Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I pulled out "TEOG" and looked at the blueprint under a very powerful light and would agree with you.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff & David,

You could go back to the following thread from 2003.  George Bahto had had the original blueprint in his possession and in the opening post provides some comment on what he saw and how he interpreted it.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have only studied the map a bit, but what a neat thing to look at. I won't speculate on time, and of course, it was a working map used over several months. (surprised someone never tore it on a tree or fell in the mud. Yeah, maybe architecture has changed in 100 years, but that's what probably would have happened if I was carrying it around!

Two things strike me - he repeatedly called out those 5-6 holes, but was vague about the coast holes, other than he would have them.
Jeff, that's not accurate, he went into detail on the "Cape" hole, and the "Leven" hole.
Other than 18, they're really the only "coastal" holes on the property, unless you include the "Eden" which he mentions.
"Narrows" and especially "Punchbowl" are inland holes

Pat,  I am reading your bible, on the passages on page 187 so often referenced as the best source of timeline material.  I also consult the other October and Dec. articles. In those cases, he mentioned the Alps, Redan, Eden and Cape. Period.  And then he mentions only those again when discussing "placing these holes first."  And if you look at what are presuming is the working map during design, those are most detailed.  I am speaking of this specific time period and not the hole designs which he presumably decided later from his favorite holes.

On page 191 he does mention the Sahara (second) and the Road, which he only says was easy to duplicate. So the seem to have come later, and if you look at the map, the second isn't detailed at all.  There are a few tick marks, but not where the hole ended up.  There is nothing int he area of the Leven hole on this map. The Road Hole is  there, but  CBM said he was not going to use the station master as the carry hazard. Look at the map - it shows a line sort of like what would have gone around the hotel, so this was obviously a prelim design, later changed to bunkers as CBM specifically says on pg. 191.

David,

I looked at that, and it has been a long time since I saw a smudged blueprint, but recall they sort of lighten up, not get darker, unless it was just an oil stain. To my eye, it looks as if the darkness is because the plan had been rolled up, and the edge is sort of curling away from the camera.  Besides, the black marks are bunkers decided against. Given their location, it might even be that he had considered reversing 1 and 18 from whatever he had earlier, as it looks like some bunkers are right near 1 tee.  Also, the partial centerline on 18 is more of a dogleg (whichever direction it would have played) than the mostly straight hole that was actually built.  It seem to me the end of that was somewhere in the Leven hole at that point.

In any case, I see no yellow marks with replacements to the blackened bunkers at that point in time, other than the clear one on the property behind 1 tee. It certainly suggests to me that his portion of the routing and features design was far from figured out, while the middle part was getting much closer.

Of course, I am a moron, so take that into account.

[Steve Lang]

Here are the 1938 aerials which I had posted for Pat a long time ago for a thread discussing bunkers; beyond their numbers, one can discern a bit about the land cover and development in the area...

NGLA + Shinnecock HIlls




focus on NGLA alone

[MCirba]

The reason I keep harping on the 4 acres wide CBM mentioned in Dec 1906 is because he simply adjusted those straight line boundaries along the western edge in or out as needed as his routing scheme developed.

Of course it came out to 200 or so acres in the end...that's what he optioned!    Some of you keep saying what it became which is obvious but there was plenty of room at that time to do anything he wanted which he did after securing the land. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The reason I keep harping on the 4 acres wide CBM mentioned in Dec 1906 is because he simply adjusted those straight line boundaries along the western edge in or out as needed as his routing scheme developed.

That's your theory, one not supported by the width of the fairways I cited

Of course it came out to 200 or so acres in the end...that's what he optioned!    Some of you keep saying what it became which is obvious but there was plenty of room at that time to do anything he wanted which he did after securing the land. 

Not true.

He staked what he wanted and he purchased what he staked.

You're taking a schematic, a rough draft and trying to insist it was a bona fide survey.
You're distorting the facts to try and reach your predetermined conclusion.................again 😜

[MCirba]

Pat,

You're helping my case when you keep bringing up those enormous fairway widths.  Go back and read Scotland's Gift regarding what he thought were ideal widths for fairways.  I had previously speculated that one of the reasons CBM ended up using so much more acreage than his original estimates was the need to create alternate routes for the weaker players.  For whatever reason...perhaps because the Developer restricted him from developing cottages or villas, he went hog wild in his fairway widths far beyond what he previously wrote was ideal.

[Bryan Izatt]

Steve,

Is there a larger version of the aerial of NGLA alone?  Is the original wider than 800 pixels?  If so, can you post at the original size.  I'm trying to see where the proshop is on that aerial and I can't quite make it out.  I do see where you say that Sabin had a back door path to the 1st tee.

[Bryan Izatt]

...........................

I did and noticed that none of Bryan's roads exist.   




.............................

Mike, let's not forget that this is a "blueprint", not a survey.


..............................

Patrick,

Let's not forget that this is a "blueprint" and not a road map.


To help out your tired old eyes here is a close up of the southern end of NGLA with the unimproved roads from the 1904 USGS topo superimposed.   They weren't land locked.





And, from the Walker Cup program a course map circa 1929 because I thought it was a nice piece of artwork.  you can click through for a larger version.  Is that the proshop to the right of the 1st tee.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Is there a larger version of the aerial of NGLA alone?  Is the original wider than 800 pixels?  If so, can you post at the original size.  I'm trying to see where the proshop is on that aerial and I can't quite make it out.  I do see where you say that Sabin had a back door path to the 1st tee.  Just where the WC program rendering has it.  I see a second structure there, perhaps a small caddy shack, which also shows on the rendering in Scotland's Gift.

Bryan,

The NGLA routing render in SG shows it just right (left in the aerial) of the first tee. There is also a second structure in both renderings, probably a caddy shack.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer
- I am not going to speculate on whether the blueprint is smudged or stained or whatever else.  But it is difficult to read on the northern part.  Nonetheless, the markings are there.
- I don't know how you decided that the black marks are necessarily "bunkers decided against" but I don't think I agree, as many of them seem to be existing bunkers.  ADDED:  This was George's suggestion but I don't necessarily agree with him either.
- There are plenty yellowish marks along the 18th and first holes, they are just extremely hard to see.
- I don't follow your logic when you speculate that maybe he was planning reversing the direction of the 18th.  The bunkers marked are basically in the same relative spots as bunkers now.
- Not sure what "partial centerline" you think you see on the 18th, but I don't see any dogleg center elevation marks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You DID speculate that the blueprint was smudged. No take backs!

I decided the black marks were bunkers he didn't like any more because that is what George Bahto said they were.  Maybe they got put back, or maybe George was wrong.

There are some marks, but do you see greens, bunkers, etc? No, you don't.

You can't see the yellow line near where 18 is?  I think you just post that I am wrong for some reason as a knee jerk reaction.  It's there.

[MCirba]

Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles.  I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average? 

[DMoriarty]

David,

You DID speculate that the blueprint was smudged. No take backs!

No. I wrote "it looks to me like much of the top (N) of the blueprint has deteriorated and is nearly indecipherable."  "Smudged" was all you.

There are some marks, but do you see greens, bunkers, etc? No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

You can't see the yellow line near where 18 is?  I think you just post that I am wrong for some reason as a knee jerk reaction.  It's there.

Of course I see it.  Where did I say I didn't see it?  Read what I write. Don't just make things up.   But in addition to that mark there are a number of other markings.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, your latest theory fails before CBM even secured the option.   Alps hole doesn't even come close to fitting in your imaginary swath, and the Alps hole was his starting point.  The four acres wide description was most likely meant as an approximate average width.

[Bill_McBride]

Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles.  I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average? 

How wide is "four acres?"   The acre measures area, not width.  If square it's 209' x 209', or 70 yards x 70 yards. 

[MCirba]

Yes...70 yards roughly Bill.  Or 280 yards wide which is huge for an out and back layout.  You could put 4 50 yard wide fairways side by side and still have 80 yards left to play with.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff & David,

You could go back to the following thread from 2003.  George Bahto had had the original blueprint in his possession and in the opening post provides some comment on what he saw and how he interpreted it.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7509.0.html

Thanks, Bryan. Didn't someone reference this a bit earlier?  Regardless, I looked at it again.  As I said to Jeff Brauer I am not sure I agree with George's theory on the black marks, but it could be, I guess.   As for the center line elevation readings, FWIW there was an article in the Aug. 27, 1907 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, which provided elevation readings for tees and greens and some undulations.

Was there something in particular you thought we needed to notice?

[MCirba]

The cool part about 2 miles long is that It's over 3500 yards each way. 

Remember what CBM wrote about after finding the right type of landforms and soil it then just becomes a math and engineering task.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

We covered that a while back, with, I think, David providing the most reasonable answer......

Mike,

Even I am getting confused a bit on your position.  More to the point, I don't think staking before, or just surveying to find out where they were, etc., makes a big difference in what happened out there.  We know they settled on a basic chunk of land before the option, with the ability to make at least minor refinements.  Maybe major ones, but it does seem he was continually narrowing down the basic land chunk.

I agree with David he started with those few holes, and it sounds like the Alps and the Redan had to be in place, at least in his mind, if not staked.  Then he worked around the edges and up and down from the Inn to the Bay. Knowing the length means he had to set the width at approximately what he did to come up with 205 AC. Can we cut it any finer than that with the info we have?

David,

Geez. How do you see anything with your head stuck so far up where the sun don't shine?

I have no interest in you picking every damn thing I write on word parsing.  My main points stand, despite wording differences of smudge or indecipherable.  I really don't feel the need to type exactly the words you type when I describe things.  I think most followers pretty well know what we mean.

We just don't see the level of design in the areas I mentioned. I can see no other reasonable explanation than he worked more on the holes he says he placed first, first, and other holes that he said he would decide which template, original concept, or combo later.  As you like to say (sorry, paraphrasing a bit again, so don't snap at me) we just can't ignore what he wrote in SG.  And, my interpretation doesn't, it follows it pretty closely.

This map seems to have been drawn midway through the design process, because it is by no means a finished product.  Some areas are more finished than others.  It would be interesting to know when that was, but I don't think anything on it really tells us.

Byran,

Agree in full with David's last post. I did reread the thread again, and it seems you or others had already posted the most relevant information.  And, we appreciate it!

[DMoriarty]

Four acres wide is an enormous amount of land stretching two miles.  I wonder how wide The Old Course is on average? 

How wide is "four acres?"   The acre measures area, not width.  If square it's 209' x 209', or 70 yards x 70 yards. 

Bill, it is very odd, but that seems to be what he meant.  Macdonald made a similar reference when discussing the small parcel of land behind the 18th green. He wrote that about one acre of the parcel fronted the Bay, and the parcel is about 70 yards wide.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer, putting a smiley after your snide comment doesn't make it any less snide.  

I told you that I didn't say smudged.  Rather than accept that you chastised me and insisted that I did. ("No take backs.")  I provided the quote, and now you scold me again for correcting you?   That's rich.  Don't misrepresent what I write and I won't correct you.

As for what you do and don't see, we must be looking at different maps.  Here is that portion of the blueprint from my scan.  (The corner with the crayon you keep referencing is cut off, just I grabbed this off a piece I had overlaid with something else.



Once can see a number of bunkers marked in faded yellow, including the bunkers on the 18th and the bunch of bunkers short and left of the 1st fairway.  Additionally one can see at least seven black marks which also seem be bunkers and which seem to be on the course.  The 18th green is marked with a circle in the upper left (or that is a greenside bunker and the actual green marking is indecipherable.  One can also see the 17th green, the large bunker at the 17th, the center lines between the first green and the second green, what might have been the center elevation between the 17th green and the 18th green, etc.

How you can look at this and conclude that they had not planned this portion of the course is beyond me.  Some of the plans may have changed after this point (for example the 1st green looks to have shifted south) but this blueprint shows plans for this portion of the course.  They are just difficult to make out on this portion of the plan.  


There are bunkers planned

[Jeff_Brauer]

Really? Pat has been calling me a moron for years, including the smiley face, and that seems to be socially acceptable?

I appreciate you blowing that up, and understand where you come from, but I just don't happen to see it that way even after a bit of study.

First, I had blown it up here, and I still see the look of a curved blueprint near 18.  Second, the clearest bunker is right near current 18, well right of the fairway, but who knows. 

I agree some of the black bunkers are in similar places. I thought the ones near one tee were much closer, but then again, maybe it is a general idea and the landforms he fit weren't exactly where he thought the were on the map. Some of the black ones on 18 could be earlier versions. 

Of perhaps the most interest to determining some of what happened is two of those black bunkers appear to be where the clubhouse now sits.   If you are right, and this is some sort of actual planning, that would seem to shoot Patrick's theory down that he planned for the clubhouse in that location, no?  Not that he couldn't have changed his mind ten minutes later.....

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

If you have an issue with Patrick, take it up with him.

There are over a dozen different features marked in white, faded yellow, or black on that section of the blueprint.  If you don't think that represents "some sort of actual planning," then I don't know what you are viewing.   You seem to want to assume that the bright, easily decipherable features are more significant or earlier in the process, but I don't agree with this line of reasoning.

As for the 18th, I don't know what fairway you see, but early on the hole was always depicted as a dogleg. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, and as depicted on that blueprint, the tee sits in the Leven Hole.  That is obviously not a settled design issue, whereas other holes have black (presumably removed and relocated bunkers) nearly full green concept plans, etc.  The Leven doesn't even have a centerline.

I don't know how you can't see that this area is not as planned as other areas, which appear to be in their final configurations.  Some holes are final, or near final. 1, 2, 17, 18 have some study, but no final features. Its not a question of no planning.  Its a question of far less planning on these holes, and that has to be clear to anyone reading.

And, it follows his words as to which holes he placed first, that he found the Road Hole easy to make, (since an early version of that shows) etc.   I think this is sure supporting evidence that he did the routing and detail design from the Alps, Redan, Eden and Cape holes out.  

Edited to improve the tone a bit.