[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Let's make a deal.

I need to dig out and get to work, but I'll reply to your posts in some detail tonight, and try to get some things scanned that support my position, but in the meantime...

please at least agree to read the articles I posted at the start of this thread so we have a common point of reference for discussion.

The couple of paragraphs that CBM wrote in his book summarizing months and years of effort do not tell the whole story.

Let's start with this;

"Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee over the next five months" - CB Macdonald in December 1906, after acquiring 205 undetermined acres of a 450 acre tract.

Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date.   In it, as referenced on the opening page, he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement that stems from 1904, which I've copied in full below, as well.    On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to incuding the copy of the original agreement.




This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.




This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been purchased, as well as its disposition.   Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.




Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.




In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.




The following mentions the Official Opening Day.   We know from previous documentation that a few started "tentatively" playing the course in 1909, probably CBM and his closest project associates, and that on July 2-4, 1910 they held a "soft" opening with a smaill , informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward.   In CBM's 1928 book, he mistypes that date as 1909, but the second copied document from "American Golfer" shows the actual timeframe.






The following is a copy that CBM attached to his 1912 letter of the Original Founders agreement.   On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course.   The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.






And finally, after acquiring the 205 acres of undetermined land out of the 450 available in December 1906, Macdonald tells us precisely what is going to be done to figure out which holes to reproduce and their yardages over the next five months, working with his committee.   He is quoted directly, so there is no need for guesses or speculation.

And that's how it happened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I had typed out a lengthy response refuting everyone of your points, some with the help of contradictory evidence you posed, but, I lost it and wanted to throw my computer through the window.

I have to go out to a meeting now, but, either later tonight or tomorrow morning I'll retype my response.

I have one question for you at the present time.

Would you identify all those that are assisting you in your efforts on this particular thread.

Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

The only one assisting me, is me, and it's a pain in the butt to post all of this information here, frankly.

Sorry you lost your post.

Well...Joe Bausch found the majority of the articles I posted here originally, but he's blameless if you are looking for some type of conspiracy.   This is all my argument, based on the evidence, and I believe it shows Macdonald to be a detailed, tremendous planner who took this incredibly seriously, and frankly, paints a better picture of his love and devotion to the game than the 2 days on horseback routing myth that's been perpetuated here over the years.

And Patrick,

I'll leave you with this quote from Max Behr in 1915;

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The only one assisting me, is me, and it's a pain in the butt to post all of this information here, frankly.

Sorry you lost your post.  ME TOO[/b]

Well...Joe Bausch found the majority of the articles I posted here originally, but he's blameless if you are looking for some type of conspiracy.  

Nope, just curious

This is all my argument, based on the evidence, and I believe it shows Macdonald to be a detailed, tremendous planner who took this incredibly seriously, and frankly, paints a better picture of his love and devotion to the game than the 2 days on horseback routing myth that's been perpetuated here over the years.

It's no myth.  Macdonald in his OWN words told us how he quickly routed the golf course.

And Patrick,

I'll leave you with this quote from Max Behr in 1915;

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land.

Behr seems to refute your theory when he states that "the course really laid itself our to a large extent"
That would indicate that very little effort was necessary when routing the course.
Something I've been saying for some time

 Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. [/b]And there you have the solution of the whole business.

This leads me to believe that Behr NEVER saw the golf course.

I've asked you, over and over and over again to locate for me all of the surplus land you allude to on that 205 acre site.
When Behr claims that a "CONSIDERABLE PART OF THE 205 ACRES IS NOT TOUCHED BY THE COURSE" I'd like to know WHERE that land is.

I've asked you, over and over and over again to identify and locate that surplus land, but, to date, you've failed to do so.
Why is that ?
Could it be because there ISN'T any substantive surplus land ?

If there is, could you please identify it.

And, remember, NGLA did NOT own the property behind the current 9th green until many decades after the club opened.

Please point out the surplus land you allude to.

Thanks[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

I'll try to reply in detail later but for now can you tell me why you think CBM offered to buy 120 acres closer to Shinny earlier in 1906 if he thought he needed close to 200 acres for the golf course alone?  Thanks.

P.s....regarding "help", everyone else has left the building, all believing that continued "discussion" on these matters with the usual protagonists is not only pointless, but foolish as well.

I'm hoping they aren't correct.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Following is the map of NGLA that CBM included in his January, 1912 letter to the Founders.

I will say right now that I'm not sure if the shaded areas are meant to indicate those acres that are club-owned but not developed for the golf course that CBM wrote about in his letter, but we do know that the total acreage purchased was greater than the total acreage used for the golf course...CBM himself told us there was "Surplus Land".   I'm also not sure if the drawing is to scale, but I'm sure some folks here might have that ability to determine.

I'm also not sure if the original NGLA was quite as "wide" around the edges as today's version, but estimates on an earlier thread had today's course at somewhere between 160-180 acres out of the 205 acres purchased.   That would leave between 13-22% of the originally purchased land for other purposes, such as building lots as CBM and Whigham outlined in previous writings.

In any case, I do think this is a terrific map, and should help also clear up some questions around the original lengths of some holes such as the Sahara 2nd, that have been discussed here prior.  

Sorry about the need to scroll to see it, but I think it's worth the larger presentation.

[Mike Cirba]

The distances for the "Regular Course" or "Championship Length" reported on the other side are:

1 - 315 Par 4
2 - 261 Par 4
3 - 376 Par 4
4 - 185 Par 3
5 - 467 Par 5
6 - 125 Par 3
7 - 456 Par 5
8 - 380 Par 4
9 - 525 Par 5

3090 Par 37

10 - 416 Par 4
11 - 405 Par 4
12 - 385 Par 4
13 - 160 Par 3
14 - 305 Par 4
15 - 358 Par 4
16 - 410 Par 4
17 - 311 Par 4
18 - 484 Par 5

3234 Par 36

6324 - Par 73

[Mike Cirba]

Bump for Patrick relaxing in Florida while the rest of us in the northeast prepare to get creamed with an ice storm.

Get off the golf course, PatN and back to your miserable keyboard with the rest of us!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Following is the map of NGLA that CBM included in his January, 1912 letter to the Founders.

I will say right now that I'm not sure if the shaded areas are meant to indicate those acres that are club-owned but not developed for the golf course that CBM wrote about in his letter, but we do know that the total acreage purchased was greater than the total acreage used for the golf course...CBM himself told us there was "Surplus Land".   I'm also not sure if the drawing is to scale, but I'm sure some folks here might have that ability to determine.[size=12point]

Mike, the line surrounding the golf course is NOT the boundary line for NGLA.

The boundary line is the outer line of the shaded portion of the schematic.

Anyone familiar with the topography in the shaded areas understands that those areas are not fit for development.
The center portion between # 5 and # 15 is the maintainance area,
One only has to look at the land to the left of # 10.
That's SHINNECOCK'S GOLF COURSE, NOT NGLA's Surplus land.
Likewise the land at the bottom, to the right of # 13 and # 14, that's BULLS HEAD BAY, not surplus land.

How could you represent that those areas were surplus lands belonging to NGLA ?  ?  ?[/b][/size]

I'm also not sure if the original NGLA was quite as "wide" around the edges as today's version, but estimates on an earlier thread had today's course at somewhere between 160-180 acres out of the 205 acres purchased.   That would leave between 13-22% of the originally purchased land for other purposes, such as building lots as CBM and Whigham outlined in previous writings.[color=green[size=12point]

Mike, again you're pushing your agenda.... dishonestly.  There is NO SURPLUS land.
Anyone remotely familiar with the topography understands that.
Take a look at Google Earth and you'll understand that your claim that 13-22 % of the land was available for development is absurd and without merit.

As to your allegation that there was "excess" land for building lots, there isn't, but, I'll get into detail on that in a subsequent post, but, what you should understand, and probably do, but have conveniently overlooked is that Whigham's statement, his "artilcle" in the papers was a FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT MADE PRIOR TO CBM AND JW EVER SEEING THE LAND AT NGLA.

So, how could JW make that statement if at the time of the statement he had never seen the final site ?

Forward looking statements have NO merit, no credibility and you know that.[/color][/size]

In any case, I do think this is a terrific map, and should help also clear up some questions around the original lengths of some holes such as the Sahara 2nd, that have been discussed here prior.   [size=18point]

# 2 is listed at 262, 252 & 228 for the Championship, Regular and Short course.[/b][/size]

Sorry about the need to scroll to see it, but I think it's worth the larger presentation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bump for Patrick relaxing in Florida while the rest of us in the northeast prepare to get creamed with an ice storm.

Get off the golf course, PatN and back to your miserable keyboard with the rest of us![size=14point]

I was hosting our illustrious leader, golf's most beloved figure, the great Ran Morrissett himself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

On January 4th, 1912, with the course open for play and the clubhouse finished, CB Macdonald took the opportunity to write the Founders of the club to summarize the project to date.   In it, as referenced on the opening page, he included a copy of the orginal Founders Agreement that stems from 1904, which I've copied in full below, as well.    On the first page, Macdonald discusses timeframes and refers to incuding the copy of the original agreement.




This page of the 1912 letter talks about the purchase of the 205 acres.




This page refers to the "Surplus Land" that has been purchased, as well as its disposition.  

Mike, it refers to two and one half (2.5) acres behind the current 1st tee for PROTECTION (buffer), NOT DEVELOPMENT purposes.
How can you equate the purchase of that land, especially when you know how steep sloped that topography is, with land purchased for lots ?
That's disengenuous.[/b]

Although not nearly as much as Macdonald originally estimated in his Founders Agreement (see below), likely due to more areas than he anticipated being unfit or swampy, as well as the strategic goal to create width for options on his ideal holes, there is still enough land left over from the 205 originally purchased to note it within a separate section of the document.

The land left over, not for use on the golf course is miniscule, not sufficient for development purposes.
There's the maintainance area, the superintendent's area, the staff's quarters, the range, a beach and dock, but, NO room for developing homesites, no one (1) acre parcels.

Look at any map, any schematic of the course in conjunction with a topo map or aerial and you'll see that there's NO land left over for development,  Especially not an acre per subscriber as you keep alluding to.

The statement you posted below is a statement made in 1904, long before CBM ever saw the final site.
You continue to inject it as if it was a contemporaneous statement made after NGLA was sited and built.
That statement is a "FORWARD LOOKING" statement and you know what has to accompany forward looking statements since they have no merit, no credibility.[/b]




Just a few months prior to the acquisiton of the Sebonac land, in March 1906, HJ Whigham again reiterated the plan to retain a large portion of the property for Founders Building lots.

Mike, HJ Whigham made that statement, NEVER having seen the site at NGLA.
His statement is nothing more than "Hype" a "Promo" and nothing more.
Never having seen the site at NGLA at the time he wrote the article, he was totally unqualified to make that statement.

With the purchase of 205 acres on land filled with swamps and bogs, there was NO land for development at NGLA.[/b]




In June 1906, after Macdonald returns from abroad, he is still looking for the 200 or so acres he needs based on his original plan.

Look at the title in the headline.

CBM hasn't found the land.  Repeat, he hasn't even seen the land at NGLA.
The article is "FLUFF"
A concept absent a site.

It's remarkable how you cling to the "myth" of one acre lots for NGLA rather than the reality that the land can't accomodate them.

What you also fail to understand is ..... The MATH.

At one acre per shareholder, with 70 shareholders/founders, where are the 70+ acres needed for each of those fellows ?  ?  ?

I've asked you time and time and time and time and time again, to identify for us, WHERE the land for development is on the NGLA site.  Where is it ?  Where are the 70+acres needed for those 70 shareholders/founders ?  Please answer the question.[/b]




The following mentions the Official Opening Day.   We know from previous documentation that a few started "tentatively" playing the course in 1909, probably CBM and his closest project associates, and that on July 2-4, 1910 they held a "soft" opening with a smaill , informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward.   In CBM's 1928 book, he mistypes that date as 1909, but the second copied document from "American Golfer" shows the actual timeframe.

That article in the "American Golfer" dated August of 1910 states that the greens are over two and a half (2.5) years old.
That would seem to indicate that the course was playable in 1909 or earlier.[/b]






The following is a copy that CBM attached to his 1912 letter of the Original Founders agreement.   On Page two he talks about how much land they are looking to acquire and what he estimates they'll need for the golf course.   The remainder is to be given in 1.5 acre lots to the Founders for building purposes.

Mike, once again you insert a document from 1904 and try to pawn it off as contemporaneous to 1912.
That's disengenuous.
The 1904 document is "wishfull thinking" absent ever having seen the site the golf course is to be built on.
A promotional effort to attract investors.

But, let's do the math again.  With 60 original founders, 1.5 acres per founder would require 90+ acres, probably closer to 110 acres for roads, etc., etc..  So, show me, where on the 205 acres purchased, where are the 105+ acres needed for the founders who now number 70.

The three citations you list below are nothing more than assumptions made in 1904, assumptions that proved flawed in the face of the actual land found and purchased years later.

You repeatedly attempt to promote statements made in 1904 as being contemporaneous in 1912 or earlier.
That's a distortion, a disengenuous attempt to present the final site for NGLA as having the potential to fulfill the forward looking statements made in 1904, and anyone familiar with the property KNOWS that the two conflict, dramatically with one another..
[/b]






And finally, after acquiring the 205 acres of undetermined land out of the 450 available in December 1906, Macdonald tells us precisely what is going to be done to figure out which holes to reproduce and their yardages over the next five months, working with his committee.   He is quoted directly, so there is no need for guesses or speculation.

Once again, you cite a newspaper article with a specific quote and attempt to expand the quote to verify the authenticity of the entire article which is deeply flawed.

As an example, could you cite for me, WHERE ON NGLA's PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE THE ATLANTIC OCEAN ?

Take your time, consult with others, then tell me WHERE on NGLA's property you can see the Atlantic Ocean ?

THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT THE ATLANTIC OCEAN CAN BE SEEN FROM  EVERYWHERE ON THE NGLA SITE EXCEPT ON THE LOWER LYING AREAS

Could it be that the article is confusing or blending sites, perhaps the site near the Shinnecock Canal where the Atlantic Ocean can be seen.

I never cease to be amazed at how quickly you are to accept and put forth newspaper articles that agree with your position, as The GOSPEL, even when those articles contain serious flaws, yet, you're unwilling to accept CBM's own words as penned in "Scotland's Gift"

Your sole purpose for attempting to create the impression that it took CBM months to route the course is to deny the possibility that he routed Merion in short order.

Your buddy, Behr himself said that the course routed itself, fairly easily.

Lastly, would you please identify the 60, 90, 105+ acres on NGLA's site where homes could be built ?

Thanks[/b]

And that's how it happened.

NO, IT'S NOT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT EVERYONE TO BELIEVE BECAUSE THAT WOULD HELP DISPELL CBM'S ROUTING MERION IN SHORT ORDER.[/B]

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Methinks thou protesteth far too much!  

I'm really not sure why you want to get into this argument with CB Macdonald?   After all, HE is the one who said that he was going to spend the next several months determining the golf holes and yardages after he secured the property in December 1906.   HE is the one who said he thought he'd need 110 acres for the golf course in 1904 and 200+ overall.   He is the one who was still looking for the 200+ acres in 1906.   HE is the one who made an offer on 120 acres closer to Shinnecock prior to his Sebonac purchase...why would he possibly do that if he thought he needed 170 acres at that time??    HE is the one who wrote in 1912 that he had surplus land...just like he planned back in 1904, and even attached the original Founders agreement to show how prescient he was!  

HE is also the one who spent the next three years working on the course prior to the soft opening in summer 1910 before a grand official opening the following year.

ALL of this is so well documented that I'm not sure whether to use Macdonald's words or Max Behr's to state my case.

I'm really not sure why you guys would want to propagate and perpetuate the MYTH that CBM routed his course in a day or two.   I think that's a disservice to his approach and his commitment to the game.

If anything, CBM's approach was complete anathema and totally reactionary to the type of slam-bam-thank-you-maam one day routings that had been the style of the foreign-born professionals practicing "architecture" in this country before he build NGLA, and showed the world the correct way to do things.

Why you guys want to lump him in with the Willie and Seymour Dunn's is absolutely beyond me.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Methinks thou protesteth far too much!  

I was just citing the errors in your reply(;[/b]

I'm really not sure why you want to get into this argument with CB Macdonald?  

For several reasons.
First, because you attempt to use forward looking statements, made years earlier, in the context of contemporaneous statements made years later after the golf course was built.

Second, because there are contradictions, along with serious errors in the articles you've submitted.

Third, because you use newspaper articles as if CBM wrote them, when they were clearly authored by third parties [/b]

After all, HE is the one who said that he was going to spend the next several months determining the golf holes and yardages after he secured the property in December 1906.  

First, that's not what he's alleged to have said.
The article said that they'd determine which of their already inventoried holes they'd "reproduce" and the yardages.
But, that article is so flawed it's mind boggling that you'd cite it as reliable.
Oh, that's right, the article stated that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on the golf course except from the lower stretches.  Now I've played there more than a few times as I'm sure others have, including yourself.
Could you tell me from which of the "non lower stretches" you can see the Atlantic Ocean ?
That article has the WRONG site, but you want to claim what's printed as "The Gospel", and it's not.[/b]

HE is the one who said he thought he'd need 110 acres for the golf course in 1904 and 200+ overall.  

Did he say that out of the blue, as a guestimate, or after he'd seen the site at NGLA ?[/b]

He is the one who was still looking for the 200+ acres in 1906.  

We agree on that[/b]

HE is the one who made an offer on 120 acres closer to Shinnecock prior to his Sebonac purchase
...why would he possibly do that if he thought he needed 170 acres at that time??  

You're contradicting yourself again.
You just told us that he was looking for 200+ acres in 1906.
You also told us that he needed 90+ acres for 60 one and a half acre building lots, in addition to acreage for the golf course.  
CBM tried to buy 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal.  You're the one saying he needed 170 acres.  CBM thought he needed 120.
You're the one insisting that he needed additional acreage for building lots of between 1 and 1.5 acres apiece for between 60 and 70 lots, which total between 60 and 105 acres.  
Obviously, the 120 acres he sought were strictly for a golf course.[/b]

HE is the one who wrote in 1912 that he had surplus land...just like he planned back in 1904, and even attached the original Founders agreement to show how prescient he was!  

Mike, it's intellectually dishonest of you to equate 90+ acres mentioned in 1904,  before CBM ever saw the site at NGLA, with a minimal amount of acreage left over after the golf course was built at NGLA.

I've asked you a dozen times to identify the surplus land at NGLA and to date, you've failed to do so.
I know the reason and you know the reason, it's because there is none of note.
CBM mentions the subsequent purchase of a 2.5 acre buffer on the western side of the property on Peconic Bay to protect their interests, their privacy, and you tried to pawn that purchase off as surplus land for your phantom lots.  

So, I'll ask you again.  Where's the surplus land on that site.  60+ to 105+ acres to be used for building lots that you allege were always intended as part of the golf course development.

And, from what location on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?[/b]

HE is also the one who spent the next three years working on the course prior to the soft opening in summer 1910 before a grand official opening the following year.

The course was opened and playable prior to 1910 and you know it, so why use that date, if not for an agenda driven purpose.
The time needed was not for routing and hole design, he knew the hole designs before he even found the land.
The time needed was for agronomic, NOT architectural purposes.
Your own exhibit said that the course was grassed in February of 1908 and CBM tells us that it was first played in 1909.  So what was your purpose in trying to extend the time to construct by another year when the primary issue was grassing, not routing and/or hole design.

CBM states that they took possession of the land in the spring of 1907 and immediately commenced development.
According to your documentation, the course was grassed by February of 1908.
Play was conducted in 1909.
Time was needed, not to route or determine holes, but to import 10,000 loads of soil so that the course would be properly grassed.
That was the main problem they had, grassing, growing grass, not routing and hole design.
Even TEPaul knows that.[/b]

ALL of this is so well documented that I'm not sure whether to use Macdonald's words or Max Behr's to state my case.

"Well documented" ? ?  ?    OK, tell me from what locations on NGLA can you see the Atlantic Ocean ?
That's the documentation YOU provided.  So, tell us, from where on NGLA's property can you see the Atlantic Ocean.
Remember, according to your documentation, you could see it from everywhere except the low lying stretches.
So, surely, you could see it from the crest of # 2, the 4th green, the 6th tee, the 8th green, the 9th tee, the crest of # 11, the fairway on # 16, the tee at 17 and the green at # 18.  Yet, I don't recall seeing the Atlantic, but, I have poor eyesight, so I'll rely on you to tell me where you saw the Atlantic Ocean when you visited NGLA.[/b]

I'm really not sure why you guys would want to propagate and perpetuate the MYTH that CBM routed his course in a day or two.   I think that's a disservice to his approach and his commitment to the game.

CBM had already selected the holes he wanted.
CBM tells us that he and HJ Whigham found WHERE TO PUT them as they were riding the property over a day or two.
Max Behr tells us that the course routed itself.
Seems pretty obvious that when CBM and Behr claimed that the course was routed in short order, the course was routed in short order.

Donald Ross must have learned from CBM as he seems to have acquired the skill to route a course in short order as well.
Sometimes with but one visit to the site, other times without ever having been to the site.

So why is it so hard for you to accept that Merion could be routed in short order, a day maybe, by men with this talent ?[/b]

If anything, CBM's approach was complete anathema and totally reactionary to the type of slam-bam-thank-you-maam one day routings that had been the style of the foreign-born professionals practicing "architecture" in this country before he build NGLA, and showed the world the correct way to do things.

That's not true.
You seem to conveniently forget that CBM had previously determined the holes he wanted to use.
He was intimately familiar with thier configuration and dimensions.
He only had to place them on a suitable piece of land, which he found and bought.
Max Behr, whom you cited, claimed that the course was "self evident" that it basically routed itself.

One look at the property, a long narrow piece of land, should have told you how easy it was to route, especially when he had located critical holes the first day, the current 9th and 10th, the 3rd, 4th, 13th and 14th, so the other holes just fell into place, as Max Behr indicated.

I don't see why you're in denial, unless you want to continue to cling to the notion that CBM couldn't route Merion in a day or two.

I wonder if Donald Ross could have routed Merion in a morning or afternoon session ?[/b]
 

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

You're not giving CBM credit.   He told you exactly what he did and yet you doubt him to try and support this untenable idea that he routed Merion in one day.

Why?   He certainly didn't play in those bush leagues based on anything I've learned about the man.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're not giving CBM credit.  

He told you exactly what he did

No he didn't.
You tried to take forward looking statements, made years earlier, before CBM had ever seen the site at NGLA and pass them off as contemporaneous statments made after the course had been built.

CBM did tell us what he did, in his own words when he put pen to paper and authored "Scotland's Gift"
He clearly stated that on twp days of examining the property on ponies, since the land was too inhospitable for walking, he found his "Alps" hole # 3, his "Redan", # 4, his "Eden", # 13, his "Cape", # 14.  And, since he knew where his clubhouse was going, temporary and permanent, he knew where # 1 and # 18, # 9 and # 10 were going.  And, as Max Behr stated, the course routed itself.

Why do you continue to attempt to refute Macdonald's own words, as memorialized in "Scotland's Gift"

We know that courses were often routed in a day.
Many early architects staked a routing in a morning or afternoon.

Donald Ross was famous for his "drive by" one day routings and his absentee routings, done without him ever seeing the site.

If Donald Ross could route a course in a day, I'm sure that CBM, who had studied for years, who knew exactly which collection of holes he wanted to replicate, could route and lay them upon the land in short order, at NGLA and at Merion, or anywhere else.[/b]

and yet you doubt him to try and support this untenable idea that he routed Merion in one day.

To the contrary, I think he could route NGLA and Merion in short order, as could Ross and other architects.
Behr even stated that the course essentially routed itself.

As I've pointed out to you time and time again, the land selected was a long narrow strip, an out and back routing.
And, when you know, immediately, where six or eight of your holes are going to go, as Behr stated, the balance of the courses completed itself.[/b]

Why?   He certainly didn't play in those bush leagues based on anything I've learned about the man.

That's why he was able to route the course in short order.[/b]

I'm switching to "BLUE" for emphasis and to try to get you to answer two questions I posed.
Why do you refuse to answer them ?
I answer your questions.
Or, do the answers, which you know, blow up your argument without any help from me ?

You've again failed to identify the surplus land at NGLA, 60+ to 105+ acres for lots.  Could you identify that surplus land.
Use any map you wish, or google earth.

And, you've also failed to identify from what points at NGLA you can see the Atlantic Ocean, as cited in the newspaper article YOU produced as evidence to support your argument.  Yet, there's NOWHERE on the golf course at NGLA where you can see the Atlantic Ocean.  Yet, your article claimed it was visible from EVERYWHERE except the low lying stretches.

Your article got the site wrong, dead wrong.

False in one, false in many.

CBM told us how quickly he found the holes he wanted, in a day or two over horrendous terrain with swamps, bogs and thick bramble bushes, unlike Merion's land, which was far more hospitable.  Max Behr confirmed the ease of routing.  Donald Ross proved over and over again that routings can be done in short order.

So why do you refuse to believe that CBM could have routed Merion in a day ?  
Especially if he had advance help in the way of a topo

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

So your argument is that this entire article should be dismissed because it says the Atlantic Ocean is in view?   Despite the fact that it contains a host of other contemporaneously verifiable information as well as many quotes from Macdonald himself?




How about this one instead then?




Or this one, Patrick...




The quotes from CBM are exact...all published in different newspapers in December 1906 after Macdonald secured the land.

He secured the undetermined 205 acres of land out of the 450 acres available, and then routed and staked out the golf course over the next several months.

It is indiputable.

You should go play golf...me, I'm going home to shovel ice.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I agree that what Cirba is doing here is intellectually dishonest, but would add that the dishonesty is ongoing on more levels than just his portrayal of what happened at NGLA.   He is also being intellectually dishonest about what happened at Merion and what I have portrayed as having happened at Merion.  

You rightfully point out that his "sole purpose for attempting to create the impression that it took CBM months to route the course is to deny the possibility that he routed Merion in short order."  And you are correct that the reason he is passing off all this nonsense about NGLA is because he thinks  "THAT WOULD HELP DISPELL CBM'S ROUTING MERION IN SHORT ORDER."

Incredibly, Mike is misrepresenting both what happened at NGLA and what happened at Merion here.  There was nothing "short order" about the creation of Merion.  CBM and HJW were rought into the project in June 1910, and CBM remained involved in the process all the way up to the time that Merion's Board approved the final layout plan that CBM and HJW had determined in April of the next year!  In between he was not only communicating with Hugh Wilson (and, according to TEPaul, with HG Lloyd) but he spent two days with Merion's committee working on the plans, and even returned to Merion to review the planning progress and choose the final layout plan.   So it was hardly "a short order" job at Merion.  

And no one ever claimed it was a short order job at NGLA either!  That is the irony here.  Cirba has spend all this time and energy to twist the history of NGLA to no avail.  

This whole bit about the real estate angle is the most most transparent and revealing indicator of the level of intellectual dishonesty that Mike will stoop to here.  Welcome to the seedy world of conversing with Mike Cirba.
_______________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba.    

If CBM was still determined to include 90 extra acres for housing, then why did he offer to buy a 120 acre parcel of land for his golf course?   You don't suppose he was going to fit the golf course on the 30 acres left over do you?

Your portray CBM's offer for 120 acres as it it somehow  validated your claim that he was only planning to use 110 acres of the 205 acre site.   That is preposterous and intellectually dishonest.     Contrary to popular opinion CBM was not building cookie cutter courses that he could fit on any old 110 acre parcel.    The site determined the golf course. Some terrain would require more land, especially if the terrain unusable portions such as swamps.  Each site is different, and couldn't be evaluated simply based upon its acreage.  

In fact, this is the approach CBM took at Merion as well, and from the very beginning.  The land dictated the nature of the course, not the other way around.  Thus he told them they needed to add the land behind the clubhouse and that they needed to use the quarry, and even then he told them that without a contour map he could not be certain that the land would work.    In other words, the acreage was never the issue, it was how the holes would fit on that acreage.    

And it should have been no surprise that Merion left the exact determination of the final border open until later, when the layout plan was finalized, because CBM did that at NGLA as well.   But you can't confuse a general routing with a final detailed layout plan, yet here that is what you keep trying to do.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm sorry, but your story about CBM and Whigham routing the course on horseback in two days and then buying the exact land they needed for their preconfigured golf course has been wholly disproven by contemporaneous evidence that is undeniable.  

I know it was a convenient myth to try and perpetuate here to try and justify your also disproven contention that CBM routed Merion in a day in June 1910, but now that they are both put to rest I have no need to discuss it with you further.

You can resort to all of the personal nsults you like...it's become your sole MO, and as you have no evidence left to present, I guess I can understand why you feel it's necessary.

Have a nice day.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I'm sorry, but your story about CBM and Whigham routing the course on horseback in two days and then buying the exact land they needed for their preconfigured golf course has been wholly disproven by contemporaneous evidence that is undeniable.  

Uhh . . .  Mike.  That is not my story.  I would say it is CBM's story, but only the part about the horseback is.   You just made up the rest of this  story and then attributed it to me.   You have been fighting this big battle against a ghost entirely  of your own creation.  

Why do you think I have been only mildly interested?   You are swinging away at fictitious, self-created phantoms that have nothing to do with me.  

I know it was a convenient myth to try and perpetuate here to try and justify your also disproven contention that CBM routed Merion in a day in June 1910, but now that they are both put to rest I have no need to discuss it with you further.

Again, more of your foolish fiction.   And it is funny.  You have been fighting this entire time to prove me wrong, by trying to disprove something that I don't even believe.  It is all pointless, from my perspective.  

You can resort to all of the personal nsults you like...it's become your sole MO, and as you have no evidence left to present, I guess I can understand why you feel it's necessary.

What personal insults mike?   I've said you are being dishonest, and you are.   To say you are being dishonest when you are being dishonest, is . . . . well . . . . honest.   If you are insulted by my honesty, that is your problem.    

I've told you again and again that you were not accurately representing my views of NGLA or Merion, but you continue to misrepresent them.   That is dishonest, isn't it?    Don't I get to decide what I think happened at NGLA and Merion?  You don't get to decide for me, do you?  

ADDED:
I  guess I did throw in the comment about the seedy world of dealing with you.   Insulting yes, but that is how I feel.  I feel like this whole NGLA thing with you is seed.   There are so many layers of dishonest representations that I am not sure even how to respond without getting muddy myself.  I agree with bits and pieces here and there, and I think there are a few interesting things that have come out in Joe's research, but you have so embedded this stuff in your mud, that it is impossible to even discuss any of it, without getting filthy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So your argument is that this entire article should be dismissed because it says the Atlantic Ocean is in view?

No, that's not my argument.
That's your extreme position, you tend to take extreme positions and draw flawed conclusions.
As an example, while all collies are dogs, all dogs aren't collies, yet, you continually insist that they are.[/b]  

Despite the fact that it contains a host of other contemporaneously verifiable information as well as many quotes from Macdonald himself?

Those are NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS..  Accounts that have proven to be wrong time and time again.

And, they are NOT quotes from Macdonald.
They are ALLEGED quotes from Macdonald

What's amazing is your refusal to accept Macdonald's own words, as memorialized in "Scotland's Gift"
What's even more amazing is your blind and zealot like support of a newspaper article that's so flawed it states that you can see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere at NGLA except for the low lying stretches.

How do you reconcile your support of an article that is so blatantly flawed in describing the golf course and your rejection of Macdonald's own words in "Scotland's Gift".  And, how do you accept everything else in the article as The Gospel, knowing how flawed the article is ?  It's disengenuous of you and it's agenda driven.

Why do you continuallly REJECT Macdonald's written word, opting instead to believe seriously flawed newspaper articles ?[/b]




How about this one instead then?


That's even easier.

The alleged quote is also flawed.
Specifically, # 1.  I guess the land at Garden City and other courses in Long Island weren't fit for golf
                # 2.  There ISN'T a mile of coastline on the SEA at NGLA.  There's barely 500 or 600 yards at most along the north shore
                         of Peconic Bay

Then the article goes on to say that they'll only need about 110 acres for the golf course, leaving them with about 100 acres for building lots of 1.5 acres apiece for the 60 or 70 founders.

So, I'll ask you again, WHERE IS THAT LAND.  WHERE IS THE 100 ACRES FOR BUILDING LOTS ?

You like to rely on newspaper articles to support your position, even when they are SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
And, you attribute quotes to Macdonald when you can't verify their authenticity.
Some of those quotes are in direct conflict with the physical properties of the site, yet, you ignore that and refuse to answer the two questions I've posed to you over and over again.[/b]



Or this one, Patrick...

This one is better yet.
This one tells you that you can see the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay.

How could you cite this article as being factual when it's so blatantly flawed, so incredibly wrong ?

For one reason and one reason only, you're blind to the facts due to your agenda driven position.

Then goes on to state that there's a mile of frontage on Bulls Head Bay.

It's obvious that the author of the article has never seen the land and has probably never seen a map of the land and surrounding area as he shows incredible unfamiliarty with the NGLA site.  Now, if CBM had provided this information, don't you think it would be accurante and not so wildly off base ?

Your article also says that Shinnecock is WEST of NGLA, when it's SOUTH of NGLA.

Don't you read the articles you're posting, or is Wayno, Joe, Pete or others just feeding this stuff to you without you exercising the necessary due diligence ?  Didn't you read that ?  Didn't you say to yourself, "hey, somethings wrong here ?"  No, you didn't, you just hold out these articles as if they're right on target, accurate in every detail, and that's grossly disengenuous and intellectually dishonest of you.  WHY ?[/b]



The quotes from CBM are exact...all published in different newspapers in December 1906 after Macdonald secured the land.

Did it ever dawn on you that the reason they're exact is because they were copied and not authentic quotes ?

If someone said that Donald Ross said that Seminole was flat, and it got quoted, exactly that way from several sources, wouldn't you begin to think that maybe, just maybe, the quote wasn't a quote, but a copy of what had been read or allegedly stated previously ?[/b]

He secured the undetermined 205 acres of land out of the 450 acres available, and then routed and staked out the golf course over the next several months.

It is indiputable.

Keep telling yourself that and maybe, with repetition you'll believe it and just maybe you'll convince some uniformed GCA buff to believe you, but, Macdonald told us, in his own words, in "Scotlands Gift" how he found the holes and routed the course in short order.

Max Behr also stated that the course routed itself, not needing much in the way of assistance.

And, you continually confuse fine tuning with routing in putting forth your seriously flawed agenda.

I'm off to dinner (;[/b]

You should go play golf...me, I'm going home to shovel ice.  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm willing tp accept your criticism and feedback with an open mind but when you call an identical, contemporaneous quote from CBM published in multiple newspapers "alleged", then you lose me, and I think you also lose most objective, unbiased observers, and as much as I like and admire you personally, I really don't understand how you can call me "intellectually dishonest" whien I know deep-down you really aren't as obtuse and absurdly argumentative as you are being here, seemingly either for the sport of it, or just to maintain whatever mythology around CBM you want to romantically hold onto in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

David,

One of us is not explaining himself well enough if you think I'm being disengenuous in either my opinion or my presentation.

Perhaps both of us are being less than completely candid.

In any case, I'll assume that I'm the guilty one and try to explain myself better tomorrow.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

If you do clarify, don't bother reposting all these articles again.   They don't establish what you claim they establish.  And between now and then perhaps you should consider just what exactly is your point, if you have one?   Because all I see is an extremely convoluted attempt to twist NGLA's record to somehow undermine claims that you think are mine, but aren't.  

Also, you might want to consider finally addressing Patrick's questions and mine.

Where are the missing 90 acres?   Show us where you can fit 90 acres of housing and that golf course without going over 205 acres?

If they definitely were intent on a housing angle, then why had they just offered to purchase only 120 acres?   Were they going to build a 30 acre course?

Did CBM or HJW ever say that they were planning on putting housing at this particular location?   If so, let's see it.  

[Mike Cirba]

Ok...I'm going to try to take this in chunks because there are a lot of pieces here.

110 acres and Building Lots for Founders

There is no question that Macdonald thought his ideal course could fit on something around 110 acres, as he clearly wrote that in his 1904 Founders Agreement.   There is also no question that Macdonald was searching for slightly over 200 acres to fit both the golf course and planned building lots for the Founders.  

Macdonald viewed this golf course estimate is something of a math problem.   He had previously defined the necessary ideal yardages for his "Ideal Golf Course", coming in at around 6,100 yards, and extrapolated how much width he thought he needed for fairways and thus his estimate.

Specifically, CBM wrote that he would need approximately 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds, and the remaining 90 acres would be used for 1.5 acre building lots for the Founders.

In fact, six years later, 3 days before the soft Opening Day Invitational Tournament in 1910, CBM wrote to Merion (who were considering a developer's offer of "100 acres or whatever would be required for the golf course"...after CBM's one-day June 1910 visit Merion believed they would need "nearly 120 acres") that;

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "


Earlier in 1906, HJ Whigham reiterated Macdonald's plan in news articles to provide building lots for the Founders, calling it "especially ingenious".

So we KNOW that was the plan well into the year 1906.   That is a fact.

However, for whatever reasons, we know two things changed once Macdonald's search brought him to the land near Shinnecock.

First, he made an offer on 120 acres of land closer to Shinnecock than the present property.   Obviously, at this point and for this property, Macdonald was only focused on buying enough land for the golf course.   Perhaps it was water locked and no more adjacent land was available?   Perhaps he thought he was so ideally suited he was willing to give up on the Founders Lots and return their extra money?   Perhaps he thought he could get such a screaming deal that he couldn't pass it up?  

We don't know.

What we do know is that after the owners rejected that offer, his attention turned to the land where he finally built his course and we know that once again he was looking for more than 200 acres, which is what he secured in November 1906 and purchased in the spring of 1907 (although George Bahto's book says the official purchase occurred in November 1907, so I'm not sure about that discrepancy).

We also know that the course Macdonald built opened at around 6100 yards, but was already expandable to over 6300 yards by early 1912, and was about 6600 yards long (or over 500 yards longer) by the time Macdonald wrote his book.  Today's course is 6,935 yards.

We also know that the course today doesn't take up over 200 acres.   In earlier threads both David Moriarty and Jim Kennedy used Planimeters to estimate the acreage of today's course and came up with a range of about 165-180 acres.  

I think it's likely that a few things influenced this change.   First, I think that CBM's idea of using width to create alternate strategic options for weaker players around some of the hazards created a bigger golf course than perhaps he originally estimated.   I also think he underestimated the number of acres that wouldn't be usable as they were either swampy or water covered, reducing his overall land.  

But, he had clearly promised the Founders "something in return" for their investment and faith in him, and he did his best to address this in his 1912 letter to them under the heading "Surplus Land".  

Obviously, the approximately 25-45 acres left over wasn't going to satisfy the original promise of 1.5 acre lots for 60 Founding members, so it is likely that some other financial recompense was made after the fact, and I'm pretty sure that CBM was able to justify this quite easily to them in terms of it being all for the betterment of the golf course, and of course he was correct in that judgment.

Max Behr, writing in 1915, described the reality of Surplus Land.

And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

[Mike Cirba]

The Actual Opening Date

Strangely, CBM seems to have confused the soft Opening Date of his club by a year when he wrote his book in 1928.    

It is clearly documented by contemporaneous sources that the soft opening was an informal Invitational Tournament won by John Ward and played July 2, 3, & 4th in 1910.




In his book, CBM mentions that the tournament happened in 1909, which is incorrect.




On the same page, CBM also refers to "when we first played tentatively over the course", I'm uncertain if he's simply repeated his mistaken year.   Certainly from the descriptions of the very raw state of much of the conditions it's unlikely much play took place prior and other contemporaneous articles I've seen talk about the course opening in 1910, such as this one from May 1910.





Incidentally, CBM actually cites the official Opening Date as being in 1911, with a formal Invitational tournament.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()