[Mike_Cirba]

David,

It depends on what you define as "planned".

Was the course completely routed before the purchase?

[DMoriarty]

Your question answers mine.   There is no reasonable dispute here, that I can see.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Let me put it another way;

To buy land specific to the needs of a routing assumes the routing exists in finalized form, at least to the point of determining all of the property boundaries of all of the holes on the golf course in the sequence of intended play, which in total would comprise the exact acreage of the entire desired land purchase.

Otherwise, some future routing adjustment or routing addition would risk requiring purchase of additional previously unpurchased land suddenly deemed necessary for the golf course.

The implication of buying the land that is needed for the already routed golf course also generally assumes that one would not want to buy excess tracts of land that might not be used in the golf course routing, especially if those tracts were not viable for other purposes such as real estate.   

In the case of Merion, you told us the committee bought ONLY the land they needed for the already routed golf course, DOWN TO THE ACRE.

You told us that they learned this from Macdonald, because HE HAD DONE THE VERY SAME THING AT NGLA.   He first ROUTED THE COMPLETE GOLF COURSE, and then BOUGHT THE LAND HE NEEDED.

At the point that Mac bought the land for NGLA in Dec 1906, is it still your contention that the location, dimension, and sequencing of the holes at NGLA, otherwise known to us all simply as "The Routing", was complete?

Thanks.

[Joe Bausch]

And here is an article penned by H.J. Whigham from the March 5, 1906 issue of the Omaha World Herald:

[Jim_Kennedy]

In the case of Merion, you told us the committee bought ONLY the land they needed for the already routed golf course, DOWN TO THE ACRE.
You told us that they learned this from Macdonald, because HE HAD DONE THE VERY SAME THING AT NGLA.   He first ROUTED THE COMPLETE GOLF COURSE, and then BOUGHT THE LAND HE NEEDED.
At the point that Mac bought the land for NGLA in Dec 1906, is it still your contention that the location, dimension, and sequencing of the holes at NGLA, otherwise known to us all simply as "The Routing", was complete?

Thanks.

As I said earlier, and you have just proved, your motivation is nothing more than a childish Tit-For-Tat.

I'm totally unimpressed.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

[
As I said earlier, and you have just proved, your motivation is nothing more than a childish Tit-For-Tat.

I'm totally unimpressed.
 

Jim,

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong in tit-for-tat.   The contemporaneous articles about the origins of NGLA speak for themselves.

David and Patrick and to a lesser degree, you have tried to shut down discussion of the obvious issues raised by these articles, and I don't understand that.

Who cares if they bought ENOUGH land first...205 of some 450 available, and then spent months getting the routing right?   To me, that's more realistic with the known fact that they envisioned some portion of the total property as accommodating real estate for early subscribers.

It also makes me believe that they wanted to do this right and took all necessary and appropriate steps.

It doesn't diminish Macdonald's achievements in the least, and prior to David's essay, I know of no one who ever took what Macdonald wrote in his book and tried to make it appear as if Macdonald did a complete routing at NGLA first, and then only bought exactly what he needed for the golf course and then used that supposed well-known "fact" in an attempt to draw some type of analogous example to bolster his Merion theories by suggesting that Macdonald did the exact same thing there.

I think the idea of Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, and Emmet as a design team is frankly awesome, and it shows in the golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 
You make a number of incorrect assumptions in the above post, that aren't really even worth addressing.

Read what I suggested and really consider it and it is impossible for to you not understand what happened.   If you still don't under after that, there is nothing you can do.   

By the way Mike.  You are wrong about the date the land was purchased.  It was purchased in 1907.   

Perhaps that explains why you keep insisting that they purchased the land before they routed the course.  You have the date wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

I don't know that you have the correct dates when CBM acquired the land

The land was conveyed to CBM between March 21, 2007 and June 21, 2007.

That's irrefutable since CBM's written words tell us that he/they took title at that time.

No newspaper account can alter that fact.

Macdonald also stated that he wanted to raise between $ 60,000 and $ 70,000 to purchase 200 or more acres for National, spending between forty and fifty thousand to acquire the land and using the remainder of the money to build the GOLF COURSE.

Macdonald, in "Scotland's Gift", NEVER wrote that he intended the project to have ANY real estate component.

The initial group of subscribers were called "Founders".
The "Founders" locker room remains in existance today.

The money that each contributed, $ 1,000, was NOT to be an investment, but rather a gift in the spirit of advancing the sport in America.

Macdonald annointed himself as the Major Domo/Tzar.

Macdonald indicated that he, Jim Whigham and Travis would be the "committee, except that he dropped Travis and ONLY CBM and JW were the official committee members or team charged with carrying out the stated marching orders.

Emmett was NOT a committee member, but, along with Knapp, Stillman, Sabin and others, took an interest in the project.

NGLA wasn't incorporated until March 11, 1908.

No newspaper account can alter that fact.

Hope that helps.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I think you misunderstood my post.  Mike thinks the purchase occurred in 1906.  I told him it was 1907.   A generally agree with the rest of your post. 

I have no idea what point Mike thinks he is trying to make, but if he would look at the information I requested, I think he'd let it go.   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Perhaps the official purchase didn't go through until 1907, but it's clear that by December 1906 the 205 acres in question that would be purchased out of the 400+ available were already identified, and that the land was selected first, and then the course was routed and planned.

This type of legal technicality built into the land deal doesn't alter in the least that the events happened in exactly the opposite way that  your essay contends.

Macdonald first selected the land, then he routed his golf course upon it.

Them's the facts.

[DMoriarty]

This is crazy Mike.   We are nearly 90 posts in and you still haven't the faintest idea what these articles say or mean.   READ THE ARTICLES.  Read the other material I suggested.

What gets me is that we do this again and again.  You come up with some crazy misunderstanding and you run with it, never investigating further, never questioning yourself, never considering anything anyone has to say.  And it goes on and on and on and on. You are just flat out wrong about what these articles say, and foolishly so.   Yet you won't stop.  Wont bother even to reread them.  What are we to do?

David,

Perhaps the official purchase didn't go through until 1907, but it's clear that by December 1906 the 205 acres in question that would be purchased out of the 400+ available were already identified, and that the land was selected first, and then the course was routed and planned.

NO. These articles are entirely consistent with the other sources I pointed you toward. The course had already been routed and it would be completely planned BEFORE they would purchase the land.

This type of legal technicality built into the land deal doesn't alter in the least that the events happened in exactly the opposite way that  your essay contends.

NO.   They bought an option in Nov. 1906 giving the the right to chose 205 acres out of a 450 acre plot.   They cut this deal precisely because THEY WANTED TO PLAN THE COURSE FIRST, AND THEN BASE THE PURCHASE AROUND THE COURSE THEY HAD PLANNED. 

In other words , they did EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you claim they did. 

This is most frustrating, not because you are wrong, but because:
1.  Your own sources prove you wrong.
2.  You do this again and again and again and it wastes all of our time.
3.  You obviously are completely unwilling or unable to even try and truly understand this stuff. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

My mistake, and I see what you are saying.  Thank you for bearing with my misunderstanding. 

With your explanation, I can see that they first "optioned" 200 acres of the 400+ and then spent the next five months determining the routing and planning the holes before committing to the specific boundaries of the final purchase.  That makes sense to me.

Where I'm still struggling however, is how this is in the least bit analogous to what was done at Merion?

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

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

We know he eventually used quite a bit more land than he originally estimated for golf as the planameter results from what you and Jim Kennedy figured indicate the golf course occupies somewhere between 150-180 acres of the 205 Macdonald eventually purchased.

That probably makes sense, as some of the width and strategic options we know Macadonald wanted to achieve required quite a bit of acreage, and even though the course is only "two-wide" out and back in terms of routing, most of the fairways occupy generous portions.

I'm also wondering if some other complications around the real estate plans made that a less enticing scenario as the course was several years in the making.   Do you know why he eventually scrapped real estate plans?   Did they just eventually determine that they didn't have enough lots left after desiging the golf course or were there other factors?

It would also seem from the articles that perhaps more credit for the routing and hole designs should go to Emmet and Travis than previously believed?   Do we know if they were both involved as planned through the orginally proposed 5 month onsite design cycle, which seemingly culminated in the final purchase of 205 acres sometime later in 1911?

The reason I say I don't see any analogy to Merion is pretty straightforward.

In the case of NGLA, you've been telling me, and I now clearly see that the NGLA design committee spent five months (or more if the actual purchase date of November 1907 is accurate), working probably daily on the ground, coming up with the routing and hole plans for the course at Southampton before finalizing their purchase.

At Merion, the location of the 117 acres originally allocated for the golf course there out of the 338 acres that HDC held seem to have already been determined based on much less time, effort, and specific architectural purpose.  It also seems much more arbitrary.

For instance, from all indications that 117 acres Merion purchased was made up of taking all of the Johnson Farm land south of Ardmore Avenue, adding the southwestern adjoining Dallas Estate, and then grabbing most of the Johnson Farm land north of Ardmore Avenue that ran from Ardmore Ave to College Avenue north, with a transitory, proposed, "approximate" boundary between the golf course and the land available for real estate that was going to be adjustable depending on the final routing of the golf course.

All of the rest of the HDC holdings was west and due north of the golf course.

The following pre-course map and the 1910 Land Plan illustrate what I mean;






While we know that Barker did some type of one-day routing for the developer Connell, we also know that Macdonald and Whigham's single day visit that same month only resulted in a single-page letter largely expressing concerns as to whether the acreage was enough for a first-class course, as well as agronomic concerns with the inland clay-based soils.

There is no record of anyone, much less either M&W or Barker, doing anything else on the grounds between June 1910 and the final land purchase in the Nov/Dec 1910 timeframe.

If there was some parallel to NGLA prior to the finalized purchase, one would expect that records would exist of committees and teams of men streaming across the hundreds of HDC acres looking to locate a golf course would exist, and that those committees would seek out the best land of the 338 HDC acres for golf...not just some arbitrary geographicallly-based boundary.

Instead, it's only after the land was purchased at Merion, again in a very sensible fashion simply divding the portions for what made sense to support the combined goals of golf and real estate (as well as factoring in some realites about the golf course...the possibility of using the existing barn as a clubhouse, the wish to have the course located near the railroad, the possibilities of the quarry and creeks for hazards), that a committee was created to explore how best to use that land, spent months on the ground going through every conceivable golf plan, and then asking for M&W's best advice on which of those plans made the most sense and had the greatest golfing potential.

I really do think it's that simple.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 

I am glad that after almost 90 posts here and numerous posts on a few different threads, quite of few outrageous and hyperbolic statements about bombshells and such, and numerous uncalled for an inappropriate attacks on both me and Patrick, you have finally come to realize that your basic premise was not only wrong, it was not even supported by your own facts.

That being said, like all the times you have done this in the past, you have learned absolutely nothing from the experience and have simply segwayed directly into  your next set of blatant misrepresentations and misinterpretations. 

Your quote at the bottom of your posts warns against the persistently pursuing folly, yet that is exactly what you do.

1.  You are stuck on this idea that the purchase was somehow related to a real estate development. 
 -  You are taking information from information gleaned from a 1904 general agreement out of context.  That a newspaper did this is no excuse because i have explained the error to you and pointed you to the source.
-   Not even the 1904 general agreement supports your assumption.  That agreement generally and prospectively suggests that if a purchase is made and land is left over, it could be divvied  up equally for the founders to take in fee simple.  In other words, it anticipates giving the founders back any land that the club purchased but ultimately didn't need.  This is not like any real estate scheme I have ever heard of.  To the contrary, it again demonstrates that CBM was interested in building a golf club, and nothing else. 

2. You are also stuck on the 110 acre figure mentioned in the 1904 general agreement.   You are taking this information out of context.  Despite your claims to the contrary, this figure has nothing to do with the actual purchase that took place. 

3.  You are still misprepresenting what happened.   They did not spend 5 months routing the course.    They had already routed it, and the predicted that they would spend 5 months planning it in detail and laying it out.     

4.   You do not seem to understand that much of what these articles CONTEMPLATE had not yet happened. As I said before,  Travis was immediately dropped from the process, so I don't know why you think Travis deserves credit.   They were planning on him being involved but he wasnt.

5.   As for Emmet, CBM does give him credit for planning even after, but it seems that the initial routing work was actually done by CBM and H.J. Whigham.  I could be wrong, but haven't seen evidence indicating that I am.  Whether Emmet was actually involved cannot be determined by a PROSPECTIVE plan, but must be based on what actually happened. 

6.  As for the analogy to Merion, my theory is that:
-  M&W inspected the land and a general routing was determined BEFORE THE land to be purchased was even generally determined.
-  Once the land to be purchased was generally determined the borders were not finalized until more detailed planning took place.   

At the risk of sending you on more unsupported tangents, here is something from Golf Illustrated, presumably written by Max Behr on the "Green Committee" page in April 1915:

When war broke out there was much discussion about the relative size of the armies. Germany could put so many millions in the field, France perhaps a few less, England so many hundred thousand, and so forth. A certain Russian diplomat when asked how many men Russia could contribute replied, as if the question was a foolish one, "As many as she needs of course." And when we are asked, as we frequently are, how many acres should be used in laying out a golf course we are inclined to answer "just as many as it needs." The ideal links is only to be made in any locality by finding the most suitable situation in a general way and then laying out the best eighteen holes that the nature of the land will admit irrespective of the amount of property used in the process. And this is really the most economical plan in the long run . . .

Later in the article, he addressed NGLA, although doesn't seem to get it quite right:

Generally there are natural features to be made use of, and they should be employed without thinking of economy. The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape. Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

In reality, I think the author skipped a step that was beside his point, but matters somewhat to our discussion.   After the course was "roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape,"  NGLA optioned the land and maintained the ability to move the borders if necessary as the course was planned, and then they actually planned it in detail and had likely begun laying it out before set the final borders and completed the purchase.

The whole process closely parallels what I think happened at Merion.

1.   Probably through a series of iterations, some combination of HHB, Lloyd and Francis, and M&W  the course was "roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape."

2.   Based on this, Merion agreed to purchase 117 acres but did not yet bind themselves to an exact border.

3.   M&W then guided Wilson and his committee through a more detailed planning, and ultimately determined a more exact layout plan.

4.   Merion finalized the boundary details and completed the purchase. 

_________________________

One reason I am so dismayed about the way TEPaul is playing "puppet master" with the documents, is that there was obviously a number of deals struck between the various parties near the end of 1910, and if we had the details of these deals we would be able to see exactly what happened.

Unfortunately, as has always been the case, TEPaul and Wayne are trying to control the record and present only the version they want us to believe, while ignoring the rest.   Either they don't really understand what was going on, or they are intentionally hiding what was really going on, or both, but IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT IS CRUCIAL TO FIGURING THIS OUT IS STILL BEING WITHHELD.   

Documents like the publicly recorded deeds and the rest of the Cuyler letter are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Mike_Cirba]

3.  You are still misprepresenting what happened.   They did not spend 5 months routing the course.    They had already routed it, and the predicted that they would spend 5 months planning it in detail and laying it out.     

David,

What is your source for the contention that the routing was done prior to December 1906?   The news accounts state specifically that the next three months will be spent "staking out the course".

If this is not routing, I'm not sure what it is?

6.  As for the analogy to Merion, my theory is that:
-  M&W inspected the land and a general routing was determined BEFORE THE land to be purchased was even generally determined.
-  Once the land to be purchased was generally determined the borders were not finalized until more detailed planning took place.   
...

1.   Probably through a series of iterations, some combination of HHB, Lloyd and Francis, and M&W  the course was "roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape."

2.   Based on this, Merion agreed to purchase 117 acres but did not yet bind themselves to an exact border.

3.   M&W then guided Wilson and his committee through a more detailed planning, and ultimately determined a more exact layout plan.

4.   Merion finalized the boundary details and completed the purchase. 

David,

I don't understand the similarities you're drawing at all.

The entire land boundaries purchased by Merion south of Ardmore Avenue match exactly with the the land boundaries of the former Johnson Farm that was south of Ardrmore Avenue plus the adjacent Dallas Estate.

Are you saying that they bought land based on the golf course they had routed prior and it just happend to match exactly the property boundaries that existed prior to the golf course?

No, they bought land, and then routed golf holes on it.

Similarly, north of Ardmore Avenue they just took a large portion of the former Johson Farm running parallel to the rail tracks and created an "approximate" division in the form of a proposed road, to the west of which would be real estate, and to the right would be golf course, running to the boundaries of that portion of the Johnson Farm, from Ardmore Ave on the southern end to College Avenue on the north.

Are you saying that they bought land based on the golf course they had routed prior and it just happened to match exactly with the southern and eastern property boundaries that existed prior to the golf course?

Again, they bought land, and then routed and built golf holes on it.

If they were looking for the best 117 acres of the 338 available from HDC, then wouldn't they have taken stretches anywhere on that block of land, as best fit their golfing purposes, and not have confined themselves to the exact same property boundaries as had existed prior?

[DMoriarty]

What is your source for the contention that the routing was done prior to December 1906?   The news accounts state specifically that the next three months will be spent "staking out the course".

If this is not routing, I'm not sure what it is?

Again Mike, you ignore your own sources.  The articles and later information establishes that that they to "plan the course in detail," lay out the course, and and stake it out to such a degree that they could produce a detailed relief map! This goes well beyond just a rough routing.      How do we know they had already had a routing in mind?  For one thing, because they told us they had already examined the contours and came up with the golf holes, and even described a number of these holes and locations. 

 I mean come on Mike, quit wasting our time!

David,

I don't understand the similarities you're drawing at all.

The entire land boundaries purchased by Merion south of Ardmore Avenue match exactly with the the land boundaries of the former Johnson Farm that was south of Ardrmore Avenue plus the adjacent Dallas Estate.

No Mike,  HDC owned this land and took title to this land in LLoyd's name.   Merion hadn't purchased it yet, but Merion did have a deal to buy the  117 acres approximated on the 1910 Land Plan. I'd have to see the documents, but my guess is that they had an option like CBM's or some other contractual right to purchase the 117 acres, and that this may have allowed them to do some fudging on the borders when they finished there detailed plans.     

I could tell you specifically, but TEPaul and Wayne are playing games with the documents. 

Are you saying that they bought land based on the golf course they had routed prior and it just happend to match exactly the property boundaries that existed prior to the golf course?

No, they bought land, and then routed golf holes on it.

Again Mike, pure and unabashed hyperbole and misinformation.   The prior boundaries didn't match the golf course at all. .  Not even close.

1.  Part of the Johnson property west of the course wasn't needed, and the boundary was change accordingly.   
2.  The Francis land swap area was not originally offered, but it was added.
3.  The entire dallas estate was added AFTER the offer for land was initially made, strongly suggesting that the reason that this land was purchased was that it was required for the course.   
4.   The RR property land behind the clubhouse was not offered either, but was added to the golf course at M&W's insistence.
5.  Even the shape of the former Dallas Estate was altered to best suit the golf course.

So Mike, you can see that the borders of the course were not predetermined at all, but were determined according to the needs of the golf course.   

The only boundary that remained for sure was part of the eastern boundary, except for the RR property, and perhaps the southern boundary, but this is far from certain.


____________________

Mike,

Did you happen to notice how the Behr article distinguishes between the routing and the later layout and detailed plan.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Yes, but I think perhaps that's where we're not seeing eye-to-eye.

To me what Behr is describing (and earlier Whigham) is simply making sure the land purchased contains all of the easily identifiable best natural features available.

For instance, at NGLA it sounds to me from what Whigham described that they saw a good hill for an alps and also identified probably a redan setting and an eden (although it sounds from the description that the site of the eden later changed).

That rough inclusion of attractive natural landforms to me is a vastly different exercise than routing 18 contiguous holes of interest playability, safety, and optimization of the overall property...a necessary first step perhaps, but certainly not routing.

[DMoriarty]

Mike your interpretation is absurd, and not at all reflected by at least 1/2 dozen sources, all of which note that the course was routed and planned BEFORE THE PURCHASE.

Just stop mike.

[Mike Cirba]

I thought this old thread might be a good place to post some recent newspaper articles found by me and/or Joe Bausch that stick to the original theme here of contemporaneously documenting the creation of the NGLA.

Starting with this one from September, 1905, it's interesting to note that Macdonald was seemingly often a "friendly adviser" to clubs building courses in the East, even at this early juncture.





The following article, which copies a letter sent from Macdonald to Walter Travis was CBM was visiting courses abroad in March 1906, speaks as well to some of the business side of what was being proposed.    This idea to buy enough land to allow for giving each of the Founding members land on which to build cottages or villas to help them recoup their $1000 investment was reiterated in an article penned by HJ Whigham that same month.





The next one, from June of 1906, shares some of Macdonald's insights on what he has seen abroad, as well as shares where he came up with his idea for the Biarritz hole.   At this stage, he is still searching for the perfect site to buy 200+ acres.




This next article is pretty terrific, written in December 1910 right after CBM evidently signed papers to secure some 200 yet undetermined acres out of 450 available, and gives great insight into the state of the project at that early date.    





This one, from January 1897 shares much the same information.

[Mike Cirba]

One thing I noticed that surprised me in revisiting this thread is this article from August, 1908, well into construction, that Joe previously posted is the mention that Walter Travis was still on the project at that time.

Does anyone know if that's accurate, or know when Travis actually either left or was asked to leave the project??

It's also interesting that CBM was in near constant contact with Horace Hutchinson, obviously seeking and respecting his good advice and suggestions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
No, I think you should have put these articles on a new thread. This old one started downhill with your reply #9, where it's pretty clear to me that you are still suffering from a Merion headache, and after no one 'bit' you made reply #10, a rather juvenile post.

As for your latest post, I'd have to say that I always wonder what someone means when they say something is 'interesting' when the information they are posting isn't new to them. The article itself may be new, but even if you haven't read CBM's book you do know that CBM readily mentions HH therein and credits him with assistance in placing bunkers, putting greens, etc., and that information has had prior mention in other threads about CBM or NGLA.

So I'd ask, what's 'interesting' about that Mike?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I agree...I probably should have started a new thread.

I just didn't want to somehow be seen as taking credit because the majority of these articles were found by Joe Bausch, who posted them originally, and I didn't want that fact to get lost or have people inadvertedly credit me with this.

That being said, I do find it interesting and I don't think it's widely known how much Hutchinson, as well as John Low, Harold Hilton, John Sutherland and some others from overseas did help with the project.    I think most laymen would view it as having been a completely American affair, and that's how it's largely been portrayed...as something of a "us vs them" reaction against the fact we had no great courses here, which is true, but I didn't know until recently that these guys helped with the project.   I had been aware of the Hutchison "dropping pebbles" story, but considered that more of a single visit anecdotal inspiration than something that had been ongoing throughout the project.

I think what I'll do to avoid some of the earlier baggage is what you suggested...clean up and enlarge some of the originally posted articles, and then post them all in chronological order.

By the way, in CBM's book he tells us he "dropped Travis".   George Bahto's book makes it appear that Travis left at some point of his own accord.   Does anyone know what actually happened, and when?   I believe their imbroglio over the Schnectady Putter banning wasn't until 1909 if that was the impetus.   

Thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I think the easiest path to an answer is to post the articles in a new thread, and then re-ask the questions.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The history and the evolution of the CBM/Travis relationship is a long and complicated one and probably one that is not all that well understood today even though it could be and probably should be due to the wealth and volume of the textual material that is left from it for us. But even given that it does take some time to study it all and understand it. And it certainly did not involve one issue; it actually involved a number of them over the years.

In the beginning CBM and Travis obviously had a good relationship not the least reason being that GCGC was CBM's primary club when he moved from Chicago to NYC in 1900. At about the same time Travis became a member and as we know he became perhaps the most prominent or recognizable member of GCGC because of his golf fame.

It is also interesting to note how much CBM appeared to depend on Travis during the lead up to the planning of NGLA. For instance, all suggestions from abroad for ideas for NGLA were to be sent to Travis c/o GCGC!

The Schnectedy Putter issue took a long time develop and even though CBM seemed to be technically on the same side of it Travis was on, the fact that CBM served on both the USGA's and the R&A's Rules Committees at the same time annoyed Travis no end. He felt that was fairly "UnAmerican" for an American to serve on the R&A Rule Committee and particularly when the Schnectedy Putter was being played out in both Rules committees.

Also it looks like CBM was the one who actually crafted and wrote the amateur status rules in the teens which Travis got caught up in.

And then there was the philosophy of architecture that apparently drove them apart. CBM was not mute on his idea that innovation in architecture was a very bad thing and there is no question Travis took strong exception to that and in print, including his own American Golfer magazine.

And then in the later teens the USGA's stance became so unpopular with so many, and particularly on the issue of amateur status (viz Ouimet), that the magazines and newspapers began writing that the Western Golf Association should take over the roll of this country's national representative association for amateur golf since it was not as elitist and eastern oriented as the USGA was perceived to be at the time.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Good idea...I'll see if I can get to it tonite.

Thanks!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()