News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #575 on: March 02, 2011, 04:54:12 PM »
Jim,

CBM tells us that "everyone thought it was worthless" (i.e. The 450 acre tract of Sebonac Neck), not the newspapers.

Alvord's purchase was for the whole shooting match...2700 acres in all.

I'm talking about the December 1906 news articles where CBM is quoted as saying the next five months would be spent working with his committee determining which holes to reproduce and their yardages.

I'm talking about the December 1906 news articles where CBM tells us that the specifics of the land he secured is still undetermined.

Why don't you believe them?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 04:57:18 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #576 on: March 02, 2011, 05:03:35 PM »
Mike,

You sound a bit insane repeatedly asking the question "why don't you believe the newspaper articles?"

Are you suggesting every newspaper article is correct at all times? Or that I should believe every item written in a newspaper?


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #577 on: March 02, 2011, 05:06:41 PM »
Jim,

I'm repeating the question because I don't understand why you choose to ignore multiple contemporaneous news articles where CBM is quoted directly that were printed in the days immediately after CBM signed the papers to secure 205 "undetermined" acres.

They clearly spell out what CBM says he's going to do.

Is there a reason you feel they inaccurately reported events or misquoted CBM?

Why is ignoring the best, most contemporaneous source of information at our disposal something you feel is appropriate?

No negativity meant here...I just can't accept you ignoring it without some cause or explanation, Jim.

I've been doing my best to answer all of your questions sincerely and would appreciate the same courtesy. 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 05:08:46 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #578 on: March 02, 2011, 05:12:49 PM »
Mike,

As I've said, I think the course was 95% planned by November 1906 simply because they made the decision to buy it at that time and I don't believe they would buy it without knowing what they were going to do with it.

I think the newspapers account of what still needed to be done fits well within that understanding.

I think it's perfectly logical that they would get an agreement to move the property lines small amounts as needed off a clear and distinct starting point. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to think the hole lengths would be tweaked a bit at that phase.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #579 on: March 02, 2011, 05:19:23 PM »
Jim,

Then we just disagree on how things were done back then, and that's ok.

I think Max Behr's 1915 article is pretty illustrative to my point that most projects purchased available land first, and then tried to fit the best golf holes to that land.

You can't imagine that someone would secure and/or buy 100+ acres without having a golf course already routed and planned on it, but I don't think that is historically accurate, and I don't know too many cases where I've heard that to be true.

So, we can probably go around again and again, and still arrive at the same place, but I understand your position and simply don't agree that it's supported by historical evidence.

Thanks for the discussion.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 05:22:41 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #580 on: March 02, 2011, 05:57:18 PM »
Sticking to the facts and to NGLA, here are a few of Mike's recent "points" that seem to be at the heart of the disagreement.

1.  The Horseback Ride.

    Mike claims that by mid-December all that CBM and HJW had been done was ride over the 450 acre site for a couple of days, a site which Mike calls "impenetrable" site and a "jungle."   More importantly, he claims that about all they accomplished was to determine the general suitability of the 450 acres and of the soil.
      The December articles directly contradict this.  By mid-December, not only had substantial planning taken place, a number of individuals besides HJW and CBM had been over the land, including including "Emmett, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others."  
       The October articles, written two months before CBM acquired the Option, contradict this as well.   They report  that by mid-October CBM and HJW were already well into the project and had already been over the site several times, and they may have even already had surveys of the property!

Looking more closely at this Mike's point, we see that, ironically, Mike has argued on both sides of his red herring notion of the routing having been done over the two or three days on horseback!  In fact he has argued for this understanding much more than I ever have.   But will he now abandon one side of his "point" as well?  Let's see . . .

 Mike Cirba,   As I understand it, you have made both of the following contradictory claims.  Which of these two is correct?:
  --  Option 1: By the end of the inspection on horseback had they only generally studied the 450 acre parcel "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical "205 acres" within it.  OR . . .
  -- Option 2:  By the end of the inspection on horseback (all that had supposedly happened as of mid-December) CBM had they already placed the course on 205 acres configured on a two mile strip along a quarter mile of Peconic, a mile of Bullshead Bay, and then three-quarters of a mile to within a few hundred yards of the future site of the Shinnecock Inn, and by then CBM was ready to describe the starting and finishing point and spotlight a number of highlights of the course, including the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape, and had Emmett, Travis, Watson, Chauncey and others join them on their horseback inspection.


Mike can't have it both ways. Were CBM and HJW routing the course on horseback for those 2 or 3 days, or not?  In this version they only had a general idea of whether a course would work somewhere on the 450 acre parcel!  Yet by mid-December the papers indicate that CBM had studied the contours so earnestly that they could already select the land that would fit best with the various classical holes they had in mind. All before they took the Option on the land.  

2.  The Timing of the Option.   (A related and partially overlapping "point" to the one above.)

   Mike claims that at the time of the option, CBM had neither begun routing the course, nor even begun choosing the 205 acres out of the the 450 acre parcel! According to Mike, the location of the course was "undetermined" as of mid-December 1906, and they were still considering all of the 450 acres! In other words, he claims that CBM hadn't really done much at all by mid-December 1906 and he just as easily could have planned and built a course on Sebonack's site instead of NGLA.   Is that really what those articles say?  I don't think so.  
     Again the October articles indicate they were well into the project by mid-October, and may have even had some semblance of written plans, maps, or surveys.  
     It is probably worth mentioning that when I first brought the October articles to Mike's attention, it got him going on his fictional third site theory.  He argued that at this fictional site CBM was so far along with the planning that he had mapped out the course and mailed off the maps all over the World for comments.  Never mind the cost of the survey. Never mind that this had never been mentioned. Never mind that the fictional site made no sense.  Mike took the article as proof that CBM was far along in planning a fictional course of Mike's invention.   Yet when it turns out those articles were about the real site, he ignores them and continues to claim that NO PLANNING HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE MID-DECEMBER.  How does that work, anyway?   How can he interpret the October articles to mean that they were well along in the planning on his fictional site, yet when the articles apply to the actual site, they mean no such thing?  
    
    The December articles also contradict this "point."   They indicate that substantial internal planning had already taken place.  The course location had been specifically chosen and described, the start and finish had been determined, and a number of outstanding holes highlighted.

     By the way, Mike has mistakenly concluded that because CBM mentioned the location of only 6 holes, that he had NO CLUE about remainder of the course.  In Scotland's Gift CBM only discussed five finished holes in detail, so should we assume that CBM only built a five hole course?   Ridiculous.    In those articles CBM was doing the same thing he later did in Scotland's Gift; he was spotlighting some features which placed the course in the best light and corresponded to his "ideal course" goals --great contours, great soil, along the water, accessible from NY, an Inn nearby, and he had not only found perfect sites for the three most famous holes anywhere, he had even found a site for a water hole that sounds impressive and that thinks will be truly outstanding.  He is talking in terms of highlights, not providing a detailed list of everything he had planned up to this point.  Mike's conclusion to the contrary is unfounded.

3.  The Chronology in Scotland's Gift.  

    A third point of Mike's involves how Scotland's Gift should be read.  There is a point of agreement about Scotland's Gift, so let's start there.   While Mike continues to make dishonest claims to the contrary, I have written repeatedly and for years now that while the routing likely began during the initial inspection of the land on horseback, it continued on into the period that CBM described as follows:  "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."  
   Similarly Mike has stated that CBM routed the course during this same period, and the routing was complete before he chose the land they wanted.  

   So we finally have a basis for agreement (at least in overlap) as to when the routing occurred and was completed.   CBM  described the routing process in that sentence.  He routed the course and chose the land based where the holes fit.   Really that has been my main point for years now, so for me the rest is just the details.  
  
     The question remains, though, at what point the land was optioned.  Mike claims it was in the sentence before, where CBM indicated that the Company agreed to sell them the land.  I think it came right after CBM chose and described "the land wanted," where CBM wrote, "We obtained an Option on the land on November 1906 . . . ."  And this brings us to Mike's next untenable "point."

Mike has repeatedly claimed that Scotland's Gift states that the land was optioned after the inspection on horseback but before they again studied the contours.  But just as it does not state that the land was "undetermined," it does not claim that the option was taken after the first inspection.  These are just Mike's tenuous interpretations; and his record on such interpretations is abysmal.   Without any real explanation, he simply reads the formal Option agreement into the statement about the Company agreeing to sell them acreage from the from Sebonack Neck portion of the property.   But of course a willingness to sell does not an Option agreement make.
  
   I understand why some might do this  --the articles mention that the borders could be adjusted so it is easy to make the jump to thinking that the mention of letting CBM choose the acreage as being the actual option agreement.  It is a possible interpretation of those words if read in the context of the articles.  But it is by no means the only interepretation nor is it the best interpretation, nor is it the one that makes sense in the context of the Chapter itself, nor does it make sense given what else we know from people like Beher about how NGLA was created.   It is a logical leap, that is in my mind unjustified.

   The reasons are simple. 1)  As explained in the sections above, putting the option here creates all sorts of contradictions that just don't make sense.  2) The story of the creation of NGLA is in chronological order, and the option is covered a few paragraphs down, later in time.   I can see no interpretive reason to mess with the order other than an outcome driven reading.

To me, the most obvious and straightforward way to read these sections is as a chronology.   Much of the book is a chronology.  He does vary the chronology somewhat by topic (for example seperating the USGA discussion from the NGLA discussion) but for the most part it is chronological, starting with the beginning of golf, moving through the dark ages, into the conception of the ideal course, into the creation of NGLA and onto the next courses.   More importantly, the chapter on the creation of NGLA is itself chronological.  Even Mike agreed with me before it no longer suited his needs to read it chronologically!   But despite his change of heart and Jeff's claims, it makes sense as a chronology.  Briefly . . .
1.  First CBM tried to buy 120 acres on the other side of the property, but the Company shot them down, and commenced with plans to develop this site.
2.  CBM and HJW inspected land on Sebonack Neck, studying the contours on horseback.
3.  They liked very much liked what they saw, so they went back to the Company to see if they could get it for the right price.
4.  UNLIKE WITH THE OTHER LAND CBM HAD ATTEMPTED TO BUY, the Company agreed to sell them acreage out of this portion of land for a reasonable price (the same per acre price he had offered for land on the other side of their holding.)
5.  Again CBM studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted.
6.  Then, in the book, CBM then described "the land [they] wanted."   It had great locations for an Alps, a Redan, an Eden and a new type of hole eventually to be called a Cape.  It had a bit of frontage on Peconic Bay and a mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay.  It had a place for the first tee (and last green) a few hundred yards from the Shinnecock Inn, so they wouldn't immediately need a clubhouse.  It was accessible to NY yet out of the way, so the golfer could be alone with nature.
7.  CBM optioned 205 acres of land they wanted in November 1906. [According to the articles they had some some flexibility to adjust the exact boundaries to best fit the exact plans.]
8. They finalized the  purchase of the land in the Spring of 1907.
9. Then . . . "immediately they commenced development."  Soil brought in . . . clubhouse plan had to change . .  
[I've written out a much more complete timeline of the entire chapter above a  few pages.]
    
   It is all in chronological order, and it makes sense in chronological order. CBM wrote about finding the land they wanted, then described this land, then wrote that they optioned it and then purchased it, then wrote that they developed it, then described the golf holes, then wrote about changes up to when he wrote the book.  It is linear.  Straight forward.  The "land we wanted" is described right where CBM mentions studying the contours and finding the "land we wanted."

This business about it circling and repeating itself is just another red herring.  The later of the holes is not a repeat.  It is about the actual golf holes themselves as built, it is not a discussion of just their locations.  The Alps and the Redan, Eden, Sahara, Road turned out better than the models.  The holes were built.  

Reading it Mike's way the describe what happened then describe property that wasn't chosen at the time of the option, then backtrack for a half a sentence to mention that the date of the option was in December without clarifying that the option had come earlier in the sequence of events (and essentially splitting that sentence into two parts - optioning the land and purchasing the land - that according to Mike's reading were no where near each other in the sequence of events, then picking up with the chronology again when it says they began developing the property.

Does CBM seem like someone who had little grasp of how to set out a linear chronology to you?   He doesn't to me.   Yet we have two interpretations.
-- On the one hand we have an interpretation that makes sense by itself in chronological order without any leaps of logic or faith or reading anything else into it.  
-- On the other hand we have an interpretation that has CBM jumping around and repeating himself, splitting sentences in half and moving part of the sentence to somewhere else in the sequence.  And the only way to make this interpretation work is to read things in that aren't in the language or the even in the book for that matter.  

A few asides about understanding the book-  
   Remember that this same Company had already turned down CBM's offer to buy acreage at the same price on the other side of the parcel, so it was unknown whether this land was even for sale at what CBM thought was a reasonable price.  Given the Company's previous refusal to sell, it is no wonder that CBM went to them fairly early on to inquire whether they would even be willing to sell the land at his price.  
-  Note that as of mid-October the CBM was reportedly buying 250 acres of land.  Mike has dismissed this as a typo, but that may be just more wishful thinking on Mike's part.   If CBM was really at 250 acres in October, that would suggest a substantial amount of planning went into the course between then and mid-December.  
- Remember that by October, HJW and CBM had reportedly been over the land several times, but Travis had not.   By mid-December Travis, Emmett, Chauncey, Watson, and others had all been over the land, again suggesting that substantial planning had taken place before mid-December.

Yet Mike claims that none of this had been done by the time of the option?  Impossible.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 06:01:26 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #581 on: March 02, 2011, 06:03:06 PM »

"The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing." - Patrick Mucci

Patrick,

If that is your definition of a golf course routing, then it's no wonder that Jeff Brauer and I don't agree with you in the least.


Then you and Jeff are morons.(;;)
[/b]

It's ALL about the exact specificity of the greens and tees.


No, it's not, it's about the approximate location of the greens and the tees.
[/b]

It's ALL about locating 18 of each at specific points on the property that make sense individually and collectively.

No, it's not.
That's the micro architecture, the fine tuning.
The MACRO architecture is approximating the location of the greens, tees and internal features.
[/b]

It's ALL about how they flow together, complement each other, and create a diverse yet consistent, contiguous challenge that captures the golfer's imagination, spirit, and interest.

You just don't get it
[/b]

It's ALL about how they utilize the best natural features of the property, and tie into the overall surrounds and aesthetic of the individual site.


Again, you don't understand the process..
As an example, on the 16th hole at NGLA, you might craft your basic routing with a tee to the right of the 15th green.
But then, upon reflection and construction, you might shift that tee to the left side of the 15th green.

Your notion that in order to do a routing, each hole has to be in its precise and final locatioin and configuration is the perspective of a rank amateur, someone totally unfamiliar with what happens in the field during and even after the construction process has begun.
[/b]

No wonder we can't agree here.

You're right, you're totally uneducated and uninformed in this area.
[/b]

As regards the amount of land CBM was looking to purchase for his dual goals of golf course and Founders Lots, please see the following;


Mike, how can you insert a document from 1904, years before the land at NGLA was even on the radar screen.
David Moriarty and Bryan Izatt went through the measurement of the property with you.
They showed you how it was impossible to insert building lots on the NGLA property.
Yet, you once again, insert a document irrelevant to the actual site, claiming it has some type of authority over what occured at NGLA.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're being intellectually dishonest, a trait you've repeated often on this thread.
 
HJ Whigham writing about the plan in March 1906;

In March 1906 Whigham had NEVER seen or set foot on the land at NGLA.

And, Whigham classifies the concept as a "UNIQUE SCHEME"

It's a marketing ploy.
Tell us if you can, and I doubt you can.  How this "unique scheme" was going to be a reality if the Peconic Bay Company had sold CBM the 120 acres by the canal ?  ?   ?  ?  ?

Answer, you can't because it was a pipe dream, a marketing ploy


CBM's return from abroad in June 1906;

You've presented just another flawed newspaper article, claiming that the site is on Montauk Point.
[/b]

Patrick...he wanted just over 200 acres before he even found the Sebonac Neck property.

Then why did he bid on 120 acres by the canal, shortly thereafter, before he even found the Sebonac Neck Property ?   ?  ?
[/b]

This couldn't be clearer.

You're right, almost every, if not every newspaper article is flawed.

You say, according to your newspaper article and Macdonald that CBM was searching for 200 acres.
If so, why did he, shortly after this article was published, attempt to buy 120 acres to build his dream course ?  ?  ?

It's obvious that the newspaper article you cite, is dead wrong, in more than one way and in complete disagreement with CBM's actual actions.

"Dewey defeats Truman"

I can see why that's your motto.

But, I should know better.
You're not seeking the facts or the truth.

You told us, in your own words, your agenda was to prove that Macdonald didn't route NGLA in short order.
And, you'll present anything, no matter how unreliable or intellectually dishonest, to attain that goal.
[/b]

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #582 on: March 02, 2011, 06:35:45 PM »
Patrick,

I'm sorry, but 4 = 18 does not compute.  ;)

Of course it does when you have 9 out and 9 back and you know where four of the critical holes, plus the starting and finishing holes, which you conveniently, or dishonestly, omitted
[/b]

In fact, he doesn't even tell us he's found four complete holes end-to-end...just a big hill for the Alps, an adjacent redan hole, an inlet for an Eden, and the Cape.

END TO END ?  ?  ?
Where did anyone make that statement.
How stupid can you be ?
The four holes, in ADDITION to the starting and finishing holes which you forgot, are the old 4th, 5th, 12th and 13th.
If you had any modicum of understanding on the property, you would see that those four holes, in an OUT and BACK routing, when combined with the starting and finishing holes, provide the entire routing for you.

I know I stated it earlier, but, I have to tell you again, you're being dishonest.
YOU know it and I know it.
You claim familiarity with the property at NGLA, yet you feign ignorance regarding Macdonad's description in "Scotland's Gift" your own newspaper articles which describe and locate the property, the routing from the starting and finishing points, the Shinnecock Inn, the 4th and 5th holes and the Peconic Bay hole/s, the 12th and 13th holes.  A MORON, could complete that routing, it's self evident, self completing.  Even Max Behr told you that.
[/b]

I'm glad that retrospectively you see his task as so easy as to be almost self-evident, but I don't think you are giving CBM nearly enough credit for what he did there.

He got lucky.
If the company hadn't refused to sell him the 120 acres, NGLA would be down the road.
He had his 18 ideal/classic holes.  They were prepackaged.
Again, he got lucky, the land form at NGLA was perfect for a number of them.
All he did was lay his predesigned holes on the property as the contours best suited them.
It was a relatively easy process, especially when certain location popped out at him, like a red flag.

The routing was predetermined.
If you start at the Shinnecock Inn, skirt Shinnecock Hills, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, on the way out, the routing on the way in is done.
It's a self completing narrow loop, out and back, where the outbound and inbound holes run parallel to one another.

You're so agenda driven that you can't bring yourself to this simple reality of physics and/or linear order.
[/b]

As regards your earlier contention that CBM's quote about the "good turf" and "sandy sub-soil" showing that the articles must be flawed, your argument is with Macdonald, not with me.

It's with you secondarily.
It's primarily with YOUR newspaper articles, the ones YOU posted.
They are inaccurate, their facts are wrong.
Yet you posted them, claiming that they're proof positive of what took place.

You didn't even bother to read them.

Telling us they recount the purchase of 205 when the articles claim 200 acres was purchased.
Claiming that the soil was great when it was horrible.
And, all the while you tell us, over and over again, that these are direct quotes from CBM, when CBM himself wrote that the soil was horrible and that he purchased 205 acres, not 200 acres.

That you don't see the enormous number of seriously flawed accounts you've posted, repeatedly, claiming they were accurate, is an indication that you can't be objective, that you're not to be taken at your word.
[/b] 

Why do you think CBM started construction in spring of 1907 and the course didn't open "informally" until OVER THREE YEARS LATER in summer 1910??

OK, I see, you've lost those arguments, so in your continued shotgun approach, you'll try to open up new arguments.
Let's see, Spring of 1907 lasted until June 20th.  The course was first played upon in 1909.  It was 1907, not 2011, so, with, according to you, no way to get to NGLA because, as you stated, the North Highway was a dirt road, I'd imagine that they'd have a hard time getting men and materials to the site.  Secondly, they didn't have the equipment, nor the funds to build an instant golf course.  If construction, and we know there was plenty of construction, took the summer and fall, they wouldn't grass the course until 1908 at the earliest.  Then, they played it in 1909.

Sounds about right to me.

But, out of desperation, I'm sure you'll now pursue this path in your agenda driven attempts to discredit Macdonald.


It's because CBM miscalculated.

He thought he had great sandy soil for growing grass, just like in the Old Country.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

As described in George Bahto's "The Evangellist of Golf" on page 66, "Disaster on the Green 1907-1908";

"He discovered there was far less loam in the sandy soil of Long Island than there was in "similarly situated areas of Scotland and England."   A seedbed needed to be established to properly germinate rather than just dispersing seed on the ground.   The light sandy soil on Long Island was "ideal for playing the game", but was much more difficult for growing fine grasses than that of similar situations in the British Isles."


But it was YOUR newspaper articles that declared the land was great, fine turf.
YOUR newspaper articles that decreed the land was better than the land closer to the Atlantic.
Again, like the global warming folks, it doesn't matter what occurs, the answer is the same from youi, Macdonald couldn't have routed the course in short order.  But, we know he did, it was a relatively simple exercise because he already had designed the 18 holes and merely had to locate them.
Once he located a long narrow piece of land, the holes essentially routed themselves, just like Max Behr stated.
[/b]

It's a great book, Patrick...you should definitely get a copy.

I had and read a personalized copy before you even knew the book existed.

But, the construction end, which you'd now like us to focus on, had nothing to do with the routing.

This course was a lay-up, a slam dunk.
18 predesigned holes, a long narrow slit of land, perfect locations for a good number of his holes, starting and finishing points, creating an OUT and BACK routing that completed itself.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #583 on: March 02, 2011, 06:42:01 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Why don't you post the Max Behr quote and let people decide what he's saying instead of you telling us what YOU think he's saying

Mike Cirba
Quote

As regards Max Behr, I think his whole article is simply about the process of finding enough acreage of the right configuration.

He suggests that National had it right because by definition, they purchased way more land than the roughly 110 or so that is generally needed for the golf course, and because by definition, an out and back routing is most efficient in terms of non-wasted space.

However, his mention of the steps and timing of the specific project steps is second-hand at best, as he wasn't there when it was routed, he wasn't a founding member, and he was writing his article that tangentially mentioned National ten years after the fact.
[/u]

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #584 on: March 02, 2011, 06:52:08 PM »
Patrick,

So how do you square your own "short order", lying, disingenuous, based on assumptions, delusional in thinking you know something about routing a golf course despite never having routed one, moronic agenda against David's fairly well thought out and mostly docmented factual presentation above that shows documentation that CBM had been out there before October with Whigham, and then at least by December with Travis, et. al.?  And then still had five more months to tweak it from whatever state it was in by the time he took his option?

That seems to makes it at least a three month routing process, doesn't it?  And more like six-nine months, although granted, I doubt they used all that time on pure routing.  I will admit that it is "possible" that CBM did the routing in a day (even though he mentions two trips and David actually confirms more with various articles) and then spent all the other time out there taking a victory lap, showing all those others what he had done, asking him their opinions under the guise of really showing how frikking brilliant he really was to do it in a day.

If that makes you feel better, then fine.  It just doesn't seem right to me, nor does it seem to further any truthful fact finding on the creation of NGLA, as much as it does to just tweak Mike, because he doesn't think CBM had as much to do with Merion as you do.  Its clear you are here only to do that from your last post, because Mike has posted that Behr quote at least twice, and you act as if he hasn't.

So, who has the agenda?  Who is working had to obscure the truth for no particular reason?  (or at least no obvious one to anyone here?)  Mike, Jim, David and I all agree the routing took months, and have been guessing/theorizing about when the bulk of the work was done by piecing together from our different perspectives all the documents available, some of which are contradictory.  Obviously, two of us will be more wrong than right, and I don't particularly care if I am one of the two.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #585 on: March 02, 2011, 07:04:58 PM »
Just had a thought,

If Pat is right on options (and he probably is, at least substantially) how could the entire property have been transferred to Alvord from the British syndicate if the outer boundary of even that 450 acre portion of the property they bought had not been surveyed?

How did they know that partial portion of it was 450 acres if metes and bounds had not been established in that area?

Did CBM really mean getting the contour survey?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #586 on: March 02, 2011, 07:19:49 PM »
I mentioned the point of agreement and disagreement but I almost forgot that I was going to suggest a simple way of  figuring out the timing of the option for yourself.     As I said, Mike and I agree that CBM described the routing process as follows:

 "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."    

Let's not forget that, because it is to me the key point in all of this.  Just as Behr described, CBM found the golf course first and fit the purchase of land to the golf course.   And while he argued against this notion for years, even Mike apparently now agrees with this.  

The point of disagreement involves the timing of the option, yet even here we have some agreement.  We agree that, reportedly, CBM acquired the option in mid-December 1906.   We also agree that CBM's depiction in Scotland's Gift is accurate, although we disagree on the interpretation.  So we can narrow the disagreement down even further.  

We disagree about where mid-December 1906 falls within the chain of events described by CBM in Scotland's Gift. So resolve our disagreement we need only figure out where mid-December 1906 falls in the chain of events.

1. Compare and contrast my version and Mike's version of what happened before mid-December 1906.

- According to Mike, when CBM acquired the opption, CBM hadn't yet studied the contours in earnest to figure out whether the land would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind.   All that had happened before mid-December 1906 was that CBM and HJW had ridden the property for two days "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical '205 acres' within it."

- In contrast, I think that before CBM took the option in mid-December 1906, he and HJW had not only ridden the property, they had again studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind and chose the land they waned.

2.  Now keeping those in mind, carefully read the newspaper accounts of everything that had reportedly happened BEFORE mid-December 1906, when CBM reportedly took an option on the property.  This includes what CBM reportedly said about finding land perfect for what they wanted to accomplish, a two mile by four acre stretch starting and finishing near the Inn, where the first tee would be located, the mile stretch Bullshead Bay from the Peconic Bay to the Eden Hole.  The description of the locations of most famous holes (Redan, Alps, Eden) and one CBM thought was destined to become famous.  The site visits by Travis, Emmett, Chauncey, Watson and others.  The exact acreage determined (down from a reported 250 a few months before.)  The October reports indicating that that they were already busy on the project by mid-October and that they already had surveys to send abroad.    

Reportedly,  all this occurred BEFORE CBM TOOK AN OPTION ON THE PROPERTY.

3.   So ask yourself the following questions.

-- According to the articles, does it seem like all they had done at the time of the option was to ride the property for two days "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical '205 acres' within it."

-- Or does it it sound like they had been again studying contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, and choosing the land they wanted?  

4.  Your answer places the date of the option in the chain of events in CBM's book.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 07:22:44 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #587 on: March 02, 2011, 07:43:40 PM »
Just had a thought,

If Pat is right on options (and he probably is, at least substantially) how could the entire property have been transferred to Alvord from the British syndicate if the outer boundary of even that 450 acre portion of the property they bought had not been surveyed?

How did they know that partial portion of it was 450 acres if metes and bounds had not been established in that area?

Did CBM really mean getting the contour survey?

Jeff,

I explained that to you in an email.

Unfortunately, all of those emails should have been posted on this thread as a lot of good info passed between a limited number of parties.

I have another pressing project I have to attend to, but, basically I'll summarize what I told you.

I doubt that the 450 acres was measured prior to CBM staking the property.
I think that when Raynor surveyed the staked land, coming up with 205 acres, that he also staked the entire property.

As to the 450 acres itself, I believe it was part of a larger parcel of 2,000 to 2,800+ acres.
If that's correct, you wouldn't measure smaller random parcels within the 2,000-2,800+ acres.
You'd only measure the subdivision when you were about to sell, option or develop that portion.

I think the measurements provided, 450 and 205 acres, were retro-measurements, taken after the staking and then reported on page 187,

At the time of their ride, with the land they were riding on, having been unsurveyed, I doubt CBM knew that the Sebonac Neck property was 450 acres and that the property he desired, 205 acres.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #588 on: March 02, 2011, 08:22:00 PM »
Patrick,

So how do you square your own "short order", lying, disingenuous, based on assumptions, delusional in thinking you know something about routing a golf course despite never having routed one, moronic agenda against David's fairly well thought out and mostly docmented factual presentation above that shows documentation that CBM had been out there before October with Whigham, and then at least by December with Travis, et. al.?  And then still had five more months to tweak it from whatever state it was in by the time he took his option?

Mostly from the facts provided by CBM. the newspaper articles Mike posted and the physical attibutes of the property.

You also know the starting POINTS.

You know that the course starts within 200 yards of the Shinnecock Inn.
You know that the course runs along Shinnecock Hills. (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
You know the course, in the form of the 4th hole, crosses the inlet on Bulls Head Bay.
You know the course, in the form of the 5th hole, crosses the inlet and runs along Bulls Head Bay.
You know the course runs along Peconic Bay (9th)
You know the course now has to turn and return to its starting point.
And, you know that in doing so, it has to incorporate the 12th hole (Alps)
And, that it now has to turn to become the 13th hole (redan)
And now, it has to continue it's return to the 18th hole.

But, along the way, we know that the Sahara hole, # 11 was discovered early on.
Ergo, the conntecting 10th hole.
We know that the Leven hole was discovered # 8,
We know that the Road Hole, # 16 and Bottle Hole # 17  were discovered early.

So, we have a long, narrow slit of land, bordered on the South by the Shinnecock Inn and the first tee and 18th green.
We have the 4th and 5th holes.
And, you can't figure out the connecting 2nd and 3rd holes running parallel to Shinnecock Hills GC.

The connectors between the Cape, # 5 and the Leven, # 8

There's nowhere for the 14th hole to go, except, parallel to # 6..

If there was a tricky part, # 15 might have been it

If you view the routing process as an 18 link chain, stretching from a starting point to the most distant point and then back again, and, you've sited # 1 and # 18 and four key holes (# 4, 5, 12 and 13) the balance of the routing becomes self evident, self completing, just as Max Behr declared.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what has to be one of the most basic, simplest routings in golf.
[/b]

That seems to makes it at least a three month routing process, doesn't it?  And more like six-nine months, although granted, I doubt they used all that time on pure routing.  


Jeff, what you and others miss is that the holes were already fashioned.
CBM had only to place them upon the land.
He would have done it at Montauk.
He would have done it by the canal,
But, as luck would have it, he did it at the current site.
A site which predetermined, preordained the routing.
It could only go OUT and BACK and once you had the starting and finishing points, and just four (4) critical holes, the rest simply fell into place.  It had to if you believe in the laws of physics.
[/b]

I will admit that it is "possible" that CBM did the routing in a day (even though he mentions two trips and David actually confirms more with various articles) and then spent all the other time out there taking a victory lap, showing all those others what he had done, asking him their opinions under the guise of really showing how frikking brilliant he really was to do it in a day.

A day, two days, three days.  Who knows how their time and focus was occupied on their ride/s ?
How much time was wasted navigating the hostile vegetation ?  Having lunch ?
What I'm saying is that the confines of the property, combined with the OUT and BACK nature of the layout forced the general routing upon them.  As to the hole locations, the contours of the ground dictated siting.  The 4th, 5th, 12th, 13th, 1st, 18th, probably 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th and 17th.

Hence, once they determined that the course would stretch from the SI to the Peconic Bay and back to the SI, the die was cast.
The routing established.
Then, as the critical ideal/classic holes were located, it cemented the routing for all time.


If that makes you feel better, then fine.  It just doesn't seem right to me, nor does it seem to further any truthful fact finding on the creation of NGLA, as much as it does to just tweak Mike, because he doesn't think CBM had as much to do with Merion as you do. 

That's purely because you're looking at this from an emotional perspective, not a physical or mathematical perspective.
Once you take a step back examine the confines of that long narrow slit of property, bordered on three sides, with the siting of critical holes in the mid-body of the routing, along with the starting and finishing points, both of them, the routing becomes so obvious.  He had NO CHOICE.  The 18 link chain is a perfect example.  If you start it and finish it at the same point, doubling the chain over, in a narrow configuration, there's but one routing, OUT and BACK with the furthest links being the 9th and 10th holes.

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

With time, you'll see how obvious, how preordained the routing was.
[/b]

Its clear you are here only to do that from your last post, because Mike has posted that Behr quote at least twice, and you act as if he hasn't.

I had serious surgery on my left eye 13 days ago.
I can't see out of it.
The vision in my right eye is not 20-20.
If small print was posted, I missed it, not intentionally, but, because it's difficult to see and if I strain to see, the pain and loss of focus interupts my attempt.

So, your assigning of motives is well off base.
[/b]

So, who has the agenda?  Who is working had to obscure the truth for no particular reason?  (or at least no obvious one to anyone here?)  

Not me.
I haven't posted erroneous articles claiming their validity.
I haven't misrepresented, omitted or tainted the facts.
You may not like my reasoning, but, I'm comfortable that it's prudent.
[/b]

Mike, Jim, David and I all agree the routing took months, and have been guessing/theorizing about when the bulk of the work was done by piecing together from our different perspectives all the documents available, some of which are contradictory.  Obviously, two of us will be more wrong than right, and I don't particularly care if I am one of the two.

I don't think the routing took months.
When they rode the property for the first time, and declared what they wanted, starting with the Shinnecock Inn, running alongside Shinnecock Hills GC, then along Bulls Head Bay, then along Peconic Bay, and then back to the Shinnecock Inn, the die and routing were cast.  It was preordained, there was no alternative, especially once they found # 4, # 5, # 12 and # 13, along with # 1 and # 18.

Thus, the routing was conceived of, if not forced, the moment they opted for that long, narrow slit of land, bordered on three sides.

The ONLY thing left to do, was stake the Western boundary and try to marry the ideal/classic holes with the contours.

This didn't take months, it took 2 or 3 days of riding on hostile property.
[/b]

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #589 on: March 02, 2011, 08:31:48 PM »
David,

You're right.

The initial ride determined the routing.

CBM says that they found the land they wanted.
He defines it by its boundaries, natural and defined.
He defines the starting and finishing points.

At that juncture, the routing has been established, it an go nowhere else.

When the first four holes are found, in conjunction with the 1st and 18th, it's a done deal.
The corridor of holes can go nowhere else.

It's an 18 piece jigsaw puzzle that Ray Charles would solve in 5 minutes.

You're explanation, combining "Scotland's Gift" with Mike's newspaper articles was good, but, the fact is, the physical properties of the land, its borders and configuration from south to north, preordained the routing from the first 2 or 3 days.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #590 on: March 02, 2011, 09:11:17 PM »
Patrick,

While I agree with you that CBM and HJW likely began routing during the three day ride, I don't claim (and have never claimed) that the entire routing was absolutely finished during these rides.  As I wrote above, I think that CBM was still describing the routing process when he wrote 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."   It sure sounds to me like he was still studying the contours and working on the placement of the golf holes at this point.

But the reality may be that it is a distinction without a difference.   Whether on the initial ride, or after, when they again studied the contours, they figured out the routing before the chose the particularly property.   Even Cirba agrees that they routed before choosing the land.   And then once CBM had routed the course and chosen the land, he optioned the property.   Just as he says in Scotland's Gift.   The articles confirm this.   He had quite obviously chosen the land prior to optioning the property.   
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 09:14:09 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #591 on: March 02, 2011, 09:35:57 PM »
Pat,

Sorry to hear about the eye surgery, and certainly, being in good health trumps a silly argument over how many days or months it took to route NGLA.  I hope you recover nicely, and without long term issues.

As to how long it took to route, lets just drop it.  I disagree that the contemporary articles are erroneous and that this interpretation allows anyone to substitute their reasoning in place to form a theory, but that is what you have done.

I do understand what you are saying about the length of the property and always have.  Developers being developers, we know that neither party was going to want checkerboard parcels, as you once suggested was a possibility.  Its easy to imagine, since CBM was going to take just less than half their property, that a mutually cooperative discussion was had that he could basically take it starting on the east boundary and working in, or the west boundary and working in.  Going straight up the center or zig zagging would have left a bunch of unusable parcels for future development or sale.

Because he had found the Redan, Alps and Cape during his ride, he obviously chose to start working from the east boundary. And, as you said, if he wanted both the Inn and the Bay property, he quickly was forced into an out and back.  We probably have never been so far apart on those issues. 

So, we agree that the basic pattern came early because of those predetermined factors by CBM and the developer.  I know that sometimes, a long narrow property can present some problems in routing, and I view it as those early decisions took him from a nearly unrestricted situation to restricting himself very much.  Even knowing he needed three holes along the east boundary doesn't mean he didn't have to figure out which combo of lengths and angles fit the topo the best. The tighter the dimension, the less likely it is that the contours fall "just right" and each parcel is different contour wise, so I just don't consider that it was necessarily to be easy to get to a final routing, nor do I see any historical support for the notion that it was done quickly.   

Nuff said on that.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #592 on: March 02, 2011, 09:37:05 PM »
David,

I didn't say finished, but, once you configure the land as CBM did, from south to north along an eastern border, from the SI to the Peconic Bay, the die is pretty much cast.

And, when you site 4 to 6 to 8 holes/links in the chain, the routing is essentially set in stone.

On the aerial you posted, if you could outline current holes, 9 and 10, 13, 14, 3 and 4 in red, 2, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 1 in pink, I think that visual will demonstrate how the routing of the course was preordained and the siting of the remainder holes essentially by default.

Thanks

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #593 on: March 02, 2011, 11:54:56 PM »
Jeff Brauer,

You seem to be skipping back and forth over quite a bit of terrain here but maybe I am not understanding.

- Do you think that by mid-December, CBM had been studying the contours and selecting those which best fit with the classical holes he had in mind? 

- Do you think that by mid-December, CBM had determined the location of his 205 acre golf course within the location of the 450 acre property? 

________________________________________
Patrick,

I don't see any reason to highlight those holes because I don't believe that those holes represent all that had been done at that point.  Those are just the holes CBM saw fit to mention, and I don't think it coincidence that he happened to mention his versions of probably the three most famous holes in the world, as well as one hole he thought was bound for fame.   These were highlights, not a complete inventory of all he had done.   After describing the location of the Eden, CBM reportedly said "But there are other opportunities as delightful --for instance . . . "  and then he described finding the location for the Redan and Alps.  "For instance" does not mean "this is all I have done at this point."  It means that these are the ones I want to highlight.   

So I don't buy Mike's unsupported claims that these were the only holes yet found.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #594 on: March 03, 2011, 07:20:16 AM »
David,

I agree that more than just those four were found early on.

However, with a routing that starts at the SI, skirts along SHGC, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, inclusive of today's holes # 13 and # 14,  and then returns to SI, vis a vis, current holes # 3 (Alps) and # 4 (redan), the die is cast, the bones of the routing are complete.  

He now has to go from # 4 green to # 9 tee.

But we also know that he has found Hole # 7 as his Road Hole and Hole # 8 as his Bottle hole.

So now he just has to get from # 4 green to # 7 tee

The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place rather easily.

The only boundary CBM had to stake was the western boundary all the others already existed, naturally and legally.

When you look at the outbound nine, which was described by CBM and all of Mike's newspaper accounts from the very begining, the default routing for the inbound nine become predetermined once the Alps (# 12) and Redan (# 13) are found, which happened almost immediately.

I can see how someone not familiar with the land couldn't understand this, but, one glimpse of NGLA on Google Earth illustrates just how simple and straight forward the routing process was, once the Eastern border (front nine) had been determined.

And, CBM and JW determined it on their first ride around the property in 2 or 3 days.


 
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 07:36:08 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #595 on: March 03, 2011, 07:39:12 AM »

Here is the Aerial of NGLA.   The red line is one mile.  This was one mile of Bullshead Bay frontage mentioned in both the book and the articles.  The blue lines and red lines together equal just over two miles (2.1) which corresponds with the "two miles long" stretch mentioned in the newspaper articles.  Throw in all the holes mentioned, the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape and the start and finish the course at the current 10th tee and 11th green, and tell me that they hadn't yet even begun to route the course yet!  Tell me they were still considering the all 450 acres.   Tell me that they had no idea of the routing at this point.  

David,

I agree that more than just those four were found early on.

However, with a routing that starts at the SI, skirts along SHGC, Bulls Head Bay and Peconic Bay, inclusive of today's holes # 13 and # 14,  and then returns to SI, vis a vis, current holes # 3 (Alps) and # 4 (redan), the die is cast, the bones of the routing are complete.  

He now has to go from # 4 green to # 9 tee.

But we also know that he has found Hole # 7 as his Road Hole and Hole # 8 as his Bottle hole.

So now he just has to get from # 4 green to # 7 tee

The pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place rather easily.

The only boundary CBM had to stake was the western boundary all the others already existed, naturally and legally.

When you look at the outbound nine, which was described by CBM and all of Mike's newspaper accounts from the very begining, the default routing for the inbound nine become predetermined once the Alps (# 12) and Redan (# 13) are found, which happened almost immediately.

I can see how someone not familiar with the land couldn't understand this, but, one glimpse of NGLA on Google Earth illustrates just how simple and straight forward the routing process was, once the Eastern border (front nine) had been determined.

And, CBM and JW determined it on their first ride around the property in 2 or 3 days. 


[/quote]
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 07:46:24 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #596 on: March 03, 2011, 07:45:24 AM »
David,

Starting at the Shinnecock Inn you have holes # 1 and # 18.
On the Eastern boundary you have holes # 4 and # 5.
You have holes # 8 (leven) and # 9 along Peconic Bay.

Returning to the 18th hole (green at the Shinnecock Inn)
You have holes # 12 and # 13.
But you also have hole # 11 (Sahara) and holes # 17 (Bottle) and # 16 Road)

As Max Behr indicated, this course routed itself.

In addition, I've always believed that the Shinnecock Inn was a temporary clubhouse and that the site between CBM's 9th and 10th holes was always destined to be the clubhouse, ergo, his 9th and 10th holes were known from the get go.
That's why his 9th hole was the completion of his outbound journey, because it would become th 18th hole, with the 10th hole becoming the 1st hole.

Given the dual starting and finishing points, # 1, # 18, # 9 and # 10, in conjunction with just four of his eight or more ideal/classic holes, the course as Max Behr stated, routed itself.

One just has to study the OUT and BACK nature of the course, understanding the starting and finishing points to understand how easily this course routed itself once they defined the Eastern border, which they did on their first visit.


« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 07:58:48 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #597 on: March 03, 2011, 07:57:04 AM »
I think the major area of disagreement I have with David is that I believe the agreement to buy 205 undetermined acres referred to on page 187 of CBMs book is the same event he later refers to as "securing" the property.

I say this because the events described in the Dec 1906 articles talking about the boundaries being undetermined line up exactly with CBMs own description in his book.


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #598 on: March 03, 2011, 08:04:35 AM »
Ironically, because of the sequence of events and timing I believe happened, I agree with Pat that they found the Alps, redan, and cape inlet during that 2 to 3 day ride.

I just don't believe any of the rest of it was nearly as clearcut and self evident as he portrays it and I think he likely wrestled with the routing for weeks if not month as there are any number of possible variations left after those hfew holes were found.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #599 on: March 03, 2011, 08:06:57 AM »
Mike,

No one has an agreement to buy undefined acreage in an undefined location.

OR put another way, nobody in their right mind, let alone a real estate development company, would agree to sell undefined acreage in an undefined location.

That's pure insanity.

They didn't know the acreage they needed when they rode the property so how could they form an agreement to purchase an unknown amount of land.

They ONLY knew the acreage they needed AFTER they staked it and Raynor surveyed it.

Nobody, especially a real estate development company, grants a perspective buyer to right to purchase an unknown amount of land in an unknown location, especially if that prospective purchase could leave them landlocked without access to the remaining parcel.

You're so desperate to cling to your theory that you've forgotten about practical applications and the real world.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back