efforts really got underway in earnest until the spring of 1911?
So, I don't know what it involves Brian, (or anyone who knows how to do it), but I think it would be very interesting to understand if this map actually measures out to the 338.6 acres owned by HDC at the time.
Because I'm pretty sure that was the intent, and I'm also pretty sure that the intent was to accurately show the 117 acres that were planned to be turned into a golf course.
One other thing...since they are already named roads, it appears the Tunbridge Road, Merton Road and College Avenue existed by the time this map was drawn, yes? Could the desire to get to both ends of Tunbridge along College Avenue have somewhat dicated their choices on the northern boundary?
In other words, it appears that one desiring to travel north by train from the Golf Club could take the short trip up Golf House Road to Tunbridge to Merton to Buck Lane to get to Haverford Train Station, which seems something fundamentally desirable to me. (as a related point of interest, the 1908 Atlas shows the Haverford Train Station as a major station, but at that point, the station further south, marked as "Haverford College Station" did not yet exist. ***EDIT*** I have found no evidence that the station indicated on the Land Plan as "Haverford College" was ever built. Even today, the directions to the College by train have one going to Haverford Station, which was built around 1870, and then walking the 8-10 minutes south to the campus.) Here's a picture of the Haverford Station, which almost certainly both HDC and Merion would have wanted easy access to; (the Ardmore Ave. Station to the south is really just an overhang along the tracks, and has no real facilities)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Haverford_Station_Pennsylvania.jpg/300px-Haverford_Station_Pennsylvania.jpg)
On the 1908 map, the only roads in existence then were College Avenue, Coopertown Road, and Buck Lane, along with Ardmore Avenue south and Haverford Avenue to the east. It seems the creation of Tunbridge and Merton were intentional to get additional access north to highway and rail transportation by HDC and easier access to the HDC development and golf course coming from the north, and it happened prior to the golf course routing.
Which again begs the question...in selecting land originally, why would Merion EVER artificially truncate the Johnson Farm south of College Avenue if some triangle of land didn't ALWAYS extend that far north as has been argued here by David? They would not only stymie themselves in trying to use the quarry as a hazard, but would also be cutting themselves off completely to train and road transportation to the north.
Thanks..
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4877079166_5e1cd4ac0e_b.jpg)
-
Can someone humor me and tell me which templates were on the original 1911 Merion East design -- and how well done they were?
Jim,
I think we have agreement that there was 1) a redan (which Francis told us benefited from Wilson's trip abroad and was suggested by the location of the hole), 2) an Alps (which Alex Findlay told us Wilson agreed "would take a lot of making" after his return from abroad), and an "Eden green" (whether that refers to the bunkering strategy or the slope of the green we don't know) on the par four 15th by opening day in 1912 and 3) a Road Hole (which had its green rebuilt and bunker enlarged in 1915) by at least 1915.
To date, David has also claimed that the green on the par five second hole was a "Biarritz" (Francis called it an "interesting (re: derogatory) three-level green), claimed the 17th hole (which again had a green completely enlarged and reconstructed as well as the major bunkering added in 1916) was a Biarritz, and claimed the multi-level 14th green was a "Double Plateau" (which Francis tells us was reconstructed in the 30s).
How close to the originals were they, or how "good" were they?
Umm...well, there was a long-debate here at one point about the redan hole because the green orientation is all wrong, there is no "kicker", and the only thing it seems to share with the original is a corner front bunker and a green built on a plateau.
The 6th is a very good hole, but how much it shared (or ever did) in playability to the original Road Hole is questionable, and the Alps hole...well, I have a bunch of pictures of it and let's just say it wasn't Hugh Wilson's shining architectural moment.
-
This is why I have always tried to avoid questions of design attribution. They end up being battles about semantics. My contention from the beginning has been that CBM and HJW were integral in placing the holes (routing) and the original hole concepts. In your hypothetical CBM placed the Alps hole and came up with the concept. Whether that means he designed the hole depends on one's methodology for making such determinations.
David,
No battles about semantics here, but more of a straight forward factual question.
If the golf course was routed by November 15th, 1910, what is your evidence that CBM and HJW placed the holes and routed the golf course before then?
In your example you say they "placed the Alps hole", (the 10th hole) yet we know from Richard Francis that the first 13 holes were in place at the time he had his brainstorm that allowed them to fit the final five holes, which you insist took place prior to the creation of the November 15th 1910 Land Plan.
What is the evidence that CBM and Whigham routed the course prior to then?
We KNOW from multiple accounts that they had only been on the property one time prior, and we KNOW that it resulted in a pretty generic letter on June 29th, 1910.
What is the evidential basis for your contention that CBM and Whigham routed the golf course between July and November 1910?
-
[I wonder if Mike Cirba keeps posting to try and distance the thread from the inescapable conclusion that the Findlay article provides confirmation that CBM was designing golf holes at Merion?
Whatever his reasons, most of what he wrote is really beside the point. The fact that there were holes called "Alps" in the United States has nothing to do with the Findlay quote, and the holes he mentions - two holes called "Alps" and the one hole called "Redan" - had nothing to do with CBM and were not even close to "direct copies" as Mike misrepresents.
And again he drags out that dead horse of an article mentioning CBM's experience and expertise, as if calling CBM experienced and an expert must mean that there were dozens of other top-secret Alps holes out there. I agree that CBM was both experienced and an expert, but where are these the many CBM Alps holes, exactly?
All this business about the Alps holes is another perfect example in the flaw in the methodology of Mike and the Merionettes. Mike thinks that if he can raise the mere possibility, no matter slight, that there might have been other CBM Alps holes out there, then he is justified in treating it as proven fact. More than that, he thinks he can magically impute knowledge of these fictional Alps holes to Findlay to justify the untenable reading of the Findlay article. Again, they are attempting to use the barely possible to refute what is highly probable, only this time it may not even be barely possible.
Mike further displays his illogic when discussing another irrelevancy; whether or not Findlay had even been to NGLA, Mike throws out some Findlay puffery and some ridiculous hyperbole ("one of the most traveled men on the planet?") then acts as if he has directly supported tangential (at best) conclusions.
While I question Mike's hyperbole, I agree that Findlay was experienced and well traveled. But this does not logically lead to the conclusion that he had actually seen NGLA. Is it possible that Findlay had been over NGLA? Sure it is possible. But if he had been over NGLA it should be easy enough to figure out, as he was a golf writer, and it was the most famous course in America at the time. In the few articles I have seen he occasionally writes generally of NGLA but nothing to make me think he had actually been there.
I won't bore you all with the other reasons I doubt he been over the course at this point, because in the end it doesn't matter whether he had seen NGLA or not. One alps hole does not "many . . . others" make.
____________________________________________________
Mike mentions three Findlay articles and tries to make a big deal out of the fact that CBM is only discussed in one.
- The one is the article where Findlay noted that CBM laid out the holes at Merion.
- Another about agronomy. Findlay called Merion's greens as fine as he seen south of Boston, noted that Pickering "made" them, and went on about how his Pickering (with whom Findlay often worked) was considered "the greatest of all grass growers in the United States." Findlay then continues to heap praise on Pickering for his expertise regarding a slew of agronomic issues such as soil analysis, growing grass, clover eradication, the proper use of the correct manure, rolling greens, and the eradication of worms and weeds. In short, the article has nothing to do with who routed Merion's course or came up with the hole concepts. Moreover, but the description ought to inform our reading of the other articles, such as where Findlay wrote about Pickering and the Committee building the course.
- The third article was was written around the time of the opening, and while it credits Wilson's Committee and Pickering for building the course, it makes no mention of who planned the course. Again, hardly grounds for any sort of attribution for who routed the course and came up with the hole concepts.
All and all, Mike's three articles amount to little or nothing about who planned Merion. If anything they hurt his case, because the one sheds light on the type of things to which Pickering may have been referring when he wrote of Pickering and the Construction Committee building the course.
_______________________________
Jim Nugent,
I disagree with much of what Mike said about the Templates. I will try to address the issue when I get time.
-
David,
Your claim that Findlay's comparison of what Hugh Wilson and his Committee did at Merion with what HC Leeds did at Myopia doesn't hold water.
You tell us that Findlay simply meant that they both "constructed" the best courses in their states.
That isn't true at all, David, is it?
Whoever claimed that Leeds only constructed Myopia??
He designed the course, and Alex Findlay was well aware of it, often trumpeting that fact.
Why looky-here!
Here's your new mis-interpretive tagline hero Alex Findlay playing golf with Leeds at Myopia, the same man he compared Hugh Wilson with at the time Merion opened!
I guess the praise was simply for watching Fred Pickering implement CBM's plans for the new course at Merion. ::) ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3449754649_47400e23a3_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3446539750_4dd548e5cc_o.jpg)
-
Here's a bit more about Herbert Leeds "CONSTRUCTION" efforts at Myopia from an April 1899 article...seems we even have a "New Alps" hole in there;
This article should also help to clear up a lot of the misinformation that was posted here on the Myopia thread speculating on what the original course looked like and which holes Leeds was fully responsible for;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2137/5815729821_dd0dee90a8_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/5816296962_bf84028d03_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2233/5803430977_73292e1a68_o.jpg)
-
David,
Findlay's article is difficult, if not impossible to dismiss or refute.
His contemporaneous account is quite clear.
He stated:
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.] But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."[/size]
The article was PUBLISHED on June 22, 1912, (propably written earlier), when there were NO OTHER ALPS HOLES built by CBM in existance. Hence, Findlay couldn't be referencing "Alps holes" with his words, "many of the others as laid out by CBM, are really great"
He HAD to be talking strictly about the holes at Merion.
This is a contemporaneous, direct quote from the author, Findlay, NOT an article written by a third party.
Mike Cirba,
Findlay's words are irrefutable.
Is there any documentation, written contemporaneuously (1911-12), that states that Wilson routed the course and designed the individual holes, some of which were CBM templates ?
-
Patrick,
"Many of the others" is irrefutable??
Please pass me some of that hooch you're smoking! ;)
Your desperation is evident in your posts.
-
I agree that we should take Findlay at his word. So, yeah, there is a mention of the Alps at Merion, but also mention that other than the water hazards incorporated into the routing, that Wilson was going to place the traps NEXT Srping, after seeing how the course was going to play. The natural water hazards are there, and the 9th green is surrounded by traps, not a CBM template.
So, given most of the bunkering is done later, after Wilson's GBI trip, I find it hard to credit CBM with providing a lot of template holes, and the one he did provide (the Alps) was found unsatisfactory, too. And, there is no record of CBM coming back later.
So, even if he did suggest many templates, they used a few, perhaps. And Wilson added the rest of the design schemes later, most likely including the Redan, which "benefitted" from his trip. While certainly remembering CBM's advice, adding to it with his trip, and also perhaps using his own and maybe Pickering as a sounding board, with his 100 courses built. And, I think most agree that Wilson's influence was greater from that time on.
However, if the holes really weren't finished out until the second year/spring, just how much can we credit CBM for the features? That would seem to limit the discussion to CBM's involvement to the routing, largely.
As to David and the Whigham article, this may have been pointed out before, but since even history is both perspective and fact (take Hiroshima, for example, where the basic facts are not in dispute, but perspectives sure are differing) maybe both HJW and the committee were right in their perspectives.
After years of watching CBM put in 3-4 days correcting Raynor's work, but not doing much heavy lifting on the details, yet getting the lion's share of the credit, he saw CBM put in 3-4 days at Merion and saw no difference, other than Raynor not being involved. (or maybe he thought Raynor was involved due to faulty memory, who knows)
When the committee looked back a few years later to record there memories, they recall Wilson working more than a year, and CBM working 4 days - about a 400 to 4 or 100 to 1 ratio. No doubt they thought he merely advised Hugh, given the relatively puny time input.
We all know what happened, happened. CBM had some influence, no doubt, and no debate there. There were not two separate alternate universes going on there. And both interpretations can be correct.
I guess Merion just beat Vegas to the punch on the tag line......
-
Patrick,
"Many of the others" is irrefutable??
Please pass me some of that hooch you're smoking! ;)
Your desperation is evident in your posts .
Mike,
The desperation is all yours.
There were NO other CBM built Alps holes in existance in 1911-12, so it's obvious to everyone but you, who are in denial, that Findlay was talking about the holes at Merion and not non-existant CBM Alps holes elsewhere.
That's undeniable.
Especially with the existance of the template holes at Merion.
If you would list for us the "MANY" other Alps holes that CBM had built by 1911-12 that would be great.
But, absent your ability to list any, let alone find any, you have to take Findlay at his word.
CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion, its irrefutable. Findlay was there and contemporaneously reported it.
The fact that you've been unable to cite one contemporaneous report stating that Wilson routed and designed the holes at Merion speaks volumes.
This must be a dark day for you, and I don't mean because of the thunderstorms ;D
-
Patrick,
Please refresh my memory as to why the MCC Lesley report, which is in the official club records, and said they had made many routings before going to NGLA, and rearranged them into five new plans (presumably including the Francis land swap) and which they asked CBM to review on April 6 (?) 1911 before proceeding, is not a record that the committee (of which Wilson was the head) is NOT evidence of them having routed the course?
It is a direct report to the board, and action was taken on it (buying the extra 3 acres and swapping some land to the final configuration) I agree with TMac, most of the Alps argument is a red herring for the sake of argument.
Obviously, Mike and I and the other Merionettes believe it counts as proof enough. Why don't you and the 3M beleive that? Truly, I know its been explained to me, but I have forgotten.
BTW, I have never been that insulted by the Merionette label, giving it points for being clever, but you guys need a moniker, too. Let's see, Moriarty leads the group, and says he follows the socratic ideals.....hmm. I dub you guys the Moronics. Not quite as clever, I admit, but we'll go with it for now until something better comes along.
-
Jeff,
I prefer "Three Blind Mice", or perhaps those three chimps who see no Wilson, hear no Wilson, and speak no Wilson but i can second your nomination as I'm not one to quibble about terminology and semantics. ;)
-
Pathetic.
-
Please refresh my memory as to why the MCC Lesley report, which is in the official club records, and said they had made many routings before going to NGLA, and rearranged them into five new plans (presumably including the Francis land swap) and which they asked CBM to review on April 6 (?) 1911 before proceeding, is not a record that the committee (of which Wilson was the head) is NOT evidence of them having routed the course?
Jeff, it's a reasonable question and until additional documents are produced, will probably remain an open question.
The problem I have is, who is the "they" ?
Does the committee include CBM ? Or does the committee exclude CBM.
And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ? Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.
If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.
It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant.
And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ? If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?
Findlay described CBM's efforts. The only contemporaneous specific description and attribution produced to date.
There is NO documentation stating that Wilson laid out the holes, or Francis or any committee member.
But, contemporaneous reports from a highly reliable source cite CBM as laying out many of the holes at Merion.
I don't think you can dismiss his written word.
Why would you doubt Findlay's written words, his specific description of CBM's efforts and work product at Merion ?
Findlay clearly and directly attributes the design of the holes, and indirectly, the creation of the routing to CBM.
I've previously stated, that I believed, (my opinion) that it was a collaborative effort.
I was immediately villified by the Merionettes for taking that position.
But, it's my honest opinion and I make no appologies for it.
When you take a step back and view all of the component elements circa 1910-11-12, the collaborative effort makes sense.
I also referred to it as a joint venture of sorts, and I believe it was, and, so, apparently, does Findlay.
It is a direct report to the board, and action was taken on it (buying the extra 3 acres and swapping some land to the final configuration)
I agree with TMac, most of the Alps argument is a red herring for the sake of argument.
Then you agree that Findlay was referencing the holes at Merion and not other non-existant "alps" holes.
Obviously, Mike and I and the other Merionettes believe it counts as proof enough. Why don't you and the 3M beleive that? Truly, I know its been explained to me, but I have forgotten.
I can see you and the Merionettes claiming that Whigham's eulogy was gratuitous. I understand that.
But, when you have a figure, a contemporaneous figure like Findlay, directly stating that CBM laid out the holes, how on earth can you ignore that ?
You can't.
BTW, I have never been that insulted by the Merionette label, giving it points for being clever, but you guys need a moniker, too.
I came up with the "Merionettes" title and thought it was rather clever and funny.
You do understand that this is all in good humor.
Let's see, Moriarty leads the group, and says he follows the socratic ideals.....hmm. I dub you guys the Moronics. Not quite as clever, I admit, but we'll go with it for now until something better comes along.
Nah, the individual and collective IQ's are too high to be called the "moronics"
There's been more than sufficient, prudent reasoning on the part of the 3M's to dismiss that moniker.
I'll try to come up with something better, something related to CBM, oh wait, that would be the fourth M.
You might want to try "the four horses asses of the apocalypse" or something of that nature.
Give me some time and I'll think of an appropriate title for the 3 or 4 M's.
-
Mike Cirba,
You really should read a bit more carefully before you launch into these distracting fits. I neither mentioned Leeds nor was I drawing a comparison to Leeds. You guys have tried to make the case that Pickering was involved in the design because Findlay complimented him for creating the course. Findlay gives us a better idea of Pickering's expertise and contribution, and informs us what he might have meant when similarly complimenting others for building golf holes.
As for Merion, Findlay wrote that Wilson "built" the course. You can go into hysterics all you like, but hysterics will not change "built" to "planned." Unless you are arguing that Leeds was not in charge of "building" that version of Myopia, your rants about Myopia are beside the point.
___________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
You don't seem to be taking Findlay at his word at all. Findlay does not limit CBM's contribution to having "laid out" the Alps. He credits CBM not only for Merion's Alps, but also noted that "many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great." There are two plausible interpretations of this statement: CBM designed all of the other holes at Merion, and many of which are great; or CBM designed many holes at Merion which are great. Either way, you are not taking him at his word.
As for your sketchy speculation about Whigham, it always amazes me how comfortable you are waxing away with no factual support whatsoever.
As for the meeting minutes, you are misrepresenting what the minutes said and ignoring what happened before and after.
As for your latest insult; typical.
-
David,
In truth, we have given you and your essay far more respect than you or it deserves. The truth is you call us sleaze and other insults all the time, when you are by far the sleaziest guy here. If I insulted you fifty more times in this post, we would be far from even in trading insults, so get over it. Even Patrick realizes its all good humor.
When I have time, I may answer your non responsive post in more detail, but suffice to say, I am getting tired of you telling the world that I have misrepresented something, without saying why, because you can't and you hope the casual reader will simply believe your fact adjacent post (following up your fact adjacent essay) willingly.
And, I don't think I represnted it wrong, but I expect a guy who admits in post 2248 that basically, his theory is predicated on everyone else who has ever looked at Merion being wrong, to tell the world that I am in pretty good company!
Cheers and good night.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I call it as I see it. If you are insulted by that, "get over it."
Meanwhile, you are still not taking Findlay at his word.
-
David,
I don't see it that way, and I don't believe you have really made the case that I am not taking him at his word.
Besides, the last thrust of my posts was to simply go to the one document that says who did do the routing, rather than try to interpret many that don't really mention who did what (i.e. Findlay)
The Merion record is the most direct contemporaneous source, by those most closely involved. For reasons that I cannot recall now, you and TMac delcared a long time ago that taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done, and that there was some magical interpretation that only you caught, and that all involved missed badly.
I really don't think those involved should have their official record parsed out to way beyond its logical conclusion, nor do I think that not taking Findlay at his exact words is a big misstep. Certainly not as big as your five year witch hunt to not take Merion at its word. And after all, what has this last five years been about? Deciding whose word to take, so why call me out for reasonably believing there are other documents that bear more directly on the subject?
Hey, they said they did many plans, they went to NGLA to learn, they came back, they did five more plans, and they asked CBM and HJW to come over and make sure they were still on the right track (or best track) by having them approve the plan. The report was in April 1911 and I certainly did not misinterpret what happened afterwards. As I mentioned, the report is just vague enough and without details that you could go and make the argument that it must be reporting on stuff that happened way earlier, but in reality, most committees meet monthly and report on what happened in the last month.
I am not sure the exact schedule of their meetings, but I am pretty sure we will see an email from Wayne or TePaul telling us what period that meeting most likely covered.
In 99% of cases, the simplest, most direct interpretation of the closest documentation is going to be what happened over some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings about a subject. Your earlier routing theory depends on far too much of those coincidences to be convincing, at least in my mind, and I am pretty sure, in most minds.
The length of these threads is directly attributable to goofy debates about every stinking little nuance anyone of us makes. Its pretty silly really, but I have no doubt you will carry on in the same vein, forever, most likely!
BTW, I got an email today about how internet search engines "customize" searches of various people. A political liberal and a political conservative took screen captures of their individual searches and got completely different and differently ordered results because Google and other track 56 points of each of our searches to determine what we are really looking for. Intersesting stuff concerning perception of information. However, my real point was the speaker mentioned that newspaper ethics really took a jump in 1915 - just after the reporting period we discuss here.
It made me think of the Findlay article. As you probably most correctly mention, he was slipping a nice little plug for a business associate in the articles, disguised as news. On other threads, we wonder why gossip columnists are reporting on golf, etc. Not sure it has any correlation, but the fact that he mentioned that there were some questions about how accurately news reports of the day were struck my eye in the context of these discussions.
Cheers.
-
As for Merion, Findlay wrote that Wilson "built" the course. You can go into hysterics all you like, but hysterics will not change "built" to "planned." Unless you are arguing that Leeds was not in charge of "building" that version of Myopia, your rants about Myopia are beside the point.
David,
Once again, your arguments and interpretations border on absurdist comedy. Why in heaven's name would Findlay be referring to Leed's "construction" efforts and not his design efforts, as clearly Findlay stated he felt that Myopia was the best course in the United States at the time?
And your use of terminology is so inconsistent as to be laughable.
You used Findlay's vague comment that "many others" "as laid out by Charles Macdonald" is proof that he was talking about designing Merion (when the article talks mostly about courses and holes on courses abroad and Wilson's trip AFTER telling us he's not yet ready to talk about the Merion golf course because of its immaturity) yet tell us that the multitude of authors who told us specifically that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "laid out Merion" as evidence only of his construction efforts to someone else's plan.
It's really pathetic and intellectually dishonest.
But, there is a point in there that I'd like to address...
The majority of articles back then didn't refer to golf course design and building as "planning", or "design", but instead talked about constructing, or building, or "laying out".
In the multitude of articles I've seen that credit Hugh Wilson and/or his Committee's work at Merion, here are some of the verbs used;
"laid out"
"constructed"
"built"
"was responsible for"
"to whose genius Merion owes both its courses"
"was one of the original designers"
But there's much more...words like "planned", "architect", etc.
This idea that no one ever said back then that Hugh Wilson planned the course or was the architect of the course are simply untrue.
First, here's a September 1912 Opening Day article from a Philadelphia newspaper column;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3595808030_3d7362431e_o.jpg)
Bryan was asking earlier about club and committee structure, and this January 1912 article provides some insight about who was in charge;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/3671929256_3855f902ea_b.jpg)
AW Tillinghast told us in April 1911 that he had seen the plans of the proposed Merion course. Here's what else he told us. Incidentally, his extensive Opening Day article says that Hugh Wilson and his committee deserve the congratulations of all golfers, but made NO mention of CBM and Whigham.
Tillnghast - American Golfer 1916
"Certainly a reference to the Merion Course over which the championship of 1916 will be played, must be of interest. The course was opened in 1912, and the plans were decided upon only after a critical review of the great courses in Great Britain and America."
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3600480402_f6db6a808d_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/4230988921_13aa0ec880_o.jpg)
This Opening Day review by "Far and Sure" in American Golfer tells us who "conceived of" the problems of the holes.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4338093278_fd77ac034f_o.jpg)
And finally, the most authoritative source of all, written by the men who were there...the April 19th 1911 Merion Cricket Club minutes;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Thompson Resolution
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.
Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.
-
Jeff,
I think one of the problems surrounding this/these issues is the following.
Findlay's statement attributing Merion to CBM is clear.
Others may contend, as Mike Cirba does, that the Merion records indicate that the committee designed Merion.
But, the Merion records indicate that CBM was brought in to work with the committee, to be part of the committee, so when it's reported that the "committee" designed Merion, you have to include CBM as part of that committee.
Then, Findlay's clear statement that CBM designed Merion and the statements that the records indicate that the committee designed Merion
would be in complete harmony
-
Jeff, it's a reasonable question and until additional documents are produced, will probably remain an open question.
Patrick,
Just saw and have time to answer some of your questions, and first, thanks for now calling me reasonable twice in recent posts!
PMQ1 - The problem I have is, who is the "they" ? Does the committee include CBM ? Or does the committee exclude CBM.
A - The record shows who was officially on the committee, and CBM was not. No reason to doubt it, and no reason as a non member to be on any club committee, right? Do you know of any club committees stocked with non members?
PMQ2 - And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ? Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.
A- That is the question, of course. I believe that he spent 4 days on the project, as documented, and wrote a few more letters back and forth, which have been documented. And I believe in that time he had considerable influence on the Merion committee as they prepared their many routing plans. I also tend to agree that they discussed routing at NGLA, despite some who have a narrow definition based on the written record. My evidence is that the committee took "many routings" to NGLA and knew upon return they had to do 5 more. If nothing else, whatever transpired at NGLA, they saw the error of their early ways. If CBM suggested a few holes at that time, we will never know, but they clearly learned a lot from that meeting.
A - Yes, and part of his extraordinary legend is that he was willing to help other clubs trying to build golf coruses, by his own and HJW words.
PMQ3 - If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.
A - That is a little to black and white. If he was willing to advise other clubs, that relationship implies a few days time and giving whatever advice he could give. But, clearly, at the same time frame, he figured it was better do just design the damn golf courses, since he took on his first design commissions right around the time of Merion at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.
PMQ4 -It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant. And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ? If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?
A - Merion never said that they wanted him to be part of the planning process, they said they wanted instruction in the correct principles of design from him. He certainly wasn't a lackey to them, nor was he dismissed. I believe he was used exactly as both parties intended him to be used - as a trusted advisor.
BTW, its not too hard to believe that the biggest influence of CBM was to follow the portion of his NGLA model that the club design the course itself, without using a professional architect. Certainly, having designed just three courses at this point in his career, CBM would have advised to follow the amateur model, no? For that matter, while you wonder how Wilson could have possibly designed a course himself, CBM had only designed 3 at that point, and the first Chicago at Wheaton was a very uninspired routing.
Secondly, somewhere during NGLA CBM abandoned the copying idea in favor of incorporating key features while using the topography, and I bet that was instilled in the Merion committee at NGLA in March. So, do we classify the use of some of the best design priniciples as design or inspiration by CBM? Do we count the fact that Wilson was moved to go confirm those principles by seeing the originals rather than copying CBM's copies as inspiration or design? (not that it matters all that much to me)
BTW, I do not agree with your contentions on Findlay, but understand how you arrive at your interpretation.
-
Patrick,
Now you want to put CBM on the Merion Committtee??! Holy cow...your desperation to get CBM in there somehow is pretty apparent! ::) :o ;D
Your good buddy Richard Francis tells us who was on the Merion Committee who laid out and built the Merion course. He doesn't mention CBM and Whigham but we know that they provided valuable "advice and suggestions" to the Merion Committee.
But, ON the Committee??
Pass that pipe, please! ;) ;D
I just heard storm clouds were gathering over New York today... ;)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
-
Patrick,
I see nothing in the records that say CBM was part of the committee. I agree he worked with the committee and had a great influence. After all, they went to NGLA to learn, and they learned. No one is arguing that, although I saw another comment saying we are the other day.
Also, Findlay's statement is far from clear. For that matter, the Lesley/Wilson report was written for a very specific audience and for a very specific reason - to update those who were going to enter into contracts for land and construction of a golf course, spend on a new golf course and buy more land, what had happened.
Findlay was writing for a general golf audience. Which document, insiders describing what is happening on the actual deal, or a newspaper article generally describing the look and feel of the new course (and declining to go into much detail) for outsiders would you take to be one to rely on?
I have no doubt that the club records are more germane if there is any conflict. And, I am not sure there is any conflict.
Today's round of private emails (I think you were left off by your request) reminds me of the answer to my question - TMac and David suggested that a few words were not transcribed correctly by TePaul, which alters their meanings in their mind. They, not having the original club records at the time, also thought that somehow, Tollhurst's 1980's writings, which were in error, must have been reflected in the original club documents that they did not have at the time. I understand that reasoning, but it turned out that it wasn't true, and thus being stubborn, and not wanting to admit being wrong, it started a many year campaign to elevate articles such as the Finlay one to some sort of irrefutable evidence. It is not, IMHO>
It was also probably the first case of the Moronics/3Blind Mice insulting someone's integrity and intelligence by calling them sleaze to defend their positions. (And to be fair, TEPaul sure sent some equally insulting posts back)
Ahh, the memories! Have a good day.
-
And Patrick,
Please give me some examples from your long time club experience of where any non member is part of a club committee. Thanks.
-
Patrick,
Why would CBM have had to come down to Merion on April 7th, 1911 to "look(ing) over the various plans" if in fact he had either authored them, or seen them prior??
-
Looking at the Findlay article it is at least arguable about what the CBM attribution really meant.
In the first highlight below, Findlay says he's not going to talk about the course because it's not inits final form yet. If we take him at his word, why would he them reverse himself a few sentences later and gush many of the holes being great?
He then sticks the needle in on Wilson for building such a lacking Alps hole.
Then there is the "many of the others" statement. Note that it says "many of the others" and not "many others". Some here have used the "many others" or "many .... others" to interpret this statement differently than originally written. How "many of the others", and what are the "others" is the source of the debate. If Findlay was referring to 4 others (for the sake of argument) then many of the others might be 2 or 3. Grammatically, thoughts in a paragraph are supposed to be linked together. If you're going on to another topic, you're supposed to start a new paragraph. The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole. No mention of any other holes at Merion. So, grammatically the link back to "others" is logically to "Alps". And, Findlay said he wasn't going to talk about the course and holes because they weren't completely ready yet.
Parse on. ;D
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Findlay1912CBMAlpsarticle.jpg)
-
David,
I don't see it that way, and I don't believe you have really made the case that I am not taking him at his word.
There is no case to make. It is right there in black and white. Findlay credits CBM with laying out many or all the holes at Merion. There is no other reasonable way to read it. The Merionettes' can't change this by pretending it might have referred to a bunch of non-existent Alps holes. [And by the way, I hadn't ever thought of you as a "Merionette."]
Besides, the last thrust of my posts was to simply go to the one document that says who did do the routing, rather than try to interpret many that don't really mention who did what (i.e. Findlay)
Except the one document doesn't say that. Except for one sentence, the one document describes CBM's and HJW's extensive involvement in the planning process. Merion left NGLA with more definite ideas on what they needed to do, but even then they still needed CBM's help. After two days working with CBM on the layout plan, they came back home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans, then CBM came back and sorted through it all and decided on the final layout plan. How you guys could interpret this as cutting CBM out of the planning is beyond me. Isn't it extremely likely that they were trying to implement what they had gone over at NGLA? If CBM had nothing to do with how they "rearranged the course" upon their return, then why did CBM have to travel back to Merion to reinspect the land and sort through it all again and decide on the final plan? Given that Merion wanted his opinion about how to fit the holes on the land, is it reasonable to believe that they discussed everything but this at NGLA? This wasn't some sort of academic exercise or test. They went to CBM for help planning the course.
The Merion record is the most direct contemporaneous source, by those most closely involved. For reasons that I cannot recall now, you and TMac delcared a long time ago that taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done, and that there was some magical interpretation that only you caught, and that all involved missed badly.
I would be a lot less negative about your posts if you would stick to your position and kindly refrain from falsely representing my position. I never declared that "taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done" and while I cannot speak for TomM, I doubt he did either. I've been striving to take those who were there at their word this entire time, which is how I figured out what I have figured out. And while it was far from "magical," there have been a number of important interpretations that only I "caught" and most everyone involved had "missed badly."
Also, while you may have total faith in the Merionettes, others don't and for good reason. Their past behavior raises legitimate issues about the reliability, veracity, and completeness of their selective transcription of the parts of the historical record.
I really don't think those involved should have their official record parsed out to way beyond its logical conclusion, nor do I think that not taking Findlay at his exact words is a big misstep. Certainly not as big as your five year witch hunt to not take Merion at its word. And after all, what has this last five years been about? Deciding whose word to take, so why call me out for reasonably believing there are other documents that bear more directly on the subject?
Again you are mistaken for the reasons I described above. This has never been about whose word to take. For me this is about understanding what happened. As I have explained to you, this entails trying to find an explanation which reasonably accounts for all the facts. That is how I figured many things out where others did not. --by taking them at their word, and looking for an explanations fitting all the facts.
Your solution doesn't fit all the facts, and for that reason you do not "take their word for it." You hold up a single sentence, out of context, and ignore everything else including the rest of the report from which the sentence came! The bulk of the Lesley report (or what we have of it) discussed the important role CBM and HJW played in the planning. Yet you seem to be ignoring all of that and interpreting that one sentence as if it were free of that context.
Hey, they said they did many plans, they went to NGLA to learn, they came back, they did five more plans, and they asked CBM and HJW to come over and make sure they were still on the right track (or best track) by having them approve the plan. The report was in April 1911 and I certainly did not misinterpret what happened afterwards. As I mentioned, the report is just vague enough and without details that you could go and make the argument that it must be reporting on stuff that happened way earlier, but in reality, most committees meet monthly and report on what happened in the last month.
It doesn't say "they did" plans before or after NGLA. It says "after laying out many different courses" they went to NGLA to work with CBM. "On our return we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans." They/We tried many different courses before, and after they/we rearranged the course, singular. So it seems the five plans must have been variations/options on the course, a course which that had been planning at NGLA.
I am not sure the exact schedule of their meetings, but I am pretty sure we will see an email from Wayne or TePaul telling us what period that meeting most likely covered.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not talking about before or after the board meeting. I think you guys are ignoring what happened before and after the single sentence upon which your hole argument relies: "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans." You are taking it out of its context.
You cannot just unlink what happened at NGLA from what they did upon their return, and you cannot ignore that CBM and HJW would be returning to Merion in a few weeks to again see again how a course could fit on the land and to sort out the options and decide upon the final plan.
Put yourself into the equation in the following hypothetical.
- You are brought in and "carefully study" land on which a rough routing had already been done. You determine that while it would be a tight fit, and while you couldn't know for sure without a contour map, you you could fit a first class course on the property, provided that you could use an additional piece of land you noticed adjacent to the property. You have at least some ideas of the holes and on how you would use the terrain and its specific features.
- You spend two days with the most novice of design associates and a contour map, explaining to them and showing them the holes you think would work on the property how they should be laid out on the property.
- While you plan to return to the course to make the final determinations later, you send the associates ahead of you to physically mark off the course you had been discussing. They mark off the course as well as five variations to account for unforeseen difficulties, and/or for what had not yet been decided, and/or for when they had their own ideas.[/u].
- You return to the site to look it over and see how fits on the land, and you sort out the various options and alternatives approve a final routing plan.
- This plan was presented to the board as the plan you approved, and the board voted to build the course according to this plan.
At this point, would it be fair to say that you had no input designing the course? How would you describe the extent of your involvement in the design up to this point?
- For whatever reason you dropped out of the project, but with no hard feelings, andyour top novice associate went ahead and built the course according to the plan you had chosed and approved.
- The aesthetic stylings (bunker style for example) of the final product were not what you would have done, and not all of the bunkering you had recommended was yet in place (while you had a bunkering scheme for these holes, it was your practice to wait and exactly place fairway bunkers only after seeing play, and this was apparently what they were doing.)
- But otherwise they had tried to build the course depicted on the plan you had chosen and approved, and were planning on adding the rest of the appropriate bunkering later, after witnessing play.
At this point, would it be fair to say that you had no input designing the course? How would you describe the extent of your involvement up to this point?
In 99% of cases, the simplest, most direct interpretation of the closest documentation is going to be what happened over some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings about a subject.
I agree that the simplest explanation is usually the best answer. But yours is not the simplest anser. It may seem like it because the story has become so distorted over the years, but it far from the simplest answer. To get your "simple" answer you focus on a single, out of context sentence yet dismiss vast amounts of the historical record as "some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings." This is proof positive that yours in not that simple after all.
Your earlier routing theory depends on far too much of those coincidences to be convincing, at least in my mind, and I am pretty sure, in most minds.
We've talked my early routing theory to death and discussing it further won't get us anywhere. Besides, I may be mistaken but seem to recall you having written that CBM/HJW would have most likely seen the Barker plan, and (whether they saw the Barker plan or not) would have most likely had some ideas on how and where things would fit after that first trip, so I don't think you and I are all that far apart on that issue. Whether we are or not, lets set that aside and focus on the Spring.
It made me think of the Findlay article. As you probably most correctly mention, he was slipping a nice little plug for a business associate in the articles, disguised as news. On other threads, we wonder why gossip columnists are reporting on golf, etc. Not sure it has any correlation, but the fact that he mentioned that there were some questions about how accurately news reports of the day were struck my eye in the context of these discussions.
One thing I find compelling about the Findlay article is that his source of information on Merion's golf course was Hugh Wilson himself.
-
David,
Thanks for the nice response, and you make some good points, even if we disagree on some.
The only one to point out is that I think it was Patrick who surmised that Merion cut CBM out of the process, and I said no such thing. I believe they used him as they wanted to use him. No one knows why he didn't come out for construction, and I don't think it was a falling out, but they might have used him more, who knows, except perhaps for schedule, distance to NYC, starting his own design practice, etc. We just don't know exactly why his involvement tailed off.
In short, I have never unlinked the trip to NGLA from the final result. It sure was instrumental, and I have said that often, so I wonder why you keep trying to tell us that I am trying to unlink it. However, I just think the committee did all the pen to paper (the work of routing) and CBM first at NGLA (mostly features, but probably some routing advice - perhaps throwing their initial plans in the fireplace for some drama!) and then upon return for approval. Its hard to measure how much impact those few days would have.
So, we basically agree on the outline, but I choose to credit MCC with the routing. Not unlike I love to get the credit when I work with a pro, and do 90% of the work, but he gets the public credit for his 1-10% edits and tweaks. So, even though CBM would be more influential than Freddy Couples, I still see Merion as doing the bulk of the work and CBM as editing.
I understand your analogy on design credit, and have been in a few situations like that, on both sides. The one thing I know is I probably wouldn't get any credit in those scenarios, and I don't think I really should. But, it would be a whole nother kettle of fish and another difficult topic.
I still believe that "after laying out many different courses" they went to NGLA to work with CBM. "On our return we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans" means they planned routings on paper, saw CBM, realized their folly, and started over. I take the singular to be nothing more than a change in tense by the writer (or reader) and don't place as much emphasis on those minute details as being game changers as far as interpretations.
Ditto, I agree with Bryan's take on the Findlay article. There are a few partial sentences and fragments in that article, so its no stretch for me to believe his awkward wording of the passage in question is just that - awkward, and not indicative of switch subjects mid paragraph. I fail to see how either side can be sure they are right and base any sort of argument on that.
As to seeing the Barker plan, the same scenario above would be in place - I think Barker gets no credit for having looked at a different piece of property in a preliminary way for the developer. If credit was assigned in those cases, nearly every course in America would have five architects who tried to get the job getting co-credit. And I said I had been in cases like bringing in multiple architects - in some they share plans, and in others (including a site visit I made yesterday) they are very close lipped about what other architects say. So, its roughly 50-50% on whether CBM saw the Barker plan in the summer 1910 visit.
I would say the committee had no qualms about keeping it, and using holes as they may see fit, probably south of Ardmore, and it may have made that part of the routing simpler, as Francis noted. But, that is mere speculation, and I lable it as such. I also get the feeling that while Barker routed on the property they had, that CBM and the early committee discussed the advisibility of getting the Dallas Estate, as well as the three RR acres, and leaving flexibility of the road (based on CBM's NGLA experience, but on a smaller scale for a smaller site).
I understand your point about Findlay, but again, I consider who he is writing for audience wise and the fact that newspaper articles are broad brush pieces at that length. In sum, I still think the minutes of MCC are the best source to tell us what happened. If I misrepresented your position, then sorry, but I do recall a lot of discussion on the "reliability" of club documents up to 7 years ago, most of it eminating from you guys, and felt like it got taken as a given for a while that since some over time have been found to be inaccurate, then all must be. I don't think its the case here.
I believe your essay came out before anyone saw those, and when the Philly boys dug it up, there was a lot of consterntation about some transcription errors (and you mention them again above, and your distrust of TePaul) I don't agree with you that they altered any documents in any intentional and meaningful way that changed their meanings. Rather, I think it gave you another excuse to attack, and question those documents. I believe I am not taking single sentences out of context in my interpretations.
But, overall, I still hope we can find some middle ground and leave this debate, all still interested in early American golf history and still interested in golfclubatlas.com. I do appreciate those recent posts where you are trying to do that.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I'll ignore your attempts to get inside my head except to note that you are very bad at it. I will also ignore your apologist comments about the Merionettes.
To be clear, I don't care about "credit" and was not asking you who should or would get "credit."
I am asking you about input into the design of the course. Who came up with which holes should be built and where? Who had the most impact on holes they planned and where they were located?
I find it fascinating that you shifted the hypothetical to one of working with a professional golfer, and it makes me wonder if you aren't dwelling on the time involved rather than the quality and substance of the involvement. Because while it may be reasonable to compare the time CBM was involved to some designer in name only, it is unreasonable to compare the quality, substance, and impact of CBM's involvement to that of Freddy Couples.
And even as for the amount of time spent on the project, I don't think you really have enough information to conclude it was minimal. Apparently the only face-to-face meetings were a day in June, two days at NGLA in the spring, and then a day at Merion a few weeks later. But as for other communications we don't know for certain. All we know for certain is the minimum.
Here's an example to help explain. Let's say I wanted to know the total games in which some Brooklyn ballplayer played during the 1904 season, but I only had access to a Baltimore paper, and that paper only showed the box score of games against Baltimore. (Unlikely, I know, but let's pretend.) I see that Brooklyn played Baltimore eight times and this player played in seven of those eight games.
-Would it be reasonable to assume that the ballplayer only played in seven games all season?
- If someone asked you if he was a solid contributor for Brooklyn that year, it would make no sense to answer, "No, he couldn't have been a solid contributor because he only played seven games," would it?
I think this is what you are doing regarding other communications. You are concluding there was very little contact because we only have two letters, but we don't have any access to the sources where we would likely find more! The two letters came from extremely narrow and fluky data sets, places we wouldn't normally expect to CBM's communications about Merion, say with Wilson (if they exist.) We cannot expect letters the letters to Wilson to show up in the minutes when Wilson himself is never even mentioned! And I don't think it reasonable to expect that Wilson would have forward all his letters from CBM to Piper and Oakley. So on what basis do you conclude that there was limited communication?
In short, I don't think you have the data one would need to draw a reasonable conclusion. You could if we had all of Hugh Wilson's letters (not just his Ag letters to/from Washington) and/or if we had all of CBM's letters, but we do not. Call logs would help too.
-
David,
I agree we don't have enough data to determine how much more CBM particpated.
I understand that my comparison to Freddy Couples was not a perfect one, and in fact, only offered it up to show that I have an understanding of my own biases in interpreting such data, which might flaw my own conclusions.
And, while admitting to playing the role of "Merionette" in this post, I recall a recent conversation with TePaul, while thinking about Patrick's question regarding why Merion would "cut CBM out" of the process midway through. For that matter, I am interested in all the clubs CBM is said to have consulted with prior to starting design work of his own with Raynor.
For all that talk, there really isn't any documentation of vast numbers of clubs using CBM as an advisor. The few that are known all have one thing in common - a wealthy man like Lloyd, whom CBM would presumably want to get to know, and ingratiate himself to for business reasons as a stockbroker.
So, it's POSSIBLE that the limited time spent was all on the CBM side for a variety of reasons - he didn't have time to travel to Philly, he only wanted to put in the minimum amount of time it would take to get on Lloyd's good side, knowledge that he was going to do more with Raynor, problems getting NGLA where he wanted it to be, etc. In other words, in all our focus on gca, we haven't really discussed just how much real life intervened for CBM in the amount of time spent for the benefit of others. No doubt he enjoyed it, and did it for the good of golf, but he (nor anyone) is a pure saint, and they do have time limits and (as well known with Charlie) some patience limits, as well.
Again, speculation, but I cannot recall any discussion here regarding whether or not CBM had any free will in the matter of how much time he spent at Merion, only theoretical questions about how much Merion would want to have used him!
The more I think about it, the more not spending a lot of time at Merion makes a lot of sense from the CBM perspective.
-
Thinking about it even more, some of the other "tells" as you call them that he had limited participation:
If the committee formed in January, and he was really, really involved, why did it take until March to get to NGLA?
I can think of some reasons, like no topo map yet, want to get more info on soils, etc. as he advised, tough schedule for one or both, etc. But, it still seems like if he was more involved with the committee, the urge to get over and see him would have been stronger and faster.
Going back to my question about whether other meetings would have covered his pre Novemeber 1910 involvement - Why wouldn't there have been some definitive notation that he had been working on it? Yes, they said "experts" were working on it, and yes, the probably meant CBM was assisting the committee, or had at least agreed to do so. But, given the more specific nature of the report at the next meeting in April, one would think if more detail was available, more would have been given.
And, given CBM's state antithpy towards using professional architects (at that time, but would soon sort of change) would he have felt like a "pro" doing a routing like that? Would Merion have felt right about wasting any more of CBM's time (important as he was) on a routing before a reasonably final land deal was in place?
Just some more thoughts. But, I realize I am going on not much there, and that other interpretations basaed on the above are possible.
-
Patrick,
Why would CBM have had to come down to Merion on April 7th, 1911 to "look(ing) over the various plans" if in fact he had either authored them, or seen them prior??
One possible reason could be because they (the committee and CBM) agreed to make alterations in them and he wanted to review the altered plans on site to see how well they fit..
-
PMQ1 - The problem I have is, who is the "they" ? Does the committee include CBM ? Or does the committee exclude CBM.
A - The record shows who was officially on the committee, and CBM was not.
No reason to doubt it, and no reason as a non member to be on any club committee, right?
I don't agree.
Do you know of any club committees stocked with non members?
Yes.
Baltusrol.
Baltusrol had two non-members on one of their committees for years.
The non-members had the same vote as the member committeemen, equal imput and attended all meetings.
Those two non-members were Terry Sawyer and myself, so I'm intimately familiar with this arrangement.
I'm sure other clubs had similar arrangements
PMQ2 - And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ? Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.
A- That is the question, of course. I believe that he spent 4 days on the project, as documented, and wrote a few more letters back and forth, which have been documented. And I believe in that time he had considerable influence on the Merion committee as they prepared their many routing plans. I also tend to agree that they discussed routing at NGLA, despite some who have a narrow definition based on the written record. My evidence is that the committee took "many routings" to NGLA and knew upon return they had to do 5 more. If nothing else, whatever transpired at NGLA, they saw the error of their early ways. If CBM suggested a few holes at that time, we will never know, but they clearly learned a lot from that meeting.
Jeff, I don't think that you can dismiss communcation between Merion and CBM via the phone.
Rather than take the time and effort to travel back and forth between philly and NY, it is reasonable to conclude that they were in communication on the phone, about the golf course
A - Yes, and part of his extraordinary legend is that he was willing to help other clubs trying to build golf coruses, by his own and HJW words.
PMQ3 - If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.
A - That is a little to black and white. If he was willing to advise other clubs, that relationship implies a few days time and giving whatever advice he could give. But, clearly, at the same time frame, he figured it was better do just design the damn golf courses, since he took on his first design commissions right around the time of Merion at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.
Jeff, he didn't casually advise other clubs as you suggest, he designed and built their golf courses.
You're making him out to be a vagabond who strolled into other clubs offering advice and that's not the case.
He was retained for the sole purpose of routing, designing and building their golf courses.
His role didn't change
PMQ4 -It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant. And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ? If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?
A - Merion never said that they wanted him to be part of the planning process, they said they wanted instruction in the correct principles of design from him. He certainly wasn't a lackey to them, nor was he dismissed. I believe he was used exactly as both parties intended him to be used - as a trusted advisor.
An advisor is usually someone who might be a peer or slightly above the peer level who assists with guiding a project.
CBM was elevated far beyond the committeemen, he was an expert, he had designed and built great golf courses.
The committee had no such experience or knowledtge.
So, I don't see any club inviting a prominent expert into their ranks and not giving him equal footing in the matters he was reatained for.
If any famous expert is invited into a club to help them route, design and build their golf course you certainly wouldn't keep him at arms length, which is what you and the Merionettes are insisting.
BTW, its not too hard to believe that the biggest influence of CBM was to follow the portion of his NGLA model that the club design the course itself, without using a professional architect. Certainly, having designed just three courses at this point in his career, CBM would have advised to follow the amateur model, no?
NO, three courses probably represented 10 % or more of all the 18 hole courses in the U.S in 1910.
For that matter, while you wonder how Wilson could have possibly designed a course himself, CBM had only designed 3 at that point, and the first Chicago at Wheaton was a very uninspired routing.
What about the next two, world famous weren't they.
Secondly, somewhere during NGLA CBM abandoned the copying idea in favor of incorporating key features while using the topography, and I bet that was instilled in the Merion committee at NGLA in March. So, do we classify the use of some of the best design priniciples as design or inspiration by CBM?
I don't think that's true.
Maybe we're arguing semantics, but, I don't thnk CBM abandoned his quest to craft a golf course out of 18 ideal holes.
While they may not have been exact replicas, I think the underlying principles were never abandoned
Do we count the fact that Wilson was moved to go confirm those principles by seeing the originals rather than copying CBM's copies as inspiration or design? (not that it matters all that much to me)
We don't know if that was the purpose of Wilson's trip.
That's your take on it, not mine.
BTW, I do not agree with your contentions on Findlay, but understand how you arrive at your interpretation.
What else can you contend ?
There wasn't one other Alps hole in the entire world that CBM had crafted.
Findlay was clear, CBM laid out many good holes at Merion.
What's your contention ?
-
To the general Merion Cricket Club membership (many non-golfers), who the letter in question was sent to in early 1911, 5 of the best 6 golfers out of a few hundred golf members in the club would have been called "experts", and I have numerous examples in early newspapers of everyone from Hugh Wilson to Robert Lesley being termed "experts".
Rodman Griscom had been chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896 and all of these guys were well known locally in the game for a decade or more.
-
Pat,
AFter reading your last post, my major contention is that if you are just going to sit around and make stuff up, don't bother. There were far more than 30 golf courses in the US in 1910, probably more like 1,030.
Before opening his design practice (if you could call it that) both George Bahto now, and HJW and others then contended that he was a friendly adivsor to many clubs in the east. Odd that they would use the same word that Merion used. I suspect that whatever his role as advisor was, it was well known at that time, given the consistency of the wording used by many.
Wilson designed a fair number of well regarded courses after Merion East, including Cobbs Creek, Seaview and Merion West. Perhaps not top 10 courses all, but for that matter, Fazio and a lot of other top gca's of any era don't have all top ten courses. It is rare. Your statement is unfair to Wilson who was recognized as an architectural talent over time.
As to CBM's role, both David and I agree we cannot know how extensive it is given the lack of records. We can speculate all day (and have).
-
Patrick,
With all due respect, you really are typing out of your posterior.
Why dont you go to Merion and actually read something and do some research instead of just spouting inaccurate proclamations that have no historical basis just to argue and promote your agenda.
-
Pat,
AFter reading your last post, my major contention is that if you are just going to sit around and make stuff up, don't bother. There were far more than 30 golf courses in the US in 1910, probably more like 1,030.
In 1910, 1,030 18 hole courses, you're not even close.
Didn't CBM design the first 18 hole course ?
Before opening his design practice (if you could call it that) both George Bahto now, and HJW and others then contended that he was a friendly adivsor to many clubs in the east.
Would you cite who called him a freindly advisor and at what clubs was he deemed a friendly advisor.
Odd that they would use the same word that Merion used. I suspect that whatever his role as advisor was, it was well known at that time, given the consistency of the wording used by many.
Wilson designed a fair number of well regarded courses after Merion East, including Cobbs Creek, Seaview and Merion West. Perhaps not top 10 courses all, but for that matter, Fazio and a lot of other top gca's of any era don't have all top ten courses. It is rare. Your statement is unfair to Wilson who was recognized as an architectural talent over time.
What Wilson did subsequent to Merion is irrelevant.
In 1910 he was a rank amateur with NO experience in routing or designing or building golf courses
As to CBM's role, both David and I agree we cannot know how extensive it is given the lack of records. We can speculate all day (and have).
Yes, you may not be able to quantify it, but, you can't exclude or deny his role as Mike and the Merionettes would do
-
Hugh Wilson worked on Merion East for almost 15 years.
Pat...you really are a know-nothing ass.
-
O the general Merion Cricket Club membership, who the letter in question was sent to in early 1911, 5 of the best 6 golfers out of a few hundred in the club would have been called "experts".t
Griscom had been chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896 and all of these guys were well known locally in the game for a decade or more.
Mike,
They were golfers.
They hadn't studied and designed THE seminal golf course in America
-
I agree we don't have enough data to determine how much more CBM particpated.
This is not what I wrote. I wrote that you don't have enough data to have determined that his participation was as limited as you have maintained. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when we don't have the records we would need to make this determination.
As for how much more he might have participated, we cannot determine it for certain. That said, there are a number of factors which suggest that he had more contact that you guys maintain. It may not be dispositive, but this sort of thing rarely is.
I understand that my comparison to Freddy Couples was not a perfect one, and in fact, only offered it up to show that I have an understanding of my own biases in interpreting such data, which might flaw my own conclusions.
One of the biases I suspect in this particular situation is that you seem to greatly overestimate the face time CBM would have needed to come up with the routing and hole concepts. Especially once he got a contour map. I assume it is because of your modern day practice, but I don't think it took nearly as much time back then. Designers as great as MacKenzie have done as much or more in less time.
And, while admitting to playing the role of "Merionette" in this post, I recall a recent conversation with TePaul, while thinking about Patrick's question regarding why Merion would "cut CBM out" of the process midway through. For that matter, I am interested in all the clubs CBM is said to have consulted with prior to starting design work of his own with Raynor.
For all that talk, there really isn't any documentation of vast numbers of clubs using CBM as an advisor. The few that are known all have one thing in common - a wealthy man like Lloyd, whom CBM would presumably want to get to know, and ingratiate himself to for business reasons as a stockbroker.
I have no interest in discussing this with you. It reeks of TEPaul and is snooty notion that CBM must have been of lesser class than his own dead relatives. You have no idea. Your speculation that CBM was running around ingratiating himself to rich people for business purposes only speaks to your growing biases, and to TEPaul's continued influence over you.
So, it's POSSIBLE that the limited time spent was all on the CBM side for a variety of reasons - he didn't have time to travel to Philly, he only wanted to put in the minimum amount of time it would take to get on Lloyd's good side, knowledge that he was going to do more with Raynor, problems getting NGLA where he wanted it to be, etc. In other words, in all our focus on gca, we haven't really discussed just how much real life intervened for CBM in the amount of time spent for the benefit of others. No doubt he enjoyed it, and did it for the good of golf, but he (nor anyone) is a pure saint, and they do have time limits and (as well known with Charlie) some patience limits, as well.
This is what I was talking about. You are writing as if you have determined that there was "limited time spent." You haven't. Instead you have fallen into a "logical fallacy." For all you know, they could have been on the phone and writing letters every day, so why are you drawing conclusions based on such limited contact?
Thinking about it even more, some of the other "tells" as you call them that he had limited participation:
If the committee formed in January, and he was really, really involved, why did it take until March to get to NGLA?
I can think of some reasons, like no topo map yet, want to get more info on soils, etc. as he advised, tough schedule for one or both, etc. But, it still seems like if he was more involved with the committee, the urge to get over and see him would have been stronger and faster.
It was Winter, and they had phones and the postal service. You are stretching things well beyond reasonableness.
-
Bryan, I am trying to understand your logic regarding the Findlay article but I am not sure I do.
I think I understand your position on Findlay having stated that he was "not yet ready to talk about the possibilities of the new place." As I understand it, you are suggesting that if Findlay said he wouldn't discuss "the possibilities" of the course then he must not have been talking about the Merion when mentioned "many of the others, as laid out by" CBM. I agree that this is arguable on its face, but I think it is less tenable when we look closer at the passage.
First and foremost, it does not seem that he could have meant what you think he meant. Because shortly after writing this he began discussing Merion's Alps hole. If he meant what you think he meant, then what was he doing discussing Merion's 10th hole?
It seems he either immediately reversed himself or he meant something other than what you think he meant. Either way I don't think it logically tenable to conclude that "others" could not mean Merion's golf holes when the sentence before was about one of Merion's golf holes.
More likely, he just didn't mean to completely exclude any mention of the golf holes, especially not a passing mention. In this regard, I think you should have started highlighting a sentence earlier. To paraphrase: Findlay wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania." Findlay then said that it was too early for him to sign off on this for the reasons above. Findlay seems to have have been indicating that he was holding off on making an overall judgment on the course even though that is for what H. Wilson is aiming. This is a bit different than indicating that he will not discuss anything about the course, and it fits better with the rest where he obviously does discuss the course. Also, Findlay did eventually sign off on this in the fall, pronouncing Merion the nicest course in Pennsylvania.
But that is the easy part.
________________________________________
I cannot make sense of portions of the remainder of the post. Do you mind clarifying a few things?
1. When you wrote, "The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole" to what "Alps hole" were you referring? Merion's 10th hole? Prestwick's 17th hole? Some other Alps?
2. When you wrote, "the link back to "others" is logically to 'Alps,'" is this the same "Alps" I mentioned in the question above, or something different? If something different, to what Alps were you referring? Merion's 10th hole? Prestwick's 17th hole? Some other Alps?
3. Regarding your clarification as to "many of the others" I agree that "many" signifies a subset of "others.". But as to your example, do you really think 2 or 3 out of 4 could reasonably be properly described as "many?"
Thanks.
-
David,
In Nov 1910 Merion put together extensive packets for their members and Board about the new land they were considering buying.
Those packets referenced precisely one and only one contact with CBM to that date' his June 1910 one day visit to look at the property and his followup letter of June 29th.
If the golf course was already routed by November 15th as you contend, when did CBM place his ideal holes on the ground?
Why is there no mention of him having routed the golf course at that point?
Why weren't his vaunted ideal holes and their magical locations revealed to an excited Merion membership at that point or indicated on the scaled map of the property that was sent to the membership?
If CBM had routed the course for them at that point, there is not one chance in a million that they wouldn't have pronounced that fact to their members, their board, and probably the world, is there?
-
David,
The sky is blue. I await your ridiculous rebuttals.
BTW, you assume far more than I do in your vaunted essay, theory, etc. It is not logical fallacy to presume that in a club communique in Nov 1911 to describe the situation to members voting to spend their own money, enter contracts, etc. for them to have accurately described what happened. If CBM had routed the course prior to November 15, 1910, and he was so fricking famous, the plan would show his routing, and they would have told members that he had done so. Would you or Patrick, as a club member, not accurately tell your members what was going on at such a critical time?
For that matter, while you seem to give HJW all the cred in the world in his eulogy, he also wrote that CBM that it was impossible for CBM to to all that was asked of him in terms of golf course design. By your standards, we can easily extrapolate that out to say that even if he wanted to spend all of his time at Merion, its unlikely that he couldn't.
And really, the old trying to prove a negative, where no evidence of something happening, and overwhelming contemporaneous documents of what he did do (not just word parsing of secondary documents) is ridiculous. I believe history is trying to narrow down to exactly what did happen using documents you have, not wildly speculating about an infinite universe of what did happen based on.....nothing.
And I am stretching things beyond reasonableness in your mind! You may as well say the aliens landed and designed Merion. Especially when you have admitted that your theories depend on everyone else in the universe being wrong. And everyone involved at Merion deciding not to call CBM the designer, or say he had routed it, etc. etc. etc. I think that alone qualifies your theory as being highly unlikely to be correct. It is just not possible that all those men wrote wrong, and read wrong up til the present day, except for you.
Ahh, dealing with the moronics. I do think that name fits.
The fallacies in all of this, are all yours. The wild assumptions are all yours. We have given it so much more time, consideration and respect than it or you deserve.
-
Mike,
When you ask why ? there could be any number of reasons.
Just because you don't know the underlying reasons as to why something happens, doesn't exclude reasons you don't like.
Example:
Why is Sebonack called a Jack Nicklaus-Tom Doak golf course if Tom Doak did the routing and the bulk of the individual hole designs ?
According to your logic, Jack must have done the routing and the bulk of the individual hole designs.
Just because you don't know the underlying reasons, doesn't preclude reasons you don't like
-
Jeff,
You're letting personality conflicts obscure reason.
Earlier you indicated that you took Findlay at his word.
Findlay stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion and he made his statement contemporaneously.
That would seem to support David's basic premise.
So why are you ripping in to him ?
-
Patrick,
Since you like to call me out for being unfair to your side, and not commenting on things, I need to comment that David should really call you out for your "unproductive methodolgy" since he constantly calls Mike out for the same.
You constantly throw out stuff that is not supported by the actual documents at Merion. Yes, the aliens could have designed Merion, but how productive is your methodology of thinking anything could happen, despite no evidence that it did? Assuming that just because no one said something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen is frankly, childish, and purposely designed to further a useless argument.
Twisting my words, and telling me I said things that I didn't is childish, too.
I thought you were older than five.
Now, that said, I would consider that by modern standards, despite Merion calling CBM an advisor, that there is a case to be made for CBM getting credit as a co-designer, because in your Sebonic case, no one ever mentions two names with 60%-40% in the attribution. Even if CBM was 10-25% as I postulated when you asked me, today, despite contractual arrangements, he probably might be listed as co-designer. Back then, he wasn't, for reasons I listed earlier.
Cheers.
-
Patrick,
Since you like to call me out for being unfair to your side,.
I'm not calling you out for being unfair to "your/our" side.
You're being unfair to the facts and the debate
and not commenting on things, I need to comment that David should really call you out for your "unproductive methodolgy" since he constantly calls Mike out for the same..
What, specifically is my "unproductive methodology" ?
You constantly throw out stuff that is not supported by the actual documents at Merion.
. What specifically did I " throw out there" ?
And what "actual documents at Merion" are you referring to ?
Findlay stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion, didn't he ?
So it's Findlay's contemporaneous statement that conflicts with "the actual documents at Merion"
Is Findlay's methodology also unproductive because his statement conflicts with the alleged documentation at Merion ?
Have you seen the alleged documentation at Merion ?
You just want to ramrod your position down everyone's throat and slam David
Yes, the aliens could have designed Merion, but how productive is your methodology of thinking anything could happen, despite no evidence
that it did?
All of a sudden, you now deny the veracity of Findlay's contemporaneous statement
Maybe Findlay was one of those aliens you keep referencing
Assuming that just because no one said something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen is frankly, childish, and purposely designed to
further a useless argument.
I disagree, especially given the paucity of records.
With an enormous lack of records clearly specifying attribution, excluding Findlay's, you can't declare that the lack of records precludes other events from occurring.
Twisting my words, and telling me I said things that I didn't is childish, too.
Would you cite, with specificity, where I "twisted your words" ?
I thought you were older than five.
how can you complain about personal attacks and then turn around and employ them at your leisure
Now, that said, I would consider that by modern standards, despite Merion calling CBM an advisor, that there is a case to be made for CBM
getting credit as a co-designer, because in your Sebonic case, no one ever mentions two names with 60%-40% in the attribution. Even if CBM
was 10-25% as I postulated when you asked me, today, despite contractual arrangements, he probably might be listed as co-designer. Back
then, he wasn't, for reasons I listed earlier.
I agree, CBM should be given co-designer credit
As to why he wasn't earlier, I have my thoughts, which include the "Sweeney" theory.
Cheers.
You too
-
Patrick,
Neither you or David have any facts at all, just argumentative posturing.
Not a SINGLE shred of evidence.
David,
Isn't this pathetic that the only person left to believe your ridiculous theories is Patrick, who gives new definition to a CBM "groupie" and would basically do or say anything in this debate to 1) try to make it appear CBM designed Merion and 2) draw Tom Paul back to GCA because he misses him.
Even Tom MacWood doesn't buy your zany ideas, although he just replaces them with zany ideas of his own, so I'm not sure what that means.
-
Mike,
Not a single shred of evidence ?
Whigham's eulogy
Findlay's statement
Template holes
Merion's records retaining CBM
I know of people in denial, but you've taken it to a new level. ;D
-
Patrick,
I will agree that Mike is a little too black and white when he says not a shred of evidence exists, but I still believe the volume of evidence, and which should be considered as a better source leans against.
First, you twist stuff, like saying Merion "retained" CBM. They did not have, as far as I know any kind of formal agreement. They called him an advisor. Period.
Findlay's statement is not entirely clear, despite your claims. For that matter, he tells us a lot of other interesting and undisputed things about Merion's first year.
Whigham's eulogy is not as effective as Alan Wilson's remembrances, since AW did his earlier, was close to the situation, and came up with his conclusions after interviewing the members of the committee. David's explanation for that was that HJW was a high caliber individual who wouldn't make a mistake, sort of implying that Alan Wilson wasn't. But, he was and HJW was over 60 and 29 years removed from events. Wilson interviewed the entire committee, and Whigham consulted his own aging memory.
Furthermore, why take Whigham at his word, when CBM himself, in Scotland's Gift fails to mention designing Merion when reviewing his design career? David's explanation for that was that CBM just started his design career summary with his second course, which doesn't sound reasonable, logical, or the best explanation. As a side note, HJW had just become CBM's son in law in 1909.
If he was really, really interested in the design business, wouldn't he be talking about how he took it over from or assisted CBM rather than describing Raynor's role over the years? If nothing else, his lack of designs over the years suggests he may not have been all that interested in the design side and probably not all that involved. He did so little, that CW only lists Morris County remodel for him, although they mention his "friendly interest" in CBM and other early architects work. He spent more time as a drama critic and editor than as a designer.
So, was he really there and engaged in the design? Was his 70 year old memory as good as it could have been? Why does David say he wouldn't be building up his father in law but that Alan Wilson was building up Hugh? I put my money on Alan Wilsons statement over Whigham.
As to template holes, yes, they clearly show the CBM influence, which I believe was exerted in the four days and perhaps some other contact in the time period. I have never believed that they talked only of the NGLA holes when there. They did take many routings, and after the visit, they started over.
For that matter, in April, its not hard to imagine CBM saying "this is what I think is your best routing" and following up with a few suggestions as to where to place the Alps, Road, etc. So, four templates made it in, and if we believe Findlay and others, Merion purposely left the bunkering and feature design until after Hugh returned from his GBI trip to see the originals for himself.
And, it appears that the original version of at least the Alps and Redan were clearly lacking in some form in their original versions. If the first versions lasted less than a year, then even if we agree that CBM told them to put them there, they executed it poorly and soon corrected it.
Lastly, I have always been interested in the timing of CBM's first self proclaimed design for others - Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, which George Bahto tells us were agreed to in 1910. At about the same time CBM came to Merion for the first time, NGLA had just opened. The same year Raynor was retained by CBM to build those two courses which started the next year, the same year as Merion. CBM was still a stockbroker and big wig in the world of golf.
Even if we discount TePaul's "tried to impress the rich guys" theory (which I don't necessarily, even though it sounds either crass, or like great networking) did CBM have the time to devote to Merion as advisor as the Moronics claim? How much time would he devote to Merion when two clubs were paying Raynor and retaining him and willing to put his name on their course?
Why the difference from CBM's writings, the clubs giving credit as they did, etc., if there wasn't a real difference in how he worked between those three clubs?
To explain that, I suppose the Moronics will now tell us that the good members at those clubs were all mistaken, too.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I've gone back and reread my posts which apparently brought on this latest fit of yours, and you are out of line. My responses to your specific points were reasonable and accurate.
CBM and HJW were discussed in the November communications. According to Lesley's committee, the Committee based their recommendation to purchase the land largely on CBM's and HJW's opinion.
And Yes, when you and TEPaul start fantasizing about CBM running around the country trying to ingratiate himself to rich people in order drum up business for Wall Street job, you are stretching things beyond reasonable.
And whether you are capable of understanding the reasons our not, you have little basis for concluding that CBM's other communications with Merion were limited.
The rest is just your usual attempts to be nasty. You sure don't like it when I point out the shortcomings in your argument, even when I do it politely. Makes conversation difficult given the number of shortcomings.
-
Jeff,
I'm being black and white for a reason, and that's to try and move the conversation forward, if possible.
As long as David tells us that the golf course was routed by November 1910, and that CBM was the one who routed it, there is NOT a SHRED of evidence to support that ridiculous notion.
If, on the other hand, David is willing to concede that there was no finalized routing or really ANY routing work involving CBM in the YEAR 1910, then I think we can possibly make some progress in determining more accurately what CBM actually helped Merion with in their design.
But, this nonsense of trying to exclude Hugh Wilson by teling us that Richard Francis had his brainstorm working with CBM and Lloyd prior to November 1915 and that completed the golf course routing prior to then needs to end.
Otherwise, he'll just flip flop between theories as suits his arguing needs at the time.
They are mutually exclusive positions. CBM had no participation beyond an initial site visit and followup letter in June during the entire year 1910 and it's time for David to just admit it so we can all advance the discussion.
-
CBM and HJW were discussed in the November communications. According to Lesley's committee, the Committee based their recommendation to purchase the land largely on CBM's and HJW's opinion.
David,
During the year 1910, THIS is the TOTAL extent of communications between CBM and Merion after their one day June site visit and the "opinion" you're referring to.
If you have any other evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to bring it forward.
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
-
Mike,
Since about post 2248 (?) David has really made some progress, admitting there is little factual record of CBM's involvement between July and Nov 1910, admitting that his theories rely on almost everyone involved mis-writing and almost everyone since mis-reading the record. He has also clarified his comments on "calling the shots" making his postion pretty reasonable and in line with at least my thinking concerning CBM's role.
And, we also agree that we really don't know the exact extent of CBM's role, but that if you measure it by impact, its certainly greater than measured by time.
In other cases, he backslides a bit and goes back to hammering the pre Nov 1910 argument. I can respect his arguments and methods, until I wake up and read him adopting Pat's "we cannot exclude anything" methodolgy, which certainly isn't productive to moving anything forward and does seem to go what David has stood for in the last seven years.
He says he doesn't want to cover that ground again, and neither should we. I think the record is pretty clear that there was very limited involvement by CBM. If something comes up to prove me wrong, and prove 100 years of historical thinking, and the club record wrong, I will jump up and down and yell it from the rooftops. It would be nice to get some new info here that would allow us to flesh the history of Merion out a bit more, since we are all interested in it, and I also take David at his word that he became interested in trying to place Merion in context of the early history of American golf and golf courses. A fascinating subject, to be sure.
-
Jeff,
I thnk what would advance the conversation is for David to concede that the Francis Swap and finalized Golf course routing took place AFTER November 15, 1910, not before.
David,
Would you concede that point based on the evidence, particularly the MCC Minutes of April 1911?
-
Jeff Brauer,
It is not Whigham's recollection vs. Alan Wilson's. I agree with them both. Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW working on the layout plan at NGLA and when they returned to Merion and that their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Alan Wilson credits Wilson and his committee for that which CBM and HJW didn't contribute ("except for this"), and while all of the Committee contributed he noted that Wilson was the person on the committee most responsible. That sounds a hell of a lot like what I am saying to me.
As for Mike's latest misrepresention we know that the CBM was NOT the "TOTAL extent of communications." For one thing, it does not make mention of the Whigham's budget estimate, so we know their were more communications than just the letter.
-
David,
The "budget estimate" line was written on July 2nd, and clearly based on the conversations the men had during the site visit.
Where does Alan Wilson say that "CBM was the person on the committee most responsible"?
-
Jeff,
I thnk what would advance the conversation is for David to concede that the Francis Swap and finalized Golf course routing took place AFTER November 15, 1910, not before.
David,
Would you concede that point based on the evidence, particularly the MCC Minutes of April 1911?
I think what would advance the conversation is for Mike to stay out of it. He has shown repeatedly that he is unwilling and unable to carry on a reasonable conversation about this stuff, his "no evidence" proclamation being just the latest example.
Mike,
Would you concede that you are incapable of reasonably discussing the material and go waste someone else's time elsewhere?
Last I heard conversations were communications.
-
David,
Once again, without any evidence, you cower behind personal insults from across the country behind your computer.
You are a wimp.
Here is what Alan Wilson wrote;
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR PLANS. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
-
Mike,
I enjoyed reading that letter again. I will probably get blasted for this, but I always took the third paragraph as a veiled reference to go get the Dallas Estate, but provide cover by mentioning the 3 acres of RR land, the shorter course, etc. Just a hunch, but in any case, they soon made arrangements to purchase the Dallas Estate using secretive methods.
I had forgotten the comment about 'abrupt mounds." Could this have been CBM telling them they really needed a high hill to produce an "obligatory" Alps hole? A stretch on my part, but since we have been talking Alps hole it stood out for me.
I also note that he mentioned not only their committee, but the Baltusrol committee, suggesting a bit that committee designed golf courses were not all that uncommon. (I think Tillie did his bit at Balto later, in 1922)
And I am word parsing to be sure, but I always found the little PS about lime interesting. It would appear that CBM is dashing off this letter without much thought, and rather than retype it (or having it retyped) he just adds his last sentence, as if he is on the way out the door and doesn’t have time to concoct a perfect letter. Is that the sign of a guy getting ready for a collaborative effort? For that matter, we have to ask why CBM didn’t suggest he design the course, or set up the next meeting that some say had to have happened, or give him their phone number.
And, let us not forget that he didn’t write to the committee, he wrote to Lloyd for whatever reason. Not sure if it means anything. But when David wrote his essay, he didn’t have this letter, and he presumed that it contained much more than it really did.
-
Jeff,
Here's more of what Alan Wilson wrote, which makes laughable David's contention that Alan Wilson credited CBM primarily for the architecture of Merion East.
What a joke.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
-
David,
I can agree with your post 2474. I think the differences in perception are with the phrase "except for this" which I take to suggest a fairly minor role for CBM, at least in the committee's mind, which as we have discussed, may have been based on time considerations. I know you think CBM's impact is greater in results than time spent, and that is probably very, very true. And I don't hold the view of some that they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes. They had their routings in hand, and made substantial changes afterwards, as described by Alan Wilson.
But, both the record of two visits and the description by Wilson, and the Lesley report suggest that the club felt its destiny was clearly in its own hands, and that CBM was merely an advisor, albeit an important one, along with Oakley, Pickering, etc. in their respective fields.
So, yeah, we have actually been saying very close to the same thing for a while now, other than your suspicion that there was a lot of contact between CBM and Merion before they secured the land. I have listed my reasons why I don't think it was the case, and speculated on other factors of interest regarding CBM in this time period. Frankly, I would have loved it if there really were some Drexel papers, but there aren't. But, we don't need to go there.
I guess I am wondering, like some others, just why the conversation continues? I think we all agree that there is no new evidence either way, just trying to hammer home what we think is the most reasonable interpretation......which in case you don't know, is mine!
-
Mike,
I am clueless as to "Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.)" Please clarify.
Oddly, whoever he is, he didn't think much of the vaunted 10th green, the Alps!
Also, to tag on to my speculation that HJW's lack of track record, even not being associated with CBM architecturally, for someone who "wasn't there" Alan Wilson seems to have grasped some pretty deep thinking about gca in general, and how those principles were applied at Merion.
This is the passage that has always had me thinking that while they were grateful to CBM for showing them the principles of the best holes, they really had the idea that their course should be more natural. Now, I know NGLA was far more natural than later Raynor versions of the templates, but I still sense a very polite distancing themselves from CBM in this and other writings. He gave them valuble advice, but they wanted to make it all their own, despite David and Pat telling us they wanted a CBM course.
As I ask, PR and SH wanted CBM courses in the same time frame, and got them. Why not Merion? I presume they knew what they wanted, what they were doing. I do not presume that the good members of Merion could screw up their own history so badly as to get it that wrong, and it defies logic that they did so.
-
David,
If you believe Alan Wilson, do you believe that by writing about 90% about the committee and less than 10% about CBM, that this might equate to rough credit? I know you don't want to get too precise, and I understand. Again, it just seems like you have difficulty taking this in context, again focusing on the one sentence that clearly describes the contributions of CBM and HJW. Why not focus on the rest?
As I said earlier, its clear that the Merion committee felt is was "their plans" and not CBM's.
That said, I have no problem saying the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Road holes were direct contributions of ideas by CBM, even if we don't know who exactly placed them .
-
Jeff,
Alan Wilson's account to William Philler goes on to say;
The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.
Also, Jeff....wouldn't you think if CBM's impact on the actual routing and design of Merion was of great significance that Richard Francis would certainly have mentioned it....or even mentioned HIM?
-
Mike,
Its not just Francis. Its really easy to discount any addtional contact with CBM by the consistency of the entire Merion record, as follows:
In Nov they report on the prospects and advisiblity of buying the new land, and mention CBM's letter. No mention of the extra time he was supposed to have spent on routing by that time. Seriously, there is no way that they would forget to mention that it had been routed by CBM by Nov, when discussing his recommendations is such great detail.
They also hire engineers (usually noted for their precision!) to prepare a plan for the same meeting. While capable of drawing accurate roads, and routing plan if available, they draw an approximate road, and blank golf land. Seriously, there is no way that they would not show a routing by CBM if they had one, if trying to inform the members of where the process stood.
In Dec., in buying the land, Culyers says they will start work at once on the plans. No mention that the world famous CBM supposedly had already figured it out. Same as above. For that matter, the housing developer, maybe even more than the club, would have trumpted the next great CBM golf course next to his development from the moment he had signed on, or at least at some point, but no one has brought forth any hint of that.
In the April report, they mention going to NGLA for a visit, and taking their plans, but no mention of any previous visits, or CBM plans. They mention CBM returning to approve one of their plans. If as David suggested, they wanted a CBM golf course, they would have called them his plans.
In their 1926 remembrances, the committee repeats the chronology of the meetings and the contributions of CBM's impact, but do not recall or mention any other contact with CBM.
In his 1950 remembrances, Francis tells of going to get approval from Lloyd, and goes into great detail, but doesn't mention CBM at all.
While its not hard to believe that there may have been some lost records, as happens at some clubs, they had many opportunities to mention CBM's work pre 1910, and didn't, even though, given the obligations they were asking of the membership, they were under obligation to report accurately. They are remarkably consistent in their reports and recollections.
We might buy one misstatement, but David and Patrick are asking the world to buy at least five mistatements and/or intentional omissions.
Now, given there are a few CBM/H Wilson letters in the Oakley file, I can believe there may have been a few more. But I think they had to have been minor, because Merion seems to have recorded all the game changing occurrences in their process. I envision those four days with CBM as non stop question and answer sessions, and I can believe there were a few more letters along the lines of asking "Hey, Charlie, we forgot to ask you about your water system."
BTW, I cannot really fathom any real routing collaboration by phone. Tried it, doesn't work! And, given what they reported on the process, and how consistent it is, I cannot believe that they would have written at least once that they recieved some routings via mail from old Charlie. Again, they had at least four opportunities do so, and while giving both broad outlines and some detail of the status of the new course process at each of those opportunities, they did not mention the specific detail that CBM had routed their course.
I have no problem in believing that while on site in April, CBM approved one of their routings (although I think it was largely already determined by Francis swap) and after doing so, saying "The tenth looks like an Alps to me!" (or some such)
If you check any source on the historic process, it will tell you that if contemporaries involved all say the same or similar things, you can belive its probably true. Off hand, I don't recall what Wiki says about eulogies from 70 year old men 20 years after the fact as far as being valid documentation. I guess at the minimum, it would have to be corroborated by another 70 year old man? (add smiley) And nothing in the historic method says that you can substitute your woulda, coulda, shoulda's in place of interpreting documents, like Patrick and TMac try to do.
Is there a reasonable scenario where MCC would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times? I think not. But I am fairly certain the Moronics will try to concoct one.
-
Jeff,
That's really a great, factual, and accurate summation and as good a place to end this tempest in a teapot as any.
Someone here needs to stop the madness...might as well be me.
See you on another thread!
-
Jeff Brauer,
I'd like to visit, hopefully for the last time, some of your views on H.J. Whigham, which I think are unfounded at best.
You speculate that Whigham was not "really, really interested in the design business" and really was not "engaged in the design" of Merion. This is one of those frustrating examples where instead of looking at the historical record you are just wildly speculating based on some unfounded theory of yours or TEPaul's, and then drawing conclusions based on that speculation. And in the process you are again projecting your modern views to an era where they have little applicability.
First, you again confuse quantity with quality, as you are wont to do. From my perspective, NGLA counts more than a slew of courses preceding it, or for that matter a slew of modern courses.
Second, you view what they were doing in your modern context, when what they were doing isn't anything like what you do.
You ask whether Whigham was "really, really interested in the design business?" Of course not! Whigham was not at all interested in "the design business." Like CBM, Whigham was a true amateur. He did not have a "business" designing courses, he had a distinguished career as a writer and editor. But even still, he left his mark in Chicago (Exmoor being the latest name on the list) and working side by side with CBM on NGLA, Merion, Piping Rock, and other of CBM's courses. And when I say he was side by side, I mean he was with CBM on the famous 1906 trip abroad, with CBM on on his infamous horseback ride, and with him planning the layout, and co-authoring articles about the place later on. While today we mostly focus on CBM, Whigham was very much involved. For example, when it was being build and when it first opened, Piping Rock was commonly referred as the creation of CBM and H.J. Whigham, and not of CBM alone or CBM and Raynor as we often think today. And this was likely the case at other early CBM courses as well.
And lest you think he was just carrying the bag for CBM, his writing on the subject tells a much different story. Whigham had not only been creating golf courses since the near the inception of golf in America, he had been writing about the creation of golf courses since the mid-1890's. You tout Alan's Wilson's 1925 article as "deep thinking about cga in general" but if you are interested in true "deep thinking" about golf course design see Whigham's Scribner's article from 1909.
In 1906 CBM had written his article on the idea course for Outing and listed some of his "ideal holes" but provided little explanation of on what made these particular holes models for his ideals. It was Whigham who authored the 1909 Scribner's piece that accurately and articulately explained the concepts and principles underlying NGLA's holes and great holes anywhere. The article was not only one of the first in America to discuss the elements of great design in detail, it was unsurpassed in sophistication and clarity. Between Whigham's writing and Booth's drawings, I can easily understand how someone like Perry Maxwell could read the article and decide he too wanted to build golf courses, and then to journey to NGLA to learn how.
For another interesting exercise highlighting Whigham's knowledge, expertise, and involvement, compare Whigham's 1909 piece to his works on the subject of golf course architecture from around a dozen years earlier. While Whigham's early work was relatively advance for the mid-1890's, one can see the profound evolution of his thinking during that first decade, perhaps because of his experiences with CBM, their extensive study of the great courses, and their efforts to create NGLA.
Add to that his vast experience and knowledge of the great links course and of courses world wide (somewhere I have a photo of him from the Indian Open from the 1890's) and his Where's-Waldo-like presence --from his participation in the golf exhibit at Chicago's World Fair, to his involvement in the creation of Chicago courses, to his early championships, to his books and articles, to his work with CBM, to the photos of him at Cypress Point during the construction, he sure seems to pop up at some key moments in the history of golf and its courses. I would be hard pressed to name anyone in America more knowledgeable about the subject of strategic golf, its courses, and its culture during this early era.
Was George Thomas not "really, really interested in the design business" because the total number of designs with which he was involved was relatively few? How about Hugh Wilson? How does your standard for who was "really, really into the design business" apply to him? Was George Crump not "really, really interested in the design business" because he didn't even complete one course in his six or seven years involvement? How about CBM?
As for Alan Wilson as a deep thinker on the subject, I couldn't say one way or another. I know he wrote some articles on agronomy, but I can only think of one other of his written contributions somewhat relating to gca. He wrote article in which he argued that golf courses ought to be measured along the ground instead of in a straight line, despite the fact that such a methodology is fraught with practical inefficiencies and even if properly executed it would overestimate real distances on anything but the flattest terrain. As I recall, his justification was that uphill holes play longer anyway, so exaggerating their distance was appropriate. Apparently his deep thoughts on the matter didn't consider rolling terrain or downhill holes.
Third, while Whigham was a writer as you say, he was no mere "drama critic" as you put out there. Starting in the mid-1990s he was a war correspondent for major London and Chicago papers, covered the Spanish-American and Boer, and other conflicts around the world, and was praised for his work. Later he was a writer for and Editor in Chief of major publications. He was also an expert and author on art, architecture, foreign policy, a friend and advisor to Presidents, the editor in chief of popular magazines, and had traveled the world and in the process he had golfed everywhere. He not only wrote a remembrance on CBM, but widely read remembrances on other great men, including Theodore Roosevelt.
For you to dismiss his opinion so lightly does nothing to advance the conversation, but again shows your biases. And it further exposes your biases when you proclaim, as you did, that you would take the word of someone not even there over the word of someone who was not only there and involved, he was one of the foremost experts on the subject anywhere.
-
David,
I have read the summary of HJW career, too. I certainly was not trying to dismiss him, and I don't think I am biased. The facts remain that he only did one course on his own. Maybe a great writer who grasped the concepts, but perhaps not great at details, implmentation, or what have you. Maybe a case of those who can, do and those who can't write. The fact remains that he missed a chance to have even gotten deeply involved in what had to be the greatest design opportunity anyone could have been handed as CBM's son in law. But, it was Raynor who took the CBM mantle, not HJW. The results speak for themselves.
And, while that doesn't disqualify him from commenting at his own father in laws funeral many years later, it doesn't really qualify that one statement as the be all end all of CBM's involvement at Merion.
Also, my point remains valid, and your method remains constant, as deflection has been a hallmark of your method here. I ask again -
Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?
Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?
Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?
Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?
Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?
Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record. How could they all keep their stories straight?
Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?
The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.
-
First, you twist stuff, like saying Merion "retained" CBM. They did not have, as far as I know any kind of formal agreement. They called him an advisor. Period.
Jeff, the fact that CBM had an ongoing relationship with CBM indicates that they retained him.
The relationship was NOT casual, it was formal.
Findlay's statement is not entirely clear, despite your claims. For that matter, he tells us a lot of other interesting and undisputed things about Merion's first year.
First you agreed with taking Findlay at his word, now you claim it's not entirely clear.
What's not clear about his statement that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion ?
Whigham's eulogy is not as effective as Alan Wilson's remembrances, since AW did his earlier, was close to the situation, and came up with his conclusions after interviewing the members of the committee. David's explanation for that was that HJW was a high caliber individual who wouldn't make a mistake, sort of implying that Alan Wilson wasn't. But, he was and HJW was over 60 and 29 years removed from events. Wilson interviewed the entire committee, and Whigham consulted his own aging memory.
I don't agree.
HJW was an integral part of the planning process from 1910 to 1912, AW was an outsider from 1910 to 1912
HJW had first hand knowledge, Alan Wilson, second hand knowledge.
Furthermore, why take Whigham at his word, when CBM himself, in Scotland's Gift fails to mention designing Merion when reviewing his design career?
Why ? Because CBM's role at Merion differered from his role at Piping Rock, The Creek, Yale, Lido where he was solely responsible for everything.
Whereas, at Merion, it was more of a joint venture where he wasn't responsible for everything.
David's explanation for that was that CBM just started his design career summary with his second course, which doesn't sound reasonable, logical, or the best explanation. As a side note, HJW had just become CBM's son in law in 1909.
David and I may differ on this issue.
If he was really, really interested in the design business, wouldn't he be talking about how he took it over from or assisted CBM rather than describing Raynor's role over the years? If nothing else, his lack of designs over the years suggests he may not have been all that interested in the design side and probably not all that involved. He did so little, that CW only lists Morris County remodel for him, although they mention his "friendly interest" in CBM and other early architects work. He spent more time as a drama critic and editor than as a designer.
You'll have to take that up with David, since that appears to be David's take on the omission from "Scotland's Gift", not mine.
So, was he really there and engaged in the design? Was his 70 year old memory as good as it could have been? Why does David say he wouldn't be building up his father in law but that Alan Wilson was building up Hugh? I put my money on Alan Wilsons statement over Whigham.
You'll have to ask David as I can't speak for him.[/size]
As to template holes, yes, they clearly show the CBM influence, which I believe was exerted in the four days and perhaps some other contact in the time period. I have never believed that they talked only of the NGLA holes when there. They did take many routings, and after the visit, they started over.
I'm not so sure it was limited to four das and I'm not so sure that they started over from scratch as opposed to modifying what they might have had, or a combination of both.
For that matter, in April, its not hard to imagine CBM saying "this is what I think is your best routing" and following up with a few suggestions as to where to place the Alps, Road, etc.
You and I both know that you just don't inject a hole into a routing.
A routing is an 18 link jigsaw puzzle not prone to have random holes inserted on a whim.
And, as you and I both know, the interjection of 4 to 5 to 6 holes takes a hell of a lot more work than closing your eyes and sticking a pin in a topo.
There has to be structure and continuity in a routing, so I think CBM's role was far greater than that of playing "pin the tail on the donkey" with the random placement of template holes.
So, four templates made it in, and if we believe Findlay and others, Merion purposely left the bunkering and feature design until after Hugh returned from his GBI trip to see the originals for himself.
I don't know if you can draw that particular conclusion.
What feature designs are you refering to ?
And, it appears that the original version of at least the Alps and Redan were clearly lacking in some form in their original versions.
I think that's reasonable to state about the "alps" hole, I'm not so sure it's an accurate statement about the "redan" hole.
If the first versions lasted less than a year, then even if we agree that CBM told them to put them there, they executed it poorly and soon corrected it.
It could also be that they realized that they didn't have a template hole, or even a hybrid, but, sadly a mutt, and as such, realized that it was so lacking in value that it was better off being altered.
Remember, this is 1910-11-12 and there had to be a good deal of uncertainty relating to the holes and the topography they had to deal with.
Who wouldn't love to see a replica of # 3 at NGLA on their course ?
But, if the topography doesn't lend itself, and the attempt at replication is woefully lacking, you're better off trying something else.
And I think that's what happened. They realized that the hole was sufficiently lacking.
Trial and error, in 1910-11-12 had to be common and it's probably more common today than people think.
So, I can understand modifying a golf course in the early years.
Even the vaunted Friars Head and Sebonack had early modifications to their courses, why would we expect any less in 1910-11-12 ?
Lastly, I have always been interested in the timing of CBM's first self proclaimed design for others - Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, which George Bahto tells us were agreed to in 1910. At about the same time CBM came to Merion for the first time, NGLA had just opened. The same year Raynor was retained by CBM to build those two courses which started the next year, the same year as Merion. CBM was still a stockbroker and big wig in the world of golf.
By train, telegraph and telephone, Philly and New York aren't very far apart.
Piping Rock opened in 1912 or 1913, Sleepy Hollow in 1913 or 1914 depending on sourcing (C&W)
I don't see the conflict that you see.
CBM appears to have begun at Merion in June of 1910 when NGLA was already open for play.
Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow are in close proximity to New York City.
I don't think there are any exclusionary factors related to those events.
What does trouble me is why Sleepy Hollow sold off four CBM holes and why they brought in AWT ?
Even if we discount TePaul's "tried to impress the rich guys" theory (which I don't necessarily, even though it sounds either crass, or like great networking) did CBM have the time to devote to Merion as advisor as the Moronics claim?
Absolutely.
Unlike others on this site, he could chew gum and walk at the same time,
Being involved in three seperate projects over a 3 to 4 year period is certainly not a herculian task.
Just ask Donald Ross.
How much time would he devote to Merion when two clubs were paying Raynor and retaining him and willing to put his name on their course?
Why the difference from CBM's writings, the clubs giving credit as they did, etc., if there wasn't a real difference in how he worked between those three clubs?
As I stated above, I believe there was a difference.
At Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, he was the soup to nuts guy, responsible for everything
To explain that, I suppose the Moronics will now tell us that the good members at those clubs were all mistaken, too.
NO, only you are mistaken.
By the way, at what point where you accepted by, and as a Merionette ?
-
Jeff,
I've sat on Boards at a number of Golf/County clubs for over 25 years.
I have to laugh at your questions asking "WHY" a board wouldn't do this or wouldn't do that.
I can only tell you that it's sometimes mind boggling as to why a board chooses to act or not act.
Why they choose to include or omit relevant information, credit, attribution, etc., etc..
If you're offering, as part of your defense or position, "WHY" Merion's board didn't act in a certain way, there simply isn't an explanation.
You can't say, WHY didn't Merion's board do this or say that ?
I mean, you can say it, but, it has no relevance.
As a side note, many, many years ago, when I just graduated college, a club I just joined did something that I didn't understand.
It didn't make sense. So, I approached an older, seasoned, intelligent, experienced, successful Board Member and asked him how and why the Board made that particular decision. The older member looked at me and said, "as you get older, you'll soon understand, that no matter how smart, how successful, how industrious the board members are, the moment the front wheels of their cars pass through the clubhouse gates, they lose their minds."
When I was first appointed to my first Board position, an issue was discussed and debated, and I immediately knew that that oldtime member, was dead on the money with his statement to me. I was astounded by what I witnessed.
So, asking "WHY" is a question, that is often unanswerable, or, if it is answerable, it's answerable in a context that would intrique Rod Serling.
-
Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.
Both sides have their documents and articles they like to point to, but at the end of the day logic has to enter into the picture...what is plausible. I have been asking this question for a couple of years now.
-
Tom,
I think there's another important question.
If, as Mike Cirba asserts, some of the other committee members had more experience designing and building golf courses, why did they name someone who had NO prior experience as the Chairman ?
-
Patrick,
I was not asking why Merion did this or that, as TMac does just above. I was asking why they would do one thing that you speculate they did, and then fail to record it in their minutes?
So, like you, I am laughing at TMac's coulda woulda shoulda post above. It has no relevance. I don't know why they were intent on doing it themselves, although some reasons have been proffered.
I am simply responding to your comments that we "don't know that there wasn't more correspondance between CBM and Merion." I think we do, because Merion did record all the major times they met with CBM. In both the contemporaneous documents and later recollections, they are remarkably consistent. If CBM was more involved than they said, they then missed several opportunities (not just one) to report accurately and it diminishes the chances of them having done what you suspect they did.
I mean really, the November report details the meeting and followup letter of CBM. If he had some other important contacts in the June-Nov time frame that substantially why would their report to the members mention only two of three? It strains the bowels and mind to think that they would not mention it.
TMac,
You can keep on asking your questions. Pat has given you the correct answer above. Because they wanted to. Why is another fascinating question, but there is your answer. You ask, but cannot provide any other answer because there is none.
-
Jeff
When I've asked the question in the past most of the time it has gone unanswered, but when it has been answered the response has been I can't explain it, but that is what happened. Is that your explanation?
I'm a fairly religious person, and faith is obviously important, but when it comes to accurately documenting history faith does not fly, intelligence must be a consideration.
-
Niether does substituting what you think should have happened for what the documents say actually happened.
As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?
There is not.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I'll be glad to answer your questions, hopefully later tonight.
But I have to say that I am having trouble even taking you seriously when your argument is based on the obviously erroneous assumption that H. J. Whigham did not have the wherewithal to know whether or not Merion was a CBM course.
-
David,
I look forward to the answers.
As to HJW, its a side issue. I recall you often promoting the more contemporaneous, the more directly involved, etc documents as superior documents to rely on. I am surprised to see your vigorous defense of the longest by time away document as a lynchpin of your arguments. It doesn't strike me as your best work!
Good night.
-
David,
I look forward to the answers.
As to HJW, its a side issue. I recall you often promoting the more contemporaneous, the more directly involved, etc documents as superior documents to rely on. I am surprised to see your vigorous defense of the longest by time away document as a lynchpin of your arguments. It doesn't strike me as your best work!
He was there. He was involved. He was an expert on the topic discussed. The rest of the article checks out, and he was still sharp when he wrote it. And CBM's accomplishments in golf and golf design were so great, Whigham had little reason to embellish about Merion. As accounts go, it doesn't get much better than that.
And Whigham's account is consistent with the contemporaneous accounts from Merion.
-
Now turning to what I hope can be a productive discussion about your more sensible positions.
I can agree with your post 2474. I think the differences in perception are with the phrase "except for this" which I take to suggest a fairly minor role for CBM, at least in the committee's mind, which as we have discussed, may have been based on time considerations. I know you think CBM's impact is greater in results than time spent, and that is probably very, very true. And I don't hold the view of some that they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes. They had their routings in hand, and made substantial changes afterwards, as described by Alan Wilson.
While I disagree, I understand why you want to read "except for this" the way you do, but I don't think you are considering Alan Wilson's perspective when writing this. I am not referring to his desire to secure his brother's place in Merion's history (although I think it may be unreasonable to ignore this.) Rather I am referring to what Alan Wilson actually knew about CBM's involvement.
Alan Wilson was not at NGLA, and there is no evidence that Alan Wilson had any involvement whatsoever in the early creation of the golf course. I have never seen anything indicating that he was involved with any of the key committees or anything to do with the early creation of the course.
Even his own account suggests that he was unaware of exactly what happened early on. He strongly suggests that Hugh Wilson's trip abroad to study the great golf courses was in 1910 which is wrong by two years. More importantly, he presents the process of creating the course as if it occurred after the trip abroad. This is wrong as well. And he puts some other things in an order which, if not wrong, are a bit peculiar.
Believe me, I am not trying to cast doubt on his veracity. But I am trying to focus your attention on just how little he knew about this early planning stage.
Because I understand it, you latest theory about Alan Wilson seems to be as follows: If CBM/HJW significantly influenced the planning, then Alan Wilson would have written more about it.
My main problem with your theory is as follows: If Alan Wilson was not there, and if the evidence indicates that Alan Wilson did not know much about this early stage, then it is unreasonable for you to expect him to have written more about it than he did.
But, both the record of two visits and the description by Wilson, and the Lesley report suggest that the club felt its destiny was clearly in its own hands, and that CBM was merely an advisor, albeit an important one, along with Oakley, Pickering, etc. in their respective fields
.
As for the Wilson report, it was written over a dozen years after the fact, and during most of that time Merion was in Hugh Wilson's capable hands. Wilson had completed major changes before his death and and very much put his mark on the course. So it doesn't surprise me that you read it as if the course was in Merion's hands. It was, from the time the plan was approved onward. But as I said above, Alan Wilson had little knowledge about the planning stage, over a dozen years before, so I don't think your conclusions about the extent of his coverage of this material are appropriate.
As for the Lesley report, I am not sure what Lesley report you read, but the one I read did not list CBM as "merely" anything, nor did it mention anything about Oakley, Pickering, etc. Every sentence of that Lesley report but one describes CBM's and HJW's involvement in the design process, and that in the single sentence, Merion is very likely acting according to what CBM had taught them at NGLA and in anticipation of their planned visit to choose and approve the final plan.
I know you don't fully agree with that reading, but I thought we were in agreement that they were working on the layout at NGLA and that we cannot separate what they were doing at NGLA from what they did "on their return."
Whether you agree or not, I don't think it tenable for you to posit the Lesley report suggests "that the club felt its destiny was clearly in its own hands." If anything, the Lesley report suggests that CBM/HJW's involvement in the design process was extremely important to Merion. Why else would they travel to Southampton during the design process? Why else have them come back down to Merion to go everything again and sort things out? And Jeff, CBM/HJW not only had undeniable input into the substance of the plan, CBM/HJW approved the final plan, and it was presented to Merion's Board as the plan that they approved. That is from the Lesley Report. It sure sounds to me that Merion had put their destiny in CBM's and HJW's hands, at least for the plan.
-
Jeff,
I think the position that if it's not in writing, ergo it didn't happen, dismisses the high probability that the parties were in communication by phone.
In fact it's almost impossible to deny that probability
-
I have read the summary of HJW career, too.
This is probably some attempt at a cut, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?
Yes.
Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?
I didn't claim there were meetings, and I'll answer the routings question below.
As for other communications, the November correspondence was about purchasing the land, but the decisions and recommendations had been made in early July, when the committee recommended the purchase the land based in "large part" on CBM's opinions and letter. It was read into the record in July, and that is the only reason it came out in November. The Committee had used the letter to sell the Board on the purchase in July, and the Board used the letter to sell the members in November.
In short, it is unreasonable for you to expect all of CBM's communications with the Site Committee to make it into the minutes or the board's report to the memberships. Why would any other CBM letter have been read into the boards record during this period? Do you think the board was monitoring CBM's communications with any or all members on the Site Committee? Why would they?
And why don't you have the same expectation for Lloyd's negotiations with Haverford Development Company? That was about the purchase, and apparently, if we are to believe the Merionettes, there are no records of what went on in those negotiations in the minutes or anywhere else. Are we to assume that there were no negotiations?
Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?
The routing was rough, and they had to change it to make it fit, and CBM had seen the changes and not yet "approved" the changes. And it included land that they did not yet own or control. You think they are going to go public with a routing when they haven't yet secured all the land they needed?
Somewhere there is a Barker routing of the course, and it probably has CBM's and HJW's lines and changes right over the top of it. And on top of that, or more likely on a separate sheet, Francis had made his changes. But they hadn't finalized anything, and wouldn't until CBM got a contour map and until he went over it with them and until he returned to Merion, went over it all again, and chose and approved the plan. That is when they had their final routing. When CBM/HJW approved it. And in November CBM and HJW hadn't yet approved it.
Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?
See above.
Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?
I have not claimed more face to face meetings. Why do you keep acting as if I have? But as for other communications, the answer is No. That wasn't board business.
Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record. How could they all keep their stories straight?
Because the Chair of the Committee, the one with whom he most likely would have been communicating and thus be most aware of these communications, was dead.
Because they weren't appointed until late January, and it is unclear that anyone except Wilson did anything initially. Are you certain all of them were even at NGLA? I am not. I am not even sure it was that committee. But assuming it was that committee, did all five of them show up at CBM's door with sleeping bags for a slumber party? Why would all five of them have gone? One of them was in Europe that spring, although I am not yet sure when he sailed for distant shores. Another of them didn't seem to have much of an interest in the nuances of strategic design.
But they weren't telling a story. I wish you would stop accusing me of accusing them of lying. They said that CBM was extremely helpful planning the course, and after that it was Hugh Wilson's show. This was true. Do you really expect they are going to make sure Alan Wilson included a phone log of calls to CBM in his letter about his brother? Were they to have gone through their own correspondence for letters from CBM?
Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?
Because he didn't build the course. Because only discussed the projects with which is was most involved.
The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.
Why didn't Wilson take credit in his Chapter or in one of the thousands of letters he wrote about the golf courses?
Why in his only discussion of the planning does he profusely praise and thank CBM for all his help and for showing him what to do with the land at Merion?
Why did his friends in D.C. write that his greatest accomplishment in architecture was the redo of the course in the 1920's? He designed Merion, yet isn't worth mentioning in his remembrance? It made the cut in CBM's remembrance, but it didn't quite make the grade in Wilson's remembrance written by his own close friends?
Not a single contemporaneous sourse said that Wilson designed the course, but you keep acting as if every source did. Why is that? And don't point me toward the Lesley report because you have acknowledge that you cannot separate what went on a NGLA from what went on upon their return.
CBM is discussed again and again in Merion's Board Minutes. Every time the course comes up, they are discussing CBM's help and involvement. Yet that is not enough for you.
Can you list for me all of the mentions in Merion's Minutes of Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process?
Thanks.
One more thing about Alan Wilson since you seem to like to run with gossip. He was no fan of CBM's. In fact what TEPaul and Wayne tried to blow into some fantasy about CBM abandoning the game sounded to me like Alan Wilson expressing his dislike for and disrespect of CBM.
Given your penchant for following the gossip, what do you make of this?
How do you suppose Alan would have felt about his brother sharing credit for Merion with CBM?
-
Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.
Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:
1. I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM. Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed. They did not hire him.
As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor. i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe. Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA? That he didn't really want to design other courses? I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.
2. Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner. They knew CBM, with little previous GCA experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas. Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well. Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.
Tied in to this is point...
3. Golf course architecture was in its infancy then. According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America. CBM had only one top course under his belt. There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted.
The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark. That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and standards behind it. Who/what was a golf course architect? In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or two.
In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it. Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key design themselves. That's my read. As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way. So was Oakmont. So was Myopia. Even NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience. And MCC had that person's help.
Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course. Now say we're given an excellent site. Enough money to hire top construction people. Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us. Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee. Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis. Our own livelihoods are not an issue.
At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity. In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion.
btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays. It's the most convincing piece of evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise. I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking about the design principles of the templates.
-
Niether does substituting what you think should have happened for what the documents say actually happened.
As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?
There is not.
Jeff
If there were documents that actually say what happened there would no reason for this never ending debate. And you and the others would not be going on and on trying to convince us Wilson designed the course. The documents would've spoken for themselves and this would have ended a long time ago.
I'll ask you again, why would the powers to be at Merion engage an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had the two premier golf architects in America at their disposal?
-
As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?
I'm not sure which document or documents you are referring to, but I'm sure I've seen them (or it) at one time or another, and I am quite confident that I can give you a reasonable and intelligent explanation. Present away.
-
Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:
1. I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM. Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed. They did not hire him.
That doesn't preclude the use of his routing or an amended version of his routing
As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor. i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe. Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA? That he didn't really want to design other courses? I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.
Jim, you're wrong on this issue, just look at his body of work subsequent to Merion
Also, Jeff claims just the opposite. Jeff claims he was too busy with Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow
2. Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner. They knew CBM, with little previous GCA
experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas.
CBM had also done Chicago, another great golf course and a founding member club of the USGA, so let's not minimize his accomplishments[\b][\size][\color]
Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well.
They had no architectural experts, no one who could compare to CBM
Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.
How ? Specifically did he advise them ?
Do you think they were capable of routing a course with complete individual hole designs ?
Tied in to this is point...
3. Golf course architecture was in its infancy then. According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America. CBM had only one top course
under his belt. There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted.
I indicated 18 hole golf courses
Why do you and others conveniently dismiss Chicago golf course, a great golf course that today remains ranked in the top 100 ?
The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark. That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and
standards behind it. Who/what was a golf course architect? In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or
two.
Is it your position that golf architecture in the U.K. Wasn't established ?
In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it. Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key
design themselves. That's my read. As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way. So was Oakmont. So was Myopia. Even
NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience.
That's not true, CBM had prior experience and his standing in GOLF was enormous
And MCC had that person's help.
evidently enough help to cause Jeff Brauer to declare that CBM should get co-design credit
Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course. Now say we're given an excellent site.
What do you mean, "we're GIVEN an excellent site ? That can't be a given, that's a critical element in the design process, a decision that has to be made by the involved parties
Enough money to hire top construction people. Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us.
And to what extent do you believe the final product would be a Doak, Brauer or C&C course ?
All of it ? 50 % of it ? Enough of it that they would deserve co-design credit ?
Be honest and realistic now, how heavily would we depend on Doak, Brauer or C&C ?
Truth be told, they would do theLion's share of the work. They are the experienced experts with a bona Fidel track record, AND they would take the huge burden of responsibility off our shoulders.
Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee.
NO, we would rely on Doak, Brauer and C&C to advise us on whom to get for construction.
Remember, this is 1910
Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the
top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis. Our own livelihoods are not an issue.
You're forgetting this was 1910, there was no vast body of great courses located nearby and you don't have years to study, you have to build a golf course and you've got to do it in short order
At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity. In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion.
I don't
Jim, if I gave you the task of creating a new golf course, soup to nuts, for the membership of our club, you'd be crapping in your pants, since the responsibility is awesome and burdensome and you know relatively nothing about creating a "championship" golf course, especially if it was 1910.
You and others are so cavalier about what it takes to site, design and build a golf course, as if so simple.
Well, if it's so simple how come so many mediocre to lousy courses have been built since 1910 ?
How come mediocre to lousy courses continue to be built if this process/project is so easy ? [\b][\size][\color]
btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays. It's the most convincing piece of
evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise. I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking
about the design principles of the templates.
What templates ? There were no templates in 1910
The templates ONLY came into being recognized as templates because of CBM-SR-CB repeated, patterned use of them
-
TMac,
I already answered your question and I already listed the minutes and remembrances I am referring to.
Pat,
Your post above is interesting, and it may just answer TMacs question. I have postulated this before, but in essence, doing it themselves with CBM helping probably was the best option available to them! A perfectly logical choice.
There were no local gca's, so that wasn't an option. NYC was the closest. They clearly didn't like Barker. They liked CBM who wasn't really set up quite yet to design courses with Raynor (although he was making contacts at the exact same time with SH and PR, with work to start on the same schedule.)
So, they latched on to CBM who agreed to help within whatever time constraints he had, which turned out to be 4 days (and to humor you and David, time for some other letters and phone calls, which may have happened) Also, you have to recall that CBM told them to contact the Baltusrol committee for more advice, so in his initial letter, he certainly didn't seem to be directing them towards him designing the course.
So, both sides agreed Merion could do it, with a little help from CBM in a pinch. They clearly thought Barker wasn't an option (maybe he came to town on the rival B and O rather than the Pennsylvania - I have seen commissions go down the tubes for far lesser reasons, like drinking Miller Light in front of the client who happend to be the Budwiser distributor in town.....) and the rivalry of the two railroads is legendary. Speculation of course, but its clear that for some reason, they just didn't like Barker or his plan.
This is why I don't get TMacs repeated questions. They did use CBM, and perhaps CBM set the terms because of what was going on in his life. We don't know, but I have always been interested in the timing or PR and SH coming right on the heals of Merion and why the arrangement of advisor came to be the way it was.
I have considered the possibility that CBM may have had some informal agreement or understanding with PR or SH to NOT call Merion his design, because for whatever reason, he wanted PR to be it. That reason could be friendships, the ability to control it better because of Raynor, or being in NY, etc. I don't know.
But, I do know that CBM never mentioned it in SG, and Merion clearly and consistently called him an advisor. Besides the time factors, responsibility to the club for getting things done resting on the committee, etc. the two main participants both never said he was the designer of the course. George Bahto, CBM's biographer never saw any documents in his research claiming that CBM thought he had designed the course. It would be interesting to see all his correspondance to see why. We have certainly debated the Merion side of the story with no new documents.
In short, I ask in the context of 1910, why wouldn't a committee design (still common in those days) with periodic assistance from the father of american gca NOT be the best option they could have had?
-
Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.
Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:
1. I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM. Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed. They did not hire him.
As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor. i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe. Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA? That he didn't really want to design other courses? I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.
2. Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner. They knew CBM, with little previous GCA experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas. Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well. Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.
Tied in to this is point...
3. Golf course architecture was in its infancy then. According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America. CBM had only one top course under his belt. There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted.
The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark. That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and standards behind it. Who/what was a golf course architect? In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or two.
In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it. Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key design themselves. That's my read. As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way. So was Oakmont. So was Myopia. Even NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience. And MCC had that person's help.
Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course. Now say we're given an excellent site. Enough money to hire top construction people. Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us. Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee. Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis. Our own livelihoods are not an issue.
At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity. In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion.
btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays. It's the most convincing piece of evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise. I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking about the design principles of the templates.
Jim
I will tell why your #1 does not make sense based on their actions. They were obviously impressed enough to make a point of publicizing Barker's involvement, publicizing his opinion of the possibilities (largely based on his routing), and it was also reported they had hired him to design the course. Barker was more or less a hit and run artist, and typically he did not hang around to oversee construction of his designs. Also he usually went home to the UK for the holidays and often stayed until spring. That is the more reasonable explanation for what happened and why he disappeared from the scene.
As far CBM is concerned it seems to me he was very involved, and as a result his fingerprints are all over the design. CBM was the premier architect in America, and having him involved was a major coup for the club.
Myopia was originally laid out by a professional, and Leeds became more or less the dictatorial figure at the club and redesigned the course over a period of almost two decades. It is a poor example. I don't think intelligent men would put the design of what they hoped to be a top notch golf course in the hands of novice based him developing into a dictator a la Leeds. That is an illogical explanation.
Golf architecture was not in its infancy in 1910. Golf architecture was in its infancy when Leeds, Macdonald, and Colt began in the 1890s. By 1910 you have had a decade of modern golf architecture with men like CBM, Travis, Emmet, Park, Colt, Fowler and Abercromby leading the way. One of the problems with this debate is the fact that you and others lack historical knowledge and perspective.
Pine Valley was designed by Colt. Oakmont was redesigned over a period of many years, and did not reach his full potential until post WWI. CBM had been involved in golf architecture for over decade when he designed the NGLA. He had also thrown himself into the subject like no one before, intensely studying the art over period of years. Again the historical perspective is missing.
-
TMac,
I gotta run, but with all due respect, I believe you are the one, for all your research, who seems to lack historical perspective more than anyone here.
The letters clearly show that while the developer brought in Barker, MCC clearly had no intent to use him. It is not uncommon for developers to bring in a gca to show them how to lay out a residential course, but in this case, MCC took off with the project on their own path. You can tell from the intial reports they made to the board.
Barker disappeard from Merion because the developer brought him in and the club decided they wanted to work with CBM. They did not publisize his involement, some newspaper got a hold of McConnell who mentioned bringing Barker in and it got printed by someone who didn't realize how the project had moved on.
-
I already answered your question and I already listed the minutes and remembrances I am referring to.
What is the number of your post?
-
TMac,
2487 and possibly once before, as I think these are reiterations of the questions:
Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?
Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?
Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?
Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?
Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?
Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record. How could they all keep their stories straight?
Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?
The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.
-
TMac,
I gotta run, but with all due respect, I believe you are the one, for all your research, who seems to lack historical perspective more than anyone here.
The letters clearly show that while the developer brought in Barker, MCC clearly had no intent to use him. It is not uncommon for developers to bring in a gca to show them how to lay out a residential course, but in this case, MCC took off with the project on their own path. You can tell from the intial reports they made to the board.
Barker disappeard from Merion because the developer brought him in and the club decided they wanted to work with CBM. They did not publisize his involement, some newspaper got a hold of McConnell who mentioned bringing Barker in and it got printed by someone who didn't realize how the project had moved on.
You have a vivid imagination. Those letters don't say anything of the sort. There are three or four contemporaneous reports that claim Lloyd brought in Barker (and CBM), which makes more sense due to the fact Connell did not play golf, was not a member of Merion, and Lloyd had a lot more riding on the project than he did. I think most reasonable observers would acknowledge Lloyd was calling the shots, and Lloyd was a person who sought out top proven talent.
-
Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?
I don't really understand the question, but if you are referring to the minutes I don't believe they should be considered a diary of the events. The entries are months apart and there are large holes in the info we know from other sources. And the minutes do not claim Wilson designed the course, which is what I believe you are claiming.
Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?
The primary focus of that drawing and that circular was to sell their real estate venture to the club. Wasn't Barker's routing included in that package? Again I thought you were presenting evidence Wilson designed the course.
Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?
Cuyler's letter is focused on the real estate transaction, but it also alludes to the fact the parcel, aka the golf course, aka the routing, may need to be adjusted. What does this have to do with Wilson?
Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?
The minutes should not be considered a blow by blow diary of the events. The entries are months apart and there are large holes in the info we know from other sources. What do the minutes tell us about Wilson designing the golf course?
Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record. How could they all keep their stories straight?
What are you saying?
Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?
By 1928 Merion had been completely overhauled and redesigned with almost all signs of Macdonald removed. I can't imagine he would be pleased by that.
Again I'm still waiting for all these documents that prove Wilson designed the course.
The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.
-
Jeff
I find it interesting that the most important account (Wilson's own account in 1916) and IMO the most important and most thorough evidence (Wilson's numerous letters) seem to be brushed under the rug by you and the others. Is that because those documents present a clear picture of what Wilson and the committee were actually doing and that is overseeing or managing the construction?
-
TMac,
I gotta run, but with all due respect, I believe you are the one, for all your research, who seems to lack historical perspective more than anyone here.
The letters clearly show that while the developer brought in Barker, MCC clearly had no intent to use him. It is not uncommon for developers to bring in a gca to show them how to lay out a residential course, but in this case, MCC took off with the project on their own path. You can tell from the intial reports they made to the board.
Barker disappeard from Merion because the developer brought him in and the club decided they wanted to work with CBM. They did not publisize his involement, some newspaper got a hold of McConnell who mentioned bringing Barker in and it got printed by someone who didn't realize how the project had moved on.
You have a vivid imagination. Those letters don't say anything of the sort. There are three or four contemporaneous reports that claim Lloyd brought in Barker (and CBM), which makes more sense due to the fact Connell did not play golf, was not a member of Merion, and Lloyd had a lot more riding on the project than he did. I think most reasonable observers would acknowledge Lloyd was calling the shots, and Lloyd was a person who sought out top proven talent.
Tom,
Can you produce any of the document you reference that say Lloyd brought in Barker? Thanks. Also, didn't Griscom invite CBM? I believe they would have known each other through the USGA...
-
Jeff,
I really think we've said all we can on this thread, and the overwhelming weight of evidence you've presented has sent the Three Blind Mice into another desperate tizzy of misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies (i.e. "Colt designed Pine Valley").
Because they can't wrap their biased brains around the facts, they try to create new ones, and then tell us those supposed new "facts" are valid because its the result of their superior intellect and "logic" or the biggest joke of all, their "reasonability". At least that's what they try to present. A less generous interpretation is that they know what they are presenting is inaccurate but have a clear agenda based on personalities.
In any case, what it really is in each individual case is a bunch of guys trying to re-write history to their own biases, their own prejudices, and their own feelings, particularly as relates to their experience with Philadelphia and Philadelphians primarily, or their own misplaced sense of justice in the case of making up new stories of glory of the working class and early professionals.
It's not how history should be written, and as I said before, perhaps never has so much time and energy gone into something so ridiculous and so lacking in historical support, actual evidence, and objective credence.
Fortunately, it seems that most here have seen right through all that (I know all the clubs involved certainly have). Those who came with an open mind soon found their way to the truth and usually after being personally insulted for not seeing the new "light" as presented by the Blind Mice, they departed the thread. Sadly, many important and valuable contributors have left the site rather than continue to try and dialogue with these three and their bullying tactics and personal insults.
Now that all Three Mice are at full squeak again, 'll leave it to you whether you'd like me to participate further or not. I admit it's hard to read their garbage ,especially the outright lies (Tom MacWood KNOWS that Tillinghast documented an entire routing and completed holes by Crump and his Committee months before Colt arrived yet continues to purposefully misstate the truth) and not respond, but at this point I think everyone has seen the three of them for what they are and besides...
...you seem to have matters well in hand. Frankly, I think you could take all three with one hand and half your brain tied behind your back!
Nice job. (http://www.nursery-rhymes.info/Three-Blind-Mice-nursery-rhymes.gif)
-
"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."
~~ Philadelphia Inquirer
"In the negotiations prior to the purchase of the land buy the Merion Cricket Club Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, one of the governors of the club, played an active part. Before the deal was consummated Mr. Lloyd had the ground inspected by three leading golf authorities, Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HN Barker. These experts were enthusiastic in their praise of the site."
~~ Philadelphia Record
-
And THAT, in a nutshell, is the obvious problem when one relies solely on newspaper articles and ignores contemporaneous club records for research...it leads to all sorts of mis-interpretations and inaccurate understanding and reporting of historical events.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3681651673_9b1dd3cd46_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3601492895_fc30a1efbf_z.jpg?zz=1)
Here again is Macdonald's letter to Lloyd and Merion based on his one day site visit in June 1910. He didn't come back until April 1911;
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
-
TMac,
So what is a more reliable record? Those articles, or the Merion minutes that take pains to say the McConnell had brought in Barker on his own account?
Of course, as a partner in the development too, both could be right, in a way, I suppose. But, either way, its clear that Barker had nothing else to do with the project after his one day visit. If he did, it would have been mentioned somewhere.
Lastly, I think we answer what happened by looking at the most relevant documents. Then we figure out why it did, which is also a part of history, but I believe asking "why would they" is slightly different than asking "why?" In other words, you seem to be asking the question I usually get about my architecture (What the hell could he POSSIBLY have been thinking?) ;D
Mike,
I think I will probably gracefully bow out too. Way past time to wind this one down.
David,
Thanks for your response. You made a few good points in there that I hadn't considered. All the same, I think its highly implausible that any earlier routings wouldn't have been noted somehow. A lot would have had to happen to make all those things tie together.
And, as to why Hugh wasn't specifically mentioned in any minutes as the designer, I believe its a result mentioning the committee, which in theory all had responsibility, and more to the point (which I think you mentioned once) that in this era, many folks really didn't think of design as we do now. Specifically, so many mentions seem to think of construction as primary, and design as almost just a necessary aspect of getting your course built.
In other words, while we celebrate all the early guys (mostly CBM) who studied architecture and brought some ideas back, at the time of Merion, only a few understood the signifigance of that as we do now, and we don't know that they were writing the minutes and records, or even all the newspaper articles.
There is little doubt in my mind that the other members of Merion were more interested in getting the course built and open so they could play, rather than some architectural nuance like an Alps hole. (not much changes, eh?) And I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that the lesser concern with architecture is reflected in their minutes and recollections.
That said, Alan Wilson spends some time on it, more than I would have thought, actually, in his letter. But, by this time, they already had a different mind set for the course, having hosted the AM, etc. and finding out that so many thought so highly of their course. I believe the mindset from 1910 may have changed a bit over time.
-
Mike
It is well documented Colt was hired to design PVGC, and he produced a master plan (which you have seen) and a hole by hole schematic. Colt also advertised he designed the golf course, and Colt was not prone to exaggeration or misinformation.
Here is a link to a Colt & Alison advertisement from 1924. It is on the fifth page and PV is the first course listed.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1924/gi212b.pdf
Trying to use the examples of Pine Valley, Oakmont and Myopia to explain the illogical idea that Lloyd & Company would hire an untested, inexperienced insurance salesman is ridiculous. Number one because no one could possibly be that dumb (Lloyd was hardly dumb) and secondly because your romantic version of those legends ignores important facts (like the hiring of Colt).
-
Mike
It is obvious those newspaper reports were not based on that circular. There is information in those newspaper reports not contained in the circular, including the fact that Lloyd was behind the property being inspected.
-
Tom,
It indeed had additional information, almost all of which is dead wrong, starting with the location of the Merion golf course in Lakewood, NJ.
I should know...I'm the one who found the article.
That circular, written on July 1st for internal purposes was released to the general Merion membership with other information soliciting their support in mid-November 1910.
The erroneous news article appeared within a week.
-
Tom,
Of course Harry Colt would want to lay claim to sole credit for Pine Valley...before it was even fully opened many were calling it the best golf course in the country.
However, contemporaneous records by AW TIllinghast completely belie that claim, a fact you're well aware of, so I don't know why you keep repeating a known mis-truth to further your agenda.
No one has ever denied that Harry Colt played a significant design role at PV, but to continue to purposefully omit George Crump was was responsible for conservatively at least 50% of the design of that great course is shameful.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan12_1913_part2.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Mar23_1913_part2.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Apr27_1913.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/May18_1913.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/June8_1913.jpg)
-
**Deleted...Double Post
-
Here's another reason why it's critical for an accurate understanding of history to analyze BOTH news articles as well as contemporaneous club records.
In November, 1914, as an amateur architect who had just spent the past four years working continuously on golf course design and construction projects (new courses at Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, and redesigns of North Hills and Philmont), Hugh Wilson decided to resign and focus on his business.
It was reported;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3387/3225403271_3f1d143b7d_o.jpg)
When I posted that article previously, the Three M's all noted the term "constructed", again trying to make the case that someone else had laid out, or designed the Merion East course, while Hugh Wilson had only supervised construction of it. (which of course makes no sense given he designed the other courses listed)
However, this is not the case at all, as seen in the Club Minutes.
At the November 23, 1914 meeting of the Merion Cricket Club Board of Governors, it was recorded that;
“The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out AND supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses. (italics, CAPS, size mine) The fact that these courses are freely admitted by expert players to be second to none in this country, demonstrates more fully than anything else that can be said, the ability and good judgment displayed by Mr. Wilson in his work.
The Board desires to express on behalf of the Club its sincere thanks to Mr. Wilson and its regret that pressure of business makes it necessary for him to relinquish the duties of Chairman of this important committee.
On motion duly seconded, Mr. Winthrop Sargent was appointed a member of the Golf Committee and Chairman of the Green Committee.”
-
Mike Cirba,
As you have been for years, you keep making these laughable claims of complete victory and parting speeches and grand exits, but you never seem to make it out the door. No one is keeping you here. If you think you are the victor than by all means go, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Thanks for your response. You made a few good points in there that I hadn't considered. All the same, I think its highly implausible that any earlier routings wouldn't have been noted somehow. A lot would have had to happen to make all those things tie together.
I don't get responses like these. It seems like you are saying, you make some good points but I am going to ignore them and believe what I want to believe anyway. A lot did happen. Barker routed the course, then CBM, then they couldn't make it fit and swapped for more land, then they bought 117 acres but needed three more. (There are your different courses before NGLA.)
But set that all aside. We know that CBM did not approve the final routing his spring trip, and we know that the board didn't vote to acquire the additional three acres until shortly after. No speculation required. Until then, they didn't have a final layout plan, and it is unreasonable to expect them to have presented anything but to the membership. In fact it doesn't even look like Lesley's committee presented anything to the board before then. Shall we conclude that there really weren't "many different layouts" because none of them were presented to the membership and none of the show up in the minutes?
You are exercising a real double standard here, and it is the same double standard you guys have been working with from the beginning. You just assume everything on one side of the argument and require absolute proof on the other. Were there routings by others but not CBM in the minutes, then you'd have point, but there aren't.
And, as to why Hugh wasn't specifically mentioned in any minutes as the designer, I believe its a result mentioning the committee, which in theory all had responsibility, and more to the point (which I think you mentioned once) that in this era, many folks really didn't think of design as we do now. Specifically, so many mentions seem to think of construction as primary, and design as almost just a necessary aspect of getting your course built.
In other words, while we celebrate all the early guys (mostly CBM) who studied architecture and brought some ideas back, at the time of Merion, only a few understood the signifigance of that as we do now, and we don't know that they were writing the minutes and records, or even all the newspaper articles.
There is little doubt in my mind that the other members of Merion were more interested in getting the course built and open so they could play, rather than some architectural nuance like an Alps hole. (not much changes, eh?) And I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that the lesser concern with architecture is reflected in their minutes and recollections.
Will you do me a favor and read back over this, and then ask yourself the questions you asked me. Because I agree with almost all of what you said, and I believe that they answer all your own questions about why CBM was never specifically singled out as the "designer" or "architect."
It cannot be that all you said above only applies to Merion and Hugh Wilson, but does not apply to CBM. It has to apply to both. If it is reasonable to think that they would have never mentioned Hugh Wilson as having routed and planned the course, then it is at least as reasonable to think they never would have mentioned CBM/HJW as having designed it, for all of the reasons you state above.
But, ironically, they do mention CBM and HJW at every stage of the process. He and Whigham are the only ones actually mentioned by name. They are the only ones credited with approving the course. The plan went to the Board as the plan they had chosen and approved. It was obviously important to Lesley and to the Board that Merion had done everything they could to get CBM's input into the design and approval of the design.
Mike asks, why did CBM have to come back down if he had been designing the course for them at NGLA? The question answers itself! He had to come down because he had designed the course for them at NGLA. There is no other reason he would need him to come down. He had to go over it again on the land and sort out all the loose ends and make sure they had done what he suggested! He was approving it just as would an architect check and approve the field work of his crew.
And you are probably correct about these guys. Except for eventually Wilson, these guys on the committee don't seem to have been deep thinkers about design. Hell if you are going to dismiss H.J. Whigham, then you can't possibly believe this committee, except for may Wilson, had anything to do with the design! Francis tells us he only made one contribution and it had little to do with hole concepts but was rather just making things fit. And frankly he seems a bit confused about how thing came about, doesn't he? [If anything casts doubt on the Francis' statement about the swap, it is his apparent confusion about what else was ongoing. But then he doesn't really seem to have been involved in what else was ongoing, whereas he was involved in the swap, so would likely have a better recollection of that.]
That said, Alan Wilson spends some time on it, more than I would have thought, actually, in his letter. But, by this time, they already had a different mind set for the course, having hosted the AM, etc. and finding out that so many thought so highly of their course. I believe the mindset from 1910 may have changed a bit over time.
No doubt it changed. And the course changed. And Hugh Wilson's role changed. And Merion's, especially Alan Wilson's, relationship with CBM changed. And when Alan Wilson was writing about this, he was writing about what Merion had become, not what it was initially.
And I wish you would specifically answer the rest of my questions.
-
David,
I am not sure what exactly we are arguing about, since we seem to agree on so much! As to the overall response, I was simply trying to be nice and show my appreciation for a cordial, thought out response. Just doing that doesn't mean I still can't disagree, does it?
Just a few things, but if CBM had designed the course for them at NGLA, he would only have to come back to approve changes they had made since that time, no? So, THEY made changes, but wanted CBM to look at it.
And, I think its possible that Hugh got mentioned so little solely because everyone at the club knew he was doing a lot of work on it, whereas it was important to specifically acknowledge the outside contributions of CBM. So, I agree that the same ought to apply to both, but think its reasonalbe that they only mentioned the committee (not singling out Hugh even though he was chair). Just a thought.
Either way, I don't think it changes what actually happened there, and I think you are slightly more partial to thinking CBM was the main guy, and I am slightly more partial to thinking they spent a lot of time outside his presence.
To use one of your "turnaround" type questions, it strikes me that you and TMac are both interested in digging deeper in to the real mechanics of what happened in design at some famous old coruses. Fast forward 100 years and someone will be trying to figure out just how much credit JN might be getting, and whether Jim Lipe really did more work on it, no?
As it regards Merion, I tend to think the committee played the Lipe role, and CBM replicated the JN role of seeing the site initially, attending one session on routing and design at NGLA, and coming back to check in on the minons one more time near the end. Only JN would make a few construction site visits. So, while the name gets the credit (then and now) I feel the committee did most of the work and figured out a lot of what happened on their own.
For that matter, you and I have some slightly different perspectives on whether CBM should be credited with the Alps and Redan. Of course, they learned of them on the visit to NGLA, and did go there with the intent of soaking up all they could on design ideas. So, I can see them finding an Alps and Redan holes on their routing without CBM placing it for them. Should he be credited fully with those holes for suggesting the idea?
I guess its still all a matter of perspective. We agree CBM was a big influence at the beginning.
BTW, I was going to answer what I thought were your questions, but when I looked up further there was a post from Tmac which sounded like your questions, so I got confused.
BTW II, do you have any real evidence of Allan Wilson and CBM having some kind of a fall out? CBM was certainly petulant enough to perhaps do such a thing, but I had never heard anyone relating that, and you had previously maintained that there was no friction or falling out between CBM and Merion, albeit you might have been talking about only the construction era.
-
David,
I didn't ask why CBM had to come back down....I asked why he had to come back down and "look(ing) over the various plans", the five plans in particular that the MCC Minutes tell us were laid out by the Committee, if indeed CBM had authored those plans?
Also, Richard Francis tells us that his brainstorm completed the routing, allowing for the final five holes to be placed.
If this happened before November 15th 1910 as you still contend, then what the hell was there for CBM to route as there is no record of him having anything to do with Merion in the entire second half of 1910.
I know you keep dodging that question, but I'm going to keep asking it and everyone here knows you're ducking it, no matter how much deflective stuff you write.
-
Yes, just to add to that, I keep forgetting how it is the 3M's can continually claim that there is no reference to the committee (or Wilson specifically) routing or designing the golf course when its pretty clear from the Lesley report that they did plans both before and after the NGLA meeting.
I have no doubt that the plans prior were poor, and that CBM might have even just thrown them in the fireplace to keep them warm until the booze started to kick in. He might have even made some chicken scratches that night right over a blank topo. But, that is speculation, while we know they did come back and draw five of their own, most likely using what they had just learned from CBM.
And not to kick old HH Barker under the bus, but I wouldn't be surprised if they based their efforts on his efforts, and CBM told them holes were too close, too short, etc. although they would already have known what length holes CBM wanted.
-
Jeff,
Yes, EVERYONE at Merion knew who was responsible for the design and construction of the golf course and everyone in Philadelphia golf, as well.
Why not a dinner for CBM and Barker? That's a serious question, by the way.
Do the 3Ms really think that Merion would have ignored their efforts if they were indeed responsible for the design of their new golf course? It's preposterous.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3420951497_ebcafa4521_b.jpg)
-
Mike,
I agree. And while some can argue the semantics of "lay out" to try to prove a point, I doubt Wilson went to GBI or to NGLA for that matter to learn surveying. He had Francis for that. He and the committee went to NGLA to learn about design for their own purposes. They said so, and I believe them.
Now, I am perfectly willing to speculate that along with teaching them, old Charlie took a look at their first puny efforts he saw when they went to NGLA and did offer some helpful routing suggestions, but the fact is, the routing does not appear to have been finished when they left, or they wouldn't have done five more upon return.
All of those things say the committee designed the golf course, no? I hate to have asked David to explain his postion again because I know he already has and I have simlply rudely forgotten what he wrote, for which I apologize. I might as well apologize in advance for disagreeing whatever he writes concerning my last question, because I will read it, and try to understand it, but am already 99% sure I will disagree with most of it.
-
Just a few things, but if CBM had designed the course for them at NGLA, he would only have to come back to approve changes they had made since that time, no? So, THEY made changes, but wanted CBM to look at it.
I don't see it that way at all. Why is it so difficult to believe that CBM wanted to see the place again before signing off on any plan? After all, the property had changed since he was there. The Committee may well have had input at both NGLA and when they came back, but this is CBM we are talking about, who had seen the land, and he is sitting there with a contour map trying to explain to people who were admittedly clueless about the strategic intricacies of the road hole, bottle concepts, the redan, and many other features, and trying to tell them how do do it on paper. Were you them, wouldn't you want CBM to come and make sure you were on the right track and had "a good start" as Hugh Wilson put it.
If you were in a room with a contour map and some people who knew nothing about design and probably didn't care or know much about sophisticated design or hole concepts, and you had been already over their land and already had some ideas, and they were asking you for your help, who do you think would be the one coming up with the plan? You or them? Would it surprise you if they wanted you to come back to your take one more look at the and plans to sort out loose ends before they started on your project?
And, I think its possible that Hugh got mentioned so little solely because everyone at the club knew he was doing a lot of work on it, whereas it was important to specifically acknowledge the outside contributions of CBM. So, I agree that the same ought to apply to both, but think its reasonalbe that they only mentioned the committee (not singling out Hugh even though he was chair). Just a thought.
But it is not just Hugh who wasn't mentioned as having come up with the plan. The record is fairly blank on the issue, except for the Lesley report, which I think puts CBM and HJW holding their hands and leading them through the process!
Either way, I don't think it changes what actually happened there, and I think you are slightly more partial to thinking CBM was the main guy, and I am slightly more partial to thinking they spent a lot of time outside his presence.
Do you really think anyone committee-member but Wilson spent any time on the project before construction? I don't. What is it that you think they were doing? What was Wilson doing in relation to the design. He goes through the process step by step in his chapter, and never mentions a damn thing about it except that CBM gave taught them how to incorporate the principles into their design and that CBM gave them a good start. Then it is all about building the course.
Where is the record of this extensive time ANYONE at Merion spent designing this course? Again with the double standard. You cannot even admit that CBM might have been corresponding, but you guys act as if the entire committee quit their jobs and were out there trudging around in the snow and mud in February trying to design the course. Where is the proof? How come the absence of evidence doesn't matter here? There is nothing suggesting that the construction committee was out planning before NGLA.
I don't think they did a thing with the design until they went to NGLA, and that the various layouts were Barkers, CBM, and the changed on after the swap.
To use one of your "turnaround" type questions, it strikes me that you and TMac are both interested in digging deeper in to the real mechanics of what happened in design at some famous old coruses. Fast forward 100 years and someone will be trying to figure out just how much credit JN might be getting, and whether Jim Lipe really did more work on it, no?
By the end of the project, it may have been like like Lipe and Nicklaus, because by then Wilson had build the damn course and gone and studied design, and had learned a hell of a lot. But Lipe is a designer, and in the beginning Wilson didn't know what he was doing. That is why I stay out of the credit fight. Wilson deserves a ton of credit. All I am talking about is the routing and the plan. Whose idea was it?
For that matter, you and I have some slightly different perspectives on whether CBM should be credited with the Alps and Redan. Of course, they learned of them on the visit to NGLA, and did go there with the intent of soaking up all they could on design ideas. So, I can see them finding an Alps and Redan holes on their routing without CBM placing it for them. Should he be credited fully with those holes for suggesting the idea?
You are trying to trump what is most likely with what is merely possible.
BTW II, do you have any real evidence of Allan Wilson and CBM having some kind of a fall out? CBM was certainly petulant enough to perhaps do such a thing, but I had never heard anyone relating that, and you had previously maintained that there was no friction or falling out between CBM and Merion, albeit you might have been talking about only the construction era.
The Merionettes misread and twisted something and acted as if there had been a falling out during construction but there is no evidence of such a thing.
I am talking about what happened in the mid-1920's around the formation of the Green Section. It is all covered before.
-
David,
I knew that was the time frame you were talking about, but has it been covered before (a Alan Wilson CBM rift?) I really don't recall the discussion. I do recall the bit about letters wondering if they should even bother to ask CBM to the initial green section meetings because he had been so cranky and could possibly ruin it. Is that what you are referring to?
At the same time, if it was widely known that Merion had been a CBM course, and then CBM took his name off it, I think that would likely to have made the papers somewhere as well. He would have told someone, as just leaving it out of his book might have been too subtle a clue he was peeved, no? He had to have told someone.
Or, maybe, he had never cared much about his contributions to Merion, and at this time he was pissed enough to have told old Whigham "Those bastards, after all I did for them at Merion?" Not out of the question as a possibility to explain the HJW eulogy that is at odds with other recollections (IMHO, I know you don't think so)
Just trying to comprehend the possible (possible) scenarios in CBM removing his name.
As to some of your questions, yeah I have already said CBM probably looked at their routings, and maybe made some changes, suggestions, or just puked on them. I really don't know. But I do agree that a strict interpretation of the record that said he only showed them sketches and NGLA is probably not realistic.
As to how far they actually go on routing at NGLA, sorry to say, but your theories stretch further than I am willing to go. And I say this only because they did do five routings upon return. Yes, they might have been five little variations on CBM's NGLA developed plan (well four and then the land swap version which seems to have been signifigantly different) As to the many plans before, Barker did one. No evidence that CBM did any.
I still believe that if he had, it would have shown up in the record some how, somewhere. They recorded the signifigant milestones of their process, and would have recorded that - it would have not been a casual little detail that was deemed irrelevant to record, as you suggested, at least IMHO.
-
Incidentally, the Merion Cricket Club Minutes do contain appreciative thanks to CBM and Whigham for coming down in June 1910 and for their help at that time (in the form of a very general letter with a lukewarm recommendation of the property that's been reproduced here many times).
Edward Sayres, the Club Secretary, noted that Mr. Lloyd expressed the feelings of the
Board of Government as follows,
Resolved, That the Board of Government extend their sincere thanks to Messrs. C.B.
Macdonald and H.J. Whigham for their kindness and courtesy in assisting the Special
Committee on Golf Grounds in their inspection and their opinions upon the new Golf
Grounds.
No such corresponding documentation concerning any design efforts by CBM and Whigham were ever recorded.
-
Mike,
Thanks for the reminder. Beating a dead horse here, but since they recorded their thanks to CBM for every known meeting, I still find it hard to believe they wouldn't have expressed thanks for any other signifigant contact - like mailing them a finished or even rough routing.
-
Jeff,
It's absolutely absurd to suggest that Merion wouldn't have credited CBM publicly and repeatedly with authorship if he had done ANYTHING in that regard.
In truth, it's also an insult to the club to suggest they would have done otherwise.
But again, consider the sources.
-
David,
I knew that was the time frame you were talking about, but has it been covered before (a Alan Wilson CBM rift?) I really don't recall the discussion. I do recall the bit about letters wondering if they should even bother to ask CBM to the initial green section meetings because he had been so cranky and could possibly ruin it. Is that what you are referring to?
Yes. I believe some seemed to think it a good idea to involve CBM, but Alan Wilson had issues, and actively campaigned against it, worrying that CBM might not "play ball" and that he would "crab" the meeting. Doesn't exactly sound like they were pals.
At the same time, if it was widely known that Merion had been a CBM course, and then CBM took his name off it, I think that would likely to have made the papers somewhere as well. He would have told someone, as just leaving it out of his book might have been too subtle a clue he was peeved, no? He had to have told someone.
Or, maybe, he had never cared much about his contributions to Merion, and at this time he was pissed enough to have told old Whigham "Those bastards, after all I did for them at Merion?" Not out of the question as a possibility to explain the HJW eulogy that is at odds with other recollections (IMHO, I know you don't think so)
Just trying to comprehend the possible (possible) scenarios in CBM removing his name.
These types of posts make me shake my head at how different your understanding of CBM is than mine, and how influenced you are by modern notions. At this point courses didn't have "names" attached to them like they do today. If they did have a name attached it was because there was one person running the show (whether or not they designed the course.) That is why it is so hard to figure who did what.
And CBM didn't run around attaching his name to everything he touched. He wasn't drumming up business, he was tryin to help spread sound principles of creating golf courses. He probably thought little of Merion one way or another. He helped them out with their plan, got them going in the right track, and went on with his life. Compared to what else he did I doubt it was much of a big deal. He gave them a good start in planning and locating the hole location, and they did the rest themselves --CBM knew there was more to creating a course than just the initial routing and plan. Just look at NGLA.
Still waiting for an answer to my questions.
-
And CBM didn't run around attaching his name to everything he touched. He wasn't drumming up business, he was tryin to help spread sound principles of creating golf courses. He probably thought little of Merion one way or another. He helped them out with their plan, got them going in the right track, and went on with his life. Compared to what else he did I doubt it was much of a big deal. He gave them a good start in planning and locating the hole location, and they did the rest themselves --CBM knew there was more to creating a course than just the initial routing and plan. Just look at NGLA.
Still waiting for an answer to my questions.
David,
I know you've asked me questions that I haven't answered and would be happy too...but I generally see this thread about 2 pages after you ask me something and after reading all the interim posts I find myself wondering how it's possible...
Anyway, this last paragraph of yours is a real eye-opener. To me, that level of contribution from CBM would be more than easily recognized with the words given at the time. "Advisor". "Approved of". "Of the Greatest Help" etc...
-
Tom,
It indeed had additional information, almost all of which is dead wrong, starting with the location of the Merion golf course in Lakewood, NJ.
I should know...I'm the one who found the article.
That circular, written on July 1st for internal purposes was released to the general Merion membership with other information soliciting their support in mid-November 1910.
The erroneous news article appeared within a week.
Mike
You are confused. The article you are referring to with a dateline of Lakewood, NJ appeared in the Philadelphia Press, another newspaper. In that article it was reported Barker had been hired to design the golf course. There is nothing in the Phila Press article regarding Lloyd having CBM, HJW and HHB examine the property.
There was a major golf tournament being held in Lakewood that week, which is why the article was generated from that location. The article did not mention anything about the course being in Lakewood, and I think most in Philadelphia, which where the article appeared, would known the "Merion Cricket Club of Philadelphia" was not in NJ.
Majority of the information in those articles was accurate, and the info within each was more or less consistent across the board, indicating there was a single source, and that sources was a well connected Merion man. Robert Lesley had ties to Lakewood, was a former journalist, and was intimately familiar with the golfing press through his presidency at the GAP and his involvement with the Lesley Cup. It is very possible he was the source.
-
Jim I realize the pages pass pretty quickly, but I am hoping at some point you will try to get to the questions.
As for the last post, I am not exactly sure what is so eye opening. I've never claimed that CBM did anything significant after the planning. Even within the planning I have always focused on the routing and the hole concepts, and there is much more to creating a golf course than just that, and have always maintained that it was Wilson and Merion who were responsible for what followed this initial planning.
As for the term advisor, as I have written repeatedly, I too think it may have been appropriate term at the time because given the context of the time, I am not sure what else to call his role. He didn't lay the course out on the ground, he didn't build it, he wasn't working for them, they weren't working for him, and it is rare to read of anyone referred to as the "architect" especially when that person didn't actually have something to do with seeing the project through until it was finished. Part of what NGLA changed was the level of appreciation for this somewhat abstract concept of "design." CBM did what he did out of love for the game and as a friendly and valuable advisor, but to me that isn't the limitation or knock you guys try to place on it.
It doesn't say "approved of" it said he approved the plan. You treat this as if it was some outside observation, like, by the way, CBM stopped by and even he liked what we were doing, but that ignores the context, the trip before and that he was obviously there to make the final decision about their routing!
Maybe you will answer the question Jeff will not.
If Tom Doak was in a room with a contour map and 2-5 guys who knew nothing about creating strategic golf courses like Tom Doak creates, and Doak had already been over their land, and they asked Tom what they should do, who do you think would be coming up with the ideas for their course? Doak or them? And would you be surprised if they wanted Doak to come back to their land to go over it all again and sort out the loose ends and make sure they were on the right track?
-
David, (and Tom M),
I would listen to everything Tom Doak would offer, and try to replicate as much of it as possible. I have to ask you something...what do you think the odds are that I could get Tom to stop by a project I'm working on with a few friends to offer that advice? It's a serious question.
-
Mike
You are confused. The article you are referring to with a dateline of Lakewood, NJ appeared in the Philadelphia Press, another newspaper. In that article it was reported Barker had been hired to design the golf course. There is nothing in the Phila Press article regarding Lloyd having CBM, HJW and HHB examine the property.
There was a major golf tournament being held in Lakewood that week, which is why the article was generated from that location. The article did not mention anything about the course being in Lakewood, and I think most in Philadelphia, which where the article appeared, would known the "Merion Cricket Club of Philadelphia" was not in NJ.
Tom,
No, sorry, but no confusion here.
The article in question not only has a byline of Lakewood, NJ, but also a title and subtitle that reads;
Merion Club Buys Fine Golf Links
Pays $85,000 for 117 Acres Near the Present Location at Lakewood
Sorry as well, but NONE of Barker's supposed involvement with Merion s mentioned at all in the Merion Cricket Club minutes, nor is any further affiliation or contact with HH Barker beyond Joseph Connell of HDC bringing him onsite while he was in Philadelphia for the US Open to try to entice Merion to buy his property in June of 1910.
For over 100 years of minutes, documentation, club correspondence, etc., there is not a single mention of Barker.
You're barking up the wrong tree, Tom, sorry.
-
Tom Doak's experience in architecture and course building as the creator of courses around the globe in 2011 dwarfs CB Macdonald's in 1910.
That analogy is absolutely ridiculous and desperate, as once again David has NO EVIDENCE or factual support for his increasingly bizarre assertions.
It's like playing whack a mole trying to clarify the amazing volume of daily inaccurate historical distortions of the three blind mice.
-
Sorry Mike, but among the most ridiculous assertions on these threads is that the Merion Committee (presumably in total) would travel to NGLA for two days, in the midst of planning their course, to visit one of the leaders of golf in America, who they had already asked at least a single specific favor regarding their course, and not spend some time discussing Merion...
-
Jim,
On a broad scale discussing principles of great holes, yes, no question, and both Hugh Wilson's account and the Merion CC minutes make that clear. They also discussed how they could possibly apply those principles to their natural inland conditions with clay-based soils, etc.
However, on a micro scale, as David suggests, with a contour map routing Merion, there is no evidence at all that such a thing occurred and frankly it would have been hugely disingenuous and really outright deception for guys like Hugh Wilson and Robert Francis not to have mentioned that if it actually happened.
I don't believe they were like that, do you?
There is no evidence whatsoever that CBM "routed" Merion or created a routing plan.
It's funny...David argues on his Opinion paper that the routing is the heart and soul of the golf course and that the routing created at Merion is really what made the golf course great. (despite the fact that 8 holes have been partially or wholly rerouted since inception).
Yet, now here he is, trying to tell you what you want to hear, saying that there is much more to design than routing.
Too much...
Why would Merion NEVER credit CBM for routing their course if he had done so? Especially the guy who was probably the most preeminent man in golf at the time.
-
I don't believe they were like that, do you?
No! And that's why I believe when they thanked him for his advice/suggestions/input it was for some truly material guidance.
I do think if they had asked him to take the lead in designing the holes they would have thanked him fr that, in no uncertain terms.
-
David,
Well, I am getting confused now with your third paragraph in post 2538. It looks like we agree on a whole lot now, except for the timing of the routing, and the total extent of CBM's contribution to the routing, which we both want to know, but probably never will to any precise extent. So, some progress is possible on these threads!
To answer your question, I suppose that if they brought a check, Tom is known for seeing routings very quickly and would probably have something done in a quick while, providing he could work with people looking over his shoulder. Don't laugh. I find it hard to work out routings unless very, very alone, or perhaps batting ideas off a close associate, but rarely a stranger!
All of which goes to say answering yes to your hypothetical doesn't really answer the question of just how CBM would work in similar circumstances. We just don't know. There was a lot on the agenda, including CBM being a gracious host. We do not know the whole dynamics of that meeting. So all is possible, nothing guaranteed as to what happened, right? I'm not even sure you can say it was more or less likely that CBM pulled out the scale maps and routed it right in front of them, even though I would say the plans they brought to the meeting got unrolled at some point.
BTW, I am just goofing with you here, but you noted that you believed no one but Wilson did a lot of work on the committee until construction, and is this somehow a defense of your idea that Francis came up with his swap idea prior to November 15, 1910? That would take some seemingly clever explanation to reconcile, but I have no doubt you will have something to say on the matter!
-
Jim,
You'll have to ask Tom about that. But whether he would or not, CBM and HJW did it for Merion. And it was not as if the project was next door, or their involvement was limited to a passing glance. They twice traveled to Merion to go over the land and help plan the course, and the entertained some sort of group from Merion for two days at NGLA, and we don't know how many letters CBM and Wilson exchanged, but we know they were writing.
But you are right, you would listen to everything and try to replicate as much as possible. You'd be an idiot not to listen and follow everything he said, and you'd be an idiot not to have him do as much as he was willing to do. And you know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than did those at Merion.
Mike's claim about Tom Doak vs. Charles B. Macdonald is pretty funny considering Tom Doak recently built a world class course utilizing CBM's concepts throughout. But Cirba and the Merionettes have to disrespect Macdonald and overhype those at Merion, otherwise the lunacy of this discussion becomes readily apparent.
This was Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham, and Merion had them come and go over their course, spent two days with him talking about their course, and then had them come back again to choose and approve the final plan. It is lunacy to believe that CBM and HJW were anything but the driving creative force behind the initial plan. And when one starts to look closely at the course Merion built this lunacy is taken to another level.
-------------------------------------------------
David,
Well, I am getting confused now with your third paragraph in post 2538. It looks like we agree on a whole lot now, except for the timing of the routing, and the total extent of CBM's contribution to the routing, which we both want to know, but probably never will to any precise extent. So, some progress is possible on these threads!
I am saying what amounts to the same thing I have been saying for quite some time. You guys are so caught up in trying to posture and save face for the Merionettes that you have never bothered to figure out my position.
To answer your question, I suppose that if they brought a check, Tom is known for seeing routings very quickly and would probably have something done in a quick while, providing he could work with people looking over his shoulder. Don't laugh. I find it hard to work out routings unless very, very alone, or perhaps batting ideas off a close associate, but rarely a stranger!
All of which goes to say answering yes to your hypothetical doesn't really answer the question of just how CBM would work in similar circumstances. We just don't know.
But we do know. CBM had already been over the land had had some ideas. So much so that he could recommend specific features to use, recommend the addition of the land behind the clubhouse, and enough to suggest that he was a contour map away from handing them their golf course. And we know that before NGLA they had that contour map. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest, especially given that he was to return to the land to double check and tie up loose ends.
We also know from Whigham's description that he was adept at providing guidance off a contour map.
As for your goofing, I don't think Francis was at all interested in the intricacies of strategic design. I don't think cared much about the hole concepts. He found them some land to solve a space problem.
-
Mike
You are confused. The article you are referring to with a dateline of Lakewood, NJ appeared in the Philadelphia Press, another newspaper. In that article it was reported Barker had been hired to design the golf course. There is nothing in the Phila Press article regarding Lloyd having CBM, HJW and HHB examine the property.
There was a major golf tournament being held in Lakewood that week, which is why the article was generated from that location. The article did not mention anything about the course being in Lakewood, and I think most in Philadelphia, which where the article appeared, would known the "Merion Cricket Club of Philadelphia" was not in NJ.
Tom,
No, sorry, but no confusion here.
The article in question not only has a byline of Lakewood, NJ, but also a title and subtitle that reads;
Merion Club Buys Fine Golf Links
Pays $85,000 for 117 Acres Near the Present Location at Lakewood
Sorry as well, but NONE of Barker's supposed involvement with Merion s mentioned at all in the Merion Cricket Club minutes, nor is any further affiliation or contact with HH Barker beyond Joseph Connell of HDC bringing him onsite while he was in Philadelphia for the US Open to try to entice Merion to buy his property in June of 1910.
For over 100 years of minutes, documentation, club correspondence, etc., there is not a single mention of Barker.
You're barking up the wrong tree, Tom, sorry.
Mike
You are confused. I did not cite that article. And your article clearly mentions the golf course is 'Merion Cricket Club of Philadelphia' in the opening sentence. The primary headline states 'Merion Club Buys Fine Golf Links' and the secondary headline states 'Pays $85,000 for 117 Acres Near the Present Location at Lakewood', but as you probably know the headlines are often written by the copy editor so most people don't much stock in them, but for whatever reason you do. The article does not mention anything about Lakewood.
-
No doubt Francis had nothing to do with strategy. Just trying to figure out how you say he didn't work before constructon and came up with his swap before November 15, 1910 at the same time.
As for the rest, invite me to the next seance you have with those old boys, so I can be as sure as you are! You are stretching that beyond reasonable bounds. The minutes say Merion took many plans, and they say they did five more after they returned. No one said anything about CBM preparing a plan at NGLA. So, that part of it is speculation anyway.
And, believe me, we have all tried to understand your position. Not for lack of effort over seven years that we disagree in spots. ;)
-
For over 100 years of minutes, documentation, club correspondence, etc., there is not a single mention of Barker.
I'm pretty sure Barker is mentioned in the minutes though I don't put a lot of stock in what is or isn't in the minutes.
-
Tom,
Do you think Lloyd brought in Barker and CBM because the articles say so?
Or do you think he brought in Barker as part of HDC? And CBM because CBM's letter was addressed to Lloyd?
Clearly the letter to the membership makes it clear who Merion thinks brought in Barker and CBM and it wasn't Lloyd for either.
-
TMac,
I will agree with you over Mike on the headline writers. Cannot agree on your longstanding position about club minutes being less accurate than, say gossip columnists. Funny, that in one post you both critique the accuracy of some of the newspaper process (headlines wrong) and yet defend second hand sources over people who were actually there.
That really boggles my mind.
Jim,
I will answer although your question is to Tom - its a no brainer that HDC brought in Barker to represent their half of the interests. And its certainly not uncommon for a club in that situation to bring in their own guy for an honest second opinion from their perspective.
The record is clear. HDC (whether you count that as Lloyd or Connell) brought in Barker, but Merion wanted nothing to do with him. Not in a negative way, but they wanted to work with CBM for all his fame.
I am not sure how anyone can argue that one any other way. And of course, I know David will chime in - yeah they wanted to work with CBM. I know it sounds like I am saying he is the designer. But I think the record is also clear that he was simpl their trustd advisor, for reasons we don't know, like him not being quite set up in a design practice with Raynor, their desire to emulate NGLA down to the amateur commmittee deign, etc. It was a unique hybrid relationship to be sure.
-
Tom,
Do you think Lloyd brought in Barker and CBM because the articles say so?
Or do you think he brought in Barker as part of HDC? And CBM because CBM's letter was addressed to Lloyd?
Clearly the letter to the membership makes it clear who Merion thinks brought in Barker and CBM and it wasn't Lloyd for either.
Jim
I think he brought in Barker and CBM because the source of the info in the articles was clearly an insider. Also anyone who has studied Lloyd would appreciate he was a person who sought the best talent available. That same year Lloyd hired Wilson Eyre, one of the great architects in America, to design his home in the shadow of the East course.
The CBM letter was not included in the package presented to the club; they were told Griscom engaged him. Lloyd was clearly calling the shots and would be the logical person to bring in both Barker and CBM, as the articles state.
-
No doubt Francis had nothing to do with strategy. Just trying to figure out how you say he didn't work before constructon and came up with his swap before November 15, 1910 at the same time.
He wasn't on the construction committee when he figured out the space problem. Three of the members of the construction committee reportedly made substantial contributions that previous summer and fall. Lloyd (the deal), Griscom (who reportedly got CBM to come, but I have my doubts,) and Francis with his swap. This may explain why they got put on the committee. Once the committee was formed, I see no evidence that anyone on the construction committee other than Wilson did anything before NGLA, and I have my doubts about who exactly was at NGLA.
As for the rest, invite me to the next seance you have with those old boys, so I can be as sure as you are!
You don't need to be seer to know what is going on here. We have a course with the usual CBM features, holes, and concepts, and an extensive record of his involvement in the design process. You guys are only kidding yourselves at this point.
You are stretching that beyond reasonable bounds. The minutes say Merion took many plans, and they say they did five more after they returned.
Speaking of stretching . . . that is not what the minutes say. It doesn't say they took any plans to NGLA. It says, "After laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad . . . ." The only plans mentioned are CBM's plans. And what an odd way of putting it. They went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald? Sort of makes it sound like CBM was with them the whole time.
No one said anything about CBM preparing a plan at NGLA. So, that part of it is speculation anyway.
Do you think Merion prepared his plans? Funny how you all ignore this. I don't.
Isn't this a strange report still? There isn't just the changes to first person and the lack of description of who did what, there is also the way they just throw in Macdonald. It is as if they had already been discussing what was ongoing, or as if there is something missing. Compare it to the first Lesley report, which sets everything out in detail, including the detail of who was on the Committee. Here, they just throw out Macdonald as if everyone was aware of his involvement. We went with Mr. Macdonald down to the National, as if he was was with him all along. Did the board even know who they were talking about at this point? How? Did they remember from nine months earlier that this Macdonald fellow had come to see their course? Did the board even remember who Mr. Macdonald was? When they are supposed to be designing the course what are they doing going on a weekend getaway with this Mr. Macdonald?
And who went to NGLA? Why doesn't the report say? And why don't we have the rest of the minutes from this meeting? This is just a report. We have a resolution, but surely there was more to the meeting than this?
And why again were they reporting this to the board? I don't understand that. If Macdonald wasn't planning the course then why did Lesley report that they went to the National course with Mr. Macdonald to go over his plans? If it wasn't crucial to the design then why is it being reported to the board? If Merion planned it, why didn't they Lesley just say, Hugh Wilson and his committee planned the course, and here is the plan? Same questions about CBM's next visit?
And at this point why is Wilsonchopped liver. He doesn't even get a mention. Any why couldn't his committee, the vaunted construction committee, planners of the great Merion course, even make the Merion's board minutes?
Yet you guys ask to dismiss all the mentions of CBM and HJW and expect me to believe that they never bother to even mention who designed their course?
-
David,
We have been over your screwball interpretations many times.
Its well known that CBM had plans of those famous holes in Scotland. They are referring to those plans and the other data he collected.
The grammar has some flaws and tense changes, but I don't consider all those things relevant. Your interpretation is a stretch.
I doubt they had forgotten CBM was involved. I doubt the committee would forget who was on it, so it isn't mentioned. How could you veer from CBM being such a famous guy to them not even recalling who he was? The were golfers after all, or they wouldn't belong to the Merion Golf Club.
There is more about the inconsistencies of your arguments, but its late, and I prefer to celebrate the Mavs win. Of course, it would have been better if the NBA could have somehow introduced ice and a puck to the game, but I'm happy.
-
David,
We have been over your screwball interpretations many times.
Its well known that CBM had plans of those famous holes in Scotland. They are referring to those plans and the other data he collected.
Funny how you can just pretend they brought plans with them with no mention of them having done that, yet it is "screwball" for me to interpret his plans as plans for Merion when that is exactly why those from Merion were there --to have CBM teach them what they should do at Merion.
Did he have actual plans from overseas? I am not so sure. He had collected surveyor data abroad, but Lesley mentions that as well. He also mentions CBM's plans. Given that CBM had been over the land, had ideas, had given them hole lengths, and that they went to for his help planning Merion, it is hardly screwball to think that "his plans" may have referred to his plans for Merion. You can argue that it meant plans something else, but YOU ARE SPECULATING to suit your needs and your insulting name-calling is just bogus.
I doubt they had forgotten CBM was involved. I doubt the committee would forget who was on it, so it isn't mentioned. How could you veer from CBM being such a famous guy to them not even recalling who he was? The were golfers after all, or they wouldn't belong to the Merion Golf Club.
Are you at all familiar with the history of Merion? They weren't members of Merion Golf Club. They were members of Merion Cricket Club. There were thousands of members many or most of whom had nothing to do with golf. They played tennis, socialized, and crickets and many of them had no interest in golf whatsoever. In fact there were controversies about even getting a golf house at the old course, and the golfers had to fund themselves from their own separate dues, thus the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association. So it was hardly just a golf club.
And the board had no idea who was on the committee because it was not Wilson's committee who was doing the reporting. That is what you guys don't seem to get. When I say Wilson's committee is chopped liver, it is worse than that. A different committee is reporting about the plan for the golf course the chair of that committee (who wasn't even on Wilson's committee) doesn't even bother to mention Wilson's committee. There is nothing in the board minutes that even mentioned Wilson's committee. NOTHING. NO REPORTS FROM WILON'S COMMITTEE, NO REFERENCE TO WILSON OR HIS COMMITTEE. NOTHING. The Committee dealing the design are completely absent from the record!
I should clarify that we don't really know what is in the records, do we?
-
I am going to go out on a limb here, but I am used to that. I suspect that TEPaul and Wayne are bullshitting us yet again and playing games with the documents. There is more to this Committee business than meets the eye, and they have not told us the entire story. Not even in their Faker Fantasy.
I suspect that the vaunted "Construction Committee" wasn't even fully formed when we have been lead to believe it was formed, and perhaps not even before the plan was finalized, and that it was still Lesley's Committee that was in charge, and that Wilson began working with that committee or had had taken a place on that committee at the beginning of the year or shortly thereafter.
-
After MacWood and Moriarty's last few incredibly bizarre posts, I'm confident that everyone here except CBM-groupie Patrick hears the "Looney Tunes" music playing, so have a nice day everyone.
Frankly even Patrick hears the calliope playing, but to him it sounds like Beethoven.
Wow...that's all I can say. Wow.
-
David,
I am going to have to bow out of this one for while, not entirely for reasons Mike stated, but because I have a busy week. We have covered this ground before, and I understand most of where you come from. But, I don't think its productive to go over it again, since I have tried to understand your positions, and know we won't agree.
Time to give our respective head banging walls a rest. I need to send mine out for some minor repairs!
-
Uhhhhhh....yeah Jeff, me too...
Gotta get my hair done.
-
While Mike is getting his haircut maybe he should let a few things soak into his skull. There is nothing at all in the minutes about the "Construction Committee" having been formed in January or February 1910 or before. There is nothing in the minutes about the Committee at all.
If you don't believe me here is what that paragon of honesty and virtue, TEPaul, had to say about it:
I don't know because in the entire administrative records and board meeting minutes of MCC there is no mention at all of any committee called "The Construction Committee."
That seems to be the name that perhaps some of its members such as chairman Hugh I. Wilson gave it after the fact (in an article) and perhaps his brother did as well many years later (in a long requested letter from the MCC historian). But there never was a committee ever referred to that we know of at any board meeting known as "The Construction Committee."
So were we to let the Merion minutes be our guide, you guys are crediting the course design to a committee which never even existed, and if it did exist at this point (I have my doubts) it was not even worthy of mention.
You guys have assumed that the Lesley Report was about the "Construction Committee" but what is the evidence for this? Lesley was not even on the Construction Committee.
And how about the Alan Wilson report? You guys have taken this document almost as if it were a first-hand account of what happened according to the surviving members of the Construction Committee. But if so, then how come Alan Wilson's statement couldn't even accurately place Hugh Wilson's trip in the chronology? Reread the Alan Wilson report and tell me which Committee went to NGLA, and who specifically went to NGLA. The members of the Construction Committee aren't even identified until after the discussion of CBM's involvement.
So my questions to all of you are, was there a construction committee during this planning stage, and if so when was it formed? More importantly who was on it and when?
You guys have made a big deal out of the fact that Francis did not mention the NGLA trip or CBM's trip to Merion, and have concluded based on Francis' failure to mention it that these contacts were not very important. My question is, looking at the Francis report, does it seem that he was even at NGLA? Or even aware of how the plan came about? When I read his statement, especially the bit about the Redan hole, I have to wonder how much involvement he even had during this early stage, and especially if he was even present at NGLA or with CBM/HJW's later visit?
No doubt you will brush these questions off as you do everything else (and same as you did when I told you the trip story was all screwed up) but I am not sure that flies here. You guys are crediting the planning of the course to a committee that might not have yet existed. And ignoring mention after mention of CBM's involvement. Explain how that works again?
-
David,
I had forgotten that the committee was never mentioned in the concurrent minutes, if that is true. The term was sure used in other places, like the invite to the dinner, etc.
But now you are telling us that the order Alan Wilson wrote his letter (describing activities and then listing the committee members) is a huge factor in determining what he meant? He did tell us he wasn't very good at writing such things, and even so, I am not sure parsing idea order in a letter is quite the key as to what he actually said.
Ditto the Francis letter/piece. Even disregaring the probable editing for length that someone else did, he focused primarily on his contribution, because that is what he was asked. So, after a month or so of you and Patrick stretching the record to say that "just because no one mentioned it, doesn't mean it didn't happen" you now insist that because Francis piece is not all encompassing, it means he wasn't there, didn't participate, and didn't understand what was going on? I don't think so.
And, by the way, I did notice in post 2553 that you casually try to slip Francis in earlier than any documentation shows with the other two. In a few more posts, I expect you will declare your little assumption as fact that we have already agreed to, if the past is any indication.
Now, it may be that history will record you in the same breath as the guy who first declared that the world wasn't flat, because from time to time, the one guy outthinking all others does happen. There is just nothing in your unsupported essay and subsequent posts that suggests to me that this is one of those rare cases. As always, I could be wrong.
And I say this from the perspective of one who is really in the middle of the fence - believing that we don't know the details, but that many, by today's standards would give CBM more credit, because he probably did directly suggest, in his role as advisor, at least as much as a Ron Whitten at Erin Hills, or Brad Klien at Wintonbury, etc. and they get credit for their roles for far less credentials.
This is really beyond worthless in its repetitiveness and lack of substance, and I will say from both sides. The arguments are getting increasingly silly - again on both sides. I truly think that the more we all read those documents, and over read them, the more we overanalyze them, and probably to no good effect.
Most times, the first reading gives you the right impression and you have to be looking really hard to think they are saying something other than the common meaning, but yet David still reads deeper and deeper meaning into things like word order as time goes on to support his point. What's next? Capital and comma use?
-
David,
I had forgotten that the committee was never mentioned in the concurrent minutes, if that is true. The term was sure used in other places, like the invite to the dinner, etc.
So now that you have been reminded, how does that change your theory? Or does better understanding the facts have absolutely no impact on your theory?
The dinner was after Wilson went abroad and built both courses. No doubt the "Construction Committee" existed at some point and no doubt it directed the construction of the courses. I am not talking about the construction and I never have been. I am talking about the initial design of the course, ending at the date CBM determined and approved the final routing plan which was sent to the Board as as the plan he approved. As for laying it out and building it, Merion wanted to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved."
The question here is, what evidence is there that Construction Committee was at all involved in planning the course? As contemporaneous evidence goes, THERE IS NONE.
- There is no evidence of who, other than Wilson, actually went to NGLA.
- There is no evidence of who was present when CBM and HJW came back to determine and approve the final plan.
- There is no evidence that anyone on the construction committee did anything at all during this period.
You guys have spent so much time trying to shoot holes in my theory, you apparently haven't noticed you have no tenable theory of your own, especially by your own methodology of requiring an unambiguous statement about who designed the course in the minutes.
Or maybe I missed it. What contemporaneous documentation indicated that the construction committee designed the course? What evidence is there that anyone except for Wilson was at all involved in early 1911 through the board meeting?
But now you are telling us that the order Alan Wilson wrote his letter (describing activities and then listing the committee members) is a huge factor in determining what he meant?
I told you no such thing. I asked you to look at his statement and tell me, based on the statement, who went to NGLA? I don't think you can tell one way or another from the statement. He was all over the place and obviously didn't even understand when his brother went abroad to study, or where that event fell in the process! How could that be?
You guys seem to have this strange notion that you don't need to support your theories. All I am asking you is for you to explain your affirmative position. Because I don't get it. Did the Alan Wilson letter say who went to NGLA or with whom CBM and HJW were working? I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.
He did tell us he wasn't very good at writing such things, and even so, I am not sure parsing idea order in a letter is quite the key as to what he actually said.
Take it in any order you want.
But tell me, What is the key to understanding what he actually said? What exactly did he say about who went to NGLA, for example, and when the construction committee was formed and who was on it, and with whom CBM and HJW were working with when it comes to the design? For that matter, tell me the key to understanding what he said about the trip abroad?
Ditto the Francis letter/piece. Even disregaring the probable editing for length that someone else did, he focused primarily on his contribution, because that is what he was asked. So, after a month or so of you and Patrick stretching the record to say that "just because no one mentioned it, doesn't mean it didn't happen" you now insist that because Francis piece is not all encompassing, it means he wasn't there, didn't participate, and didn't understand what was going on? I don't think so.
So tell me, when was Francis appointed?
Was he at NGLA?
Was he present when CBM and HJW came back to Merion?
How do you know these things?
He told us he had nothing to do with the layout except for one thing, yet you have him out there in the snow in February. What is the basis for you having him out there? And how do you explain that he did not seem to understand where Wilson got the idea for the Redan, which was there before Wilson went abroad?
And, by the way, I did notice in post 2553 that you casually try to slip Francis in earlier than any documentation shows with the other two. In a few more posts, I expect you will declare your little assumption as fact that we have already agreed to, if the past is any indication.
What are you talking about? I told you that there was no evidence that anyone on the committee did anything early on (meaning early on after the committee was formed) and you that you had a "Gotcha!" moment and asked what about my swap theory. I explained to you that in my opinion three of them had been out there the previous summer, and now you are criticizing me for "casually trying to slip Francis in earlier?" I wasn't trying to slip in anything, but was just address your attempted "Gotcha!" moment. And you wonder why I question your methodology and motives.
Now, it may be that history will record you in the same breath as the guy who first declared that the world wasn't flat, because from time to time, the one guy outthinking all others does happen. There is just nothing in your unsupported essay and subsequent posts that suggests to me that this is one of those rare cases. As always, I could be wrong.
In these conversations are any indication, you usually are. But you guys overestimate how many agree with you on these issues. The feedback I have received is much different than you and the Merionettes portray. You shouldn't assume that people agree with you just because people aren't dumb enough to waste their time here.
And I say this from the perspective of one who is really in the middle of the fence - believing that we don't know the details, but that many, by today's standards would give CBM more credit, because he probably did directly suggest, in his role as advisor, at least as much as a Ron Whitten at Erin Hills, or Brad Klien at Wintonbury, etc. and they get credit for their roles for far less credentials.
These comparisons again demonstrate the complete lack of understanding you seem to have for who CBM was and who these guys from Merion were. CBM was the expert. CBM was the designer. They were neither.
Most times, the first reading gives you the right impression and you have to be looking really hard to think they are saying something other than the common meaning, but yet David still reads deeper and deeper meaning into things like word order as time goes on to support his point. What's next? Capital and comma use?
This always comes up in your posts and I suspect it is at the root of your dislike of me and my methods. This is what is always said in these situations and why old legends die hard. It is the same thing that has been said to me every step of the way, and contrary to your bogus claims above, my track record is pretty damn solid, and a hell of a lot better than the those with whom you always side.
I think you just cannot stand the notion that I may be better at this sort of thing than you and your pals. But, just like with golf and golf architecture, life is not fair and talents are never handed out democratically. Just like I am a crummy golfer, most are crummy at this sort of analysis, and most would be crummy at designing courses. And just like with any discipline, there is also proper methodology, and most have no clue.
-
Here are a few excerpts of TEPaul waxing on with his speculation about what was ongoing with the committees during this time period.
From the records of the club itself there is a brief mention in the late fall of 1910 of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee, or perhaps a morphing of the former "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" that we have known as the "Search Committee" that clearly was an "ad hoc" commitee that was passing out of existence as their work was done when the club board approved the soon to come purchase by Lloyd of the land that Lloyd appears to have almost single-handly negotiated and arranged the deals of and for and that would become Merion East in a year or so.
That morphing of the former "Search Committee" into what may've been called for a time or in a board meeting or so, the "Special Committee on Golf", was at least temporarily chaired by Lloyd in Nov (perhaps because he was a board member anyway and attended board meetings), not to even mention he alone had engineered the entire 338 acre arrangment himself for MCC with Connell of HDC, according to board minutes). It looks to me sort of like an "ad hoc" committee that had essentially completed its work by the fall of 1910 and was beginning to morph into a new "ad hoc" committee that was populating up for their charge of a new responsibility in the coming months (years actually) of designing and building of the golf course. . . .
Throughout the entire time from early Nov. 1910 until July 1911 there was not a single mention in club records or correspondences about Richard Francis. . . .
I am not all that interested in his speculation, but am interested in his claim of a "brief mention in the late fall of Wilson going onto what appears to be a special committee."
1. From the sounds of it, and despite their claims otherwise, these guys have no idea when the "construction committee" was formed, who went to NGlA, or who was involved in designing Merion East, other than CBM, HJW, and perhaps Hugh Wilson.
2. For those who claim that these guys have been honest and forthcoming with all the relevant source material, please tell me exactly what this document says?
Thanks.
-
David,
In 2253 you wrote:
"He wasn't on the construction committee when he figured out the space problem. Three of the members of the construction committee reportedly made substantial contributions that previous summer and fall. Lloyd (the deal), Griscom (who reportedly got CBM to come, but I have my doubts,) and Francis with his swap."
Now you tell me I interpret that wrong? OR that you didn't mean Francis was working on the routing pre Nov 1910? I am just asking what record there is that Francis was doing anything in 1910, because I don't recall anyone presenting any record of it.
But, I think I understand your theory from your recent writings:
Francis and CBM had a sleepover at Francis house prior to Nov. 1910. During a pillow fight, CBM's pointy sleeping cap fell to the floor, suggesting the triangle to CBM, as a famous gca (who strangley no one on the board new who he was and that he was working with them) Afraid of homophobic backlash, and damage to CBM's reputation, Francis alone road to Lloyd's house, where to further cover up CBM's involvement from an unsuspecting membership, counseled him to show a blank land plan to the members.
After approval, they let the committee work up plans, but told them not to take them over to NGLA, so they could see CBM single handedly route their course before dinner (not knowing that he had already done it months before)
So, despite the fact that Wilson and the construction committee had been formed, and was working diligently to gather all types of information relating to the new golf course, the special committee on new golf grounds, whose work was done, but who had also heard that the CBM pajama parties were a blast, and that he served great booze, went instead. No word on why they waited from Nov to March, despite a time crunch.
To keep the ruse going, the grounds committee told the boys on the construction committee to go back and work on five more plans, even though CBM had shown them his completed routing plan at NGLA. Then, they invited him over in April to approve one plan which means one of them had been let in on the secret.
Yeah, all that makes perfect sense to us!
Once again, I still don't know what exactly you are arguing about. Contrary to your opinion, no one says CBM wasn't involved. It just appears you want the percentage to be close to 100%, as opposed to lower involvement (whether 1% by time, 20% by hole concepts, etc.) than others. But, its just not worth the time.
Now that you are back to the Club records being unreliable, current supporters being document alterers, Merion not letting you play in their sandbox, and the website eating your homework, added on to your usual insults, accusations, logic stretches, word parsing, etc. I think its time to be done with this. Declare victory if you want. The truth in these matters usually comes out eventually, and I think that will happen here, too.
If it turns out that you are right in all these matters, I'll be the first to shake your hand.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I asked you to make your affirmative case, and you come back at me with this crap? Tell me you aren't channeling your drunken buddy again?
Your last semi-coherent argument against CBM's involvement was that, had he planned the course, then Merion's minutes would say so. So show me where Merion's minutes say that the construction committee planned the course?
Surely if the construction committee planned the course, the minutes would say so, right?
And a few more few simple questions . . .
When was the construction committee formed? How do you know?
When was Francis added to the Construction Committee? How do you know?
Was Francis at NGLA? If so, how do you know?
Was Francis at Merion when CBM came back and determined the final routing? If so, how do you know?
Who, according to Alan Wilson, traveled to NGLA?
Who, according to Alan Wilson, were CBM and HJW advising?
In the Lesley report, who went to NGLA? How do you know?
You cannot answer a single one of those questions, yet you claim the construction committee planned the course? CBM is all over the minutes. Yet you put him at 1 to 20 percent? Who has the other 80-99 percent? And where in the minutes does it say so?
-
David,
Just proving I can make up crap with the best of them...and you are the best! But that theory would explain how CBM and Francis could have come up with the triangle swap pre Nov 1910, and with about as much speculation as you use...
More seriously, in reading your question I am struck by the assumption that if all the committee wasn't at NGLA, say one had a cold, that it makes some kind of difference?
I haven't pilfered my copy of the Nature Fakers yet, as you have, but it has been reported here many times it was apparently in Jan 1911, based perhaps on Wilson's start of many letters instead of actual minutes.
We have been over the committee stuff several times. Yes, the record is a bit sketchy. As TMac points out, if it were absolutely perfect, there could be little argument. But, I have trouble believing that the construction committee, formed in January, wouldn't be invited on a fact finding tour of NGLA since they had started fact finding in other areas. Yes, it could be that the new grounds committee continued on its routing mission, but on the other hand, so many documents (unoffical, I guess) say the Wilson committee did all the work of layout and construction that its hard to believe they got it wrong every single time.
For that matter, all the mentions of CBM are as an advisor, but you subtly change that to designer, and then trumpet that he is all over the records as designer. He is all over the records as an advisor who spent 4 days with them. You make a combo of subltle changes and big strecthes to make your case (just because there is no record, even though in three or four changec they record the 4 days, doesn't mean they didn't record other signifigant contributions. Besides, you have admitte advisor is a proper title in what was a unique and complicated relationship.
And really, why should anyone bother answering your questions again, when you hardly ever answer questions like your placement of Francis on the scene in 1910, with no mention of him, or a routing plan in 1910 by CBM, with no mention of it, etc.? The only real differences between the camps is your insistence that 1-20% isn't right. But of course, you refuse to let your self get pinned down.
I know you feel the same way. Hey, we are the type that enjoys engaging in some playful debate. Neither side has a mortal lock on any conclusions, and we have established where we agree, where we disagree, etc.
-
Does splitting the committee work between land acquistion/design and construction make more sense to most folks than a split of land acquistion and design/construction?
David's theory of who went to NGLA would require the former over the latter, and yet the dinner invite in 1912 and other recollections consistently say it was the latter.
And, I have never seen such a split. Usually the real estate guys are real estate guys and the golf guys are the golf guys. Just a thought.
-
I make things up? That is rich coming from you and your crowd. Tell me again about those plans that Merion brought to NGLA. Or just look at your post immediately above.
The Construction Committee was appointed in January, because you think the Fakers might have said so? Read the excerpt from TEPaul above. The Fakers have no idea when the Construction Committee was appointed. And read TEPaul's description of Wilson maybe-sorta-getting-put-on-something-or-another at the end of 1910. I don't doubt Wilson got put on a committee for 1911, but it sure as hell wasn't the "Construction Committee," at least not at first. Otherwise we would could read about here and/or the Faker Flynn pdf. And the Fakers know it, which is why we haven't seen the document to which TEPaul was vaguely referring.
There are later accounts of the construction committee being formed at the beginning of 1911, but it is starting to look like the story was a bit more complicated than that.
More seriously, in reading your question I am struck by the assumption that if all the committee wasn't at NGLA, say one had a cold, that it makes some kind of difference?
You don't get it, do you? I am not saying one of them wasn't there, I am wondering whether the construction committee even existed yet. Even you will have to admit that the Construction Committee couldn't have designed the course if they didn't yet exist, won't you? Probably not.
Hugh Wilson was there. He began working on the project sometime shortly before February 1, 1911, when he contacted CBM and discussed Piper/Oakley. But that is not the story, the story is that the committee designed the course. Surely it is reasonable to expect the proponents of the story to at least be able to establish the that the construction committee existed.
You write that "the record is a bit sketchy." A bit sketchy? The committee you think designed the course is never even mentioned in Merion's minutes, and you call the record a bit sketchy? And the minutes do not say anything at all about Hugh Wilson designing the course.
Yes, it could be that the new grounds committee continued on its routing mission, but on the other hand, so many documents (unoffical, I guess) say the Wilson committee did all the work of layout and construction that its hard to believe they got it wrong every single time.
They didn't get it wrong. The construction committee's job was to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved." The quoted part is from the minutes. So why shouldn't they get credit for laying it out and constructing it according to that plan?
For that matter, all the mentions of CBM are as an advisor, but you subtly change that to designer, and then trumpet that he is all over the records as designer. He is all over the records as an advisor who spent 4 days with them. You make a combo of subltle changes and big strecthes to make your case (just because there is no record, even though in three or four changec they record the 4 days, doesn't mean they didn't record other signifigant contributions. Besides, you have admitte advisor is a proper title in what was a unique and complicated relationship.
I changed nothing. He was an advisor. He advised them how to layout their course. He advised them what holes to build and where to build them.
And really, why should anyone bother answering your questions again, when you hardly ever answer questions like your placement of Francis on the scene in 1910, with no mention of him, or a routing plan in 1910 by CBM, with no mention of it, etc.?
I've explained over and over again, for years, my basis for placing Francis on the scene when I do and I have explained my basis for thinking CBM had a rough routing in mind. You may not like my explanation or agree with it, but I have explained it again and again. Now I am asking you to start explaining the basis for your position, and all you can do is continue take shots at me.
___________________________________________
As for the bit about real estate people are real estate people and golf course people are golf course people, I think it is pretty lame how often you try to foist some degree of authority onto this stuff, as if your practice is anything like what they were doing at Merion. You should explain your theory to Lesley. He was chair of the site committee yet was the one reporting on CBM and HJW's aid in getting the course planned.
__________________________________________
And you are flat out wrong when you claim that everyone agrees that CBM and HJW were involved in the planning. In the Fakers convoluted say-anything-to-protect-the-legend logic, CBM and HJW were not involved in the planning. Somehow, determining and approving the final routing isn't part of the planning at all! And they even claim that CBM and HJW were not at any planning meetings. What the hell do they think happened at NGLA? I guess Wayne still must think CBM was running a travel agency.
CBM was gracious enough to host representatives of Merion at NGLA and to teach those representatives how to lay out their golf course, and CBM and HJW were gracious enough to return to Merion and make sure they got it right, yet these Merionettes have the audacity to claim that CBM and HJW did not attend any planning meetings?
What an embarrassment.
-
Committee?? What Committee???
(http://www.nursery-rhymes.info/Three-Blind-Mice-nursery-rhymes.gif)
January 1912
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/5832105843_447ce75df4_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3420951497_ebcafa4521_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4338093278_fd77ac034f_o.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2233/5803430977_73292e1a68_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3432871885_675a0efb1c_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/5832124947_794d158b67_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/3694553933_db1d806860_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5154/5832190197_5691c35520_o.jpg)
April 19th, 1911 MCC Minutes;
Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Here is what Alan Wilson wrote;
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about OUR PLANS. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of Merion East were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
-
As far as what transpired when the Committee visited NGLA, why do we have to speculate?
Hugh Wilson told us several times exactly what took place.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3754381969_17c39e5e77_o.jpg)
―Dear Mr. Oakley:
I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. McDonald (sp) at the
National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the
course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming over in a
couple of weeks to help us with some of his advice, and we had hoped that you would
be up before this and have delayed sending you samples of the soil on that
account…Mr. McDonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and
fertilizers, and I will be very much obliged if you will send me any that you think would
help us out on the new course, in regard to grasses, fertilizers, etc.
I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new
problem.
Very truly,
(signed) Hugh I. Wilson
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
-
Mike,
The documents leave little doubt that the entire construction committee was formed by 2-1-1911.
To be fair, I do see where Wilson writes in the Oakley book that "we" went to the National but in his early letter to Oakley, he say "I" just went to the National.
And, given they say that both the construction and golf committee (from the newspaper article you posted above) are in charge of all matters golf, its not impossible that members of BOTH committees went to NGLA. It would not be unreasonable to presume that they would have done that for some sort of transition from one to the other.
But again, so many times they say that Wilson and the crew laid out and constructed, conceived of the holes. And, as one wag notes, the best holes are the ones NOT copied from those abroad, suggesting that while there were some holes copied from NGLA, certainly not all were. The committee concieved of some problems based on following their land. And, the report is consistent with the Alps and Redan that got some sort of remaking later.
No disrespect intended for David, but when you keep reading these over and over, its just hard to see his interpretations being right, without some extraordinary coincidences. He picks out certain sentences, like a lawyer might to get a witness to concede that its 1% possible, and ignores the totality of what was written. And he asks us to focus on the minutes, and dismisses 2-5 year out recollections of those who were there for but embraces recollections of HJW from 20 years later.
Hard to figure. But, I can say my disagreements with his method have little to do with me thinking he is smarter than me! He is a smart guy, but the more we debate, the more holes I see.
David,
BTW, you really haven't repeatedly explained the Francis in 1910 article. A while back you told me it was all in your essay, so I read it again to be sure I understood your point. I found that part of the essay to contain no actual record of Francis being on the scene, but a lot of "must haves" "most likely" etc. that were basically you extrapolating the triangle on the plan, and nothing else. Of course, that can be interpreted different ways.
When I pasted your essay into one of my posts, you told us that the supporting facts that were footnoted in your essay had been garbled by the transition of the web site (hence, my snide "dog ate the homework comments) and have yet to copy and paste them here, merely telling us again and again you have a supported view of Francis being involved earlier.
We can't see it and I doubt you have it, other than your extrapolation, which is unsatisfactory to me, and probably most. Thus, I asked to see what your backup was.
-
Mike,
When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.
You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.
As you know, I don't put much stock in newspaper articles, and neither do you unless they suit your purpose ;D
-
Mike,
When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.
You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.
Patrick,
Once again, you should spend more time learning and less time typing.
The Hugh Wilson article was written in 1916, first hand by Hugh Wilson himself.
He wrote it at the request of Piper & Oakley, who asked him to write about agronomic issues, which was their focus.
Are you trying to suggest that Hugh Wilson didn't remember correctly what happened at NGLA a few years prior, at the ripe old age of 36? That's pretty rich.
As far as the Findlay article, I'm not dismissing it at all.
I find it amazingly telling that even at that early date Findlay compared Hugh Wilson to HC Leeds, whose Myopia course was Findlay's favorite in America.
The article does speak about "many of the others" as being laid out by CBM, but as Bryan, Jeff, and many others have noted, it is very unclear to determine what exactly he was referring to. Other courses, other holes, other holes at Merion?
You call it indisputable, but that's clearly not the case. Beginning with the fact that Findlay told us he's not ready to even talk about "the possibilities" of the new Merion course it is exceptionally unlikely that he'd be calling holes at Merion "really great" a few sentences later.
If he had written, "Many of the other golf holes on the new Merion Course that were laid out by CBM", then I would agree that it's conclusive.
As it stands, it's much more confusing than conclusive.
Whatever Findlay thought, we know that when the golf course opened, he once again credited Hugh Wilson and his Committee for the course, comparing them again with what HC Leeds had done at Myopia.
There is no mention whatsoever of CBM and Whigham.
-
Mike's spastic reaction above is emblematic of the hysteria which as plagued the discussion from the beginning.
My inquiry was very specific, and concerned when exactly the construction committee was formed and who (if anyone) was on it through April 1911? I readily acknowledged that the construction committee laid out and constructed the course according to the plan determined and approved by CBM and HJW. The question is, what role, if any did they play in assisting CBM and HJW in coming up with that plan?
Regurgitating a bunch of documents about how Hugh Wilson and his committee laid out and constructed the course doesn't address these issues at all. It avoids these issues and convolutes the conversation with thickheaded emotionalism which leads to nowhere.
I also readily acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was involved from late January 1911 on. The question is, in what capacity. The Ag letter is signed "for the Committee." Of course the question is, which committee? My guess is at this point he was acting on behalf of Lesley's Golf Committee.
So my questions remain unanswered.
The Fakers know that there was no "Construction Committee" at this early date. They know that whatever committee Wilson joined in late 1910, it wasn't the Construction Committee. That is why they have never brought forward the document to which TEPaul was referring. It doesn't support the legend, and they have a history of suppressing all information not supporting the legend.
____________________________________________
Jeff Brauer wrote:
The documents leave little doubt that the entire construction committee was formed by 2-1-1911
.
Did you even read them? Almost all of them are about the construction of the course. It is statements like this that convince me that your transition to just another partisan hack is complete.
The construction committee laid out and constructed the golf course according to the plan determined and approved by CBM and HJW.
I am still waiting for any evidence that the construction committee was involved with helping CBM and HJW come up with that plan.
-
David,
Not that's funny! I guess presenting factual evidence instead of specious wacko theories with no substantiation is what passes these days in your mind for "hysteria". ;D
I think you need to go and look up the definition of "approved" in the context of having no formal role with the club.
Hugh Wilson himself tells us specifically that the Construction Committee was formed in early 1911, prior to the visit to NGLA and he tells us the membership of that Committee...same as it always was...Francis, Griscom, Toulmin, and Lloyd, with Hugh Wilson as Chairman. This is not a mystery to anyone but you.
ap·prove (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3755182594_5a7a3e9759_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
When Wilson mentions the need to visit Pine Valley, it would seem to indicate that the article was written after 1922, ten years after Merion opened.
You always claim that the non-contemporaneous articles be discounted or discarded, yet, you offer Wilson's article, at least 10 years old as part of your evidence pool, while dismissing Whigham's and ignoring Findlay's contemporaneous article.
Patrick,
Once again, you should spend more time learning and less time typing.
Perhaps, just perhaps, one day you'll learn that sometimes I know the answer to a question I've posed.
Bob Huntley might be able to give you a refresher course on the subject.
The Hugh Wilson article was written in 1916, first hand by Hugh Wilson himself.
Interesting that Wilson would write that recommendation six (6) years before the course even opened.
In 1918 when Crump died, holes 12-15 hadn't even been completed, let alone played upon.
So, how does one evaluate a golf course that's still in the planning construction phase ?
Does this cast doubt on Wilson's writings ?
He wrote it at the request of Piper & Oakley, who asked him to write about agronomic issues, which was their focus.
I'm aware of that and it's not the agronomic issues that concern me.
Are you trying to suggest that Hugh Wilson didn't remember correctly what happened at NGLA a few years prior, at the ripe old age of 36?
That's pretty rich.
Not really.
He's writing about how great Pine Valley was before the planning and construction and play of the entire golf course was accomplished.
That you don't find that strange or questionable is indicative of your defensive bias.
As far as the Findlay article, I'm not dismissing it at all.
I find it amazingly telling that even at that early date Findlay compared Hugh Wilson to HC Leeds, whose Myopia course was Findlay's favorite in America.
So, you accept that Findlay's written words are "The Gospel"
That CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion.
The article does speak about "many of the others" as being laid out by CBM, but as Bryan, Jeff, and many others have noted, it is very unclear to determine what exactly he was referring to.
Unclear ? Unclear to whom ? You, Jeff and Bryan, who may just have a slight bias.
It's crystal clear what he meant.
He wasn't talking about "Alps" holes as you originally declared, as CBM hadn't laid out any other Alps holes except for NGLA and Findlay uses the term "many"
Other courses ?
You, yourself, declared that he had only done one other course and according to you his first attempt was abysmal, so now you're trying to change your position to conveniently suit your predetermined perspective.
Other holes ?
What other holes ?
He was clear. He was talking about the holes AT Merion
Other courses, other holes,
Nope, we've dismissed that.
other holes at Merion?
YEP
You call it indisputable, but that's clearly not the case.
It sure is clear and it's indisputable.
There aren't "many" other courses.
There aren't "many" other holes.
Especially in the context Findlay used.
Beginning with the fact that Findlay told us he's not ready to even talk about "the possibilities" of the new Merion course it is exceptionally unlikely that he'd be calling holes at Merion "really great" a few sentences later.
"Possibilities" in what context ?
Findlay was crystal clear, he stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion.
And, no matter how you try, you can't prevent those words from passing his lips or be written in his hand.
If he had written, "Many of the other golf holes on the new Merion Course that were laid out by CBM", then I would agree that it's conclusive.
Oh, I'll have to tell him to modify his writing style so that it provides ample evidence for you.
In the context of Findlay's statement, it's irrefutable, he was talking about CBM laying out many of the holes at Merion.
The fact that there are so many templates at Merion should be sufficient for even the Merionettes to concede that CBM was responsible.
As it stands, it's much more confusing than conclusive.
Only to the Merionettes
As an aside, it is interesting to note that in the October 1914 issue of "Golfer's Magazine", Cold declares that he laid out Pine Valley in 1913.
Whatever Findlay thought, we know that when the golf course opened, he once again credited Hugh Wilson and his Committee for the course, comparing them again with what HC Leeds had done at Myopia.
The subsequent accolade is irrelevant in terms of designing the course. It's akin to AWT's remarks regarding Crump at PV.
Contemporaneously, Findlay stated that CBM designed many of the holes at Merion.
There is no mention whatsoever of CBM and Whigham.
In context, that's irrelevant
-
I know what "approved" means. Cirba's idiotic repeated recitation of the definition doesn't change what happened. CBM had already advised them what he thought they should do with the land, and he had come back to sort through it all again and to come up with a single, coherent plan that would give Merion a first class golf course. Yet the Fakers and their Merionette pretend he was an outsider and passerby who happened to say something like, Gee, look at the golf course, it looks neat.
I also strongly suspect that Merion's internal records tell a more complicated story of what happened with the structure of these early committees than does Wilson's brief summary. To whatever committee Hugh wilson was added in the record to which TEPaul referred, it wasn't the Construction Committee. And when Lesley wrote about going to NGLA he was NOT reporting for the construction committee in his report to the board because he wasn't on it. Anyone have any other ideas on why Fakers would fail to bring forward this indication by the Board of just what was up with Wilson?
But I could be wrong. Let's see the contemporaneous support for the claim that the construction committee as we know it existed before NGLA.
If I had to guess who was at NGLA, my money would be on H. G. Lloyd and Lesley, who brought Wilson along. Take a look at the men with whom CBM was involved in all of his other projects.
-
Jim and Bryan,
I am beyond bored with dealing with these same bombastic interpretations and Cirba's broken record loop through the same old documents talking about how Wilson and his committee laid the course out on the ground. While I don't agree with many of your respective opinions, the two of you are at least trying to have some semblance of a reasonable conversation about the matter.
I keep hoping you will try to addressed some of the points I raised and questions I asked to specific points and posts of yours.
Bryan, have you had a chance to consider my Reply #2459 to your post on the Findlay article?
Jim, it has been so long I don't even know where to look . . . .
-
Patrick,
Do you even read the historical materials that are presented here or just make it up to suit your biases?
By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.
As I said, more time reading and less time typing would do your understanding of history a world of good.
-
By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.
Wait, I thought that was Cobbs Creek?
-
Patrick,
Do you even read the historical materials that are presented here or just make it up to suit your biases?
Would you cite what I've made up.
By 1916, even in its unfinished state, Pine Valley was determined by many expert observers as the best course in the United States.
Would you cite the expert observers who had visited Pine Valley who determined that it was the best course in the U.S. in 1916.
As I said, more time reading and less time typing would do your understanding of history a world of good.
My understanding of history is excellent. It's your distortion of history that's the problem
-
David,
I must admit that I get tired of the endless circling, of the same dead carcasses, by all the regular participants. It continually amazes me that you and Mike have enough time in your days to think (I hope) and type so many replies. I try to have a life beyond this thread.
I think that you have your sources and have made some good points and interpretations, and Mike has his sources that he thinks tell a different story. I see some plausibility in both points of view, but I don't know for sure. But then neither do you, or Mike. Sadly, both of you, out of hand, assert your theory as the truth and reject the other. Until something new surfaces that might clarify what actually happened, I doubt either of you will change.
Re your assertion to Jeff that you're smarter about this research than the rest of us, I'd just remind you that pride goeth before the fall.
Re the questions below, I'll answer although I have no expectation that you will accept or agree with any of my views.
Bryan, I am trying to understand your logic regarding the Findlay article but I am not sure I do.
I think I understand your position on Findlay having stated that he was "not yet ready to talk about the possibilities of the new place." As I understand it, you are suggesting that if Findlay said he wouldn't discuss "the possibilities" of the course then he must not have been talking about the Merion when mentioned "many of the others, as laid out by" CBM. I agree that this is arguable on its face, but I think it is less tenable when we look closer at the passage. I think you get it. I assume the possibilities of the place refer to the possibility that when finished it will be great. It seems illogical to me that shortly later he would say that many of the other holes are great. But, it is possible that he was being self-contradictory in a couple of sentences.
First and foremost, it does not seem that he could have meant what you think he meant. Because shortly after writing this he began discussing Merion's Alps hole. If he meant what you think he meant, then what was he doing discussing Merion's 10th hole? I took the anecdote about Merion's Alps hole as a goodhearted needling of Wilson. It sounds to me like there might have been some earlier discussion between Findlay and Wilson about the merits of the Merion Alps. Now that Wilson had seen the real one at Prestwick, I take it that Findlay proved his point that Merion's was not too stellar and consequently was sticking the needle in. Yes, doing this was self-contradictory with the previous sentence where he said he wouldn't discuss the possibilities. After reading many of the items posted, news articles, reports, minutes, letters etc I'd come to the conclusion that these guys generally didn't write very well.
It seems he either immediately reversed himself or he meant something other than what you think he meant. Either way I don't think it logically tenable to conclude that "others" could not mean Merion's golf holes when the sentence before was about one of Merion's golf holes. I'm not saying I'm absolutely correct. But, in my opinion it is logically tenable. I think your interpretation is logically tenable too. Who's right? Who knows.
More likely, he just didn't mean to completely exclude any mention of the golf holes, especially not a passing mention. Calling the "other" holes, in their unfinished state, great is more than a passing mention, don't you think. In this regard, I think you should have started highlighting a sentence earlier. To paraphrase: Findlay wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania." Findlay then said that it was too early for him to sign off on this for the reasons above. Findlay seems to have have been indicating that he was holding off on making an overall judgment on the course even though that is for what H. Wilson is aiming. So, he didn't want to pass judgement on the course as a whole, but was willing to say many of the other holes were great. How is that tenable? Would a collection of great holes logically make a great course? This is a bit different than indicating that he will not discuss anything about the course, and it fits better with the rest where he obviously does discuss the course. He doesn't discuss the course; he sticks the needlt in about the shortcomings of the Alps hole. Also, Findlay did eventually sign off on this in the fall, pronouncing Merion the nicest course in Pennsylvania. Not to be too cynical, but it seems that articles about many of the courses said glowing things about the courses in question. A lot of it sounds like marketing hype to me.
But that is the easy part.
________________________________________
I cannot make sense of portions of the remainder of the post. Do you mind clarifying a few things?
1. When you wrote, "The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole" to what "Alps hole" were you referring? Merion's 10th hole? Prestwick's 17th hole? Some other Alps? The lead in is about Merion's Alps hole, and the needling about its shortcomings.
2. When you wrote, "the link back to "others" is logically to 'Alps,'" is this the same "Alps" I mentioned in the question above, or something different? If something different, to what Alps were you referring? Merion's 10th hole? Prestwick's 17th hole? Some other Alps? The grammatical link is to Alps holes. There is no mention of any other holes preceding the "many of the others" comment.
3. Regarding your clarification as to "many of the others" I agree that "many" signifies a subset of "others.". But as to your example, do you really think 2 or 3 out of 4 could reasonably be properly described as "many?" I have no idea what number many would have meant to Findlay. A question for you. How many of the 18 holes at Merion were the "others" in your interpretation? All 17 not including the Alps? Some subset? If you think it is less than 17, who do you think routed and designed those holes?
Thanks. You're welcome.
-
Bryan,
If it means anything, I read that whole deal the way you do. And I wonder if David's interpretation - where he spends hours parsing through a sentence Finlay took seconds to write - is really a good method? And not just Findlay - there are literally hundreds of sentences written about Merion where David uses the same approach to draw conclusions.
His theories seemingly depend on those hundreds of sentences not meaning what the majority who read them would first conclude, after David's deep analysis. Or, him thinking, for instance, that Hugh Wilson, who wrote loads of letters for the construction committee, was probably signing for the golf committee in Feb 1911. Could it have happened? Yeah. How much histronics do you have to go through to conclude that the letter Mike posts bucks the trend of what he was doing at the time?
It just has always struck me that David may be smarter than us, but I agree ego gets in the way of accomplishment, and I am also reminded that its possible to be too smart for his own good! Hey, I agree Merion is a national treasure, but sometimes David's take on its history reads more like the movie National Treasure, where everything is a secret clue.
-
Bryan,
I think you and I have different ideas of what "logically tenable" means.
1. What makes more sense? Let's assume you are correct, and that "others" refers to Alps holes as opposed to what I think is the more logical reading, other holes at Merion.
To paraphrase, your reading leaves us with: Merion's Alps hole sucks, but many of the other Alps Holes, as laid out by Macdonald, are really great. This makes no sense, because there were not many other Alps holes as laid out by CBM. Merion's was only the second Alps Hole CBM is known to have laid out.
So no, I don't think your reading is logically tenable. Nor do I think it is a "who knows" situation between two equally tenable readings. THERE WERE NOT "MANY ALPS HOLES" LAID OUT BY CBM.
Less importantly, I don't think you are following the valid "grammatical link" as you claim. "Others" is an indefinite pronoun and as such refers to unspecified things in this case a group or category of things. So one just cannot go backwards in the text to the first noun one hits. One must actually think about it a bit. The two possibilities seem to be either "many of the other holes at Merion . . ." or "many of the other Alps holes . . ." Since CBM hadn't laid out "many other alps holes" the former makes much more sense.
Also, the article was about Merion, not a critique of CBM's templates nationwide. It would make no sense to break into some other conversation for one sentence.
2. What was Findlay willing to discuss? Again I think you are stretching beyond the realm of reason. He was willing to discuss Merion's holes because he discussed about Merion's Alps hole. Given that Findlay rips into Merion's 10th hole, it should come no surprise that he immediately softens the blow with a glowing yet nonspecific line about the quality of many of the other holes.
And the answer to your question is, NO. I don't think that his statement calling many other holes "really great" amounts to much of a discussion about Merion at all. He didn't mention or describe a single other a single hole or feature, nor did he make any sort of pronouncement as to the overall quality of the course. And judging how much emphasis he puts on growing and conditioning (to tout Pickering) I don't think it unreasonable to think he was commenting on the layout as is, as opposed to the overall quality.
Haven't you noticed that almost all these articles have some sort of disclaimer about how they will not know the quality of the course for certain until the course is mature, but then they go on to talk about the holes anyway? Well Findlay does this less so than many of the rest!
In sum, Findlay was discussing Merion, and Merion's 10th hole. Regardless of what he meant about not yet judging the course, he ripped Merion's 10th and not surprisingly he followed up the insult by saying many of the other holes were great. That makes the most sense to me. Reading in some general statement about many other of CBM's Alps holes makes no sense, especially because there were not many other CBM Alps holes.
_____________________________________________
As for the rest, I think you overestimate what I take as fact, versus what I take as theory. It is pretty much all theory to me, depending upon the state of the evidence. But some theories are more sound than others.
Also, I think you have misconstrued my point to Jeff, or perhaps I was to flippant in making the point.
Jeff has essentially been chirping like a third grader that I think I am soo smart, but I am not as smart as I think I am, and other grade school crap like if he and his pals believe it, it must be correct, and claiming that by questioning Merion's accepted history and the views of him and his Faker buddies, I am really saying I am smarter than all of them. I don't see it that way. For me it is not about who is smarter, it is about who follows facts, reason, and sound methodology. I trust my own own judgement, especially when compared to the track records of the Fakers and their Merionette.
______________________________
Jeff Brauer,
It doesn't take hours to understand Findlay's sentence. I understood it immediately. You and the Fakers will probably never understand it because it would undermine your position if you actually tried to understand it.
And you again confuse you and your Faker buddies as some sort of majority. You also forget that many important aspects of Merion's accepted history were wrong, and that only a few of us figured that out, much to the consternation of your fictional majority. Bottom line for me is that I don't care what other think. I trust my judgment when it comes to understanding and analyzing the record.
You can cast aspersions at me all you want, but your actual understanding and analysis don't back it up. As an example of the quality of your analysis, you wrote immediately above:
Or, him thinking, for instance, that Hugh Wilson, who wrote loads of letters for the construction committee, was probably signing for the golf committee in Feb 1911. Could it have happened? Yeah. How much histronics do you have to go through to conclude that the letter Mike posts bucks the trend of what he was doing at the time?
This is pretty laughable since TEPaul has come close to conceding that he was not writing for the Construction Committee as we know it. Go back and read what he wrote about the evolution (or his take on the evolution) of the committees. Wilson wasn't appointed to the Construction Committee, but according to TEPaul to something else and eventually the committee evolved into the construction committee. Now there may be some "histronics" there, or perhaps even some histrionics, but they are his not mine.
But what it really shows your shoddy methodology and your lack of understanding how this process works. You seem to think it is my responsibility to DISPROVE whatever you believe, rather than YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
I readily admit that it is possible that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911. u]But what is possible is not necessarily so[/u].
As for me, I don't know for sure what happened with these various committees, and that is what I am trying to figure out. On the other hand your entire theory rests on this particular version of the Construction Committee having been out there in the February snow planning the course.
So prove your case.
Prove to me that Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Toulmin, and Griscom were appointed to the "Construction Committee" before February 1, 1911. And in doing so, make this jibe with TEPaul's statement which seems to contradict this.
Prove that this particular committee came up with the final plan.
You demanded a statement in the minutes to prove my case, so let's have those statements about these guys.
-
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.]
But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
Jeff & Bryan,
I'd like to try to get clarification on your positions on the above quote.
To provide some context,
The Findlay quote was published in June of 1912, which means it was probably written earlier, perhaps prior to May of 1912.
Wilson didn't return from the UK until May of 1912.
CBM hadn't completed any other courses by June of 1912.
In the first sentence, can we agree that Findlay is stating that the 10th hole at Merion, the Alps, is underwhelming in its present form ?
In light of the time frame listed above is your contention:
1. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing NGLA ?
2. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other "Alps" holes at other CBM courses ?
3. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at other CBM courses ?
4. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at Merion ?
Would you agree, that the time line doesn't support # 2 and # 3, hence they can be eliminated.
Leaving # 1 and # 4.
Findlay clearly states in his first sentence, that he's referencing the 10th "Alps" at Merion.
Why would he suddenly switch gears and start referencing OTHER holes at NGLA ?
Everyone was already aware of the qualitiy of the holes at NGLA, that's one of the reasons the committee visited NGLA earller that year.
It makes far, far more sense that he's referencing OTHER holes at Merion, as laid out by Macdonald,
But, I would like to hear your take in light of the time line
-
David,
Why dont you believe Hugh Wilson when he wrote that his committee was formed in early 1911, included all the usual suspects, and that they all went up to NGLA? Im not sure what could be more simple and straightforward.
Also, evible for by 1912, do we? Especially considering that by 1915 CBM had been called in as a "friendly adviser" whenever a notable course was under construction in the east (and likely the midwest as well).en though i believe Findlay was referring to other holes on other courses lps theme Findlay may have thought CBM was responsabroad that CBM referred Wilson to (and then goes directly into a discussion of them), we really dont know how many holes based on ano A
-
Gh....fat fingered on a blackberry...sorry for. The garble.
I would only add David that your seeming need to fling personal insults in virtually every one of your posts really reflects on the strength of your case and your confidence to let those supposed facts speak for themselves.u
-
Mikk,
AKS I can saa about pist 2586 is goxrxgboxxle fit cub, dawxxzmm and wisglgnenook.
-
Mike Cirba asks why I don't believe Hugh Wilson. I do believe him, I just don't read as much into that statement as Mike and his buddies do, for the following reasons.
1. Because Lesley was not on Wilson's Committee, yet Lesley reported for the committee who went to NGLA and was working on the plan with CBM.
2. Because Wilson's was a general account, doesn't go into specifics of how the committee's evolved or the dates when each member started on the project, and because "early" is hardly well defined.
3. Because, based on something from the minutes we haven't seen, TEPaul admitted that it was not nearly this cut-and-dried as this, and it was more than likely some sort of evolution, with Wilson having been put on a different committee and then that committee somehow morphed over time into the Construction Committee.
4. Because one member of the committee may not have even been in the country at the time.
5. Because Francis' account is strange if he was on the committee this early. He didn't even seem to understand from where the conception of the Redan hole came.
____________________________
Mike
You talking about personal insults is pretty funny. I am not flinging personal insults. But I am calling it as I see it.
-
Jeff,
That last post of yours might be the most intelligent post on this thread to date! ;).
-
David,
It's not as difficult as all of that.
The Wilson committee reported to the standing Golf Committee, which was chaired by Lesley.
He would be the one responsible to report to the Board.
The Jan 1912 article points out pretty clearly who the men were in charge, as does 1ilson.
Was there overlap between the members? No question, although Lesly almost certainly saw his role as Chairman needing to preclude his direct participation on a temporary subcommittee reporting to him.
Did Lesly go to NGLA? Possibly.
-
Typical Cirba,
He went into hysterics when I suggested that there is some confusion about just who was on which committee and when. ¥et now, while he surely fails to realize it, he essentially admits as much. Lesley "possibly" went to NGLA? Huh? So much for pretending to know what happened. He has no idea who was on what committee and when, or when exactly and how exactly the "Construction Committee" came into existence, or who went to NGLA.
As for the rest, more nonsense. The January 1912 letter doesn't say a thing about when the Construction Committee was formed or who was doing what during the winter of 1910-11.
Where is the proof? Surely we aren't expected to take Mike Cirba's word, without proof, of what happened at Merion during the winter of 1910-1911?
We have spent years with me answering every conceivable question and challenge to my claims. It is about time these guys started trying to support their own case. So far, the only ones directly connected to the design are CBM and HJW.
-
David,
Hugh 1ilson's committee was formed before they went to NGLA in early 1911.
Why are you so dense...it's in black and white and Wilson told us who was on it.
Did Lesley travel with them? Who know? What difference does it make either way?
Please dont answer that last rhetorical question.
-
Mike Cirba,
This is an interesting quote, what's the date of the document ?
RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out AND supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses.
It states that Hugh Wilson rendered "invaluable service" in laying out and supervising the construction of the golf course.
It doesn't state that he designed any holes on the golf course.
It doesn't state that he routed the golf course, only that he rendered invaluable service on these projects, which is what you'd expect of any Committee Chairman charged with the oversight of a project.
Jeff & Bryan,
When you have the time I'd appreciate your addressing the questions posed in reply 2585.
Thanks
-
Wasn't Mike just criticizing me for name calling? Hypocrisy has always been one of his rare strong suits. I wish someone would teach him about the concept of a rhetorical questions, though. He seems to think that if he designates an actual question "rhetorical," then it must be such, regardless of whether there are more reasonable answers than the one he assumes. It is almost exactly like his approach to historical analysis --find an answer you like and don't even consider anything else. But I won't bother answering his non-rhetorical "rhetorical" question for him this time. If he can't figure out why it matters himself, then the heck with him.
The record indicates that HJW and CBM played a crucial role in every step of the planning from helping determine what land to purchase, to determining and approving the final routing plan.
Mike's proclimations to the contrary, it doesn't seem that the Fakers or their Merionette can even place most of their guys on the scene during any of the crucial planning events, such as at NGLA or on CBM's and HJW's return to Merion.
-
Patrick,
Who laid out NGLA?
What did that work entail?
David,
You can tell us that over and over but with a generic form letter in June 1910 , not a whisper for the next 10 month while the Minutes tell us the Merion Committee developed multiple plans, then ano overnite stay at NGLA by that Committee where they saw and siscussed. The great holes abroad and their principles at night and toured the golf course the next day, followed by the Commiittee creating five different plans, folollowed by CBMs one day visit in April 1911 to help the Committee select the best of their five plans sure doesnt sound like he did much.
-
David,
As for the rest, I think you overestimate what I take as fact, versus what I take as theory. It is pretty much all theory to me, depending upon the state of the evidence. But some theories are more sound than others.
It's an easy trap for me to fall into since much of what you write is so forcibly stated. I understand that it is pretty much all theory, not only for you, but for the opposition, at least as it pertains to the microcosm of who specifically routed the "approved" course and designed the 18 holes. I'm sure that we could all debate ad nauseum even if some day a signed copy of the original routing plan was found.
I understand that you feel your theory is more sound.
Can you take a stab at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many".
Pat,
I don't think I can be any clearer and I don't think it would be helpful to further deconstruct the sentence and its grammatical relationships. We can't get into Findlay's head to figure out what he meant in those few words. In my humble opinion it does not provide the case closed proof that you seem to feel it does. But, as usual, we can disagree. ;D
Could you also give a shot at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many"?
I'm also curious how Findlay could say the course wasn't ready to be evaluated because it was still not completed, but then could declare many of the holes as great.
-
Mike,
Since no one else has highlighted this, and David seems to believe that it was more likely that the earlier committee had routed the course, please note what Alan Wilson's letter says:
a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.
That is an indication that there was no overlap between those committees, one whose work concluded on Dec 23, 1910 with the agreement to buy the land, and the other, started in early 1911 (most likely pre 2-1, given Wilson's first letter to Oakley as its head).
Now, it may be possible that some members of both committees went to NGLA, just because they were interested, or they wanted a transition, some good booze, whatever. But, its clear there were boundaries on what the committees were assigned to do, and frankly, I would think that would be the way committees operate. Why form a new committee to do the work an existing one is already doing?
And, if Francis was working pre 11-1910 on the routing, what are chances he was doing so as an unnamed member of the new golf grounds committee? By this time, those interviewed would have known what went down. Why no mention of Francis on the earlier committee, not to mention no mention of CBM, again other than as an advsor?
The most logically tenable reason is because he wasn't.....
-
I don't think I can be any clearer and I don't think it would be helpful to further deconstruct the sentence and its grammatical relationships. We can't get into Findlay's head to figure out what he meant in those few words. In my humble opinion it does not provide the case closed proof that you seem to feel it does. But, as usual, we can disagree. ;D
Would you agree that options # 2 and # 3 are not viable ?
Could you also give a shot at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many"?
I usually assign a good deal of credibility in terms of the use of language in the days when a good deal, if not most, of the communications were by written form. "Many" is defined as an indefinite large number. Since we're capped at 18, you have to ask, in the context of 18, what's a large number ? 6, 9, 12 ?
I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.
As a starting point I think you have to include all of the template or hybrid template holes and go from there.
I'm also curious how Findlay could say the course wasn't ready to be evaluated because it was still not completed, but then could declare many of the holes as great.
Probably the same way that many on this site claim that they can evaluate a course without having played it. ;D
What's the date of the Alan Wilson letter ?
-
Written communications ruled except for late 1910 when phone calls were in vogue and no one wrote down anything?
-
Id like to see those who are arguing for CBM's detailed involvement "all through the planning process" to get very specific. In terms of describing those activities as well as the physical evidence supporting those assertions in a timeline fashion.
If we assume the planning process ran from roughly April 1910 thru April 1911 i'd like to see the CBM proponents use ALL of their evidence during this time period to make their case.
-
Can you take a stab at trying to quantify how many of the 18 holes are included in the "others" and how many would make up the "many".
I forgot to answer this when you asked before, perhaps because I don't really have a sound basis for speculating on the exact number.
It is impossible to say for sure, but the simplest and most straightforward reading seems to be that there were 17 others (Merion's 10th hole and 17 other Merion holes.) I guess it is arguable that only a subset of these were "laid out" by CBM, and then a subset of these were really great, but I think requires reading in a lot that isn't there. As for how many is "many," I don't know but I would think that "many" would have to be more than two or three.
But as I said above, I think this statement was likely thrown out to partially offset the slam about Merion's 10th, and not as a specific discussion of any other holes in particular. It is a bit like damning someone with faint praise, only here is damning them with particulars but masking it with general praise.
I understand you don't want to further mince the passage, but perhaps you can explain one thing . . .
How could many of the other of CBM's Alps Holes be really great when Merion's 10th hole was only the second of CBM's Alps holes?
-
Mike,
Since no one else has highlighted this, and David seems to believe that it was more likely that the earlier committee had routed the course, please note what Alan Wilson's letter says:
a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.
That is an indication that there was no overlap between those committees, one whose work concluded on Dec 23, 1910 with the agreement to buy the land, and the other, started in early 1911 (most likely pre 2-1, given Wilson's first letter to Oakley as its head).
Now, it may be possible that some members of both committees went to NGLA, just because they were interested, or they wanted a transition, some good booze, whatever. But, its clear there were boundaries on what the committees were assigned to do, and frankly, I would think that would be the way committees operate. Why form a new committee to do the work an existing one is already doing?
And, if Francis was working pre 11-1910 on the routing, what are chances he was doing so as an unnamed member of the new golf grounds committee? By this time, those interviewed would have known what went down. Why no mention of Francis on the earlier committee, not to mention no mention of CBM, again other than as an advsor?
The most logically tenable reason is because he wasn't.....
Jeff
I think you forgot this part:
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and AS A FIRST STEP , Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and whole largely helped by many suggestion and much good advice from the other members of the committee, they have told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West course.
-
TomM,
I've always found this to be such a strange passage, but not just for the "first step" language: "On his return the plan gradually evolved . . .." Huh? His return was late spring 1912, and the course did "gradually evolve" from that point on. But the course had already been planned, laid out, and built by then. Shouldn't they have planned the course before the plan gradually evolved? Where again is it in this passage that Wilson and his committee planned the course? This section seems to have skipped right over that.
-
Id like to see those who are arguing for CBM's detailed involvement "all through the planning process" to get very specific. In terms of describing those activities as well as the physical evidence supporting those assertions in a timeline fashion.
If we assume the planning process ran from roughly April 1910 thru April 1911 i'd like to see the CBM proponents use ALL of their evidence during this time period to make their case.
Mike, since you're the away team on this one, you go first and address the questions you ask in terms of Wilson's specific involvement.
-
David
I've always felt the trip to Europe was the turning point for Wilson, it was only at that point that he began exerting his design influence (which turned out to be a very significant influence over the years). Things like the Mid Surrey mounds begin showing up when he returned. And like you said the course had already been designed and built when Wilson began gradually evolving the plan.
-
Patrick,
Thanks, that's what i thought.
All of CBM's involvement in the planning process is extremely well documented.
If it was any bigger, you could fit it in a thimble.
-
Tom MacWood,
Yes, i believe the MCC Minutes precisely state that Wilson's interest in golf course architecture began on May 17th, 1912, at approximately 7:34 AM.
Prior to then he thought Willie Campbell designed awesome stuff, but only had a. Passing interest.
-
Mike,
I see that you can't answer the questions specifically detailing Wilson's involvement, and he's the home team guy
-
Pat,
Well, we clearly know what CBM did.
We also know that everyone back then credited Wilson.
Why would club minutes point to a member when a committee was appointed?
You figure it out.
-
Patrick,
You are correct. They cannot point to anything at all that the Construction Committee did during the planning, either.
Laughably, Mike attempts another rhetorical question, asking why they would point to an individual when a committee was appointed? Of course he neglects to mention that there is nothing at all pointing to the Construction Committee either.
The only names mentioned are CBM and HJW.
-
Tom MacWood,
Yes, i believe the MCC Minutes precisely state that Wilson's interest in golf course architecture began on May 17th, 1912, at approximately 7:34 AM.
Prior to then he thought Willie Campbell designed awesome stuff, but only had a. Passing interest.
Mike
You are a funny. I have no idea when his interest in golf architecture began, but clearly his brother is stating his design input at Merion began after he returned from Europe, and I believe there is evidence to support that idea. Regarding his experience level Wilson tells us the when they began he and the others had played golf for many years, but their experience in construction and upkeep was only that of an average club member. I would imagine his interest in golf architecture was around the same level. Wilson also tells us the committee was appointed to construct the golf course; no mention of design. Its never made sense that Lloyd & Co would turn to a bunch of average club members to design their world class golf course, especially when they had already engaged the top men in the country.
-
Mike,
I figured it out when I was about 8 years old and asked my dad why there are only commemorative statues of a single man on a horse leading a charge ?
Have you ever seen a statue commemorating a committee ?
Go to NGLA, go to the big room and tell me who's life size statue is standing there.
(hint: it's not a committee)
Committees inherently stifle creativity and breed mediocrity.
I can't imagine a committee of five (5) in 1910 or 2011 creating a wonderful golf course.
Evidently, you want to continue to perpetuate the myth that the entire golf course, from site selection, to routing to individual hole and feature design was done through a democratic committee process.
I don't and won't buy it until I see "prudent man" evidence specifically detailing who did what.
And, I don't think requiring that burden of proof is unreasonable, despite what the Merionettes think.
-
Mike Cirba,
In all seriousness, what's always troubled me is THE lack of attribution, the general references, without specifics on various phases of the project.
Don't forget that Merion was an existing club, not a new one, hence they had structure and the recording of specific events would seem to lend itself to detail, yet the record is..... vague at best, when it comes to specifics.
That seems strange to me.
Pretend for a second that I was part of the committee and came up with the idea/concept for five holes, the routing or the overcoming of a problem. Why wouldn't they record that event/discovery, stating that I had conceived of the hole designs, routing or cross over features ?
Why wouldn't they engage in attribution ?
I know the Merionettes will claim that these were humble people, but, that's nonsense, they aren't the ones writing the minutes, and it seems more than odd that credit wouldn't be given where credit was due. People, even humble people, appreciate recognition for a job well done, especially amongst their peers. To give blanket credit, almost equally, seems unrealistic or perhaps communistic.
Francis downplays his role, which would mean that someone else's role had to be expanded, no ?
It seems strange, if not bizarre that a "committee" is referenced, as if they all had a simultaneous epiphany, that they all had the same idead at the same time, and, we know that doesn't happen amongst five individuals engaged in a creative process.
It seems more likely, that when other outside parties do the heavy lifting, then you credit the committee, equally, for their efforts.
So, you have to ask yourself, absent specific details, if the club wasn't just recognizing the committee for successfully accomplishing the OVERALL mission, even though each member didn't craft the routing or the specific hole designs.
As for the placement of bunkers subsequent to Wilson's trip to the UK in 1912, their location was almost pre-determined by default.
Were they going to place the bunkers 20 yards off the tee ?
40 yards from the green ?
I see the bunker placement nothing more than finishing details with the general locations predetermined by the configuration of the holes. Holes that existed prior to the trip to the UK.
If someone, somewhere, said, Francis really routed and designed the course and the committee tagged along, I could buy that easier than I can accept that this committee of five individuals, had each individual contribute EQUALLY in the routing and hole designs such that they got equal credit and that they were in perfect harmony on the routing of the course and design of each hole.
I have a conceptual problem with the structure, format and total lack of attribution, thereby, by default, giving credit to the "committee".
I know you'll come back and state that the records show that Wilson is given the lion's share of the credit.
BUT, only in vague terms, never with specific detail, and that's what troubles me.
And, it should trouble you too.
-
Pat,
In reading the crazy theories of you three guys, I'm "troubled" all right but it has nothing to do with Hugh Wilson. ;)
-
Patrick,
Haughty indignation and sarcasm are Mike's way of admitting that Merion's Minutes do not even mention the so-called Construction Committee, so the Minutes couldn't possibly indicate that so-called Construction Committee planned the course.
_____________________________________________
Bryan,
Have you by chance considered how many of the other of CBM's Alps Holes could be really great when Merion's 10th hole was only the second CBM Alps hole?
Thanks.
-
Patrick,
Prudent Man evidence? In my honest opinion, we have decades of it.
I look to motivation - Why would Merion not want to credit CBM? It'd be like any club built in the last 30 years saying their course was designed by their own members instead of a Doak/Dye/Nicklaus/Hanse/C&C/etc.
Ok - Back to lurking.
-
Patrick,
Prudent Man evidence? In my honest opinion, we have decades of it.
I look to motivation - Why would Merion not want to credit CBM? It'd be like any club built in the last 30 years saying their course was designed by their own members instead of a Doak/Dye/Nicklaus/Hanse/C&C/etc.
Ok - Back to lurking.
Merion did credit CBM. Robert Lesley said CBM and HJW advised the committee on how to lay out the course on the ground. Hugh Wilson trips all over himself crediting CBM. Even Merion's minutes credit CBM and repeatedly so, and they don't bother to even mention Wilson or his committee. Just because you guys ignore and/or twist all of these doesn't mean that Merion didn't credit CBM and HJW.
So ask yourself your same question, how come Merion's records, especially their contemporaneous minutes, don't even mention Wilson?
-
Wilson "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot [at Prestwick.]
But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
Bryan,
Could you address the question I asked in the context of the four possibilities.
Thanks.
Mike, you're welcome to answer as well.
Jeff & Bryan,
I'd like to try to get clarification on your positions on the above quote.
To provide some context,
The Findlay quote was published in June of 1912, which means it was probably written earlier, perhaps prior to May of 1912.
Wilson didn't return from the UK until May of 1912.
CBM hadn't completed any other courses by June of 1912.
In the first sentence, can we agree that Findlay is stating that the 10th hole at Merion, the Alps, is underwhelming in its present form ?
In light of the time frame listed above is your contention:
1. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing NGLA ?
2. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other "Alps" holes at other CBM courses ?
3. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at other CBM courses ?
4. With respect to the second sentence, do you think Findlay is referencing other holes at Merion ?
Would you agree, that the time line doesn't support # 2 and # 3, hence they can be eliminated.
Leaving # 1 and # 4.
Findlay clearly states in his first sentence, that he's referencing the 10th "Alps" at Merion.
Why would he suddenly switch gears and start referencing OTHER holes at NGLA ?
Everyone was already aware of the qualitiy of the holes at NGLA, that's one of the reasons the committee visited NGLA earller that year.
It makes far, far more sense that he's referencing OTHER holes at Merion, as laid out by Macdonald,
But, I would like to hear your take in light of the time line
-
An entry in the November 23, 1914 board minutes does mention Wilson and his contributions, upon the resignation of Hugh Wilson as Chairman of the Green Committee:
―The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was
presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution
was adopted:
RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson‘s resignation as Chairman of the Green
Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service
rendered by him to the Club in the laying out and supervision of the construction of the
East and West Golf Courses.
You can keep saying that there is no mention in the minutes of Wilson designing the course, but there it is. Wilson told us he went to NGLA in March 1911 (Oakley letter) and the minutes refer to that trip, again saying "the committee" which was presumably shorter than listing them all by name, so we know they reference him on that trip.
As to why there is no more mention in the contemporaneous minutes, I don't know. I can't compare Merions notes to other minutes on other subjects, nor can I compare them to minutes of other similar clubs.
Also, it appears Alan Wilson't letter is the source of the confusion on the timing of Hugh's trip. Did he write that, and why? Did someone get a clumisly worded letter from Alan, and edit is slightly, inserting his logic of what must have happened -i.e., it "must have been that Wilson went abroad first"?
No doubt its a bit frustrating, or we wouldn't be here, but to answer Patrick's question, I would be more inclined to think about your question after you explain why you cannot interpret things from the minutes like "we rearranged the course upon our return" as them preparing routings?
And, Alan Wilson tells us that Hugh Wilson's committee was responsible for the design in his 1926, so we can easily infer that Wilson was involved in the many routings and even surer, the five plans upon return.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I thought you were no longer posting for your buddies, and that you admitted it was wrong to do so? Yet here you are posting for your buddies again. Why am I not surprised?
Anyway, you and your buddy have a funny way of reading these things.
Most importantly, we have your slight-of-hand with laid out versus designed. You use them interchangeably, but Merion knew there was a difference between planning the layout and laying out the course. In Lesley's April 1911 report, Merion wanted to "lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved . . . ." So, as I wrote in my IMO, Wilson and his Committee laid out the course according to plan. In Merion's case, planning the course and laying out the course were two separate steps.
Now that Merion has settled this sticky issue for us, why don't you turn your attention to who came up with the plan? Because I've never disputed that it was Wilson who laid it out according to that plan.
As for the rest, your interpretations are well short of reasonable mainly because TEPaul has acknowledged that shortly before the planning, Wilson was put on a committee other than the "Construction Committee." While I'd consider evidence to the contrary, I doubt you can establish that the construction committee was even created until - you guessed it - construction began. If so, is unreasonable to equate Wilson's involvement with that of the construction committee.
You knock me for coming up with my own interpretations instead of blindly accepting yours, but is this really all you've got? Surely you cannot expect me to agree when you try and play me for a fool?
When are you going to state your case as to why the Construction Committee ought to be credited with planning the course, as opposed to laying it out according to that plan.
-
David,
Good morning and Happy Fathers Day. Despite you being a generally disagreeable person here, I have heard from people that know you that you are indeed a good father.
As to your contentions, given the reaches you make in your process, I don't think its a big reach to presume that the committee was formed in early 1911 as reported, and that in February, Wilson was signing for the construction committee that he headed. And while the minutes are short on listing credit, for whatever reason, which may be why Merion kept asking for remembrances, the committee, as listed by the same names as the construction committee members, is credited for layout and design, and concieving the holes, (BTW, when they mention the National and CBM in the minutes, they don't actually say CBM designed that either, just conceived and constructed, same words they use for Wilson often).
You know your narrow definition of "laying out" is tenuous, given the many ways it was used back then.
We have no obligation to accept that.
BTW, the more I think about it, the more I think some brain power ought to be applied to the contention of any other CBM involvement other than what is listed (where multiple sources say the committee (which committee can be in doubt, if you like) did the plans, and CBM approved.
I am going to breakfast with my kids right now, so more later.
-
Okay, back from breakfast...(burp)
This whole charade has been about discounting certain items in favor of others. I find myself questioning how the 3M's who "won't exclude" the possibility of missing records showing voluminous phone calls and correspondance between CBM and Merion can somehow feel the whole record of the Construction Committee might be partial.
The board minutes record what the boards business is, which is to approve or dissaprove what other committees and sub committees recommend. And they record that. The committees probably kept their own records, and we know Wilson was a voluminous writer, but that the only reason we have the agronomy letters is because they saved them in DC. I suspect that Wilson kept better records than the committee, but they seem to have been lost to history.
I have not had email or phone contact with anyone from Philly, and posted last night when I got off the plane, copying and pasting the obvious to refute a point. That David (as he so often does) would start with an insult, and then follow with a lie (that I am posting for the Merionettes) it says only things about his character and method. Pehaps we should just apply the Moronic method like they do to everything Merion ever wrote - bascially saying if one thing is a lie or incorrect, then we have to throw out everything they say. In this case, I think its apt.
Lastly, I think some brain power ought to once again be applied to David and Pat's supposition that CBM was involved a lot prior to November 1910. Ask this:
Would Merion, in those days of proper decorum, have asked one of the most important men in golf to route them a course before they had the land or before the members had voted to even fund the project? Wouldn't that be a collossal waste of CBM's time?
Why route before then? Why route before the Dallas Estate was secured in October?
Why would CBM route before the land was secured from a developer, having been rejected by a developer on his own 120 acre parcel at NGLA?
Its not hard to think CBM wouldn't waste a minute of time until the parcel was secured, the members had financed the project, etc. Even if he wanted to further golf in america by helping other clubs, he was no fool and there would be no reason for him to put in his time in a busy personal period (getting NGLA open) for a club that hadn't even formally decided itself to move forward with the project.
And, once that sets the time frame, we cannot ignore that the minutes do say that Merion prepared plans before and after the NGLA meeting, as has always been written. While the minutes clumisly say "CBM's plans" which you can stretch and twist again by separating what they are talking about when English says they should be related (plans and data in that case, Alps holes being compared to Alps holes in Findlay's article) Hugh Wilson actually tells us again in his 1916 report that they were looking at CBM's GBI data and not his routing for Merion. So, there you have two sources that say the bulk of the time at NGLA was spent getting ideas (not plans) from CBM.
This argument only keeps going because David and TMac simply say there is no mention of Merion routing and designing its own course, with CBM as an advisor. Hard to argue when you point something out, and they ignore it completely to further their agenda.
-
Jeff,
My problems with the 1914 minutes you cite are:
1. They're not contemporaneous with design & construction
2. It's akin to a retirement tribute and being given a gold watch
3. There's no specifics, only reference to "invaluable service"
You have to ask, why, for four years, from 1910 to 1914, are there no minutes detailing Wilson's specific activities.
In a project I was involved with, the monthly board minutes go into great detail regarding the project and its progress. In addition, each month, as Chairman, I authored a letter to the membership detailing the project and progress to date.
Yet, from 1910 to 1914 the minutes are silent with respect to Wilson's involvement and there's nothing in the way of reports or status updates
from Wilson to the Board and/or the membership.
As I reflect on why there's this void, one possible explanation is that they ceded the project task to CBM.
It would be akin to ceding the project authority to you, an outsider.
As an outsider, I wouldn't expect you, or any outside vender/contractor to prepare reports for the board/membership.
Wouldn't you agree ?
In addition, Alan Wilson's recollection and attribution occurred in 1926.
Findlay's attribution is CONTEMPORANEOUS
I wouldn't expect you to write reports/letters to the membership or board.
-
Pat,
If CBM had been called in as a "friendly adviser" whenever a major course was under construction in the east and midwest by 1905, how can you possibly tell us you know how many Alps holes Findlay may have known he was responsible for by 1912?
CBM's interest in the great holes abroad goes back to the turn of the last century and many early *merican courses had holes call Alps.
Besides, that's not what i think Findlay was referring to but the point is that you are making declarative statements with no real knowledge of what CBM had built or not at that point.
And by the way, if CBM laid out the holes on the ground at Merion, what did Pickering and Wilson's Committee do?
-
Patrick,
It does give specifics of the valuble service - for laying out and supervising construction of both the east and west courses. And for word parsers out there, I wonder if laying out only means laying out to others plans on the ground, would they write "constructing to a plan and supervising construction?"
I don't doubt that some places might go into great detail and read montly reports into the record, so I understand your concerns there. But, we certainly don't know if its a standard SOP, do we? As I mentioned, it appears Wilson did keep a lot of records (the Oakley letters) that are now lost because we could only get them because Oakley saved them.
BTW, most of my contracts do require some kind of periodic reporting to the board or at least greens committee. I don't really know if those make it into official minutes or not. I cannot recall them doing so, but then again, I have no occaision to read country club minutes.
As to the part about 1926 vs Findlay, I have already agreed that we know the committee recollections (or whoever edited Alan's letter, if any) were wrong on the date of the Wilson trip. However, think of anything you may have written (including point by point posts here!). I think most points were probably right, but a few wrong.
In other words, I don't think it logically follows that they forget there were two committees or that the contents of that letter are not to be trusted because of one error, whose source we don't know. It is a source, and certainly a reliable one, especially if we are to consider HJW reliable from many years later, no?
-
Patrick,
Merion was first and foremost a Cricket Club.
Perhaps if we had the Minutes of every one of Lesley's Golf Committee minutes im pretty sure they'd include much detail, but we dont.
Remember that Wilson's committee reported up to a standing golf committee.
Things rising to MCC Board of Governor's level were clearly for decision-.aking...not for detailed discussion, documentation, and transcription.
-
Happy Fathers Day to the 4Ms.
;) ;D
-
Joe, thanks.
And to all of you Mother's out there, Happy Father's Day ;D
Mike Cirba,
You might want to read what Merion's (Cricket & Golf) websites have to say about their history.
At most clubs, the governing body is the board, usually comprised of 12 members plus the President (to break ties)
Other clubs may have different configurations in terms of numbers.
Usually, in order to be a committee chair, you must be a board member.
There are exceptions.
Committee Chairs are responsible for their department.
Part of each Board meeting is the Committee Chair's report to the Board members.
They usually report on activities in their department, their department's committee meeting and/or anything scheduled for reporting.
At some Board meetings there's nothing to report.
Some committees have more activities than others.
The House committee is almost perpetually active as is the Green committee.
The notion that a Green or Construction Committee wouldn't report in the beginning, midst or end of a major project in progress is so alien to the conduct of club business, so alien to the process that it seems beyond belief.
Yet, you seem content that a four year void is SOP, when nothing could be further from the truth.
As an active Committee Chair in the midst of a major project you'd have an obligation to give progress reports to the Board and Membership. Yet none seem to exist.
And, that doesn't strike you as unusual ?
It doesn't raise any red flags ?
If you were doing all the work, why wouldn't you report to the board ?
Why wouldn't you give updated status reports, including the financials associated with the project ?
And that doesn't trouble you because you blindly follow the myth, not wanting to question anything that seems odd.
OK, I can understand blind allegiance as an emotional response, but, not as an intellectual response.
-
Patrick,
Good evening and I hope you enjoyed your Fathers Day.
But, one question...why the use of phrases like "you should be very troubled" and "That should raise red flags?"
Sounds ominous. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying Merion did something unseemly in their business 100 years ago? Sure sounds like it. Could be they just lost some records. Or, they just don't report up to what you think are proper standards. I really don't know which, but do understand how your experience on club boards brings you to your questions.
As a corrollary, why does it not bother you to think there may be missing club records out there that point to CBM as designer, but sound so ominous when there may be records out there to back up the known records that generally point to HW, with CBM as advisor?
It seems you are more easily convinced by a total lack of evidence than some sketchy evidence and records. Sorry to say, that just doesn't seem all that logical to me, but again, I also wish the Merion records were more complete. I just don't see where the lack of completeness signals anything other than what is typical when looking through old stuff - we always wish there were more.
-
Patrick,
Good evening and I hope you enjoyed your Fathers Day.
But, one question...why the use of phrases like "you should be very troubled" and "That should raise red flags?"
Because the absence of progress reports is troubling.
Sounds ominous.
What exactly are you saying?
Are you saying Merion did something unseemly in their business 100 years ago?
Not at all.
What makes you think that ?
What I'm saying is quite simple.
A club undertakes a major project.
Yet, for that major undertaking there are no detailed committee reports for four years, no progress reports, no financial reports, nothing.
In one's capacity as a committee chair, the reporting function is SOP.
If Wilson was the committee chair for a project to site, route, design and construct a new golf course why didn't he report the details of project's status on an ongoing basis ?
A reason that some may offer is that he either wasn't the committee chair in charge of site selection, routing and design, or he ceded those responsibilities to others, or a combination of the two.[/siize]
Sure sounds like it.
Only if you're predisposed to think that way.
Could be they just lost some records.
That's very true and a distinct possibility.
But, others have suggested that Merion's archives are intact.
Or, they just don't report up to what you think are proper standards.
For four years ?
I doubt it.
I would think that a club populated with very successful business people would keep meticulous records, if not at the committee level, certainly at the Board level. That's almost inherent in club culture.
I really don't know which, but do understand how your experience on club boards brings you to your questions.
I think one of the by-laws that I most favor is the access to board minutes by any member.
Now, I've seen board minutes "sanitized" but, generally, each committee chair's report is recorded for a number of valid reasons.
So, I'm puzzled by their absence in this instance, especially with such a significant project.
It's not like they're periodically repainting the pool or resurfacing the tennis courts or performing routine maintainance.
This was a major undertaking and for the alleged chairman in charge of the entire project, soup to nuts, to not have submitted any detailed reports to the board strikes me as very unusual. It could lead one to believe that perhaps the critical areas of the project had been delegated to others, such as CBM, Pickering and other experts.
As a corrollary, why does it not bother you to think there may be missing club records out there that point to CBM as designer, but sound so ominous when there may be records out there to back up the known records that generally point to HW, with CBM as advisor?
That's pretty much your agenda driven conclusion.
It bothers me that there may be significant missing records, irrespective of who they point to, regarding the designer of Merion.
I've rarely sat in on a board meeting where a significant project was in the undertaking, and the entire Board agreed on every facet of the project, especially the financial aspects..
Yet, that seems to be what's being represented here.
Surely there were those with differing opinions, yet, there's no record of dissention or unanymity.
And that strikes me as highly unusual.
Jeff, think about it. Four years and nary a report from the alleged chairman of the entire project, soup to nuts.
What Board would tolerate that ?
What membership would tolerate that ?
I'll bet you that when Hanse and Fazio were being considered and retained by Merion, that the Board minutes are pretty detailed and indicative of what occured, soup to nuts.
I don't think that Merion just began recording board minutes when they got their new Ipads.
It seems you are more easily convinced by a total lack of evidence than some sketchy evidence and records.
Again, that's your agenda driven conclusion.
I'm convinced that Findlay knew what he was talking about in his contemporaneous writings.
Writings that would have been immediately refuted if they were in error.
The lack of committee reports, and accompanying board minutes is troubling when you consider that committee reports and board minutes are routinely recorded. You know that, yet act as if their absence is nothing out of the ordinary, OR, could possibly be explained by someone else being delegated the responsibility of routing and design.
Sorry to say, that just doesn't seem all that logical to me,
That's because you're predisposed and don't want to take a step back and view the absence of committee reporting and recording of Board minutes on a major project from your own practical experience. You're looking at this emotionally, not intellectually.
but again, I also wish the Merion records were more complete.
I agree, and perhaps one day the missing holes will be filled in.
But, you also have to consider that maybe the minutes aren't mssing because Wilson's responsibility was in the construction end, not the site location, routing and design of the golf course, and as such,, that would explain why he didn't file reports and why the Board minutes don't reflect his activities in that area.
I just don't see where the lack of completeness signals anything other than what is typical when looking through old stuff - we always wish there were more.
Jeff, it's such a huge departure from SOP.
You don't embark on a major project, name a chairman to steer that project and then not have him report on an ongoing basis regarding the status of that project. You don't embark on a major project, make the financial committment and then go silent at the Board level.
You and I may differ on why, for four (4) years, there's no formal record in either committee reports or Board minutes,
But, I think a prudent person has to question their absence in the context of the Chairman's responsibilities.
-
Pat,
Near the end, you make my point. There is a lack of record from Wilson, for reasons unknown. However, there is a lack of records whether he was in charge of only construction, or was also heavily involved in the design, no?
And, after all, there is a report saying the committee did many plans, and rearranged them to five plans. The lack of documentation seems to start later, and the only things we have are Oakley's copies of Hugh's letters.
Even if the only record points, in your mind, to some other committee being involved in the design and routing of the golf course while at NGLA (which I doubt, but whatever) I ask how that would affect the conclusion that Hugh Wilson was "in the main" responsible for both golf courses? Whatever committee it was, the minutes that are there say they drew many plans, and they revised the plans. And we know Wilson was at that NGLA meeting, no matter what committee he was participating on, because he told Oakely so in a letter four days later.
The only reasonable area of debate is what really happened at NGLA and what "approved" means. Some on the "Merion side" parse the words to say they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes. Others say they HAD to have talked about Merion's routing, and/or CBM had to prepare it. I am sort of in the middle.
I don't think your characteriszation of me having an agenda is fair, but if you want to see an agenda driven person, hold up a mirror! Again, while MCC should ideally have records of each comittee in detail, I would suspect that they would also have records of EVERY contact with CBM (and actually, I think they do). Not sure we can draw a conclusion based on what records seem to have survived, just because we don't know why we don't have them.
(You may be right that some say the record is in tact, but I don't recall it that way - I thought I had read somewhere there was some damage while in an old attic, but I just don't recall clearly)
Sleep well.
-
.
Peter
-
Peter,
Generally, i agree, but could you elaborate? ;)
-
Pat,
Near the end, you make my point. There is a lack of record from Wilson, for reasons unknown. However, there is a lack of records whether he was in charge of only construction, or was also heavily involved in the design, no?
The record states that he was in charge of construction
It seems strange that you'd appoint someone to be in charge of construction if his duties extended to site location, routing and design.
If however, the site was selected, and the routing and design delegated to others, then appointing HW in charge of construction makes all the sense in the world
And, after all, there is a report saying the committee did many plans, and rearranged them to five plans. The lack of documentation seems to
start later, and the only things we have are Oakley's copies of Hugh's letters.
The vague nature of the references to the committee and the lack of detail regarding the crafting of any of the plans is troublesome.
One would think that each step would have been carefully documented at the committee and Board level.
Is it reasonable to conclude that the absence of documentation is an indication that aspects of the project were sub-contracted out to outside
sources ?
Yet, Findlay's contemporaneous account seems to be ignored or deeply discounted by some
Even if the only record points, in your mind, to some other committee being involved in the design and routing of the golf course while at NGLA
(which I doubt, but whatever) I ask how that would affect the conclusion that Hugh Wilson was "in the main" responsible for both golf courses?
It's akin to the difference between a contractor and a construction manager.
Put another way, let's look at a modern day example.
Arthur Goldberg, Chairman of Bally's/Hilton wanted to create a golf course to attract gamblers.
The project got underway and a glitch occurred resulting in the discharge of the architect, putting the project in jeopardy.
Arthur Goldberg then put The Head Professional in charge, told him to complete the project with one warning, that he better not screw things up.
So, Billy Ziobro was the project chair. So what did he do ? He went out and hired a professional architect, one of the recognized experts at
that. Point in time. The professional architect rerouted and redesigned the golf course. Contractors were retained for the earth work, grassing,
irrigation, etc., etc.. Billy was in charge, in a role comparable to a chairman, but the actual work was delegated to experts in their respective
fields. Billy was responsible for the project, and offered ideas, but it was the outside professionals who routed and designed the holes and
features. Why wouldn't Wilson's role be similar ? And, upon completion, wouldn't you give him all the credit as project chairman ?
Whatever committee it was, the minutes that are there say they drew many plans, and they revised the plans. And we know Wilson was at that
NGLA meeting, no matter what committee he was participating on, because he told Oakely so in a letter four days later.
:).
Jeff, again you have to ask: in what capacity ? As the committee chair ?
Or as the person actually creating and crafting the routing and individual hole designs ?
I doubt, give the time frames that Wilson was skilled and knowledgeable enough to start designing individual holes and figuring out how to fit
them into a routing plan, especially when some of those holes were templates.
I think a more reasoned account is that Wilson was the equivalent of the construction manager and not the party routing the course and
designing the individual holes and features
I think he orchestrated the creation of Merion, much like Billy Ziobro did, as project managers, NOT practicing architects
The only reasonable area of debate is what really happened at NGLA and what "approved" means. Some on the "Merion side" parse the words
to say they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes. Others say they have to have talked about Merion's routing, and/or CBM had to prepare it. I am sort
of in the middle.
I'm of the opinion that Wilson was acting as the Chairman of the committee and "MANAGING the project, and that CBM was doing the routing
and hole designs
I don't think your characteriszation of me having an agenda is fair, but if you want to see an agenda driven person, hold up a mirror! Again, while
MCC should ideally have records of each comittee in detail, I would suspect that they would also have records of EVERY contact with CBM (and
actually, I think they do).
Jeff, I say that because I sensed an unwillingness to take a step back and view the issues from a practical and real world perspective.
As to the contacts with CBM, I disagree. Why would they have direct contact with CBM if that was the Chairman's job ?
Let's go back to Billy Ziobro and Arthur Goldberg.
Vendors, contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, etc, etc., didn't report to Arthur Golberg, much the same as CBM wouldn't report to the President and/or Board. When I was in charge of a similar project, NO ONE reported to the President and/or Board, they all reported to me. I in
turn reported to the Board
Not sure we can draw a conclusion based on what records seem to have survived, just because we don't know why we don't have them.
So, do you rely solely on Findlay's contemporaneous account until those records show up ?
You can't rule out the practical application of how projects are structured, implemented, conducted, financed and reported.
You have to look at practical application in the real world, and as such it's my belief that Wilson was the project chairman whose recorded responsibility was to construct the golf course.
I also think, as chairman, that he oversaw the routing and design phase at the hands of CBM
The journey to find the facts doesn't take one path and when documents don't exist that conclusively prove a premise to the exclusion of all
others, you have to consider other, very real possibilities
(You may be right that some say the record is in tact, but I don't recall it that way - I thought I had read somewhere there was some damage
while in an old attic, but I just don't recall clearly)
I don't recall either
But, give some thought to how you see projects managed in the real world and then consider my thoughts on how a project of this magnitude would be planned and managed when the responsibility at the club level was delegated to rank amateurs with little or no prior experience
Then think......... What did Billy Ziobro do ? What would any prudent novice do ?
They'd go out and hire on of the best in the field and that's what I think Merion did
Sleep well.
You too
Tomorrow I have a major fund raising event for cancer research.
Our funding has allowed Dr Larry Norton and his team of researchers to craft the "Self-Seeding" theory, which may be a major break through in how cancer spreads, and as such, how it may be countered
-
The hypocrisy here is palpable.
Merion's own internal records put CBM and HJW squarely in the thick of the planning, from helping choose the land, to advising Merion how they should lay out their course, to choosing and approving the final layout plan. Yet we are told this is not enough to establish them as having planned the course with representatives of Merion.
Merion's own internal records never even mention the so-called Construction Committee, and never mention Hugh Wilson's role during the initial planning process. Yet we are told this is more than enough to establish that the Construction Committee and Hugh Wilson not only planned the course, they were "100%" responsible for planning the course.
In CBM's and HJW's case, we are told that had he planned the course there would surely be even more details of it in the Minutes. In Wilson's and the Committee's case we are told that it is unreasonable to expect such things to even have made it to the Minutes.
You guys cannot play by different rules than you impose on others. You don't begin to make a case for the Committee, and you barely begin to make a case that Wilson was even involved in the planning.
Just look at the level of proof you require of CBM's and HJW's involvement in comparison to the level of proof you accept for Wilson and the Committee. It is a joke.
-
This argument only keeps going because David and TMac simply say there is no mention of Merion routing and designing its own course, with CBM as an advisor. Hard to argue when you point something out, and they ignore it completely to further their agenda.
The argument continues because the story that the committee, led by Wilson, were chosen to design what was to be a course second to none makes no sense. And the evidence you present you claim proves it is extremely weak, and the best evidence, in particular Wilson's letters and his own account, tell a much different story. At some point you must interject logic into this exercise.
IMO Alan Wilson got the chronology of events exactly right, Hugh Wilson began to exert his design influence after he returned from Europe.
-
Patrick,
Good to see you are spending the day doing something more important. Godspeed, and you have inspired me to do the same.
David,
I have admitted that the record is inconsistent. I presume it usually is. So, you can have your interpretations.
TMac,
I really disagree with your repeated hypotheisis that we need to inject logic rather than just interpret what they said happened. As I mentioned earlier, I get the impression that someone edited Alan Wilson's letter, inserting the fact that it "made more sense" that Hugh went to GBI first, and thus, some historical non facts got perpetuated. I feel like your contentions risk doing the same. As Pat said recently, you just really don't know and can't try to figure out what a board was doing.
At least, I know that no one has died and made either one of us King, so that the minions have to act the way we think they ought to act! They did what they did, not what you think they ought to have done.
-
3Ms
The fact is, it is very well recorded precisely what CBM and Whigham did for Merion, and in truth, it wasn't much.
You can continue to try to turn a molehill into a mountain, but the vast majority of onlookers here see you agendas clearly and aren't buying it.
-
Mike,
Repeating hollow words doesn't work with anyone, and certainly not this forum
-
Pat,
Good morning.
Hey, isn't it time all of us involved in this silly, unprovable, unwinnable argument admit we are full of crap?
Just saying.
-
Pat,
If you ever find any evidence that CBM did something worthy of our further consideration, we're all ears.
Til then...
-
Mike,
You are a bit too black and white, IMHO, at least as it regards ending this before 100 pages!
It is a possibly worthy discussion as to whether CBM's contribution to Merion was greater by impact than by time spent. It may not have been initiated and continued by reasonable people.......
-
Jeff,
I agree, I think we need at least another 100 pages to hash thru Barker doing a prelim rough sketch routing for Connell, CBM sending a form letter, Wilson's committee spending overnite at NGLA and CBM's one-day April visit helping the Committee select the best of their five plans, never to be heard from or seen at Merion again.
With all of that evidence, I simply can't decide whether Barker or CBM should get the design attribution.
-
What was CBM’s contribution to Merion? Here is my take, including admitted speculation to what I believe is reasonable degree.
June 1910 Meeting
Most Certain
• Moved them from 100 Acres to 120 acres required.
• Showed them controlling land around proposed clubhouse was necessary (RR land)
• Discussed Importance of Grass and Agronomy, started them towards getting info from other committees (like Baltusrol) and soil tests
Less certain, but probable to possible
• Showed them Dallas Estate was required
• Wrote letter to “cover” their desire to buy Dallas Estate by recommending shorter course
• Set overall length of course at 6250 or so (despite letter recommending 6000)
March 1911 NGLA TripMost Certain
• Showed them his plans from GBI
• Showed them NGLA on the ground
• Discussed Grass and Agronomy and recommended Piper and Oakley (again)
• Suggested his favorite template holes for use in a general way
Less certain, but probable
• Reviewed “many routings” previously prepared, probably instructing them to start over
Less certain, but possible
• Put pencil to paper to get them started on their next five routings done after the trip.
• If routed to any degree at this time, then on at least a few holes, suggested his favorite template holes for use in a specific way
April Merion Trip
Most Certain
• Looked Over ground, suggested/selected/agreed/approved final routing developed by Merion Committee (or committees, if you prefer)
Less certain, but probable to possible
• On final routing, on at least a few holes, suggested his favorite template holes for use in a specific way on specific holes. (3, 10, etc.)
Less certain, but possible
• Looked Over ground, selected his own final routing developed without record by Merion
Based on what is written in the Merion records, I think the above is accurate, but as noted, perhaps CBM’s impact is greater by results than time spent.
No doubt that having 120 acres vs. 100 they had originally contemplated (and apparently agreed to by Barker assuming his routing was on 100 acres) was a huge step in the right direction, as was all his advice in the June 2010 meeting, since they really knew little about course design and at that time – site selection.
I believe that he had to have been presented and looked at their initial routing efforts when they went to NGLA and showed them they were inadequate, and gave general advice that they used in their next 5 routings. Whether he put any pencil to paper to show them in even a more direct way, we may never know.
While there for the day, they probably discussed where the various hole concepts, Alps, Redan, etc. should go. That only four got put in initially, and that some of those got remodeled very soon, says that CBM suggested, maybe all 18, but after he left, they felt free to follow their own path, make their own decisions. This alone explains why they don’t really look like CBM/Raynor greens from the same era., even if a few were calledcx by the same name for a design concept.
I will say I believe Hugh was interested in design before taking the committee position, and had natural talent. Just as some shoot 70 first time out because of inherent talent, there is no reason to doubt he had both talent and interest in design, given he got better the next time out, but was pretty darn good overall. It didn’t magically appear on the West course – his talent just got more refined, as would happen with any designer.
When he came back, I don’t think we know how settled Merion was on their final routing. Francis obviously recalled the swap as being definitive (both for the first 13 holes and the last five) so CBM could have been anything from a rubber stamp, to a tweak, to a wholesale combination of several plans they had already prepared.
I do not think anything in the record shows there was EVER a formal routing plan by CBM, nor do I think he actually ever prepared one. I especially do not thing he did anything prior to Nov 1910, beause there is no record of it, and it would have bee very rude of Merion to ask an important and busy guy to route a course when they din't have the land tied up, and hadn't figured out a funding mechanism. It would have been a collossal wate of CBM's time. Not to mention there wasn't much time between tying up the Dalllas estate and presenting to the membership.
So, what does all that mean? I think David was basically wrong, wrong, wrong, but others are free to hold on to their opinions. He showed his bias by naming his essay "Missing faces of Merion" and wrote it despite NOT knowing that they had properly credited him at the time. The rest is all face saving rubbish, but again, he is entitled to his opinion.
Okay, thats a lunch hour I won't get back!
-
David,
I have admitted that the record is inconsistent. I presume it usually is. So, you can have your interpretations.
The record is inconsistent? What does that mean? And whatever it means, why don't you apply it equally both ways?
Merion's record is NOT inconsistent in a few important areas. The record consistently discussed CBM and HJW as having played key roles in planning the course, from choosing the land, from suggesting the hole distances, from telling Merion how to lay out the course on Merion's land, from again going over the land and deciding upon and approving the final routing.
Merion's record is also is consistent in that it consistently neglects to include the "construction committee" in any of the planning process, and it consistently neglects to mention Hugh Wilson's involvement in the early planning.
The only thing INCONSISTENT is the way you, the Fakers, and their Merionette apply the facts. You require absolute proof beyond any doubt (even if unreasonable) from me, yet you take your own affirmative theory mostly on faith. And you continue to hold up mere possibilities and wishful thinking, as if mere possibilities and wishful thinking trumps what is most likely to have happened.
____________________________________________
As for your breakdown of CBM/HJW's role, above, I disagree with many things on your breakdown, and think you leave a lot off, but I nonetheless appreciate the honest effort you made to break down their role at the various stages of the process. But we've beat this to death already and it is time to move on.
To be consistent, why don't you do the same thing with the Construction Committee and With Hugh Wilson? Only list the specific facts on which you base your conclusions.
We've beat my claims to death. I am interested in your affirmative claims, and application of the same degree of rigor and skepticism to your claims as you applied to mine.
Thanks.
-
TMac,
I really disagree with your repeated hypotheisis that we need to inject logic rather than just interpret what they said happened. As I mentioned earlier, I get the impression that someone edited Alan Wilson's letter, inserting the fact that it "made more sense" that Hugh went to GBI first, and thus, some historical non facts got perpetuated. I feel like your contentions risk doing the same. As Pat said recently, you just really don't know and can't try to figure out what a board was doing.
At least, I know that no one has died and made either one of us King, so that the minions have to act the way we think they ought to act! They did what they did, not what you think they ought to have done.
Jeff
They edited his letter? Who edits another man's letter? That sounds a little far fetched to me. To my knowledge that letter never made the light of day so there would be no reason to edit it....as unlikely as that scenario sounds.
Interpretations are not really worth considering if they are not grounded in basic logic and sound judgment. As an example at one point Mike was convinced Wilson traveled to Europe in 1910 via Argentina. There is tendency when one gets emotionally invested in these legends to suspend normal logical thought.
Speaking of which, when Wilson traveled to the UK in 1912 did he do it on his own or did the club send him? What was the purpose of that trip?
-
Pat,
Good morning.
Hey, isn't it time all of us involved in this silly, unprovable, unwinnable argument admit we are full of crap?
Just saying.
I understand.
You called Mike too "black and white".
Mike's in lockstep with the Merionettes and won't consider other reasoned possibilities,
What's really amazing and funny is that Mike started this thread and now wants to cut it off.
If he no longer wants to participate, that's his perogative, but, he should stop trying to stifle others.
We each have our beliefs, Mike's at one extreme with the Merionettes, David and Tom MacWood at the other.
You're probably in the middle and I'm probably between you and David, but, probably closer to David.
Over and over I've asked myself, why would Findlay write what he did if it wasn't true ?
And, if it wasn't true, where was the immediate refutation from reliable sources ?
To date, none has been presented.
Since Findlay's written statement was contemporaneous, and not years after the fact, it would seem to be the most reliable.
P.S.
We raised over $ 600,000 today for Dr Larry Norton's "self-seeding" project at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, so, it was a great day for everyone. Hopefully, through research, cancer will be curable, not after the diagnosis, but, prior to diagnosis through preventive measures. Great strides have already been made, and are continuing to be made, in this area. Several physician's spoke and provided an update on the status of several of the projects currently under funding. What's great about this endeavor is that the money raised goes directly to research without being filtered or diluted vis a vis administrative costs.
-
Wilson's trip took place in April 1912. The golf course was constructed in the Spring and Summer of 1911, and seeded in the Fall of '11. This is information I've gathered about that trip:
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out holes, through the kindness of Messrs. CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through Sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with out natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings." ~~Hugh Wilson's account in 1916
"The land for the East course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and whole largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this this and the West course." ~~Alan Wilson's account in 1926
"Dear Sir: Your letter of the 10th instant addressed to Mr. Hugh I Wilson is received. Mr. Wilson is making a hurried trip to Europe and in his absence I am acknowledging your containing the reports." ~~ A letter from Richard Francis to Oakley from 4/11/1912 (mistakenly dated 1911)
"Mr. Hugh G Wilson is on a visit to this country obtaining an idea of the chief features of some of our great holes. Mr. Charles B Macdonald was on the same mission some years ago and the result of his work is embodied in the National golf Links, at New York."
~~Golf Monthly, British golf magazine, from May 1912
"The golfers of the Merion Cricket Club now claim to have the best course in Philadelphia. They formally opened it yesterday...Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course, and helped largely in the planning of the holes." ~~ Philadelphia Inquirer 9/15/1912
If anyone has anything else to add regarding this trip feel free to add it. Based on what you've read, what was the purpose of Wilson's trip?
-
Tom and David - do you have any examples where a "consultant" like CBM would have helped a club lately - say, in the last 25 years? I'm trying to relate your thesis to more contemporary times? Only reason I'm asking is that it may help understanding on both sides of the discussion.
-
It was a completely different era...perhaps Desmond Muirhead at Muirfield Village. That may be a good example for a couple of reasons, many believe Muirhead originally routed and designed MV, and over the years Nicklaus has completely overhauled the course and Muirhead's name is rarely brought up in connection with it.
-
TMac,
My understanding was that Desmond did the routing and grading and JN consulted at that point of his career. DM was a full fledge gca. Not too many real comparisons, given there are so few owner designed golf courses. What was the one in Myrtle Beach where Rees claims to have routed it, but the Owner maintains it was a self design? (Tidewater?) That might be the best example.
As to our other debate, it can sure go both ways - logic or bias? You see the bias in the Philly claims, and I see the bias you bring to Merion because of your long held belief in promoting lesser known architects like Barker. Both are true to a degree, and I am sure that keeping bias out of the thought process is a problem for any sort of history interpretation, and unavoidable givne we are human.
As to a possible edit of Wilson's letter, I was only throwing out a few scenarios as to how the obvious error in the Wilson timeline came about. Either Wilson wrote it without help and made an obvious mistake, or perhaps something happened after he submitted it. Logically, those are the only two things that could account for a mistake like that, unless after 14 years, Alan simply compressed the time frame a bit.
Or, as TePaul emailed this morning, we compress the timeframe a bit. When phrases like "prior to our work" were used, perhaps the fact that they delayed the full opening to 1913 to account for the feature changes Hugh Wilson made in the spring of 1912 after his trip, they simply saw the rough drafts of the holes as just that - rough drafts that were intended to be changed after the Wilson trip, with Pickering instituting the changes later, just as Findlay reported. It appears to me that this was just THEIR perspective and that the "real" feature design occurred more in 1912 than during initial construction in 1911.
Pat, congratulations for finding a better use for your time than these threads.
David, I agree its time to put this to bed (and not trying to stifle anyone, if they so choose.) Also, in looking back over my list, I did leave a few things out - the HJW ballpark cost estimate being one.
I won't go over any detailed summation of Wilson's role, believing that the one document we DO have that was written specifically to document the planning process (Lesley report) says the committee drew many plans. That is backed up by Wilson's Oakley contribution and later remincisenses by Alan Wilson and the Committee and even later by Francis. That is a string of participants involved in the process that say nearly the same thing, and according to the few sources on historic process I have consulted, contemporaneous beats later, participants trump outsiders (i.e. Findlay, etc.) and we can believe multiple recordings of that type show the truth.
If I seem to require more proof otherwise, its because I think that is our best source, and for every outside report that might be interpreted as something else, there is at least one that can be interpreted to support the insiders version. Given the primary sources seem consistent enough, is a one to one ratio of distant and/or outsider possible contradictions enought to sway our judgement? I think it would have to be nearly overwhelming, and not just occaisional and interpretation dependent.
That said, the meeting by meeting list sure shows the postive impact CBM had, starting with the site review in June 1910. For instance, had they stuck with Barker, who was apparently happy to route something in a day on the original 100 acres, the course would have been even more cramped, and not able to stretch to 6800 yards for the 2013 Open. So, that meeting alone allows CBM to affect history for just over 100 years, no small feat!
-
Jeff
The golf course was seeded in the Fall of 1911. Obviously the structure of the holes (greens, tees, and fairways) was in place in 1911 and we know those holes, at least a large percentage of them, were based on famous golf holes prototypical to CBM. Features could be added later no doubt, like hazards and so forth, but the basic structure was in place. Wilson traveled to the UK the following Spring.
What do you believe was the purpose of that trip?
-
TMac,
What is the purpose of your question? If you don't know the reason, I will repeat TePaul's email to your here, since its as good a summary as I could come up with, and has also been well known for 100 years:
It was to play golf and study golf course architecture for incoporation of features into the Merion golf course(s).
And, if you read my response, you would know that I surmise the intent was always to get something on the ground to satisfy the contract with HDC to produce a golf course ASAP, and for the features to be upgraded while time permits, which I think we all agree to. However, it simply appears to me that they figured they would seed what they had, and redo it in Spring of 1912 to meet a fall opening schedule. If they had planned on opening with whatever was grassed in 1911, they would more likely have announced a spring 1912 opening.
BTW, I don't think we know a "large percentage" of holes were based on CBM templates. We know four for sure, and can surmise a few others.
In other words, whatever the holes looked like for initial grassing in 1911, the plan was always for Hugh Wilson to flesh out the features after his trip to GBI and make that the true initial design for Merion and "finish them" in the spring of 1912, before opening.
While I have no doubt that they tried to get it right as they could in 1911, it is clear they anticipated redoing many, and had no problem with redoing features right from the get go. The 1911 versions were considered placeholders until Wilson got back. IMHO, any feature rebuilt in spring 1912, after rough in, but before scheduled opening in fall 1912 can be considered part of the original feature design. And, those were Wilson features based on his trip to GBI.
From Merion's perspective, I can see why they credited Hugh with the feature designs, given they always meant to change them based on his experience.
-
Wasn't the architecture of the golf course largely in place when he made that trip?
-
The routing was finalized and in place, of course. There were obviously greens, tees, and fw, maybe some bunkers. But, as I noted, it appears to be the plan that they would grass whatever they had in 1911 and make changes in early 1912 after Wilson returned. So my question is, was there anything they considered permanent in place in 1911?
Its an interesting interpretive scenario. There are a few Norman courses out there, built, but never opened until someone redid them from scratch. Does Norman get credit for features never played? In the case of Merion, we don't know for sure if any of the supposed CBM features ever got played, although I suspect some survived the first redo by Hugh in spring 1912.
In any event, its clear that Merion felt Wilson was responsible for the features based on the timeline, and rightfully so. For example, we know that the Redan "benefitted" from his trip, suggesting he made at least tweaks to even that CBM template hole.
And, its easy to see why Merion thought that they had routed their own course from the Lesley report - they prepared many plans, and showed them to CBM for confirmation they were on the right track, as they had done back in June with the site selection.
Your opinion may vary, of course.
-
I mentioned a while ago that some brainpower to assess the CBM perspective might help this discussion. After my last post, I specifically wonder if he would have given Merion his plans from GBI? Did he ever give them to any other club to copy? Would he, given he was simultaneously considering opening his own design practice with Raynor? There is no known record that I am aware of that he shared his plans and diagrams directly.
Did both CBM and Merion believe they would be better off copying originals from GBI rather than copying copies? BTW< Tom Doak has stated that this is the way to go, so they may have all been smart enough to realize this, especially since by this time, CBM had figured out you don't just copy, you adapt the principles, as he did at NGLA.
Interesting questions, but nothing in there suggests that CBM went to Merion to actually show them how to put whatever concepts he had on the ground, is there? And even Findlay's report right after Wilson returned says that they were going to put the finishing touches on the course later that fall, suggesting that if they considered the 1911 version to be final, they sure changed their minds when Wilson got back from his trip.
-
Your idea that they threw together a makeshift golf course to satisfy HDC makes no sense. The powers to be at Merion and HDC were one and the same. Besides they began selling lots before the course was ready for play. The plan at Merion was always to create a golf course second to none in America, and money was no issue. There is no evidence to support your theory of the design of the course being more or less half assed in 1911 and that they planned to do it the right way in 1912. Your theory defies logic.
There is no evidence to support your theory that they were approaching the grassing in a half assed manor too. Either the golf course was ready to be grassed or it wasn't, and so they seeded the course in the Fall of 1911 when it was ready. Based on the extensive Piper & Oakley letters there is no evidence anything significant was changed in 1912 - no new greens, fairways or tees. The basic structure of the course was in place in 1911 and permanent.
Wilson and the committee were in charge of constructing the golf course, and of course a trip overseas studying the best classic and modern architecture would benefit the construction of hazards. Not only would it benefit the construction of already planned hazards, it could also inspire putting in new hazards. For example the incorporation of the Mid Surrey mounds on several holes. To my knowledge CBM did not utilize this feature (probably for good reason) so I think it is likely Wilson introduced that feature.
IMO this is all consistent with Hugh Wilson's and Allan Wilson's account, that Wilson began to exert his design influence after the trip, and after the golf course had been routed, planned and the basic structure constructed.
-
David, and Patrick,
Regarding the "many of the others" quote from Findlay, and further thought, I still think that it is unclearly written. In regard to how many other CBM Alps holes there were at that time, I don't know. Patrick has claimed that CBM had 38 years of experience at that time, so how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then? How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind? How many would Findlay think were Alps?
What was Findlay's background and relationship with CBM and Wilson that he could make the comment.
I agree that your interpretation of the quote is one possible interpretation. I don't see the efficacy of David's methodology of describing the interpretation as some variation of "likely". The interpretation is possible; whether it it is more likely or the most likely doesn't advance our knowledge of the exact genesis of the original routing and design.
David,
The quote does attribute CBM with laying out "many of the others", whichever others they are. Is it not your contention that laying out means on the ground. I'm still not sure I understand what distinction you are drawing. Was it a three stage process: plan on paper, put stakes in the ground, and construction? What's your interpretation of laying out in this article?
Patrick,
There's a lot of green words from you above about committees and minutes. Are you suggesting that if the design work was contracted out to CBM that there would be no reporting in the minutes of that, or of progress on the project, because it was contracted out? I know you keep saying you are troubled by the lack of minutes? Are you politely suggesting that the minutes exist and that the Merion people are suppressing them? If not, then, would the most logical explanation for the lack of minutes detailing progress on the project, no matter who was doing it, is that they are simply lost. I agree that it seems likely (ooops, how did that Davidism creep in there) that Merion would have had progress reports from whomever did the design, laying out and construction and that they would have been minuted in some way. It seems to me if the progress was reported to the membership that it might have led to some newspaper articles, so maybe it wasn't reported to the membership.
-
Bryan,
Please see my new tagline. Your instincts are sound, and Findlay certainly could be talking about any number of other Alps holes he believes CBM was responsible for as you point out, but I think he's talking about other courses/holes abroad that CBM told him to visit.
Since it seems all the rage these days to use out of context snippets as tag lines, I thought I'd also give it a try. You know, perhaps there's some truth that all fads start on the west coast. ;) ;D
All,
Thank God that A.W. Tillinghast was writing so much contemporaneous material during the creation of Merion and Pine Valley or who knows how purposefully mangled some of these guys would have the history of those clubs by now.
Once again, as regards permanence and intent, ALL of the writers ("Far and Sure", "Findlay", "Tilly") documenting Merion's opening said essentially the same thing, yet Tillinghast probably says it best, so let's let him once again correct the glaring misinterpretations and misrepresentations going on here;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2599/3704164849_f19afdf7a7_o.jpg)
Ah, heck...let's hear from "Far and Sure" as well;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4338093278_fd77ac034f_o.jpg)
-
Obviously the structure of the holes (greens, tees, and fairways) was in place in 1911 and we know those holes, at least a large percentage of them, were based on famous golf holes prototypical to CBM.
Tom MacWood,
Let's move beyond these blanket, baseless statements of yours and discuss specifics.
Please tell us precisely how the original holes were routed on the ground based on "famous golf holes prototypical to CBM". What type of natural features were used? What were their defining characteristics?
This should be easy for you guys as you've been telling us that CBM designed them for years now.
Please explain to us how they did this on original holes;
#1
#2
#4
#5
#7
#8
#9
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
I'd also argue that the third, sixth, and 10th were all "made" later with the addition of bunkering angles and prototypical rote bunker schemes that defined those "template" holes, but let's focus on those holes I've named for now.
You've certainly got plenty to choose from.
Thanks.
-
Jeff,
I have a number of thoughts on your CBM contributions post, including which are speculative, but one thing I'm not sure about is the question of which "a little more land where you propose making your clubhouse" CBM was referring to.
I think it's probably just as likely that he was talking about the Haverford College land west of the railroad tracks as it is about the railroad land, or perhaps he was talking about both. Certainly the creek running along there was an attractive feature that CBM referenced and it would have given them more room up along the quarry, which he also referenced.
If the Dallas Estate wasn't in the mix yet, and we know it wasn't, we really don't know exactly which 120 acres he was talking about...actually, now that I think about it, CBM never mentioned 120 acres at all; Lesley did, but I do think that given CBM's expressed concerns about whether they had enough land for an ideal course Merion would have looked at any way to squeeze a bit more out of what might be available. We don't know, so I don't think we can assume that CBM cited either the 3 acres of Railroad land or the Dallas Estate..
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3514569548_79d2a6de31_b.jpg)
-
Patrick,
When Merion Cricket Club gave Hugh Wilson credit for laying out the course AND for supervising the building and construction, they certainly knew what the hell a "layout" was, and what it required, and it was on PAPER, as is clear in the MCC Minutes;
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.
This nonsense that there is no contemporaneous record of the Committee at Merion laying out the golf course prior to construction is the GCA version of the BIG LIE, which if told repeatedly may have some of the gullible believing, not mentioning any names.
-
Wilson's trip took place in April 1912. The golf course was constructed in the Spring and Summer of 1911, and seeded in the Fall of '11. This is information I've gathered about that trip:
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out holes, through the kindness of Messrs. CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through Sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with out natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings." ~~Hugh Wilson's account in 1916
"The land for the East course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and whole largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this this and the West course." ~~Alan Wilson's account in 1926
"Dear Sir: Your letter of the 10th instant addressed to Mr. Hugh I Wilson is received. Mr. Wilson is making a hurried trip to Europe and in his absence I am acknowledging your containing the reports." ~~ A letter from Richard Francis to Oakley from 4/11/1912 (mistakenly dated 1911)
"Mr. Hugh G Wilson is on a visit to this country obtaining an idea of the chief features of some of our great holes. Mr. Charles B Macdonald was on the same mission some years ago and the result of his work is embodied in the National golf Links, at New York."
~~Golf Monthly, British golf magazine, from May 1912
"The golfers of the Merion Cricket Club now claim to have the best course in Philadelphia. They formally opened it yesterday...Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course, and helped largely in the planning of the holes." ~~ Philadelphia Inquirer 9/15/1912
Mike
I probably shouldn't have said the majority of the holes were based on CBM prototypes, that was an overstatement, I don't even think the majority of holes at the NGLA were based on prototypes. Lets get back to what we were discussing before you changed the subject.
The 1910 trip to Europe was a major part of the whole Hugh Wilson legend, which is why I suspect you spent so much time and effort trying disprove the 1912 trip and trying to prove an earlier trip. You've probably spent as much time as anyone analyzing that trip, and now that you have accepted the trip took place after a lot of work was done, what do you think the purpose was of that 1912 trip?
-
TMac,
Please note I did not say they Half Assed it!
But, in my last few posts I have been trying to get my head around the timing (and legend) of the Hugh Wilson trip.
Francis said he went while the committee was at work, which now seems true. Alan Wilson still seems to have mixed it up somehow (I was posing an array of scenarios as to how that might have happened, including someone else editing the letter to make sense, because of his poor writing) by saying that it was "a first step." Well, it couldn't have been that, even if they completely dismissed the routing as part of design.
That said, that same Findlay article where we obsess over CBM's laying out other holes at either Merion or Alps types holes, also says the bulk of the hazards were not placed at the time Hugh Wilson returned.
We also know that about four holes were called templates, but in reality, that may have been more marketing than design - the Alps, the Redan, etc. were not really characteristic of those same templates at NGLA.
So, what does all the timing mean to the claim that CBM designed a lot of the features at Merion?
It seems to me that they did grass the course in 1911, and scheduled to open in Sept 1912, and yet we know Pickering was going to be constructing Wilsons "mental hazards" at about the same time that fall.
Since he says only the mental hazards, we can probably assume that the tees and fw were in place, and not likely to change. Greens, maybe a few (remember, no USGA construction in those days, just shape the topsoil a bit and seed) but mostly, it would appear that the bunker scheme was purposely left until Wilson returned, and these could be built in most cases without disturbing much of the turf.
So, yes, Wilson exerted his influence after his return, but again, it seems those design changes were made after initial grassing and before opening. So, if CBM had some holes in there, they seem to have been changed. Also, the fact that most holes had yet to be fleshed out until after Wilson's return in 1912, means that there is some real doubt that CBM had a huge impact on feature designs.
-
T
Since he says only the mental hazards, we can probably assume that the tees and fw were in place, and not likely to change. Greens, maybe a few (remember, no USGA construction in those days, just shape the topsoil a bit and seed) but mostly, it would appear that the bunker scheme was purposely left until Wilson returned, and these could be built in most cases without disturbing much of the turf.
So, yes, Wilson exerted his influence after his return, but again, it seems those design changes were made after initial grassing and before opening. So, if CBM had some holes in there, they seem to have been changed. Also, the fact that most holes had yet to be fleshed out until after Wilson's return in 1912, means that there is some real doubt that CBM had a huge impact on feature designs.
Jeff
That may be true, but Wilson didn't go to the bathroom without writing a letter to Oakley and telling him what he was doing. Those letters go on for years (through the designing and building the West course, and later rebuilding some greens, on the East if I'm not mistaken) and there is no indication of any change to the basic infrastructure in 1912.
I think the holes were fleshed out in that they were routed, the greens designed and built, and the only remaining task would be to add some hazards. The basic structure of the golf course was decided in 1911, if not before. I think CBM was a huge influence in 1911, which was critical year, but after 1911 I don't believe he had much influence, if any, and that is when Wilson began exerting himself.
-
David, and Patrick,
Regarding the "many of the others" quote from Findlay, and further thought, I still think that it is unclearly written. In regard to how many other CBM Alps holes there were at that time, I don't know. Patrick has claimed that CBM had 38 years of experience at that time,
Bryan, I believe I stated that he had studied architecture for 38 years, not constructed courses for 38 years.
so how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then?
Chicago and NGLA, 36 and I don't believe that there was an "Alps" hole at Chicago.
How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind? How many would Findlay think were Alps?
ONE, the 3rd at NGLA.
What was Findlay's background and relationship with CBM and Wilson that he could make the comment.
Why would an assessment of who designed the golf course be dependent upon Findlay's relationship with Wilson or CBM ?
I agree that your interpretation of the quote is one possible interpretation. I don't see the efficacy of David's methodology of describing the interpretation as some variation of "likely". The interpretation is possible; whether it it is more likely or the most likely doesn't advance our knowledge of the exact genesis of the original routing and design.
With only one other "Alps" there can be no other interpretation.
The word "many" wasn't referencing "Alps" holes.
Patrick,
Are you suggesting that if the design work was contracted out to CBM that there would be no reporting in the minutes of that, or of progress on the project, because it was contracted out?
Bryan, do you now, or have you ever served on the Board of a golf/country club ?
Have you ever been involved with a significant green project ?
Vendors don't report to the Board and they don't keep club minutes.
Committees and Boards produce and retain minutes.
I know you keep saying you are troubled by the lack of minutes?
Are you politely suggesting that the minutes exist and that the Merion people are suppressing them?
NO, what would lead you to that wild conclusion ?
Didn't you read the green ink your refered to ?
If not, then, would the most logical explanation for the lack of minutes detailing progress on the project, no matter who was doing it, is that they are simply lost.
No, that's just one possibility.
I agree that it seems likely (ooops, how did that Davidism creep in there) that Merion would have had progress reports from whomever did the design, laying out and construction and that they would have been minuted in some way. It seems to me if the progress was reported to the membership that it might have led to some newspaper articles, so maybe it wasn't reported to the membership.
In most club governance, the committees and Boards keep the minutes.
It's very rare to impossible that an outsider, a vendor, consultant or contractor would keep committee or board minutes
That would be the responsibility of the Committee Chair and recording secretary.
When a club holds a board meeting, each committee makes their report, which is recorded.
This was a huge undertaking, yet, for four (4) years there's no committee or Board report on the specific details of this huge undertaking.
That leads me to believe that there's a strong possibility that the heavy lifting was done by an outsider, who wouldn't, in the normal course of conducting business, prepare committee or board minutes.
What would help would be the production of the board minutes from 1912 to 1914, as the club had to continue with activities and board meetings during that period. If the minutes reflect the other activities, but remain silent on the design of the golf course, it would lead me to lean more toward the outsider, CBM doing the design work.
Getting the minutes from every board meeting, 1910 to 1914 would be a big help.
Perhaps David Moriarty can gain access as the Merionettes have suggested.
It would seem that their production might clear up a number of issues..
-
David, and Patrick,
Regarding the "many of the others" quote from Findlay, and further thought, I still think that it is unclearly written. In regard to how many other CBM Alps holes there were at that time, I don't know. Patrick has claimed that CBM had 38 years of experience at that time,
Bryan, I believe I stated that he had studied architecture for 38 years, not constructed courses for 38 years.
Yes, that's what I recall that you said. So, am i to understand that he studied architecture for 38 years before NGLA and only actually built one course - Chicago? That's a lot of "book learning" and "studying" without much practical experience.
So how many courses, how many holes, had he laid out by then?
Chicago and NGLA, 36 and I don't believe that there was an "Alps" hole at Chicago.
Were there no others that he consulted on? Advised on? Where he has been credited with design? If he only had 36 holes of practical in-the-field experience, why was he be considered such an expert in 1910? Is it similar to the old saying that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man ...............
How many had a crossing bunker in front of the green and a hill behind? How many would Findlay think were Alps?
ONE, the 3rd at NGLA.
What was Findlay's background and relationship with CBM and Wilson that he could make the comment.
Why would an assessment of who designed the golf course be dependent upon Findlay's relationship with Wilson or CBM ?
I meant relationship in the sense of awareness of, or knowledge of. Would Findlay know CBM well and everything he had done architecturally up to that point? Was he an informed, knowledgeable commentator?
I agree that your interpretation of the quote is one possible interpretation. I don't see the efficacy of David's methodology of describing the interpretation as some variation of "likely". The interpretation is possible; whether it it is more likely or the most likely doesn't advance our knowledge of the exact genesis of the original routing and design.
With only one other "Alps" there can be no other interpretation.
The word "many" wasn't referencing "Alps" holes.
Patrick,
Are you suggesting that if the design work was contracted out to CBM that there would be no reporting in the minutes of that, or of progress on the project, because it was contracted out?
Bryan, do you now, or have you ever served on the Board of a golf/country club ? No. But I've been involved in organizations that do minutes, and contract out work. Do Country Clubs work in some unique way different from other organizations doing project work?
Have you ever been involved with a significant green project ? No. Is that relevant here?
Vendors don't report to the Board and they don't keep club minutes.
Committees and Boards produce and retain minutes.
Where did I say that vendors report to the Board? Or, that vendors keep club minutes. Now you're just being absurd. ;D
I know you keep saying you are troubled by the lack of minutes?
Are you politely suggesting that the minutes exist and that the Merion people are suppressing them?
NO, what would lead you to that wild conclusion ?
Didn't you read the green ink your refered to ?
If not, then, would the most logical explanation for the lack of minutes detailing progress on the project, no matter who was doing it, is that they are simply lost.
No, that's just one possibility.
I agree that it seems likely (ooops, how did that Davidism creep in there) that Merion would have had progress reports from whomever did the design, laying out and construction and that they would have been minuted in some way. It seems to me if the progress was reported to the membership that it might have led to some newspaper articles, so maybe it wasn't reported to the membership.
In most club governance, the committees and Boards keep the minutes.
It's very rare to impossible that an outsider, a vendor, consultant or contractor would keep committee or board minutes
That would be the responsibility of the Committee Chair and recording secretary.
I didn't say that vendors, consultants, etc kept committee or board minutes. You made that up. Vendors or consultants, in my experience, always report to the person or committee in the organization that holds and manages the contract. It would be lousy contract management if the consultant wasn't required to report on project progress to the contract holder. The contract holder or committee then reports on project progress through their chain of command to the Board. If CBM was contracted (in a sense, given his amateur status) it would be passingly strange if he wasn't required to report and if that report wasn't submitted through the chain of command to the Board.
As a side thought, do we KNOW that the project to identify and acquire the land and design and build the golf course would all be managed through the committee structure of the Merion Cricket Club and hence be in their minutes. After all, somewher ein that timeline the MCCGA was formed to purchase the land and presumably to build the course.
When a club holds a board meeting, each committee makes their report, which is recorded.
This was a huge undertaking, yet, for four (4) years there's no committee or Board report on the specific details of this huge undertaking.
That leads me to believe that there's a strong possibility that the heavy lifting was done by an outsider, who wouldn't, in the normal course of conducting business, prepare committee or board minutes.
But, surely you aren't suggesting that the outsider wouldn't report to somebody in the club, who would then report the the progress up the chain of command. Surely they wouldn't leave the outsider to his own devices until it was all done.
What would help would be the production of the board minutes from 1912 to 1914, as the club had to continue with activities and board meetings during that period. If the minutes reflect the other activities, but remain silent on the design of the golf course, it would lead me to lean more toward the outsider, CBM doing the design work.
Getting the minutes from every board meeting, 1910 to 1914 would be a big help.
Sure. See, there's at least one thing we can agree on. ;D But, which minutes do you want to see - those from MCC or those from MCCGA or both?
Perhaps David Moriarty can gain access as the Merionettes have suggested.
It would seem that their production might clear up a number of issues..
They might, but then again they might just lead to more parsing and conspiracy theories on both sides. At least they'd be different theories and parsing, which would be a breath of fresh air. ;)
-
As a tangential thought, who was the "Father of American Golf"
See here, http://alexanderfindlay.com/ (http://alexanderfindlay.com/) for one answer.
-
Patrick,
Over the past few weeks, you keep parroting "Hear No Wilson" and "See No Wilson" by telling us that there is no contemporaneous evidence indicating that Hugh Wilson's Merion Committee were responsible for the planning of the routing of the golf course.
In that light, it's no wonder you avoided responding to my post yesterday addressed to you, which I'll reiterate again in case you missed it. ;) ;D
Also, in 1905 it was written that CBM was called in as a "friendly adviser" any time a course of consequence was being built in the east. You have no idea how many Alps holes Findlay may have thought CBM was responsible for in 1912, because you don't know either, nor does anyone else here, especially as the prescribed definition of the time included merely a front crossing bunkers beyond a rise and a mound in back.
When Merion Cricket Club gave Hugh Wilson credit for laying out the course AND for supervising the building and construction, they certainly knew what the hell a "layout" was, and what it required, and it was on PAPER, as is clear in the MCC Minutes of April 19th, 1911;
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.
This nonsense that there is no contemporaneous record of the Committee at Merion laying out the golf course prior to construction is the GCA version of the BIG LIE, which if told repeatedly may have some of the gullible believing, not mentioning any names. ;)
-
Mike
I probably shouldn't have said the majority of the holes were based on CBM prototypes, that was an overstatement, I don't even think the majority of holes at the NGLA were based on prototypes. Lets get back to what we were discussing before you changed the subject.
The 1910 trip to Europe was a major part of the whole Hugh Wilson legend, which is why I suspect you spent so much time and effort trying disprove the 1912 trip and trying to prove an earlier trip. You've probably spent as much time as anyone analyzing that trip, and now that you have accepted the trip took place after a lot of work was done, what do you think the purpose was of that 1912 trip?
Tom,
Now you're really confusing me. First you tell us that HH Barker was 85% responsible for the routing of the golf course, THEN you tell us that CBM placed them based on his prototypes.
Then when I challenge you to show me exactly how he did that you beg off, which I can understand completely given the lack of any evidence.
Perhaps David can show us how all of those holes were placed in just the perfect position, using natural features only to match up against CBM's predetermined Ideal Holes?
In any case, regarding Wilson's trip abroad, contemporaneous reports (including Tillinghast's) tell us that before Wilson did anything strategically to the golf course he not only visited the great courses abroad but also all of the best courses in this country.
When do you think that trip across the US happened and what courses do you think might have been in his itinerary?
As far as the purpose, I think it was to see the features of great holes and courses in person, as two-dimensional sketches often lose something in translation.
-
Mike,
Don't go beating up on TMac when he is (among others, but unlike some) actually trying to have a reasonable discussion about the features of the golf course.
TMac,
I agree that the tees, fw and greens were in place and seeded by fall 1911. I do not think adding bunkers (mental hazards) is an inconsequential task!
I agree it seems unusual to grass and then rebuild, but that seems to be what happened to at least some degree. When I put greens in the rebuild category, I merely meant its possible that some got rebuilt. We don't know how much they were off from the GBI concepts, and for that matter, a few may not have grown in well over the winter, making it easier to consider reshaping, presuming they needed to be reseeded anyway.
Again, speculation on that, I know. But, I have seen it happen! Once the turf is dead, its like an open invitation to redesign before you re-turf, and I suspect that in the topsoil green days, it would have been even more tempting if they weren't happy with it.
I think we would both (all) just love to have heard the actual discussions that went on all through that process to see in more detail just how that course evolved. However it happened in detail, it would be fascinating to know.
-
In any case, regarding Wilson's trip abroad, contemporaneous reports (including Tillinghast's) tell us that before Wilson did anything strategically to the golf course he not only visited the great courses abroad but also all of the best courses in this country.
When do you think that trip across the US happened and what courses do you think might have been in his itinerary?
As far as the purpose, I think it was to see the features of great holes and courses in person, as two-dimensional sketches often lose something in translation.
Mike
So 18 holes were routed, tees and fairways built, greens located and contoured without any strategy in mind? Did you tell us what was the purpose of the trip...I think I missed your answer?
-
TMac,
That by the way is an interesting question applying to all architecture. In my experience, some holes are configured with strategy in mind while routing, many others (maybe most) are configured to generally fit the land, to connect within the routing, etc.
Of course, in some cases that can all be a semantic debate. For instance, at NGLA when the 14th got routed along the cove, it was surely concieved as a Cape Hole. However, most of Pete Dye's Cape Holes started life as a line on piece of paper over totally dry land. Them becoming Cape Holes during routing was probably figured, and enough land left for the lake to be dug.
So I would surmise that the creek holes at Merion and the Quarry holes could legitimatey be said to have had their strategy established largely by the routing, and perhaps refined by the bunkering. But holes like 1-3, 6-10, 14, 15 and 18 didn't have much strategy until the bunkers were added. Even the 16th, with the idea of the safe ground had at least some of its strategy determined by how they fleshed out the features.
And, many noted that the "original" holes were better than the 4-5 templates, although the original holes come from both holes with great features and holes with gently rolling topo. So, declaring the holes done/not done after routing is not really a black and white discussion, here or anywhere.
Is there any other possible answer of why Wilson went to GBI than to study holes and use those ideas in the features?
-
Tom,
What Jeff said.
Some holes in the routing were able to take advantage of natural features to create strategic interest. But where artificial features were needed in the absence of problem-causing natural ones, Merion wanted to emulate features from abroad found on ideal holes.
Case in points included original holes 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15.
However, as Richard Francis pointed out, other holes which had great natural features (ie. the 3rd with an elevated green atop a barn) "benefitted" from Wilson's trip, presumably with the addition of hazards that sometimes defined them as attempts at great holes abroad (ie. "making" of the Alps hole, presumably with the addition of bunkering and mounds).
-
Mike,
Don't go beating up on TMac when he is (among others, but unlike some) actually trying to have a reasonable discussion about the features of the golf course.
TMac,
I agree that the tees, fw and greens were in place and seeded by fall 1911. I do not think adding bunkers (mental hazards) is an inconsequential task!
I agree it seems unusual to grass and then rebuild, but that seems to be what happened to at least some degree. When I put greens in the rebuild category, I merely meant its possible that some got rebuilt. We don't know how much they were off from the GBI concepts, and for that matter, a few may not have grown in well over the winter, making it easier to consider reshaping, presuming they needed to be reseeded anyway.
Again, speculation on that, I know. But, I have seen it happen! Once the turf is dead, its like an open invitation to redesign before you re-turf, and I suspect that in the topsoil green days, it would have been even more tempting if they weren't happy with it.
I think we would both (all) just love to have heard the actual discussions that went on all through that process to see in more detail just how that course evolved. However it happened in detail, it would be fascinating to know.
Jeff
There is a detailed written record between Wilson & Oakley throughout 1912, and none of the greens were rebuilt that year. In the Spring of 1913 he writes Oakley regarding some grass that has invaded most of the greens and tells him as you know the greens were seeded in Sept 1911, again in the Fall of 1913 he writes Oakley to tell him three greens had failed (the grass had all died) reiterating that the greens were seeded in Sept 1911. Again Wilson did not do anything without writing Oakley; you can throw that theory out.
-
Bryan,
I am trying to understand your perspective on this Findlay quote, but am still struggling. What I don't understand is your willingness to assume into existence the many of the other Alps holes laid out by CBM. You say you don't know how many Alps holes he had laid out? Well, I have read quite a lot about CBM and have searched for other various holes referred to Alps holes, and so far as I can tell, there was only ONE CBM Alps hole in existence other than Merion's. That was NGLA's alps hole. If you have to assume or invent or imply other Alps holes into existence, that doesn't bode well for your interpretation, does it?
What if you took my word for it? Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that there was only one other CBM Alps hole at this time. Would you then agree that "many of the others" referred to holes at Merion, and not CBM Alps holes?
Also, let's assume, again for the sake of argument only, that CBM had designed and built 10 Alps holes by then. Even then, for the section to make sense, we'd have to read this as confirming that Merion's 10th was CBM hole, wouldn't we?
____________________________________
You asked about Findlay and CBM. I am not aware that they had any relationship, and I sincerely doubt they had one. Findlay was not included in the NGLA project, was not present at the first tournament, nor have I found any record of him ever even playing NGLA during this time period (I haven't looked otherwise.) And the goings on and tournaments at NGLA were very big deals and Findlay was very well known, so I would expect to find something if they were connected.
Plus, Findlay was not only a professional and part of the old guard of professional course planners from which CBM was moving away, Findlay also worked for an equipment manufacturer. CBM held the equipment manufacturers in extremely low regard and felt that they represented the greatest threat to the game. So I have a hard time picturing them as being very close.
-
Related to the discussion of rebuilding greens, I'm not sure there would be anything germane for Wilson to discuss with P&O if indeed he decided to reshape a green? I'm not saying he did rebuild any in 1911/1912, but I don't think we know.
But it does bring up an interesting issue.
Of those original 18 greens, the following were all either replaced or rebuilt by the time the 1934 US Open was held there.
1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.
-
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out holes, through the kindness of Messrs. CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through Sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with out natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."
Jeff
One assumes the plan that they were following when they built the course in 1911 featured hazards. We know some of those hazards were built in 1911, and presumably others were not. It was not uncommon in those days to delay the adding of hazards until you got a better feel for the course. That was something advocated and practiced by Colt, CBM, and others.
I think there were two reasons for the trip - constructing hazards and placing hazards. He went to see the original hazards on some of the classic courses they were emulating - a la CBM. They also went to get ideas regarding modern practices. We know he met with Colt and Colt practiced a very haphazard bunkering style, that style seemed to be adopted to some extent. We assume he visited Mid Surrey, because those features were used in several places. I'm sure he met with Reginald Beale as well. IMO Wilson was bitten by the architecture bug during this trip, but not before. Before his main responsibility and focus was construction.
-
Tom,
Other than your last two sentences, which I think are without foundation, I agree with you.
For instance, we don't know when Wilson visited all of the best courses in the US, but Tillinghast (and others) told us that it happened before the course opened for play.
I suspect that this wasn't one long dedicated trip, but a decade or more of playing competitively and a keen interest in the subject, as evidenced by his joining the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior year while the new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.
-
Related to the discussion of rebuilding greens, I'm not sure there would be anything germane for Wilson to discuss with P&O if indeed he decided to reshape a green? I'm not saying he did rebuild any in 1911/1912, but I don't think we know.
But it does bring up an interesting issue.
Of those original 18 greens, the following were all either replaced or rebuilt by the time the 1934 US Open was held there.
1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.
Mike
If he was planning to rebuild a green I guarantee you Wilson would have written Oakley. If only to ask advice about timing, what time of year to do such a thing, and if he should re-seed or sod. He rebuilt three greens late in 1913 and the reason we know are those letters. Drop the idea greens were resurfaced in 1912.
-
Tom,
Other than your last two sentences, which I think are without foundation, I agree with you.
For instance, we don't know when Wilson visited all of the best courses in the US, but Tillinghast (and others) told us that it happened before the course opened for play.
I suspect that this wasn't one long dedicated trip, but a decade or more of playing competitively and a keen interest in the subject, as evidenced by his joining the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior year while the new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.
Mike
Hugh Wilson tells us that when they began their experience in construction and greenkeeping was that of an average club member. Architecture was evidently not a concern because he doesn't even mention the subject. Alan Wilson tells us the plan evolved when he returned from the UK. I read that as his architectural influence began when he returned, and IMO that is the manifestation of his increased interest in the subject.
Regarding the courses he visited in America, and when, we know he visited the NGLA in March 1911.
-
Tmac,
Thanks for that factual info. I was going from memory, as I often do, but its good to know no greens were rebuilt in 1912. And yes, it appears they built some hazards in 1911 (or concepts, like a stab at the Alps or Redan) and left others for later.
So, I am just trying to figure out - why the split? Did they run out of time in 1911? Did they feel pressure to get the course all grassed either to control erosion or meet their obligation to HDC (which by the way, I don't think is all that unreasonable a proposition, that it was their obligation to get it green at least as in the Dec Culyers letter) although I agree the consequences probably wouldn't be as severe as if dealing with strangers) Or, was it their plan all along to not build stuff in detail until HW returned?
I also believe HW had to have had some interest in gca or he probably wouldn't have signed up for the committee. Also, hard to think he would go to GBI without being interested, and then become interested during the trip, if that is what you are saying. But, I have long had the impression that he didn't care for CBM's renditions, and the meeting with Colt makes perfect sense in explaining it and his bunker style.
I will also reserve judgement on whether he consulted Oakley on his bathroom visits, but I get your humor.....
So, in reality, we aren't too far off our interpretations, but it still leaves the question of how much of CBM's initial offerings survived until even Sept 1912 since we don't know just what got rebuilt. We all agree that HW had more and more influence as time went on, and we are just speculating as to how fast that time line of influence was.
Again, its hard to believe he was a milktoast (exagerating a bit) in April 1911, and a Tiger a year later. Certain personality traits had to be in place. And admitting they didn't know a lot to start is consistent with him seeking advice from nearly everywhere, as CBM suggested. We could certainly give many examples from all walks of life of people who know just enough to be dangerouse and jump in with two feet, when logic and prudencee, seen from a distance, would clearly dictate they should not!
-
Tom,
Again, you have no idea whether any of the greens or other hazards and/or features were changed or added during the period of 1911/12. None, and to represent otherwise is a misrepresentation of the content and context of the letters between Wilson and P&O.
Wilson never speaks to P&O about ANY design features at all, but strictly about agronomic issues.
-
Mike
Moving a green and/or recontouring a green, which is what Jeff theorized, would be an agronomic issue. Do you have the P&O letters from 1912, 1913, and 1914?
-
Tmac,
Thanks for that factual info. I was going from memory, as I often do, but its good to know no greens were rebuilt in 1912. And yes, it appears they built some hazards in 1911 (or concepts, like a stab at the Alps or Redan) and left others for later.
So, I am just trying to figure out - why the split? Did they run out of time in 1911? Did they feel pressure to get the course all grassed either to control erosion or meet their obligation to HDC (which by the way, I don't think is all that unreasonable a proposition, that it was their obligation to get it green at least as in the Dec Culyers letter) although I agree the consequences probably wouldn't be as severe as if dealing with strangers) Or, was it their plan all along to not build stuff in detail until HW returned?
I also believe HW had to have had some interest in gca or he probably wouldn't have signed up for the committee. Also, hard to think he would go to GBI without being interested, and then become interested during the trip, if that is what you are saying. But, I have long had the impression that he didn't care for CBM's renditions, and the meeting with Colt makes perfect sense in explaining it and his bunker style.
I will also reserve judgement on whether he consulted Oakley on his bathroom visits, but I get your humor.....
So, in reality, we aren't too far off our interpretations, but it still leaves the question of how much of CBM's initial offerings survived until even Sept 1912 since we don't know just what got rebuilt. We all agree that HW had more and more influence as time went on, and we are just speculating as to how fast that time line of influence was.
Again, its hard to believe he was a milktoast (exagerating a bit) in April 1911, and a Tiger a year later. Certain personality traits had to be in place. And admitting they didn't know a lot to start is consistent with him seeking advice from nearly everywhere, as CBM suggested. We could certainly give many examples from all walks of life of people who know just enough to be dangerouse and jump in with two feet, when logic and prudencee, seen from a distance, would clearly dictate they should not!
It was a common practice to delay adding hazards. The main focus was getting grass to grow. You can play golf on a course with few or no hazards, its hard to play golf on a course without grass...see NGLA and PVGC. Ironically the two courses Wilson suggests committees should visit when contemplating a new course. There is no evidence they ran short of time.
-
TMac,
I would think moving or recontouring a green is a design issue, not an agronomic one.
And, I tend to think that they didn't run out of time, they simply felt like they could add hazards as they went, such as after their chairman had a chance to study the great courses of Scotland. All of that suggests to me that Hugh Wilson should be credited for the features. None of it sheds any light on any remaining questions about the prime mover in doing the routing.
-
David,
The way I interpret at least part of Bryan's take on the Findlay quote is this:
Given you strongly maintain that "laying out" means to place on the ground (and only place on the ground) and
Given that there is no record of CBM laying anything on the ground at Merion, then
How could you interpret the passage as CBM having laid out the Alps hole at Merion?
Conversely:
Are you backing off your strict interpretation of the use of that phrase in those days, to where it could include design?
And, if so, then why wouldn't the phrase laying out, as used often in regards to the role of Hugh Wilson, mean planning, as you would have to interpret it to mean re: CBM and the Alps at Merion?
I think Bryan is asking if you are troubled by the apparent contradictions in your argument here? :)
-
TMac,
I would think moving or recontouring a green is a design issue, not an agronomic one.
And, I tend to think that they didn't run out of time, they simply felt like they could add hazards as they went, such as after their chairman had a chance to study the great courses of Scotland. All of that suggests to me that Hugh Wilson should be credited for the features. None of it sheds any light on any remaining questions about the prime mover in doing the routing.
Jeff
Mike said Wilson only involved Oakley in agronomic issues. Moving and/or recontouring greens would require either reseeding or sodding, which are agronomic issues.
Wilson should get some credit for the hazards, but which are his and which are CBM's is hard to say. I'd say definitely the Mid Surrey features are his...may they rest in peace.
Like I've been saying all along, Wilson began to exert his design influence after he returned from the UK. The work done prior to the trip, the routing, the individual hole designs, green designs, some hazards, etc, credit should be given to CBM or Barker/CBM. I lean to the latter.
-
TMac,
I respect your right to have an opinion different than mine........
-
Jeff Brauer,
I asked Bryan some rather specific questions, and while you are free to answer them yourself (you haven't), I'd prefer if you let Bryan answer for himself as well.
You apparently still don't quite grasp how I understand the verb "to lay out," at least when it is convenient for you to not understand. I'm not "backing off" anything. Sometimes "to lay out" involved laying out and planning in one step and sometimes it involved laying out on the ground according to a preconceived plan. Merion's Minutes tell us that the latter was the case at Merion.
As for Findlay, he goes further than I would in allocating credit to CBM, in that Findlay seems to think CBM was responsible for the holes as they were laid out on the ground. But his source was Hugh Wilson, so I assume Hugh Wilson must have given him that idea. But you'd have to ask Findlay why he put it the way he did.
Now Jeff, are you ever going to answer my questions?
_______________________________________________________
At some point I should go back and do a flow chart of how those advocating for Wilson (and it really has always been thinly veiled advocacy) have changed their positions over the years. In the beginning CBM was nothing but Wilson's travel agent . . . when that didn't wash it eventually morphed into CBM was a travel agent who gave some general advice on what Wilson would see ,but Wilson largely ignored that advice, got his own ideas on what he saw abroad, and did his own thing at Merion and there was no trace of CBM's influence at Merion . . . etc.
Now, after many intermediate steps, we are at the point where everyone but the always lagging Cirba must realize that it was very likely CBM who was primarily responsible for planning the initial course, so now you are putting forth the rather ridiculous position that the real design work didn't even take place until after the course was designed and built. Huh?
There are a number of problems with this position, and they are mostly too obvious to bother discussing so I will just remind you all of one thing.
Before Wilson had even returned from his trip abroad the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, "Many of the holes" had been patterned after holes overseas. At the time of the opening, the Inquirer reported that "nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad.” So it was widely acknowledged that, as the course was initially built, much of the course was patterned after courses overseas. The same had been said about NGLA. Even Tillinghast ("Hazard") acknowledged, "Some of the famous holes abroad have been reproduced . . . ." So whether all the bunkers were yet in place, the hole concepts certainly were. Along the same lines, you are all assuming that whatever bunkers were added later had not even been contemplated at the time the course was first built. The record does not support this assumption. The hole concepts were determined, but the exact locations of the bunkers hadn't yet been determined. As this was CBM's preferred approach, even this was likely at CBM's recommendation.
-
David,
As to reports from the Philly enquirer, I would like to know if they were written by someone as knowledgeable as Findlay, who had toured the course with Wilson, and consulted with him before his trip (possibly seeing the course and the faulty Alps hole even before Wilson left). Yes, even Tilly said they were doing replica type holes, and there is no doubt that once they went to NGLA, and because of their goals and the fame of NGLA, that is what they started out to do.
But, what is the most reliable report? Because, he tells us, after seeing the course first hand that the problems as conceived by the committee had not yet been put in place. That certainly raises the possibility that the “reproduced holes from abroad” was as much marketing as design.
But, you may also be right that they had conceived the basic ideas and HW really just wanted to copy originals rather than copy CBM’s copies, which I think was wise, or confirm exact bunker placements, etc., given no one has said CBM lent them his sketches.
Another thing, irrespective of credit, is the fact that Wilson did see the Alps at NGLA, and yet Findlay counsels him to look at the real one, perhaps seeing their first effort at Merion. I am just wondering how they couldn’t see that they were going to fall way short on the 10th after looking at the 4th at NGLA and its big natural hill?
If CBM was really involved, even just suggesting holes on his April trip, how could he not see it? Would he recommend an Alps feature on flatter ground? (He sure didn’t mind building holes when required, so perhaps, but they just fit as much fill in the tenth green as they could)
Would he recommend a reverse Redan with no front to back slope? An Eden that is not really an Eden?
For the holes that failed to meet the test of good design and were quickly rebuilt, does either the Wilson or CBM side really, really want their guy to take credit?
(Side note to anyone: Is the earliest photo of those mounds on the original 10th from before Fall of 1912? Was that the first effort, or after HW modified it?)
I would just like to know what was going on thought process wise between April 1911 when CBM made his last visit, and opening in Sept. 1912. Certainly, the timing of the trip could have been better – closer to the original acceptance of routing and start of construction.
Did someone like Findlay see it at grassing and tell them they had a stinker on their hands, prompting the trip? Always planned, but HW too busy?
I am not really defending any position here, just trying to figure out the back story, and wondering out loud.
-
Before Wilson had even returned from his trip abroad the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, "Many of the holes" had been patterned after holes overseas. At the time of the opening, the Inquirer reported that "nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad.” So it was widely acknowledged that, as the course was initially built, much of the course was patterned after courses overseas. The same had been said about NGLA. Even Tillinghast ("Hazard") acknowledged, "Some of the famous holes abroad have been reproduced . . . ." So whether all the bunkers were yet in place, the hole concepts certainly were. Along the same lines, you are all assuming that whatever bunkers were added later had not even been contemplated at the time the course was first built. The record does not support this assumption. The hole concepts were determined, but the exact locations of the bunkers hadn't yet been determined. As this was CBM's preferred approach, even this was likely at CBM's recommendation.
David,
What else does this article say?
Also, as you may have noticed, I've been absent for a while, and haven't spent any time on my promise...but do intend to.
-
Here are the two 1912 Philadelphia Inquirer articles in question.
You can make up your own minds about the knowledge of the author(s) as to the specificity and intent of what was happening at Merion;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3566/3595808028_bcaa016c29_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3595808034_58abc65957_o.jpg)
-
You apparently still don't quite grasp how I understand the verb "to lay out," at least when it is convenient for you to not understand. I'm not "backing off" anything. Sometimes "to lay out" involved laying out and planning in one step and sometimes it involved laying out on the ground according to a preconceived plan. Merion's Minutes tell us that the latter was the case at Merion.
David,
This I have to hear.
I'll copy them out again for your convenience.
Parse when ready;
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.
-
As regards the condition, and intent, of the golf course when it opened, I think it's important to go back and re-read what Tillinghast and Findlay wrote when the course opened.
His second paragraph here is particularly telling, and it's interesting to read throughout where he refers to the "builders' plans" (PLURAL). Also, Tillinghast had considerable knowledge of both the famous holes and courses overseas as well as the plans taking place at Merion, which he told us he saw prior to construction. Interesting what he chooses to focus on...
Does anyone think he's calling CBM and Whigham the "builders", whose "plans" are to be implemented?? Who does he credit in the article?
Why in heaven's name would Hugh Wilson's Committee deserve the congratulations of all golfers? For supervising Pickering laying out someone else's plans??
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3450807893_dd7f9afe90_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/5832124947_794d158b67_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3421552865_a31dfb2322_o.jpg)
Also, perhaps we should ask those who see CBM's fingerprints everywhere to go through the course with us and tell us hole by hole what was being copied from abroad in the placement of each in CBM's routing...or was that Barker's routing...I forget.
We can start with the first hole.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3478178220_9452651b71_b.jpg)
-
Here are the two 1912 Philadelphia Inquirer articles in question.
You can make up your own minds about the knowledge of the author(s) as to the specificity and intent of what was happening at Merion;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3566/3595808028_bcaa016c29_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3595808034_58abc65957_o.jpg)
-
Jeff,
I've grown weary of the pattern in these discussions over the years. Again and again you guys come up with these fantasy theories and treat them as if they were fact and as if it were my obligation to disprove them. I have tired of being the only one carrying any burden of proof here. If you think that Wilson redesigned the course after his trip but before the opening, prove it. What specifically did he change, and what is your proof of him having done so? Which bunkers were added? Which features were already there? There is one report of what Wilson changed after his trip, I haven't gone back and checked, but if I recall correctly it mostly amounted to finishing touches, like adding bent grasses as seen at a course in France, and adding some mounding like at Surrey. If there is more than this, then by all means bring forth your evidence.
For example you speculate about greens being redesigned immediately, but I've seen no evidence of this. Hugh Wilson addresses rebuilding a few greens for agronomic reasons, but that wasn't quite immediate and sounds to have been more agronomic than design related. But by all means bring forth your proof.
For another example you speculate that the Alps hole was a failure and was redesigned immediately, perhaps even before the course opened. Prove it. We know that Findlay didn't think it matched up to Prestwick, and we know that Findlay projects those same thoughts onto Wilson, but prove they changed the hole. For that matter, prove that their concern was with the green, and not the rest of the hole. I haven't played the original, but the accounts I have read indicate there was a lot going on at Prestick's alps off the tee, whereas there was nothing ongoing at Merion off the tee. Remember this section was just grassland, and they were trying (unsuccessfully) to use the native grass as the fairway for these holes. According to one later report, the flanking bunkers had not even yet been built.
So why do you assume that Findlay's problem with the hole was at the green end? The green at Prestwick still still still resembles that of the early photos of Merion's Alps Green, but the drive is nothing like it. And if Findlay was unhappy with the green end of the hole, then why, a few months later, did Findlay write that the second shot "requires a shot precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick?" Surely you don't think they completely rebuilt the green complex, and re-grassed the green in these intervening few months, do you? According to Wilson's letters and other reports, this was before they started using sod, so that would have been impossible. And there is a photo showing the mound behind the hole from BEFORE Wilson's trip abroad.
So I'd like to see your proof that this hole was drastically changed early on, especially between Findlay's first article and mentioning it and his second, written just a few months later.
While you are at it, you keep saying that this hole was a failure and that it didn't work. Again, where is your proof? Because many of the accounts I have read, including that by Findlay shortly before the opening, praise the hole. Lesley highlighted the hole in is 1914 introduction of the golf course, and noted it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle. Articles previewing the 1916 highlighted it as well, one even the thrill of scaling the hole after the blind second to find the result. And this green was repeatedly photographed and highlighted in the various accounts of the course through the early years, not because it was a bad hole, but the opposite. Yes it was eventually changed a dozen years after it was built, but all accounts indicate that this was because of increasing traffic on Ardmore Avenue, and not because it was a poor hole!
But, please, if you can, prove me wrong. Show me something that indicates that the 10th green complex was a failure of such monumental proportions that it needed to be immediately rebuilt. I think your assumption that it was a poor hole complex is mistaken and unsupported. Please though, prove me wrong if you can, but use facts and opinion.
Also, you speculate that the 15th green was a failure and was actually rebuilt early on. It is possible, but don't think it was rebuilt. So prove it was. Show me something that indicates that the 15th green was actually rebuilt. I think your assumption that it was a poor green and drastically altered early is mistaken and unsupported. Please though, prove me wrong if you can, but use facts and not fantasy.
As for the two reports in the Philadelphia Inquirer, you can read them yourself, but they were obviously written by someone who knew what was ongoing in golf in and around Philadelphia. Note the discussion of the need to make courses more challenging and to give Philadelphia a first class course. Note the reference to Pinehurst and comparison of the courses here. Note the knowledge about Crump and Perrin and their role in Philadelphia golf. Note the detailed discussion of the Philadelphia Cricket Club course. This reporter wasn't muddling through. He knew what was happening.
As for your question of which reports to believe, it is a false choice. ABOUT ALL OF THE EARLY REPORTS NOTED THAT SOME TO MOST OF MERION WAS BASED ON THE GREAT HOLES ABROAD. Yet you guys try to basically disbelieve them all, and claim that the hole concepts came later! Preposterous. Sure they left bunkers to be built later, until they could choose the exact location. This is most likely what CBM and HJW told them to do. But to take this to mean that the hole concepts had not yet been determined? Not supported by the record.
As for remainder of your post, give me a break. You are just throwing out "skinker" theories left and right. Maybe your claim that it was all for publicity would have flown years ago, before we knew more about the extent of their attempt to build CBM holes and features all over the property, but not now.
_________________________________________________________
Jim Sullivan,
Mike posted the two articles, written five months apart, above. As I said to Jeff, you can read them yourself, but it seems readily apparent to me that this author (these authors) was/were plugged into the golf scene in Philadelphia at this time. There are way to many references that laymen wouldn't understand, the references to Crump and Perrin, the references to Pinehurst, the detailed description of courses, the reference to the lack of quality of golf in Phila. and the need for improvement. This person knew too much about what was happening to simply dismiss him, especially when what he is saying is consistent to what else we know.
As for your promise, I thought you had given up on that once you realized that there was very little or nothing linking Wilson to the initial planning of the course. If you are still working on it, I await it anxiously.
Thanks.
-
You apparently still don't quite grasp how I understand the verb "to lay out," at least when it is convenient for you to not understand. I'm not "backing off" anything. Sometimes "to lay out" involved laying out and planning in one step and sometimes it involved laying out on the ground according to a preconceived plan. Merion's Minutes tell us that the latter was the case at Merion.
David,
This I have to hear.
I'll copy them out again for your convenience.
Parse when ready;
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
Or the Thompson Resolution from the same meeting;
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.
Mike
Would it be possible to post the original document?
-
I waited 78 pages to open this thread, thinking all along it was about NGLA. Guess not...I should have known. ::)
-
I found this article on NGLA for sale on eBay today while looking for something else. It is from 1907 and is written by Walter Travis. They do not say which magazine it is from but as the other article is to do with tennis it may have been a general sports magazine.
Anyway, what better place to post this on a thread about NGLA's history which has been going for 78 pages! Is this place called Merion a little part of the NGLA property? I'm wondering why so much discussion about it? ;)
Perhaps this might be of some interest to the protaganists.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/NGLAarticle1907.jpg)
-
I waited 78 pages to open this thread, thinking all along it was about NGLA. Guess not...I should have known. ::)
Unfortunately, the thread wasn't even about NGLA when it was about NGLA.
______________________________________
Neil,
Thanks for posting the article. Interesting.
-
My pleasure David
I had not seen it posted before so just thought I'd add it to the mix.
Now normal programming can be resumed .............
-
David Moriarty,
Yesterday afternoon at 3:00, when I was about to tee off at Southampton with the esteemed sandbagger Gene Greco, an older gentleman came over and introduced himself to us. I'm told he's 90+. He knew that my dad and I had won the New Jersey and MGA Father-Son tournaments on numerous occasions, and he also knew of the golfing records of the other two, very good golfers in our group. Unfortunately, he only knew of Gene Greco as a dentist and not a golfer ;D. He seemed exceptionally well versed about the golfing world.
I was then informed that when he was very young, he began caddying for C. B. Macdonald.
We spoke for some time since two groups were in front of us, with a terrific looking blond with a great shoulder turn and swing immediately in front of us.
I asked him all kinds of questions about Macdonald. For his age, this fellow was as sharp as a tack, had a great sense of humor and loved everything about golf.
I asked him if he had ever heard anything about CBM doing work at Merion.
He told me that he had heard conversations about Macdonald referencing work he had done at Merion and that Macdonald was resentful because they were tampering with his course, trying to compete with NGLA for the top dog spot and that Macdonald was resentful because they were trying to "push" him to the side and giving all the credits to the "Philly" crowd and minimizing the "New York crowd's" influence.
This reverts back to exactly what Mike Sweeney described about the "New York" vs "Philly" conflict.
After golf and a few drinks, we visited the cemetery where CBM and SR are buried.
There was a security guard there who asked to see identification, so we had to produce our driver's licenses.
I asked him, why ? As it seemed strange. He said that there were rumors that a deranged group from the Philadelphia area, known as the "Merionettes" were planning on desecrating the graves. I told the security guard that these weren't mere rumors, but, a known plot, and that he should remain vigilant. I gave him a brief description of the three main perpetrators and told him to be on the lookout for a mini-Cooper with Pennsylvania license plates, traveling with a dog named "Coorshaw"
I will start a thread on Southampton, a terrific Seth Raynor course that recently went though a successful restoration process with Brian Silva.
It's a fabulous golf course.
Yesterday morning, I double bogied the first hole at National and 3-putted the 18th, but still managed to shoot three over and qualify for the Championship Senior division flight with 7 other guys. Today, my first match is against my very dear friend and great golfer, Terry McBride, who was even par yesterday. George Zahrhinger won the medal at 5 under.
I'll start the Southampton thread tonight.
-
Neil,
That's a terrific article, thanks for sharing.
I'd be very curious to know when in 1907 it was written/published. It is very clear that the course is still to be laid out at that time as Travis tells us that they were still deciding which holes from abroad to reproduce. Yet, they had already secured the 200 acres in 1906, which was my point all along in starting this thread.
I came across another one a few days ago from 1908 which made clear (as does one on the first page of this thread) that at that time Travis was still part of the "Committee", with CBM, Whigham, and Emmet. I think one of the values of this thread is putting some of that timeline in proper historical perspective. In CBM's book, it makes it appear that Travis was "dropped" from the project early on, which is not really the case.
Doug,
Actually, this thread WAS about NGLA, and if you go through about the first 40 pages or so (I believe the topic changed around page 41) there is a lot of terrific information (and speculation both reasonable and wild) about the origins of NGLA, and I complained when the thread turned towards Merion as we'd already hashed and rehashed that topic and my intent was only to make it about the issues of Merion tangentially, as parallels had been previously drawn by some.
I do think it has value in making clear the similarities and differences, and for anyone actually interested in history I believe there is still a lot of value to this thread, including Neil's recent find.
Tom MacWood,
I'd suggest you make a trip to Ardmore to see the original. I certainly don't have an electronic scanned copy, but those artifacts are available for viewing by those who go through the proper protocol. I'd be happy to take you to dinner.
-
Tom MacWood,
I'd suggest you make a trip to Ardmore to see the original. I certainly don't have an electronic scanned copy, but those artifacts are available for viewing by those who go through the proper protocol. I'd be happy to take you to dinner.
Mike
Thats too bad, I was hoping to read what proceeded the excerpt and what followed (and what was in between) to get some context, because frankly, as it reads now, it makes no sense. How do you layout many golf courses on the land? Who would write something like that, and what does that mean. I've read a lot of old documents and old articles and I've not read anything quite like that. Do you know who wrote the entry?
I believe the Travis article is from April 1907.
-
Tom,
It seems to me that ALL of those guys back then wrote some pretty grammatically awful stuff that belied their often fine educations and that frustrates us today with their lack of clarity and detail. I would count Findlay and Macdonald and Behr among them. Travis was perhaps the best of the lot.
In any case, I would throw in a round at Cobb's Creek if I thought it would entice you to make the visit. That goes for Patrick and David, as well, both of whom I played golf with previously and both of whose company I enjoyed a great deal.
-
Mike
Do you know wrote that entry? What does it mean laying out many golf courses on the land?
-
I'd suggest you make a trip to Ardmore to see the original. I certainly don't have an electronic scanned copy, but those artifacts are available for viewing by those who go through the proper protocol. I'd be happy to take you to dinner.
Mike Cirba, you should really quit saying things like this. You aren't a member of Merion, don't speak for Merion, and don't represent Merion in any way. This is NOT Merion's policy. Those documents are NOT AVAILABLE for viewing to anyone who goes through the proper protocol. Wayne Morrison has arranged it so those particular documents are off-limits to certain of us no matter what the protocol. And what would you know about proper protocol? Kissing up to TEPaul is NOT proper protocol.
__________________________________________
Patrick, Nice story. Good luck today. Look forward to reading about Southampton.
-
Tom,
I don't know but I would believe the actual entry was written into the minutes by the Club Secretary. Given that it was a report of the Golf Committee with Robert Lesley as Chairman reading the Wilson Committee's report it was likely transcribed directly.
As far as what it means...
I believe it was simply an arcane way of saying that various potential routings were created and considered "on" the new golf course land they had secured the previous November. I believe they were paper routings, almost certainly on topographical maps as indicated by the final recommended plan submitted with the report.
Especially when one considers the timeframe from November through April went right through Pennsylvania winter.
David,
I don't feel like arguing with you today. All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.
If you don't want to go, fine. That's not my problem.
-
David,
I don't feel like arguing with you today. All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.
If you don't want to go, fine. That's not my problem.
You don't know Merion's policies and you are wrong about Merion's policies. I have no idea to what "invitation" you refer because I don't read that garbage, but I know I have not received anything from anyone who has authority to speak on behalf of Merion.
___________________________
As for the Minutes, TomM is correct. There is obviously missing material from before and after. And nice try with sticking your false time limits on the laying out many golf courses language. That most likely happened the previous summer and fall, long before there is any evidence of your man Wilson even being involved.
________________________________
I am still waiting for proof of the latest fantastic claims you guys came up with about how the course was redesigned before it was even opened.
-
David,
I'm glad you've backed off your previous position and now simply use phrases like "most likely". That's progress.
You (and Patrick) should also consider Walter Travis telling us in April 1907 (thanks Neil and Tom M) that they were still trying to figure out which holes to reproduce at NGLA, five months after they secured 200 undetermined acres. I would think that should be the final word on that argument.
-
Tom,
I don't know but I would believe the actual entry was written into the minutes by the Club Secretary. Given that it was a report of the Golf Committee with Robert Lesley as Chairman reading the Wilson Committee's report it was likely transcribed directly.
As far as what it means...
I believe it was simply an arcane way of saying that various potential routings were created and considered "on" the new golf course land they had secured the previous November. I believe they were paper routings, almost certainly on topographical maps as indicated by the final recommended plan submitted with the report.
Especially when one considers the timeframe from November through April went right through Pennsylvania winter.
Mike
That entry is confusing and doesn't make much sense IMO, especially in the context of the second paragraph. One could lay out several courses on paper, but not several courses on the ground. One would lay out one course on the ground. And in the second paragraph they are rearranging the golf course, implying that that there was a routing decided upon - either staked out or on paper - but there is no indication of how they arrived at that one golf course. That is why it does not make much sense to me, how they went from several courses to one course is a mystery. They seemed to have skipped an important stage.
-
Cirba, I haven't backed off anything. I can't be responsible for your inability to understand what I've written in the past.
As for the Travis article, you must be reading a different article than I read the one I read.
-
Tom,
Actually, it seems they went from many, to five different ones, to one.
We know the five to one routings period happened between early March 1911 to April 1911 because the minutes tell us it was after they returned from NGLA.
What we don't know is the starting point of the "many", although one could reasonably assume that it happened after the Committee was formed in early 1911, because the minutes do tell us that it was the Committee who laid out many golf courses on the new land.
btw...An August 1908 article about the ongoing work at NGLA states that Travis was still involved at that point and was in constant communications with Horace Hutchinson.
-
Tom,
Here's the August 15th, 1908 article from the New York Evening Post I mentioned. It's a pretty good one and indicates the continued involvement of Walter Travis at that late date. I thought I had found it, but Joe Bausch already had it.
Interestingly, it also mentions the "rank waste of underbrush, woods, and marsh land" which was the condition of the land prior to construction, consistent with CBM's mention of its dire condition and further belying the myth that he and Whigham laid out the course in a day or two on horseback.
It also mentions that they decided to provide safe avenues of play around hazards for the lesser golfers, which I would contend added significantly to their original estimates of acreage needed.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5226/5870199088_0fcab271dd_o.jpg)
-
TMac,
I agree the wording is confusing and it contributes to our long standing debates. Whether they just wrote stilted or figured everyone who would read it would know what they are talking about, we cannot know. The only thing more garbled, stilted, and confusing is David's definition of laid out!
As to how they decided the final routing, I do suspect they didn't think to write it down because at some point, the five or six guys had to just sit in a room and decide. We do have Francis description, which I suspect had to be a later version of the five, and presented to the committee after Lloyd signed off on the swap of "his/HDC" land. As to the others, we don't know if they were close iterations of the same basic plan, or something truly different in a few cases.
It would be nice to know.
-
There is a lot of great information all over this cropped image, but the underlined is primarily the evidence I'd point to that indicates that the routing had not yet been completed and ongoing discussion and planning was still taking place on exactly which "ideal" holes from abroad to emulate. Travis does not say that they've selected all the holes yet, simply that there were plenty "from which to make selection", indicating future tense. At this stage, in spring of 1907, they evidently still felt that each hole could be a replica, an idea which went by the wayside before too long.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/5869716179_e906729911_o.jpg)
-
Jeff Brauer,
You guys sure seemed to think you understood "to lay out" when you tried to adopt that understanding in the Myopia discussions, and argued that articles saying that Campbell had "laid out" Myopia couldn't be read to indicate he planned the course.
Anyway, if you are still confused about my understanding, look to Merion's Minutes, which explain how they were using the phrase by example: Lesley tells us what Merion was trying to accomplish: They would try to lay out the course "according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved."
Why is this so hard to understand? Merion went CBM at NGLA for help with the layout plan, then returned to Merion and tried to implement what CBM had instructed. CBM and HJW returned to Merion to again go over the land and to sort out what Merion had tried, and to choose and approve the final routing plan, which was submitted to the board as the plan CBM and HJW had approved. And Merion set out to lay out the course according to that plan.
Surely you understand that according to Merion, they already had a plan - the plan determined by CBM and HJW - before they finally "laid out" their course according to that plan.
I agree the wording is confusing and it contributes to our long standing debates. Whether they just wrote stilted or figured everyone who would read it would know what they are talking about, we cannot know.
Then why don't you encourage your buddies to come clean with the rest of the minutes from this meeting, and the rest of the relevant meetings from the time period.
As to how they decided the final routing, I do suspect they didn't think to write it down because at some point, the five or six guys had to just sit in a room and decide. We do have Francis description, which I suspect had to be a later version of the five, and presented to the committee after Lloyd signed off on the swap of "his/HDC" land. As to the others, we don't know if they were close iterations of the same basic plan, or something truly different in a few cases.
From where do you get this stuff? Five or six guys didn't "sit in a room and decide." Two guys decided. CBM and HJW worked with Merion on the layout plan at NGLA, and then a few weeks later they returned to Merion to go again go over the land and sort out what Merion had tried, and to determine and approve the final routing plan. How do you get "five or six guys sitting in a room" from this? CBM and HJW had final say, even if it meant Merion would have to scurry to acquire the extra three acres. This was very likely the same three acres near the clubhouse CBM advised them to acquire the previous summer.
And Jeff, rather than rehashing all this again, let's try to move the discussion along. Let's have your affirmative case. You've thrown out unsupported theory after unsupported theory, so now is the time for you to finally step up and contribute something of substance. Cirba is obviously incapable of so doing, so we are relying on you. Prove up your case. Give us the facts supporting your wild theories.
A good place to start would be above, with your theory that the course was redesigned immediately after it was built. Where are your facts? What was changed? How do they jibe with the multiple accounts indicating that much of the course was based on the great holes abroad from the beginning? Hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold me. Prove your case.
_________________________________________________
Bryan,
I am still hoping you will answer the specific questions I asked of you. You haven't answered yet. How would it change your interpretation of the Findlay article if only one other Alps hole had been "laid out" by CBM?
_______________________________________________
Mike's underline in the latest CBM article further demonstrate how bad he is at this stuff. He can pretend any article supports his case, whether it does or not. In this article, he ignores the part where Travis specifically identifies the five holes which will be "practically reproduced" and he ignore the repeated indications that little needed to be done to terrain to develop the rest, and he again confuses the details with the routing of the golf holes. Travis made it clear in the sentence after Mike's underlined passage that at that this point they were developing what was already there, and earlier in the article Travis indicated that all that was needed was "a touch or two."
All and all, though, the article does not specifically mention the routing. But it does confirm that it would play along Peconic Bay and Bullshead Bay, and that the Sahara, Alps, Redan, Road, and Eden were already placed. Given that we already know that the shape of the land had already been determined and that the Cape was also in place and that the first and last holes were in place, it becomes quite obvious to anyone by Mike that the routing was well in place at this point. Were they still working out the details? Of course they were. And no doubt they made some changes as they went along. But the basic routing was in place and was apparently there there beginning.
_____________________________________________
One interesting aspect of the article is Travis' take on the state of golf in America. Travis acknowledges (as he had elsewhere) that the very best courses in America were "merely colorable imitations of the real thing --good types of inland courses-- nothing more."
Also, the article seems to confirm that, even long before it was opened, NGLA was considered a revolutionary course well beyond what existed in America. According to Travis, NGLA "promises to be the very best in the whole kingdom of the golfing world. And that is saying a great deal."
Also, notice that even at this early date there is no mention of Mike's silly real estate theory, where 90 of the 200 acres would be used for estates.
-
David,
Listen, here is what Merion, Mike, and the rest offer - the Lesley report which says the committee laid out many plans, consulted with CBM and then laid out five more. You subtly twisting non facts and parsed phrases to say that CBM laid it out while they were at NGLA is the wild theory, and if you can ignore the obvious and clear meaning of the one report that actually addresses who laid out the plans, then its hard to have a discussion.
If you dismiss it, you dismiss it. No reason to keep going on arguing about your lies, suppositions, and other things.
That Lesley report just doesn't say that CBM laid it out at NGLA, or as you haven't backed off, far earlier than Nov 1910.
And frankly, as my Dad used to say, if you can't explain an idea in short order, its probably not a great idea. In this case, a simple word usually has a simple definition. Your definition of Laid out is tortuous. And when you need to use sub-Article 6.5, sub-section 3.D.1 (a) to figure out if they were working on the ground rather than on paper, but that CBM was working on paper, I know my Dad would have been highly suspect, and I am, too.
Here's a phrase that most would understand correctly and doesn't require endless explanation - "load of crap."
But, I thought you were tiring of this endless discussion? I wish you were. Sometimes you sound reasonable enough, other times you run back out to left field to throw a ball in.
-
Regarding the actual planning of the course this is the way I read it:
Step 1: laid out many different courses on the new land
Step 2: re-arranged the course
Step 3: laid out five different plans
Step 4: CBM selects/approves one of the five plans
Step 2 and Step 3 could probably be combined, but I'm separating them in order to emphasize the fact that there was single golf course that they re-arranged, which is consistent with the Wilson letters to P&O.
There is no mention of how they went from many courses to one course, or who laid out laid out the many courses, or when it happened. Also it would appear the laying out courses is not the same as laying out plans. A very confusing excerpt without doubt, a couple of possible reasons for the confusion. 1, we are not getting the entire entry and are reading this out of context, or 2, the excerpt was not transcribed accurately. That is why I was hoping the original could be posted.
-
The other confusing aspect of the excerpt: in the first paragraph it states they went down to the National course and in the second paragraph it states on our return. I'm no grammar expert, but I believe they is third person and our is first person. That is another reason I believe something is amiss with the excerpt.
-
TMac,
I agree we could combine 2 and 3. And the entire original would be better than snippets, just in case there is some context that would explain things better. That said, I don't believe that the transcription errors, if any, were intentional or changed the meaning, but you can believe what you want.
The course and then five different plans is a bit confusing, too. The course could refer to the new course as contemplated, but not finally designed, or if you prefer, although not particularly logical, it could mean that there was one course laid out at NGLA and there were five different variations later. Just out of curiosity, what letter to Oakley seems to confirm this notion? As usual, so many documents are thrown out there, I cannot recall them all.
As to the grammar, Lesley starts out by saying that "Your committee desires to report that they......" and then by the second paragraph, morphs over to "upon our return." I only take that to mean that he was there, and couldn't help himself in speaking that way, despite the formal introduction on behalf of the committee. We also know Wilson was there at NGLA, so we know for an almost certain fact that Wilson and Lesley were there.
The report also says it was from the Golf committee, which is confusing. From other documents, it appears to me the golf committee was a standing committee, and the construction committee operated under it, but then, I am not certain about that.
As to how they went from many to one, again, its just me, but after I route several versions of a course, I at some point just have to look at them and decide which has the most good features, sometimes with staff and even with the Owner. I am not sure the intuitive decision making in choosing one plan over the other (or choosing one, but subbing out one or two features from the other, etc.) can be described.
I presume they did the same, with CBM and HJW looking over the shoulder to confirm this, that and the other thing. I happen to disagree with David that CBM had the final say - with no standing, contract, or whatever at Merion, he could offer advice, and I have no doubt that they were predisposed to follow it within reason, but CBM had no authority to make a final decision to buy 3 more acres, etc.
But, I do agree with David (or more correctly, the Lesley report) that after they had drawn those five plans, that they accepted the decision of CBM as to which routing they had prepared was the best to implement.
-
From the first letter of February 1st (and in several others prior this April 14 excerpt) Wilson refers to the 'golf course.' Wilson also sends Piper a blueprint on February 1, asking him where they need to test the soil. Oakley responds saying he know how useful chemical analysis would be, but he thinks he will be able to give him good advice regarding what seed to use on for fairways and greens, how treat and fertilize that ground. On March 16 he sends soil samples to be tested and another blueprint marking the location the samples were taken. Over the next few weeks they discuss how they should fertilize the fair greens and putting greens. One would not send samples from locations not intended to be fairway and greens, so I think it is probable a routing existed prior to March 16, and most likely before February 1st, which is consistent with idea that there was golf course to be re-arranged when they returned from the NGLA.
-
TMac,
Thanks.
That said, we have had that discussion before. My take is that if they had a routing, the soil samples would have been listed as "3Tee", "4Green" and the like, but they are lettered. Also, there is probably not a inch on that tight site that wasn't going to be tee, green, or fair green. And, I think we know that the greens were going to be ammended.
And that said, again, while the minutes seem to say they only discussed CBM's GBI plans and sketches, if they had routings by the March NGLA meeting, I wouldn't be surprised that they took them down there. And not surprised if CBM told them they were total Horse crap, and that is when they started over, perhaps with a few holes that CBM saw as obvious being penciled in.
But, all that went on in those meeting is speculation, by me and others. We all appear to have some different persepctives, based on our own experiences. From mine, I don't place much stock in the real subtle nuances of phrasing, etc. One course, our course, our site could easily be used interchangably, at least IMHO.
-
It was clear from the beginning of these correspondences that they would only treat the ground intended to be fairways and greens. Why would he send P&O a blank blueprint (without a golf course) and ask him where he should take the soil samples? It only makes sense if there was golf course on that map. Why would he send soil samples in March not know if those samples were taken from a location that would require treatment in the future. One of the reasons Oakley advised against getting the soil analyzed was because it was expensive and the info obtained was of limited use.
-
Jeff Brauer,
I haven't lied, so DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR, and quit behaving like a passive-aggressive jerk. I am not one of your buddies.
David,
Listen, here is what Merion, Mike, and the rest offer
What Merion has to offer?? So now you too are speaking for Merion? Did you join the club. If not, then perhaps you should stick to what YOU have to offer, which isn't much.
- the Lesley report which says the committee laid out many plans, consulted with CBM and then laid out five more. You subtly twisting non facts and parsed phrases to say that CBM laid it out while they were at NGLA is the wild theory, and if you can ignore the obvious and clear meaning of the one report that actually addresses who laid out the plans, then its hard to have a discussion.
I'm subtly twisting non-facts? You repeatedly assert that the Lesley report indicated they first "laid out many plans" when it did not. No such thing is in the Lesley Report. The report said, they "laid out many courses on the new land. " Nothing in that section about any plans or many plans or who who came up with the plans. Just that they had laid out many courses on the new land. So quit subtly twisting non-facts.
And you keep skipping the key part about how, UPON THEIR RETURN FROM NGLA, THEY REARRANGED THE COURSE. "The course" is singular. Before seeking CBM's help as to the layout, they had laid out many different COURSES (plural) on the new land. After returning from NGLA they REARRANGED THE COURSE. Singular. They laid out five different plans on the rearranged course. Quit subtly DROPPING key facts.
As for your accusation, what specifically did I twist? You've admitted repeatedly that they were working on the layout plan at NGLA and multiple sources confirm it. As much as you guys try, you cannot separate the NGLA meeting from the planning process
- They had laid out many courses on the new land.
- They traveled to NGLA to meet with CBM for two days so CBM could instruct them how to lay out their course.
- Upon their return, they REARRANGED THE COURSE and laid out five plans on the new land.
- A few weeks later, CBM and HJW returned to Merion and spent the day again going over Merion's ground.
- After looking over the various plans and going over the ground, CBM and HJW decided on and approved a plan which would produce a first class course and the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.
- There is NO INDICATION whether this was one of the five plans laid out on the new land, or whether it was something CBM and HJW came up with independently, or a combination.
- All we know for sure is that it was CBM and HJW who determined and approved the plan.
- The Golf Committee (of which Lesley was chair) presented this plan to the board, and the board resolved to acquire the necessary acreage, presumably on Lesley's indication that the plan had been approved by CBM and HJW, and that they thought it would be excellent provided Merion purchased the three acres.
If you dismiss it, you dismiss it. No reason to keep going on arguing about your lies, suppositions, and other things.
You once went crying to Ran when you MISTAKENLY thought I had called you a liar when I hadn't. Yet here you are FALSELY CALLING ME A LIAR. I am not a liar, but you are behaving like a real jerk.
That Lesley report just doesn't say that CBM laid it out at NGLA, or as you haven't backed off, far earlier than Nov 1910.
The Lesley report doesn't say that Wilson or anyone else at Merion "laid out" the course either. More importantly it does NOT SAY Wilson PLANNED the course, or that any of the five plans on the newly rearranged course made it to the final plan as decided upon by CBM. As for CBM he didn't "lay out" Merion, but it sure looks like he planned it,
- Starting back in July of 1910 when he first went over the land and came up with holes he thought would fit provided Merion purchased a bit more land by the clubhouse.
- He continued continued with the planning at the two day NGLA meeting when he was trying to teach representatives of Merion how to lay out their course.
- And he continued with the planning when he and HJW returned to Merion, spent the day again going over the land.
- And he finished with the plan when he and HJW, after having looked over the land and many different plans, decided upon and approved a plan which was submitted to the board, along with the request that the three acres be aquired.
We'll likely never know whether any of the five plans (or parts of them) as laid out on the newly rearranged course were actually used in the plan CBM decided upon and approved. All we know is that CBM and HJW chose and approved the final plan, and that their plan - -the one they had chosen and approved -- that went to the board.
And frankly, as my Dad used to say, if you can't explain an idea in short order, its probably not a great idea. In this case, a simple word usually has a simple definition. Your definition of Laid out is tortuous. And when you need to use sub-Article 6.5, sub-section 3.D.1 (a) to figure out if they were working on the ground rather than on paper, but that CBM was working on paper, I know my Dad would have been highly suspect, and I am, too.
Blah Blah Blah. You can't explain or support your theory in short or long order. You have one sentence taken out of context. I somehow doubt that is what your father had in mind for short order.
Here it is in short order: CBM and HJW helped a bunch of novices choose their land, spent multiple days working with them on the layout plans, spent another day going over the land, and after having gone over the land and reviewing various plans, CBM and HJW came up with a final plan which may or may not have borrowed ideas from unidentified (because the board did not see fit to identify them) Members at Merion. Merion wanted to build a course according to CBM's and HJW's plan, and their original course contained quite a few holes and features indicative of CBM's courses.
Or how about even in shorter order: While they may or may not have been assisted unidentified Merion Members, CBM and HJW determined the final plan, and Merion attempted to build the course according to that plan.
_________________________________
TomM
I am not sure what you are summarizing, but if it is the Lesley report . . .
1. The supposed Lesley Report DOES NOT INDICATE that CBM and HJW chose one of the five plans as laid out on the rearranged course. It is not even clear what, if anything, from those plans made it to CBM's final plan. In fact, it is not entirely clear that CBM and HJW even came up with the final plan that day. Here again is paragraph as it has been transcribed to us . . .
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.
We know that, according to Lesley, CBM and HJW spent April 6th going over the ground, and maybe the next bit all happened the same day, but I am not so sure. And the report certainly DID NOT INDICATE that CBM and HJW choose one of the five plans laid out on the rearranged course. All it indicated was that CBM and HJW made their decision after having looked over "the various plans and the ground itself."
2. I don't think you can leave out the NGLA trip from the planning process, as one only read the Alan and/or Hugh Wilson accounts to understand that the trip was crucial to the planning.
3. Same goes for CBM again spending the day going over the land.
4. Same goes for CBM determining the final routing plan after having studied the various plans and the land.
And of course there are numerous other aspects of the planning such as Barker's routing and CBM's and HJW's first recommendations that you don't list.
Surely you left all this off on purpose so maybe you should just clarify what exactly you are listing.
-
This isn't worth discussing. You can believe what you want. I don't agree. Frankly, this debate isn't worth it at all. What really matters is that Merion is a great course.
Merion says in numerous documents that they laid it out themselves except for a bit of valuble help from CBM, and there is nothing in your essay that comes close to debunking that general concept. And, everyone agrees to that point, but you keep insisting on making it more about CBM than it ever was, by making up definitions, dispersing triangles and the like.
Your essay never met any reasonable burden of proof, and we gave it more respect than it deserves. So, David, go screw yourself, too. But, enjoy yourself while doing it! I mean, why not?
-
Fancy how it is worth it for you to go on for years about my theories, but when challenged to start backing up your own theories, suddently "it isn't worth discussing." So you hurl some insults and false accusations, and run away. Same as Wayne and TEPaul.
As for your opinion of my essay, it carries about as much weight with me as Cirba's. The funny thing is that you were pretty damn convinced by my essay when it first came out. But that was before you buddied up with TEPaul and before you took such strong personal disliking to me, not that the two are unrelated.
Despite your revised opinion, my explanation is the only one ever vetted and the only one where actual facts have been offered to back it up and where all available facts addressed and challenges answered. So take shots at my IMO and me all you like. We both know our understanding of the early history of the creation of the East Course has forever been turned on its head by my essay, whether the Fakers are ever man enough to acknowledge it or not.
___________________________
Whether done or not, you really ought to man up and make right your false accusation that I am lying. Either that or back it up. I won't hold my breath. Taking responsibility for your statements is not your strong suit, and neither is backing up your claims. Doesn't fit into your "big picture" mentality, I guess.
-
David,
No one, not even the other two M's, really agrees with your theories.
TMac,
They spread manure over the entire property, including the rough.
-
They harrowed and turned over the entire property, and treated it with lime as well.
-
TMac,
They spread manure over the entiree property, including the rough.
Mike
Was the date of the letter where that is discussed or mentioned?
-
Tom,
I'll try to find it tomorrow...tied up this evening.
But think about it...most of the property was corn fields prior...they HAD to turn all of that over.
But there is also a letter where they talk about how much to spread in the roughs, on the greens, in the fairways. I'll find it.
Thanks.
-
David,
No one, not even the other two M's, really agrees with your theories.
1. Earlier today Mike was speaking for Merion, now he is speaking for Patrick and TomM. He has a bad habit of trying to speak for other people. Given that his speculation is almost always incorrect, he is doing them no favors.
2. My interest is in figuring out what happened, not in garnering agreement from the likes of Mike Cirba. If these discussions prove anything it is that there is little correlation between the level of agreement and the soundness of my theories. There may be an inverse correlation, though. Cirba's disagreement has been a pretty good predictor of the soundness of my theories. If Mike Cirba agrees with me, I better double check the soundness of my argument and support.
____________________________________________________________
TomM,
I don't recall anything in the minutes indicating that they had prepared the entire parcel for seeding.
-
Tom,
I'll try to find it tomorrow...tied up this evening.
But think about it...most of the property was corn fields prior...they HAD to turn all of that over.
But there is also a letter where they talk about how much to spread in the roughs, on the greens, in the fairways. I'll find it.
Thanks.
Good luck.
-
TomM,
I don't recall anything in the minutes indicating that they had prepared the entire parcel for seeding.
David
To my knowledge there is nothing in the minutes or the letters, in fact just the opposite. This what Wilson wrote in his 1916 account:
"We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on the ground which had largely been farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kind so manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At the time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15...."
-
Tom and David,
They ploughed, harrowed, manured, and seeded the roughs.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5040/5872976124_1ede6480af_o.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc000239ae.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0002534e.jpg)
-
Call Mr. Plow, that's my name, that name again is Mr. Plow!
HughHomer IJ WilsonSimpson.
-
Joe,
Too funny!!
These guys have a .010 batting average and talk like Babe Ruth.
-
Here are excerpts from letters written by Wilson and Oakley that lead me to believe there was golf course (staked-out on the ground and/or on paper) when Wilson became engaged in the project. Now if you ignore what Wilson wrote in 1916 regarding fairways and greens, as Mike has done, you may come to a different conclusion. For some reason Wilson's own account is generally ignored by Mike and the others:
2/1/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "After studying the matter over, we find what a big problem we have on our hands and how little real knowledge. If you could find it possible to arrange to analize the soil, we will only too glad to stand any expense that you would be put to. Our idea is to get the best analysis we can of the soil and what is needed to fertilize the ground, with a view of getting the best short growing grasses. I am sending you under separate cover, a contour map, and it you could arrange a analize the soil and advise us what fertilizer it needs, please way what sections you would like samples of soil from and will send them to you. If by any chance you are coming up to Philadelphia, I sincerely hope that you will look it up, for it would be a great opportunity for us to take you out to the course and have chance to talk the matter over with you."
2/7/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I question very much the advisability of going to any trouble or expense in having analyses made of the various soils on your course, as chemical analysis really tells is but very little, if anything, in regard to the treatment the soil requires. We would be glad to get an idea of their general characteristics. I will be glad to you write us definitely regarding the condition of the new land at the present time, whether it is all cleared and whether there is any grass growing on it. I think we will be able to give you good suggestions regarding seed to be used on the fair greens, probably also on the putting greens, and some advice seeding and fertilizing."
2/8/1911 Wilson to Oakely: "As soon as the snow goes off, we will send you small samples of the typical soils in order that you can give us advice in regard to treating them. I sincerely hope that you will get up to Philadelphia and if you do, please let me know a day or so in advance and I will arrange to take you out and go over the Course with you."
3/13/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. Macdonald at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the Course and seeing his experiments with different grasses...I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new problem."
3/16/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I enclose a blue print showing locations from which soil was taken, which we are sending you today. I do not know if I made it clear in my former letter that any suggestions you would make in regard to treating the soil, will be much appreciated by us....Would it be better to put on the manure before plowing up the ground? We do not intend to seed before the Fall. Or would it be the best plan to plow and harrow the ground, then put on the lime and fertilizer, and go over it again and plow and harrow before seeding, say in August?"
3/16/1911 Russell to Oakley: "I beg leave to advise you that we have shipped to you, today by express, samples of soil and sod, regarding which you will receive a communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson a very short time."
3/20/1911 Oakley to Russell: "I am in receipt of your letter of 16th instant, and have just received the samples of soil and communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. I will write to Mr. Wilson within a few days and give him as much information as possible on the subject of putting your course in condition."
3/23/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "As indicated previously in a letter, it is possible to five only general suggestions from an examination such as we are to make. This examination, however, is really as valuable in determining the course of treatment of the soils as if the soil were analyzed chemically. I think the whole course needs liming...We have found on our Arlington Farm on heavy clay soils that it is frequently impossible ti correct acidity even with a very heavy application of lime, but where we have used a dressing of barnyard manure in connection with the lime the soil has been sweetened very materially. It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. You will find that manure in conjunction with lime is very beneficial, indeed....The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass...A fine leaved bent grass, with creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel quite certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens. I judge however that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition."
3/27/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I am in receipt of your nice letter of the 23rd, giving us the results of your experiments in regard to out soil. We will follow your advise in regard to liming and manuring the soil. You state that we should lime and manure heavily, and I would ask that your advise is the proportions of each we should use per acre. Of course you can get a better idea if you will stop over on your trip to New England. I certainly hope you can. We are starting in this weeks to plow and do some of the rough work....If you will let me know a day or two before you come to Philadelphia, I will arrange to go out to the Course and go over it with you."
3/29/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th instant and regret to find that I did not reply fully to your letter of the 14th instant...I note what you say in regard to plowing the land now and not seeding until next fall. The fall seeding is the most satisfactory. Manure, however, may be applied now and lime also. there is very little danger of loss of nitrogen from applying the two at the same time, especially if the lime is thoroughly slaked. We consider an application of two tons of lime not excessive by any means, and in fact we have found under many conditions that double the quantity is more beneficial....I would not advise the application of any commercial fertilizer until the time of sowing the seed, since if applied now it would mostly dissipated before the grass would have an opportunity of taking advantage of it. the see of redtop can be secured from any reliable seedsmen either in Philadelphia or New York City....I realize that you may have some difficulty in securing a sufficient quantity of well-rotted manure, but if this can be done an application of ten tons to acre would not be too much. The plan of plowing the land now and then again in mid-summer is a good one, but care, however, should be taken to have subservice of the sail thoroughly packed before sowing the seed."
4/5/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "Our idea is to plow the soil at once and then harrow in the manure at the rate of ten car loads per acre. Then scatter quick lim at the rate of 2 tons per acre....I am very glad that you are coming up to Philadelphia and will go over the course with us."
4/8/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "On account of the fact we are not going to seed until Fall, it occurred to me that is might be better to use fresh manure rather well rotted, as we gain in strength of the fertilizer and probably would not get many weed seeds."
4/8/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, and note what you say in regard to applying lime and manure to your course this spring. In your letter you state that you expect to apply manure at the rate of ten carloads to the acre. I think there must be some mistake in regard to this..."
4/10/1911 Wilson to Oakley : "I am in receipt of your favor of the 8th instant and in reply beg to say you are correct in that there was an error in my letter of the 5th instant. I should have stated ten tone, not carloads."
4/11/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, and am inclined to think that under your conditions fresh manure will prove quite satisfactory."
4/18/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "We are still hoping that you will come to Philadelphia and have a chance of looking over the course."
-
Tom and David,
They ploughed, harrowed, manured, and seeded the roughs.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5040/5872976124_1ede6480af_o.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc000239ae.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0002534e.jpg)
Mike
I've read these letters and there is nothing about plowing, harrowing or manuring the rough. The only mention of rough, and by the way this is the first mention of rough in all of their correspondence, is this:
"In regards to the amount of seeds, we have been recommended to plant the greens, which are roughly 100 feet quare, 75 to 100 lbs per green. On the fair green, where want especially good condition, 100 lbs to the acre, and in the rough, where it does not make much difference, 30 lbs."
I doesn't sound like the rough was much of a priority, why would they go to the effort and expense of treating it like the fairways and greens, and why did Wilson not mention anything about the rough in his 1916 account? He is very specific of how they went about the treatment of the course and for some reason you have chosen to ignore it. Why?
-
Tom,
En route to golf.
More later but keep in mind that the place was mostly a corn field.
Were they just going to throw seed between the broken off stalks?
-
TMac,
My read on that is that there were two operationg (plow up and fertilize) in the spring. Seeding (select grass type, seeding rates) in the fall. Wilson was just planning ahead. Nothing wrong with that.
I am still wondering about the historic methodology that would place the syntax of a bunch of agronomy letters as the top source to figure out when a course was routed, when club minutes tell us exactly when the final routing was completed?
Or, the motivation to exclude those minutes, or think something is "amiss" to use your word, because of a tense change from "your committee" to "upon our return."?
After about seven years of this, it still isn't clear to me what that part of this discussion is all about.
-
Tom,
En route to golf.
More later but keep in mind that the place was mostly a corn field.
Were they just going to throw seed between the broken off stalks?
Mike
I take it from your last response that you are admitting you were just blowing smoke up our asses when you tried to represent those letters as proof they plowed, harrowed, and manured the roughs. Those letters do not mention anything about treating the rough.
On February 6th Wilson said half the Course had very fair turf and the other half had been a corn field. In his 1916 report he said: "We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on the ground which had largely been farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kind so manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At the time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15...."
There is no mention in any of the letters of having to clear corn stalks. I'm not sure when the property was last an active farm. Whatever the case there are ways of clearing land without having to put 10 tons/acre of manure on it.
-
I've added the point on the timeline when they re-arranged the course, and I've marked it in yellow.
2/1/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "After studying the matter over, we find what a big problem we have on our hands and how little real knowledge. If you could find it possible to arrange to analize the soil, we will only too glad to stand any expense that you would be put to. Our idea is to get the best analysis we can of the soil and what is needed to fertilize the ground, with a view of getting the best short growing grasses. I am sending you under separate cover, a contour map, and it you could arrange a analize the soil and advise us what fertilizer it needs, please way what sections you would like samples of soil from and will send them to you. If by any chance you are coming up to Philadelphia, I sincerely hope that you will look it up, for it would be a great opportunity for us to take you out to the course and have chance to talk the matter over with you."
2/7/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I question very much the advisability of going to any trouble or expense in having analyses made of the various soils on your course, as chemical analysis really tells is but very little, if anything, in regard to the treatment the soil requires. We would be glad to get an idea of their general characteristics. I will be glad to you write us definitely regarding the condition of the new land at the present time, whether it is all cleared and whether there is any grass growing on it. I think we will be able to give you good suggestions regarding seed to be used on the fair greens, probably also on the putting greens, and some advice seeding and fertilizing."
2/8/1911 Wilson to Oakely: "As soon as the snow goes off, we will send you small samples of the typical soils in order that you can give us advice in regard to treating them. I sincerely hope that you will get up to Philadelphia and if you do, please let me know a day or so in advance and I will arrange to take you out and go over the Course with you."
3/13/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. Macdonald at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the Course and seeing his experiments with different grasses...I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new problem."
Re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.
3/16/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I enclose a blue print showing locations from which soil was taken, which we are sending you today. I do not know if I made it clear in my former letter that any suggestions you would make in regard to treating the soil, will be much appreciated by us....Would it be better to put on the manure before plowing up the ground? We do not intend to seed before the Fall. Or would it be the best plan to plow and harrow the ground, then put on the lime and fertilizer, and go over it again and plow and harrow before seeding, say in August?"
3/16/1911 Russell to Oakley: "I beg leave to advise you that we have shipped to you, today by express, samples of soil and sod, regarding which you will receive a communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson a very short time."
3/20/1911 Oakley to Russell: "I am in receipt of your letter of 16th instant, and have just received the samples of soil and communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. I will write to Mr. Wilson within a few days and give him as much information as possible on the subject of putting your course in condition."
3/23/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "As indicated previously in a letter, it is possible to five only general suggestions from an examination such as we are to make. This examination, however, is really as valuable in determining the course of treatment of the soils as if the soil were analyzed chemically. I think the whole course needs liming...We have found on our Arlington Farm on heavy clay soils that it is frequently impossible ti correct acidity even with a very heavy application of lime, but where we have used a dressing of barnyard manure in connection with the lime the soil has been sweetened very materially. It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. You will find that manure in conjunction with lime is very beneficial, indeed....The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass...A fine leaved bent grass, with creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel quite certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens. I judge however that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition."
3/27/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I am in receipt of your nice letter of the 23rd, giving us the results of your experiments in regard to out soil. We will follow your advise in regard to liming and manuring the soil. You state that we should lime and manure heavily, and I would ask that your advise is the proportions of each we should use per acre. Of course you can get a better idea if you will stop over on your trip to New England. I certainly hope you can. We are starting in this weeks to plow and do some of the rough work....If you will let me know a day or two before you come to Philadelphia, I will arrange to go out to the Course and go over it with you."
3/29/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th instant and regret to find that I did not reply fully to your letter of the 14th instant...I note what you say in regard to plowing the land now and not seeding until next fall. The fall seeding is the most satisfactory. Manure, however, may be applied now and lime also. there is very little danger of loss of nitrogen from applying the two at the same time, especially if the lime is thoroughly slaked. We consider an application of two tons of lime not excessive by any means, and in fact we have found under many conditions that double the quantity is more beneficial....I would not advise the application of any commercial fertilizer until the time of sowing the seed, since if applied now it would mostly dissipated before the grass would have an opportunity of taking advantage of it. the see of redtop can be secured from any reliable seedsmen either in Philadelphia or New York City....I realize that you may have some difficulty in securing a sufficient quantity of well-rotted manure, but if this can be done an application of ten tons to acre would not be too much. The plan of plowing the land now and then again in mid-summer is a good one, but care, however, should be taken to have subservice of the sail thoroughly packed before sowing the seed."
4/5/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "Our idea is to plow the soil at once and then harrow in the manure at the rate of ten car loads per acre. Then scatter quick lim at the rate of 2 tons per acre....I am very glad that you are coming up to Philadelphia and will go over the course with us."
4/8/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "On account of the fact we are not going to seed until Fall, it occurred to me that is might be better to use fresh manure rather well rotted, as we gain in strength of the fertilizer and probably would not get many weed seeds."
4/8/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, and note what you say in regard to applying lime and manure to your course this spring. In your letter you state that you expect to apply manure at the rate of ten carloads to the acre. I think there must be some mistake in regard to this..."
4/10/1911 Wilson to Oakley : "I am in receipt of your favor of the 8th instant and in reply beg to say you are correct in that there was an error in my letter of the 5th instant. I should have stated ten tone, not carloads."
4/11/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, and am inclined to think that under your conditions fresh manure will prove quite satisfactory."
4/18/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "We are still hoping that you will come to Philadelphia and have a chance of looking over the course."
-
TMac,
My read on that is that there were two operationg (plow up and fertilize) in the spring. Seeding (select grass type, seeding rates) in the fall. Wilson was just planning ahead. Nothing wrong with that.
I am still wondering about the historic methodology that would place the syntax of a bunch of agronomy letters as the top source to figure out when a course was routed, when club minutes tell us exactly when the final routing was completed?
Or, the motivation to exclude those minutes, or think something is "amiss" to use your word, because of a tense change from "your committee" to "upon our return."?
After about seven years of this, it still isn't clear to me what that part of this discussion is all about.
Wilson tells us in his 1916 report what he did, and there is nothing about treating the rough.
The routing of the golf course was in place on February 1, 1911, and it was on that blueprint. That is what I believe. Wilson would had to have been an idiot to send blank topo map and ask Oakley to recommend where take samples. You might as well use of blindfold and dart if that was the case. The minutes confirm there was a golf course in March. In those letters they discussed and implemented specific treatments for the fairways and greens prior to April 14.
As far as those minutes being amiss, all the other minute entries we've seen are well written and clear. This one is anything but. Lesley was a former journalist and newspaper editor he would be the last person to produce something so poorly written and confusing. What we have been given does not make sense, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is the only original document that has not been posted on this site or appeared in the Nature Faker.
-
TMac,
As to the factual questions, you have long claimed that Hugh Wilson was a novice. Could sending blank property line maps in order to get soil samples as quickly as possible just be one of those rookie mistakes (or him following his initial advice from CBM, perhaps blindly?) I think it could be.
For that matter, since we know that the routing wasn't final until the April 19 Board Resolution, in the end, it wouldn't matter - he was either sending soil samples from a wrong routing or no routing. Both stand the chance of a soil sample coming from a wrong area, no?
That said, the site is so tight, that I would believe the soil samples and the ploughing/manuring would still encompass all but those three holes that were said to have an excellent stand of grass, and perhaps the bottom of the quarry and what were to be parking lots, clubhouse, or maintenance area. Look at old maps, and those fw pretty well extended right to each other, side to side. They were wider than they are now. I don't think there would be a big advantage to not adding fertizers to the rough. It still required similar grass seed to grow, even if planted at 30 lb./acre rather than 100.
And, I don't see how agronomy letters really affect what happened, or our understanding of it.So what are you alleging? That TePaul has faked the minutes to protect the legend of Hugh Wilson? That Merion is the poster child for unethical behavior among historians?
I am just trying to figure out what could be "amiss" other than some poor tense changes, at least as you see it.
So what are you alleging? That TePaul has faked the minutes to protect the legend of Hugh Wilson? That Merion is the poster child for unethical behavior among historians?
Still seems to me that the simplest, most obvious answer is that between talking for the committee, etc. that we just have one document that YOU don't think reads as it should. And of course, if you are of a mindset that the committee didn't design the golf course, then, if you look long enough, its a good bet you can find some snippets that lead to whatever conclusion you want.
-
Wilson did not send a blank map.
The different areas of the roughly 100 acres that needed development were coded alphabetically, which would have been ridiculous if the course was already routed.
-
Funny how you guys are always accusing us of parsing words, yet you tell us that "golf course" doesn't even mean "golf course" in these letters.
_______________________________________________________
Jeff Brauer, You accused me of lying and you are standing by that? You know damn well that your accusation is completely false, yet you have neither set the record straight nor backed up your claim. You are a real gentleman.
Reminds me of when Wayne called me a liar for correctly measuring the 10th hole at Merion using Google Earth. He wasn't man enough to set the record straight either, even when proven wrong. More evidence that you guys really aren't interested in setting the record straight, but are perfectly happy to let false statements stand if they advance your petty grudges.
___________________________________________________________
TomM,
Thanks for transcribing those in one place. A few comments:
-- In addition to your underlines, in his 3/23/11 letter, Oakley gives us a good idea of what they meant when they referred to "the course" when he wrote: "I think the whole course needs liming . . . It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured.[/color]" It would make little sense to lime the areas they were not using; so "the whole course" most likely referred to the golf holes. This is further confirmed when he wrote of using manure on "your fairgreens."
-- Another telling statement not underlined is in Wilson's 3/13/1911 letter written right after his NGLA trip, where Wilson invited Oakley "to go out and see our new problem." During this time period, course layouts and/or hole layouts were often referred to as a "problem" because the course and/or hole presented the golfers with a problem they would have to try and resolve. This seems to be the likely reference here, otherwise to what was he referring?
-- At the beginning of February Wilson apparently had a contour map of "the course" and Wilson mentioned he would send soil samples as soon as the snow melted. He did not send soil samples and the corresponding blueprint marking the locations until mid-March, shortly after returning from NGLA. While not dispositive of anything in particular, this timing fits well with the theory that they had a plan from the beginning (by Barker and/or CBM/HJW) but it hit a snag or change (the swap) and they wanted CBM to review the plan and sign off on the change.
-- If "the golf course" meant the entire property and not just the golf course, then what was Wilson talking about when he wrote of having the "opportunity of going over the Course." What was meant by the course? Plans for Merion's course? NGLA's golf course? Or perhaps Wilson was there interested in purchasing one of the 90 estate lots which Mike thinks were there in addition to the golf course?
_____________________________
As to the supposed Lesley report, Tom is correct that copies of this report and the actual minutes from which it came have not been brought forward.
And, despite the repeated claims on here by know-nothings who do not represent Merion, those particular documents have NOT been available for review, not even at Merion. I am curious as to what Wayne is hiding this time.
That said, as they are, I agree with Tom MacWood that they do not make much sense, and in this contrasts sharply with similar material, such as other writings by Lesley and other transcriptions from the minutes. This is especially curious given that TEPaul had already posted multiple different and conflicting versions of this supposed report, none of which made sense either.
Moreover, even the Fakers' presentation of this supposed report is strange on their .pdf.
1. The order the material is presented is odd. The Fakers first quoted a resolution noting that the "the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground . . . ." Then after an unrelated paragraph, the Fakers brought up that on the same date, "Lesley submitted a report to the Board of Government . . . ." Is this where the Golf Committee submitted a plan? Because reading it makes it seem as if Merion voted on the plan before Lesley even presented it. This could just be part of the nearly incoherent presentation, but it certainly raises some questions.
2. It is unclear whether all the relevant material from this Meeting has been presented. The only items presented are the resolution and the supposed Report. There is no indication of what else is in there, so we have no idea whether or not this is just continued cherry-picking by the Fakers.
3. The form of this report diverges from other similar reports. Most notably, other transcribed submissions and reports contain some sort of attribution or signature at the end, even if just the word "Secretary." Lesley's earlier report from summer 1910 ends as follows:
Respectfully submitted for the Committee,
(signed) Robert W. Lesley,
Chairman
Yet Lesley's March report just abruptly cuts off after the one sentence paragraph about the deal with the construction company. Is that the way it appeared in the minutes, or is something missing? And what came before and after the report?
It could be that this is exactly as it appeared and the entirety of the minutes dealing with the issue, but given the cherry picking these guys have done in the past, surely these things need sorting out.
____________________________________________________
Wilson did not send a blank map.
The different areas of the roughly 100 acres that needed development were coded alphabetically, which would have been ridiculous if the course was already routed.
Above Cirba asserted as fact his theory that the rough had been plowed and fertilized, even though there is ample indication that THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Now he is again blowing smoke up our asses with another unsupported proclamation.
And he says our batting average is 10%? Mike theories are the unfortunate proof that one can fail repeatedly and miserably, yet still not learn anything.
Where did the 100 acre figure come from?
And if there was NO PLAN, then how come only 100 acres needed to be developed? How did they know which 100 acres to develop? What about the other 20 acres?
-
David,
You really need to keep up with your reading. Perhaps you should start with the P&O letters.
Wilson determined that about 25 acres were sodded well enough that they didn't need seeding. That leaves roughly 100 to develop.
As far as what they called it, perhaps you would have preferred if Wilson said, "hey, can't wait til you can come up and see our cornfield"...or how about, "we need to spread some manure on our farmland".
It was land they were going to develop for golf so he called it a golf course.
You guys should really take your act on the road as it's becoming the best comedy duo since Rowan and Martin. And then when you guys get Patrick wound up, man...I have to tell you, I've come to count on your guys to brighten my day with sunshine and laughter. ;D
-
Mike,
You should know that others, non-interested parties, don't agree with you.
This past weekend I had half a dozen individuals approach me with their opinion on this thread and not one of them sided with the Merionettes.
Now, you can say that they're wrong. But, when independent prudent people don't agree with you, you have to ask yourself, WHY ?
Perhaps your arguments aren't as convincing as you think.
Perhaps David's arguments have merit.
One of these independent parties, who doesn't participate on GCA.com, labeled you (the Merionettes) as pedantic.
Others thought that the Merionettes and the other side were ...... unspooled.
As I've said many times, I don't know for a fact, exactly what happened at Merion, but, I have my opinions, as do others.
Some may agree with you, some may agree with David, but, it's clear, there's no unanymity.
So, please, don't categorize those that disagree with you as unknowing, stupid or clownish.
If there's a burden of proof, it would appear that neither side has produced it, to date, despite your proclaimations to the contrary.
Perhaps David and Tom will seek access to the archives, but, it's wrong to expect them to do so through or under the supervision of the Merionettes.
Better that an independent third party should make the arrangements, since the interested parties are at swords point.
You may remember how hard you tried to dispute that Wilson hadn't traveled prior to March of 1912.
But, you were wrong.
Don't ever think that you couldn't be wrong about other matters.
While I have my opinions, they may be completely wrong.
Hopefully, time will tell
-
Wilson did not send a blank map.
The different areas of the roughly 100 acres that needed development were coded alphabetically, which would have been ridiculous if the course was already routed.
Mike
You are confused. He sent two blueprints. He included a map with his first letter and asked where they should take samples. He sent a second map in March with the samples. It would be ridiculous if the course wasn't routed in February and it was blank map and he was asking where we should take samples.
-
David,
I agree with Mike that his acreage estimate is easily supportable - 117 acres, less the amount of existing Merion Blue, a few acres for clubhouse, maintenance, quarry bottom, creek bottoms, the occaisional treed area, etc. Not too far off 100 acres, but thanks for another example of you being both an insulting (insert your own insulting name here) and your ability to logically reason. I am sure its on par with the rest of your logical analysis over the years, and your method - insult and attack first, think later. Geez.
TMac,
As it happens, I have had soil samples taken before there was a routing. It might have helped them decide what areas to avoid. And, if you say that the course was too packed in for them to avoid anything, well, then, it really didn't matter if they had a routing or not. On a site like that, it would be almost guaranteed you would be in or near a fw.
For that matter, if you missed by a few yards, would you really think the soil would be that much different just a few yards apart? I have seen it happen occaisionally, but usually there is some kind of evidence on the ground - change in vegetation (I wouldn't be surprised if the native bluegrass areas were low lying and wet, and thus not farmed, and perhaps of a different soil due to the constant flooding of Cobbs Creek, for example) The soil near the quarry would probably be similar, etc.
I am still trying to figure out your use of the word "amiss." I understand your past posts concerning the inaccuracies of club histories, by guys like Tollhurst, who failed to do much than regurgitate old records, and incomprehensively at that. I tried to reason out (and got slammed by David for doing so) how Alan Wilson could write "as a first step" which later got translated into Wilson going abroad earlier than he actually did.
But, I am struggling to figure out how you think what Lesley wrote in the club minutes (or read into the club minutes) could be "amiss?" I agree there is some clumsy wording, but I wonder what it is that could make someone honestly think that they had a course on the ground, etc. As you can tell, it reads pretty simply to my eyes and ears.
Thanks.
-
David,
I agree with Mike that his acreage estimate is easily supportable - 117 acres, less the amount of existing Merion Blue, a few acres for clubhouse, maintenance, quarry bottom, creek bottoms, the occaisional treed area, etc. Not too far off 100 acres, but thanks for another example of you being both an insulting (insert your own insulting name here) and your ability to logically reason. I am sure its on par with the rest of your logical analysis over the years, and your method - insult and attack first, think later. Geez.
TMac,
As it happens, I have had soil samples taken before there was a routing. It might have helped them decide what areas to avoid. And, if you say that the course was too packed in for them to avoid anything, well, then, it really didn't matter if they had a routing or not. On a site like that, it would be almost guaranteed you would be in or near a fw.
For that matter, if you missed by a few yards, would you really think the soil would be that much different just a few yards apart? I have seen it happen occaisionally, but usually there is some kind of evidence on the ground - change in vegetation (I wouldn't be surprised if the native bluegrass areas were low lying and wet, and thus not farmed, and perhaps of a different soil due to the constant flooding of Cobbs Creek, for example) The soil near the quarry would probably be similar, etc.
I am still trying to figure out your use of the word "amiss." I understand your past posts concerning the inaccuracies of club histories, by guys like Tollhurst, who failed to do much than regurgitate old records, and incomprehensively at that. I tried to reason out (and got slammed by David for doing so) how Alan Wilson could write "as a first step" which later got translated into Wilson going abroad earlier than he actually did.
But, I am struggling to figure out how you think what Lesley wrote in the club minutes (or read into the club minutes) could be "amiss?" I agree there is some clumsy wording, but I wonder what it is that could make someone honestly think that they had a course on the ground, etc. As you can tell, it reads pretty simply to my eyes and ears.
Thanks.
Are you drunk? Did you send a topo map to the testing group and ask where they'd like the samples to come from?
You've already stated the excerpt from the minutes did not make sense to you either so I'm not quite sure why you don't understand.
-
TMac,
Well, I am trying to be nice, but thanks for the insults. I presume you use them because its all you got for the arguments.
And yes, using independent agronomists, they sometimes can spot those likely different areas of soils based on topo, trees (if marked on map) flood plains, and their general knowledge from USDA soils maps. Not sure how much general soils info was available for Philly then. And, as a novice, I don't see it as that unusual that Wilson would ask the agronomist for his advice on where to take them, since he would know little at this point, other than that CBM told him soil samples were of paramount importance.
But, that said, if I am in a housing project, yes, I do wait until I have a routing in place, or nearly so, to get the soil tests. I just keep thinking that on a tight site that they knew would be fully utilized, that it might not have made much difference, as long as they got some of the basically different areas - the existing native grasses, the quarry, etc. Of course I base that on taking soil tests for about 50 new projects and similar amount of remodels. I doubt that experience can substitute for reading of numerous historical accounts........
I didn't say the minutes didn't make sense to me, I said the wording was clumsy in some respects. But as usual for the Moronics, you subtly twist words to make them say what they don't say. Not only my words, but those of the committee, etc. Seriously, I just don't know how the words "upon our return we laid out five plans" could mean much other than they drew up five plans.
I can't come up with a logical explanation as to why Lesley's words are amiss. Do you think he had an obligation to write them to your satisfaction? Personally, I think as he read the report to those immediate people in the room, he left out what would have been obvious to them - that the committee was the special committee on construction - because they all knew it, and they knew who was on it. I would not ever take it to mean that some other unmentioned committee really went to NGLA.
But, we have covered that ground. The entire Moronic theory (to the extent its consistent) seems based on Merion's records being wrong in some way, shape, or form, or you three being the smartest three guys in the last 100 years and being the only ones to break the code. I am not saying its impossible, I am saying I have all the coincidences falling into place at under 2% or so. I would love to hear the list of names from Pat of those who really support you guys. Maybe they can explain it a lot better than you do.
BTW, since I mentioned going to Top Golf, I will presume you just figured I was drinking there. But, I was not, other than Diet Coke. But, its still an insult without foundation. Not that you don't seem to come up with a lot of things I don't think have foundation........but I am trying to understand if from your point of view, even as I disagree.
-
TMac,
Well, I am trying to be nice, but thanks for the insults. I presume you use them because its all you got for the arguments.
And yes, using independent agronomists, they sometimes can spot those likely different areas of soils based on topo, trees (if marked on map) flood plains, and their general knowledge from USDA soils maps. Not sure how much general soils info was available for Philly then. And, as a novice, I don't see it as that unusual that Wilson would ask the agronomist for his advice on where to take them, since he would know little at this point, other than that CBM told him soil samples were of paramount importance.
But, that said, if I am in a housing project, yes, I do wait until I have a routing in place, or nearly so, to get the soil tests. I just keep thinking that on a tight site that they knew would be fully utilized, that it might not have made much difference, as long as they got some of the basically different areas - the existing native grasses, the quarry, etc. Of course I base that on taking soil tests for about 50 new projects and similar amount of remodels. I doubt that experience can substitute for reading of numerous historical accounts........
I didn't say the minutes didn't make sense to me, I said the wording was clumsy in some respects. But as usual for the Moronics, you subtly twist words to make them say what they don't say. Not only my words, but those of the committee, etc. Seriously, I just don't know how the words "upon our return we laid out five plans" could mean much other than they drew up five plans.
I can't come up with a logical explanation as to why Lesley's words are amiss. Do you think he had an obligation to write them to your satisfaction? Personally, I think as he read the report to those immediate people in the room, he left out what would have been obvious to them - that the committee was the special committee on construction - because they all knew it, and they knew who was on it. I would not ever take it to mean that some other unmentioned committee really went to NGLA.
But, we have covered that ground. The entire Moronic theory (to the extent its consistent) seems based on Merion's records being wrong in some way, shape, or form, or you three being the smartest three guys in the last 100 years and being the only ones to break the code. I am not saying its impossible, I am saying I have all the coincidences falling into place at under 2% or so. I would love to hear the list of names from Pat of those who really support you guys. Maybe they can explain it a lot better than you do.
BTW, since I mentioned going to Top Golf, I will presume you just figured I was drinking there. But, I was not, other than Diet Coke. But, its still an insult without foundation. Not that you don't seem to come up with a lot of things I don't think have foundation........but I am trying to understand if from your point of view, even as I disagree.
Jeff
I'm sorry, it is sometimes frustrating dealing with you because you seem only interested in being a devil's advocate, you obviously have no interest or curiosity in discovering what happened. The map had no indication of trees or existing vegetation. Oakley asked in a later letter what was on the ground, and Wilson explained half had very fair turf and the other half had been a corn field.
-
TMac,
Well, I mentioned the "occaisonal tree area' in the post. I didn't say there were trees all over the place. There had to be a few, even if they didn't show up on the map.
I do not think Mike's rough estimate of 100 acres is either unsupportable, far off. I wasn't being devils advocate, but doing simple math for David, who seemed to jump to a too fast conclusion.
For that matter, I have no idea why we are even discussing agronomy letters. It would seem to me that its just a nice bit of deflection, or searching beyond hope that some word parse might affect and change the basic wording of "we laid out five plans on our return". It doesn't, but I am just trying to figure out a way that it logically could.
David slammed me for at first agreeing to his theory, and then backing off. Of course, in his mind, I cannot think for myself, I only puppet for TPaul. Not true. If I wasn't interested, why would I have read his essay four or five times, taken the trouble to post many of his seemingly unsupported conclusions regarding the timeline, and give him a chance to answer them? I haven't done any digging like David, Joe Baush and others, but I have read and stuck with this thing for what, seven years now? BTW, I think I have made more attempts to find middle ground than others, too. Sometimes it seems like we edge that way, but other times, we don't. And, unlike a few, I have admitted when I am wrong, and admitted certain points from the other side.
Hey, we all get frustrated, perhaps because its an unwinnable argument given how entrenched everyone is. Now that I think of it, maybe I should get drunk before entering this fray again....Thanks TMac, great idea!
-
Jeff
Are you most interested in discovering what happened or most interested in protecting the Hugh Wilson legacy?
-
Here we go again.
On the one hand we have Wilson, who told us what happened in no uncertain terms. And on the other hand, we have you guys ignoring him and pretending he wrote something entirely different. How many times do we have to go through this?
______________________________________
David,
You really need to keep up with your reading. Perhaps you should start with the P&O letters.
Wilson determined that about 25 acres were sodded well enough that they didn't need seeding. That leaves roughly 100 to develop.
As far as what they called it, perhaps you would have preferred if Wilson said, "hey, can't wait til you can come up and see our cornfield"...or how about, "we need to spread some manure on our farmland".
It was land they were going to develop for golf so he called it a golf course.
25 acres? As usual, Cirba is just making things up. And the area in question isn't even half of 25 acres. He wrote that three fairways were pasture turf. To give you an idea of their priorities, when these fairways became too weak, the sodded the landing areas (70x45 yards) using turf from the rough, "which was of no value there."
What is the source of the 100 acre figure? Is that somewhere or did Cirba just make that up as well?
-
Tmac,
Well, your last post is most appropriate during a discussion of how much manure was getting thrown around at Merion, because obvioulsy, it still is.......
To remind you, as David just did a few posts ago, in the beginning, I was willing to flesh out and accept his theories, but as the discussions went on, I changed my mind based on what I saw was the evidence and lack thereof on the alternate routing timelines. I still credit him for finding the Wilson trip timing, and for forcing the Merion boys to go dig deep and come up with documents that no one had seen in a while.
Along the way, I have stated that under modern standards of crediting, CBM would probably be given co-credit, or more credit than the terminology of the day, and the perpspective of the Merion members might have warranted, even if that feeling isn't universal.
And, within the last two weeks, I posted a detailed list of what I thought the contributions of CBM to Merion were. When David politely suggested I had missed a few, I agreed and suggested a few of the more important ones. At that point, I even speculated a bit (such as CBM being instrumental in seeing the Dallas Estate was necessary, and perhaps writing the 6000 yard course part of the letter as cover for their upcoming negotiations to buy that)
Along the way, I maintain my strong disagreement with some proposed time line for the routings, because I have little patience with proclaiming the routing timeline by ignoring the official club records and parsing other, unrelated documents to try to make a case. No other way to say it than I think that is horse manure, pure and simple. And, the efforts some make to use those kinds of deflections seemingly speak to them having an agenda, not me.
So, does any of that sound like someone who is blindly trying to protect Hugh Wilson's legend? Or someone who is trying to understand exactly what happened?
David,
I agree that three full fw would be closer to nine acres, but if good turf came from the rough, then obviously it was three fw and part of the accompanying rough where they found what late was called Merion bluegrass. It would be amazing if the area of bluegrass followed fw lines exactly, no? So, yes, 10-12 acres of natural turf sounds right, or about half. But, as I noted above, there were creekbeds, half of the road, clubhouse and maintenance areas, and the bottom of the quarry that presumably didn't need turf. 117-12- another five for all of those things combined brings you right to 100.
These threads would be a lot shorter if you didn't feel the need to instantly insult Mike and I without thinking it out first.
-
Did a golf course exist (either on paper or staked out) that needed re-aranging when they returned from the NGLA ?
2/1/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "After studying the matter over, we find what a big problem we have on our hands and how little real knowledge. If you could find it possible to arrange to analize the soil, we will only too glad to stand any expense that you would be put to. Our idea is to get the best analysis we can of the soil and what is needed to fertilize the ground, with a view of getting the best short growing grasses. I am sending you under separate cover, a contour map, and it you could arrange a analize the soil and advise us what fertilizer it needs, please way what sections you would like samples of soil from and will send them to you. If by any chance you are coming up to Philadelphia, I sincerely hope that you will look it up, for it would be a great opportunity for us to take you out to the course and have chance to talk the matter over with you."
2/7/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I question very much the advisability of going to any trouble or expense in having analyses made of the various soils on your course, as chemical analysis really tells is but very little, if anything, in regard to the treatment the soil requires. We would be glad to get an idea of their general characteristics. I will be glad to you write us definitely regarding the condition of the new land at the present time, whether it is all cleared and whether there is any grass growing on it. I think we will be able to give you good suggestions regarding seed to be used on the fair greens, probably also on the putting greens, and some advice seeding and fertilizing."
2/8/1911 Wilson to Oakely: "As soon as the snow goes off, we will send you small samples of the typical soils in order that you can give us advice in regard to treating them. I sincerely hope that you will get up to Philadelphia and if you do, please let me know a day or so in advance and I will arrange to take you out and go over the Course with you."
3/13/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I have just returned from a couple of days spent with Mr. Macdonald at the National Golf Course. I certainly enjoyed having an opportunity of going over the Course and seeing his experiments with different grasses...I hope that you will come up soon and will have time to go out and see our new problem."
Re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.
3/16/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I enclose a blue print showing locations from which soil was taken, which we are sending you today. I do not know if I made it clear in my former letter that any suggestions you would make in regard to treating the soil, will be much appreciated by us....Would it be better to put on the manure before plowing up the ground? We do not intend to seed before the Fall. Or would it be the best plan to plow and harrow the ground, then put on the lime and fertilizer, and go over it again and plow and harrow before seeding, say in August?"
3/16/1911 Russell to Oakley: "I beg leave to advise you that we have shipped to you, today by express, samples of soil and sod, regarding which you will receive a communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson a very short time."
3/20/1911 Oakley to Russell: "I am in receipt of your letter of 16th instant, and have just received the samples of soil and communication from Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. I will write to Mr. Wilson within a few days and give him as much information as possible on the subject of putting your course in condition."
3/23/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "As indicated previously in a letter, it is possible to five only general suggestions from an examination such as we are to make. This examination, however, is really as valuable in determining the course of treatment of the soils as if the soil were analyzed chemically. I think the whole course needs liming...We have found on our Arlington Farm on heavy clay soils that it is frequently impossible to correct acidity even with a very heavy application of lime, but where we have used a dressing of barnyard manure in connection with the lime the soil has been sweetened very materially. It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. You will find that manure in conjunction with lime is very beneficial, indeed....The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass...A fine leaved bent grass, with creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel quite certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens. I judge however that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition."
3/27/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "I am in receipt of your nice letter of the 23rd, giving us the results of your experiments in regard to out soil. We will follow your advise in regard to liming and manuring the soil. You state that we should lime and manure heavily, and I would ask that your advise is the proportions of each we should use per acre. Of course you can get a better idea if you will stop over on your trip to New England. I certainly hope you can. We are starting in this weeks to plow and do some of the rough work....If you will let me know a day or two before you come to Philadelphia, I will arrange to go out to the Course and go over it with you."
3/29/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th instant and regret to find that I did not reply fully to your letter of the 14th instant...I note what you say in regard to plowing the land now and not seeding until next fall. The fall seeding is the most satisfactory. Manure, however, may be applied now and lime also. there is very little danger of loss of nitrogen from applying the two at the same time, especially if the lime is thoroughly slaked. We consider an application of two tons of lime not excessive by any means, and in fact we have found under many conditions that double the quantity is more beneficial....I would not advise the application of any commercial fertilizer until the time of sowing the seed, since if applied now it would mostly dissipated before the grass would have an opportunity of taking advantage of it. the see of redtop can be secured from any reliable seedsmen either in Philadelphia or New York City....I realize that you may have some difficulty in securing a sufficient quantity of well-rotted manure, but if this can be done an application of ten tons to acre would not be too much. The plan of plowing the land now and then again in mid-summer is a good one, but care, however, should be taken to have subservice of the sail thoroughly packed before sowing the seed."
4/5/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "Our idea is to plow the soil at once and then harrow in the manure at the rate of ten car loads per acre. Then scatter quick lim at the rate of 2 tons per acre....I am very glad that you are coming up to Philadelphia and will go over the course with us."
4/8/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "On account of the fact we are not going to seed until Fall, it occurred to me that is might be better to use fresh manure rather well rotted, as we gain in strength of the fertilizer and probably would not get many weed seeds."
4/8/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, and note what you say in regard to applying lime and manure to your course this spring. In your letter you state that you expect to apply manure at the rate of ten carloads to the acre. I think there must be some mistake in regard to this..."
4/10/1911 Wilson to Oakley : "I am in receipt of your favor of the 8th instant and in reply beg to say you are correct in that there was an error in my letter of the 5th instant. I should have stated ten tone, not carloads."
4/11/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, and am inclined to think that under your conditions fresh manure will prove quite satisfactory."
4/18/1911 Wilson to Oakley: "We are still hoping that you will come to Philadelphia and have a chance of looking over the course."
-
TMac,
To answer your question, while there is no record of when the committee first met to prepare their first plans prior to the March NGLA meeting, I have no doubt that some paper routing plans existed in March 1911, which would be supplanted by five and then the final one plan by early April. The minutes confirm it.
As you once noted, the April meeting minutes don't really establish a front end for that planning so we don't know if they started routing before Hugh Wilson sent in Feb 1 letter to Oakley or not.
Having been appointed in January (most likely, all we really know is "early 1911" and he does sign the Oakley letter for "the committee" which has to be his committee) it would be a close call as to whether they managed to meet before that letter. In fact, its probably pretty unlikely that they did.
But, given that CBM told them to contact soil experts, and CBM had grass growing problems at NGLA, it also makes sense that Hugh Wilson jumped right on that (at least to me) right after he got the contour maps from the civil engineers. He obviously took the agronomy part very seriously. It seems as if he considered that a separate, but equal problem which demanded his full attention, no matter how the golf course was going to be routed.
And again, just how much of a 117 acre site was going to be unused for the fair green? Why wouldn't a novice ask an expert where the best places for soil samples might be? Non of that seems outlandish to me, given my experience.
As to his use of "golf course" to describe a then open cornfield, I understand that in today's parlance, we would probably say to come visit our site, rather than course, before a course was built. It appears to me that Hugh Wilson simply referred to the upcoming course as "the course" for whatever reasons. I do not know if that was a popular way to say things or not.
-
Jeff
Anyone with a modicum of common sense, even a complete novice, would not send a blank topo map to an expert and ask him where to take samples. The reason Wilson contacted P&O was to get their advice on preparing the ground and seeding. He did not approach P&O with the question, we are about to route a golf course, could you please tell us what portion of this property is best suited for greens and fairways, or alternatively which portion is least suited for fairways and greens. With less than 120 acres that would not be practical anyway. Asking for specific advice about fertilizing and seeding is something you would do after you have a routing, not before.
Throughout the correspondence Wilson refers to a golf course, pre-NGLA and post-NGLA. If a golf course existed, as you believe, in March, it is very likely that golf course existed in February. If a golf course existed in February it is likley a golf course existed when the construction committee was formed in January.
A blank topo map is not a blueprint. It is common knowledge a blueprint is an architectural plan or rendering. Oakley referred to the map sent to him on February 1 as a blueprint.
-
Let's get back to reality and dispense with these CBM and/or Barker bromantic nocturnal emissions, shall we?
It's clear from the letters that Oakley wanted to get representative soil samples from various parts of the property and that Wilson wanted Oakley's expertise to determine where to take those samples from, given low-lying spots near water, higher spots that might be rocky, etc.
Here are the actual letters instead of selected transcripts. They make clear that the property was viewed as just that, a complete entity without a golf course routing on it. They also make clear other things like plowing, harrowing, fertilizing, etc. They also make clear that half the property previously had corn planted on it.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0025623a.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0025892c.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0025be86.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0025e7a2.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00260f0a.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00265723.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0026762a.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00269243.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0026b2a5.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0026c804.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0026f2fe.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00270bc0.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00272bbf.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00276d84.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc002784b3.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc00279f7f.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0027b770.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0027cd2b.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc0027e827.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc004d7225.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc004d8f64.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc004db3be.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc004dcc1d.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion%20PIper%20Oakley%20Letters/sc004df8a3.jpg)
-
Mike
Did a golf course exist (either on paper or staked out) that needed re-aranging when they returned from the NGLA ?
-
TMac,
You consistently exhibit a huge lack of common sense, and yet feel compelled to base your theories on what you think common sense should be. Very peculiar, and not very convincing.
And, what’s your deal with asking the same question over and over again, even though its been answered? You drunk on a Monday morning or something? (insert smiley)
Like Mike, I note that Oakley says he will need “typical soils” not specific areas. So, if we listen to him, rather than you, we get an idea.
BTW, your conception of what makes sense has no correlation to my reality. Because of cost, which is always an issue, then and now, it is typical to collect many small sample and blend them together (trying to choose from representative areas where they vary) On a normal site (like Merion seems to have certainly been) there are not specific fertilizer recommendations for each hole. The blended samples give a general recommendation and good picture of whether the soil needs a ton of lime, or two tons. Nobody breaks the golf course down into really small segments unless the initial samples give them some reason to do so. And, there is no evidence that Merion had any real variations over the course soils wise.
And, the soils in the roughs would need similar treatment to the soils in the fairway. If you are growing turf, the soil needs certain amendments whether you cut it as rough or fairway, and those were probably even the same grasses. High PH is high PH or low N or P or K is low for all but a few turfs we have now, but didn’t have then.
Now, that is common sense which you apparently cannot grasp. From my perspective and experience, I just cannot emphasize just how off base you are on your presumptions about what the soil samples and turf recommendations mean regarding the routing and design of Merion. They are nearly independent of each other, again, because other than the areas of existing bluegrass, there is nothing really glaring in the agronomy of Merion that would suggest extradordinary measures, at least from the letters I have read.
One more thing - blueprinting is a reproduction method. A blue print can come from any drawing or document done on transparent paper. It can be a contour map, a final routing, a clubhouse plan, a property line map, etc. You are just wrong on that count, and make that case ONLY to further your agenda.
So why do we even endure your proposition that something “makes no sense” and all the garble that comes afterwards as a result? Frankly, that is the only thing that makes no sense here.
-
BTW, I think we should debate whether using well rotted manure vs fresh manure was the right thing for Merion to do.
I mean, it has almost no bearing at all on who designed Merion, but has that stopped us before?
-
Are we seriously debating whether Merion plowed and harrowed and manured and seeded only the fairways and greens?
Are you kidding me??
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3575087874_58dd870b54_o.jpg)
-
Jeff
The question was addressed to Mike, and to my knowledge he didn't answer it. Were you speaking for him when you answered it affirmatively?
Actually Oakley wrote this:
"I question very much the advisability of going to any trouble or expense in having analyses made of the various soils on your course, as chemical analysis really tells is but very little, if anything, in regard to the treatment the soil requires. We would be glad, however, to have small samples of typical soils in order to get an idea of their general characteristic. I think we will be able to give you good suggestions regarding seed to be used on the fair greens, probably also on the putting greens, and some advice seeding and fertilizing."
You must have missed the part about various soils on your course, for the purpose of making suggestions about the course's fair greens and putting greens. Why would he send a sample from a location not intended to be fairway or green? What good would that do?
Oakley also writes later in the letter: "I am retaining the blueprint for future reference."
I'm pretty sure blueprint had the same meaning then as it does today, that is an architectural plan or rendering.
-
Tom MacWood,
In answer to your question, no, but multiple attempts to create a routing plan on paper preceded the visit to NGLA.
As none of them had been decided upon, much less approved, it is doubtful whether any would have been on the blueprint.
Further, if they had, they would have already had a common frame of reference, making it wholly unnecessary for Wilson to mark areas "A", "B", etc. They would have simply said, "near the third green", or "in the 15th fairway", or whatever.
As far as Oakley using terminology, he was familiar enough to know that every single golf course on the planet had fair greens and putting greens and that each had particular agronomic needs and had worked extensively with CBM so that isn't surprising in the least.
Here's what Richard Francis said about the grass growing process;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-1.jpg?t=1243442867)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-2.jpg?t=1243443434)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-3.jpg?t=1243443487)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
-
Mike
So you disagree with Jeff who believe there was a routing (singular) when they went to the NGLA?
In the minutes it says they re-arranged the course when they returned from the NGLA, if they weren't re-arranging a golf course what were they re-arranging?
-
Tom,
Yes, I disagree that there was a single routing when they went to NGLA. I think the only evidence we have indicates that there were several on paper.
Creating "five different plans" is a bit more complex than "rearranging the course".
I think "rearranging the course" simply refers to the act of routing, on paper at the time.
There is no way on God's green earth that Lloyd, Griscom, et.al. were out there driving stakes in the ground and then playing pick up sticks moving them around to create several routings "on the ground".
To believe they were requires leaving one's sanity at the door, I believe.
-
Are we seriously debating whether Merion plowed and harrowed and manured and seeded only the fairways and greens?
Are you kidding me??
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3575087874_58dd870b54_o.jpg)
Mike
There is no mention of manuring the rough in any of Wilson's or Oakley's letter. There is no mention of manuring the rough in Wilson's 1916 account. Would you agree those are two pretty good first hand sources, but for whatever reason you believe they did manure the rough. What makes you conclude otherwise? This photo?
-
Mike,
What is the date of that photo and if you know, where is the 10th green? I asked earlier about this photo, wondering if it might shed light on whether the big mounds around the 10th or Alps were there before or after Wilson's trip.
I looked at Nature Faker and the evolution drawings there didn't really answer my question.
I presume the black shadow is the tenth, and that the road swings way right where we don't see it. If not, what is the black shadow and where is the 10 green they mention?
BTW, as I mentioned, I believe they harrowed everything they planted. They would have had to. That is how you prep for planting.
And, I am still lost as to how we get on these little side tracks, having no idea how someones use of the word golf course, or problem (which I have also seen used different ways, despite David's insistence, again, that words would only be used one way) trumps meeting minutes that say they prepared plans, went to NGLA and came back and did five more, approving them formally on April 19, 1911.
What could be more clear about when a formal routing was officially accepted by the club. And, given records about starting to plow in March, etc. how many times can we ask when the golf course was on the ground prior to Feb 1, or any other time? It simply wasn't, no matter how clumsy some wording may have been, or may seem to our modern take. Probably made perfect sense to them!
We give these side tracks more respect than they or their propagators deserve.
TMac,
Didn't see your resonse.
Sorry, but blueprint means the same then as now. It in not limited to one type of drawing. We know, for intance that there was the contour map. How do you think that was copied for field use? Most likely, it was a blueprint also. AFer fw lines and features were drawn on the oa copy of the original, then it was blueprinted again as a routing plan. Then, if grading or drainage was added to another copy of the original, it was copied again as a construction drawing, and so forth. A typical golf course had several different blueprints at some point during construction.
Also, Oakley as an agronmist wouldn't need to refernece the routing and doesn't say that he does. And, the specific suggestions for the fair greens were for seed types, not soil tests.
Again, I just don't think parsing the word your course, as opposed to your site is worthwhile. They both used it that way well before we know there was a golf course out there - it was seeded in Sept of 1911. If you think they would call a golf course a golf course only when it was partially under construction, but not while it was just in planning, it is a tough distinction for you to make, IMHO. That would be even a narrower definition on than David puts out there for laid out. While I agree that wordikng sounds odd to our ear today, they both seemed to use it in that context.
And to mimic your wording, your conclusions really makes no sense, at least to me. I would suggest you quit beating that dead horse.
-
Tom,
Yes, I disagree that there was a single routing when they went to NGLA. I think the only evidence we have indicates that there were several on paper.
Creating "five different plans" is a bit more complex than "rearranging the course".
I think "rearranging the course" simply refers to the act of routing, on paper at the time.
That is pretty strange interpretation of re-arranging. In the previous paragraph they wrote they laid out many different courses on the new land. I though that meant the act of routing, and in that context the later re-arranging of the course (singular) would mean that at some point they had arrived at one routing, and that routing was re-arranged when they returned. Am I wrong?
I thought something had to exist in some form before it can be re-arranged? You disagree?
-
Jeff
The common use of the word blueprint is architectural plan or drawing, and obviously a blank topo map is not an architectural plan.
-
Tom,
Blueprint refers specifically to the type of medium used, not the content.
-
TMac,
My exact words in post 2762 were: "I have no doubt that some paper routing plans existed in March 1911, which would be supplanted by five and then the final one plan by early April. The minutes confirm it. "
You somehow twist that to say that I said there was a singular routing plan. And then ask Mike if he disagrees. Sorry he fell for it. Geez. Try to keep this above board will you.
That kind of twisting shows exactly the kind of person you are. Hard NOT to call you guys liars, but I will try to refrain. Let me ask you again. Are you drunk, or just plain old stupid?
Whoops, missed your inane post again. You are just plain wrong. They would need maps to walk the property and study the holes. Blueprints (or these days blue lines of Xerox prints) of just the topo map are still common. That is what we ALWAYS start with to draw the routing, or walk the property in advance of the routing. As CBM mentioned back in June "Without a contour map in front of me".
You are just about 10000000% wrong on that one buddy.
-
I will say that I was somewhat surprised to see the Nov 1910 map being a white background, rather than a blueprint. I wonder if that was an original covered canvas or some other reproduction method. I know blueprinting was the most common method back then, but obviously renderings got different treatment.
I still suspect that to walk in the field, they would invest in the cheapest reproductiom method going - the blueprint.
-
Mike
The most common use of the word is architectural plan or drawing.
I've seen a lot of old topo maps and very few of them are white lines on a blue background. And the reason for that is the fact that it is easier to draw on a map with a white background. Actually I don't recall any with blue backgrounds. Do you know of any?
-
And again, I would love to see TMac's simplified logic tree as to how manuring the roughs or not (its quite possible they decided it wasn't important enough to amend, although the pic Mike showed looks like what I thought it would - blue grass mix seeded wall to wall.
But, I still don't have my answer - are we arguing because you think the word golf course means that the place was already under construction by Feb 1? Designed? If the latter, how do you reconcile the other documents saying when the damn thing truly was routed? By declaring the meeting minutes were "amiss" in some non specific way?
Just wondering.
The original plans were always on white/transparent paper. It is not only easier to draw on a white background, it was the only way it was ever drawn. There was no method to draw with white ink on blue paper. Linen, and later vellum and mylars were used.
The blueprints were simply copies. The blueprinting process was to use a chemical coated paper with a solution that when exposed to light, turned the paper blue, except where light it couldn't pentrate the India ink used to draw lines back then, drawn on the original transparent paper. Later, the blue (or black) line came into use with a similar process but using ammonia. Before exposure to light, both paper types were yellow, with the chemical coating.
I have seen a lot of blueline topos in the old Killian and Nugent files. There is a small chance that ttere were regional differences. I always did find white backgournds easier to read.
-
Tom,
While it's possible that one of the Committee's early routings was on the topo map sent, I don't believe that was the case.
First of all, think about what CBM advised them to do, back in June 1910. Note he doesn't say, "Route the golf course first".
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.
Second, we know from the MCC Minutes that the Committee was the one who devised various routings prior to the visit to NGLA in March. That they would have had one together as early as February 1st is iffy.
But most importantly, in ALL of the plethora of communications between Wilson and P&O, not once did they refer to the location of a single tee, fairway, and/or green on that map. Instead, they created a completely different reference system using alphabetic locations. That would have been almost bizarre to the extreme if a pre-routed golf course already existed on the map.
-
Mike,
Were the letters to P&O about agronomy or routing the golf course ?
-
Mike
The most common use of the word is architectural plan or drawing.
I've seen a lot of old topo maps and very few of them are white lines on a blue background. And the reason for that is the fact that it is easier to draw on a map with a white background. Actually I don't recall any with blue backgrounds. Do you know of any?
You don't draw with white ink on a blue sheet of paper. "Blueprint" was an early method of reprographics that involved a white sheet of paper and a plan (black and white) being passed together through a bright light in a smelly medium. The result was that everything not black turned blue, and the black lines stayed white, now on a blue background.
-
In the last 24-hours we have been told that changing narrative forms mid-steam is normal for former newspaper editors; that the phrase re-arranging a course actually refers to producing multiple routings; that it is understandable that an inexperienced novice would do a dumb thing like send a blank topo to Oakley, but there is no question about the plausibility of that same inexperienced novice being selected to design Merion; that a colorized black & white photo is proof Merion plowed, harrowed and manured their rough (despite any mention from the well documented first hand sources); that the term golf course actually means abandoned farm.
And my logic is being questioned? And I'm sure there are more but this best I could do off the top of my head.
-
Mike,
We know Barker's wasnt on a topo. We know CBM had no topo in June 1910. We know the Nov 1910 plan wasn't drawn on topo. We know there was a topo by Feb 1, 1911 because Wilson sent a (presumably blueprint) copy to Oakley.
I have always wondered when the topo was obtained and how that might shed light on the process.
I suspect Pugh and Hubbard did it, but weren't contracted until the deal was final in December 1910. Knowing CBM used topos, and knowing when it was obtained would be key to some understandin, I think. But, just a guess.
Now, how do blueprints affect routing of the golf course more than manure?
-
Jeff,
I would suspect that they employed Pugh & Hubbard to create the topo. They were apparently quite well regarded.
However, that's speculation and it may have been Richard Francis, but given that the Committee was only being formed around that time I'd suspect they'd go outside for the big picture drawing.
Tom,
Totally insignificant point but what was written into the minutes was likely the Club Secretary's transcription of Lesley both paraphrasing and directly reading from Hugh Wilson's written report.
-
TMac,
Our posts crossed again, but yes, I always question your logic, for reasons I won't repeat again! But, seriously that is what this debate has always been about.
I don't recall a whole lot of discussion about this, but the focus on what CBM did for Merion has always been based around them not doing it themselves because they were novice.
On the other hand, since CBM designed his courses with is committees, and no professional help, why have we never discussed the logic of him sitting down in June 1910 and upon hearing a profession gca had been there, informing them that the better way to do it was an amateur design committee, as he had done at NGLA?
I think him recommending that they get together the best golfers (experts) they could assemble makes perfect sense in the bigger scheme of things. Its what he did. And, he offered to periodically assist them, as he apparently did for so many other clubs designing there courses the same way. Right? Is there any record that CBM assisted an Eastern Club that had already contracted with Campbell or Barker? Or just committees?
Why is it logical for CBM to have helped so many clubs in an advisory way, designed his own courses with committees, and yet when it comes to Merion, do something completely different?
Truly, maybe to get some perspective on why Merion would have been such a special case, not following the method before or the method CBM used soon thereafter, we really need to find and study some other easter course where he may have consulted.
Repeating all the usual crap from all sides really makes not a lot of sense, does it?
-
Tom,
Do you really think Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis were out there in the snow during the winter of 1911 driving stakes in the ground and then playing pick up sticks and "rearranging the course" with perhaps five different colored stakes?
What exactly do you think they were doing during this period?
I think it was all on paper. They were already very familiar with the property they had considered for the previous many months and had just had a topo created.
-
1. Wilson and Oakley repeatedly tell us what land they prepared. Fairgreens and greens. We know how many tons of manure per acre they spread on the fairgreens and greens. If the spread it on the rough, tell us how much they used?
2. Wilson and Oakley repeatedly refer to "the course" and we can see what Wilson meant by the phrase because he uses the same description in his letter to Oakley about having seen NGLA.
3. It hasn't dawned on you guys yet that Lesley's reference to the "many courses" laid out "on the new land" cuts directly against your argument. While they didn't draw plans "on the new land" there were plans before March 1911, and we know at least one of these plans was written --the Barker plan. There would also have been whatever changes (if any) CBM and HJW suggested for the Barker plan. This may have been written somewhere, perhaps right on the Barker plan itself. And I think the evidence indicates that the swap (and whatever else Merion considered to get the course to fit) happened pre November 1910 and this was well before March of 1911. So there you have your "many courses" they tried to lay out on the new land.
4. You guys keep acting as if the records say it was someone at Merion who planned the "many courses" Merion tried to lay out on the new land. First, that is NOT what the record says. Second, who was it and what is your proof? Wilson tells us he didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing until he went to NGLA, so surely it wasn't him. So who? And when? And what is your proof?
If I am wrong, the please show me exactly where the record indicates that it was anyone at Merion (other than what I mention) who planned the courses that Merion tried to lay out on the new land? And please show me when this happened? Thanks.
5. No one at Merion was out there "laying out courses on the new land" between the time Wilson became involved and the NGLA meeting. It was winter. Wilson mentioned that he wasn't even going to bother to get soil samples until the snow melted and he didn't do this until mid-March, after returning from NGLA when the "new problem" was in place.
6. You guys keep forgetting that Lesley did not say when Merion tried to lay out these many courses on the land. All he said was it was before NGLA. June and July of 1910 came and went before NGLA, it was not winter, and Merion brought in people capable of planning their course.
At this point you guys aren't even bothering with the actual record. Your posts are nothing but wishful thinking.
-
___________________________________________
Tom,
Do you really think Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis were out there in the snow during the winter of 1911 driving stakes in the ground and then playing pick up sticks and "rearranging the course" with perhaps five different colored stakes?
They rearranged the course AFTER NGLA, not in the snow during the winter of 1911.
But you are correct that there is no way there were out there during the winter. Thus they must have tried to lay out the many courses on the ground before winter, most likely in the Summer of 1910, based on plans by Barker, then CBM, and then with changes to try and make work including the swap by Francis and Lloyd.
What exactly do you think they were doing during this period?
Very little. Wilson was apparently working for the Golf Committee and had been in contact with CBM and pursuant to his instructions he was trying to get in touch with Piper and Oakley to get prepared on the agronomy side of things. Other than than, they weren't doing much of anything and wouldn't until they went to NGLA so CBM could instruct them on how to lay out their course.
I think it was all on paper. They were already very familiar with the property they had considered for the previous many months and had just had a topo created.
Your speculation on this matter is directly contradicted by the record. They laid out many courses "on the new land."
Your speculation about their familiarity with the property is also unsupported by the record. Maybe Lesley and H.G. Lloyd were familiar with the land, they would likely have been the ones going over it with HJW and CBM. What is your evidence that they were very familiar with the land at this point? Who exactly was very familair with the land and how did the come by that familiarity?
I can put CBM and HJW on the land at least twice, once in summer 1910, and again in the spring of 1911. Wilson didn't even get soil samples until after the NGLA meeting! Can you definitely put anyone from Merion on the land before the NGLA meeting? If so, who and when, and what is your evidence?
-
David,
On what date did they meet at NGLA ?
On what date did Wilson sail to the UK ?
-
In his March 13, 1911 letter to Oakley, Wilson indicated that he had just returned from spending a couple of days at NGLA with Macdonald. So the NGLA trip must have been shortly before March 13, 1911.
Wilson's trip overseas did not occur until over a year later, in the spring of 1912. I don't remember the specific dates offhand.
Interesting that in the March 13, 1911 letter Wilson doesn't say anything about any committee or anyone else accompanying him to NGLA.
-
David,
I assume that these are the questions you have referred to a number of times.
.............................
What if you took my word for it? Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that there was only one other CBM Alps hole at this time. Would you then agree that "many of the others" referred to holes at Merion, and not CBM Alps holes?
If CBM had only designed or advised on 36 holes (Chicago and NGLA) at the time of the article, and if Findlay knew that, then it seems likely that many of the others didn't refer to Alps specifically. But, the articular string of sentences doesn't make sense to me. If you want to take it as proof that CBM "laid out" many of the other holes (in whatever number you think the wording implies, feel free. I think that despite all the haranguing on both sides we have no new information and no conclusive proof on who specifically drew the 5 plans (and individual hole designs) one of which CBM approved. In the [past few pages you have tried several time to further explain your interpretation of "laid out". I must admit that I still don't get it. Could you please, in a separate, concise post describe your interpretation. Can it mean "laid out" on paper only? Or "laid out" on the land in the form of stakes in the ground or some other measure? Or, both together? Or, something else?
Also, let's assume, again for the sake of argument only, that CBM had designed and built 10 Alps holes by then. Even then, for the section to make sense, we'd have to read this as confirming that Merion's 10th was CBM hole, wouldn't we?
It seems likely in this proposition that CBM would get credit for, at least, showing them the principles of the hole, in his opinion. If Merion took his principles of an Alps hole and designed it themselves, does that make it a CBM hole? The hole apparently turned out badly, at least in Findlay's opinion, and doesn't appear to share much in common with either the original at Prestwick or even CBM's at NGLA. Would CBM have "laid out" such a pale imitation of the template? Seems more likely to me that Merion would have muddled the design up moreso than CBM.
But, doesn't Merion give CBM credit for his useful advice? There seems little doubt that he planted the idea of template holes, including the Alps, with Merion. I am not convinced that planting the seed (no pun intended) means that he actually designed the hole on a piece of paper or staked it out on the ground. But then you already know that.
____________________________________
..............................
-
Tom,
................. that a colorized black & white photo .............
You surely must understand that this is a painting and not a colorized photo?
The picture is an artistic interpretation of reality. The artists perspective appears to be that there was no distinction between greens, tees, fairways and rough.
Why do we care about whether the rough was manured? Does it prove anything about the routing and design and who should be more or less credited for it?
____________________________
Jeff,
Here are where I think the features are that are mentioned in the caption. And I think the perspective of the painter is from the red X in the following picture looking in the direction of the red arrow.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/MerionPaintingAnnotated.jpg)
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/Merion1913RRMapPaintingPosition.jpg)
-
Tom,
Anyone with a modicum of common sense, even a complete novice, would not send a blank topo map to an expert and ask him where to take samples. The reason Wilson contacted P&O was to get their advice on preparing the ground and seeding. He did not approach P&O with the question, we are about to route a golf course, could you please tell us what portion of this property is best suited for greens and fairways, or alternatively which portion is least suited for fairways and greens. With less than 120 acres that would not be practical anyway. Asking for specific advice about fertilizing and seeding is something you would do after you have a routing, not before.
Could you tell us about the depth of your experience in the agronomy issues involved in fertilizing and seeding a golf course?
I am not an agronomist, but it would seem common sense to me to test various sections of the property to see if the soil has uniform properties across its entirety or whether there are areas with different characteristics that might require different treatment. All this before I designed or laid out the course. If I already laid it out, which green(s) and which (parts of) fairway(s) would I sample? All of them? Some? Which ones?
I think, on this subject, I'd defer to Jeff who has some practical experience in this field. Experience trumps common sense.
-
It was hand colored photograph, which was a very common technique used with post cards and other similar images. Here is a brief history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-coloring
You will have to ask Mike why it is important they manured the rough. I believe his thinking is if they treated and fertilized the entire property, every square foot of it, it is proof there was no routing prior to April. If they only treated and fertilized the golf course (as Wilson explained in his 1916 report) then it is more likely there was a routing when they began the process in late January - early February.
The question regarding the map is not a matter of experience, but of common sense. Wilson tells Oakley their goal is to get the best short grasses growing as possible and he needs his help with getting the soil analyzed and his advice on fertilizing. He sends him a contour map and asks him to indicate where he'd like samples taken.
If I am Oakley and there is no routing on the map my response would be I need to know where the short grasses are intended to be, those are the areas we need to sample. Otherwise take out blindfold and dart, and start throwing.
-
The 100 or so acres that they needed to develop was based on this letter, where Hugh Wilson said that there were about 25 acres of turf that they thought was good enough. That actually makes it less than 100 acres, but hey, I was trying to be conservative.
You can also see that its pretty clear the location on the map did not correspond to golf features, but simply different areas of the property.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3694583399_eb2920863d_o.jpg)
-
You will have to ask Mike why it is important they manured the rough. I believe his thinking is if they treated and fertilized the entire property, every square foot of it, it is proof there was no routing prior to April. If they only treated and fertilized the golf course (as Wilson explained in his 1916 report) then it is more likely there was a routing when they began the process in late January - early February.
The question regarding the map is not a matter of experience, but of common sense. Wilson tells Oakley their goal is to get the best short grasses growing as possible and he needs his help with getting the soil analyzed and his advice on fertilizing. He sends him a contour map and asks him to indicate where he'd like samples taken.
If I am Oakley and there is no routing on the map my response would be I need to know where the short grasses are intended to be, those are the areas we need to sample. Otherwise take out blindfold and dart, and start throwing.
Bryan,
Actually, it's just the opposite.
Tom (and David, when it suits his ever-changing scenarios) have tried to make the case that because Hugh Wilson said he was going to begin plowing and doing rough work in late March 1911 that there must have already been a golf course routing in place.
They've argued, humorously, that Wilson would only have plowed tees, fairways, and greens. This would be hysterical if they weren't actually serious.
In earlier letters in March Wilson asks if they should add manure before plowing.
Half of the property had been a corn field. It was clay-based soil, with some standard rock content.
We KNOW they planted the roughs with grass seed. Perhaps they simply laid seed between the corn stalks on the hard-pack ground to feed the local birds? ;) ;D
They plowed all of the property as any sane person would instead of trying to create some line of agronomic destruction between tees, fairways, greens, and roughs.
If they plowed, they also harrowed, or they'd be insane not to.
Later in the year, before planting, they harrowed again, perhaps more precisely before adding specific seed mixtures per golf course feature(s).
But this idea that is being promulgated here is simply insane and once again, very, very bad history.
I sense from your response citing experience over supposed superior "logic" that you realize this, as well.
Here's the supposed "Smoking Gun" proving that if they plowed, they must have previously routed. You'll notice that Wilson asks how much lime and manure should be added "PER ACRE", not by golf course feature.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3695454970_e546f11e3e_o.jpg)
Other related letters;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3695391918_16b843a2de_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2596/3695392190_064e74950c_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3695455258_159b1c0cda_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2459/3695455424_f9c1400458_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3694647581_b6a1b463a4_o.jpg)
-
Here's Oakley's response on what to lime, manure, and plow and when.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3695457598_f7c50ed814_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/3694649227_9dda094252_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3602/3694649429_21d8ca01bf_o.jpg)
Does this sound to anyone like they were only going to plow, harrow, lime, manure, and seed only the tees greens and fairways?
Of course not.
Can we now put this nonsense of a pre-routed course existing "on the land" in March of 1911 to it's final and long overdue death??
-
Bryan,
I understand why you would want to defer to Jeff on these matters, but over and over again Jeff's attempts to apply the way he does things to the way things were done 100 years ago has fallen flat. He apparently doesn't build courses like Merion built theirs, so I am not sure why we are looking to him as on expert on what Merion might have done. His claim about courses being plowed and grassed wall to wall is a perfect example. It may be what Brauer does, but I don't think this is what they did 100 years ago, and have never seen anything to suggest it was done this way.
Moreover, Jeff's claims of "expertise" on these matters has become increasingly biased and unreliable. I'll even go further, and suggest that Brauer's repeated claims of expertise based upon his "practical experience" have become a farce. Look at his analysis of the image Mike posted.
- You think it is a painting, I tend to agree with Tom MacWood that it is most likely a colored photograph. Either way, the image reflects the subjectivity of an artist's touch, and I wouldn't think it necessarily tells us much about what land was treated for seeding.
- In contrast to your view or mine, Jeff, with his "practical experience," sees much more. To Jeff, the image not only indicates that they prepared the ground "wall to wall," Jeff can even tell the mix of seed from the image, "the pic Mike showed looks like what I thought it would - blue grass mix seeded wall to wall." Wow! Impressive! I wouldn't know how to begin to paint the growth of "blue grass mix seeded wall to wall" much less identify such from a painting. If you ask me, Jeff's expert observation seems a bit too impressive to be true. And it moves from questionable to outright absurd when one considers a bit more about the image.
The image is apparently from November 1911.* The fairways and greens had been seeded in mid-September 1911.
Now I am no expert on how things worked 100 years ago like Jeff Brauer keeps telling us he is, but something - common sense maybe - tells me that this picture does not accurately portray the condition of "wall to wall bluegrass mix" in November 1910 when that bluegrass was only planted in mid-September 1910. Especially when it was reported in June 1911 that the course was still just growing in and we know that the course wasn't ready to open until September 1912!
Either Hugh Wilson had already developed God-like powers to create lush turf conditions out of "drab" and "worn out" land in a few fall months, or Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer are again B.S.ing us by using this photo as evidence of the growth and existence of "wall to wall bluegrass mix." I am sure no one is surprised that Mike would pull this, but Jeff Brauer is supposedly providing his expert opinion on agronomy issues. How else could he surmise that this image showed "wall to wall blue grass mix?"
His expert opinion becomes even more absurd when we consider the photograph more carefully. I am not sure I quite agree with you exact depiction of line of view in the image, but I do agree that you have correctly labeled Golf House Road. Fancy how the turf on the west side of Golf House Road - across the road from the golf course - appears the same as the turf on the golf course itself. From the photo, it looks as if Merion not only prepared and seeded "wall-to-wall bluegrass mix," they also prepared and seeded the adjoining future neighborhood as well! Either that, or the photo CANNOT be taken as proof of what Merion prepared and seeded, as do Cirba and his personal expert, Brauer.
So it seems that our expert is blowing smoke up our behinds, and leveraging his supposed expertise well beyond the breaking point and to try to pass off pure rhetorical speculation as weighty expert opinion.
__________________________________
Don't get me wrong. While things were obviously more different back then than Brauer realizes, perhaps Jeff could offer some interesting and helpful perspectives based on his experiences, but he has become way too close to these issues and the personal battles within, and way too partisan in his opinions. For a long time now this has been about the personal bickering for him, and it ought to be no surprise how is "expertise" always manages to fall in the same direction, even when Wilson and Oakley directly contradict his speculation.
He has become such a tool in these conversations that he has no qualms about falsely accusing me of lying just like his buddies have (and continue to) falsely accuse me of lying. And like his buddies, he does cannot even bring himself to apologize or admit his was wrong and set the record straight, or in the alternative to back up his accusation. That says quite a lot about him and his approach and perspective on all this stuff. He obviously has no concern over setting the record straight if he will let stand an outright falsehood just to try and save face.
Bryan, you and I have disagreed much more than we have agreed, but neither of us has resorted to such a sleazy move as falsely claiming the other was lying. But Jeff is obviously playing by different rules than we are, rules not aimed at a clean record or at getting to the truth and rules allowing for such sleazy rhetorical tactics, and this ought to be taken into consideration before any of us looks to him for unbiased "expertise" on these matters.
Would you have much faith in his credibility if he falsely accused you of lying but refused to back it up?
*[The image is from a menu for an annual Merion Cricket Club Dinner. (A black and white copy appeared in my IMO and was sent to Wayne Morrison at his request after shortly after my essay came out.) The dinner took place on December 2, 1911. So the image - whether a painting or a colored photograph - must have been created a long enough time before this to have been reproduced in color and in large enough quantities so that the menu could on each place setting at the annual dinner for a very large membership. The course was not even seeded until mid-September 1911, about two and half months before the dinner, and most likely even closer in time to when the image was created, given the time it took to create it in mass.]
______________________________________
Jeff Brauer,
- Did you notice how Cirba didn't ever answer your questions about whether an early photo of the Alps mound existed? (I answered you long ago, but you apparently missed that.) Why do you suppose that is?
- In all your practical experience, have you ever seen such an incredible growth of turf November when the turf was just seeded in mid-September?
- Can you distinguish the grass on the Merion property versus the golf across the road? Was it "bentgrass mix" across the road as well? Do you really think that prepared and seeded the surrounding neighborhood as well as the golf course?
- A few days ago you indicated that I have been lying in these discussions. Back up your claim. Either that or set the record straight and make things right. Surely you are not such a lowlife that you will let your false accusation stand without either backing it up or setting the record straight.
-
David,
Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't think that the photo, or whatever it is, is useful in answering the plowing, harrowing, manuring seeding etc debate. Nevertheless, I don't think Jeff's position on that necessarily detracts from his experience. I'd still go with experience over self assured certitude based on common sense. For one thing, our common sense may have nothing to do with common sense in 1910. Remember that to the best minds of history common sense once said the earth was flat. ;)
Don't get me wrong. While things were obviously more different back then than Brauer realizes, perhaps Jeff could offer some interesting and helpful perspectives based on his experiences, but he has become way too close to these issues and the personal battles within, and way too partisan in his opinions. For a long time now this has been about the personal bickering for him, and it ought to be no surprise how is "expertise" always manages to fall in the same direction, even when Wilson and Oakley directly contradict his speculation.
I think that your comments about Jeff being too close to these issues and way too partisan would apply to all the regular participants here, with the possible exception of Jim and I. As to the personal bickering, I don't think any of you can claim the high moral ground on that front.
-
The 100 or so acres that they needed to develop was based on this letter, where Hugh Wilson said that there were about 25 acres of turf that they thought was good enough. That actually makes it less than 100 acres, but hey, I was trying to be conservative.
You can also see that its pretty clear the location on the map did not correspond to golf features, but simply different areas of the property.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3694583399_eb2920863d_o.jpg)
Mike,
As I read this letter and the subsequent one, the letter samples "A" and "B" related to samples of sod/grass, not soil. "A" is described as "very excellent grass growing around a small house". The "B" sample is grass/sod of the "usual sort" (presumably Kentucky Bluegrass) of which they have 25 acres. I don't read it that these two "lettered" samples are soil samples per se. It seems to me that they were just trying to identify two types of grass that were already there that might be useful to them going forward. I would assume that there were other soil (not grass/sod) samples taken.
Tom, I'm still not persuaded by your common sense approach. Do you think that the topo map had a stick routing on it? Or a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, fairway lines and tee box areas? Or, something else? Applying your 2011 common sense, where would you have requested them to send samples from? A random subset of tees, fairways, and greens? All of them? From the middle of greens? Centerlines of fairways? It still seems to me to be more commonsensical to request samples from areas where it looks like the soil characteristics might be different, so that you could route away from any area that had bad soil. A topo map (without a course on it) might give some suggestion of where there might be areas where the soil could be different. Of course, on a small 120 acre site, common sense would tell me that the soil was probably pretty uniform, at least at the level of sophistication that they would have had in soil testing in 1910.
-
Bryan,
You know as well as I do that there is no way in hell Brauer could tell that Merion had been prepared and seeded "wall-to-wall" with "bluegrass mix." He is claim is so far beyond reasonable it reeks of bias. Not a good quality in one we look to for expert opinion.
As for 1910 vs. now, your comments apply equally to Brauer's experience, if not moreso. His experience was obviously not their experience.
And it is not experience vs. common sense. It is jeff's speculation 100 years after the fact vs. Oakley and Wilson's words.
Here is what Wilson wrote:
Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been on farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kinds of manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens, we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15 and made a remarkably good catch, due to two things — good weather conditions and a thorough preparation of the soil. We opened the course September 14, 1912, just a year after seeding, and it was in good playing condition.
He did not describe preparing everything from wall to wall. He described preparing fairways and greens. He used fifteen tons per acre manure on fairways, eight tons per green. If he prepared everything thing the same wall to wall, then how did Wilson come up with these figures? He had to know where the greens and fairways were in order to treat them differently didn't he?
As for higher moral ground, I don't see it that way.
-
Bryan,
David and Tom, now that their primary evidence (the P&O letters) has been shown to completely disavow their claims, now point to Wilson's brief 1916 summary of what was done over many months to say, "see, it's not in here...how come you guys don't believe Hugh Wilson?", while pretending that what Wilson and P&O wrote back and forth contemporaneous with events is suddenly beyond their ability to comprehend.
It's quite comical and an interesting turn of events, really.
As far as the sections of sod labelled A and B, yes, you're quite correct that they represented the bluegrass found near the "house", and the primary grass found over a large section of the property.
That second section and sample is what I want to call your attention to, however.
If you re-read that section, Wilson claims to have 25 acres of it, and suggests that the grass cover is so good that they really don't need to plow that area, but instead just harrow, treat, and add some seed.
This is exactly what happened. It was the only section of the property to not be plowed and became fairways 10, 11, and 12 at the time, and possibly sections of other adjoining holes. The rest of the property was plowed, harrowed, treated, and seeded.
Yesterday David took me to task for saying that they had to develop about 100 acres of the 120 they had. This is where I got that number from, and my estimate was probably quite a bit high once you consider the areas for clubhouse, roads, parking, etc..
In any case, this turned out to be a mistake on Wilson's part, and those fairways had to be scrapped and completely stripped, re-seeded and grown prior to the 1916 US Amateur.
The funny thing is that neither of those guys believe the wild claims of the other, yet have to support each other's ridiculous leaps of logic here lest they risk losing the others support.
Patrick, for his part, couldn't care less what the actual historical record shows, but is only interested in sitting cheerleader-like on the sidelines rooting for his man-love Charles Blair Macdonald, perhaps hoping that his undying devotion will someday lead to a long desired invitation.
It's an interesting sideshow. ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3694583399_eb2920863d_o.jpg)
-
Cirba is blowing smoke again.
This latest irrelevant tangent started when Cirba proclaimed, without offering any factual support:
They harrowed and turned over the entire property, and treated it with lime as well.
When Tom MacWood challenged him to back up his claims and he did his usual reposting of a bunch of stuff, none of which supported his claim. Since then it is has been a bunch of tenuous wishful thinking on their part, because nothing in the record supports Mike's claim that the entire property was prepared for seeding. Not the Ag letters. Not the 1916 statement. Not the koda-colored image of the mature golf course a few months after seeding.
Despite Cirba's and Brauer's claims to the contrary, the photo evidences nothing of the sort. And both the Ag letters and the 1916 Wilson Chapter cut directly against Mike's claim.
As for the 25 acres, more wishful thinking on Mike's part. The area of the 10th through 12th fairways was around 1/2 of 25 acres. And the 25 acres mentioned in the Ag letters were to be harrowed, treated, and seeded, whereas Merion evidently used the old pastureland as is for the 10th through 12th fairways. (See 1916 description)
______________________________________________________
Bryan,
Above you asked why it matters what was done with the rough? It doesn't.
As usual, the whole tangent is generated by Cirba's and Brauer's unwillingness to accept the words of those there. They claim that Merion must have prepared the whole property, wall-to-wall, because they don't want to admit that the the course had been planned before Wilson became involved. In order to create this impression, they are trying to explain away the many references to "the golf course" and the reference to "our new problem" in the Ag letters.
Ironically, they have apparently forgotten that we know they already had at least one plan (and I think many plans) long before early 1911. They have also have apparently not fully considered the ramification the portion of the supposed Lesley report indicating that at some point in time before NGLA, Merion had already tried to lay out "many courses on the new ground."
So then when was Wilson out there "laying out many courses on the new land?" Evidently Wilson did not become involved until early 1911 (likely shortly before February 1,) and even Mike admits that they weren't out there during the winter trying to lay out many different courses "on the new land." Wilson wasn't even planning on going out and getting and sending soil samples until after "the snow goes off" (the samples weren't sent until mid-March, after the NGLA meeting) so it is highly unlikely he was doing anything on the new land before the NGLA meeting.
This pushes us back to before the winter of 1910-1911, and there is no evidence Wilson was out there then. In fact it is a stretch to put anyone out there in 1910, other than Barker and then HJW/CBM. I think Francis and Lloyd must have been involved in trying to make the plans work at some point before mid-November 1910 (maybe months before) but Brauer and Cirba reject that, so I don't think they can put anyone at all out there!
Aside from the evidence I have provided regarding the swap, what is the evidence that anyone from Merion had anything to do with planning the course (or laying it out) in 1910?
-
David,
In fact it is a stretch to put anyone out there in 1910, other than Barker and then HJW/CBM.
Do you mean this literally? Do you suppose that someone at Merion called Charlie and said that they had some land near College and Ardmore in lower Merion and would he drop by to take a look at it, but sorry can't meet you there? And, that they bought the land without actually going out there? That seems very unlikely to me. Sometimes you overreach in your zealousness. As does Mike.
Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things. It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby.
-
Here's Oakley's response on what to lime, manure, and plow and when.
Does this sound to anyone like they were only going to plow, harrow, lime, manure, and seed only the tees greens and fairways?
Of course not.
Can we now put this nonsense of a pre-routed course existing "on the land" in March of 1911 to it's final and long overdue death??
Mike
Is that right? This is what Wilson wrote actually happened, and there is no mention of the rough:
"We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on the ground which had largely been farm land. We used an average of fifteen tons of horse manure to the acre on the fairways and eight tons of various kind so manure to a green, the greens averaging about 10,000 square feet in area. At the time of seeding, we added 300 pounds of bonemeal to the acre and 100 pounds to a green. After completing the construction of the greens, and thoroughly harrowing and breaking up the soil on both fairways and greens we allowed the weeds to germinate and harrowed them in about every three weeks. We sowed from September 1 to 15...."
In a subsequent letter from Oakley to Wilson:
3/23/1911 Oakley to Wilson: "As indicated previously in a letter, it is possible to provide only general suggestions from an examination such as we are to make. This examination, however, is really as valuable in determining the course of treatment of the soils as if the soil were analyzed chemically. I think the whole course needs liming...We have found on our Arlington Farm on heavy clay soils that it is frequently impossible to correct acidity even with a very heavy application of lime, but where we have used a dressing of barnyard manure in connection with the lime the soil has been sweetened very materially. It would hardly be practicable, of course, at this season of the year to use manure on your fair greens, but I would suggest that you bear this in mind and apply it next fall if it can be secured. You will find that manure in conjunction with lime is very beneficial, indeed....The grasses to be used on your fair greens, I think, without question are redtop and Kentucky bluegrass...A fine leaved bent grass, with creeping or Rhode Island bent, I feel quite certain will be most satisfactory for your putting greens. I judge however that this feature of the course is not the important one at the present time, and that you are mostly interested in getting the fair greens in a playable condition."
This is the quote from Wilson, on May 9 1911, you gave us to support your theory that the rough was treated equally to the fairway and greens.:
"In regards to the amounts of seeds, we have been recommended to plant the greens, which are roughly 100 feet square, 75 to 100 lbs per green. On the fair green, where we want a specially good condition, 100 lbs to the acre, and in the rough, where it does not make much difference, 30 lbs."
I don't get the impression the rough was much of a consideration especially when you realize this was the first time rough was ever mentioned - the 19th letter between the two men.
-
Tom, I'm still not persuaded by your common sense approach. Do you think that the topo map had a stick routing on it? Or a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, fairway lines and tee box areas? Or, something else? Applying your 2011 common sense, where would you have requested them to send samples from? A random subset of tees, fairways, and greens? All of them? From the middle of greens? Centerlines of fairways? It still seems to me to be more commonsensical to request samples from areas where it looks like the soil characteristics might be different, so that you could route away from any area that had bad soil. A topo map (without a course on it) might give some suggestion of where there might be areas where the soil could be different. Of course, on a small 120 acre site, common sense would tell me that the soil was probably pretty uniform, at least at the level of sophistication that they would have had in soil testing in 1910.
Not a stick routing, a full fledged drawing showing green shapes, etc. They had been working on this project since June 1910, or November if you wish. It would've been extraordinary in those days if they did not have plan by February 1. In 1910/1911 it did not take the architects long to come up with a routing plan. It was usually done within a week...a month at the most. And weren't they in the process of making changes to the routing in December 1910 when Cuyler wrote his letter? That is my impression.
Not only would the soil be pretty uniform at 120 acres, it was an oddly shaped somewhat confining property, which ultimately resulted in one of the most compact routings of our great courses. It wasn't like they had a lot of land to discard.
-
Bryan,
I agree with TMac. This is a colorized photo. Go to Arcadia Pulbishing,and they have a series of books called Images in Time, and Postcards. Even on line, you can browse through their books and see many selections
So, its a photograph, and I think anyone can see that these a turf grass varieties planted rather than corn. And yes, if HDC had a cornfield across its road, they probably seeded something to stop erosion and make their lots more attractive for sale.
BTW, seeding technology really hasn't progressed a lot in 100 years, and I note in those letters that Oakley tells
wilson to make sure the soil is firm, for what we would call today good "seed soil contact.' The other pariticulars, other than manure in place of commerical fertilzer are really the same, too. So, if anyone questioning how different seeding then and now is, go ahead and bring your evidence, even though you haven't seeded anthing in your life, and perhaps are familiar with stool samples, but not soil samples. How odd it is to have someone who knows nothing cast aspersions based on nothing.
Also, certain someones keep asking when the routing was in place. Again, and in no uncertain terms, the Merion record tells us CBM approved their routing from among five about April 13 (don't recall exact day) and the board officially approved it on (I think) April 19, 1910. Even if Wilson had sent a routing to Oakley in Feb, it was as inaccurate as a blank map.
And again, on most jobs, there are about six to eight soil sample areas. I often letter them because numbering them might make someone assume they came from the hole of the same number and it could be confusing. Either way, how many letters did Wilson assign? He really doesn't need one from each fw, he needs one from the good bluegrass areas, the cornfields, and some other key areas. As a novice, it makes nothing but sense for him to ask an expert where the soil samples could be taken from.
This is and always has been absurd. The Moronics have an agenda to prove Merion wrong, for whatever their motivations may be. When the documents (which they actually refuse to go see) aren't available, the start looking for every inconsistency (and there are some) every possible 1% chance of something being amiss, and of course, insult anone in their way. Its really no different (other than how mean spirited David is) than the Kennedy conspiracy folks, or those who have maintained since 9-11 that Dick Cheney bombed the towers to drum up more business for Haliburton.
Those conspiracy theorists have continued to ply their trade for 38 and 10 years, and I have every confidence that these jackasses will have similar staying power. On the advice of my doctor, I am trying to reduce my daily ingestion of jackass, scumbag, lying content, which, my logical analysis tells me is this thread.
I hope they get their comeuppance someday, but I amobviously not the one to do it. I sincerely hope Merion, or the USGA, or the national magazines take some time to study this thread and highlight what idiocy this is.
I shall try my best to stay away. Really not worth it. But, carry on.
-
I don't think there is any question there was routing in place in January 1911, and IMO Barker is the most likely candidate. For me the question is what happened. If Barker did lay out that early version why was he completely out the picture by February, and CBM the expert in charge. I've done a lot of research of both men, and the odd thing is Barker seems to disappear from the golf scene after his three week architectural trip in December. In his few years in America occasionally he would go back to the UK during the holidays, but there is no record of him leaving around this time. He was in Atlanta in mid-December and did not reappear until April the next year. It was a fairly big story that he had resigned Garden City to become the new pro at Rumson.
-
How about our unbiased agronomy expert, going on about stool samples and calling me and/or TomM scumbags, morons, liars, and mean-spirited jackasses and conspiracy theorists, and looking for us to get our comeuppance? Obviously this isn't personal for him.
Not worth comment, except to clarify one thing.
Like Mike Cirba the other day, Jeff Brauer doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when he claims I refused to go to Merion to review their documents. I don't know why he thinks he is in a position to speak for Merion, but he is probably parroting the latest nonsense from Wayne Morrison and TEPaul. Speaking of whom, if the USGA, the National Magazines, or even Merion wants an interesting story, they may want to look into how far those two self appointed defenders of Merion will go in order to protect their legends.
-
David Moriarty,
How far do you live from Merion ?
-
David,
Do you mean this literally? Do you suppose that someone at Merion called Charlie and said that they had some land near College and Ardmore in lower Merion and would he drop by to take a look at it, but sorry can't meet you there? And, that they bought the land without actually going out there? That seems very unlikely to me. Sometimes you overreach in your zealousness. As does Mike.
Bryan, if you read the sentence in context, you know exactly what I meant. Perhaps sometimes you overreach in your efforts to dismiss my arguments without really considering them. I think that they did go over the land (or at least the plans) and tried to make sure the course Barker and/or CBM/HJW suggested would fit, and it didn't, thus the infamous "swap." But other than that, what specifically were they doing out there? If it is so overzealous to even ask, it you ought to knock it out of the park with your answer.
Aside from from my analysis of the swap, what is the evidence that anyone from Merion had anything to do with planning the course (or laying it out) in 1910?
Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things. It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby.
Boy, talk about overreaching. It sounds to me like you are just assuming them out there, whether there is any evidence. If it was Merion's baby, it sure seems like they wanted CBM/HJW to deliver the plan. Otherwise why have them down, travel up there, bring them back down, and let them choose the final routing plan? I see no reason to think anyone from Merion would have had been doing much independent planning during 1910, other than trying to figure out if what Barker/CBM/HJW had suggested would fit. That after all was the biggest issue according to CBM.
And what about the double standard? I don't recall you seeing much merit in a similar (but IMO more sound) line of reasoning when Patrick, TomM, and I pointed out that there were very likely more communications between CBM and Merion than just those few we happened to find. Why is it okay to make these sort of assumptions when it comes to those at Merion, but not when it comes to BCBM and HJW? At least with CBM/HJW we know they were directly involved, had been over the land, and considered its merits for a golf course, and were a contour map away from routing in in June of 1910!
But let's here your facts and analysis. Beyond my swap analysis, what specifically do you think those at Merion were doing? And when were they doing it? And who, exactly, is they? Because I think it highly unlikely that Hugh Wilson was out there layout on many courses on the new land in 1910. Since the record indicates he was not involved until early 1911, I assume you agree. So who at Merion was out there trying to lay out many courses on the new land? And when?
Surely these are reasonable questions. I have been fielding these questions for years now, and now that I am asking them, no one seems willing or able to answer. Why do you suppose that is?
__________________________________________________________
Patrick,
I live in Los Angeles which is not close to Merion.
Anyone who tells you that I have been granted access to the MCC Minutes but that I refused to travel to Merion to review them either doesn't know what they are talking about, or is intentionally misleading you. Or both.
-
David,
Tom thinks that Barker routed it.
You think CBM did.
Mike thinks Wilson did.
You mistakenly seem to think that I'm advocating on behalf of Wilson. I don't think that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that any one of them was responsible for drawing the 5 plans or the one that CBM approved (of) and the Board approved and got built. I don't see much point in advocating a most likely scenario. So, I'm not going to try to answer your challenges about evidence supporting Wilson and Merion in 1910 or early 1911, because simply put, there is insufficient information to draw the conclusion.
Your methodology of "likelihood" satisfies you that you are closest to the truth. Others interpretations of the available data suggests to them that they are closest to the truth. I doubt that you guys will ever coalesce on one truth, absent some new information, and probably not even then.
I've had enough for now. I guess whoever lasts the longest can claim victory for their truth.
-
You might be right, we may never find the evidence that ultimately proves beyond a shadow of a doubt who did what, but I know one thing there are at least two people who are still looking despite the efforts of others to stifle them.
-
Yes, I'm sure they only plowed the tees, fairways, and greens, and simply spread grass seed among the stalks.
This is what was on half the property prior to construction;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3690190057_5a7fcf3813_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
How you can gleen what was on any property prior to construction with a post construction photo is beyond me.
What is interesting is the swing on that fellow, full turn, hands high over the left shoulder, weight on the left side, chest to the target.
Some things never change
-
Tom MacWood,
Who is stifling you guys?
You're in Ohio...make arrangements with the club and go to Ardmore.
Patrick is a 2 hour car-ride away...if he's so interested why doesn't he go down and look at the scans of the original documents? He has played there regularly.
This idea that someone is stopping you all....other than playing martyr, why don't you just go? I offered you dinner and a round at Cobb's Creek. David can come too, and Patrick (although there is no CBM connection there so I'm not sure if he's interested). ;)
Hell, those of us here still entertaining your theories are giving you a public forum.
That just probably proves we're collectively insane, of course, but hey, it's all good.
Patrick,
Wilson tells us in his letters that corn had been planted on half the property.
btw...why don't you go down to Ardmore and look at the original documents?
-
Also, certain someones keep asking when the routing was in place. Again, and in no uncertain terms, the Merion record tells us CBM approved their routing from among five about April 13 (don't recall exact day) and the board officially approved it on (I think) April 19, 1910. Even if Wilson had sent a routing to Oakley in Feb, it was as inaccurate as a blank map.
I don't know what the five plans were, but five distinct routings seems unlikely to me. The minutes report they re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. Why would you go from many different routings to one routing to five routings at the last minute (April 19), and then back to one? Especially when you consider they began doing rough work in March. It sounds to me like the came up with five plans to re-arrange the course (singlular)...whatever that means.
-
Tom,
Plowing and rough work means they plowed the freaking corn fields. Sheesh, oh man....
-
Mike
There is no mention of clearing corn fields in Wilson's accout or in any of the letters. Where did you come up that idea?
How far do you live from the Merion Cricket Club?
-
Tom,
Why would he mention that? He told P&O that half the property had corn planted on it. ALL existing vegetation would be turned under in that plowing effort.
He makes very clear that he's going to plow and harrow the land as a first step, except in the 25 acres of turf he designates as not requiring plowing. In that area he's simply going to harrow, treat, and add seed.
On the rest of the land he is going to plow first. He would have been crazy not to.
I live about 1.5 hours away from MCC at present.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2596/3695392190_064e74950c_o.jpg)
-
Well, since everyone seems to be asking, I live 1475 miles from Merion and have been there three times, although never made it to the archives.
TMac,
I don't place any meaning on the rearranging the course phrase, believing its a general statement, followed by the more descriptive laid out five routings comment.
As I have said before, I thimk whatever chicken scratches they took to NGLA were, what they saw there convinced them to scrap them and start all over. We can speculate all day, and it might be fun in certain groups if we kept our strong feelings in check. We do know that Francis thought the first 13 holes, West of Ardmore Ave were pretty easy, the last five hard.
That might suggest that you are right and those five variations were mostly or all attempts to work on the last five holes, or variations on the basic theme. I understand that variations is a bit semantic, as we have discussed. Would one routing with the 4th and 5th flipped from how they got built be a variation or a distinct routing, for instance.
That is the kind of thing I think all of us interested in Merion would like to know.
BTW, looking at the colorized photo, I believe I see a difference in the front of the fw on 14, suggesting a difference in Wilsons 30 lbs per acre seeding rate in the rough vs 100 lbs in the fw. BTW, for those wondering, it is quite possible to get a stand of grass that thick from Sept to November, although it was harder pre irrigation. Kentucky bluegrass (other than some new genetically engineered ones) is not different from then to now, so I hope no one suggests that I don't know about seeding in 1910......
And, knowing this picture is Nov 1911, I think we can all agree with Findlay's assessment that their Alps 10th was nothing compared to the original. I still wonder how Wilson, having seen CBM's version at NGLA would have attempted that, or not seen just how far short it was going to fall in trying to build an artificial hill on flat ground. And, I am pretty sure CBM would have seen that, with all his experience, if he was deeply involved in construction.
-
Mike
The Johnson Farm was sold to a developer in early 1907, so at the very latest it was an active farm in 1906. I doubt there were a lot of corn stalks to be removed in 1911, and there is no indications in the Wilson account or the letters that corn stalks needed to be cleared.
-
Mike
Have you been out to the MCC to go over the minutes?
-
Jeff,
Here in the distance at the top of the hill you can see the monstrosity that was built BEHIND the 10th green, the so-called Alps Hole.
It isn't pretty, and you can see if from behind on the colorized photo which is even uglier.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3580440594_6981ac6f40_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3575087874_58dd870b54_o.jpg)
Tom,
So, are you suggesting that this 160 acre farm property just sat fallow for 4 years prior? Nobody planted anything there?
Have you seen what happens to fields (or golf courses for that matter) that are left to nature after 4 years?
I would imagine it being wildly overgrown, and not at all consistent with what Wilson wrote in the last sentence below four years later. How would Wilson know that it had been a corn field if there had been no planting for 4 years?;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2641/3695391044_6c9d9953d7_o.jpg)
-
You might be right, we may never find the evidence that ultimately proves beyond a shadow of a doubt who did what, but I know one thing there are at least two people who are still looking despite the efforts of others to stifle them.
I, in no way, was trying to stifle the two of you or anyone else from unearthing further information about the early design and routing of Merion. Please, keep at it. I will be most interested in anything new that is brought forward. It is less interesting to continually debate the interpretation of the same information. Of what possible use is it to know if the course was a cornfield immediately before the course was built or whether the rough was plowed or just harrowed?
-
Mike,
Thanks for the historic photos. Keep those coming.
I think Wilson knew it was a farm because it was called the Johnson farm, the house and barn were used, etc. As to whether there was corn there when they plowed, I guess we don't know. The fields could have been let go, but I have also seen cases where the farmer or other tenant is allowed to farm until the developer needs the land.
It is often better to manage the land, and allowing it to stay in farm land as long as possible is pretty common after a change of ownership. Don't know if it happened at Merion, though. Wilson's last sentence "at present....." suggesting they did leave it in farm until they were ready for construction. Only problem is, in 1911, knowing crops get planted in spring and that construction would start in spring, they certainly wouldn't be in freshly planted corn. It would most likely be the stubble from the year before as you suggested.
And for those who would lambast me for not knowing farming methods, my grandfather was an Ohio farmer. Maybethey planted corn differently in Philly, or mayb he got the whole corn planting thing wrong just to screw me up many years later on a merion thread, as a way to preserve the legend of Hugh Wilson. ;D
-
Tom,
So, are you suggesting that this 160 acre farm property just sat fallow for 4 years prior? Nobody planted anything there?
Have you seen what happens to fields (or golf courses for that matter) that are left to nature after 4 years?
I would imagine it being wildly overgrown, and not at all consistent with what Wilson wrote in the last sentence below four years later. How would Wilson know that it had been a corn field if there had been no planting for 4 years?;
Mike
Is there any evidence to suggest it was an active farm after 1907? On the 1908 real estate map the property is called Haverford Terrace, owned by the Philadlephia and Ardmore Land Co. Haverford Terrace hardly sounds like a farm. I believe Mr. Johnson died in 1904, so it could have been inactive for more like 7 years. As I've said before there is no mention of stalks having to be removed in Wilson's account or any of the multitude of letters. This sounds like more wishful thinking on your part.
-
You mistakenly seem to think that I'm advocating on behalf of Wilson. I don't think that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that any one of them was responsible for drawing the 5 plans or the one that CBM approved (of) and the Board approved and got built. I don't see much point in advocating a most likely scenario. So, I'm not going to try to answer your challenges about evidence supporting Wilson and Merion in 1910 or early 1911, because simply put, there is insufficient information to draw the conclusion.
Bryan you go in and out of advocating for Wilson and/or Merion, don't you? And don't you often do so "with insufficient information to draw the conclusion." For example, above you wrote: "Just because there is no document that we've found that says who from Merion went where and did what in this timeframe doesn't mean that they weren't there and doing things. It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby." Isn't this speculating, and advocating, for a certain reading of the facts? Do you really think that your conclusion that they were doing "something, or a lot of things" is justified by your statement, "It was after all their baby?" Because I don't. And rather than asking you to tell me who you think routed the course, I was simply asking you to back up your speculation.
Your methodology of "likelihood" satisfies you that you are closest to the truth. Others interpretations of the available data suggests to them that they are closest to the truth. I doubt that you guys will ever coalesce on one truth, absent some new information, and probably not even then.
I thought we were on the same page regarding methodology, but apparently we are not, especially when it comes to likelihoods. To review, not long ago you were criticizing me because you thought I was stating things with certainty that I might not have known with absolute certainty. Now you seem to be critiquing me because I am not stating my positions with absolute certainty. I understand the first criticism and have endeavored to try to avoid certainties where none can possibly exist, but this second line of critique is a bit harder to figure.
First, absolute certainty may be the ultimate goal, but it is also an impossible standard. In other words, if I said I knew for certain (like Mike constantly does) I'd be wrong. This Socratic duality has long formed the foundation for philosophy, science, and almost every other intellectual pursuit. No matter what we think we know for certain, there is always a possibility we will learn something which will reshape our views. But this impossibility of absolute certainty ought not dissuade us from trying to figure things out, and it ought not to dissuade us from sorting through various theories and explanations and throwing out that which doesn't make sense and keeping that which does, questioning all the while and trying to come up with relative certainties.
Second, you are rather selective and one sided in your application of your standards. In fact it seems you have different standards for yourself.
1. When it comes to Merion's involvement supposed planning, you seem okay with all sorts of speculation and basing your analysis on what is "likely" or "unlikely." Like above when you write that suggesting Merion only had limited involvement in the planning in 1910 "seems very unlikely to me." Or in the same post when you wrote, "It seems highly unlikely that they weren't doing something, or a lot of things. It was after all their baby."
2. When it comes to me, what is "most likely" or "unlikely" are apparently no longer good enough.
The reality is that what is likely and unlikely is really all any of us can offer, and that is the beginning, not the end, of the discussion. I don't agree with what you think is "very unlikely" and I can explain why. You are free to do the same.
We've discussed my theories at great lengths my theories, and whether they are reasonable, supported, and likely and/or unlikely. But we haven't even begun to discuss the alternate theories. Isn't about time those theories were challenged with the same vigor as mine have been challenged.
Let me put it this way . . . Given your claim to not have a horse in this race, I understand why you don't want to back up the speculation that it was Merion who came up with the plans for the "many courses" Merion reportedly tried to lay out on the new land.
But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?
Because no one has. And I don't think anyone can. But I'd like to see them try. And I think they should be held to the same standards of proof and detail to which I have been held. I want to know the who, when, what, where, why, and how of the routing.
Let's start with the laying out many different course on the new land. Who did it, when did it occur, how did they do it, why did they try it, and why were there many routings, and who came up with the plans, and all the same questions about those plans, etc.
Everytime I ask questions looking for some support for the other side's position I get silence, followed by various posters threatening to leave the discussion. Why can't you all be honest and admit that you cannot even begin to support your affirmative theories?
-
Patrick is a 2 hour car-ride away...if he's so interested why doesn't he go down and look at the scans of the original documents? He has played there regularly.
Mike,
When I have the time, and with the understanding that I'd have unrestricted access, I may avail myself of the offer.
I'm not so sure that the MCC minutes and all other documents would be available to me and I'm not so sure that you can speak with unerring authority on this subject.
But, since you live so close and are so interested in this subject, have you been given unrestricted access to all records at MCC and MGC ?
This idea that someone is stopping you all....other than playing martyr, why don't you just go? I offered you dinner and a round at Cobb's Creek. David can come too, and Patrick (although there is no CBM connection there so I'm not sure if he's interested). ;)
Hell, those of us here still entertaining your theories are giving you a public forum.
That just probably proves we're collectively insane, of course, but hey, it's all good.
Patrick,
Wilson tells us in his letters that corn had been planted on half the property.
btw...why don't you go down to Ardmore and look at the original documents?
-
David,
I thought we were on the same page regarding methodology, but apparently we are not, especially when it comes to likelihoods. To review, not long ago you were criticizing me because you thought I was stating things with certainty that I might not have known with absolute certainty. Yes, I was critiquing you in that way. Now you seem to be critiquing me because I am not stating my positions with absolute certainty. I don't know how you interpreted what I said to mean that, but I certainly didn't intend anything I wrote to be taken in that vein. I understand the first criticism and have endeavored to try to avoid certainties where none can possibly exist, but this second line of critique is a bit harder to figure. No figuring needed on your second line of critique. That isn't my critique of your approach.
But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis? I don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up. You have a theory. Mike et al have a theory. I suppose I would critique either of you if you suggest that your theories are definitive. I suppose if Mike posted here that Wilson or the Committee definitively drew the 5 plans and did the hole designs, I would critique the basis of his claim.
No response required.
-
David,
Just a couple of points....
First, I have offered up the basics, including the Merion document that are germain to the case and a point by point discussion of exactly what CBM contributed in his four days of advice. You ignore them and ask the question again.
Your theory presumes the MAJORITY of what the participants wrote to be incorrect. Maybe it started when you discovered the fact that Wilson's trip was not in 1910, and you figure that everything else must be wrong, too. IMHO, it makes most sense that this portion of the record may be flawed (and truthfully, the flaws seem to have come later, not in the contemporary record) but nearly everything else should be right.
And you presume you are the only one who can interpret a complicated chain of events over the last 100 years.
Your "analysis" is really like a defense lawyer trying to keep his client from the chair. You question all authority in an effort to cast doubt, since only a shadow of a doubt is required to free your guilty client. Nice lawyering, questionable history, when your alternate theories of the case depend on presumed and made up definitions of many words, of you being the only guy in a 100 years to know what all those words meant, etc.
As an unbiased participant in this, I read your theory, and read the documents as they became available. For one who reads the Merion record (most of which you hadn't even seen when you wrote your vaunted essay) at face value, I see a mostly logical flow of events that seems to make sense. Its only when you start your essay with the bias that they are not correct, or that every omission or antiquated phrase means something else happened, or that CBM "just had to" have designed, rather than just helped Merion as he apparently did at so many other clubs, that you can even come up with your alternate theories of the case.
To be honest, how much "analysis" does the truth require? In most cases, it usually surfaces pretty quickly. Its only your "alternate theories of the case" with one intended outcome of exhonerating your essay that require all the analysis.
Time to make your closing arguments and we can all move on.
-
But don't you think it is about time that someone - anyone - tried to back up their affirmative theories (such as this one) with some actual evidence and analysis?
I don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up.
You have a theory. Mike et al have a theory. I suppose I would critique either of you if you suggest that your theories are definitive. I suppose if Mike posted here that Wilson or the Committee definitively drew the 5 plans and did the hole designs, I would critique the basis of his claim.
Bryan,
You seem to be indicating that the Merionettes have yet to produce substantive proof that Wilson and/or his committee drew the five (5) plans and did the hole designs. Is that correct ?
If so, you and I are in agreement on that issue
Attribution will continue to be a mystery until more documents are discovered/revealed
-
There may be some doubt about the hole designs. There is no real doubt about those five routings that were presented to CBM in April.
The Lesley report tells us in no uncertain terms the committee did five routings.
While TMac thinks there was a course already on the ground because of some clumsy wording, we know that is NOT true because they plowed in late March to start prepping the soil, and they didn't hire Pickering, the man who actually constructed the course until April 19. No way anything was on the ground.
While David has doubts it was Wilson's committee that went to NGLA, I disagree. We know:
The construction committee was appointed in Early 1911.
There were two committees - one to find the site and another to design and build the course (Alan Wilson letter 1926) There is no evidence that the committees would usurp the others role, or that the search committee would have existed after its function was complete.
We know from H Wilson's letter to Oakley that he DID go to NGLA.
We know from Francis that he both contributed to the routing was on the Construction committee (from both his remembrances and names of each committee in the Wilson letter) so it is extremely likely that it was the construction committee that went to NGLA. Even if it was some combination of committees going for some kind of transitional continuity, or if the entire committee couldn't make it, there is nothing there to conclude that they did no routing at all.
That Lesley report is reporting on committee activities. It wouldn't say they did many routings, and then five routings if that was not a committee activity.
Now, I am willing to engage in a reasonable debate as to how the golf features themselves came about. They obviously went to NGLA intent on following that model. But honestly, after seeing the first attempt at the Alps, I would think the debate would be to avoid credit - from both the CBM and Wilson camps!
-
Bryan,
I know you'd rather I didn't respond, but you lost me yet again. In your first paragraph you indicated that you were NOT critiquing me based upon my inability to state my theory with "absolute certainty." In the second paragraph you conclude that I do not have enough evidence to draw a "definitive conclusion." Huh? The distinction, if there is one, between a "definitive conclusion" and "absolute certainty" is lost on me. Perhaps you could explain?
Because as I see it, epistemologically speaking, there is no way I could ever draw a "definitive conclusion" in this circumstance. The record is not complete. All I can do is try to determine what is most likely to have happened given my analysis of the information which is available, and I think I have done that. Haven't I? What is the point of stating the obvious --that we cannot state our claims definitively? How does that advance the discussion? What does it have to do with whether or not we have determined what is most likely to have happened?
Take your example: I don't think that either side has enough actual evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to who specifically routed the 5 designs and who specifically drew up the designs of the individual holes precisely because there is no documented back-up. I don't follow the way you are using about half the words, but I assume you are referring to the issue, Who came up with the five plans apparently mentioned in the April 19, 1911 Lesley Report?
I agree that neither side can definitively state who came up with these five plans. But let's compare the approaches to this issue.
1. I have NOT definitively concluded who came up with these plans, but I have considered all the evidence and have explained, repeatedly and in great detail, how the evidence supports my belief that CBM had major substantive input into how Merion's course was rearranged upon Merion's return from NGLA, and how Merion laid out those five plans on the rearranged course. Whether you agree with this belief or not, I trust that you will agree that it is a a reasonable conclusion based on ample evidence?
2. Mike and the Fakers have definitively concluded (and repeated so) that Wilson and his Construction Committee were 100% responsible for these five plans. But what, specifically, in the contemporaneous record supports their opinion? What evidence supports their affirmative opinion that it was Wilson and his Construction Committee who came up with these five plans?
3. As for Brauer, when he is not flying off the handle, falsely accusing me of lying, or otherwise making a fool of himself, he has occasionally and begrudgingly admitted the obvious-- that Wilson and his committee were not completely responsible for the design, becauseCBM/HJW obviously had an impact. But he also backtracks to try minimize the extent of his CBM's obvious impact, I guess because he thinks doing so automatically means that Wilson must have done it. But even in this, this he entirely misses the point.
Take Brauer' "first" and only attempt at making a substantive point in his latest whiny digression about all the things he dislikes about me and apparently all attorneys.
First, I have offered up the basics, including the Merion document that are germain to the case and a point by point discussion of exactly what CBM contributed in his four days of advice. You ignore them and ask the question again.
He obviously can't even grasp the question. His speculation about "exactly what CBM contributed" has been discussed TO DEATH and as NOTHING to do with the questions I have been asking.
What he fails to address, is the same thing as Mike Cirba, the Fakers, you, Jim, and everyone else refuses to address: "Exactly what did Wilson contribute?" Or more generally and for starters only . . .
WHO AT MERION CONTRIBUTED TO THE DESIGN?
WHAT EXACTLY DID THAT PERSON CONTRIBUTE?
WHEN HOW AND WHY DID THEY CONTRIBUTE IT?
And, most importantly, I don't want mere opinions or tenuous speculation like, X must have contributed because it was his baby. Rather I want the EVIDENCE indicating the who, what, where, when, how and why of the involvement of each player at Merion, and the facts supporting every exactly.
When we get through with that, then we can turn to the course itself, and we can do the same thing for each hole and each feature on it.
And before anyone objects, answer how this is any different than what we have been doing regarding CBM's involvement for the past five or six years?
____________________________
Was typing during Brauer's latest post. Unless he is setting the record straight for falsely and repeatedly accusing me of lying I am probably not interested.
-
I am sure you have all heard the one about how the physicist, the chemist, the economist were trapped on a desert island with only canned beans, and with each trying to figure out how to open the cans? If not, you can see where it is going. Anyway the punchline is that the economist's solution is to assume he had a can opener.
Well Jeff is our acting economist here. He resolves these issues by making things up.
________________________________________
Jeff Brauer claims he knows who came up with those five plans, and that there is "no real doubt."
Well, I have my doubts. Maybe someone can explain to me how Jeff can definitively conclude that the Construction Committee "did five routings"(whatever that means) and presented them to CBM in April? Because the Report makes no mention of 1) the construction committee, 2) that this committee did five routings (whatever that is supposed to mean), or that this committee presented the five routings to CBM in April.
As usual, Jeff has apparently just ignored the what is written in the actual record, and substituted in what he wishes it said. Analysis is easy if you just make up your facts.
Same goes for the rest of what he wrote. Among other things . . .
- He mischaracterizes TomM's point about the plan appearing on the blueprint by pretending TomM thinks there was a course already on the ground.
- He conveniently forgets that even TEPaul has acknowledged that the Construction Committee did not exist in the beginning, but that Wilson was put on some other committee.
- I have no idea what he thinks he is proving by bringing up the Francis article, but is sure as hell doesn't say anything about Francis at NGLA, or Francis coming up with five plans.
- He correctly noted that the Lesley report is addressing "the committee's activities," but somehow neglects to mention that Lesley was explicitly reporting on the activities of the "Golf Committee" of which he was chair. Not the construction committee, which probably didn't even exist yet, and of which Lesley was not a member, when it finally did come into existence.
There is more misleading or flat out wrong, but such a half-assed effort on his part doesn't even deserve the response I have given it thus far.
Is this really the best you can come up with as an evidentiary basis for believing that Wilson and his committee came up with the five plans? Maybe the joke is on me, because I can't figure out whether you guys are trying to insult my intelligence or whether someone should be insulting yours . . .
________________________________________________
Maybe we need a different approach. Perhaps we should try to deal with specific and discrete questions, only actually rely on the record and sound analysis rather than just making things up.
Let me start with a key question, on that Jeff Brauer should have answered but didn't before he claimed to know that the construction committee "did five routings" and "presented" them to CBM.
What exactly could Lesley have meant when he wrote, "Upon our return, we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans . . . .?"
I've answered this questions many times, and in great detail, so I'll let you guys go first. Then, if you'd like, I'd be glad to address it again. But only if you'd like.
Anyone?
_____________________________
-
Mike Cirba,
You must have missed my earlier question.
Have you been granted unrestricted access to all documents at MCC and MGC ?
You indicated that unrestricted access would be available to David, Tom and myself, and I just wanted to know if you had been granted the same unrestricted access ?
Thanks
P.S. If so, did you avail yourself of that access ?
-
Jeff,
There was the new golf grounds committee, the construction committee and the golf committee (that Lesley reported for). So far as I know, no one here has put forward who was on each of those three committees nor clearly what their respective mandates were. If you have it or can get it, please post it. I assume that the formation of the committees must have been somewhere in Merion's records. Perhaps it still is. Or, maybe it's lost.
Although I think it likely that the golf committee or the construction committee (or some members thereof) did put pen to paper to create (incorporating some advice from CBM) the 5 plans. there is no conclusive proof. You seem to think it is very likely to certain. I don't think it is certain. David has his theory which he thinks is very likely. I don't think it is conclusive either. As far as I can understand, even David doesn't claim that his theory is certain.
David,
Sorry I lost you. You seem to be reading a lot into what I'm saying that I don't think is there. We have a failure to communicate. What's interesting to me is that we can't seem to communicate ideas to each other even when we're dialoging back and forth, but we claim to understand what people were trying to say 100 years ago and we certainly aren't dialoging with them.
I can't really figure out a way to make it clearer to you. But, one last try.
Sometimes you have made statements that read as statements of fact, when you really meant them as things that were likely. I have critiqued some of those instances.
Nobody, in my opinion, has surfaced any documents that have proved conclusively who did the 5 routing plans or did the individual hole designs that comprise the routing. I'm not criticizing anybody, including you, for that. It's just the way it is.
Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference of opinion. There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion. After thousands of posts over the years, there is no agreement as to whether your theory is more likely than Tom's or Jeff's or Mike's. But, you can certainly pursue it as long as others wish to debate it with you. Too bad it always degenerates into name calling and vitriol. And that remark is aimed at all involved, not just you.
-
While TMac thinks there was a course already on the ground because of some clumsy wording, we know that is NOT true because they plowed in late March to start prepping the soil, and they didn't hire Pickering, the man who actually constructed the course until April 19. No way anything was on the ground.
Jeff
Is that what I've been saying? I thought I have said there existed a plan on paper or staked out on the ground or both in February when the construction committee was appointed. And after that, after consulting with Oakley and others, Wilson began preparing the fair greens and greens for seeding. I thought all along you've had clear understanding of my position.
It appears you have confused the greenkeeper information as well. Wilson wrote to Oakley on June 21 and said they were having difficulty finding a greenkeeper. On June 30 Wilson wrote again saying they had finally found their man, no worries. This person's name is not given; it may or may not be Pickering. If this person was Pickering, then apparently he was not around when construction began on April 19.
-
Nobody, in my opinion, has surfaced any documents that have proved conclusively who did the 5 routing plans or did the individual hole designs that comprise the routing. I'm not criticizing anybody, including you, for that. It's just the way it is.
Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference of opinion. There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion. After thousands of posts over the years, there is no agreement as to whether your theory is more likely than Tom's or Jeff's or Mike's. But, you can certainly pursue it as long as others wish to debate it with you. Too bad it always degenerates into name calling and vitriol. And that remark is aimed at all involved, not just you.
On their return from the NGLA in early March they re-arranged the golf course, and laid out five plans. The minutes do not specify there were five routings. That is a very unlikely scenario based on what we know from the letters and based on historical practices at the time.
I hope one day we get to see this particular document, because it appears something is amiss. And I find it a little strange that when Patrick begins to pursue access to these records our one local participant seems to have flown the coop.
-
One quick question from a lurker - has anyone asked Merion Golf Club for access to their records and been denied? If so, was there a stated reason for the denial?
Humbly,
k
-
TMac,
I think I was wrong. The April 19 resolution was to hire Johnson, and Pickering apparently came later, right? (I understand that once again, the Wilson letters don't mention exact names, probably because everyone knew who they were talking about, or perhaps because Oakley didn't really need to know)
As to your thoughts that they had even one plan staked out in February because of the wording of that letter, I still believe that the middle part of that Lesley report is just a connector phrase, a general phrase pre-describing the five layouts comment. After all, it was read and copied, so perfect language is even less expected than if someone was sitting at a desk and writing something.
Regarding your comments to Bryan, I don't recall anyone using the phrase "routing" from all the documents of those days. That seems more modern parlance. To me, lay out is the same and its hard to read the comments about who laid out the plans as anything other than the committee. I understand Davids point that the report doesn't specifically list the committee. Like you, having not seen the entire minutes, I suspect they might clear up that little uncertainty. That said, the Alan Wilson letter speaks very specifically of the two committees formed and their responsibilities.
So, the primary document that addresses the routing tells us the "committee" did it. The identity of the committee can reasonably if not certainly be gleamed from the Alan Wilson letter, the Francis report where he tells of spending many hours discussing, etc. And we know he was only on the construction committee from the Wilson letter.
So, please tell me if that is a more certain or reasonably likely scenario and if not, why not?
It certainly has more backing than David's theory that Francis did the swap while working in an uncredited role on the site seach committee, who wasn't charged with design and construction, and who would have been overstepping their bounds, and BTW, there is still not one document that David has tied to CBM being there any more days, but some say "we can't exclude the possibility that he was".
Again, which is more likely, despite some unanswered questions because documents simply didn't address them thoroughly enough to understand completely 100 years later?
David,
I think we all want to know more detail about who did what and how much at Merion.
All we can say for certain from the documents is that Wilson was the main driver, and that Francis did the land swap. He mentioned that his committee (the construction committee, only one he was on) spent "many hours." He also mentions that Wilson went abroad while the committee was at work, suggesting some kind of work went on while Hugh was over in GBI.
We only know that Wilson went to NGLA, although the Lesley report says the committee went. See above for my rationale that the construction committee went. I read your repeated claims to the contrary, that we just don't know. Agreed, but under the most reasonable theory, I think I am most likely right. If it had happened any other way, it would just seem sort of convoluted and in reality, most history goes in pretty logical fashion. Looking for something out of the ordinary, and for out of the ordinary things to have happened repeatedly, just doesn't seem likely to me.
Specifically, why would the site search committee continue on with design and construction functions?
-
Lastly, it seems to me that your question in red above has been discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference of opinion. There is no documentation that provides a conclusive answer, in my opinion.
I think all we have discussed ad nauseum are my affirmative theories. The other side's affirmative theories have been treated as some sort of default position, and these guys seeem think that if the scream and holler enough about how it was obviously Wilson and Co., then that ought to be good enough. It isn't. They haven't even begun to make the case that Wilson and Co. were responsible, or even primarily responsible. Because they cannot make their case. Brauer's repeated misstatements of the record are proof of this. They have to make stuff up to even begin to try and make their case.
And Jeff continues to misrepresent the record.
1. These conversations would go much smoother if Brauer and Co. would actually bother to read and try to understand the source material. Instead, he just replaces one misstatement about the record with another, going from having been being wrong about Pickering to being wrong about Johnson Contractors. The April 19th resolution had nothing to do with hiring Johnson Contractors, it dealt with acquiring the land necessary to lay out the golf course according to CBM and HJW's plan. The April 19 Lesley Report indicated that by that date, Merion already had an "agreement" with Johnson Contractors.
2. He states as fact that the Lesley Report was "read and copied" rather than a written report, but there is no evidence to support this claim. And if it was "READ and copied" then it was written in advance. It would have been an easy matter to copy it verbatim into the minutes from the WRITTEN report, just like Sayres did with the CBM letter, the other Lesley report, and the various letters that were copied into the record. It should be treated as "if someone was sitting at a desk and writing something," because even in Jeff's baseless assumption this is exactly what would have happened. Given Lesley's skill and experience as a writer there is no reason to just ignore and dismiss key phrases like, "Upon our return we rearranged the course . . . " as filler or a repetitious and nonsensical connector phrase.
3. Brauer admits the phrase "routing" wasn't even in use, which again raises the question of why he is inserting such words into the Minutes.
4. His treatment of "lay out" is incoherent. "To me, lay out is the same . . ." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Anyone?
5. Brauer continues to insist that Lesley's report is addressing the activities of the Construction Committee. He admits that this is not what the record indicates, but nonetheless speculates that the Minutes might clarify the Committee to which the Lesley report is referring.
a. Jeff knows damn well that if there was anything remotely supporting his claim that it was the CONSTRUCTION Committee, the Fakers would have been all over it and we'd have known about it long ago.
b. The Fakers have admitted that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ANYWHERE IN THE MINUTES DURING THIS PERIOD.
c. The version of the report brought forward by the Fakers does explicitly clarify which committee. "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows . . .."
d. The Resolution of the same date confirms this, "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing . . . "
e. Lesley was NOT A MEMBER OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE, yet much of his report, for the GOLF COMMITTEE, is written in first person.
So WHAT EXACTLY SUPPORTS BRAUER'S NOTION THAT IT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE? Aside from wishful thinking on his part?
Brauer's approach here typifies their approach to all these issues. The facts as we know them all point to the Golf Committee. But he wants it to be the Construction Committee, and wishes it was the construction committee. So he just pretends maybe it was the construction committee despite the facts, and without offering anything remotely resembling factual support.
Granted, Wilson was apparently at NGLA. But the fakers let slip that he was put on a committee other than the Construction Committee and they have hinted it was either the golf committee or the site committee. So putting him there doesn't help us with the "construction committee."
6. Likewise he broad brushes the Alan Wilson letter and claims that the Alan Wilson letter, written a dozen years after the fact by someone who wasn't even there, is a "Primary Source." It is not even close. Plus it is not even c lear from the Alan Wilson letter who A. Wilson thought went to NGLA!
7. As for his irrelevant tangents into the swap, that is covered plenty elsewhere.
8. He asks what is more likely? What is more likely is that Lesley meant what he wrote. It is also more likely that . . .
- Upon their return from NGLA, the Golf Committee rearranged the course based on what CBM had instructed and laid out (marked off) five different plans (variations) on that course, as instructed by CBM.
- Then CBM and HJW returned to go over it all again and reviewed the various plans on the layout they had suggested, and came up with the final layout plan.
- Then Wilson's Construction Committee was formed and Wilson and his Committee attempted to lay out the course according to CBM/HJW's plan.
9. I his comments to me, again Jeff disingenuously claims that Lesley indicated that "the committee went" to NGLA. If he means THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (which he obviously does) then HE KNOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I mean really, how many times is he going to try and misrpresent this?
10. He asks why the site committee would carry on with the design. That is how convoluted this discussion has become.
- Lesley's Committee was involved with question of the design from the beginning, which is why they brought in CBM and HJW in the first place - to figure out whether a first class course was possible - and why CBM and HJW were advising them on the design beginning in June 1910.
- It is also why Barker did his routing and why that routing was provided to Merion.
- It was Lesley's Committee that was dealing with the design because Merion did not want to purchase property unless until they were certain they could build a first class course, and this meant that could not commit to the purchase until the had figured out a design. And even then they hedged, leaving open the possibility of tweaking the borders even after they agreed to the purchase.
- That is why Lesley's report repeatedly discuss the golf course, Barker's routing, CBM/HJW's input, etc. and why CBM was dealing with Lesley's committee.
- It is also why everything from Wilson focuses on agronomy and construction. The construction committee wasn't there to plan the course, he was there to lay it out according to CBM/HJW's plan, and build it.
- Even the fakers admit that the actual land transfer hadn't even yet taken place as of April 1911. Why would Lesley's committee have disengaged if the final transfer of land had not yet even occurred?
Jeff argues that they did not begin laying out the course until after April 19, 1911. Yet we know that the plan for the golf course had been in the works, one way or another, since the previous summer. This raises the real question:
WHY WOULD THE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE HAVE EVEN BEEN INVOLVED BEFORE IT WAS TIME TO LAY OUT AND CONSTRUCT THE COURSE?
-
Mike Cirba,
You're replies are usually instantaneous.
My question only required a "yes" or "no" answer.
I have to conclude, that unless you're at Happydale Farms for your weekly visitation, that you have not been granted unrestricted access, and that your claim that David, Tom MacWood and I have been granted unrestricted access is false.
Please confirm so that those participating and lurking are kept in the loop.
Thanks
-
Jeff
Why are you glossing over your misrepresentation of my position on a golf course being on the ground? You implied that I believed an actual constructed course was on the ground in March or April, and I've never implied anything of the sort. Is this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures?
Kirk
I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited. I asked if they had the documents I was most interested in seeing - the minutes from November and April - I was told they were not yet included in the archives. Hopefully they have been added and Pat or Mike can see them, and make copies.
-
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land (prior to construction - comments mine), they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. (prior to construction - comments mine)
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional."
Jeff
Regarding your interpretation of the April document, I'm pretty confident in saying I've probably read more articles and documents from this era that anyone involved in this thread, and possibly more than all combined. Let me translate:
"after laying out many different courses" = after routing many different courses
"they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald" = "they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald"
"On our return, we re-arranged the course" = on our return, we re-arranged the course
"laid out five different plans" = 1)we devised five variation of the one routing, probably incorporating additional land, or 2)we devised five versions of our routing incorporating CBM holes, or 3)both
-
TMac,
I am certainly willing to entertain the notion that it was five variations of the same basic concept, and think I even posted some ideas of how likely that is to be true, based on Francis telling us the first twelve holes went in fairly easily.
The only thing I really take exception to was your suggestion that it was narrowed down to one course, then expanded to five, although its a fine line. All I am really trying to say is that the board finally selected one plan and took action based on the April report. They might have been close to the final routing, but they didn't have one until April 19, when the board approved it, authorized land purchase to support that routing, etc.
Hence my comments that even if Hugh Wilson did send Oakley a routing, it was not the final one, and actually, IMHO, probably didn't contain the land swap, so there may have been soil sample taken from inexact areas. But again, the soil from the left rough of the 14th hole wouldn't likely be much different than the right rough of the 14th hole, and that much detail wouldn't be necessary to assess what needed to be done to the soil, i.e., add lime.
We don't really know exactly how all that transpired, and would love to, but probably never will.
I have said I think routing was discussed at some level at NGLA - at least enough that they say they threw out whatever they did before. Did CBM put pencil to paper at NGLA? Perhaps. Still, they prepared the routings, and as we know, Francis got some of it on his own, and unless CBM was there for a pajama party, he did it on his own!
So, to answer David's routing question, we can credit Francis with five (he credits himself) completely independent of CBM. I believe CBM knew the 3AC RR land would make a great short hole even in June 1910, so there is one for him. And he almost certainly showed them or told them their first efforts were not worthwhile, or they wouldn't have scrapped them.
I am sure open to any interpretation of actual words participants spoke or wrote to flesh it out any more, but I don't think I have seen any, have you? And I mean fairly direct quotes, not extrapolations that are way out there?
How can you be sure that five routings means one routing with minor variations? You may have read a bunch of old stuff, but basically I cannot see that this part of the report bears much parsing. We have seen the word laid out used in a few different ways, and the word routing wasn't common. Even David will use laid out, if Findlay says CBM laid out the Alps, but insists that laid out as it pertains to the Merion committee means only laying it out in the field.
So, laid out five plans could mean a lot of different things, from changing just a few holes, to trying five plans based on different criteria. We just don't know with any confidence, do we?
As to incorporating CMB holes, I think that happened as they went along. As an example, once the third was settled, and may have been settled fairly early, it was seen to have some Road Hole characteristics, which they saw at NGLA. It may have influenced the routing plans they were doing to go counterclockwise along the property rather than the other way around, because they liked that hole. Its hard to know exactly when features get incorporated in a routing.
The other side of the coin is that there is sometimes little good that comes from planning features until the routing is settled. If they had switched out the way they were going to use the quarry, any detail planning they did would be wasted time.
On a typical design, there are usually features that work both ways ni the routing process. I suspect the same happened at Merion, but only based on my experience over 33 years, and not anything specific that I read there.
-
After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.
-
After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.
Mayday,
Wouldn't that be dependent upon what, specifically, is in their history ?
-
After all of this it seems that the only thing that Merion should change in their history is Wilson's trip.
Mike
That is no minor change because it sets off a domino effect and alters the entire story. Because the story is Wilson began his design activities after he returned from the UK. That means his design activities did not begin until May 1912, or after the course was largely designed and built (I say largely because there is evidence he did add some touches at the end). Therefore the course was most likely designed by Barker and/or CBM. Thats a pretty big change in the history, isn't it?
-
Is it just coincidence that Francis said there was an issue with getting the last five holes to work (requiring new land), and the minutes five different plans, and additional three acre purchase? Are the five different plans actually five different hole plans? A different plan for 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
-
TMac,
I think its a coincidence.
As to the big change in history, my impression is that they sort of forgot CBM's contribution over time and need to simply highlight his advice in the next history, rather than really change their history. This discussion has probably done more to flesh out what his adivsory role was than the last 50 years of in house history, which didn't appear to be all that dilligent in some respects.
-
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course
with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different holes [the last five holes].
On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.
If you substitute the word 'holes' for 'plans' the entire entry makes more sense, and matches what Francis reported.
-
TMac,
Yes, but if you start substituting words for what they have written, they you are changing history, not interpreting it.
Kind of a stretch. Also, Francis wasn't reporting on the feature designs of holes, he was reporting on his contribution to the routing, i.e. the first twelve holes were easy to fit in with some ground....etc. He didn't say it was easy to make one a road hole, the other the Alps, etc. He was talking about routing.
BTW, its Saturday at noon, so I am not drunk, should you be thinking of defening that post with another accusation! (insert smiley)
-
Francis never claimed the committee routed the course. He doesn't say who routed the course only that he came up with idea that altered the 15th green and 16th tee. He said the first twelve went in smoothly but the last five were another story, but he is vague about that story. We don't know if there was a problem with the original routing they were given to build, or if they were actually routing the course themselves (which based on everything we know is very unlikely, see below). And for some odd reason Francis forgot to mention CBM's involvement; that seems like a major oversight IMO.
Unlikely because:
1. Intelligent people would not engage a bunch of novices to design one of the premier courses in the country
2. They had the two top designers in the country at their disposal
3. The committee's responsibility was construction
4. In those day it typically took about week to route a golf course, and the project began in November 1910
5. The P&O letters lead one to the conclusion the course was already routed when the committee was formed
6. The minutes indicate a golf course was routed in March, which was re-arranged
7. Francis was obviously looking at map with a golf course on it when he came up with his idea
8. See #1
-
You are a piece of work, TMac!
We have discussed 1 and 2 before - even Pat says you should be careful deciding that a golf committee does what is logical.
2 - many documents say they were responsible for design and construction.
3 - You contradict yourself, using the fact that it only took a few weeks to route a course for you (or David) to surmise that it HAD to have started way back in 1910. Besides, the Lesley report tells us when the routing occurred. If it took longer, its only because they decided to wait until CBM came back on his scheduled visit to approve their final layout.
5 - The P and O letters only indicate a final routing to YOU
6 - Yes, it appears they had some preliminary plans, which is normal - several preliminaries lead to a final plan.
7 - Yes, and it was probably the first four unsuccessful attempts at routing after NGLA, although we cannot be sure of the exact timing.
8 - See my response no. 1. Even more than David's theories, which I have some respect for, even when I disagree, I just cannot respect that you keep telling us what makes sense, when it contradicts so much of the record. Its a classic case of bias affecting results. Hard to see you cannot understand that.
-
BTW,
Why is it so nonsensical that Merion would design it themselves. They called in CBM, and why wouldn't he have championed them doing a committee design, since that is the method he favored?
-
In order to believe what you believe you have to suspend rational thought and common sense, and to have little or no historical perspective.
The explanation we were originally given for the hiring of a bunch of novices was because that is the way it happened, which is not an explanation. Then we were given the explanation they thought Wilson showed the potential to become a modern day Leeds, which is extremely far fetched. There is not single elite club in the 1910-1913 timeframe that went with a novice to design their golf course. They turned to men like Barker, CBM, and Colt to design their golf course (and they were laid out it short order). If you study what was going on in architecture circa 1910, you will logically conclude there is no way they turned to complete novice.
There is no disputing #2.
I've always thought the golf course was originally routed in a week, most likely in December. There is no contradiction. The only dates that can be pinpointed in the Lesley report is the period when they re-arranged the course (March, when they returned from the NGLA) and when Macdonald approved the final plan (April). The Lesley report gives no indication of when the many courses were laid out or when they arrived a single routing, only that it was prior to March. You are confused.
Despite yours and Mike's bizarre interpretations, I think the P&O letters are quite clear, especially if read with the knowledge Wilson's 1916 account. I've always felt odd that you have brushed those two most important accounts under the rug.
I believe the evidence suggests the golf course was routed in December or January, and the fact that the golf course, or routing if you wish, was being re-arranged in March is further proof.
-
TMac,
Which are the two most important accounts? perhaps mimicking the Merion records themselves, you don't specificaly mention them....insert smiley.
Not sure how you can dispute that they had the final routing ONLY AFTER CBM approved among the five they drew in April? As you say, there is no clear cut words to pin down the front end of the routing process, but there sure is one when they all got dropped but the one they built to.
I am trying to imagine what you are saying -
Many routings had been prepared in advance of the NGLA meeting (we will debate that more later, I am sure)
That by NGLA, 18 holes had been routed, and the first 12 holes had mostly been settled (as per Francis, they came easy)
That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.
That the only re-arranging necessary was those six holes and and the Francis had his land swap idea after the NGLA meeting
That the swap included just minor variations of the theme to get the last six holes in?
That is actually not a totally unreasonable read of the Lesley letter. It doesn't contradict anything in it, whereas before, your insistence of the importance of the word "course" stumped me.
-
Patrick,
This thread is toxic due to the behavior and constant insults of a few here and I'm done with it.
I'm quite confident that I've provided enough actual contemporaneous evidence to make my case in the minds of most reasonable people and as far as the rest, so be it.
Those without evidence ask us to trust their self-professed higher intelligence and logic. It's very funny actually., and reading the last couple of pages today after some absence was at turns both hilarious and pathetic.
I'd also say that I'm even more confident that when the history of Merion is re-written by an excellent, objective golf writer for the 2013 US Open that it will be based on actual facts, the complete historical records, and once again all of this nonsense will be shown to be much ado about very, very little.
Have a nice day.
-
TMac,
Which are the two most important accounts? perhaps mimicking the Merion records themselves, you don't specificaly mention them....insert smiley.
Not sure how you can dispute that they had the final routing ONLY AFTER CBM approved among the five they drew in April? As you say, there is no clear cut words to pin down the front end of the routing process, but there sure is one when they all got dropped but the one they built to.
I am trying to imagine what you are saying -
Many routings had been prepared in advance of the NGLA meeting (we will debate that more later, I am sure)
That by NGLA, 18 holes had been routed, and the first 12 holes had mostly been settled (as per Francis, they came easy)
That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.
That the only re-arranging necessary was those six holes and and the Francis had his land swap idea after the NGLA meeting
That the swap included just minor variations of the theme to get the last six holes in?
That is actually not a totally unreasonable read of the Lesley letter. It doesn't contradict anything in it, whereas before, your insistence of the importance of the word "course" stumped me.
I'm obviously not disputing that change to the routing. Just two or three posts ago I said the Minutes and Francis account are remarkably similar, which you disagreed with. I'm saying there was routing in place much earlier and it was a 23rd hour change.
The two most important accounts are Wilson's letters and Wilson's 1916 report.
Could you give us some examples of elite golf clubs circa 1911 engaging a complete novice to design their golf course?
-
Patrick,
This thread is toxic due to the behavior and constant insults of a few here and I'm done with it.
I'm quite confident that I've provided enough actual contemporaneous evidence to make my case in the minds of most reasonable people and as far as the rest, so be it.
Those without evidence ask us to trust their self-professed higher intelligence and logic. It's very funny actually., and reading the last couple of pages today after some absence was at turns both hilarious and pathetic.
I'd also say that I'm even more confident that when the history of Merion is re-written by an excellent, objective golf writer for the 2013 US Open that it will be based on actual facts, the complete historical records, and once again all of this nonsense will be shown to be much ado about very, very little.
Have a nice day.
Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right. Before you go could you confirm if you've had access to the Cricket Club's archives?
-
That CBM was supposed to approve the routing in March, but saw problems on the last six holes, so the set up meeting 2 to give them more time to finish the routing.
He was? Where did you come up with that?
-
Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right.
Now THAT is funny, Tom. You and David don't even agree and the only person you've seemingly convinced of anything is trying to gain an invite to CBM's shrine and is presently publicly worshiping at the altar.
Thanks for keeping the humor going and for ending my participation here with a smile on my face. I knew you had it in you! ;) ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
You avoided answering my question.
Have you been granted the same unrestricted access to MCC's and MGC's archives that you claim David and Tom have been granted ?
Your failure to answer this question, which I've asked repeatedly, leads me to believe that you haven't been granted unrestricted access, and further,, that neither have David, Tom or myself.
Irrespective of the flair ups, as Jeff Brauer stated, far more appears to have been uncovered through GCA.com discussions, debates and heated/toxic exchanges, than was previously known, and that reasonable time lines are more discernible despite the protestations from the Merionettes.
You have continually attempted to end/eradicate this thread, and the ironic thing about the thread is that YOU started it. ;D
Could you please answer my question/s
Thanks
-
Toxic? From time to time it has gotten out of hand, but the exchanges of late have been nothing like that. I think the hand writing is on the wall and its time to exit stage right.
Now THAT is funny, Tom. You and David don't even agree and the only person you've seemingly convinced of anything is trying to gain an invite to CBM's shrine and is presently publicly worshiping at the altar.
Thanks for keeping the humor going and for ending my participation here with a smile on my face. I knew you had it in you! ;) ;D
I'm sorry if my toxic behavior has driven you from this thread. As far as David and I agreeing or not agreeing, its called independent thinking. You should try it some time. A good start would be for you to make a visit to the MCC archive and share with us what you find.
-
Tom Macwood,
My guess, based somewhat on Mike's failure to respond, is that unrestricted access by non-members is another myth, one that Mike felt comfortable perpetuating, despite the absence of facts supporting his claims.
-
Patrick,
I think you have it figured out. Mike has been offering up Merion's Minutes like a circus barker. Here are a few of Mike's past posts on this issue, the first from May 5, the next two from June 25 . . .
"Incidentally, for ANYONE who wants to see the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in person, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you make the trip to the Merion Archives where you can view them firsthand.
Scanned copies of originals are there for your own purview, research, and understanding. Please avail yourselves of the opportunity if your are interested in the topic, and while you're there, soak in the glorious history and ambiance of this great club and course."
. . . and . . .
"I'd suggest you make a trip to Ardmore to see the original. I certainly don't have an electronic scanned copy, but those artifacts are available for viewing by those who go through the proper protocol. I'd be happy to take you to dinner."
. . . and. . .
". . . All I know is that you, Tom MacWood, and Patrick have all been invited to come and see for yourselves, and I know that because I'm on the distribution list for an email chain as you are.
If you don't want to go, fine. That's not my problem."
Now, after having repeatedly invited about everyone and their mother-in-law to come to Ardmore and review the Minutes, and after having falsely indicated that some of us have refused this invitation, Mike has gone mum. I think you have hit on exactly the reason why.
_____________________________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
You owe it to all of us to set the record straight. I have been waiting for you guys to so do here and elsewhere but given your latest "exit" and your unwillingness to answer Patrick's questions, it seems I am waiting in vain.
Your posts above and similar posts, proclamations, and invitations concerning Merion Golf Club's policies and procedures were way out of line and misrepresent Merion's policies and procedures. Wayne Morrison and TEPaul misinformed you and mislead you, and you in turn mislead and misrepresented us here on this website. While I am sure you must be embarrassed and disappointed that they mislead you again, you really should have known not to trust these guys by now.
How many times have these guys and others sent you down this road, where you have haughtily treated gossip and misinformation as fact, only to find later you were dead wrong? How many failed witch hunts have there been thus far? You guys seem to be living proof that not everyone learns from their mistakes, but it is not too late to admit responsibility and try to learn from this one.
Merion deserves better than to have you guys falsely representing their policies in on and off this forum. You guys need to make things right. At the very least you need to admit that your statements above were a mistake, that you were misinformed, and that you had no idea about whether what you were saying was true or not. The same applies to Brauer.
-
Who, on this thread (or otherwise), has actually went through appropriate channels to seek access to Merion's archives?
David, Tom and Patrick,
If you're going to hold out Merion (as distinct from Mike, Tom and Wayne, as should be done) as not being receptive to proper requests to view the archives I'd suggest you better explain your process clearly because I doubt any of you have actually done so.
Are you really waiting for an invitation?
-
Jim,
I know you're well intended, but I think you're misinformed, or perhaps uninformed on this issue.
-
Jim and Pat, check out TMacs post 2847.
He says, "I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited." That is consistent with the contentions of TePaul and Wayne. But, for time and perhaps cost reasons, I don't believe either TMac or David has taken advantage of the resource. And David has seemingly had a different experience, based on his posts on the subject.
-
Jim and Pat, check out TMacs post 2847.
He says, "I was told I would have full access to the MGC archive if I visited." That is consistent with the contentions of TePaul and Wayne. But, for time and perhaps cost reasons, I don't believe either TMac or David has taken advantage of the resource. And David has seemingly had a different experience, based on his posts on the subject.
I was also told the documents I was most interested in seeing were not part of the archives. For some reason you failed to mention that part of my quote.
I'm certain there are electronic copies of all those documents; I'm not sure why they are not being distributed to all interested parties. We are not talking state secrets here.
-
Tom,
Are you serious? Have you been offered the opportunity to view the archived material at Merion GC?
Pat,
You may be quite correct, but Tom's post just prior to this one indicates he would be welcome...which is incredibly shocking IMHO...and that he is placing conditions on his acceptance.
-
Jim
Yes, I'm serious. I've said it more than once on this site including a couple days ago. Thankfully I inquired, before making the effort, if the minutes from November and April were included, and I was told they were not. In fact its my impression none of the minutes were included at the time. An archive is of limited use that when the most important documents relating to the creation of the golf course are not included. I got the impression they were playing games with me.
What good is access to an archive that does not include its most important information? It allows people like to say hey he was given access but he did not take advantage of it. Give me a break.
I assume you've been through the archives since it is open to the public. What are some of the artifacts and documents you've found most interesting?
-
You do of course realize that those minutes would be Merion Cricket Club property, not Merion Golf Club, correct?
Also, I never suggested any of this was publicly available, in fact I think you're totally insane for thinking you deserve to see any of this stuff on your own terms.
Neither Merion Golf Club nor Merion Cricket Club has been involved in these discussions for one minute...Tom Paul is not MGC or MCC, and Wayne may be a mamber at MGC but has never, to my knowledge, spoken on here as an officer of the club.
I doubt you actually want the answers you would find.
-
I do realize that. Would there be some compelling reason why they would not share those minutes and make them accessible to the entire world? I understand they have shared this information; some of these documents are in the Flynn book. We are not talking about state secrets. And after all this 2011, and making photo copies and/or electronically scanned copies is common place. Its not that difficult.
I was told by Wayne that the Merion archives were open to the public. I was not given access to anything that the public did not have access to, including you. I assume you've been through the archives. What are some of the artifacts and documents you've found most interesting?
My own terms? These are historical documents. Since when do historians and legitimate archivists put terms upon historic documents? You either share them or you don't for reasons unknown to me. Explain to me why they would not share them?
-
Jim
My correspondences were directly with the Merion GC archivist. I would send him a private correspondence and I would get response from Wayne, and was told by Wayne that he would be my official interface. Obviously the archivist was forwarding my messages and the two were colluding for some unknown reason. From that point I began copying the president of the club on my messages (to no avail). I also sent the archivist the code of ethics from the SAA (Society of American Archivists) because he broke about half their codes. Is there a different code of ethics in Philadelphia?
Code of Ethics for Archivists
Preamble
The Code of Ethics for Archivists establishes standards for the archival profession. It introduces new members of the profession to those standards, reminds experienced archivists of their professional responsibilities, and serves as a model for institutional policies. It also is intended to inspire public confidence in the profession.
This code provides an ethical framework to guide members of the profession. It does not provide the solution to specific problems.
The term “archivist” as used in this code encompasses all those concerned with the selection, control, care, preservation, and administration of historical and documentary records of enduring value.
I. Purpose
The Society of American Archivists recognizes the importance of educating the profession and general public about archival ethics by codifying ethical principles to guide the work of archivists. This code provides a set of principles to which archivists aspire.
II. Professional Relationships
Archivists select, preserve, and make available historical and documentary records of enduring value. Archivists cooperate, collaborate, and respect each institution and its mission and collecting policy. Respect and cooperation form the basis of all professional relationships with colleagues and users.
III. Judgment
Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.
IV. Trust
Archivists should not profit or otherwise benefit from their privileged access to and control of historical records and documentary materials.
V. Authenticity and Integrity
Archivists strive to preserve and protect the authenticity of records in their holdings by documenting their creation and use in hard copy and electronic formats. They have a fundamental obligation to preserve the intellectual and physical integrity of those records.
Archivists may not alter, manipulate, or destroy data or records to conceal facts or distort evidence.
VI. Access
Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies. Archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives. Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.
VII. Privacy
Archivists protect the privacy rights of donors and individuals or groups who are the subject of records. They respect all users’ right to privacy by maintaining the confidentiality of their research and protecting any personal information collected about them in accordance with the institution’s security procedures.
VIII. Security/Protection
Archivists protect all documentary materials for which they are responsible and guard them against defacement, physical damage, deterioration, and theft. Archivists should cooperate with colleagues and law enforcement agencies to apprehend and prosecute thieves and vandals.
IX. Law
Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.
-
Jim, I agree that there are two clubs involved here and that complicates things, and I agree that Wayne Morrison is NOT authorized to speak in behalf of either club. And TEPaul, Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer most certainly are not.
But this makes matters all the more strange. Why has Mike Cirba repeatedly inviting people to Ardmore to view these documents? Why have Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer taken shots at some of us for "refusing" to go to Merion, and why have they written about how TomM and I could have gone to look at the documents but have not? Any why has Jeff Brauer called me a liar, but refused to explain himself?
Unfortunately these misrepresentations trace directly back to Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul. Wayne falsely claimed to speak on behalf of Merion Golf Club, and as his statements about Merion's policies and his treatment of the Minutes have directly contradicted Merion's policies. Without getting into detail here, Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have been parroting these two, but the information Wayne and Tom Paul have given them is wrong as to Merion Golf Club's policies, wrong as to Wayne's authority to speak on behalf of MGC, and especially wrong as to my dealings with Merion Golf Club.
They all really ought to set the record straight. Specifically, they need to come forward and admit that they had it wrong, that they were misinformed, and that they do not have the first clue as to MGC's policies or about my communications and dealings with the clubs.
And Jim, nothing I have posted should be construed as a shot at Merion Golf Club. My communications and dealings with Merion Golf Club about these matters have been always been cordial and positive. But as you indicated above, there is a big difference between Merion Golf Club on the one hand, and Wayne, Tom Paul, and Cirba and Brauer, on the other. The authorized representatives of the former speak with knowledge and authority, while the latter have only feigned authority and have made a number of blatant misrepresentations.
-
David/Tom/Patrick,
My limited misunderstanding of the admission rules and contents of the Merion Archives was largely based on a series of private emails all of you were copied on. I've also been there in person, but not in any formal capacity to do research or otherwise hunt through the files.
I would admit that I don't know the formal process to obtain access but also understood that access by interested, well-intentioned researchers and other observers was encouraged. Further, and perhaps most important to these discussions, I had read in one of the emails, or perhaps misinterpreted, that photocopies of the original copies of the MCC Minutes were included in the archives. I've come to find that this isn't quite true...what exists in the archives are the transcribed, typed copies, and not scans of the originals.
Given the circumstances here, I regret that I encouraged each of you to visit and sincerely apologize if I've misrepresented the policies of the club based on my limited understanding.
In a perfect world, I would like all of us to have access to all of the documents in question and more. I'm a believer in full disclosure and have probably shared more here personally than some folks might be comfortable with, but I like to let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. However, I sense we'd still all interpret things differently, and that's ok.
We seem to have entered this discussion on Merion here with no real new evidence or facts than we've had over most of the past eight years since we've been discussing/debating this. I'm hopeful that someday more surfaces, but until that time I think we all have our beliefs based on the evidence and I for one am moving on to other topics and hopefully more productive endeavors.
Again, I wish you the best in your own personal searches and regret that I've provided information here that was inaccurate based on my limited, third-hand misunderstandings as a non-member..
-
Mike Cirba,
While I appreciate your attempt to set the record straight, I don't understand why you are still making claims about what is and is not in Merion's Archives. You have no idea and it is not your place to make such claims.
-
Mike,
You may recall that I warned against accepting information blindly and that you too should have questioned the representations made to you.
If we're all on a search for the truth, then we should question any and all information provided to us, irrespective of the source, friend or foe.
What's mind boggling about this issue is that we're just discussing a golf course and its history, not which drug to select to save lives.
While we're passionate about architecture and related matters, we shouldn't become fanatical about such matters and we shouldn't wear blinders when examining issues.
It would appear that the attribution we're seeking, doesn't exist, thereby making all opinions valid and invalid at the same time.
Until attribution is established, I think we have to say that we don't know, with specificity, who designed Merion.
-
Pat,
If "with specificity" is to mean identifying whose idea each feature of the original course was, then of course you're right. But the minutes make it clear who Merion's leadership at the time thought created their course...AND who helped them do it!
-
Pat - do you really believe that passionate interest in golf course architecture is at the heart of this whole mess? I don't. What I see instead is something much more basic, and base, i.e. the main participants here HATE each other, and have hated each other for years now. If those involved have 'binders' on, those blinders (and that blindness) is hate. I've barely checked in over the last year for two reasons - a) I've come to a fairly stable conclusion about what I think happened back in the early 1910s, and b) I could no longer stomach the hypocrisy of people who hate each other pretending to actually bear with each other by calling it "a shared search for truth". I'll tell you one thing (and I know this sounds arrogant): I truly believe that if David M had asked ME to edit his essay before he posted it here originally -- and I mean editing just in terms of the writing and organization of the material, not the content -- theses threads and this discussion would've been over (and successfully concluded) a long time ago. I think David EXPECTED to be hammered, and so shaped his material so as to prepare for the fight by itching for a fight - that was his mistake. I think Tom P and others came ready to HAMMER the essay, whatever it said and whatever way it was said -- and that is to their shame.
Well, all water under the bridge now. And while I believe that you believe in taking the high road and expecting better of all involved, it seems to me that you're failing to see how destructive the hate is. But...maybe I'm wrong.
Peter
PS - if you respond to this post, Pat, and I don't respond back, please don't see it as a lack of respect for you of for something you write. I don't feel like arguing or getting more involved in this - I just wanted to say my peace (or it is piece) and move on out. As I noted, I'm well aware that I could be wrong, so someone telling me that I am doesn't disturb me much. By the way, my view on what I think happened in the early 1910s, for what it's worth, is found somewhere in the middle of the pack. I like to believe that more than a few on this board would share the same view.
-
Until attribution is established, I think we have to say that we don't know, with specificity, who designed Merion.
Pat
I totally agree. It would appear Jim is claiming Barker designed the course, but I don't think that is clear at this point.
-
Peter,
I am aware of the level of animosity, I tried to dilute it on numerous occasions.
It's unfortunate that a discussion/debate went far beyond being contentious.
A lot of vile things were said on this website, IM's, emails and over the phone.
And over WHAT ?
A 100 year old golf course's origins ? ? ?
I think some lost their bearings and perspective.
Despite the unpleasantness, I think a substantive amount of information came to light for the great majority of lurkers and participants.
I know that I learned a great deal.
It's also unfortunate that some left the site over this thread.
That seems silly to me, especially when the debate continued via emails off site.
I'd certainly like to see those who left, return, but that's up to them.
David's essay was greeted with anger BEFORE it was published, so I'm Pretty sure the exact nature of the content wasn't a material factor in creating the battle.
Since we communicate through the typed word on this website, the only thing I would ask of those engaging in debate is intellectual honest, first, and a civil tone, second. And if you want to do away with the civil tone, that's OK with me as long as you avoid personal attacks.
Discussion and debate only retain their merit when intellectual honesty is maintained.
Thanks
-
Patrick,
Your transparent and hypocritical effort to appear as an objective, unbiased peacemaker when you've been nothing but a staunch, blind advocate for one side and repeated instigator for continuing conflict here is perhaps the perfect denouement to this thread.
While I agree with much of what you wrote, you are not the innocent messenger and paragon of virtue who can deliver it with any shred of credibility at this point.
If nothing else, the contemporaneous articles and other evidence that have been provided in this long-running thread continue to have historical value and provide us with insight into how things were done back then. People reading this thread should simply skip the interpretive parts in between from all parties.
Have a good day.
-
Patrick,
Your completely transparent and hypocritical effort to appear as an objective, unbiased peacemaker when you've been nothing but a staunch, blind advocate for one side and repeated instigator for continuing conflict here is perhaps the perfect denouement to this thread.
Mike,
Part of the problem is that you really don't have a clue when it comes to my position on this issue.
You think I'm biased because I refused to accept your repetition of the party line.
You think I'm biased because I resisted your attempts to shove the party line down our throats.
You think I'm biased because I called for equality when it came to the burden of proof.
I clearly stated my position, just a few replies ago.
And, that has always been my position.
Your problem is that you confused theories with positions, and there is a distinction
While I agree with much of what you wrote, you are not the innocent messenger and paragon of virtue who can deliver it with any shred of
credibility at this point.
That's your opinion, one that's not universally shared by others
If nothing else, the contemporaneous articles and other evidence that have been provided in this long-running thread continue to have historical
value and provide us with insight into how things were done back then. People reading this thread should simply skip the interpretive parts in
between from all parties.
Newspaper articles have proven unreliable when it comes to the facts, you've even admitted that , especially when an article didn't support your position. And you rejected Findlay' contemporaneous 1912 account when it undermined your position, so please don't lecture anyone on hypocrisy
-
Mike,
Did the phrase "intellectual honesty" strike a nerve ?
-
Patrick,
Yes, I found your use of the term particularly ironic and hypocritical considering your behavior on this thread. You can claim objectivity and lack of bias all you like, but your actions speak much louder than your words.
Let's move on....have a good day.
-
Patrick,
Yes, I found your use of the term particularly ironic and hypocritical considering your behavior on this thread.
You can claim objectivity and lack of bias all you like, but your actions speak much louder than your words.
Mike,
You're confused again.
MY WORDS are MY ACTIONS !
The two are inseperable on this forum.
They're synonymous.
Hence, my actions are solely my words, which speak the truth, as distasteful as that might be for you.
-
Over the weekend I played with several members from Merion.
I was introduced to them as one of the guys on GolfClubAtlas.com.
We had an exceptionally delightful round and drinks afterwards.
The only time we discussed Merion and golf course architecture was when they told me that they thought that Macdonald spent an inordinate amount of time on the phone with the Merion committee discussing his plans. ;D
-
That is funny. I remember when I presented my Crump essay, though I thought it was a pretty balanced account, based on my experience with a few locals I expected all hell would break loose shortly. Much to my surprise most appreciated it, and were extremely kind and generous. I have the utmost respect for the membership at Pine Valley.
-
Tom MacWood,
I think the well intended passion of those taking exception to David's premise, unfortunately morphed into a form of fanaticism not adopted or embraced by the general membership.
It's my belief that most people believe in discovery and revelation.
There are always those that want to protect the status quo, those that inherently resist change. I'm probably one of them on certain issues.
David's premise, was just that, a premise, nothing more.
That premise was attacked BEFORE it was ever released/published.
As I reflect on all that has transpired, I would say that the prior, accepted belief was that Wilson designed the course AFTER his return from the U.K.
And that the revised belief, as a result of David's premise and the debate that followed, is the belief that the course was routed, with individual hole designs PRIOR to Wilson's trip to the U.K., that CBM played an expanded role and that specific attribution on the specific routing and specific individual hole designs is unknown.
-
Just to reaffirm what TomM wrote above, my communications and dealings with Merion Golf Club about these matters have been always been cordial and positive from those speaking for the club and almost all the members with whom I have had any contact. The frustrating part is that a few individuals here took it upon themselves to try and defend the legends of those courses at all cost, and given that (agree with the conclusions or not) the IMO was and is sound, this has always been more about trying to destroy my reputation than actually addressing or considering what I wrote. This was misguided at best.
_____________________________________________________________________
Pat,
If "with specificity" is to mean identifying whose idea each feature of the original course was, then of course you're right. But the minutes make it clear who Merion's leadership at the time thought created their course...AND who helped them do it!
Jim, this reminds me of the statement you made months ago which led me to ask you to come up with the specific instances in the contemporaneous record where Merion indicated that the Construction Committee (and not CBM/HJW) had planned the East Course. As I recall you never came up with such a list. Does this post mean you are back on the project and preparing the list?
Also, I wonder if perhaps you are both glossing over and lumping together different events and stages in your statement above? Unfortunately, when we break it down a bit, I am not sure it holds. No one is disputing that Construction Committee laid the course upon the ground, like Lesley wrote. But in the minutes Lesley also told us that this was to have been done according to the plan CBM/HJW approved.
Surely you are not contending the "the minutes make it clear" who came up with the plan, are you? If you are, could you point me toward where this is in the minutes?
I am increasingly of the opinion that the Construction Committee was responsible for constructing the golf course. While I don't know for certain, I am doubtful that the "construction committee" had yet been formed when when the planning took place.
Can you or anyone explain to me how you know the construction committee had even been formed when the planning took place?
-
Over nine months later, on August 26, 1907, the final plans for the routing and hazards of the golf course was published. What is interesting to note at this point is that the targeted width of the fairways is still at 50-55 yards, MUCH narrower than they were to become as noted previously where the average width of the fairways today is approximately 72 yards. This lends credence to the idea that it was only later in trying to create strategic avenues of play around hazards for the weaker players did the overall size of the golf course increase significantly from what was originally anticipated, effectively squashing the original plan to create building lots for the founders on the "Surplus Land".
Joe Bausch,
Is this map/schematic dated August 26, 1907 ?
If not, what is the date of the map/schematic below ?
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5424616245_133c695c66_o.jpg)
Mike,
I resurrected this thread just for you, now you can continue your NGLA discussion without tainting the Pine Valley thread
-
August 26, 1907, Brooklyn Daily Eagle
-
Mike
You have claimed CBM used a topo map to route the NGLA, as if it were a known, provable fact. Where did you read that or is this actually a theory? Where did you read a topo map was created prior to routing the golf course?
-
This may be the longest thread in the history of GCA and is brought back up in honor of George Bahto.
George Bahtos influence on golf architecture and particularly the history of NGLA, CBM and Raynor and all of their courses will be forever remembered and appreciated.
-
Joel,
I never did participate in this thread and really wasn't qualified to make any contribution. But, wow! Right or wrong, the participants reflect a real love and passion for golf architecture. Pretty amazing.
-
Oh man, we had even more content meat added to this thread than what appears now -- lost in the Great Internet Erasure of 2014. >:(
-
Current statistics:
116 pages !
2,892 posts !!
118,217 views !!!
A touch of acerbic invective.
Priceless
When I retire I will have the time to read it.
Wm Flynnfan