The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

http://ascelibrary.org/beo/resource/1/jbenf2/v15/i5/p565_s1?isAuthorized=no

[DMoriarty]

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?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

 

[DMoriarty]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We agree that I shouldn’t put myself in the role of middle man in communicating between you two.  So, that's a start.......

[DMoriarty]

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.

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.....

[DMoriarty]

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.  

[Mike Cirba]

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.




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"?  



 

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

[JESII]

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!!!

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Yes, and speaking of Tempest in Teapots, CBM himself told us which courses he designed in what order after NGLA;







Jim,

No.

Yes.

[JESII]

Really? Pure coincidence?

[Jeff_Brauer]

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.