[Joe Bausch]

Here we have a thread for one stop shopping of all the articles on NGLA that I've picked up from the Library of Congress Chronicling America newspaper web page.  Some of these have been posted to other threads already.  One thing I'm curious to hear from our NGLA experts is what parts below are in conflict with generally agreed upon facts about the genesis of NGLA.

I'll present them in chronological order:

1.  July 10, 1905 - New York Tribune



2.  March 24, 1906 - New York Tribune



3.  December 15, 1906 - New York Tribune



4.  December 15, 1906 - New York Sun



5.  February 3, 1908 - New York Tribune



6.  May 25, 1908 - New York Tribune



7.  August 23, 1908 - New York Tribune



8.  May 5, 1909 - New York Tribune



9.  May 10, 1910 - New York Tribune



10.  July 3, 1910 - New York Sun; unfortunately this one reproduces very poorly yet the little bits that are readable suggests it might be real good throughout.

[ed_getka]

Joe,
  Thanks for taking the time to post these articles.

[Jim Nugent]

How many blind holes are there  at NGLA? 

Also, any hills, besides the one at the Alps? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

These are absolutely great finds and I'm surprised they haven't generated more talk.

All,

How many acres does the golf course at NGLA occupy today?

Not the total property mind you...just the part used for golf course.

Thanks for any info.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Great finds Joe, thank you.

As George Bhato says in his feature interview NGLA is MacDonald’s only course without a Biarritz, but all (most?) of his subsequent courses featured one.  Does anyone know NGLA and Piping Rock well enough to say what template hole was dropped to make way for a Biarritz?  I wonder if he ever used that template again?
The evidence in these articles tends to support that he was only thinking of templates from England and Scotland.  I don’t believe there’s any proof that he saw Biarritz for himself.

[DMoriarty]

Joe,

Thanks for posting these.

One thing that changed over the years prior to opening was how the course was portrayed.  Originally it was going to be 18 model holes, but it never ended up with anything close to that.   My understanding is that there are only a few holes that are even close to being models of holes abroad. These fit very well into the landscape at NGLA, and compared to the originals are substantially and purposefuly different, or, as CBM would term them, improved.   Lot's of fundamental principles of great holes incorporated into the holes, but very few models or templates.

 
Funny how today many still seem to think that most or all of the the holes at NGLA were copies.   

As George Bhato says in his feature interview NGLA is MacDonald’s only course without a Biarritz, but all (most?) of his subsequent courses featured one.  Does anyone know NGLA and Piping Rock well enough to say what template hole was dropped to make way for a Biarritz?  I wonder if he ever used that template again?
The evidence in these articles tends to support that he was only thinking of templates from England and Scotland.  I don’t believe there’s any proof that he saw Biarritz for himself.

Tony, 

You seem to be assuming that those two courses have the same 17 template holes as NGLA plus the bairritz. I don't know Piping Rock or Sleepy Hollow, but I don't think that is the case at all.  In fact,  I don't really think this is the way CBM worked.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks David that's something I just wasn't sure about. On the recent NGLA hole by hole threads I've been trying to tease out of people what the template might be.  In most cases I've just been ignored but until now no onw has said that not all the holes had a model in mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tony,

Others certainly know more than me but I do think a number of holes at NGLA are attempts at emulating famous holes from your side of the pond, and George Bahto's excellent book goes into great detail on each of them.

Some that come to mind are;

2) Sahara
3) Alps
4) Redan
6) Short
7) Road
Bottle
9) Long (14 St. Andrews)
13) Eden
17) Leven

Most of them are exceptional and if you ever have the opportunity, NGLA I believe is one of the five top courses on the planet.

[DMoriarty]

Tony,  you have to take everything Mike says with a large grain of salt. 

According to H.J. Whigham, who was right there with Macdonald and knew the holes on both sides of the Atlantic, there were only four holes copied;  the Redan, the Alps, the Eden, and the Road.   Features and underlying concepts of other great holes were incorporated into NGLA, but these were not attempts to emulate entire golf holes. 

Even the four supposed copies not only differ from the original, and contain CBM touches.  For one example, CBM thought that a problem with the original Eden was that at a topped ball could run onto the green, so he put it behind a pond at NGLA and repeated this elsewhere.   For another example, CBM didn't like that the Road hole carry was over out of bounds, so he made it over a series of bunkers. 

Many of the holes at NGLA were repeated in principle at other courses but they were not necessarily copies of entire holes to begin with. 

As a rule, when it comes to understanding CBM I go with H.J. Whigham over M. Cirba every time.

Hope this helps.

[Mike_Cirba]

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?

By the standard you're applying, NONE of the holes at NGLA are "copies" or replicas of famous holes abroad and I can agree with that.

However, his suggestion that those four are/were somehow distinct in that regard makes no sense.

The Alps for instance, or the redan...they aren't any more exact replicas than the Long;  they are all just loose interpretations based on originals but they are also easily identifiable as to their origins.

Could you point us to the source where Whigham stated this?   These articles certainly don't seem to reflect that belief.


Some other observations;

Shouldn't significant design credit for NGLA be given to Horace Hutchinson, who the articles describe Macdonald being in constant communication with regarding every step of his plans for the golf course?   Didn't he have MUCH GREATER golf course architecture experience at this point than Macdonald?   Wasn't Macdonald a mere novice at this point compared to the great and experienced Hutchinson?   Has Hutchinson's contribution to the design of NGLA been lost to history, or perhaps been misinterpreted by the club, or perhaps ignored for purposes of enhancing Macdonald's greater glory?  

The terms lay out, laying out, laid out, etc., are used all through these articles, each time referring to golf course architecture.   Has anyone yet found an example that refers simply to construction??   Why would anyone appoint a committee of five men to oversee construction in the first place?

I find it interesting that Macdonald bought over 200 acres of land, but only planned to use about 110 acres of land for the golf course, and the remaining to sell lots to members.   Can anyone tell us how much of the land is used by the golf course today out of the total acreage owned by the club?

I find it interesting that a "Holding Company" committee was put together to manage the land deal.

I find it interesting that another "Committee" was put together to design and construct the course, and that they planned to take 3 months onsite doing the routing and hole designs and another two months putting together plasticene models that were topographically correct before beginning construction.

I find it interesting how when NGLA first opened, not many bunkers were in place yet....only those bunkers that Macdonald acknowledged needed to be there as self-defined by the the prescriptive bunkering patterns of those famous holes they were intent on copying as much as the land allowed.   I have maintained all along that most of the template holes are defined by their artificial bunkering patterns, and it's nice to see Macdonald agrees.

I find myself wondering if the work that Travis and Emmett did on NGLA wasn't also possibly minimized by history, as both of them had more design and construction experience than Macdonald at the time it was built.

However, what I mostly find to be true is that Macdonald deserves true design credit for NGLA because despite the influences, HE was the guy in charge, HE was the guy responsible for decision making, and HE was the person who had to process all the advice and suggestions and get it done.

[Mike_Cirba]

(whistling)....hmmm...wonder when someone is going to come along and refute my fanciful, erroneous notions.

Or,

Should we simply conclude that Horace Hutchinson was the true designer of NGLA?   

After all, the FACTS would seem to indicate that to be true.   

[Bradley Anderson]

(whistling)....hmmm...wonder when someone is going to come along and refute my fanciful, erroneous notions.

Or,

Should we simply conclude that Horace Hutchinson was the true designer of NGLA?   

After all, the FACTS would seem to indicate that to be true.   

Oh please can't we all just get along!

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley,

You're right..forget my last stupid statement!   

It's late Sunday night and this stuff should be winding down instead of winding up. 

Thanks for stepping in and pushing me back onto the curb.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mike,

I just sense that it is time to move on to new subjects.

Let's see if we can get a good vibe going this week.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I don't understand your post.  Perhaps if you would clarify what it is you are trying to say, I will respond.  But as it is, it is just the usual emotional nonsense.    

Are you claiming NGLA is only 110 acres?    
Are you claiming that Travis was involved in designing it?  
Are you claiming that CBM was lying when he described how he routed the course in Scotland's gift?  
Are you claiming there were attempted copies that what H.J. Whigham wrote?
Are you claiming that NGLA chose 110 acres, and then tried to fit a course on it.

Really, I don't understand.  You seem to think you have a point, and I am anxious to hear it.  What are you claiming and what is your specific factual basis for so claiming?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I just sense that it is time to move on to new subjects.

Let's see if we can get a good vibe going this week.

Bradley,

You make much good sense.

It's like we've been collectively pushed into a ditch, and a bunch of us are just in there spinning our wheels for weeks on end to no productive end.

Thanks for seeing things as they are and for towing us out of the muck.

No matter how we try to justify what we've been doing, we all know deep down we're just getting dirtier in the process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How many acres does the golf course at NGLA occupy today?

Not the total property mind you...just the part used for golf course.


What do you consider the golf course ?

Right after the U.S. Open Shinnicock's fairways totalled 27 acres.
I wouldn't imagine that the tees and greens could occupy another 3 acres.
So that would be about 30 acres of closely mown areas.

At NGLA, other than the clubhouse, pro shop, range, practice putting green, parking lot, sod farms, superintendent's house, maintainance area, half-way house, service roads, staff accomodations, ponds and perhaps a few other small areas of land, ALL OF IT.
[/size]

If you're familiar with the property you'd know that there isn't much other than the land related to golf and golf facilities, unless you want to include riparian rights.

Take a look on Google Earth and you'll see that your predetermined conclusion is missing an important element, the FACTS.


Mike, you have a habit of FIRST drawing a conclusion and then embarking upon a journey to find selective facts to support you're predetermined conclusion.  That's an unique and flawed research method, isn't it

Macdonald himself, wrote how he found the holes and did the routing FIRST, and then bought the property.
It's interesting to see how you totally ignore Macdonald's written word, choosing instead to accept newspaper accounts as The Gospel.

It's obvious that you can't discern fact from fiction and that you can't be objective when it comes to these subjects.

Let me rephrase that.  You don't WANT to discern fact from fiction and you can't eliminate your personal bias and view these matters with an objective eye/mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

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

Patrick,

I have no doubt that they studied the land in looking for natural features that might support some holes.  For instance, it's clear that Whigham saw the hill used on the Alps hole, and i've also read where the redan setting was pretty apparently obvious to them, as well.

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.

They were very clear that they left the boundaries very loose at that point, as well, because they wanted to be able to adjust things as their course got routed over the next three months.

If someone drew a boundary line around the area maintained as golf course today, how many acres is it that they eventually used?

[Joe Bausch]

Thought this is interesting as well, from the May 19, 1907 issue of The Sun:

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Ask Patrick if he even understands at this point how much land Horatio Gates Lloyd bought for MCC.  

No wonder he has no idea what you're talking about with NGLA.

With the word "course" it is interesting to imagine what some of these men who used that term back then actually meant when they used that term. In my opinion, some of them meant the entire acreage of the entire site or property including the clubhouse, maintenance; essentially the total size of the entire property as when they used and mentioned the term they also included the club's total acreage that they were planning at any time on buying. In that context they could very easily have transposed "the property" for "the course." That, by the way, was true of some of the written descriptions of MCC president Evans, MCC lawyer Cuylers, and Merion's architect Hugh Wilson such as when he wrote Oakley and explained they had just bought 117 acres for the golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I think some talented fellow like Bryan Izatt would probably easily give us an estimation of the acreage used for golf course today at NGLA.

I would think the boundary would be something like this, with the bottom unfortunately cut off, but going out to the 9th green/10th tee.

I tried to go a bit wide on 14 to show where the original green was.  Let's also include clubhouse and parking lot.

Is this roughly ok?

[DMoriarty]

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

The quote YOU posted immediately above directly contradicts this conclusion.

- "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."  NGLA agreed to buy 205 out of 450 acres, but NGLA got to choose the acreage.   

-  "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."   

This is the second time they had studied the contours earnestly to locate the holes, pre-purchase.  they "selected those [acres] that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes [CBM] had in mind."  Then they "staked out the land [they] wanted."  Then they purchased this land.

Again, Mike, from the top:

1.  There was 450 acres available on Sebonac Neck that  everyone thought was more or less worthless.
2.  They spent two days on horseback inspecting the overgrown and swamp infested property 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, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes (to build a golf course.)
4.   The again they studied the the contours and figured out where the holes would go.
5.  Then they staked out the land they wanted.

It is all on page 158 of Scotlands gift.


Now how from this you can assume that they bought the land first and then tried to figure out where to put the holes, I have no idea.

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

Mike, the source for 110 acre figure as well as some of the other information mentioned in the press seems to have been the original 1904 Agreement drawn up by CBM for founders to sign.  The document generally stated what CBM had in mind, but had  little or no bearing on the actual purchase, which occurred years later.   The document does make at least one pertinent point regarding the eventual creation; the last paragraph reads (my bolds):

"Mr. Charles B. Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate himself with two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme. In the meantime, you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter entirely in his hands."

Charles in Charge.  But he originally associated himself with H.J. Whigham and Walter Travis to carry out the scheme.  However, Travis was almost immediately dropped, and at the time they opened the clubhouse, they he thanked H.J. Whigham and Dwe must thank Mr. H. J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet for their helping him lay out out the course. 

If someone drew a boundary line around the area maintained as golf course today, how many acres is it that they eventually used?

It really depends on what one measures, but the figure looks to be 150-170 acres.  Well more than the 110 you speculated.   They way you have it drawn looks to be roughly 165 acres.

_______________________

So Mike, wouldn't you agree that your  "NGLA Bombshell" turned out to be quite a dud?   Don't get me wrong, I love to discuss and learn about NGLA, but it doesn't serve anyone's interests for you to fly into these emotional fits of euphoria or disgust without first bothering to figure out the facts.   Take this in the spirit that it was meant. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If your estimate of 150-170 from eyeballing the area used for golf course is accurate,and they had the course routed before buying the land, then why buy the extra 50+ acres in the first place? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

DMoriarty,
The golf course itself looks to be 180 acres using a Planimeter.

[DMoriarty]

Jim Kennedy,

Thanks Jim.   I figured I might be a little thin, but didn't want to overstate the acreage, so as to avoid an international incident.  Whether 165 or 180, it was a lot more than 110. 

_________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I didn't eyeball it, I used a planimeter, but tried to be stingy on what I considered course to avoid controversy.   As Jim notes it may be 180 acres.

I didn't include the land used for the range, or the land "Yacht basin" nor any land to access the course, nor any land to assure access or to insulate the course from the outside world.   Nor did I include the extra 2 1/5 acres they bought west of the property to "protect themselves."

But Mike, we aren't talking about much if any land left over, are we?   The course uses a big chunk of and, and was obviously the priority in shaping the boundaries. 

You have portrayed NGLA as a real estate venture at its core, like Merion.    This seems rather hyperbolic to me.  Where is this real estate located?    Where are the homes?   Where was the money made on development of the land? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()