[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick seems intent in holding onto his belief (aka idealistic fantasy ) that CBM and Whigham routed NGLA in 2 days on horseback (because the ground was so overgrown as to be impenetrable on foot) and snap, bam, boom, 205 acres were purchased and a classic was born! 


Mike,

I don't know why you're so surprised, why you're in such disbelief.

Donald Ross routed hundreds of courses and designed the individual holes for those courses with just a one day visit.

[MCirba]

Pat,

Ross's routing of courses was not based on riding overgrown, un-walkable property that had never been surveyed via horseback.   

Why do you think CBM was so insistent on developing scale models of the property to guide the subsequent work of laying out and constructing the golf holes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Ross's routing of courses was not based on riding overgrown, un-walkable property that had never been surveyed via horseback.   

How do you know what the conditions were on those sites ?

You tend to jump to conclusions, absent the facts, to justify your position 

Why do you think CBM was so insistent on developing scale models of the property to guide the subsequent work of laying out and constructing the golf holes?

Because he was a detail guy, or had you forgotten about the myriad of drawings of golf holes and features that he created and collected in his visits to the UK ?

If Ross could visit a site for a day, go home and subsequently send in the routing and hole designs, I think CBM and HJW could do the same give that they spent at least twice the time on site that Ross did.

These were talented men with vision.

[Sebonac]

One thing I find interesting on the scorecard map is the 12th tee is to the left of the 11th green on there.  That is a great angle for the shot.  And it makes sense the you have the traps on the seventh fairway as a way of trying to limit players from running it up that way.

[MCirba]

Pat,

My understanding is that Ross would do his designs on Topographical maps.

CBM tells us that at the time he rode the property with Whigham the Sebonac site had never been surveyed and was so overgrown with brambles and bushes and swampland as to un-navigable, except on horseback.   

We did later learn here that CBM was incorrect in his understanding that the land had never been surveyed prior; someone (Bryan Izatt, perhaps?) produced a topo map of the area from earlier, but if memory serves they were 10 foot increments, which probably wasn't sufficient for the type of detail CBM needed for golf construction.

[DMoriarty]

These threads are like the movie Groundhog Day.  We go over the same ridiculous theories over and over and over again.  The difference is that, in Groundhog Day, the Bill Murray character actually learns something from the experience, whereas our Mike Cirba character never seems to learn a damn thing.  He parades out the same theories again and agan, they are shot down by facts, he goes away for a while but comes out again and parades out the same exact theories, they are shot down by facts, he goes away for a while but comes out again . . .  you get the picture.

Mike's "2 days on horseback" theory.   Mike wants to argue that CBM and Whigham had little idea where they were going to put the course in December of 1906, and that they were planning on 90 acres of residential lots, so he pretends that up to that point, CBM had only seen the property for two days on horseback.   This is ludicrous.   By mid-December 1906, CBM and HJW had been focusing on this property for months, and not only had they been over the property repeatedly and studied the property earnestly, but Travis and others had already been over the property as well, and many of the features had already been described and hole locations discussed.  

Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order, but of course Mike cherry picks out one phrase and pretends like this is all that happened.  Here again is what happened, according to CBM:

1.  There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2.  CBM and HJW spent two or three days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3.  The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4.  CBM and HJW (and others) earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5.  After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the exact final boundaries to be determined later.  
6.  At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a relief map may have been created (one was created, but I am not sure of the date.)
7.  At that point the purchase was finalized and construction began.

I am not making this stuff up.  It is directly out of Scotland's Gift (p. 187) and confirmed in various articles from late 1906 and 1907.

Here is what Max Behr said about the creation NGLA:

The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape.  Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

First they found the course, then they tailored the purchase around the course they had found. (And they left no room for 90 acres of lots!)
_____________________________________________________________

Mike,  Before we cycle back to your next unsupportable theory about NGLA, we have some unfinished business regarding last week's unsupportable conjecture:

1.  You've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired."  Can you produce any of these quotations?

2.  You claim that as of December 1906, CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential lots on the NGLA property described in the articles. How were  these 90 acres of lots going to fit on this property with the golf course, given the aspects of the golf course that CBM had already described?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

My understanding is that Ross would do his designs on Topographical maps.

Mike,

Is it your position that Donald Ross never routed a golf course based upon an onsite visit ?

Previously, you told us that the raw sites that he visited were benign in nature.

CBM tells us that at the time he rode the property with Whigham the Sebonac site had never been surveyed and was so overgrown with brambles and bushes and swampland as to un-navigable, except on horseback.   

We did later learn here that CBM was incorrect in his understanding that the land had never been surveyed prior; someone (Bryan Izatt, perhaps?) produced a topo map of the area from earlier, but if memory serves they were 10 foot increments, which probably wasn't sufficient for the type of detail CBM needed for golf construction.

[MCirba]

Of course not, Patrick, but neither does a man route an Ideal golf course that is his life's ambition and culmination of years of planning and research in 2 days on horseback without benefit of all the tools, human and otherwise, that would eventually be at his disposal.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, As you ought to know by now, it wasn't two days.  Why do you keep saying that it was?  

Are you going to answer my questions?  

[MCirba]

David,

Yes, I will by tomorrow, but I would ask that you frame them perhaps more politely next time.  

I would prefer to take some time to craft my answers in a way that hopefully outlines our respective differences and interpretations of events in a more concise, clearer way than time permitted today.   Thanks.

As far as days on horseback, I only am responding to Patrick's contention that they were able to accomplish that Herculean feat in that meager time frame.   I agree with you that by December 1906 when they secured 200 acres that they had already been out there several more times and brought friends.   In fact, CBM tells us that in the December article.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Of course not, Patrick, but neither does a man route an Ideal golf course that is his life's ambition and culmination of years of planning and research in 2 days on horseback without benefit of all the tools, human and otherwise, that would eventually be at his disposal.

Mike,

I think that CBM indicated that it was two or THREE days.

Given that the entire property under consideration was limited to 405 acres and that template holes such as the Eden, Cape, Redan and Alps revealed themselves so readily, with the other holes becoming apparent soon after, I don't doubt that CBM and HJW could have routed the course in short order.

But, I think David and I understand your penchant to deny that CBM and HJW routed NGLA in short order.

For if they did, it undermines your claim that they couldn't have routed Merion in short order.

You've fought that premise for years, hence you have to deny CBM's and HJW's ability to see land and route a course in short order.

Never mind that Donald Ross did so frequently, your entire argument regarding CBM and HJW at NGLA is just a smoke screen to deflect your real fear that CBM routed and designed Merion.

I feel your pain

Now if I could just locate those phone records.

[MCirba]

Patrick

No need to be antagonistic.  

In theory, CBM and Whigham could have done some type of routing in Ardmore in a single day visit in June 1910 but they tended to have more respect for the game and their friends than that.   That's not how they operated and it's certainly not how they routed NGLA either.   In fact, we know exactly what they did that day in Ardmore because we have the letter CBM wrote to the club subsequent to his visit and I trust we don't need to re-publish that one here for the zillionth time.

However, the property in Ardmore, being mostly former farmland and pastureland would have been far easier and far more navigable than what they encountered in Sebonac Neck.   There the land had never been cleared, was covered in brambles, swamp, and overgrowth, and could only be navigated on horseback.   Your reading of CBM's summary in "Scotland's Gift" is flawed and you seem unable and unwilling to digest the additional contemporaneous information reported at the time in news articles.   That's ok, I understand and at one time I also believed in Santa Claus despite all evidence to the contrary.  

So yes, they could have routed a course in Ardmore in a single day.  So could you or I.   But why would we?   Why would they?

Instead, the historical record and that club's archives, contemporaneous news articles, and remembrances of those who were there like Hugh and Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and Richard Francis tell the whole story about the creation of that course over most of the next year of planning and routing and then construction.  

No need to rebut because I think we've all exhausted that tired subject.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

I really wish the two of you would refrain from discussing Merion, especially if you are going to throw out nonsense about  CBM and HJW having  only been involved in the planning process for a day. You both know that's complete bullshit.

[MCirba]

David,

I'm sitting here crafting a response to your questions and couldn't help but see your latest post.   I really do wish you'd stop mis-staing my position and I'd ask you to point out where I wrote that CBM was only involved in the planning process for a single day?  

In fact, as I re-read your personal attacks in the insulting post above from yesterday I question my own sanity in trying to dialogue with you David, because respectfully, you've been unnecessarily argumentative and pointlessly aggressive since my return.   In fact, most folks whose opinions I respect tell me to just continue ignoring you and see your posts as ad hominen, as well as rephrasing inaccurately what I previously wrote to counter in a specious manner against straw men of your own creation.

That being said, I'm hopeful that such continued animosity is really not necessary here and if it continues, I'll just continue to ignore your posts.  

I had wanted to write something a bit more expansive because truth be told, our respective positions on the creation of NGLA based on what you wrote yesterday are truthfully not too far apart, and honestly, we're much closer in agreement than either of us seem to be with Patrick's take on events.   No matter.   Instead, I'll just simply answer your questions and if we can have a civil discussion I'd appreciate that and if not, please don't ask me anything further expecting me to answer.

Here are your questions again;

1.  You've repeatedly claimed that in December 1906, CBM was "quoted as saying that there is room for houses on the property he acquired."  Can you produce any of these quotations?

2.  You claim that as of December 1906, CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential lots on the NGLA property described in the articles. How were  these 90 acres of lots going to fit on this property with the golf course, given the aspects of the golf course that CBM had already described?  


To answer #1, I'll refer again to the December 15, 1906 article segment I previously posted.   Macdonald talks extensively about the attributes of the property selected and is quoted, "There are sites available for houses, and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."   For reference, I'll post it here again below.

In answer to #2, I didn't claim that CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential on the NGLA property by December of 1915.   What I did say is that it seemed his plan to share that 200 acres in some combination of golf course and housing lots for the Founders still seemed alive at that point.   I say that because I seriously doubt that multiple New York newspapers in separate stories would all somehow be in possession of the 1904 letter he sent to prospective Founders if it still wasn't part of the December 1906 press release.   At that juncture Macdonald may have already been questioning exactly how much would be still available, or where it might be located, but he also made clear that laying out the course and staking out of the property would occur over the next several months so I assume there'd be time to figure that out.

Further, even your quote from Max Behr speaks to Macdonald's intent when he wrote, "Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes.

Finally, as I noted earlier, Macdonald again refers to the "Surplus Land" originally proposed for housing in 1904 again in his follow-up letter of 1912 to the membership stating that no determination had yet been made as to how to use the land.  

Somewhere along the line his plans for housing on the property changed, but I don't believe it was by December of 1906.   If you have additional contemporaneous materials indicating when that may have happened I'd be happy to change my view if proven incorrect.   Thanks.




    

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  

1.  You must realize that you've taken that quote out of context.  CBM wasn't addressing housing options on his parcel, he was addressing housing options adjacent to NGLA  As you well know, CBM bought the land from a developer and that developer was in the process of launching a huge development adjacent to NGLA! Here is the quote again, in context: "We are not going into the hash and bed business.  A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of the first tee by outside interests.  There are sites available for houses and Yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."

2.  In fact you did claim that CBM was planning to fit 90 acres residential on the NGLA property.  I provided you an article which directly lifted the "suggestion" from the 1904 Agreement about giving each founder a 1.5AC lot, and your response was, "All this really tells us is that nothing at all had changed from CBM's original plan to purchase 200 or so acres of which he estimated needing about 110 acres for golf and the rest for housing lots available to the Founders."   So, you claimed that as of December 15, 1906, CBM was planning on splitting approximately 90-95 acres between the 60 founders.  (This is the kind of disingenuous use of the source material that makes these conversations frustrating.  You just said this a few posts ago because it suited your purposes then, but you deny it now because you've apparently realized the absurdity of your position.)

3.  You seriously doubt that these newspapers had the 1904 agreement?  Look at the articles!  Look at the Sun article, directly above, which tracks the 1904 agreement from "The sixty founders . . . " all the way through the end of the article!  Or better yet, look at the NY Tribune article of the same day.  It even more obviously tracks the 1904 Agreement, and was the basis of the Wichita article. (It also goes on to paraphrase CBM's Outing Magazine article.) CBM sent out a copy of the 1904 Agreement with the "notice"  that the funds were now due.   There is no justification to "seriously doubt" this.

4.  Your argument regarding the mentions of surplus land seems backward to me.   Both the 1912 letter and Behr mention that there was surplus land which we know was not used for housing.  From this you conclude that this surplus land must have been for housing.  This make no sense.  If the surplus land was for housing, then where is the housing?

5.  You ask for evidence that CBM had dropped the notion of including a housing component before 1912.  Okay.  
     -  At some time prior to securing the NGLA property, CBM had offered the same land company $200/AC for approximately 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal. Unless you think he was going to build a 30AC golf course, he had already dropped the housing component from his plans.
     -  The other proof is that there is obviously no place for the type of housing project described in the 1904 Agreement on the property at NGLA.

6. Above you offered to post the other 1906 articles where CBM supposedly is quoted as saying there was a housing project on this land. I don't think any such articles exist, but would love to see them if they do.  In particular, why don't you post the Dec. 15, 1906 NY Tribune article.  It is quite obvious that the source is the 1904 Agreement.

Bottom line is that the 1906 articles confused the "suggestion" in the 1904 Agreement with CBM's immediate plans for NGLA.  Same as you. Isn't it about time you accepted this and moved on?

 

[DMoriarty]

I believe the following is the December 15, 1906 NY Tribune posted (but not cited) by Mike in one of the previous iterations of this thread.


Note that, starting with the phrase "Golfer conversant with . . . " and continuing for three paragraphs, the article is directly relying on the 1904 Agreement.   The Tribune article is a longer and more detailed version than the Wichita article which even Mike admitted seems to have been "taken directly from the wording of CBM's solicitation letter to the Founders that he originally distributed in 1904."

Or look at the Sun article, posted by Mike above.  The last three paragraphs are not part of the extended quote, but are rather a direct paraphrase of the same 1904 Agreement.

These two papers published the same basic information from the 1904 agreement on the same day, yet Mike has "serious doubts" that the information came from the same source?  His position is unreasonable, to put it kindly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I really wish the two of you would refrain from discussing Merion, especially if you are going to throw out nonsense about  CBM and HJW having  only been involved in the planning process for a day. You both know that's complete bullshit.

David,

For a smart guy you're sure missing Mike's motivation for promoting his revisionist history.

It's a defensive ploy meant to dispel, denigrate and dismiss CBM's and HJW's involvement with the design of Merion.

Mike knows that the myriad of early newspaper articles he produces were often the repetition of a single, earlier article.
His "mimeograph" technique should be obvious to all, especially since he's used this ploy on numerous occasions.

Yet, Mike uses the "number" of articles as proof positive to those unaware of journalism at the turn of the century.

Mike thinks that repeating incorrect information will somehow cleanse the erroneous information and have it accepted as the Gospel.

Your process of exposing every erroneous article he presents, as flawed, doesn't stop him from just citing an additional article based on the same erroneous information.

Please tell us that you recognize his long standing pattern of disseminating erroneous information in order to further his agenda.

Your citation of facts that are contrary to Mike's position hasn't deterred him yet, so do you really think he's going to abandon his true objective ?   

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I'm not posting to convince Mike, I am posting to keep the record straight, and so that others have a better understanding of what actually happened.

[MCirba]

Patrick,

You're sounding rather desperate and lacking any factual information other than what CBM wrote in summary 20 years after the fact.   Bluff and bluster and trying to impugn my motivation in exploring the creation of NGLA doesn't convince anyone.  Try doing some actual research my friend and you may be surprised at what you learn. 

David,

Busy day here today but I'll try to address some of your points later, thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,
While I agree that it is best not to dwell on motivations, I do sympathize with Patrick here.  We've discussed these same issues at least a half-dozen times over the years, and each time you come back to them it is starting anew.  You rely on language in the 1906 articles which clearly came from the 1904 Agreement, and you apply it to NGLA.  You claim that CBM was quoted as saying things in 1906 and 1912 that he wasn't quoted as saying.  You hang on to and recycle pet theories that have long been refuted.   To put it mildly, it is a frustrating process.  

If you don't believe we are recycling, go back and look at the old threads.  While trying to find a copy of an old article yesterday I came across these from 6 years ago:

. . .
What I am contending, however, is that the record shows that Macdonald purchased 205 acres BEFORE routing the golf course.

He/They also anticpated only needing about 110 acres for the golf course and planned to use the rest to sell lots to members/investors.
. . .

And from the same post on the same real estate scheme . . .

For instance, we now know that when Macdonald "optioned" the 200 acres he did so with the idea that some large portion of it would be used for subscriber real estate lots.  

In other words, in December 1906 he committed to buy considerably more land than he thought he needed for the golf course, which at first he  figured would be about 110 acres, leaving another 100 for real estate.

I also understand why Patrick links this to Merion, as your exploration about NGLA has generally been about trying to make some obscure point about Merion.  In fact, the same thread I quoted from above contains a number of your digressions about Merion, including this gem about H.J. Whigham:

David,

Was that Hyperbolic HJ Whigham who also stated that he and Macdonald found everything they needed in terms of holes at NGLA during a single horseback ride when the documented contenporaneous evidence is wildly different, who told us that Merion was a MacRaynor course in 1938 after everyone was dead and buried when the contemporaneous documented evidence wildly differs?
. . .

Talk about "hyperbolic!"  And these are pretty mild examples by your standards.  Remember how you used it argue that in 1910 CBM was relatively unknown as golf course architect and was only known for his golfing prowess? . . .
[I had a long list of examples here, but decided to strike them.  I don't want to give you any ideas as to what to recycle next.]

You've been doing this for years.  How could we not be frustrated?

As to whether you address my points, I don't care if you do or you don't.  But if you do, I would hope that you can at least acknowledge that the language about the acreage for housing in the Sun article and the Tribune comes directly from the 1904 Agreement.  Once you acknowledge that to yourself, everything else ought to fall into place.

[MCirba]

Of all of the New York daily newspapers, those who do this type of historic research would likely agree that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle provided the most extensive, knowledgeable, and well-connected golf coverage of any of them.  

In that regard, the following Eagle article from December 16, 1906 announcing the plans for NGLA discusses both the issues of clubhouse as well as sites for cabins for the founding members along the perimeters which was termed at that juncture, "likely".  

I very much doubt that this was someone at the Eagle just mistakenly referring  back to the original 1904 letter to prospective Founding members.   I trust those with open minds will interpret events correctly.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

First, the article says nothing about "cabins."  Just like the other articles, and JUST LIKE THE "SUGGESTION" 1904 AGREEMENT, it contemplates divvying up the excess land between the founders, but notes (AS DID THE 1904 AGREEMENT) that this was not yet settled.  This article provides essentially the same information as the Sun and the Tribune had provided the day before.

Second, I would NOT agree in this instance that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle had the best information.  The Tribune and Sun articles were from THE DAY BEFORE, and the material about the purchase in this article could have been derived directly from those articles.   Further, the Sun article had quotes from CBM directly (from his "Notice" to the subscribers) and the Tribune article had quotes directly from HJ Whigham.   While the BDE is trying to safe face by claiming they knew about it all along, it is obvious the other two papers had the jump on the Eagle in this story, and that the Eagle was playing catch-up with the same exact information.  

It is like a big game of telephone.
1) CBM sends out a Notice and includes the 1904 Agreement
2) On December 15 The Sun and Tribune both repeat information from the 1904 Agreement, and erroneously assume that the "suggestion" in the 1904 Agreement described what CBM was going to do at NGLA.
3) The next day the Eagle plays catch up, and repackages and repeats the same information reported the day before by the Sun and the Tribune (either from the info CBM provided the subscribers, or by cribbing the other articles.)
4) Ninety years later you repeat their error.  

[MCirba]

The day prior, December 15th 1906, the New York Sun reported the long quotation by Macdonald talking about the land he had secured and his plans as they stood at that juncture that I posted previously.

For completeness, here's the entire article. 

[DMoriarty]

The last two paragraphs of the Sun article (everything after the long CBM quote) are directly paraphrasing the 1904 Agreement.  In fact all three articles are directly paraphrasing the 1904 Agreement.  The Tribune article is most detailed, the Eagle the least, but they all track the 1904 Agreement, even in the order they cover the issues from that Agreement.

Mike,

You've admitted that the language in the Tribune article (which is the same as the Wichita article) came directly from the 1904 Agreement.

Are you really contending that the same information in the other two articles must have necessarily come from somewhere else?

Because that would be silly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're sounding rather desperate and lacking any factual information other than what CBM wrote in summary 20 years after the fact.   
Bluff and bluster and trying to impugn my motivation in exploring the creation of NGLA doesn't convince anyone.  Try doing some actual research my friend and you may be surprised at what you learn. 

Mike,

Was the above paragraph "ghost written" for you, because it has a familiar refrain.😜

To the contrary, those who closely followed your repeated attempts to rewrite how NGLA was created are well aware of your motivation.
No secret there.

David,

Busy day here today but I'll try to address some of your points later, thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()