[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Macdonald's praise for Raynor borders on reverent.

Yet, he's omitted from the early planning stages by Macdonald's own account.

I believe it's not only safe, but, prudent to conclude that he wasn't involved in the routing, locating of holes and staking of the property.
Jim Whigham was.

As to the quotes Mike Cirba alludes to, those are ALLEGED quotes, some in the third party such as what was allegedly overheard in the men's locker room at GCGC.  Yet, Mike claims that every statement is a bona fide, direct quote from Macdonald, when we no that nothing could be further from the truth.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I don't know when Raynor was hired, but you are probably right about Raynor not having been involved in the earliest planning stages.  I've never heard mention of him riding the land with CBM and HJW, and have no reason to think he might have. There is no reason to think his initial involvement had anything to do with actually substantively planning the course.  He was hired as a surveyor, and it sounds like he gained CBM's trust over time.   

CBM wrote of Raynor "Employing him to survey our Sebonack Neck property, I was so much impressed with his dependability and seriousness I had him make a contour map . . .."

[Mike Cirba]

Guys,

More on Raynor's early role tomorrow...nothing earth-shattering but perhaps a little different take.

[Mike Cirba]

While the idea that CBM and Whigham rode the land for 2 or 3 days routing the golf course, finding natural settings for every hole they envisioned is a nice, minimalist's romantic dream, it doesn't seem to be very accurate.

In fact, anyone who has ever seen NGLA would be able to easily locate where signfiicant earth movement took place to shape the type of holes and features from abroad that CBM envisioned.

While some great natural features were already there, which CBM mentioned, such as the hill for the Alps, or the nearby natural ridge for the redan, or the water along which he could builid his Cape hole, much of the rest of the course had to be worked into shape to emulate features from abroad that CBM wanted to translate here.

Here is CBM himself talking about the construction process;




If they were constructing "from surveyor's maps", which we know were the drawings CBM had collected and sketched from abroad, then we also know that for many holes, particularly those CBM calls "composites" (of which he stated that most of the holes were), earth had to be moved to create the desired affect.

Who would have been responsible then for this shaping and earth moving and attempt to physically reproduce exact contours and sizes?

Here again is how CBM described Seth Raynor's role;





This article, from August 10th, 1907, after construction had begun, is very interesting as it describes that the search for the site was to find something as close as possible to what CBM envisioned for his holes, with the realistic understanding that finding a piece of ground where a copy of every iideal hole CBM wanted to build was impossible, and that the land would need to be shaped for his purposes.

The last few paragraphs also describe that ongoing work, which we can assume was being done by Seth Raynor.

So, while CBM was clearly the author of NGLA, I don't think we want to minimize the role Raynor played in actually delivering CBM's vision on the ground, shaping the holes and features to CBM's wishes into shapes compatible with the features and holes of the best abroad.




George Bahto, in his excellent book, "The Evangelist of Golf", described the process this way;


"C.B. next asked Henry Whigham and Walter Travis, each golf champions and course architects in their own right, to assist him in implementing his plan.   Though Travis soon bowed out of the project, C.B. and Whigham continued on with the assistance of Joseph P. Knapp.   Also closely involved were banker James Stillman, Devereux Emmett....and a few others"

"Using Raynor's survey maps and Macdonald's personal drawings as a guide, they forged ahead."

"Once cleared, the site was visually stirking.   Knolls, hills, and basins furnished the topography.   They also found natural ponds and uncovered a portion of Sebonac Creek which could be used for water hazards."

"Macdonald and company located fairly natural sites for a Redan and Eden, as well as a site for an Alps, requiring only a slight modification.   The location for a Sahara hole was selected, as well as spots for a few original Macdonald creations suggested by the terrain.   The routing of the course was beginning to take form, and although Macdonald later claimed the majority of the holes were on natural sites, in reality he manipulated a huge amount of soil."

"A number of strategic and aesthetic innovations took place at National, yet often overlooked is the seminal influence Macdonald and Raynor had on early course construction.   Macdonald was not afraid to move massive amounts of earth in order to achieve a desired artistic effect, and Raynor had the engineering skills to blend it all together."

"Macdonald eventually admitted to importing 10,000 truckloads of soil to recontour and sculpt areas to fit his diagrams.   A meticulous planner, Macdonald knew precisely what he was trying to achieve, and if he could not find an appropriate site, one would just have to be created!   It is true that natural sites were located for his Redan and Eden, but to build other replications to his exacting specifications required extensive movement and importing of soil.  Heavily influenced by this philosophy, Seth Raynor - and later Charles Banks - would later take earthmoving to new dimensions."

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I fear that Mike is confusing the plural, "surveyor's maps" with a single surveyor's MAP.

What he doesn't understand is that the "Surveyor's maps, are of the holes he sketched, NOT NGLA.

Please enlighten him so he can discard his latest theory and develop a new one that might better lead him toward his predetermined conclusion.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

No confusion.

We know CBM had surveyor's maps of the best holes abroad, and we know that Seth Raynor created a survey map of the NGLA property.

CBM tells us he had Raynor marry the two.

He says;

"I had him make a contour map and later gave him my surveyor's maps, telling him I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps.   For three or four years he worked by my side."

It couldn't be clearer, could it?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I don't understand the point of this digression.  My guess is that you have been given some guidance that, as usual, doesn't serve you well.   The main thing "that doesn't seem to be very accurate" is your depiction of what you call "the idea" of what happened while CBM and HJW were riding the land and studying the contours.

There is a big difference between determining a rough routing of a golf course and actually building it, and during the early stages they were studying the contours and finding a rough routing that fit with what they wanted to accomplish and with the holes that they had in mind.   No one - not CBM, not HJW and not anyone here - ever claimed that when CBM and HJW rode the land they found every single feature and contour just lying there on the ground waiting to be grassed, and no one portrayed it as "minimalist's romantic dream."  So I have trouble understanding why you have insisted on again recreating this red herring fiction here.  Again you seem to be railing against demons of your own creation, or in this case perhaps of someone else's creation.  

Yes they moved some dirt and overcame engineering problems (such as the swamps) and yes many of the green contours are manufactured.  I don't think anyone has ever disputed this.  But at the same time, in my opinion, anyone who has ever been to NGLA would be (or should be) amazed at how well CBM incorporated natural features and natural ground movement into the course.  That is one of  the things that most amazed me.   A few of many examples are the natural valley on on the first, the hollow to the right on the second, the hog backs on the fifth and on the punchbowl hole, and of course the punchbowl itself; even the use of the land formations and higher ground on the eighth.

So if you are trying to argue that the golf course was largely manufactured from green to tee, then your argument will fail.  Here again CBM is instructive.  He repeatedly wrote about using the underlying classic concepts as they fit with the landscape, and one the articles you posted confirms that he had abandoned any notion of exact, manufactured copies very early on in the process, long before the land was purchased.   But, notably, he also wrote about modeling greens on the great and proven greens from abroad. And to the extent that NGLA is constructed, it is at the greens.  "The character of a course depends upon the building of the putting greens."  

Along the same lines,  I am confused why you again quote George Bahto about CBM trucking in 10,000 truckloads of dirt to contour and construct the golf holes.    George's book is excellent but it is mistaken on this point.    According to CBM, he brought in 10,000 truckloads of topsoil to GROW GRASS, not to re-contour the terrain.  I've covered this issue repeatedly, including in this very thread.  So why present it again to make the point that CBM was heavily manufacturing when he wasn't?    Crump brought it loads and loads of topsoil at Pine Valley, so will you argue that this is evidence that Crump wasn't using the natural terrain but was heavily manufacturing the contours and reshaping the terrain?  That'd be silly because he was just trying to grow grass.   Same goes for CBM.

Bottom line is that CBM chose the site at NGLA because it conditions and contours would allow him to build a his ideal golf course. And while there was some manufacturing, especially at the greens, the routing itself brilliantly uses the natural contours and features of the land.  

Don't be a shill for your Philly buddies who insist on trying to caricature CBM as something he clearly was not.  They have been playing you for far too long. Their caricatures are inaccurate and unsupportable.  

_______________________________

As for your last comment to Patrick,  I think the confusion might stem from the fact that twice now in quoting CBM you have left out the part of the Raynor description which is perhaps most relevant to the routing of NGLA.  

Again, Raynor was first hired to survey the Sebonack property.   This was presumably one survey and was not a detailed contour map, because later he was asked to do a contour map, and the main purpose of this contour map (and model) seems to have been to direct the creation of the course.  Later still he was given the information CBM had gathered from the holes abroad.

Those surveyor's maps were not of entire holes, but of features and greens which CBM liked and wanted to incorporate into his courses.  There are no exact replicas of entire holes at NGLA, at least not that I know of.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'll try to reply to some of your more substantive comments this weekend, but let's drop this nonsense once and for all that I'm fronting for some nameless Philadelphia contingent.

It's beyond condescending and absolutely incorrect, so I'd appreciate it if you just deal with me because nobody else is interested in talking with you and/or Patrick about this stuff any longer, seemingly.  

And that's fine, and I think there are things still worth discussing, but this idea that people in Philly are trying to turn CBM into a caricature is ridiculous, frankly.

There hasn't been a single thing I've written or pasted in this entire thread that hasn't been completely complimentary to the man and the incredible job he did putting his dream to reality at NGLA.

I just don't think the broad-brush, 2 paragraph description in his book is anywhere near the entire story and from my perspective, understanding the breadth and scope of the overall effort is much more of an accurate depiction of the greatness of the man, as well as the type of architecture he sought to propagate in the United States.

Frankly, I think you and I agree on most things here, but your conscience avoidance from directly addressing Patrick with any matters I know you disagree with him about and instead choosing to argue with me even when I try to agree with you doesn't make for a very progressive discussion.  

Why don't you just tell him that his view of the creation of NGLA is overly-simplistic and overly-romanticized, because I know you believe that to be so.

Please just don't make this some continuation of a long-running disagreement with me, or with Philadelphians.  

Let's have a conversation, and if you don't agree with Patrick, you shouldn't be afraid to say so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

No confusion.

We know CBM had surveyor's maps of the best holes abroad, and we know that Seth Raynor created a survey map of the NGLA property.

Except, I think you've deliberately distorted the chronology of events, you've got your timing wrong.
Macdonald tells us, well after the routing and hole placement phase, that he employed SR to survey "OUR" Sebonac Neck property, indicating that the property had already been purchased, staked or determined, then, afterwards, CBM had SR make a contour map, and AFTER that, CBM turned over CBM's surveyor's maps from Scotland and England and that he wanted the holes laid out faithfully to those maps from the UK.

It's apparent that the parcel purchase, routing and individual hole sites had previously been determined by CBM, and now, CBM wanted SR to meld the surveyor's maps of his "ideal" holes to the land.

You would have us falsely believe that SR did all of his surveyor's and contour maps before the parcel was selected, the staking accomplished, the routing completed and the individual hole locations sited. [/b]
[/color][/b]

CBM tells us he had Raynor marry the two.


That's NOT what CBM tells us.
That's what you, erroneously, tell us(;
[/color
He says;

"I had him make a contour map and later gave him my surveyor's maps, telling him I wanted those holes laid out faithfully to those maps.   For three or four years he worked by my side."

How could you miss the word, "LATER" ?  It's critical in the chronological order of things[/b]

It couldn't be clearer, could it?

Obviously he could be since you missed it.[/b]

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I mentioned the possible influence of your Philly friends in my previous post because you seemed to have digressed substantially into areas already well covered, and the digressions rang familiar.  Given that it was just a few sentences, I think your response might be protesting a bit much. I never said you wrote anything in your post derogatory about CBM personally.  If you want to keep this about your ideas, that works for me.   But if that is the case then I suggest you stay away from making excuses for your friends' absence and inability/unwillingness to make their own case and from defending the endless attempts of your pals to mock and ridicule CBM and misrepresent his work to the point of caricature. Because any such defense is, as you would say, ridiculous.  Besides if you aren't getting information and emails from your pals, consider yourself lucky.  As you know, I am still being regularly harassed via private email by a certain of your pals, yet I don't recall you expressing a problem with that.

But let's then stick to your ideas.    Since these are your ideas, then there is no excuse for you to repeatedly return to this notion that CBM supposedly brought in 10,000 truckloads of dirt to reshape and change the contour the land.  It didn't happen.  CBM's book clarifies this and this has been explained to you repeatedly. So please stop with the misrepresentation.  

As for Patrick, where do you get off trying to tell me what I should post to him?  I am not Patrick's keeper. Besides, while I may not have put it the exact way he chooses to, I agree with much of what he has written. As Patrick has noted, CBM's book is remarkably accurate and yet you seem to be trying to repeatedly sell it short.  In this regard, the only one being overly simplistic here is you.  For example you keep referring to "two paragraphs" as if the creation of NGLA was only briefly covered, like an afterthought.  This is your usual hyperbole, only in reverse. He devoted a chapter to the conception and development of his idea, another to the actual creation of the course, another to his ideas on golf course architecture, and a careful reading of the rest provides more insights throughout.  

Most with which I disagree is not Patrick's position, but how you mis-portray his position by constantly putting words in his mouth. I don't think you understand his position and I don't think you've ever even tried to.  If you had, then you would certainly know that Patrick has never portrayed NGLA is some sort of "minimalist's romantic dream."  Far from it.  And you'd also know that he's never underestimated the importance of the construction of the course.  But none of that is all that relevant to who routed the course, who came up with the hole concepts, and who called all the shots with regard to planning and construction.  While Whigham was right there with him, there is no doubt who was in charge and calling the shots. As CBM wrote at the close of his letter to potential founders in 1904; they were to "leave the matter entirely in his hands."

Patrick is obviously extremely frustrated with you regarding your transparent motivations and is calling them as he sees them in that regard.  While I certainly understand his frustration, this is old hat for me and I'd prefer not to get into it a this point.  Frankly, I am glad he stuck with it for as long as he did, because it is some confirmation to me that I am not crazy; my past frustrations have been well founded.  

Anyway, your repeated attempts to try and divide to conquer are more rhetorical ploys than substantive points.  It never worked when you repeatedly tried this tact with me and MacWood (you guys have never never quite caught on that we were never really working together) and it won't work here either.  If you think Patrick is wrong, then correct him yourself.

Besides, as you suggest, I think we'd all be better off speaking for ourselves only, and leaving it to others to say what they want to say.    

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Do you agree with Patrick that Raynor didn't survey the property until after it had been secured and purchased?

Do you agree with Patrick that those October articles you posted are completely erroneous in telling us about the survey maps of the property being sent to foreign golf experts?

These are simple yes/no questions.

Simply, do you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property prior to CBM securing it?

I'm trying to see where you actually stand on the evidence here and asking you to clarify your position.   Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Do you agree with Patrick that Raynor didn't survey the property until after it had been secured and purchased?

Mike, when will you stop lying and misrepresenting my position.
The one you've stated above is NOT my position.[/b]

Do you agree with Patrick that those October articles you posted are completely erroneous in telling us about the survey maps of the property being sent to foreign golf experts?

That likewise, is a misrepresentation of my position.
Maybe, just maybe, you'll get it right one of these days, even when it disproves another of your wild theories.

Your theory on the purchase, with the intent to build a golf course, on a long, narrow parcel of land with the North (Sunrise) highway running smack down the middle was one most bizarre and flawed theories ever posted on this site, yet, you defended your flawed premise, even after the discovery of the North Highway on an exhibit you posted.

To make sure that you don't continue to misrepresent my position on Raynor, my position is that he was brought in to survey the land AFTER the holes had been sited and the property STAKED.

These are simple yes/no questions.

NO they're not, they're disengenuous questions, since you completely mistated my position.

Simply, do you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property prior to CBM securing it?

That's irrelevant.
What IS RELEVANT is that Raynor staked the property AFTER the holes were sited and the property STAKED.

How long after is irrelevant.

David, please don't bother to answer a dishonest question where the choices don't represent my position.

Thanks[/b] 

I'm trying to see where you actually stand on the evidence here and asking you to clarify your position.   Thanks.

No, you're not.
You're trying to misrepresent my position and get David to answer a question that's structured in such a way as to guarantee a wrong answer, and that's disengenuous, but, unfortunately, that's been your modus operandi on this thread from the get go

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I've told you what I think repeatedly on all these issues.   You rhetorically misrepresenting Patrick's position isn't at all productive.   

Read my posts, it is all there.

[Mike Cirba]

To make sure that you don't continue to misrepresent my position on Raynor, my position is that he was brought in to survey the land AFTER the holes had been sited and the property STAKED.

David,

So your belief is the same as Patrick that Raynor was brought in to survey the property after the course was completely routed and the holes and property dimensions were finally staked?

I think you guys are splitting hairs and pretending there is some vague misrepresentation inherent in my questions just to keep an argument going frankly...it's not that difficult

I asked if you believed Raynor was brought in after the property was purchased.   I would consider the staking of the boundaries to be synonynmous with the purchase, frankly, as we know the land secured in December the final boundaries had not been determined.

So, they brought in Raynor to survey the property AFTER that??

According to you both;

1) They found and rode the property because it was unwalkable
2) They routed the holes on that property and staked the dimensions of their purchase
3) Afterwards, they brought in Seth Raynor to survey (and presumably clear?) the land

Is that what you're both contdending?   Since we know the fixed date of the securing of the property (December 1906) and one fixed date with the purchase of the property (Spring 1907), can you both give us a timeline of when you believe the other events took place, especially in light of the OCtober 1906 articles David posted here.

If I'm misrepresenting either/both of you please feel free to list the sequence and timelines you believe to be accurate..

It may help clarify matters for you to state which items you feel are accurate in this October 15th, 1906 article, and which are inaccurate.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike that is an absolutely absurd take on my position.  I am sick of you trying to words in my mouth.   I've stated what I think happened repeatedly.  I don't know if you are incapable of understanding or just unwilling to try, and frankly I no longer care.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Mike has once again, taken another flawed newspaper article, expanded what it says and draws yet another conclusion, erroneous as it may be, regarding NGLA.

First, we know that the article is flawed because it cites 250 acres as being the amount purchased.

Second, Mike once again confuses CBM's maps of the great holes in the UK, for "A" map or maps of the holes at NGLA.

Third, the flawed newspaper article states that Maps, plural, have been mailed out to all of these parties.
CBM tells us that he had SR make "A" contour map, singular, and that subsequently CBM gave SR his surveyors's maps which he brought from the UK.

Mike would have you believe that CBM mailed out detailed maps of NGLA after SR surveyed and mapped the land in August or Sept of 1906, soliciting opinions, near and far of what he was considering.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WILD THEORY ON MIKE'S PART, IN HIS ATTEMPT TO DISPARAGE CBM'S CREATION, NGLA.

Now, this is CBM who spent years abroad studying and compiling his ideal holes, and Mike would have you believe that CBM was so unsure of himself, that he sent maps detailing the holes at NGLA to ten named individuals, PLUS others, and from the "referendum" of the responses, CBM would craft and commit his holes onto the ground.

It's pure crap and wishful thinking on Mike's part.

Fourth,   The amount of the project is wrong, it wasn't $ 100,000, it was originally $ 60,000 which was later increased to $ 70,000.

David, as I've told you many times, Mike has an agenda.
And that agenda is to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order in order to exclude CBM from having routed Merion in short order.  Once others understand Mike's sole objective, it's easy to see how and why he distorts information and reaches incorrect conclusions, conclusions which serve but one purpose, to conform to his predetermined agenda.

Now, I've read "Scotland's Gift" more than a few times, and not once does CBM mention that he mailed detailed maps (plural) to the golfing universe in late 1906.
NOT ONCE DOES HE EVEN ALLUDE TO IT.

But, "Scotland's Gift" does mention those same names in a survey conducted by the "London Golf Illustrated" in their quest to ascertain the best holes in the UK.  I fear that the flawed newspaper account has led Mike to draw another flawed conclusion, based on flawed information.

Furthermore, Horace Hutchinson, did write, in the 1910 "Metropolitan Magazine" that CBM was THE architect of NGLA and that the course was a replica and compendium of the 18 best holes in the world.

Nowhere does Mr Hutchinson claim any role in the design of NGLA, vis a vis consulting or any other manner.
Even though Mike would have you believe that he received and reviewed maps and provided councel to CBM on the holes at NGLA.
But, he does make A definitive statement:
[size=14point]
"But, the larger number, and possibly the best in character, have been planned out of the DESIGNER'S BRAIN, with such suggestions as his experience, gathered in Europe, and the natural trend of the ground he had to deal with, supplied to it."

Ben Sayers, who was probably included in "the others" had this to say after he played the course for the first time.
".... but, after visiting the National course, the links DESIGNED by Mr Macdonald, .."

Nowhere does he state that he or anyone else had a hand in the design.

Neither he nor Hutchinson allude to the receipt of any maps detailing NGLA prior to construction.

The "London Times" in September 30, 1913, in an article believed to have been written by Charles Darwin, clearly states that NGLA is solely the product of CBM's efforts.  Nowhere does it allude to the design by committee that Mike Cirba NOW WANTS TO PUT FORTH AS HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT MACDONALD.  One based solely on another erroneous newspaper account.

In the August 26, 1922 "Times"  Darwin writes that CBM created NGLA.

Nowhere is there any mention of a collaborative effort.

Nowhere in "Scotland's Gift" is there any mention of an active collaborative effort in the determining of the ideal holes, their location on the property and the staking out of the boundary lines of the property, other than that of James Whigham.

Mike's problem is that he knowingly accepts flawed/erroneous newspaper accounts over CBM's written words, in his attempt to distort the chain of events surrounding the creation of NGLA in order to achieve his agenda/goal of dismissing CBM's ability to route a golf course, NGLA and Merion, in short order.

What's incredible about Mike's denial, is his failure to understand that CBM already had his holes designed and at the ready, he only needed reasonable land upon which to site them.   The holes came first, the terrain upon which to place them second.
Hence, it was a much easier process than having no preconceived notion and having to discover random golf holes on the land.

[Neil_Crafter]

Patrick
Not to seem too anal, but it would have been Bernard Darwin who wrote that piece in The Times about NGLA, and not his grandfather Charles, the naturalist, who was well and truly dead by that time :-) Bernard counted CBM as a very close friend and stayed with him during his first trip to the US in 1913.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

If you have a problem with the October 1906 articles David posted here you should have taken it up with him.

Funny, I don't recall you having a single negative word to say about them when David posted them over a week ago.

Is it your contention that CBM would have sent a single survey "MAP" to mulitple people?   Please don't be purposefully obtuse...you know precisely what that paragraph is saying...copies of the survey map were evidently made and sent to multiple people who CBM respected for their input.

As far as it not being a collaborative effort, Patrick, that's a load of crap.

CBM himself tells us that Emmet and Whigham helped with the design, and we know he told us Hutchinson did as well.   Travis was reported to still be on the project as late as 1908 but somehow fell out of favor too, so c'mon Patrick, you really need to give up this romantic, yet wholly unsupportable idea that some one man, dictatorial God-King sprung forth everything good in golf in America.

He wrote in 1912, right after the official opening of the golf course;

"For aid in the original purchase of the land and in laying out of the course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet.   Since then Mr. James A. Stillman and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in helping to bring it to perfection."

He later thanked Hutchinson, et.al., as well, for their help.

You talk about me having a preconceived notion or agenda, but talk about calling the kettle black!  

No amount of contemporareneous evidence will shake your preconceptions...you aren't open to any of it, even articles conveying the exact same facts and quotes on the exact same day in competing newspapers!!  

So don't pretend to anyone here that you have an open mind about this because it's obvious you don't.

Every single article i've posted here (and now the one's David posted here) is wrong, wrong, wrong in your eyes, and it's becoming a bit absurd, frankly.

CBM was clearly the father of NGLA, and clearly the decision-maker who deserves the lions-share of the credit for the golf course that's there.   I agree with you that the man in charge is the one who should get the credit.

However, the story of the creation of NGLA is a lot more interesting than that, as evidenced in these articles.

Later today, I'm going to draw out a timeline based on what these articles convey.  

If you feel that the articles are ALL inaccurate, you might just want to say that and recuse yourself because I think the problem you (and possibly David...I'm still trying to nail down exactly what he thinks happened when) have gotten yourself into with your arguments and over-simplifications is that the corners you've boxed yourselves into make no sense in the context of the contemporaneous evidence.  

Perhaps you can start by telling us precisely WHEN you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property?    Yesterday you said it was after the course was routed and property was staked...after purchase, in fact.

Is that what you contend?   That Raynor didn't survey the property until after CBM purchased it?

When was it cleared?   Before then or after??

I'm not trying to be contentious but don't just shoot bullets in some drive-by when the facts that are presented don't jive with your beliefs.

If you actually have a case to make, make it, and we'll see if it fits the facts based on what we know.


David,

I went back and read and can't seem to find where you told us when you think Raynor was employed, when he surveyed the land (pre or post purchase?), and when the unwalkable land was cleared.

As I mentioned to Patrick, I"m going to try to put together a timeline based on what was reported in these articles, and would appreciate your input, as well.

[Mike Cirba]

I think it might be useful to try to create a timeline of events based on 1) What we know as facts, and 2) What was reported in various publications as posted here over the past several weeks.

For starters, let’s review again what CBM wrote in 1928 about the process of locating the land and determining its usefulness for his purposes.






I think the key elements which are important to understand and timeline, are;

“The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.”

Followed by;

“Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted.”


I think trying to get a better sense of the timing of two events requires some speculation.   We KNOW as a fact that CBM secured 205 “undetermined” acres of the 450 available on December 14th, 1906.

However, is this the date that “the company agreed to sell us 205 acres”?   I’m not certain, as David’s October 15th, 1906 article seems to suggest that consideration of the Sebonac Neck property was already well underway, to the point where it had already been surveyed and mapped, presumably by Seth Raynor.   In fact, if the land in question in those October articles is indeed the Sebonac Neck property as David and Patrick have insisted here, then indeed those articles strongly suggest that Raynor had already done his site survey and mapping by that date.

Yet, CBM tells us when he first saw the property with Whigham it was so overgrown as to be impassible on foot, so they had to ride around for 2 or 3 days on horseback, “studying the contours of the ground”.

So what do we know for certain, and what does the timeline of the reports suggest to fill in the blanks?

Sept 1905 – FACT – Dean Alvord’s company buys over 2000 acres around Shinnecock Hills and shortly thereafter the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company is created to develop the land.

FACT – CBM tells us that a few weeks after Alvord’s purchase he “determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.”

FACT – Some undetermined time after that, CBM “offered the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company 200 dollars an acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.”

In September 1905, CBM is quoted as saying;

“They have nothing over there that we haven’t got here – sand, turf, hills, the sea – and as far as the reproductions go they will be limited only by the topography of the ground we get, which will be molded and shaped to the degree demanded in carrying out our plans.   Moreover, it is the testing features of the best holes we want, not the absolute physical imitation of the Scotch or English models.”

“In the selection of holes I am to be a committee of one, but later on others will be appointed with me on the green committee.   I shall probably go abroad this winter, and with surveyors and draftsmen visit the ‘classic’ links and plan the working model of our new course.   With the topography of our tract always in mind, it will be an ordinary engineering problem to map out just the course we want.   After that the fulfillment will be a matter of contract.   Contractors here are up to very fast work on any conceivable undertaking, and if we can get the ground this fall we should be playing golf on it in two years, say the spring of 1907.”

The report stated, “Mr. Macdonald added the course would probably be on Long Island and as accessible from New York as possible.”


Jan-June 1906 – FACT – During this period CBM went abroad to complete his studies and had surveyors maps created and did his own sketches of features he felt worth emulation on the best golf holes abroad.

Upon his return it was reported that he was still looking for an ideal site on which to purchase 200 acres for his golf course.

A news article printed in June upon his return quotes Macdonald, making clear that his intent is NOT to create 18 replicated holes, but instead;  

”In the thousands of holes I have played and studied abroad with the one idea in view, the principles that make a good hole have cropped up again and again.   I found myself classifying the holes on their basic principles, forming them into groups in which the desirable features were due to the reproduction of the same characteristics.  On our new course these principles will be introduced to give attractiveness to each hole, and according to the nature of the land finally selected, some three or four of the holes may be exactly resembled. In this country the monotonous cross bunkers for first and second shots bring up one principle again and again; abroad there is an infinite variety of hazards from which one may collect ideas.”

October 15th, 1906 – FACT - According to articles found and posted by David Moriarty, news articles announce that CBM has purchased 250 acres on Long Island.   Based on the description of the land, David has contended that it was indeed the Sebonac Neck property, essentially proving that they were considering this land well before November and well before the December 14th formal securing of the land.

The articles mention that no construction will be done until the following spring, by which time the opinions of “expert players” in this country and abroad will be sifted and analyzed.   The articles go on to state;

Maps showing all the undulations and grades in feet have been executed, and Mr. Macdonald has mailed these to such authorities as Horace Hutchinson, Harold Hilton, John Ball…”

“On this side, H.J. Whigham has accompanied Mr. Macdonald to the scene of operations, and Walter J. travis has been invited to act as consulting engineer, as it were.”

Here is how CBM described Raynor’s role and duties;




November 1, 1906 – FACT - It is reported that Macdonald is down to two possible tracts for his purchase; one near Montauk and the other close to Good Ground in western Shinnecock Hills.

December 14th, 1906 – FACT – CBM signs contracts formally securing 205 “undetermined” acres of the 450 available for sale on the Sebonac Neck property.

December 15th – 17th – FACT - Various articles in the New York papers tell the story of the property acquisition with a number of them including a purported quote from CBM;



Sometime in the first half of 1907 – FACT - Construction Commences

August 10th, 1907 – FACT – A news report states, “A vast amount of money was necessary to insure the proper construction of this unique golf course, for landscape artists have much to do in resurfacing the course to comply with the patterns brought from Europe.”

August 26th, 1907 – FACT – The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports, “It is now possible to give an official map of the course, which shows it exactly as it will appear except that several additional bunkers are to be added at points not yet determined.”   The article includes a sketch of the layout “now under construction”.


Here is how CBM described the construction process;




Macdonald himself cites the holes that are indeed meant to be replicas…the Alps, the Redan, the Eden, and the Road hole and describes the Sahara as, “In one sense, it is not a replica, but it is a mental picture of that fine hole, embodying the underlying principle – a golfer’s reward is granted t him who can negotiate the carry he is caple of accomplishing.”

Here, Macdonald describes the rest of the 13 holes that are not meant to be exact reproductions, as well as the help received from Horace Hutchinson;




February 1908 – FACT - Macdonald, in an article written by Horace Hutchinson, is quoted again referring to the very few holes that are exact copies (and states that they had to be bunkered as the originals dictated), but states that the bunkering of the other holes will take time and likely be placed after play is observed on the course.



August 1908 – FACT – The following article is published that describes further the ongoing construction process, Macdonald’s ongoing communications with Hutchinson, and the article reports that Walter Travis is still involved in the project.  

It also again mentions which holes are meant to be replicas and which bear resemblances, as well as which are original creations.




  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick
Not to seem too anal, but it would have been Bernard Darwin who wrote that piece in The Times about NGLA, and not his grandfather Charles, the naturalist, who was well and truly dead by that time :-) Bernard counted CBM as a very close friend and stayed with him during his first trip to the US in 1913.

It was Bernard.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If you have a problem with the October 1906 articles David posted here you should have taken it up with him.

I don't have a problem with the person posting the articles, I have a problem with the accuracy of the articles.
[/b]

Funny, I don't recall you having a single negative word to say about them when David posted them over a week ago.

I don't scrutinize David's posts as carefully as I do yours because I don't think he has an agenda regarding NGLA.[/b]

Is it your contention that CBM would have sent a single survey "MAP" to mulitple people?  

I don't think CBM sent maps to anyone.
I think it's another example of erroneous reporting.
But, at the time, multiple maps didn't exist, so CBM couldn't have sent "maps" plural to anyone.
[/b]

Please don't be purposefully obtuse...you know precisely what that paragraph is saying...copies of the survey map were evidently made and sent to multiple people who CBM respected for their input.

I don't buy that.
CBM tells us that he had already sited his ideal holes.  Routed and staked the boundaries of the course.
Why, at that late date would he send maps to anyone ?[/b]

As far as it not being a collaborative effort, Patrick, that's a load of crap.

No, it's not.
CBM singlehandedly went abroad, studied and determined which 18 holes he considered ideal.
He then had sketches and survey maps made of those holes.
He then searched and found the land well suited for those holes, examined the property and found the locations for those holes, sited those holes, routed and staked the golf course and then purchased the land upon which he had decided upon.[/b]

CBM himself tells us that Emmet and Whigham helped with the design,

No, he doesn't tell us that.
He tells us in no uncertain terms that Whigham was directly involved in the siting of the holes and routing and staking of the land.
He makes no such direct claim regarding Emmett's "hands on" involvement.[/b]

and we know he told us Hutchinson did as well.  

That's not what he said.
I believe that Hutchinson only saw the land/course for the first time after the course was in play, and never in the development stage.
So, how, exactly, did Hutchinson help with the siting of holes and routing of the golf course ?
Typically, you'll fail to address this and many other questions I pose to you.[/b]

Travis was reported to still be on the project as late as 1908 but somehow fell out of favor too, so c'mon Patrick, you really need to give up this romantic, yet wholly unsupportable idea that some one man, dictatorial God-King sprung forth everything good in golf in America.

Conveniently, you forget that CBM himself described how he found the land, studied the land, sited the holes, routed the course and staked the land and subsequently bought the land.
Nowhere, repeat, nowhere does CBM assign credit to any of those individual proccesses, or collectively, to any individual other than Jim Whigham.  So, tell us, how exactly, where these other parties involved ?[/b]

He wrote in 1912, right after the official opening of the golf course;

"For aid in the original purchase of the land and in laying out of the course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet.  

Whigham's direct role, in each of the processes has been clearly documented by CBM in "Scotland's Gift".
No such credit appears for Emmett, although we do know he was scheduled to be a committee member.
Could you provide the citations specifically describing Emmett's role ?[/b]

Since then Mr. James A. Stillman and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in helping to bring it to perfection."

"Interested" in the development ?
"Bringing it to perfection" sounds like fine tuning after the fact.
Certainly, they were never involved in the siting of the holes, routing and staking of the golf course[/b]

He later thanked Hutchinson, et.al., as well, for their help.

If Hutchinson NEVER set foot on the course until after it was in play, how did he help him ?
Did he ride with Whigham and CBM, locate the sites for the ideal holes, route and stake the course ?
NO, he didn't.
Whatever aid he supplied, which might have been moral support, wasn't in the process of studying the land, siting the holes, routing and staking the golf course.[/b]

You talk about me having a preconceived notion or agenda, but talk about calling the kettle black!  

I have no preconceived notion or agenda, I'm merely supporting, in general, what CBM wrote when he authored "Scotland's Gift"[/b]

No amount of contemporareneous evidence will shake your preconceptions...you aren't open to any of it, even articles conveying the exact same facts and quotes on the exact same day in competing newspapers!!  

Newspaper articles, especially newspaper articles that have the wrong set/s of facts, hardly qualify as contemporaneous evidence.
They are flawed, which has led you to support flawed conclusions.[/b]

So don't pretend to anyone here that you have an open mind about this because it's obvious you don't.

I do have an open mind.
I showed you how wrong your were about the visual, the claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere but the low lying areas, which your newspaper account claimed was true at the current site, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Then, I showed you that a major highway ran right smack down the middle of your phantom golf course.

You have been the one presenting these wild claims, all newspaper based, that when subjected to scrutiny, fail miserably.[/b]

Every single article i've posted here (and now the one's David posted here) is wrong, wrong, wrong in your eyes, and it's becoming a bit absurd, frankly.

The are wrong.
The most recent one claiming that 250 acres is dead wrong and you know it.
False in one, false in many.[/b]

CBM was clearly the father of NGLA, and clearly the decision-maker who deserves the lions-share of the credit for the golf course that's there.   I agree with you that the man in charge is the one who should get the credit.

However, the story of the creation of NGLA is a lot more interesting than that, as evidenced in these articles.


So is "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"
The articles are full of incorrect information.
Yet, you cling to them as authoritarian, factual, when nothing could be further from the truth.[/b]

Later today, I'm going to draw out a timeline based on what these articles convey.  

If you feel that the articles are ALL inaccurate, you might just want to say that and recuse yourself because I think the problem you (and possibly David...I'm still trying to nail down exactly what he thinks happened when) have gotten yourself into with your arguments and over-simplifications is that the corners you've boxed yourselves into make no sense in the context of the contemporaneous evidence.  

Mike, those flawed articles are NOT evidence.
They fail miserably.
They're inaccurate, and the authors far removed from that actual events.
They're just "folklore"[/color

Perhaps you can start by telling us precisely WHEN you think Seth Raynor surveyed the property?    Yesterday you said it was after the course was routed and property was staked...after purchase, in fact.

That's a LIE.
First, it was you that claimed that the staking of the land and the purchase of the land occured simultaneously, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I stated that Raynor surveyed the land after it was staked.
But, let me be even clearer and tell you what happened.
CBM and JW studied the land, found the land upon which to site their ideal holes, routed and staked the land they wanted.
Then, they approached the company with the intent of purchasing the staked land, provided the price was right.
When the company agreed in principle, THEN and ONLY THEN did Raynor survey the land.
He had to survey the land at that point in order to define the boundaries for the purchase.
Once he surveyed the land, CBM purchased the land surveyed..[/color

Is that what you contend?   That Raynor didn't survey the property until after CBM purchased it?

NO, again, that's YOUR CONVOLUTED conclusion.
I NEVER stated what you stated above.
WHY do you continually, intentionally, MISTATE my position, even after I've typed it out.
RAYNOR surveyed the land immediately prior to the purchase of the land, but, after CBM had staked it out.[/b]

When was it cleared?   Before then or after??

That's immaterial.
You don't need to clear land in order to survey it.
And, if you recall, you claimed that there were no trees, so they only had to get rid of underbrush, which is a rather simple task.[/b]

I'm not trying to be contentious but don't just shoot bullets in some drive-by when the facts that are presented don't jive with your beliefs.

That's the heart of the problem.
You present flawed newspaper accounts as accurately representing the facts when nothing could be further from the truth.

You see, you have to believe those articles because those flawed accounts help you rationalize your erroneous conclusions.
But, I don't have to accept obviously, if not flagrantly flawed newspaper accounts as being factual.[/b]

If you actually have a case to make, make it, and we'll see if it fits the facts based on what we know.


I guess you haven't been reading any of my replies.
Remember the case I made that a major highway went through your phantom course which you mislocated.
Do you remember how I presented my case that you couldn't see the Atlantic Ocean from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying areas ?

Time and time again I make my case and destroy your latest premise.
But, you just change your premise/s as each one gets shot down with the facts.[/b]

David,

I went back and read and can't seem to find where you told us when you think Raynor was employed, when he surveyed the land (pre or post purchase?), and when the unwalkable land was cleared.

As I mentioned to Patrick, I"m going to try to put together a timeline based on what was reported in these articles, and would appreciate your input, as well.

I think you'll find that the REALITY time line has CBM staking the property, negotiating the purchased, Raynor Surveying the land, and CBM executing the purchase.

But, all of that is a subterfuge, an attempt to divert the reader away from the facts.
Namely, that CBM and JW studied the land, sited the holes, routed the holes, staked the property, negotiated the sale, surveyed the property to be purchased and THEN and ONLY THEN, PURCHASED THE LAND.[/B]

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  You timeline of "FACTS" is woefully inaccurate, incomplete, and overly selective.   You continue to ignore information you don't like and highlight information you like, even when they appear within the same sentence!

I am done with you, but I will give one example so any others who still might be reading can see just how disingenuous you really are. You claim to provide CBM's description of "Seth Raynor's role," yet you AGAIN leave out the critical component of his role which directly addresses the issue at hand.  WHY HAVE YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY MISREPRESENTED "RAYNOR'S ROLE?"

RAYNOR WAS FIRST HIRED TO SURVEY THE PROPERTY.  CBM was so impressed by his work that he THEN hired Raynor to create a contour map.   Yet you continue to quote only the part about creating the contour map.

I've described it exactly as set out in the book, and I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.  Yet you continue to twist and misrepresent it to serve your petty agenda.  Despicable.  

If you cannot even honestly set out facts you deserve no place in this conversation.   You are a waste of time.

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick, you wrote that...

"The "London Times" in September 30, 1913, in an article believed to have been written by Charles Darwin, clearly states that NGLA is solely the product of CBM's efforts. "

And...

"He (CBM) tells us in no uncertain terms that Whigham was directly involved in the siting of the holes and routing and staking of the land."

The second statement shows the first is not right.  NGLA was not solely the product of CBM's efforts.  As you said, Whigham was directly involved in siting, routing and staking the course.  He also helped choose the property, and I think he helped find it too.

At the very least, NGLA was the product of a committee of two.  Obviously CBM was the head of the committee. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

No intent to deceive anyone about Raynor....I think surveying the land and producing a contour map were probably the same assignment, but if you think they could have been separate assignments I guess that's possible.

In any case, here's the full two pages....it just gets to be a pain to be the only one producing material here.






In any case, at what point do you think CBM had Raynor 1) Survey the land and 2) Produce a contour map?

Was it prior to the October article you cited?

Was it after then but prior to the December 14th 1906 securing of the land

Or was it after then, but prior to the spring 1907 final sale of the property?

Or after the spring 1907 sale?

If you think they were separate tasks you can feel free to answer for each one, thanks.


Patrick,

Thanks for clarifying your position, but all of the articles that came out right after CBM secured 205 acres in December 1906 stated that those acres were as yet "undetermined", meaning that the final boundaries of the property had yet to be staked out to completion, and that CBM would be given latitude in the final determination.

I appreciate you laying out the order of events as you see them as follows;

First, it was you that claimed that the staking of the land and the purchase of the land occured simultaneously, when nothing could be further from the truth.
I stated that Raynor surveyed the land after it was staked.
But, let me be even clearer and tell you what happened.
CBM and JW studied the land, found the land upon which to site their ideal holes, routed and staked the land they wanted.
Then, they approached the company with the intent of purchasing the staked land, provided the price was right.
When the company agreed in principle, THEN and ONLY THEN did Raynor survey the land.
He had to survey the land at that point in order to define the boundaries for the purchase.
Once he surveyed the land, CBM purchased the land surveyed..

Patrick...I'd point out that CBM himself told us that he and Whigham examined the land AGAIN, AFTER the company agreed to sell them the land, and AFTER which they staked out the land they wanted.   Please read again what he says;



So, I'd ask you the same questions I just asked David.   Can you put a timeline to the events as you see them based on what we DO know?

If we consider that the company formally AGREED to sell them 205 unsecured acres in December 1906, then CBM himself is telling us that sometime AFTER that "AGAIN we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, AFTER which we staked out the land we wanted." (caps emphasis mine)

I would concede that there may have been some informal agreement prior to December, which is why I'm asking you to tell us what you think the timeline was, and when you think Raynor was employed.

To me, "staking out the land we wanted" is akin to creating the final terms of the sale...determining those previously "undetermined" borders, which would place it again closer to the actual sales date in spring of 1907, which is precisly the timeline that the article from December 1906 reporting on the terms of the agreement indicate.

So, please, put some proposed months to it, and maybe you or I will learn something.

btw...Hutchinson came while the course was still under development.    CBM tells us that he was responsible for the idea of creating some of the more unique green contours and the two men were in constant contact prior and through the project.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick/David,

In looking at this again, it could not be any more elementary, straight-forward, and clear.

With the only exception being not telling us when exactly Seth Raynor surveyed the property, this one paragraph tells us the entire story in chronological order.   From this, it should be easy to derive a timeline.



1)   CBM tells us about 450 acres of Sebonac Neck that everyone thought was worthless.   It abounded in bogs, swamps, and an entanglement of bushes.
2)   CBM tells us that the 450 acres had never been surveyed.
3)   CBM tells us that the only way that they could get the ground was with ponies.
4)   CBM tells us that he and Jim Whigham “spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.”
5)   CBM and Whigham determine that it’s what they wanted, provided they can get it reasonably.
6)   The Company (referred to previously as the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Co.) agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.
7)   AGAIN (for some undetermined amount of time) CBM and Whigham studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind.
   THEN CBM and Whigham staked out the land they wanted.


I’m not sure why this is even a point of argument it’s so blatantly obvious as CBM himself is telling us exactly what happened in the order of events?

Given what else we know…that the contracts for securing the property were executed on December 14th, 1906…that the property at that time was reported, in a quote in CBM’s own words, still “undetermined”….that CBM himself tells us that the actual determination of which specific 205 acres and the final purchase didn’t happen until some months later in “Spring 1907”, all point to an unmistakable conclusion.

The articles I’ve posted on this thread are remarkably consistent with exactly what CBM wrote in his book, with a very few exceptions around specific years which CBM seems to have mistaken over 20 years later.

Still, I’m not even sure what is being debated here?   What could possibly be at issue when CBM’s own book ties to the contemporaneous news accounts to a tee?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()