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.