[Patrick_Mucci]

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]

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?  

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Tom MacWood]

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?

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Tom MacWood]

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?

[Jim_Kennedy]

[JMEvensky]

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.

[TEPaul]

"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).

[Mike Cirba]

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";




From "American Golfer", August 1910




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.

[Tom MacWood]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

From all appearances, I'd agree with you.  Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"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.

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Mike Cirba]

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.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.


  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

How does one define stentorian on the internet, would that be in caps or bold face?

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.  
 

[DMoriarty]

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.   

[Jim Nugent]

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...

[TEPaul]

"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 Nugent]

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. 

[TEPaul]

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.  

[Mike Cirba]

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.




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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()