News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1250 on: April 06, 2011, 05:33:24 PM »
Jeff,

Even with the words secured and purchased in there? Seems odd if there were no deal...


In any event, it does seem the most likely source would have been the realty company, doesn't it? They win by drawing attraction to the area, CBM does not.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1251 on: April 06, 2011, 05:42:04 PM »
Jim,

If the article was in fact a "scoop" the reporter may have overheard someone say that CBM was going to buy some land from them, and the deal was "imminent", no?  However, he didn't know where, so he described the whole area.

Basically, in this case, I am in Pat's "why trust the news" campe (I think others agree) and am offering up a theory as to why it was inaccurate.  It makes as much sense as parsing words like "skirted".
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1252 on: April 06, 2011, 05:43:41 PM »
But it came true...doesn't that distinguish it from other faulty news reports?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1253 on: April 06, 2011, 05:56:20 PM »
Jim,

Admittedly, my theory rests on some exact timing of the reporter getting the inside scoop that a deal was assured, but an exact location had not yet been determined.  However, IF they rode the Sebonac site for a few days in late Sept., just a few days after looking at the canal site, the timing isn't too far off.  Reported in October and Nov 1 (copied most likely) right after the pony rides, but before the option is actually taken in December.

Because the option hadn't been taken, but its reported anyway, its a scoop, based on insider knowledge.  And, it became partially true, but some of the details were not right - notably a good description of the exact site.  Who knows.  It seems he thinks the site is near the eastern portion.  Other than the Good Ground reference, it does fit the final site.

So, now we have Mike and his third site, David saying it refers to the final site, and me saying the article is hedging its bets between the original canal site and the final site, because its rushed to pub before a final deal is made.  Between the three of us, I think we have all possibilities covered!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1254 on: April 06, 2011, 06:07:48 PM »
I don't think Mike thinks it's a third site anymore, but rather the canal site.

I think the description in that snippet is the entire realty company's holdings north of the railroad.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1255 on: April 06, 2011, 07:00:46 PM »
Jim,

I think there were only two sites, too. I also think the description was the entire holdings north of the tracks, for reasons I explain above.  That said, some folks made a nice case for the original canal site to be south of the tracks, given the view of the Atlantic, et al.

Then, the reporter would have had to have known the southern site was out, and some site north of the tracks was now under discussion, but again just didn't know the details, so he included the whole property in his description, so as to get out an accurate (as could be with facts he knew) scoop as quickly as possible.

That still makes the most sense to me.  The article just doesn't accurately describe any particular site.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1256 on: April 06, 2011, 08:01:31 PM »
Jeff,

The reporter would not have needed to know anything other than CBM had secured some land within the Alvord holdings north of the railroad tracks...as well as what the general boundaries of the Alvord holdings were in their entirety...right?

Why would he have to know anything about a first offer? North or South of the tracks...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1257 on: April 06, 2011, 11:28:09 PM »
Jim,

You are right. All he would need to know is that there was an offer. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1258 on: April 07, 2011, 10:43:54 AM »
Guys,

Why do we care if the Atlantic Ocean was in view on the first site?   Where are we getting that prerequisite from?   CBM made pretty clear in the December articles that the land and dunes on the Peconic Bay side of Shinnecock were preferable so I think the south side was ruled out pretty quickly.

As regards the article and the description of the site, would any of you honestly say that you would include the land of Sebonac Neck in your interpretation of what the article is talking about if you did not know that was the land CBM eventually purchased?   Seriously??

Regarding Sebonac Neck, when I'm referring to it for purposes of this discussion, I'm speaking specifically of the tracts of 450 acres that CBM had for his consideration.    To say that his purchase of NGLA goes far south of Sebonac Neck really isn't the point.   Until someone finds/posts the metes and bounds of the overall 450 acre tract (if such a document exists), NONE of us know the exact dimensions, but we can reasonably assume it was the land of today's NGLA as well as much of today's Sebonack GC.  

The December articles that did refer to this plot of land were very specific, and described the land as lying between Bulls Head Bay, Cold Spring, and Sebonac Neck.   No mention of canals, Good Ground, the Long Island Rairoad, or any of those points because they were most assuredly not near the land that CBM was considering at Sebonac Neck.

October 15, 1906



November 1st, 1906



December 14th, 1906



« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 10:56:44 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1259 on: April 07, 2011, 10:54:02 AM »
Mike,

Shouldn't that confirm for you that it was a three step process in which CBM agreed to buy some of Alvord's land in October, found exactly what he wanted to buy by December, and completed all the technicalities in the Spring?

All we need to believe, in order to buy into my scenario, is that the author(s) of those early articles knew it was for part of Alvord's land but did not know the it was limited to Sebonac Neck. In that scenario, wouldn't you describe the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club as East of Alvord's land?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1260 on: April 07, 2011, 11:12:06 AM »
Mike,  Are you ever going to answer my questions and address my analysis?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1261 on: April 07, 2011, 11:27:19 AM »
Jim,

No, I don't agree.   In December CBM had not yet determined the land needed for his course, much less the routing.

David,

What questions are still open?   I don't agree that the first offer was 1905, I don't agree that it couldn't have been any of the land west of Shinnecock Hills skirting the RR tracks to the south and going out to the inlet (which I think was the canal), and I think the offer of 120 acres was a counter offer after CBM's larger first offer was rejected.


By the way, for a bunch of smart guys, we've missed something very obvious that proves CBM did not have his land selected or course routed in December.   More to follow....

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1262 on: April 07, 2011, 11:36:20 AM »
Fellows,

Please read again what CBM tells us about the property he's secured in December of 1906.

By the way, this is from the same newspaper that posted the October 15th article.
  


Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1263 on: April 07, 2011, 11:46:48 AM »
An acre is a conventional measure of area. It was defined in the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and was supposed to be the area that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day. Acre is derived from the Latin for field, but the common field system of medieval times in Britain was ten acres. An acre is a furlong long and a chain wide. In fact, an archaic word for furlong was 'acre-length' and for chain 'acre-width'.

furlong   201.17 m   8 furlongs = 1 mile
10 chains = 1 furlong
220 yards = 1 furlong    A furlong is a 'furrow long' or length of a medieval field (see acre). The furlong was also known as flatt, furshott, or sheth. The length varied depending on the type of soil. It was usual for horses to take a short breather at the end of the furrow before turning in to the next furrow. The heavier the soil, the harder the horses had to work, and so the less time between breathers. This led to shorter furrows or furlongs between the ends, and therefore local variations in furlong length. These variations were not removed until the railways required a universal standard measurement.
Furlongs are used for the lengths of some horse races.


Here's the land at 4 acres wide;

« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 11:50:43 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1264 on: April 07, 2011, 11:50:15 AM »
Jim,

Also, here again is the "Mother Article" from the NY Evening Telegram on October 15th, 1906 that the two Boston articles (as well as a verbatim one the next day in the Rochester (NY) Democrate) seem to have sprung from.

There is no mention of "securing".   I believe that was simply the Boston writer trying to make it sound like an original article, although it's obviously cobbled.




For comparison, here's the Boston article published the next day;






Mike,

Put that article with these two and it's clear the CBM quotes in December were held for two months and reproduced...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1265 on: April 07, 2011, 12:07:32 PM »
Jim,

I'm not seeing it...what quotes are you referring to?

Thanks

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1266 on: April 07, 2011, 12:13:22 PM »
How about the statement that maps have been made and sent...???


Also...you like "skirted" and "adjoined" didn't you?


Do you think CBM grew up tilling heavy or light soil? That's got to be the key to determining the width he's describing as 4 acres, no? Please don't answer that...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1267 on: April 07, 2011, 12:17:17 PM »
Jim,

Where does it say maps were made and sent in the December articles?

Also, how "wide" do you think an "acre" is?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1268 on: April 07, 2011, 12:22:39 PM »
Are you serious?

Have you read the October 15th article yet? i believ you referred to it as "The Mother"...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1269 on: April 07, 2011, 12:27:44 PM »
Also...I have no idea how wide CBM thought an acre was, so why bother? If he was looking at all 450 acres of Sebonac Neck he would have said so. I think he does say that in his book as a first step in considering it (right after he was turned down on his canal site offer!).

When an article from October 15th with very accurate details of what eventually happened (not all details, but enough to know the author had a good source) why would we assume it's not accurate? I haven't heard one good reason other than saying we know it was not actually purchased at that point. I'd offer that a handshake at this stage of the purchase suffices for securing the property...that's the only thing we could possibly disagree about.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1270 on: April 07, 2011, 12:50:38 PM »
Jim,

Where in the December articles does CBM refer to maps having been drawn up and sent?   

Also, CBM DOES tell us he's looking at all of the 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...he tells us he has it his disposal a tract 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1271 on: April 07, 2011, 12:55:53 PM »
This is ridiculous Mike.   Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.  

At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal."  For the following reasons and more, this was not the case.   I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would.  You never have.   Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue.   You are playing games. 

Here they are again.  There are more but lets start here:

1. The acreage is way off.  The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?

2. The timing is way off.  CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905.  This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period  --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap.   Plus, CBM wasn't a fool.  I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way.   Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?

3.  The outcome is way off.   CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected.  Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property.  While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later.  If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?

4.  The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad.  It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location.  This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected.   CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?

5.  Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed.  To what were the later articles referring if not this article?

6. The location is way off.  The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal."  The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east.  The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course.  This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description.  The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?

7.  Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course.  Take a close look at Scotland's Gift.  In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC.  He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal.  The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land.  It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property.   In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.  This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?

_____________________________________

As for your measures, we've covered this before and I have explained where I think the 4 acres figure came from.   I considered your interpretation and don't buy it.   If CBM meant a 1/2 mile he would have said 1/2 mile.   If he meant 8 furlongs, he would have said 8 furlongs.  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1272 on: April 07, 2011, 01:38:55 PM »
Jim,

Where in the December articles does CBM refer to maps having been drawn up and sent?   



I have no idea. I've now re-read it a few times and find no mention of the maps...what does that mean to you? The October articles make no bones about it. By then they had been drawn up and sent.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1273 on: April 08, 2011, 04:19:50 PM »
David,

Please see my replies below in BLUE.   Thanks.


This is ridiculous Mike.   Whenever you get stuck on an issue you go into hiding, put off the questions and issues, put them off again and again, and then take off in another direction as if there was never even an issue.  

At one point we had been discussing your claim that the October articles described the site referred to as "near the canal."  For the following reasons and more, this was not the case.   I've asked you to address these points again and again, and again and again you said you would.  You never have.   Now you have the nerve to wonder what is still at issue.   You are playing games. 

Here they are again.  There are more but lets start here:

1. The acreage is way off.  The acreage listed in the articles is over double what CBM reportedly tried to purchase.Why do the articles say 250 acres?

David, I believe I've tried to offer a theory multiple times now.   What we do know is that 250 acres is not the correct amount, either of what CBM actually secured, what he purchased, or what he wrote he offered originally.   So, we know that in this aspect the news report is wrong.   

Personally, I believe it was a transcription error in the paper that got propagated.   We know from 1904 onward that CBM wanted just over 200 acres, we know he wrote in his Founders agreement that he needed 205 acres (110 for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acres ea for building lots for the Founders), and we know that what he eventually secured and purchased was exactly 205 acres.   Coincidence?   No way.

I believe and have hypothesized that because his first offer was for land that Alvord was planning for real estate development that after CBM was shot down asking for 205 acres, he decided to skip the building lots and see if he could buy just enough of that land for the golf course (120 acres), which also got refused, but which he related in his book.

I think it's absurd to think that it's because on one site he decided he needed 205 acres for his course while southwest of there he'd only need 120.   Ridiculous, frankly, but respectfully. 


2. The timing is way off.  CBM wrote that he decided that he wanted to buy this land within a few weeks of the developer's purchase which was in the fall of 1905.  This detail strongly suggests that the offer was made closer to that time period  --CBM presents it as if it was a missed opportunity, that he just missed getting the land on the cheap.   Plus, CBM wasn't a fool.  I doubt he would have sat on his offer for about a year until the development was reportedly well under way.   Why is this happening about A YEAR after CBM decided to purchase land in SH?

Once again, I've addressed this multiple times, but the short answer is that I believe you are reading CBM's book incorrectly.   He doesn't tell us he decided upon the Canal Site shortly after Alvord did his huge land purchase...he tells us he decided to build his course in the Shinnecock Hills shortly after Alvord made his purchase in late 1905.   

You can surmise all you like about CBM's motivations, but they really aren't supported by facts.   If he was so eager to not miss an opportunity then why did he go abroad for 5 months right after Alvord's purchase.

Instead, I believe CBM would NEVER have made an offer on land until he was sure it fit with the general dimensions and type of fetaures he wanted but he couldn't even quantify that until he had his Topographical maps of the great holes and features abroad...which was the primary purpose of his extended stay.

Again, what was the very first thing he and Whigham did after he got general agreement from Alvord to sell him land at Sebonac Neck?   They, "studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind."


3.  The outcome is way off.   CBM wrote that his 120 acre Canal offer was rejected.  Yet the October articles indicate that CBM had purchased the property.  While this pronouncement may have been premature, it strongly suggests that CBM and SHPBRC were on their way to making a deal at that point, especially when we consider that they formalized their deal two months later.  If his offer was rejected, then why do the articles report he was purchasing the land?

4.  The project was too mature. Likewise, the articles indicate that they were well along in the process; that CBM and HJW had already been over the sites several times, had created maps, and even sent them abroad.  It sounds like, whether the final deal had been worked out, CBM had his location.  This does not jibe with the description in Scotland's Gift of the land having been rejected.   CBM and HJW would not have invested so much time and energy on land that wasn't even for sale!If the land wasn't for sale, then why was it reported that had they spent substantial time and effort on the project, including going over the property multiple times, making maps, and sending them all over the world for comment?

5.  Later articles confirmed that the site purchased was the same one that had been previously discussed.  To what were the later articles referring if not this article?

6. The location is way off.  The 120 acre Canal property was located "near the Canal."  The October articles described property adjoining SH Golf course to the east.  The Canal is about three miles west of SH Golf Course. No matter how hard he tries, Mike cannot reasonably reconcile these two descriptions with a 120 acre golf course, or even a 250 acre course.  This is especially so when we consider the rest of the description.  The land reportedly stretched along Peconic Bay with the westerly point of the property near the inlet, which is then still over a mile and a quarter to the Canal. Why isn't the described site near the Canal?

7.  Speaking of location, the described land is way too close to SH Golf Course.  Take a close look at Scotland's Gift.  In the paragraph discussing his attempt to purchase the 120 acre Canal parcel, CBM explained that he did not want to get too close to SHGC.  He also explained that entire parcel was huge ("some 2000 acres") and that the land he sought was near the Canal.  The Canal was the western edge of the SHPBRC land.  It was as far away from SH Golf Club as one could get on the Shinnecock Hills property.   In Scotland's Gift CBM told us he did not want to crowd Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and tried to purchase land well away from Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.  This is irreconcilable with the October articles which describe land adjacent to the golf course. Why is the described site adjoining SHGC?

_____________________________________

As for your measures, we've covered this before and I have explained where I think the 4 acres figure came from.   I considered your interpretation and don't buy it.   If CBM meant a 1/2 mile he would have said 1/2 mile.   If he meant 8 furlongs, he would have said 8 furlongs.  

David, I'll get to your questions 3-7 this weekend, I promise.    In the meantime, perhaps you and/or Jim can tell me what you think CBM meant with "4 acres" in width, because perhaps I missed it previously.

If he's talking about square acres, that's only 208 yards wide, and we know most of NGLA is MUCH wider than that and there certainly wouldn't be much land to choose from "for his consideration".

If he's talking the way it was used to measure width historically, as in a furlong, then it's 880 yards, which is very consistent with a site of 450 acres overall, especially since we know that the site is actually 1.45 miles long, and not 2 miles.   Do the math and it comes out pretty close to 450 acres overall.

At the width of a square acre, 208 yards, the site would have only been 151 acres at 2 miles long and a paltry 112 acres at 1.5 miles.

It was 4 furlongs, and he was talking about having ALL of Sebonac Neck for his consideration and at his disposal to stake out the best holes and land forms in December of 1906.

Thanks...

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1274 on: April 08, 2011, 04:51:06 PM »
Mike,

I'll concede that he was looking at all of Sebonac Neck in December if you'll concede that he had maps drawn up and mailed to all of his advisors by October...is that a deal? I don't think it's at all impossible that he would have surveyed all 405 acres.