Sticking to the facts and to NGLA, here are a few of Mike's recent "points" that seem to be at the heart of the disagreement.
1. The Horseback Ride.
Mike claims that by mid-December all that CBM and HJW had been done was ride over the 450 acre site for a couple of days, a site which Mike calls "impenetrable" site and a "jungle." More importantly, he claims that about all they accomplished was to determine the general suitability of the 450 acres and of the soil.
The December articles directly contradict this. By mid-December, not only had substantial planning taken place, a number of individuals besides HJW and CBM had been over the land, including including "Emmett, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others."
The October articles, written two months before CBM acquired the Option, contradict this as well. They report that by mid-October CBM and HJW were already well into the project and had already been over the site several times, and they may have even already had surveys of the property!
Looking more closely at this Mike's point, we see that, ironically, Mike has argued on both sides of his red herring notion of the routing having been done over the two or three days on horseback! In fact he has argued for this understanding much more than I ever have. But will he now abandon one side of his "point" as well? Let's see . . .
Mike Cirba, As I understand it, you have made both of the following contradictory claims. Which of these two is correct?:
-- Option 1: By the end of the inspection on horseback had they only generally studied the 450 acre parcel "to determine the suitability of the land, the soil quality, whether there was enough usable land with enough decent contiguous ground of quality and inherent natural interest within the 450 acres to try to secure their mythical "205 acres" within it. OR . . .
-- Option 2: By the end of the inspection on horseback (all that had supposedly happened as of mid-December) CBM had they already placed the course on 205 acres configured on a two mile strip along a quarter mile of Peconic, a mile of Bullshead Bay, and then three-quarters of a mile to within a few hundred yards of the future site of the Shinnecock Inn, and by then CBM was ready to describe the starting and finishing point and spotlight a number of highlights of the course, including the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Cape, and had Emmett, Travis, Watson, Chauncey and others join them on their horseback inspection.
Mike can't have it both ways. Were CBM and HJW routing the course on horseback for those 2 or 3 days, or not? In this version they only had a general idea of whether a course would work somewhere on the 450 acre parcel! Yet by mid-December the papers indicate that CBM had studied the contours so earnestly that they could already select the land that would fit best with the various classical holes they had in mind. All before they took the Option on the land.
2. The Timing of the Option. (A related and partially overlapping "point" to the one above.)
Mike claims that at the time of the option, CBM had neither begun routing the course, nor even begun choosing the 205 acres out of the the 450 acre parcel! According to Mike, the location of the course was "undetermined" as of mid-December 1906, and they were still considering all of the 450 acres! In other words, he claims that CBM hadn't really done much at all by mid-December 1906 and he just as easily could have planned and built a course on Sebonack's site instead of NGLA. Is that really what those articles say? I don't think so.
Again the October articles indicate they were well into the project by mid-October, and may have even had some semblance of written plans, maps, or surveys.
It is probably worth mentioning that when I first brought the October articles to Mike's attention, it got him going on his fictional third site theory. He argued that at this fictional site CBM was so far along with the planning that he had mapped out the course and mailed off the maps all over the World for comments. Never mind the cost of the survey. Never mind that this had never been mentioned. Never mind that the fictional site made no sense. Mike took the article as proof that CBM was far along in planning a fictional course of Mike's invention. Yet when it turns out those articles were about the real site, he ignores them and continues to claim that NO PLANNING HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE MID-DECEMBER. How does that work, anyway? How can he interpret the October articles to mean that they were well along in the planning on his fictional site, yet when the articles apply to the actual site, they mean no such thing?
The December articles also contradict this "point." They indicate that substantial internal planning had already taken place. The course location had been specifically chosen and described, the start and finish had been determined, and a number of outstanding holes highlighted.
By the way, Mike has mistakenly concluded that because CBM mentioned the location of only 6 holes, that he had NO CLUE about remainder of the course. In Scotland's Gift CBM only discussed five finished holes in detail, so should we assume that CBM only built a five hole course? Ridiculous. In those articles CBM was doing the same thing he later did in Scotland's Gift; he was spotlighting some features which placed the course in the best light and corresponded to his "ideal course" goals --great contours, great soil, along the water, accessible from NY, an Inn nearby, and he had not only found perfect sites for the three most famous holes anywhere, he had even found a site for a water hole that sounds impressive and that thinks will be truly outstanding. He is talking in terms of highlights, not providing a detailed list of everything he had planned up to this point. Mike's conclusion to the contrary is unfounded.
3. The Chronology in Scotland's Gift.
A third point of Mike's involves how Scotland's Gift should be read. There is a point of agreement about Scotland's Gift, so let's start there. While Mike continues to make dishonest claims to the contrary, I have written repeatedly and for years now that while the routing likely began during the initial inspection of the land on horseback, it continued on into the period that CBM described as follows: "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."
Similarly Mike has stated that CBM routed the course during this same period, and the routing was complete before he chose the land they wanted.
So we finally have a basis for agreement (at least in overlap) as to when the routing occurred and was completed. CBM described the routing process in that sentence. He routed the course and chose the land based where the holes fit. Really that has been my main point for years now, so for me the rest is just the details.
The question remains, though, at what point the land was optioned. Mike claims it was in the sentence before, where CBM indicated that the Company agreed to sell them the land. I think it came right after CBM chose and described "the land wanted," where CBM wrote, "We obtained an Option on the land on November 1906 . . . ." And this brings us to Mike's next untenable "point."
Mike has repeatedly claimed that Scotland's Gift states that the land was optioned after the inspection on horseback but before they again studied the contours. But just as it does not state that the land was "undetermined," it does not claim that the option was taken after the first inspection. These are just Mike's tenuous interpretations; and his record on such interpretations is abysmal. Without any real explanation, he simply reads the formal Option agreement into the statement about the Company agreeing to sell them acreage from the from Sebonack Neck portion of the property. But of course a willingness to sell does not an Option agreement make.
I understand why some might do this --the articles mention that the borders could be adjusted so it is easy to make the jump to thinking that the mention of letting CBM choose the acreage as being the actual option agreement. It is a possible interpretation of those words if read in the context of the articles. But it is by no means the only interepretation nor is it the best interpretation, nor is it the one that makes sense in the context of the Chapter itself, nor does it make sense given what else we know from people like Beher about how NGLA was created. It is a logical leap, that is in my mind unjustified.
The reasons are simple. 1) As explained in the sections above, putting the option here creates all sorts of contradictions that just don't make sense. 2) The story of the creation of NGLA is in chronological order, and the option is covered a few paragraphs down, later in time. I can see no interpretive reason to mess with the order other than an outcome driven reading.
To me, the most obvious and straightforward way to read these sections is as a chronology. Much of the book is a chronology. He does vary the chronology somewhat by topic (for example seperating the USGA discussion from the NGLA discussion) but for the most part it is chronological, starting with the beginning of golf, moving through the dark ages, into the conception of the ideal course, into the creation of NGLA and onto the next courses. More importantly, the chapter on the creation of NGLA is itself chronological. Even Mike agreed with me before it no longer suited his needs to read it chronologically! But despite his change of heart and Jeff's claims, it makes sense as a chronology. Briefly . . .
1. First CBM tried to buy 120 acres on the other side of the property, but the Company shot them down, and commenced with plans to develop this site.
2. CBM and HJW inspected land on Sebonack Neck, studying the contours on horseback.
3. They liked very much liked what they saw, so they went back to the Company to see if they could get it for the right price.
4. UNLIKE WITH THE OTHER LAND CBM HAD ATTEMPTED TO BUY, the Company agreed to sell them acreage out of this portion of land for a reasonable price (the same per acre price he had offered for land on the other side of their holding.)
5. Again CBM studied the contours earnestly; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind, after which they staked out the land they wanted.
6. Then, in the book, CBM then described "the land [they] wanted." It had great locations for an Alps, a Redan, an Eden and a new type of hole eventually to be called a Cape. It had a bit of frontage on Peconic Bay and a mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay. It had a place for the first tee (and last green) a few hundred yards from the Shinnecock Inn, so they wouldn't immediately need a clubhouse. It was accessible to NY yet out of the way, so the golfer could be alone with nature.
7. CBM optioned 205 acres of land they wanted in November 1906. [According to the articles they had some some flexibility to adjust the exact boundaries to best fit the exact plans.]
8. They finalized the purchase of the land in the Spring of 1907.
9. Then . . . "immediately they commenced development." Soil brought in . . . clubhouse plan had to change . .
[I've written out a much more complete timeline of the entire chapter above a few pages.]
It is all in chronological order, and it makes sense in chronological order. CBM wrote about finding the land they wanted, then described this land, then wrote that they optioned it and then purchased it, then wrote that they developed it, then described the golf holes, then wrote about changes up to when he wrote the book. It is linear. Straight forward. The "land we wanted" is described right where CBM mentions studying the contours and finding the "land we wanted."
This business about it circling and repeating itself is just another red herring. The later of the holes is not a repeat. It is about the actual golf holes themselves as built, it is not a discussion of just their locations. The Alps and the Redan, Eden, Sahara, Road turned out better than the models. The holes were built.
Reading it Mike's way the describe what happened then describe property that wasn't chosen at the time of the option, then backtrack for a half a sentence to mention that the date of the option was in December without clarifying that the option had come earlier in the sequence of events (and essentially splitting that sentence into two parts - optioning the land and purchasing the land - that according to Mike's reading were no where near each other in the sequence of events, then picking up with the chronology again when it says they began developing the property.
Does CBM seem like someone who had little grasp of how to set out a linear chronology to you? He doesn't to me. Yet we have two interpretations.
-- On the one hand we have an interpretation that makes sense by itself in chronological order without any leaps of logic or faith or reading anything else into it.
-- On the other hand we have an interpretation that has CBM jumping around and repeating himself, splitting sentences in half and moving part of the sentence to somewhere else in the sequence. And the only way to make this interpretation work is to read things in that aren't in the language or the even in the book for that matter.
A few asides about understanding the book-
Remember that this same Company had already turned down CBM's offer to buy acreage at the same price on the other side of the parcel, so it was unknown whether this land was even for sale at what CBM thought was a reasonable price. Given the Company's previous refusal to sell, it is no wonder that CBM went to them fairly early on to inquire whether they would even be willing to sell the land at his price.
- Note that as of mid-October the CBM was reportedly buying 250 acres of land. Mike has dismissed this as a typo, but that may be just more wishful thinking on Mike's part. If CBM was really at 250 acres in October, that would suggest a substantial amount of planning went into the course between then and mid-December.
- Remember that by October, HJW and CBM had reportedly been over the land several times, but Travis had not. By mid-December Travis, Emmett, Chauncey, Watson, and others had all been over the land, again suggesting that substantial planning had taken place before mid-December.
Yet Mike claims that none of this had been done by the time of the option? Impossible.