The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

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;




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.




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.




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.




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.




Next...Macdonald finds his 200 acres..

[Mark McKeever]

Very Cool Mike & Joe.  Thanks for putting them together!

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

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;




December 15th, 1906;




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."




Although this January 10th, 1907 article still mentions the original plan to only use 110 acres for golf and the rest for cottages...





Next...the Long, Slow build

[Mike Cirba]

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.




The club was incorporated in May of 1908, as this article mentions;




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.




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.  




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.




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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Mark McKeever]

Mike,

You don't think it would be cool to have cabins on NGLA like they do at Pine Valley?

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Niall C]

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

[Mike Cirba]

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?

[Jim_Kennedy]

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

  

[George_Bahto]

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

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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:



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.  

[Mike Cirba]

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.  

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

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 

[DMoriarty]

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.