[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure if you can see the Atlantic Ocean from the high points of the Sebonack property today, but the more important question is whether you could see it THEN, while subsequent tree and brush growth may have changed that over time.

EXCEPT that Macdonald tells us it was covered in bushes in 1906 so not much has changed in that regard, has it.

But, stand in the parking lot at Sebonack, an area void of trees, probably the highest point on the 450 acre property, or certainly one of the highest points on the property and tell me if you can see the Atlantic Ocean.

Do you think that the ridge at Shinnecock, upon which the 1st tee, 10th tee and 10th green reside, is a visual impediment to seeing the Atlantic Ocean from anywhere on NGLA ?

Where, on that 205 and 450 acre parcel can you see the Shinnecock Bay, Peconic Bay and the Atlantic Ocean ?

Remember, your articles, which you claim base their info on a press release, DIRECTLY from Macdonald, make this claim, over and over and over again.

But, we know it's false.

However, I know why it's false and am invoking the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privileges and will not reveal the answer at the present time.[/color

Besides, you trying to throw those articles out based on not liking what CBM is quoted directly as saying because of this mention of seeing the Atlantic Ocean (while it describes the rest of the property accurately to a tee) strikes me as being wholly disengenous and the type of possible technicality that really has you missing the forest for the tree.

What's disengenuous is your claim that the newspaper articles are press releases DIRECTLY from Macdonald.
That's so absurd it's comical.
That mistake is not a mere "technicality", it's a huge, gross, calamatous error, one that Macdonald would NEVER make.
That mistake is a major issue.
Your claim is that CBM was so thorough and so meticulous, so how could he make that calamatous mistake.
We also know that he studied the land over days, "earnestly" so how is it possible that he would make that statement, ACCORDING TO YOU, in a press release DIRECTLY from Macdonald ?

Don't you see the insanity of your position ?

That statement could NEVER be sourced from Macdonald when describing the land at NGLA.

Remember, it's alleged that you can see the Atlantic from EVERYWHERE on the property except the low lying stretches.
And, we know, today and in 1906, that that was/is IMPOSSIBLE

In your wild attempt to tangentially discount and/or dismiss David's premise on Merion you're making yourself look stupid by promoting something that's physically impossible. [/b]

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.  The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level.  The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.

One other question for you.  What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time?  In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them?  What would the source of that one been?  At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement".  Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Could you look at the elevations on the Sebonack golf course property as well?

I suspect Macdonald was talking about the entire 450 acres at his disposal out of which he would carve out 205 as suited his purposes, and I also suspect he was "selling" it a little bit for the New York press, from where he hoped to get the large majority of members.

By the way...two of those articles appeared on the exact same day in competing newspapers so plagiarizing would be a magic trick. 
Thanks!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.  
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level.  The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.

I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot.

In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.

The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches.
If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b]

One other question for you.  What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time?  In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them?  What would the source of that one been?  At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement".  Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?

Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

The highest point on Sebonack appears to be the clubhouse area and it's about 80 feet above sea level.  Assuming that there were no trees there a hundred years ago, you could look down 30 feet to the Alps location. I have no idea whether Macdonald was referring to someplace on the 450 acres or the 205 acres when making the Atlantic statement (if, in fact he actually was the source of the statement).

I have no doubt that whoever precipitated the spate of articles was trying to sell the place and its views.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

The articles don't state, "from the highest elevation on the 450 acres under consideration"

They say, from everywhere on the property except the low lying stetches.

So, we know that the articles are ALL WRONG on that account.

They also say that the views are of The Atlantic Ocean, Shinnecock Bay and Peconic Bay.

I'd agree that to a degree, it's someone attempting to be Donald Trump 94 years ago.

In a day or two I'll explain the origin of the misinformation found in the articles.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Will you answer my questions as set forth above? Surely you ought to explain your justification for ignoring CBM in Scotland's Gift as well as Max Behr on this issue.

__________________________

Bryan,  That is interesting, but I am not sure that finding one point where seeing the Ocean might theoretically be possible provides much justification for the articles which stated that the Ocean can be seen from much of the property.

Also, even accepting your line and the Google measures, I am not so sure that the Ocean would have been visible. I think you'd have trouble seeing much past Shinnecock's clubhouse, range, and the area around the RR tracks, especially because in the old photos a large berm is visible where the RR passed Shinnecock.   The land around there is high enough that one's viewing angle would be pretty shallow off of level anyway, and a high berm or even a high fence or bushes would have made viewing past there impossible   (Keep in mind also that that the curvature of the earth will lose about two feet per mile to a straight line.)

If those familiar with the property say the Ocean is not visible, is there much reason to doubt them?  

_________________________________

Mike just made up the part about the articles addressing the entire parcel.  The articles say one mile of frontage on Bulls Head Bay, not the Peconic.  

[Adam_Messix]

Gentlemen--

May I ask a question....

There's a hole at Winged Foot West, Number Four I believe, that is named Sound View.  It was named such because you could apparantly see Long Island Sound on the hole when it first opened.  Today, you would have no idea that you could see LI Sound on the hole.  My question is Could it be possible that changes in certain natural features (namely construction and/or tree type foliage) make it where we would have no idea what things looked like in the 1910s? 

Thank you very much in advance for your responses.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps. 
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level.  The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.

I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet.  I agree.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot.  I'm sure not now.  It appears that there is Sebonack's maintenance building and two lines of mature trees in the way now.  A hundred years ago, there certainly wasn't the barn, and maybe not the trees.

In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.

The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches.   The articles don't say "EVERYWHERE except for".  One says "from the hills".  Another says "except for the lower stretches".  So what if the lower stretches are 95% of the course. (where are those emoticons when you need them?)

If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b]  If the Atlantic wasn't visible from the high points a hundred years ago then I'd say that the articles are in error on that point.  It's a bit of a leap to infer that the articles in totality are grossly inaccurate because of that one point. A leap of Cirban proportions. (more emoticons missing)

One other question for you.  What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time?  In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them?  What would the source of that one been?  At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement".  Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?

Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time.  I can't believe you are stooping to this level.  Aren't you the guy who regularly upbraided TEPaul on the Merion threads for this very thing.  Hopefully you haven't bought some acreage from Happydale Farms.  Or bought a dog.  (some final emoticons missing)[color]

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

See my reply to Patrick above. 

It appears at best that the Atlantic would have been a line on the horizon.  The railway berm is lower than the Alps hill. The people (Patrick) who know the area, know it now, or 20 or 40 years ago.  None of us was around 100 years ago, so for me, the jury is still out. I'd put the statement down to promotional hyperbole.  If I can see a sliver of Atlantic on the horizon , then I have an Atlantic view according to the promoter. Reminds me of looking at condos in our current building.  One on the upper floors was advertised as having a wonderful view to the east.  Turned out to be a 10* opening between two other towers.  What can you say about advertising?   

I guess I was just debating the leap from the Atlantic being a sliver on the horizon (or less) to the articles in totality being grossly inaccurate.

As a side thought, Google Earth measures the top of the hill as 50 feet, more or less.  Mike's article says it was 56 feet.  Do you suppose they lopped off 6 feet to flatten green and tee sites?  Or, did they mis-measure it?  Or, is Google Earth off by 6 feet?

One other thought.  I agree with your measuring the site at 205 acres using the Google planimeter.  There appear to be about 40 acres unused to the east of 16 and 17, but certainly not 80 acres.  What's strange to me is that the developer would sell them such an irregularly shaped piece of land.  I'd love to see the deed and metes and bounds.  It must go on and on.  But, then it was only Long Island swamp land.  Maybe there was no prospect of selling that land to anybody else at the time.  Or, of selling the irregularly shaped remaining piece.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

The older golf courses do remain curiously un treed compared to the surrounding land. I presume it was less treed back then, and then planting or natural overgrowth in undeveloped areas took over, where as SH and NGLA actively kept theirs in links condition, perhaps clearing somewhat. 

We know CBM cleared a lot of undergrowth, but was there a lot of tree clearing to build those two courses (inc. SH)?  I don't recall their clearing history at the moment.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Macdonald described the land as entangled in bushes; no mention of trees at all.  The 1938 aerial on the previous page seems reasonably devoid of trees.  I'm guessing that sometime after 1938 somebody decided to put a tree line along each side of the course to provide some privacy.  Now, this could be an interesting deforestation restoration.

[DMoriarty]

Adam,

It is possible I guess, but I think it is unlikely in this case.  Except for these repetitious articles from around the time of the purchase, there really aren't any mentions of an Ocean view at NGLA, at least not that I am aware of.   Plus, some of the early articles contrast NGLA with Shinnecock Hills, by noting that while SH has views of the ocean, NGLA has views of the Bulls Head and Peconic, plus has better soil and undulations. 

Bryan,

I agree with you about the irregular borders.   The simple explanation is that CBM chose the land based on the golf course, not based upon the developer's ideal.   CBM and HJW staked out the rough outlines of the course before they even optioned the property, and even then they kept the ability to adjust the lines if need be.  (Sound familiar?)  At least that is what CBM told us they did. 

I am not sure where it was 56 feet elevation, but there is little flat about that green site.   It looks like there was substantial movement of dirt at the green site and it could have been that it was altered enough to get rid of a few feet.  The highest point I could find (and the highest point I remember) was on the little swath of fairway short and left of the green (you might have thought it was a tee, but it is fairway.)  It is possible that they flattened this bit of fairway at some point between 1906 and now.   

Assuming the info on the ocean view is wrong, I agree that one mistake like this does not mean everything in the articles was inaccurate.  But it does suggest that where ever these articles got this information, the source was wasn't entirely reliable.  One might also infer that this bit of info couldn't have come from CBM, on the theory that he knew the land and wouldn't have made such a mistake.   

As for where the information came from, that is a very good question.  My guess is that there was an original article which used multiple sources including a letter or press release from, as well as archived material including the 1904 letter.  Then the others went with that one way or another.  Sometimes when there are multiple overlapping articles like this it is because an article came out in a magazine and then everyone generously borrowed from that.  Or CBM and/NGLA could have sent out a packet of information which included the new as well as old information.  But some of the information is close to verbatim from that old 1904 letter. 

While these articles are interesting, I don't see how anyone can read them as saying something substantially different than what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift. It is telling, I think, that Mike won't address my questions about Scotland's Gift and about Behr's main point. 

[Jim Nugent]

After reading the excerpt from Scotland's Gift, I do not believe CBM said or indicated he routed the course in two or three days.  While we might able to infer how long it took, I don't believe he gives any time frame at all.  

Here is what CBM wrote:

"However there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined it was what we wanted, provided we could get it reasonably.  It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.  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.  

"We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put an Eden hole, that would not permit a topped ball to run up onto the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."

So here is how CBM describes the sequence of events:

1.  Whigham and Macdonald spend two or three days riding the land that ends up as NGLA.  They determine it is what they need for their ideal golf course;

2.  After that they contact the company that owns the land.  The company agrees to sell them 205 acres, whose boundaries are not yet set;

3.  After the company agrees to sell them the undefined 205 acres, Whigham and Macdonald go back to the land.  They study the ground in more detail.  This is when they discover the Alps, the Redan, the Cape and Eden. But this is not during the initial two or three days they spent riding the property.  It is after the company agrees to sell them the land.  It is the third step.  

To quickly sum up:  first they rode the land for two or three days...second they made a deal with the company that owned the land...third they went back, started laying out the course in earnest, and located the four templates.

How long did they take to find those holes?  CBM does not say.  He does say they bought an option on the land in November 2006.  So I think they found the four templates before then.  If we know when the company agreed to sell the land to CBM, then we can pinpoint the amount of time M&W needed to route the course.  

I'm guessing they would not take out an option -- they would not stake out the land they needed -- unless they had a pretty good idea about the rest of the course as well.  So they likely had the course mostly routed by November 2006.  

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

The two or three days bit is Mike Cirba's lame attempt at misrepresenting my position on this whole thing.  That is what is so absurd about this entire thing.  He is arguing against a position of his own invention.

Although I see why you would come to that conclusion, I don't necessarily agree with you about the timing of when the named holes were initially found.  But honestly I really don't think it matters one way or another.    Whether CBM had found those particular holes before or after the seller agreed to sell him 205 acres, CBM found the land which fit in with course he had in mind before he actually optioned the property.    Even then he didn't totally lock himself in, leaving himself some leeway to adjust the boundaries if necessitated by the detailed plan. 

Also when you say they "made a deal with the company" I think this was before they actually optioned the property.  CBM says the Company agreed to sell them land, but the land hadn't been chosen.    They staked it out after studying it again, and then they optioned it. 

So I guess what I am saying is that you need a #4. They optioned the property, and then perhaps a #5.  The worked up detailed plans (or were planning to) then perhaps a #6.  They completed the purchase and began developing the land.

However you dissect it, what remains undeniable (I think) is that THEY FOUND THE GOLF COURSE FIRST, AND THAT DEFINED WHAT LAND THEY BOUGHT, AND NOT VISA VERSA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gentlemen--

May I ask a question....

There's a hole at Winged Foot West, Number Four I believe, that is named Sound View.  It was named such because you could apparantly see Long Island Sound on the hole when it first opened. 

I don't believe you're correct on this issue.
The 4th hole runs straight to the Northwest, directly away from the sound, hence the view as you play the hole, and on the flanks of the hole is away from the sound.  In addition, the 4th hole is not on an elevated portion of the property, it's a rather low lying hole, lying below the 3td green.  With the distance between the 4th hole and the sound, the elevation, etc. etc.. I doubt that there was ever a view of the sound from the start of the golf course.[/b]

Today, you would have no idea that you could see LI Sound on the hole.  My question is Could it be possible that changes in certain natural features (namely construction and/or tree type foliage) make it where we would have no idea what things looked like in the 1910s? 

NO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Could you look at the elevations on the Sebonack golf course property as well?

I suspect Macdonald was talking about the entire 450 acres at his disposal out of which he would carve out 205 as suited his purposes, and I also suspect he was "selling" it a little bit for the New York press, from where he hoped to get the large majority of members.

By the way...two of those articles appeared on the exact same day in competing newspapers so plagiarizing would be a magic trick. 


But Mike, it's the same basic article with the same mistakes, not two vastly different, independent articles.
It's akin to an AP release.[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

With a disclaimer that I have never been there and that Google Earth elevations are not always as precise as we would like them, I'd suggest that the following aerial would indicate a sight line where the Atlantic might be visible from the Alps.  
The lat article Mike posted suggested that the highest point on the property was 56 feet above sea level.  The highest point on this line is 10 to 15 feet lower than the elevation of the Alps.

I previously mentioned that reference point.
According to Google Earth, it's 49 feet.  I agree.
The Atlantic Ocean is NOT visible from that spot.  I'm sure not now.  It appears that there is Sebonack's maintenance building and two lines of mature trees in the way now.  A hundred years ago, there certainly wasn't the barn, and maybe not the trees.

Have you ever stood on that hill and taken a 360 degree look at what you can see ?

In addition, I don't believe it's possible to see Shinnecock Bay from that location.

The articles stated that the Atlantic Ocean was visible from EVERYWHERE on the golf course except the low lying stretches.   The articles don't say "EVERYWHERE except for".  One says "from the hills".  Another says "except for the lower stretches".  So what if the lower stretches are 95% of the course. (where are those emoticons when you need them?)

Now you're getting as absurd as Mike Cirba.
now you're claiming that the low lying stretches represent 95 % of NGLA.
That's one of the most unenlightened comments you could make.
Especially when (1) you've never seen the golf course and (2) you have Google Earth at your disposal.
Based on Google earth, you already know that the course isn't 95 % comprised of low lying areas, so why would you make that absurd comment ?

When an article states, "except from the low lying stretches" that means the Atlantic Ocean is visible from EVERYWHERE else.[/b]

If the Atlantic Ocean isn't visible from the highest point on the property, wouldn't you agree that the articles are grossly inaccurate and that Macdonald certainly wouldn't have stated that, directly, in a press release ?[/b]  If the Atlantic wasn't visible from the high points a hundred years ago then I'd say that the articles are in error on that point.  It's a bit of a leap to infer that the articles in totality are grossly inaccurate because of that one point. A leap of Cirban proportions. (more emoticons missing)

I didn't say that, what I said is that if the articles are so grossly wrong about that issue, you have to question their accuracy on other issues.
I also said that the articles weren't written by authors/writers famiiar with the property.  I further stated that the articles are merely replicas of one another, not a dozen independent opinions.  Lastly, I debunked Cirba's myth about the articles being press releases, DIRECTLY, from CBM.
I can understand Mike Cirba grasping at straws, but you ?[/b]

One other question for you.  What do you think the source was for all these articles published around the same time?  In your opinion, are they all copies of one article that preceded them?  What would the source of that one been?  At least some of the articles indicate the article was precipitated by a Macdonald "announcement".  Do you think that that is accurate or a misstatement?

Brian, as I previously indicated, I'm going to invoke the TEPaul exemption from disclosure privilege and defer answering that question until a later time.  I can't believe you are stooping to this level.  Aren't you the guy who regularly upbraided TEPaul on the Merion threads for this very thing.  Hopefully you haven't bought some acreage from Happydale Farms.  Or bought a dog.  (some final emoticons missing)[color]

No, that was David Moriarty.  There's a valid reason for my defering the answer to the issue.  I also announced my intention, up front, I wan't coy about not responding, I was rather direct.  As to the acreage at Happydale Farms, the advertisements claim you can see the Delaware River and the Pacific Ocean from the higher elevations, so I am considering a purchase

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

See my reply to Patrick above. 

It appears at best that the Atlantic would have been a line on the horizon.  The railway berm is lower than the Alps hill. The people (Patrick) who know the area, know it now, or 20 or 40 years ago.  None of us was around 100 years ago, so for me, the jury is still out. I'd put the statement down to promotional hyperbole.  If I can see a sliver of Atlantic on the horizon , then I have an Atlantic view according to the promoter. Reminds me of looking at condos in our current building.  One on the upper floors was advertised as having a wonderful view to the east.  Turned out to be a 10* opening between two other towers.  What can you say about advertising?   

I guess I was just debating the leap from the Atlantic being a sliver on the horizon (or less) to the articles in totality being grossly inaccurate.

As a side thought, Google Earth measures the top of the hill as 50 feet, more or less.  Mike's article says it was 56 feet.  Do you suppose they lopped off 6 feet to flatten green and tee sites?  Or, did they mis-measure it?  Or, is Google Earth off by 6 feet?

Bryan, the highest elevation is a hill well short of the 3rd green, not the green itself.  The green is built up, artificially, above grade with a large artificial berm behind it.  While the green has some manufacturing, it was built up, not cut down.[/b]

One other thought.  I agree with your measuring the site at 205 acres using the Google planimeter.  There appear to be about 40 acres unused to the east of 16 and 17, but certainly not 80 acres. 

That land is swamp to the south, rising steeply along # 16 and descending steeply along # 17.
I wouldn't say it's useless, just not desirable[/b]

What's strange to me is that the developer would sell them such an irregularly shaped piece of land.  I'd love to see the deed and metes and bounds.  It must go on and on.  But, then it was only Long Island swamp land.  Maybe there was no prospect of selling that land to anybody else at the time.  Or, of selling the irregularly shaped remaining piece.

[Patrick_Mucci]

After reading the excerpt from Scotland's Gift, I do not believe CBM said or indicated he routed the course in two or three days.  While we might able to infer how long it took, I don't believe he gives any time frame at all.  

Here is what CBM wrote:

"However there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck...Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined it was what we wanted, provided we could get it reasonably.  It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.  The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purposes.  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.  

"We found an Alps; we found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place where we could put an Eden hole, that would not permit a topped ball to run up onto the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape."

So here is how CBM describes the sequence of events:

1.  Whigham and Macdonald spend two or three days riding the land that ends up as NGLA.  They determine it is what they need for their ideal golf course;

How did they make that determination ?

Remember, it was Macdonald's intent to replicate his "ideal holes".
He was looking for a site where those ideal holes would fit.
Thus I disagree with your chronology, your order of events.

He was looking for an Alps, an Eden, A bottle, A redan.

He didn't just ride the land and think, "this is interesting land"  He had a purpose, to site his "ideal holes" on the land.
He states that they spent days riding the land, "STUDYING THE CONTOURS OF THE GROUND"  for the express purpose of locating his ideal holes.
He didn't just like the land, which he describes as being described as worthless.
From the get go he found the land with the contours necessary to accomodate his ideal holes.

And, he found those individual sites, he found his clubhouse site, and from there, as Max Behr tells us, contemporaneously, the course basically routed itself.

Then and only then did he stake out the land he wanted for his course at NGLA.

What supports this position is the odd shape of the parcel itself.
Who would buy a parcel so configured unless you had predetermined its every use ?[/b]

2.  After that they contact the company that owns the land.  The company agrees to sell them 205 acres, whose boundaries are not yet set;

3.  After the company agrees to sell them the undefined 205 acres, Whigham and Macdonald go back to the land.  They study the ground in more detail.  This is when they discover the Alps, the Redan, the Cape and Eden. But this is not during the initial two or three days they spent riding the property.  It is after the company agrees to sell them the land.  It is the third step.  

This is where we disagree.

On their first detailed examination of the land, for three days they studied the contours, looking for locations for CBM's ideal holes.
Having found the suitable sites they wanted for the golf holes, they went back and convinced the company to sell them 205 acres.

Now, why not 230 acres or 180 acres or 120 acres as in their previous attempt to purchase land ?  ?  ?
Because the 205 acres was the land necessary to route the golf course as it stands today.
That odd, long, narrow out and back routing.
They knew after studying the land for 3 days exactly where the macro architecture and a good deal of the micro architecture was going to be sited.[/b] 

To quickly sum up:  first they rode the land for two or three days...second they made a deal with the company that owned the land...third they went back, started laying out the course in earnest, and located the four templates.

That's not logical.
You and others are focused on page 187.
Have you read the pages that proceed page 187 ?
Especially the previous chapter.
You have to view the process of acquisition, not as a single frame, but as an entire film.
And, "Scotland's Gift" provides that film in it's entirety, not just on a single page.[/b]

How long did they take to find those holes?  CBM does not say.  He does say they bought an option on the land in November 2006.  So I think they found the four templates before then.  If we know when the company agreed to sell the land to CBM, then we can pinpoint the amount of time M&W needed to route the course.  

Jim, they found more than four templates, and, they found their starting and finishing holes, on both nines, hence the configuration of the 205 acres.
The routed the course prior to approaching the company for the final purchase and they restudied the course, subsequently, then confirming their initial finding, they staked and purchased that unusual configuration.[/b]

I'm guessing they would not take out an option -- they would not stake out the land they needed -- unless they had a pretty good idea about the rest of the course as well.  So they likely had the course mostly routed by November 2006.  

Jim, I'd say that they had the course routed before they staked it out.
I'd also say that they had figured out the routing and the site for some, if not most of their "ideal" holes, along with the starting and finishing holes on both nines, in those first few days.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it{/color]

[Mike Cirba]

Whether CBM had found those particular holes before or after the seller agreed to sell him 205 acres, CBM found the land which fit in with course he had in mind before he actually optioned the property.    Even then he didn't totally lock himself in, leaving himself some leeway to adjust the boundaries if necessitated by the detailed plan.  

David,

Really?   Can you be any more specific?  

Honestly, David, what does that mean?  How is what you've described different or unique from any golf course project at any time?   What does "fit in" mean, anyway?

I thought routing a golf course was/is about the process of finding and locating actual golf holes on the ground, or on paper and forming a continuous placement and order of same for all 18 holes?

Is it your contention that the routing for NGLA was planned prior to the securing of that property or not?

Frankly, I think you're trying to have it both ways because neither what CBM says in "Scotland's Gift" or what CBM said in those news articles that came out after he secured the property in December 1906 do not support what you and Patrick have been contending in the least.

Let's go through it again and perhaps this time you'll understand my answer.




First, CBM tells us about the previously unsurveyed 450 acre property they located for consideration, "having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay", so yes, THAT is the land they were looking at and not something I "made up".

Second, he tells us that it abounded in bogs, swamps, insects, and an entanglement of undergrowth and bushes making it unwalkable and only negotiable via horseback.

Third, he and Whigham spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground and decided that the land had enough potential that they knew it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.   We also know from those same contemporaneous articles I posted that during that time they located land for an Alps, nearby a natural redan, an inlet where they could create a forced-carry Eden, and the water along which to build the Cape hole.    They also mention a Short Hole at the point at the end of Bulls Head Bay, but that was never constructed.

Fourth, the company "agreed to sell us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose".   THIS was the SECURING of the property, and this is the point when those articles were written.  

Fifth, AFTER securing the property, "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".

So, first they secured 205 acres, then as CBM clearly tells us in those articles, they spent the next several months deciding which holes to reproduce and the yardages of the holes...essentially, ROUTING the golf course.   Then, later in 1907, construction began.

Also, as regards Max Behr's 1915 statement, when was he there when all this was happening?   Was he involved in the project?

Bryan,

Thanks for coming to this thread and introducing some sanity.   Hopefully you'll stick around once the flurry of insults starts when they don't like what you are objectively and unbiasedly pointing out here.

Frankly, I think the whole Atlantic Ocean thing is a total RED  to distract from a message that Patrick doesn't like because it doesn't fit with his mythological view of CBM performing magic in a day or two on impassible land.    

I have no doubt, and have heard from others who grew up on Long Island, and who have seen old pictures of the course that the Atlantic was in view from same places on the property.   I'm not even going to address such attempted distractions from the real point here further except to point out that your views of the Atlantic wouldn't only be due south across Shinnecock, but also southwest across Cold Spring Bay.

One thing I did want to thank you for as well is pointing out that there are about 40 unused acres today out of the 205 acres they secured.   It was never my contention that the course was 110 acres as has been misrepresented.   I said that was CBM's original thought, as outlined in his 1904 Founders agreement.   In it, he specified seeking 205 acres, where about 110 would be used for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder for 1.5 acre building lots for the founders.  

Obviously, this changed for some reasons I've expanded on here such as the dramatic expansion of fairway widths beyond what CBM targeted even as late as August 1907 into construction.   The went from a targeted 50-55 yards to today averaging about 72 yards at their widest points.   Given that those lots were intended to run around the perimeter of the golf course, it's likely the fairway width increase made that plan unfeasible.

I think even if CBM had been able to keep the course to 135 acres, which seems reasonable for what was targeted at just over 6,000 yards originally, he could have met his goal to provide building lots, but once he expanded his fairway acreage by 37%, or almost 30 acres, it got into that 165 acre range you pointed out, and it's tough to split 40 remaining acres among 60-70 founders for cottages, so that idea went by the wayside and likely some other financial recompense was worked out.

Jim Nugent,

You are correct about the sequence of events but the one important thing to keep in mind is that when CBM "secured" 205 acres it was left to him to decide later which 205 acres of the 450 available to purchase.

The Securing of the land happened in December 1906 according to news reports (CBM's book says November), but the actual purchase with the defined boundaries didn't happen til the spring of 1907, after the course was routed.   George Bahto's book says the purchase actually didn't happen until November 1907, so I'm not sure the reason for that difference.

All,

Here is what CBM told us AFTER he secured the 205 acres;




One thing to consider when thinking about the routing is the fact that CBM tells us they didn't have money to build a clubhouse and instead counted on using the coming Shinnecock Inn for that purpose.

Given the fixed location of the Inn out by today's 9th green, it may give us some idea of some of the constraints and compromises CBM may possibly have had to make.

We know he surely wanted to get his course down to the waters of both Bullshead Bay and more dramatically Peconic Bay, but the Shinnecock Inn was about two miles from there.   So, perhaps that's what Behr was referring to when he said that the routing sort of dictated itself.

I bring this up because last year Geoff Walsh and I were fortunate enough to play Sebonack in the morning and NGLA in the afternoon, and after viewing all of the dramatic waterfront property of Sebonack, Geoff asked me the logical question which I didn't have a good answer to, which was, "why didn't CBM take this property, or some combination of this property and NGLA?"

I think the answer is probably not straightforward, but if having that Inn as the clubhouse was something mandatory, that certainly created one very fixed point for the routing and a limitation on which of the 450 acres they could effectively use.

Here is what CBM said about that issue;

We did not have enough money to consider building
a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close
to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty
Company. 'The old saying, "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,"
is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909,
which drove us to building a club-house.

We abandoned the site near the old Shinnccock Inn and determined
to build it on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay; so
our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our
eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth. This proved
most fortunate, for to-day we have nn unexcelled site. There are no
more beautiful golfing vistas in the world than those from the National
Golf Club, unless it be those from the Mid-Ocean Club in
Bermuda.

I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously
considered the finest of their character in Great Britain. We found
a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams, fine golfers, who
were brought up in Prestwick, considered to be superior to the
original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and
find a perfect Redan whieh was absolutely natural. Ben Sayers,
well-known professional at North Berwick, told me he thought it
superior to the original.

....and then goes on to describe placement of the Eden and Cape as well, just like the articles point out.   That was all that was done by the time the property was secured and the articles merely confirm what CBM later wrote in his book.

Thanks for your your interest and participation here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're trying to have it both ways because neither what CBM says in "Scotland's Gift" or what CBM said in those news articles that came out after he secured the property in December 1906 support what you and Patrick are contending in the least.

"Scotland's Gift" supports my position.[/b]

He and Whigham spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground and decided that the land had enough potential that they knew it was what they wanted if they could get a fair price.  

WRONG.
It didn't have potential, it had the specifica contours they were spefically searching for, contours where they could site their "ideal" holes.[/b]

We also know from those same contemporaneous articles I posted that during that time they located land for an Alps, nearby a natural redan, an inlet where they could create a forced-carry Eden, and the water along which to build the Cape hole.    They also mention a Short Hole at the point at the end of Bulls Head Bay, but that was never constructed.

Fourth, the company "agreed to see us 205 acres and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose".   THIS was the SECURING of the property, and this is the point when those articles were written.  

WRONG AGAIN.
That's NOT SECURING THE LAND.
That's obtaining the right, the option to secure a portion of the land that they specifically needed for routing the course, a course with their collection of "ideal" holes, once they determined exactly where that land was[/b]

Fifth, AFTER securing the property, "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".

Mike, that's a bald faced lie and one of the reasons you've transitioned from being intellectually dishhonest to being flat out dishonest.
NEVER, does CBM state, "AFER securing the property, Again, we studied the contours earnestly......."
Your attempt at editorializing the words on page 187 to suit your purpose is disgraceful, to the degree that your credibility has fallen faster than your ethics.[/b]

So, first they secured 205 acres, then as CBM clearly tells us in those articles, they spent the next several months deciding which holes to reproduce and the yardages of the holes...essentially, ROUTING the golf course.   Then, later in 1907, construction began.

That's your dishonest interpretation.[/b]

Also, as regards Max Behr's 1915 statement, when was he there when all this was happening?   Was he involved in the project?

He was there at the begining, or did you forget that he played in the opening event, finishing tied for 5th ?[/b]

Frankly, I think the whole Atlantic Ocean thing is a total RED herring to distract from a message that Patrick doesn't like because it doesn't fit with his mythological view of CBM performing magic in a day or two on impassible land.    

I have no doubt, and have heard from others who grew up on Long Island, and who have seen old pictures of the course that the Atlantic was in view from same places on the property.  

Who made this claim ?
Have they ever walked the property at NGLA ?
You state that they made the claim based on old pictures of the course ?
Which old pictures ?
And from what vantage points could you see the Atlantic ?[/b]

I'm not even going to address such attempted distractions from the real point here further except to point out that your views of the Atlantic wouldn't only be due south across Shinnecock, but also southwest across Cold Spring Bay.

Mike, just because you say the Atlantic is visible from a single high point on NGLA doesn't make it visible.
That's just another wild, unfounded claim on your part.[/b]

One thing I did want to thank you for as well is pointing out that there are about 40 unused acres today out of the 205 acres they secured.   It was never my contention that the course was 110 acres as has been misrepresented.   I said that was CBM's original thought, as outlined in his 1904 Founders agreement.   In it, he specified seeking 205 acres, where about 110 would be used for the golf course, 5 for clubhouse and surrounds, and the remainder for 1.5 acre building lots for the founders.  

The land that Byran identified, land that I previously referenced is uninhabitable.  It starts as swamp and rapidly ascends, with steep slopes to the East, alongside the 15th and 16th holes, then rapidly descends, with steep slopes alongside the 17th hole.  It's UNFIT for lots, let alone buildings.
So please, get familiar with the land you're referencing.  Just because it's vacant doesn't mean it's fit for development.[/b]

Obviously, this changed for some reasons I've expanded on here such as the dramatic expansion of fairway widths beyond what CBM targeted even as late as August 1907 into construction.   The went from a targeted 50-55 yards to today averaging about 72 yards at their widest points.   Given that those lots were intended to run around the perimeter of the golf course, obviously the fairway width increase made that unfeasible.

This is just more dishonesty on your part.
Making an unfounded claim to support an untenable positoin.
But, that seems to be your modus operandi lately.[/b]

I think even if CBM had been able to keep the course to 135 acres he could have met his goal to provide building lots, but once he expanded his fairway acreage by 37%, or almost 30 acres, it got into that 165 acre range you pointed out, and it's tough to split 40 remaining acres among 60-70 founders for cottages, so that idea went by the wayside and likely some other financial recompense was worked out.

How can you make up these stories and expect to maintain the slightest degree of credibility ?
If a shift of this magnitude took place, why didn't Macdonald chronicle it ?
It's just made up B.S on your part.[/b]

Jim Nugent

You are correct about the sequence of events but the one important thing to keep in mind is that when CBM "secured" 205 acres it was left to him to decide later which 205 acres of the 450 available to purchase.

Mike, you don't secure UNDEFINED land.
You only secure DEFINED land.
Since the land wasn't defined, CBM never secured it until he had discovered his holes and routing and only then did he STAKE and SECURE that clearly DEFINED land.

When will you cease distorting and making up your own set of facts ?[/b]

The Securing of the land happened in December 1906 according to news reports (CBM's book says November), but the actual purchase with the defined, staked out holes (as well as determined metes and bounds) didn't happen til the spring of 1907, after the course was routed.   George Bahto's book says the purchase actually didn't happen until November 1907, so I'm not sure the reason for that difference.

The course was defined, the holes were sited, the routing established and then and only then did Macdonald STAKE the land and subsequently buy it.[/b]

All,

Here is what CBM told us AFTER he secured the 205 acres;

Mike, that's just another lie on your part.  When will you stop lying ?
That's not what Macdonald told us, that's what a newspaper account stated.
There's a world of difference between the two.[/b]

One thing to consider when thinking about the routing is the fact that CBM tells us they didn't have money to build a clubhouse and instead counted on using the coming Shinnecock Inn for that purpose.

Which means that they new where the starting and finishing holes would be.
And, when combined with the 5 or 6 ideal hole locations mentioned, allows him to route the course rather quickly and easily, or as Max Behr stated, the course basically routed itself.[/b]

Given the fixed location of the Inn out by today's 9th green, it may give us some idea of some of the constraints and compromises CBM may possibly have had to make.

What compromises and constraints ?[/b]

We know he surely wanted to get his course down to the waters of both Bullshead Bay and more dramatically Peconic Bay, but the Shinnecock Inn was about two miles from there.   So, perhaps that's what Behr was referring to when he said that the routing sort of dictated itself.

What Behr was refering to was what I demonstrated to you.
With knowledge of where the 1st, 18th, 9th, 10th, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th 13th, 14th were to go, filling in the blanks became a self evident/completing process.  It was as simple as could be.[/b]

I bring this up because last year Geoff Walsh and I were fortunate enough to play Sebonack in the morning and NGLA in the afternoon, and after viewing all of the dramatic waterfront property of Sebonack, Geoff asked me the logical question which I didn't have a good answer to, which was, "why didn't CBM take this property, or some combination of this property and NGLA?"

The answer is simple, because in that long, narrow configuration of land he found all of his ideal holes.[/b]

I think the answer is probably not straightforward, but if having that Inn as the clubhouse was something mandatory, that certainly created one very fixed point for the routing and a limitation on which of the 450 acres they could effectively use.

You're forgetting that the Shinnecock Inn was only a "temporary" clubhouse.
He could have started at that point and wound his way all over that 450 acre parcel.
I believe that he always had the present clubhouse site as the final site for his clubhouse.
Remember, NGLA did NOT own the land behind the 9th green.  That was a much later acquisition.
The seperation of # 1 and # 18 and the open land mass between # 1 and # 18, which is some of the best land for golf on the property, didn't happen by accident.  He had to have had that location as the site for "HIS" clubhouse.
And, I doubt CBM would ever have the clubhouse at Shinnecock looking down on his clubhouse.[/b]

Here is what CBM said about that issue;

We did not have enough money to consider building
a club-house at once, so our intention was to have the first hole close
to the Shinnecock Inn, which had recently been built by the Realty
Company. 'The old saying, "Ill blows the wind that profits nobody,"
is quite apropos here, for the Inn burned down in 1909,
which drove us to building a club-house.

But, if he didn't "RESERVE" the site for the present clubhouse, where else could he build it.
Remember, they didn't own the land behind the 9th green[/b]

We abandoned the site near the old Shinnccock Inn and determined
to build it on the high ground overlooking Peconic Bay; so
our first hole now is what was intended to be the tenth, and our
eighteenth hole is what was intended to be the ninth. This proved
most fortunate, for to-day we have nn unexcelled site. There are no
more beautiful golfing vistas in the world than those from the National
Golf Club, unless it be those from the Mid-Ocean Club in
Bermuda.

And, how did it come about, that there was so much space between the 1st and 18th holes ?
Enough space to site an enormous clubhouse ?
It was by design.
Especially when you consider the location of the range, yacht basin and beach facilities.[/b]

I first placed the golf holes which were almost unanimously
considered the finest of their character in Great Britain. We found
a setting for the Alps hole which the Whighams, fine golfers, who
were brought up in Prestwick, considered to be superior to the
original type. Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and
find a perfect Redan whieh was absolutely natural. Ben Sayers,
well-known professional at North Berwick, told me he thought it
superior to the original.

....and then goes on to describe placement of the Eden and Cape as well, just like the articles point out.   That was all that was done by the time the property was secured and the articles merely confirm what CBM later wrote in his book.

EXCEPT for the fact that Macdonald told us in previous passages that he found these holes during or shortly after his initial studies of the land.

At the very least try to be honest about the chronology in which Macdonald presents the history of NGLA.[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I don't have time to respond in depth right now but take a look at where 18 was located and drawn (originally #9) without the clubhouse there.   It was to the left of the big bunker, with a green up near today's 1st tee.   

The Shinnecock Inn was intended to be used as the clubhouse until it burned to the ground in 1909 and forced the creation of the new one in th present location, and likely the moving of today's 18th hole, probably for the better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I don't believe they owned the land behind the 9th (18th) green.

Why do you continue to accept newspaper articles, especially with not to scale schematics, as The Gospel.

Why would they bow the 9th and 10th holes, leaving the best land for golf barren ?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Earlier you said that there looked to be about 40 acres of land East of the 15th and 16th.  That sounds way too high to me.  I've measured it a few times and it looks like the land between the water and the holes (which is pretty rough land) is less than 20 acres.  I get less than 15 acres for the triangle of land were the range is located, north of the 17th green and the first half of the 18th fairway.    Are you combining these two parcels in your measure?  And maybe throwing in some of the land protruding out into the bay beyond the road?  

________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I don't even quite know where to begin with your post above, other than to say that you still haven't addressed my questions about what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift.   I am not even sure that I understand the point  you are trying to make, or that you do.

Perhaps you can clarify by helping me sort the following events described in Scotland's Gift?    Will you please place the following events in Chronological Order . . .  

A. "Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over [the 450 acres of land], studying the contours of the ground.  

B. "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres."

C.  "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."

D.  "We obtained an Option on the Land in November 1906."

E.  "[We] took title to the property in the spring of 1907."

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()