Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[JC Jones]

David Moriarty,

I've followed along intently and have learned some interesting stuff.  I was wondering if you could list for me the new discoveries we've learned in this thread that we didn't already know from Scotland's Gift?

[Patrick_Mucci]

J.C.,

If you've followed along, "intently" why would you want David Moriarty to create the list for you ?

Having followed along "intently" you'd probably be well suited to craft the list.

Why burden David with that task ?

[JC Jones]

Pat,

1.  Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?

2.  Because, his point all along is that between Scotland's Gift and previous threads this thread is not warranted.  So, it's best to get the answer from the person who would be the least likely to exaggerate.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

1.  Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?

That's not really fair to my friend Patrick.  I have met him, and he has a tooth.

As for your question, I'll think about it, but we all come into these conversations from different places, and we probably all learn something different.  For the group, I think that the Stillman letter was new, and some information about the negotiations between the developer and CBM was new.  And these things were very interesting.

As for me, I've learned a few things in my research that I didn't know or wasn't sure about, it it not stuff that has really been discussed here.  Plus I've learned about the developer's attempt to make the sale conditional.   Oh . . . and I learned that dump trucks existed in 1908.

While I am sure there is more, I am more concerned with figuring out a few more things than going back over what we may or may not have learned. But as I said, I'll think about it.

One thing that always amazes me about Scotland's gift is how well it stands up to intense scrutiny.  Even its supposed mistakes aren't always mistakes.       

[MCirba]

JC,

Great question and I think most reading along here will have learned quite a bit...I know I have.

Of course, anyone's answer would be individualized by how much they knew prior and more importantly, how open they are to new information or revising previous beliefs.

Generally those who spend a lot if time shouting down others, insulting them, and impugning their motives learn the least I often find. 

[MCirba]

Mike, this is what I really object to with respect to your posts.
The above paragraph is incredibly disingenuous.
CBM could NOT build NGLA on 120 acres.
To posit that he did so at another course, ergo he could do so at NGLA is so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest .
His motives and design at NGLA required far more than 120 acres and you know it.

Donald Ross could build courses on 100 acres, does that mean that Mountain Ridge was intended to have homes on the 150 acres not used for a 100 acre course.

There's an intellectual dishonesty, an intentional intellectual dishonesty, when you present your position couched in the terms above.

Please stop stretching the truth to reach your goal.

Thanks

Patrick,

Whenever the facts conflict with your beliefs and you get in a bind during these discussions that you somehow invariably turn into fierce debates you have this bad habit of impugning the motives of those bringing those facts to our attention.   You should really stop it as it's non-productive and insulting...thanks for your consideration.

Charles Blair Macdonald himself told us that he wanted 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal so he must have believed he could build his ideal course on 120 acres at that site.

He later told others like the folks in Ardmore that they could create courses on around 120 acres and built one at Lido.

As far as separating his inbound and outbound holes with non-golf features please consider Piping Rock.

If you want to have a productive discussion perhaps you could tell us what was different between the Shinnecock Canal site and the Sebonac Neck site that he would require only 120 acres for his course at the first and about 162 (purchasing over 200) at the second?   Certainly looking at topographical maps doesn't provide much in the way of distinctions between the two sites.

Hint...I think it was because he was bound to start and end his course at Sebonac Neck at the Shinnecock Inn, 2 miles away from the Peconic Bay where he wanted to go, and plus, he had that pesky agreement with the Founders about providing building lots.  

[MCirba]

All,

It's interesting that Patrick refers to "Scotland's Gift" as "The Bible", because although I agree with David that it's a remarkably accurate recollection of events over 20 years after the fact, it's much like the other Bible in that it's open to interpretation, particularly in relation to events around the creation of National Golf Links of America.

I thought it might be a revealing exercise to ask folks to interpret the two pages in question, taking each event described and telling us if they feel the event happened A) Before the land was secured in late 1906, B) During the Pre-Construction Planning phase from Dec 06 to May 07, C) During Construction and Grow-In, or D) After the course was built and opened.

Here again are the two pages in question;





I'll take a shot and welcome others to do the same;

First, I think the first section from the offer on the 120 acres near the canal through the description of the Sebonac Neck property as well as the 2 or 3 horseback rides as well as deciding it was what they wanted if they could get it reasonably is obviously A, prior to securing the land.

Second, I think the company agreeing to sell 205 acres and permitting them to locate it as best suited their purposes is what took place in Nov/Dec 1906, as it's almost exactly what was reported in the press the weekend after the deal was signed on December 14, 1906.   I think they spent the next several months as Macdonald was quoted in Dec 06,  "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."   So A, running through B.

In the next sentence CBM starts with "Again we studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes we wanted, after which we staked out the land we wanted."

I think this section perfectly describes what Macdonald described as the B phase, with that work taking place between December 06 when he secured the land to May 07 when boundaries were determined and construction began.

Here again in Macdonald's words, as quoted in December 1906.

"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long.   The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to use in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."

Next, Macdonald tells us about finding landforms for the Alps, and redan, and Eden and Cape.   He further describes the general characteristics of the land they selected.   I believe this has to be A, prior to securing the land, as the news reports in Dec 06 have him describing the exact same thing.   Further, I find it impossible to believe that two trained eyes like Macdonald and Whigham wouldn't have seen that long, broad rise of the Alps hole during their first two or three horseback trips around the property.

"We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long...Bullshead bay will be skirted for about a mile and at the end of the point there is an opportunity to reproduce the famous short hole at St. Andrews.   But there are other opportunities as delightful - for instance, to duplicate the Redan hole at North Berwick.   When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick!"

Then Macdonald tells us when they secured an option on the land and when that land went to final sale, which we've since learned was June of 1907, so this is all B timeframe, as well.   Next he refers to commencing development and having to bring in soil in places which is all clearly during C, or construction.

Then he tells us about the lack of funds for a clubhouse and the need to use the Shinnecock Inn for the purpose, and notice how he says because of that fact, "our intention was to have the first hole close to the Shinnecock Inn."   He did not design the golf course and then the Shinnecock Inn just subsequently happened to be built there.   He designed the golf course with the starting and ending points near the Shinnecock Inn because that's where he had to for convenience to that building.   This all happened during C, as did the subsequent fire that burned the Shiinnecock Inn to the ground.

Next, Macdonald goes back to discussing the design phase, or actually, to trying to find landforms for the replica holes he wanted which I believe takes us back to A, back to before the land was secured when he writes that his first steps were about locating the Alps, the landform for the redan, the Eden, and Cape.   Of course, he could theoretically be talking about "place(ing) those holes on the ground during construction, but that seems unlikely.   I think he was telling us that those were the first holes he wanted to place, or fit, into any routing

Thanks, and I welcome others to do this exercise and similarly explain their rationale.   It might go a long way towards illuminating where we agree and where we don't and help others understand our opinions, as well.   Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

JC,

Great question and I think most reading along here will have learned quite a bit...I know I have.

Of course, anyone's answer would be individualized by how much they knew prior and more importantly, how open they are to new information or revising previous beliefs.

Generally those who spend a lot if time shouting down others, insulting them, and impugning their motives learn the least I often find.  

Mike,  I don't think JC asked the question as a setup for you to take passive-aggressive swipes at unnamed others.  At the very least, if you are going to take petty pot shots, have the backbone to do it by name, Mike.

If you've really "learned quite a bit" I'd be curious as to just what it is you've learned?  Because it seems like you are still spinning the same basic story as at the beginning of the thread, and in all the other similar threads.  In the one area where we have potential to make real progress, you decided to "table" the discussion rather than acknowledge that you have had it wrong for all these years.  We all know by now that when you "table" an issue it just means don't like where the conversation is heading, and that you will circle back and start at the beginning yet again next time it suits you. And lo and behold you seem to be back to square one with the "pesky" issue of providing building lots for the founders.  

To put it bluntly, it doesn't seem like you have learned anything.   But maybe I am wrong.  Am I?

[MCirba]

David,

If you feel among those who spend time shouting others down, insulting them, and impugning their motives it certainly wasn't me calling you on that.  

If you haven't learned much on this thread then I'm not sure why you continue to participate daily on page 30 or whatever we're on these days?

If you feel we were making progress on the issue of the building lots, then why did you keep asking me why I was persisting in talking about it, using words like "idiotic".  

Sensing your growing ire, I threw up my hands and said, ok...you and I aren't going to agree with each other and we both seem to have others who don't agree with our respective positions, let's table it until we get more evidence.   No point continuing to bang and butt heads with each other pointlessly.

I suggested that it would be great if someone was able to find the agreements to secure the land and the subsequent purchase agreement.   I'm hopeful that someone will be motivated to do that and know some folks already hoping to find the metes and bounds.

I'll be happy to share what I learned if you'd like for me to elaborate, but much of what I learned were suspicions I confirmed as to the timetable of events, as described in my post above re: "Scotland's Gift".   Others, like the housing component getting dropped, I'm still open to revision as evidence warrants.

Thanks.

[Rich Goodale]

a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?

Given that CBM had the luxury of carving out almost any parcel of land that occupies the current NGLA/Sebonack site, why did he select that particular configuration ?

The location of the Shinnecock Inn might have had some influence, but the clear out and back linear routing would seem to indicate that CBM's attempt at replication extended beyond the individual hole designs.

To get back to the original question....

1.  If CBM was to replicate the experience of the links courses he had seen and studied in the UK, he HAD TO start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn.  There was no template in the UK in those days that had a course starting and finishing from nowhere (e.g. the 2.5 acre "doughnut" out at the end of the course.  All of them started and finished in "town," where beds and food and drink and transport was available.

2.  The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick.  He was not that stupid.

3.  Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.

End of story.

[DMoriarty]

David,

If you feel among those who spend time shouting others down, insulting them, and impugning their motives it certainly wasn't me calling you on that.

I know I am not "among those who" [insert insult here], but who the hell knows for sure what you mean to imply when you don't say. Therein lies the problem with these bullshit passive-aggressive pot shots at ambiguous targets.  They are craven by design, in that they do not give those being insulted and attacked a chance to address the accusation.

For example, I could say that "some people" are cowards who like to toss out insults but don't want any consequences. But it is much more honest and unambiguous if I just call you out by name.

If you want insult Patrick do it directly. If you want to insult me, do it directly. Quit feigning civility then tossing insults without naming names. Or better yet, quit with the passive-aggressive and pointless shots all together.

If you haven't learned much on this thread then I'm not sure why you continue to participate daily on page 30 or whatever we're on these days?

Gee what a surprise.  Another passive-aggressive shot.

Learn to read, Mike.  I never said I haven't learned anything. I said you don't seem to have learned anything and I asked you to correct me I am wrong by telling me what you have learned.

If you feel we were making progress on the issue of the building lots, then why did you keep asking me why I was persisting in talking about it, using words like "idiotic".

 

I use words like "idiotic" because you suggest that CBM was planning on using the space between the golf holes at NGLA for building lots.  That is idiotic.  

I asked why you were persisting in clinging to a position that by now even you must know is most probably wrong.

Sensing your growing ire, I threw up my hands and said, ok...you and I aren't going to agree with each other and we both seem to have others who don't agree with our respective positions, let's table it until we get more evidence.   No point continuing to bang and butt heads with each other pointlessly.

It wouldn't be pointless if you acknowledged and followed the facts. The developer told us that the land would revert to the development if it was used for anything other than a golf course. This means there was no real estate component.  Yet you still insist that there was a real estate component.    

[DMoriarty]

In Chapter X (History of National Golf Links of America) in Scotland's Gift, CBM provided a fairly detailed chronological account of the early history of the course.   Mike doesn't want to believe the version as told by CBM so he made up his own by snipping up sentences and rearranging them, losing the context in which they were written.  The results are nonsensical.  

For example, CBM told us that he earnestly studied the contours and "select[ed] those that would fit naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind."  Then in the next sentence CBM described finding some of the classical holes he had in mind; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.

But in Mike's chronology, these two things have nothing do with each other. Selecting contours to fit with the classical holes had nothing to do with finding the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.  Mike's version makes no sense.  
_________________________________________________________________

Mike encourages others to come up with their own chronology.  Why would we?  CBM already gives us his chronology, and his chronology is corroborated by the sources.  Why would we substitute our wishful thinking for his chronology?

Adding dates and corroborating sources to CBM's chronology might be a useful exercise, and I'll try to put something together, but I can see no good reason to change the order of what CBM told us to fit with whatever our pet theories might be.

[MCirba]

David,

If you want me to match you insult for insult that's a road I choose not to go down, sorry.   I'm not sure why you persist in your anger but your posts to me seethe bitterness, but that's your issue, not mine.

Personally, I'd prefer not to discuss things with you at all.   You pretend you're right and pretend that everyone knows you're right but I think you know deep down very differently which is why you spend so much time doing "Rec Room Research" just to argue on this site.

Patrick is a big boy and I have called him out on things.   I think his insulting style is humorous to a point but becomes counter-productive and threads lose all cohesiveness in a flurry of green ink.

You've been itching for a fight ever since I returned to GCA but sorry David, take your anger elsewhere because I'm not biting.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

At least when Patrick calls someone a moron he isn't afraid to name names.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Back to your chronology.  It makes no sense.  

CBM told us that he earnestly studied the contours and "select[ed] those that would fit naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind."  Then in the next sentence CBM described finding some of the classical holes he had in mind; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.

But in your chronology, these two things have nothing do with each other. Selecting contours to fit with the classical holes had nothing to do with finding the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape.  It makes no sense.  

Take the Cape hole, for example.  How did CBM find the hole and know that constructing it was feasible if he had not yet earnestly studied the contours and chosen the ones he had in mind?

[DMoriarty]

whoops.

[JESII]

?

You didn't have anything incriminating in that post...

[DMoriarty]

I inadvertently posted before it was ready. I will finish the post later.

[JESII]

Thought maybe I missed something that you agreed with Mike on...

[Patrick_Mucci]

a concession to the links courses he had studied in the UK ?

Given that CBM had the luxury of carving out almost any parcel of land that occupies the current NGLA/Sebonack site, why did he select that particular configuration ?

The location of the Shinnecock Inn might have had some influence, but the clear out and back linear routing would seem to indicate that CBM's attempt at replication extended beyond the individual hole designs.

To get back to the original question....

1.  If CBM was to replicate the experience of the links courses he had seen and studied in the UK, he HAD TO start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn.  There was no template in the UK in those days that had a course starting and finishing from nowhere (e.g. the 2.5 acre "doughnut" out at the end of the course.  All of them started and finished in "town," where beds and food and drink and transport was available.

There was no town and there was no access to the course from the south.
Southampton is another two miles removed, no ?
Why would you start and finish at a location with NO access.
Your theory is all wet.
The doughnut was easily accessable via the extension of White's Lane, in fact, the original entrance gate remains at the junction of White's Lane and Sebonac Inlet Rd.
That was the way the "doughnut" hole clubhouse was accessed until Sebonac Inlet rd was altered and the current driveway installed.

Is that how Garden City started and finished ?
Shinnecock ?

2.  The "doughnut" where the current clubhouse sits could never have been used as part of the golf course due to its elevation, unless CBM planned to put a "Point Garry" sort of abomination as is the 1st and 17th at North Berwick.  He was not that stupid.

Are you insane ?
The land where the clubhouse sits is perfect land for golf.
What, about it's elevation would preclude it from being used for golf ?

3.  Once the Shinnecock Inn was kaput, the purchase and use of the doughnut was the only solution for a clubhouse.

There was NO subsequent purchase of the land where the clubhouse sits.
That land was part and parcel of the original 205 acres.

NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green, so tell us how a clubhouse built "near" the current 9th green could be accessed ?

End of story.

End of your convoluted story, but not the real story.

[Gib_Papazian]

Uncle George spent quite a bit of time on this very subject - some of which was covered in The Evangelist.

I'm particularly amused at the polarized dogma being expressed here, when our conclusions posit (perhaps a tick too strong a word) that both positions are in some way absolutely correct - just in different ways and at different moments in the creative process.

Further, as long as everybody has decided to throw feces at each other from their respective cages, did anybody consider the early history of Shinnecock and . . . . . . well . . . . . who might have been a member?

Just a hint.

I wonder about you guys sometimes. I really do.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

I mentioned CBM's membership at SHGC along with his falling out with SHGC, but, few seemed to have picked up on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

1.  Why don't you let David respond to a post addressed to David before you stick your toothless head into things?

Because you stated that you've been following this thread "intently" ergo, you're more than qualified to make the list instead of burdening David

Presently, I have two teeth that have to be pulled, so I'm getting there.

2.  Because, his point all along is that between Scotland's Gift and previous threads this thread is not warranted.  So, it's best to get the answer from the person who would be the least likely to exaggerate.

If you've read this thread "intently", then you know how it morphed far from the original post, no ?

[DMoriarty]

Above Mike created a chronology of events by shuffling CBM's own account in a manner which more closely matched Mike's pet theories.

In contrast, here is CBM's actual chronology in the order he presents it in Scotland's Gift, from the last full paragraph on page 186 to the end of the first full sentence on page 188.  Nothing has been reordered or omitted. The navy is CBM. The dates and couple of contextual additions are mine. I've added the date of the developers initial purchase, the approximate date of CBM's trip abroad (since he wasn't out riding the property while overseas), and the date of the first newspaper account indicating that CBM had reach an agreement with the developer.  The bolding is mine as well.  
_______________________________________________________


October 1905
Dean Alvord purchased the 2500+ acre Shinnecock Hills parcel from an English syndicate. By the end of 1905, the Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty company had been formed to develop the property.

Late 1905 or Early 1906
Shinnecock Hills was also very attractive, but I preferred not getting too close to the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.
The Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres, had been owned by a London syndicate and was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before I determined that we should build a course there if we could secure the land.

We offered SHPB $200 dollars per acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it.

Winter and Spring of 1906
CBM and Whigham traveled abroad and studied the great holes overseas.

Between Spring 1906 and October 1906
However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile of frontage on Peconic Bay and laying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. This property was little known and had never been surveyed. Every one thought it more or less worthless. It abounded with bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry and other bushes and was infested by insects. The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies.  

So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.

Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably.  It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  

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

October 16, 1906
The Boston Globe reported that that MacDonald had secured 250 acres in the Shinnecock Hills, adjoining SHGC, stretching along Peconic Bay to the north, and skirting the railroad to the south; that he and Whigham had been over the property and that Travis had been invited to consult; that other experts would be consulted; that the contours were similar to SHGC; that that elevation maps had already been created and sent to overseas advisors; and that construction would not start until Spring.  Other newspapers reported the purchase, even though it was not yet complete.

Between Spring 1906 and November/December 1906
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.

We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. We had a little over a quarter of a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and we skirted Bull's Head Bay for about a mile. The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, there thoroughfares and railroads would never bother us-- a much desired situation.

When playing golf you want to alone with Nature.

November/December1906  
We obtained an option on the land in November, 1906 . . .

December 3, 1906
CBM wrote to James Stillman (and presumably the other founders) informing them:  "After one year's study and search, I have purchased 200 acres of land in Shinnecock Hills bordering on the Peconic Bay, for the sum of $40,000 --land admirably adapted to our purpose." He also provided many of the same details that would appear in the newspaper accounts a few weeks later, and noted that Travis, Emmett, Whigham, Chauncey, and others had already been over the property.  

December 15-17, 1906
Various New York newspaper articles reported that Macdonald had secured the property and provided a general description of CBM's plan, including among other things: mention of the Alps, Redan, Cape, and Eden, along a mention that other features existed for other holes CBM had in mind; mention that the course would skirt Bullshead Bay for a mile; mention that the course would start and finish near the Shinnecock Inn, mention that the seller would allow "the owners of the property the privilege of determining later the exact boundaries of the purchase;" mention that a committee of three CBM, HJW, Travis, and Emmett had been appointed as the committee to lay out the course, and that they be given three (or five) months to stake out the course and after that a plaster model would be created to aid in construction; etc.

Spring 1907
We . . . took title to the property in the spring of 1907.

Immediately we commenced development.
_____________________________________________________________________

It is all set out in Scotland's Gift, and it tracks the source material.

NOTE:  I am not yet clear whether the ""stud[ying] the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [they] had in mind" came before and/or after the October 16, 1906 press reports, and I don't think it matters much.
_____________________________________________________________________

Mike and Jeff have insisted that the developer did not "agree[] to sell" CBM the land until mid-December 1906, but as the October 16 report indicates, CBM and the developer had some sort of an informal agreement in place much earlier.

Mike insists that when CBM noted that they staked out the land they wanted, that this could only refer to the final boundaries in June of 1907.  But the press reports indicate that CBM already had a a definite parcel in mind and he even described it, even if the "exact boundaries" had not yet been determined.  There is a difference between locating the land they wanted, and setting the "exact boundaries."

Mike suggests that, prior to optioning the property, all that had happened was that Whigham and Macdonald had ridden the property for two or three days. The record indicates that this just isn't accurate.  Before mid-October they were already well into studying the property, maps had been made, and, Travis, Emmett, Chauncey and others had already been over the property.

Mike insists that Whigham must have seen the Alps hole on the first ride over the 450 acre property. I don't know when Whigham first saw the Alps hole, and it really does not matter.  The various reports leave little doubt that, before mid-December 1906, they had already been "stud[ying] the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [they] had in mind."

CBM's version sets it all out, and it all matches the historical record. Why is this so hard to accept?