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.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #825 on: May 28, 2015, 03:19:56 PM »
Similarly preposterous would be to offer it to them and then pull it away without an explanation...especially if the explanation is that someone else actually holds the rights to that land...

Jim, We only know what made it to the papers.  You don't know whether there was additional explanation along the way or not.  Also, it could be that they founders were smart enough to read the original hypothetical in the 1904 letter a what it was - a 'for instance' that that wasn't really ever part of CBM's core idea for his ideal course.  
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: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #826 on: May 28, 2015, 03:23:02 PM »

As for the availability of land near todays 9th green/10th tee I defer to you, but my point vis a vis the Shinnecock Inn was that it allowed a place for visitors to arrive, meet and greet and sleep and eat some hash.  Every partially "ideal" course in the UK at the turn of the last century had a "Shinnecock Inn" to support the local golf course.

Since the SI was a "resort hotel" in the summer months, with a limited amount of rooms, how could it accommodate members and guests at NGLA when it was full of vacationing guests ?
 

After the fire, there was nothing there, and CMB did NOT want to be in the hash and beds business, so he put his club in the middle of the (non-golfable) doughnut.  

What about the land in the doughnut hole makes it non-golfable ?

How many times have you played NGLA ?


At least IMHO.

Hope all is well.

Rich
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 03:32:32 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #827 on: May 28, 2015, 03:26:33 PM »
Jeff Brauer,

Once I saw that you ignored my first point and that you haven't bothered to set the record straight regarding your outrageous and false accusations, I quit reading. I have no interest in discussing anything with you until you clear the air.
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)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #828 on: May 28, 2015, 03:33:04 PM »
But David,

You've contended that Redfield held reversion rights to the extent that nothing other than a golf course (and it's clubhouse) could go there...in other words, they couldn't have done anything with it so why waste the energy of pointing out that they hadn't done anything with it?

Let me ask you this hypothetical...The entire course was routed and planned on the same 165 of 205 acres purchased. Each large portion you've highlighted become attractive to two members. Could those two have offered to buy those plots from the Club or Founders and build homes on them? In other words, how extensive were the developers rights after selling them the land? Could he have stopped (or confiscated) a Yacht marina? How about if they put a shooting facility out in one of those open areas?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #829 on: May 28, 2015, 03:42:50 PM »

Jeff, you will be happy to know that an article in the East Hampton Star from Feb 20, 1920 clears it all up as to who laid out the National links in that Seth Raynor laid out the National Links.  Speculation over.

Josh,

It's obvious that you've never read "Scotland's Gift"

It's equally obvious that you believe everything you read in the newspapers.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #830 on: May 28, 2015, 03:44:28 PM »
Mike,

Why is it that I answer all of your questions, but, you never answer mine ?

So, I'll ask you again.

If CBM was going to build homes along the 9th fairway, as you indicate, how were those homeowners going to access their homes ?

Pat,

Don't most developments include the creation of roadways? 

They should.
 


This was a planned development and the men involved could certainly afford to build roads, no?

Not if they didn't own the land.
And, they didn't own the land that could provide access.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #831 on: May 28, 2015, 03:47:47 PM »

David,

Re your chronology, I'd suggest a few thoughts for your consideration.

The Walker Cup program says that the 120 acre offer near the Canal was made 4 weeks after Alvord obtained the land.  That would put it around early December 1905.

The Stillman letter in the Walker Cup program is dated March 7, 1906 in London.  So he was definitely there in March.  The letter also states that he will be back (to the USA) in June after two months gathering data overseas.  So your "Between Spring 1906" headings are a little off.

In the letter he also states that he's still looking at three localities for the course.

So, when he returned in June 1906 he still had to decide which of the three properties to choose.  Also, he came back with a lot of data, plans, maps and principles - more than 30 potential templates if I recall correctly. He still hadn't decided at that point what resemblances and principles he wanted to use.  It must have taken some time to digest all the information and winnow it down, let alone apply it to a property that wasn't selected at that point.  So sometime between June and October, let's say 4 months, he consolidated his ideas on what template holes and principles to use; selected Sebonac Neck from amongst the three sites under consideration; rode around Sebonac Neck for three days and noticed enough interesting features to decide to offer on the property; and then study it earnestly and route the course before optioning it in November.  Not to mention he played tournaments monthly over this time period.  And, presumably was still involved in a day job.  Sounds like an exceedingly busy 4 or 5 months

And what about that schedule seems unusual to you ?

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:02:33 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #832 on: May 28, 2015, 04:01:40 PM »

Patrick,  according to the blueprint he did own land behind the 9th green.  
See the yellow outline in first aerial below.  
The area that he owned behind the 9th green is a little less than 6 acres, plenty of room to build his clubhouse there if he had wanted to and it was "near" the SI.

That's nice Bryan, but, tell us, how could you get from the road, the North road to that property without having to traverse someone else's property ?

According to your blueprint he also owned parts of the second green and second tee/hole at Shinnecock


As far as access, the unimproved roads/tracks from the 1904 topo that went around the Shinnecock Inn actually crossed his property behind the 9th green (see the second aerial below)  The yellow lines are the unimproved roads from the 1904 topo map.


In the past, you argued that there were no access roads for the trucks/wagons, so now you've changed your mind and you're now claiming that there were access roads ?  ?  ?
Funny how you contradict yourself depending upon the situation.

I don't put much faith in your overlay.

If anything it would counter everything that Mike is claiming, for if there were roads throughout the property, as you illustrate, the land must have been cleared for those roads, making access to the property quite easy.
Why have to ride horses when you had roads you could walk on ?

What's your next hair brained theory ?

In addition, why would CBM create a golf course that required the removal and relocation of roads, certainly an expensive task

But, I'm still waiting for that expert on NGLA, Rich Goodale, to tell us why the land where the clubhouse currently sits, is unfit for golf.




[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #833 on: May 28, 2015, 04:08:55 PM »
But David,

You've contended that Redfield held reversion rights to the extent that nothing other than a golf course (and it's clubhouse) could go there...in other words, they couldn't have done anything with it so why waste the energy of pointing out that they hadn't done anything with it?
That is not exactly what I have contended.  Regardless I was referring to the possibility that CBM may have clarified at an earlier date that the real estate hypothetical was just a "for instance" and was not really part of the deal.  I think the 1904 letter already implies this, and I think the Dec. 1906 letter to Stillman does too, but it is possible that CBM could have also clarified at some other point (explicitly or implicitly), such as when he was trying to buy 120 acres that couldn't have had any real estate component.

Quote
Let me ask you this hypothetical...The entire course was routed and planned on the same 165 of 205 acres purchased. Each large portion you've highlighted become attractive to two members. Could those two have offered to buy those plots from the Club or Founders and build homes on them? In other words, how extensive were the developers rights after selling them the land? Could he have stopped (or confiscated) a Yacht marina? How about if they put a shooting facility out in one of those open areas?

As for two members buying thirty-some acres of land from NGLA to build there estates, I think we've already covered this . . . There some latin maxim that essential says that you cannot sell or give away an interest which you do not yourself possess.  (I can't sell you Patrick's car.)   According to the developer, CBM only owned the property for the purpose of creating and operating a golf club.  In other words, the developer did not sell NGLA the right to use the land for building lots. Since, according to the developer, NGLA did not acquire the right to use the land for building lots, it could not sell or give away this right to your two members.

It is abstract concept when it comes to real estate because we generally to think of real estate ownership in terms of fee simple absolute where you can use or dispose of your land as you please, but this type of arrangement was a real thing (even though courts largely frown on these types of things today,  and such things have even been abolished by statute in some jurisdictions.)

As for your other hypotheticals, it would probably depend upon the wording of the actual limitation in the deal, and also on the proclivity of the jurisdiction and court.   If the "Yacht Basin" was on navigable waters, then I don't think ti would have been part of the original purchase.  If it was then CBM would probably argue that it was part of the golf club and no different than a parking lot for his rich friends.   As for a shooting facility, did one exist?  If so, then CBM would probably have argue that it too was just part of the golf club. I suppose developer could have try to take back the property based on such uses, but as I said the courts don't look on such arrangements too kindly, and I wouldn't guess they would get too far, especially because even with a shooting range and/or Yacht basin,  the developer would still be in a position to be made entirely whole if the golf club failed.  It is different in the real estate hypothetical, because in that hypothetical property is being deeded over to someone else, and the developer would be losing its right to retake the property if the golf club failed.  

Keep in mind that in all of this I am relying on what the developer said.  If he had it wrong then my position would obviously change.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:13:09 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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #834 on: May 28, 2015, 04:12:26 PM »
Bryan,

Per my earlier note, on March 4th 1906 while Macdonald was abroad gathering info on golf holes, HJ Whigham called the housing plan "ingenious".

How could the offer on the 120 acres near the Canal be in December of 1905??

Could it be that Chris Millard is misinterpreting CBM writing that he decided a few weeks after the Real Estate Company purchased the 3000 or so acres that he wanted land in the Shinnecock Hills as having made an offer at that time?

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:14:54 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #835 on: May 28, 2015, 04:15:25 PM »
Jeff Brauer,

Once I saw that you ignored my first point and that you haven't bothered to set the record straight regarding your outrageous and false accusations, I quit reading. I have no interest in discussing anything with you until you clear the air.

David,

I admit I got it wrong and I apologize.  Now you can answer the questions.  Thanks.

Mike,

I think that article sets CBM's return in June pretty well. At least until any other article comes out, then we can presume the process started in June, and also included looking at two other properties (although I am inclined to think maybe it was just Montauk and the third was the old offer.  That said, who knows who heard of the scheme and tried to get CBM to buy their land)  Even later, though, CBM said he had never seen the land at Montauk, so maybe that all remains a mystery and side note.

Do I read it as the land per founder was down to just one acre by March 1906? Its fuzzy.

Pat,

Your anonymous source was apparently right - it appears that odd little 2 Ac triangle did separate NGLA from what is now route 27. Hard to believe SHPB would allow a little parcel like that between the Inn and NGLA to sit unused, presuming NGLA eventually bought it from them, but stranger things have happened.  Also, I am not sure the exact route of that road had been set at that time and it may have changed over time, but not sure.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:20:31 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #836 on: May 28, 2015, 04:19:28 PM »
Mike

1. Why are you back on this real estate stuff when the developer told us that there was no real estate scheme?  

2.  I addressed your concerns about my chronology.  Are you going to answer my questions about your current position on clearing the property and staking out the rough boundary of the parcel?  

3,  As for this article, I'd like to see the "cable" on which the article was based.  I've read similar articles from the time period and they make me wonder about the byline on this one.  Not saying that Whigham didn't author an article or even this article, but I'd like to see the actual Whigham wrote (if he did) instead of a wire story in a Omaha paper from a London Paper cable.  
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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #837 on: May 28, 2015, 04:44:13 PM »
In early March 1906, CB Macdonald wrote Walter Travis from abroad and wrote the following article.   Note his mention that after he returns he’ll have a bunch of course and hole and then will confer with experts on both sides of the Atlantic and even vet this in the press as to the correct holes to select as Ideal.   News articles of the time also mentioned that Macdonald went abroad to study the holes again because his earlier ideas about which holes to reproduce needed revision due to the relatively recent introduction of the Haskell Ball.




Upon his return in June of 1906, he still hadn’t selected a site, or the exact holes, but has “draughtsmen now making exact diagrams of certain holes…” so it seems he is still working out his paper portfolio.




Three and a half months later on October 15th, 1906 an article is printed in the Boston Globe, reproduced in two parts below.   CBM had just returned a few months prior with surveyor's maps of the great holes abroad.   We know from the articles above that his intention was to continue conferring with experts here and abroad after his return with the golf course maps and photos in an effort to achieve some type of consensus as to which holes to reproduce.  

Here’s how I think the Boston Globe reporter, who got numerous things incorrect as you’ll see below, interpreted those interchanges;




Years later, in CBM's 1912 Letter to the Founders, he includes this portion;

"We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us."


No mention of them evaluating the Sebonac Neck property, or looking at topographical maps of Sebonac Neck CBM sent to them prior to his purchase.   I think the writer, who seems confused on a number of points as seen below (i.e. size of property, purchase vs offer, cost, etc.) also misunderstood that the maps in question were of famous holes abroad that were intended to be copied in whole and part on the new land in question.

You’ll notice that he talks about the ongoing correspondence between CBM and expert opinions here and abroad but then seems to interpret those drawings as being of the new property.   I don’t believe they were.  




Instead, the property he describes seems to be the entire Sebonac Neck region.   It should be mentioned that NONE of this information appeared in any of the New York City newspapers at that time and in fact, two weeks later on November 1st, 1906 New York papers mentioned CBM still considering multiple sites.  

I think what likely happened is that this was around the time (Fall 1906) when the Real Estate Developer, obviously wanting a golf course in the region near the proposed development but having previously rejected Macdonald’s offer near the canal in the heart of the proposed development had recently offered in concept that they’d be willing to sell land up on Sebonac Neck.  

I think this is roughly (Sept/Oct 1906) when CBM and Whigham took their first horseback rides on the property of Sebonac Neck.    

I’ve seen nothing to date to indicate it was any earlier.   Has anyone else?

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:49:04 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #838 on: May 28, 2015, 04:49:35 PM »
Jeff,

I appreciate the apology.

To respond you your posts in red above.  I think you are being unreasonably finicky about what you expect to me put in MY synopsis of CBM's chronology, and that you are trying to insert your spin into my chronology.

For example, regarding the October article, I wrote that "[CBM] and Whigham had been over the property and that Travis had been invited to consult."  You try to correct me by noting, "The article also notes that only Whigham has been on property, and others invited."  First, that is NOT what the article said.  It says what I wrote in MY SYNOPSIS only with different words.  So what are you complaining about?  I never said anyone else had been on the property other than CBM and Whigham!  And neither did the article!

The rest of your comments are just as nitpicky. You seem to want me to include your arguments and interpretations in my chronology.  

I told you guys I would make the one change and I will.  I'll also consider any other reasonable suggestions, but these don't seem reasonable. Rather than going through each one, I have an idea . . .

If my chronology doesn't work for you, make your own.  But don't use mine as a starting point. Do it yourself.  Surely, you will bring the same level of finickiness and demand for detail to your work as mine.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 04:56:03 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)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #839 on: May 28, 2015, 04:53:59 PM »
Mike, again without the proper citations to these articles?  Give us a break.  How many times do we have to ask for the actual dates and papers?  

(If you include the actual dates and papers you might be able to figure out why I think it matters.)
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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #840 on: May 28, 2015, 05:02:47 PM »
Mike

1. Why are you back on this real estate stuff when the developer told us that there was no real estate scheme?  

2.  I addressed your concerns about my chronology.  Are you going to answer my questions about your current position on clearing the property and staking out the rough boundary of the parcel?  

3,  As for this article, I'd like to see the "cable" on which the article was based.  I've read similar articles from the time period and they make me wonder about the byline on this one.  Not saying that Whigham didn't author an article or even this article, but I'd like to see the actual Whigham wrote (if he did) instead of a wire story in a Omaha paper from a London Paper cable.  

David,

1) For presumably the same reason that Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer, and Bryan Izatt are.   It's a real sticking point to date the offer on 120 acres near the canal to December 1905 yet still have Whigham, Macdonald, and Travis all still touting that original plan in spring of 1906.

Either the date of the first offer near the Canal is wrong, which I think you suspect as well, or the land plan was somehow back in play in the spring of 1906.  

2) I thought I did that previously and perhaps you missed it.   I think in December 1906 when CBM secured the 205 acres the property had not been surveyed, cleared, or staked.

Do you recall my post where I posited that because the 450 acres had never been sub-divided previously, I believe the agreement as signed by the developer and CBM in December 1906 was simply as general as possible, probably saying something like "200 acres running for two miles and 4 acres wide along the eastern portion of Sebonac Neck from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club northwest border out to the Peconic Bay", much like CBM described in the December 1906 articles.

After all, why survey and stake out the property if you only have to do it again later?

Why clear hundreds of acres of waist-high brambles and swamp if you're not sure you're going to own it?   Why go through that expense on uncertain properties?

CBM tells us he and Whigham rode around it a few times to check out landforms and soils and found a few places for some of their ideal holes.   They brought a few friends out that fall who agreed with them.  

Bingo, let's execute an option on the property.

The rest came after.

3) I have more articles from spring of 1906 indicating the real estate option was still in play.   I'd rather we stick to this discussion and leave the real estate piece tabled unless directly related to timetables as with the supposed 1905 date for the Canal offer, thanks.

Also, thanks for your timeline.   I've been busy and haven't had much chance to respond to any details but it does provide a framework for identifying where we agree and where we don't.

I would also appreciate you considering that those pages in "Scotland's Gift" are not an exact chronology and I'm not sure how you think I took any of it out of context or that my interpretation isn't a valid one because some others here also agree with my read of it.

"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #841 on: May 28, 2015, 05:08:51 PM »
Mike, again without the proper citations to these articles?  Give us a break.  How many times do we have to ask for the actual dates and papers?  

(If you include the actual dates and papers you might be able to figure out why I think it matters.)

David,

The two bottom articles are from the October 15, 1906 "Boston Globe", with part 2 first and the headline and intro following.

I found/copied the other two from a previous thread but will see what I can determine regarding their source(s).
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #842 on: May 28, 2015, 05:28:57 PM »
1) For presumably the same reason that Jim Sullivan, Jeff Brauer, and Bryan Izatt are.   It's a real sticking point to date the offer on 120 acres near the canal to December 1905 yet still have Whigham, Macdonald, and Travis all still touting that original plan in spring of 1906.

It is not a "sticking point" if the March articles are reciting old information, same as the December articles.  Notice that, except for the 1904 letter, none of your sources ever have CBM stating that the real estate component was still in place.   He certainly didn't mention it his letter to Travis, or his similar letter to Emmett.

Quote
Either the date of the first offer near the Canal is wrong, which I think you suspect as well, or the land plan was somehow back in play in the spring of 1906.
As for the date of the attempted Canal purchase, I'm not 100% confident we have that nailed down yet, but I think the best evidence we have thus far links it to the developer's purchase.  

But for the sake of argument, let's assume it was in June, after CBM returned.   Would you acknowledge, then, that by June the "real estate component" (if it ever existed) was dead?

Quote
2) I thought I did that previously and perhaps you missed it.   I think in December 1906 when CBM secured the 205 acres the property had not been surveyed, cleared, or staked.

That isn't what I asked.  What I asked was:
1. When do you think the property was cleared?  
2. When do you think they first staked out the borders, if even roughly?

Quote
After all, why survey and stake out the property if you only have to do it again later?
 Is this a serious question?  You don't think the two sides wanted some idea of the subject property before they agreed to a deal?  

Quote
Why clear hundreds of acres of waist-high brambles and swamp if you're not sure you're going to own it?   Why go through that expense on uncertain properties?

I never said they cleared it.  Your assumption that they needed to clear it to mark off the rough boundaries of the property is erroneous.

Quote
CBM tells us he and Whigham rode around it a few times to check out landforms and soils and found a few places for some of their ideal holes.   They brought a few friends out that fall who agreed with them.

Bingo, let's execute an option on the property.

Except that is not what CBM told us.

Quote
3) I have more articles from spring of 1906 indicating the real estate option was still in play.   I'd rather we stick to this discussion and leave the real estate piece tabled unless directly related to timetables as with the supposed 1905 date for the Canal offer, thanks.
All of which seem to be reciting old information.

Quote
Also, thanks for your timeline.   I've been busy and haven't had much chance to respond to any details but it does provide a framework for identifying where we agree and where we don't.

It is CBM's chronology, I just put in some dates. If you start changing the order of things you are arguing with him, not me.

Quote
I would also appreciate you considering that those pages in "Scotland's Gift" are not an exact chronology and I'm not sure how you think I took any of it out of context . . .
You took phrases out of context when you rearranged them in an order that no longer made sense.  For example when you moved the discussion of the Eden away from the section where it says CBM would be studying the contours to find places for his ideal holes.  

Quote
. . . or that my interpretation isn't a valid one because some others here also agree with my read of it.

I don't think I said it was not "valid."  I said it made no sense.   In my opinion it makes no sense to ignore the order in which CBM presented the material, and it makes no sense to split up portions that obviously go together.  See the example immediately above where you separate CBM's description of searching for the holes he had in mind from from the description of these very holes!

You just can't rearrange it to your liking. It has to make sense.  You have to look at in the context CBM presented it, and a large part of that is the order in which he portrayed the events as having happened.  
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 05:33:08 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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #843 on: May 28, 2015, 05:32:21 PM »
For what it's worth, while I'm still sourcing the article, this one from March 20th, 1906 mentions "Villas" as well.




Gotta run to dinner...will respond tomorrow
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #844 on: May 28, 2015, 05:38:38 PM »
To continue the timeline, by September 10, 1907, all the greens were built by the committee in charge.   We have since learned that most needed to be rebuilt later due to soil and agronomic issues.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle

« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 05:42:34 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #845 on: May 28, 2015, 05:46:24 PM »
Mike there is a difference between rebuilding and reseeding. 
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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #846 on: May 28, 2015, 05:49:28 PM »
Mike there is a difference between rebuilding and reseeding.  

David,

Agreed but once you have to plough it up and change the composition of the soil you're essentially rebuilding, no?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 05:53:04 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #847 on: May 28, 2015, 05:52:31 PM »
I have read that they reseeded.  I have not read that they rebuilt. If you want to make that case feel free but I don't think you should just assume.
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)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #848 on: May 28, 2015, 05:55:16 PM »
No assumption...Bahto ' s book.  No biggie...let's move on.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA
« Reply #849 on: May 28, 2015, 07:59:09 PM »
I'll take a look that section Bahto's book later.
_______________________________________________

I've re-read your post about the October 1916 Globe article. Your attempts to undermine key points in the article are more than a little stretched.  

For example, the article mentioned that maps with elevations had been created and sent to cbm's advisors overseas.   You would have us believe that this means that cbm was actually just sending maps of the overseas golf holes back to the overseas advisers. It's funny to think of cbm sending Jon Low maps and explanations of the Road Hole, but it is not very plausible. You also would have us believe that these advisers weren't really advising about the course but were rather just sending cbm photos and such, but you ignore that McDonald's 1912 letter also said that they were providing him with "suggestions." You can pretend that "suggestions" couldn't possibly include suggestions about the course, but I don't think that is very plausible interpretation.

The fact remains that this article indicates that maps were made of the golf course property and that these maps were sent to advisors overseas. You can disbelieve it if you choose, but your explanations for trying to rewrite the article to your choosing fall flat.

There is a pattern here. When evidence come up which contradicts your story, you try to change the evidence and stick with your story.  That is what you are doing here, and what you have tried to do with the cbm's chronology, and what you have tried to do with the developer's statement about the restriction on the property, and what you have tried to do elsewhere as well. It should be the other way around.  The story should follow the evidence.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 08:01:46 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)