[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

1.  What is the longest golf hole you could build within the confines of a circular 2.5 acre piece of land ?
 I'll give you a hint for starters (Area = pi * r squared)

I don't need a hint, anyone familiar with the land will tell you that if it wasn't used for the clubhouse, you'd incorporate it into the current 1st hole.

Before you tuck your tail in and run, How many times have you been to NGLA ?

2.  Given that there is a 40 foot high knob in the middle of that circle,

There is NO 40 foot high knob in the middle of the circle.  Where did you obtain that information from ?
And, even if there was, earth moving equipment would make short order of it.

That parcel of property is amongst the most ideal land for golf on the entire 205 acres ,

what sort of golf hole would you suggest be built on such a site?

Part of a great one

3.  How would that golf hole fit into the tentative routing that had already been formulated (Leven, Sahara, Alps, etc.)?

It would fit perfectly, just by making # 1 a slight dogleg

Rich

PS--That's the last you'll hear from me on this thread, as all everybody is doing (including me) is guessing, and it is getting not only boring but downright irritating.

There's NO guessing about the land that the clubhouse sits on, it's great land for golf.

You declared that it was "ungolfable" but have yet to define how so.

Before you run, how many times have you played NGLA ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Given that CBM had already told them that his club was not going into the beds business, I guess they'd have to find somewhere else to sleep other than their on-site locker in the bath room.  I'm sure they could manage.

Where did they sleep?  Your bungalows never got built.

David,

Despite CBM's protestations about "beds and hash", it turns out that after the Shinnecock Inn burned down he did both, and rather well, when he built the clubhouse, so he did perceive the need for onsite lodging and met it.

There are numerous bedrooms upstairs in the clubhouse and you may have heard they serve a hell of a lobster roll at lunch.

Mike,

The massive clubhouse at NGLA does not have "numerous" bedrooms upstairs.

The have a limited number of bedrooms

Nothing in capacity like the SI

I know I've asked you this before, but do you really think that CBM would build his clubhouse next to a massive hotel ?

Especially if he had no access to the North Road ?.

If you're out there sometime call me and I'll buy you a Southsider.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.

With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?

From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.

Sven,

Not only is there room in the middle, but the White's Lane driveway extension, complete with the circle and clubhouse are in that model.

If you're accurate with your date, it Proves that the clubhouse was intended for it's current site PRIOR to the fire that destroyed the Shinnecock Inn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

If the model you posted was crafted prior to April, 1908, it would prove, unequivocally, that CBM always intended for his clubhouse to be on its current site.

Can you confirm the date the model was started ?

Is there anyone who would dispute that if the model was completed prior to April, 2008, that CBM always intended his clubhouse to reside on it's current site ?

Bryan ?
Mike ?
Anyone ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven, Mike & David,

Macdonald tells us, indirectly, but forcefully, that he NEVER intended to have homes bordering the golf course.

Macdonald stated: "When playing golf you want to be ALONE WITH NATURE"

Would houses between the holes and houses flanking the holes put you ALONE WITH NATURE ?

I think not.

Macdonald also stated, when discussing his 205 acres: "The property was more or less remote, three miles from Southampton, where THOROUGHFARES and railroads would NEVER BOTHER US----- A MUCH DESIRED SITUATION"

Here Macdonald is telling us he wants to be away from roads, but if he was to build homes, he'd have to build roads to access those homes.

Mike, your theory, meant to undermine accepted beliefs about NGLA and Macdonald, is beyond moronic.

There's not an element of common sense in your theory, a theory that states that he meant to build homes between the holes along with building homes on the flanks of the holes.

I anxiously await your next hairbrained theory😆

[DMoriarty]

David,

You don't understand the absurdity of what your implying?  Did you miss my followup questions or answers to the person you're  calling my mentor, aka "the Lurker"?

You're suggesting that these bungaloes were limited to areas to poop, wash up, and store valuables, with not enough room to bed down for the night. What's more, you've suggested that they would be built at members expense on land still wholly owned by the club.  

How else could I possibly respond?  If I ever suggested something so ridiculous you'd never let me hear the end of it and rightly so!

Your stronger argument was that these dwellings were a planned concession to the fire at the Inn a few months prior, which is possible.  But in trying to eliminate what might have been the last vestiges of a scaled down attempt at implenting the original Founders Agreement you turned bungaloes into bathrooms and there's no way in Hades that's what was planned.

This is exactly the sort of crap that I am talking about, Mike, and thank you for making my point for me.  Rather than considering and discussing the actual factual record, you make shit up and launch into your usual mockery, feigned disbelief, and indignation. Perhaps you should pause and think back to all of the times you have done the same about my interpretations in the past, and all of the corresponding times you have ultimately been proven wrong.  We could make a list, but it would add too much to an already excessive thread.

I don't care if you or anyone else disagrees with my interpretation.There is nothing wrong with disagreement between reasonable and intelligent people who are doing their best to try to figure out a spotty historical record. It happens all the time between many of us, but rarely with you.  You are either unwilling or unable to engage in such a discussion.

I'll try to piece together and address your actual factual argument below, but it isn't easy, because you don't really seem to have much of a position other than your mockery and mischaracterizations, and telling me again and again how "absurd" and "ridiculous" you find my interpretation.

[DMoriarty]

Against my better judgment, I will give you the courtesy you fail to give me, and actually take your comments and questions seriously.  My questions are in bold.

You asked if I read your followups with TEPaul, whom you call "The Lurker," although given his sleazy habit of sending unwanted, harassing, and downright creepy emails to me and others, I'd say that "The Stalker" is a more apt description.  I've read the comments you posted.  
  - Unless "the Stalker" was there in 1908, I don't much care about his opinion of whether this particular unidentified founder might have used the term bungalow instead of cabana or bath house.  
  - Note that in describing these structures, "The Stalker" said: "Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."  That is the type of arrangement I believe the Founder is describing.  

1. If this is commonplace at other Southampton clubs, then why are you so dismayed at the idea that it might have been considered (but not implemented) at NGLA?

2. What if anything in the article suggests to you that CBM was planning to transfer title on the land for these "small bungalows" to individual founders?

3. How do you reconcile this with the developer's statement that restrictions had been placed on the use of the property?

The Stalker described the following:  
Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."

4. Is it your position that the founder couldn't possibly be referring to similar structures, whatever called?

Earlier you suggested that CBM's description of the "Bathing Facilities" was just a reference to a shared locker room in the clubhouse.  I don't think this is correct.  Here is the description in full:

Bathing Facilities.  Realizing the importance of having proper bathing facilities immediately, I took the liberty, after consulting with some of the Directors and all of the Founders whom I met, of assuming temporarily the expense of building a bathing pavilion. I guaranteed the payment for this work—four thousand dollars—and freed the club of any liability. Some ten Founders at once stated that they would subscribe $200 each, entitling them to two dressing rooms, one for men and one for women. Following this idea, the plan now suggested is that any Founder or Associate Member desiring a dressing room may have one by subscribing $100, which will entitle him to one room, this to remain his personal property. Should more rooms be taken than are built, others can be erected in the same manner.

He isn't talking about a shared dressing room, he is talking about private dressing rooms which would be the "personal property" of the Founder or Member.  And, he is talking about building additional dressing rooms as needed and paid for. The plan shares certain characteristics with the founder's description. Private dressing rooms, owned (as personal property, not real property) by the members.

5. You've mocked and ridiculed me for suggesting that NGLA would allocate private dressing rooms to members willing to pay for such things.  Are  you going to likewise mock and ridicule CBM for doing the same thing?   Does it really make a difference whether the rooms were separate structures?

[MCirba]

Pat,

CBM wrote that you want to be alone with nature right after telling us he first offered the developer $200 per acre for 120 acres near the Shinnecock Canal, smack dab in the middle of a planned housing development.

He also wrote the more than 3 blind shots was abhorrent and that 50 yard wide fairways were ideal.  Like many people there was sometimes a gap between what he wrote and said, particularly 20+ years after the fact, and what he did.  

I'm not the one who came up with the real estate plan, Macdonald did.  Whigham called it ingenious in 1906.

Have you played in Scotland and England?  Many of the courses there are in town and many are near housing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Regarding the agreement to secure 200 acres signed on December 14th, 1906, here's how CBM was quoted the next day;

"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 us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."

And what were the committee going to be working on in the interim?

"We will reproduce the best holes and make the most delightful round that can be conceived.  Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months."

To me, the "all concerned" who are giving Macdonald "latitude" in his agreement is the Real Estate Company, who certainly wanted to see Macdonald achieve his goal of creating the best course on the planet near their planned development.

Why stake out land only to have to do it all again after determining which holes to reproduce and their distances?   The Real Estate Company had no plans for the rest of Sebonac Neck at that time and the land certainly wasn't going anywhere.   These were very practical men. 

Why incur that needless waste of time and money?

Mike,

My post the other day was a long shot, but since many are tiring of dissecting the same old passages, I thought maybe someone would find something in another perspective that might help narrow the timeline.  I know an option can contain probably anything two parties agree to, but also wondered just what the real estate company might have put up with for the idealistic golfers vs. standard business practice.  If Charlie pissed them off, they might have made him wear a dress and ride those ponies side saddle as part of the option, for all we know. 

That said, let's examine yet another phrases you bring up above:

Does latitude equal total freedom, or minor changes in the final plan, at least at that point?

Does "exact lines will not be staked out" imply that some preliminary lines HAVE been staked out?


I have always staked out a middle ground between you and David (and final staking may be yet to come, similar to NGLA) know we will need the original agreements to see how narrowed down the property was by the time of the option.  I am certain the course wasn't routed in a 2-3 day pony ride (CBM doesn't say it, and it would be difficult) and not sure it had to be fully routed by October, but do think CBM did enough work (possibly David's "rough routing") to get somewhere close to that property line on the blueprint.  Going back to the real estate company perspective, I can imagine this conversation...."Charlie, you have been tearing up our land on pony since June, can you give us some idea of where you are looking before we commit to this option?"

That said, that property line does seem to be the final, not some preliminary, since it was a map used for construction.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I also think we are reading another passage from Scotland's Gift wrong.....He really meant to say, "After playing golf, you want to be alone when nature calls."

[MCirba]

Against my better judgment, I will give you the courtesy you fail to give me, and actually take your comments and questions seriously.  My questions are in bold.

You asked if I read your followups with TEPaul, whom you call "The Lurker," although given his sleazy habit of sending unwanted, harassing, and downright creepy emails to me and others, I'd say that "The Stalker" is a more apt description.  I've read the comments you posted.  
  - Unless "the Stalker" was there in 1908, I don't much care about his opinion of whether this particular unidentified founder might have used the term bungalow instead of cabana or bath house.  
  - Note that in describing these structures, "The Stalker" said: "Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."  That is the type of arrangement I believe the Founder is describing.  

1. If this is commonplace at other Southampton clubs, then why are you so dismayed at the idea that it might have been considered (but not implemented) at NGLA?

2. What if anything in the article suggests to you that CBM was planning to transfer title on the land for these "small bungalows" to individual founders?

3. How do you reconcile this with the developer's statement that restrictions had been placed on the use of the property?

The Stalker described the following:  
Regarding the mention in that article of bungalows with lockers, baths and necessary facilities, that might refer to what was commonly known in those types of clubs as "bath houses" or even "cabanas." Out there in the prominent old clubs on Long Island, also clubs in Palm Beach, the Bahamas etc, etc, they were very common and actually a rather generic design-----they are basically little white huts that are about ten feet wide and maybe twenty feet deep. In the front they generally have an awning off the structure with lounge chairs under it, and behind that a little hut structure that can contain a sitting room, toilets/changing rooms and showers. In clubs like Maidstone, the famous old Beach Club of Southamption, the beach clubs of the Creek Club and Piping Rock, the Bath and Tennis Club in Palm Beach and Delray etc, etc, these little structures sit side by side and can go on for maybe 50 to 75 yards (although at Maidstone's Beach Clubs their configurations and placements are quite different). They are all generally identical and are lined up perfectly perpendicular to the shore line. Members generally are said to own them individually, but in reality the club owns the land and the members basically rent them from the club annually and in some cases even for generations."

4. Is it your position that the founder couldn't possibly be referring to similar structures, whatever called?

Earlier you suggested that CBM's description of the "Bathing Facilities" was just a reference to a shared locker room in the clubhouse.  I don't think this is correct.  Here is the description in full:

Bathing Facilities.  Realizing the importance of having proper bathing facilities immediately, I took the liberty, after consulting with some of the Directors and all of the Founders whom I met, of assuming temporarily the expense of building a bathing pavilion. I guaranteed the payment for this work—four thousand dollars—and freed the club of any liability. Some ten Founders at once stated that they would subscribe $200 each, entitling them to two dressing rooms, one for men and one for women. Following this idea, the plan now suggested is that any Founder or Associate Member desiring a dressing room may have one by subscribing $100, which will entitle him to one room, this to remain his personal property. Should more rooms be taken than are built, others can be erected in the same manner.

He isn't talking about a shared dressing room, he is talking about private dressing rooms which would be the "personal property" of the Founder or Member.  And, he is talking about building additional dressing rooms as needed and paid for. The plan shares certain characteristics with the founder's description. Private dressing rooms, owned (as personal property, not real property) by the members.

5. You've mocked and ridiculed me for suggesting that NGLA would allocate private dressing rooms to members willing to pay for such things.  Are  you going to likewise mock and ridicule CBM for doing the same thing?   Does it really make a difference whether the rooms were separate structures?

David,

If I offended you, I sincerely apologize.   I've made my share of blunders here in speculating, or theorizing, or trying to defend a position and I'll likely do it again in the future.   I was simply trying to lighten the often strident, argumentative tone here.   Sometimes humor doesn't translate well on this flat medium but I'll keep in mind that no one likes being the butt of jokes.

I think my major objection to your post is that you essentially sought to change the very definition of the word "bungalow".   I'm not big on Wikipedia, but I've been unable to find its usage in the US or England to imply anything but a dwelling.   If you can find something, let me know but I think this link is pretty extensive and comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow

I do think it's possible that this came up again as an option after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground.   Later today, as prodded by Sven yesterday,  I'll stick my neck out (and likely have it chopped) and offer up a theory of how events played out that I think is consistent with all of the facts we know to date.  

To answer your specific questions above;

1) Because the founder specifically called it a "bungalow" and I think we have to take it at face value that the founder knew what a bungalow was.   The little units at other places the Lurker referred to were never called bungalows and I can find no evidence otherwise.

2) The term "apportioned" to me means parceled off.   Whether this implied legal transfer is unclear and might be restricted by CBM's agreement with the developer.   I suspect it might still be owned by the club as the lot sizes were likely anticipated to be much smaller than an acre.

3) I'd love for us to find that original agreement.   I suspect that large estate homes or even cottages on 1.5 acres may have fallen out of the terms of the agreement with the Developer but smaller "bungalows" on something much less than an acre still under club ownership were not.   That's a guess.

4) Yes, for reasons described above.

5) I think we're talking about an evolving scenario that is something of a moving target.   I'm hopeful that I get a chance to theorize in full this afternoon and the answer will be contained within.

Thanks.

[MCirba]

Mike,

I also think we are reading another passage from Scotland's Gift wrong.....He really meant to say, "After playing golf, you want to be alone when nature calls."

Jeff,

Does a founder do it in the brambles?   

[Adam_Messix]

There's been so much discussion about roads and the relative lack thereof when NGLA first opened.  My question is When did Shrubland Road appear?  Was it already there in some fashion when NGLA was built?  If it was there, did MacDonald ever try to have it moved?  Was it built at a the border of two separate parcels? 

[MCirba]

My post the other day was a long shot, but since many are tiring of dissecting the same old passages, I thought maybe someone would find something in another perspective that might help narrow the timeline.  I know an option can contain probably anything two parties agree to, but also wondered just what the real estate company might have put up with for the idealistic golfers vs. standard business practice.  If Charlie pissed them off, they might have made him wear a dress and ride those ponies side saddle as part of the option, for all we know.  

That said, let's examine yet another phrases you bring up above:

Does latitude equal total freedom, or minor changes in the final plan, at least at that point?

Does "exact lines will not be staked out" imply that some preliminary lines HAVE been staked out?


I have always staked out a middle ground between you and David (and final staking may be yet to come, similar to NGLA) know we will need the original agreements to see how narrowed down the property was by the time of the option.  I am certain the course wasn't routed in a 2-3 day pony ride (CBM doesn't say it, and it would be difficult) and not sure it had to be fully routed by October, but do think CBM did enough work (possibly David's "rough routing") to get somewhere close to that property line on the blueprint.  Going back to the real estate company perspective, I can imagine this conversation...."Charlie, you have been tearing up our land on pony since June, can you give us some idea of where you are looking before we commit to this option?"

That said, that property line does seem to be the final, not some preliminary, since it was a map used for construction.

Jeff Brauer,

If you're going to start typing your questions in GREEN I'm going to get very confused here!  

1) It seems it's legally possible to have an option that specifies some amount of land like 200 acres within a larger parcel, in this case 450 acres.   If the boundaries of that 200 acres were subject to change, why go through the time and effort and cost beforehand?   The Developer had no plans for the rest of the 450 acres so I think if we found it, the specifics of that option would be very general as I described (i.e. eastern shore of Sebonac neck stretching along...blah blah blah.)

2) I think what he meant is that he knew the general area as he described from the Shinnecock Inn, swinging down to Bullshead Bay, up to Peconic Bay before swinging back, measuring the two miles out and estimating it needing to be about 4 acres wide on average to encompass his desired 200 acres at that point.   This would encompass the handful of natural holes he had found as well as other interesting land features he and Whigham (and Travis?) had identified at that time.

I think a good indication of how uncertain the golf course routing was at that juncture was CBM's reference to the Shinnecock Inn which was being constructed at that time.   On December 15, 1906 he was quoted saying;

"A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests."

Macdonald knew at that point that he needed to start and end his golf course within reasonable walking distance of the Shinnecock Inn, by necessity.  

However, because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet.

As far as the maps showing undulations, you may have missed it earlier but I don't believe a contour map of Sebonac Neck was drawn and sent abroad as some have interpreted.  Instead, I think the "maps showing elevation in feet..." were of some of the hole concepts and other notes CBM took abroad that he had "draughtsmen" create on his return.

I also think the blueprint was created in the spring of 1907 during the formal design process as Raynor was employed to help him with the purchase, surveying the property, and then creating a contour map as CBM later described.

I hope this helps.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Sorry about that!  I  got to thinking red is a confrontational color, and I might inadvertently be angering some without them knowing why.........

We agree on your point 2, but differ a bit on what it means.  He would have had some at least rudimentary property maps to study in June (SHPB surely had a property survey,( or they wouldn't know it was 450 acres, even with no topo, etc.) from when they bought it. It should have allowed some study of what property it would take.  Time and documents will tell. 

As to point 1, if CBM had described that land pretty exactly in his communications, it implies he knew where it was.  I do think we tend to compress all this process into a linear string, but humans do change their mind (not next to SHCC, then next to SHCC as one example) Or, to use your example, he might have decided on this configuration, but then his committee saw the Sabin land (or something else) and it was reconsidered again for a while.

One small thing I note on the blueprint is that the property line (to this day) is east of where 9 and 10 are. I am not sure of the specifics, but it sure appears that he intended 1 and 18 further east than they ended up. Whether he founds some contour he felt made a better green site for 9, or just decided he wanted to be closer to the Inn, we don't know, but those two features are crammed up against the property line, when we know he wanted to be in the middle of nature, with little possibility of surrounding land encroaching on his dream.  Yet another example of what is written not exactly matching up with what they did.

As to when the blueprint was created, the original would have been drawn on linen.  The first iteration might have been just property lines, and they could have added the hash marks later on linen and made a new print.  The features could have been added on linen as a revision and a new print made, the property lines could have been changed and reprinted,etc. (However, it was pretty typical that you could see erasures on those kinds of things) 

So, while I agree that map was created to guide construction (thus putting it no later than probably January 1907) at least a base map, with minimum information like property lines, was likely created earlier.

Cheers.

[MCirba]

Mike,

Sorry about that!  I  got to thinking red is a confrontational color, and I might inadvertently be angering some without them knowing why.........

We agree on your point 2, but differ a bit on what it means.  He would have had some at least rudimentary property maps to study in June (SHPB surely had a property survey,( or they wouldn't know it was 450 acres, even with no topo, etc.) from when they bought it. It should have allowed some study of what property it would take.  Time and documents will tell. 

As to point 1, if CBM had described that land pretty exactly in his communications, it implies he knew where it was.  I do think we tend to compress all this process into a linear string, but humans do change their mind (not next to SHCC, then next to SHCC as one example) Or, to use your example, he might have decided on this configuration, but then his committee saw the Sabin land (or something else) and it was reconsidered again for a while.

One small thing I note on the blueprint is that the property line (to this day) is east of where 9 and 10 are. I am not sure of the specifics, but it sure appears that he intended 1 and 18 further east than they ended up. Whether he founds some contour he felt made a better green site for 9, or just decided he wanted to be closer to the Inn, we don't know, but those two features are crammed up against the property line, when we know he wanted to be in the middle of nature, with little possibility of surrounding land encroaching on his dream.  Yet another example of what is written not exactly matching up with what they did.

As to when the blueprint was created, the original would have been drawn on linen.  The first iteration might have been just property lines, and they could have added the hash marks later on linen and made a new print.  The features could have been added on linen as a revision and a new print made, the property lines could have been changed and reprinted,etc. (However, it was pretty typical that you could see erasures on those kinds of things) 

So, while I agree that map was created to guide construction (thus putting it no later than probably January 1907) at least a base map, with minimum information like property lines, was likely created earlier.

Cheers.

Jeff,

Thanks for that explanation.   It would certainly be fascinating to find the original documents.

Just one note in response.   I believe construction started in May 1907 after planning was completed and they hired Mortimer Payne to lead construction, if that affects your timeline thinking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

It looks as if it was created as a planning document. Even with your timeline, that would put it in the five month period starting after the option, no? David might think it was created even earlier.  Finding the actual time record would be great.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.

With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?

From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.

Sven,

I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:

1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc.  Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.

Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong.  Time may tell.

Cheers.

[MCirba]

Agreed on both counts, Jeff.   Thanks.

[Sven Nilsen]

I think a good indication of how uncertain the golf course routing was at that juncture was CBM's reference to the Shinnecock Inn which was being constructed at that time.   On December 15, 1906 he was quoted saying;

"A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by outside interests."

Macdonald knew at that point that he needed to start and end his golf course within reasonable walking distance of the Shinnecock Inn, by necessity.  

However, because he hadn't routed the course, he wasn't even sure where his first tee would be located yet.

Mike:

You're doing it again.

Isn't it possible that he knew where the first tee was going to be, but wasn't exactly sure where the Inn would be?  Or that he knew they both were in an approximate area, and was guesstimating the distance as he hadn't paced it out?

I don't think that statement tells us anything more than he thought the two locations were going to be close.  If anything, it certainly makes it sound like he had the starting point for the course pretty much nailed down.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:

1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc.  Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.

Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong.  Time may tell.

Cheers.

Jeff:

You can take up the "unequivocally" part with Pat.  I'm more interested in whether or not alterations were ever made to the course due to the clubhouse being built.

If the plaster model predates the siting of the clubhouse at that location, it would appear that 1 and 18 have pretty much been in the same spots throughout.

Agreed?

Sven

[MCirba]

Isn't it possible that he knew where the first tee was going to be, but wasn't exactly sure where the Inn would be?  Or that he knew they both were in an approximate area, and was guesstimating the distance as he hadn't paced it out?

I don't think that statement tells us anything more than he thought the two locations were going to be close.  If anything, it certainly makes it sound like he had the starting point for the course pretty much nailed down.

Sven

Sven,

Good points, all possible, although I believe they had picked out a site for the Inn by that time.   

We know he needed it to be close to his starting and ending points for the golf course.   

However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option.   Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Good points, all possible, although I believe they had picked out a site for the Inn by that time.  

We know he needed it to be close to his starting and ending points for the golf course.  

However, I also think the fact that David measured his route out two miles from the location of the Shinnecock Inn, not from the first tee, makes it pretty certain he knew precisely where the Inn would be by December when he signed the option.   Recall that Macdonald said he had secured two miles long by 4 acres wide.

Which all sounds to me like general descriptions.  Its not like he was actually plotting the property and setting the metes and bounds in those quotes.

If someone asked me how far the first tee at Old Mac was from the Proshop, I'd probably say 200 or 300 yards, even though I walk it multiple times a week.

The point is, I wouldn't be drawing any larger conclusions from those statements.  Particularly, I don't think you can draw any conclusion as to whether or not he had routed the course at that point based on the use of "200 or 300 yards."

Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,

I agree there was land in the middle. It might have been left for a future clubhouse, but I am not convinced it was "unequivocally" intended originally for clubhouse as Pat contends, because:

1. It makes sense that a hole nears the water would hug the bluffs
2. It makes sense that a hole named valley would be placed in the natural valley.....
3. CBM left a similar amount of wiggle room in many areas
4. If he did intend it to be the clubhouse, he sure didn't do any pre-planning studies, because it wasn't big enough for pro shop, the parking is not exactly adjacent, etc.  Not that it had to be done to more modern standards, but it never struck me as being well planned.

Just my perspective, and of course, I could be wrong.  Time may tell.

Cheers.

Jeff:

You can take up the "unequivocally" part with Pat.  I'm more interested in whether or not alterations were ever made to the course due to the clubhouse being built.

If the plaster model predates the siting of the clubhouse at that location, it would appear that 1 and 18 have pretty much been in the same spots throughout.

Agreed?

Sven

Sven, I have been told 18 green moved as a result of the clubhouse, but I am not sure.....

[MCirba]

Sven,

It's surely not dispositive but I do think it provides some insight into where they were in the planning process at that time.  

Because members were going to need to walk from the Inn to that first tee and then back to the Inn from the 18th green I would think that yardage would be something CBM would have wanted to be pretty precise about before starting his routing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()