The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[DMoriarty]

Is this really what you've been reduced to?  Pretending that I am misleading people with honest and accurate posts?   That you would claim my post is misleading is further indication of your poor comprehension skills and your unwillingness to reasonably understand this material.  

As for baseless claims, do you mean like your oft repeated claim that no part of the SHGC land was east of the land CBM was considering?  Now THAT was a baseless claim.  So far, so are a number of your other claims, such as your claim that SHGC did not buy land to the north in 1898/99 and your claim that SHGC never laid out an extended women's course around that same time.  I'll leave it to you to try and figure out how your latest scribbles are inaccurate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From a George Bahto thread three years ago:

Two or three years before The Evangelist of Golf was published I saw the article Henry Whigham wrote about his father-in-law Charles Macdonald just after Charlie had passed away. It is framed, under glass and hangs just to the left of the front desk at The National’s clubhouse.

The 3,200+ word article was written as a eulogy and cited the many deeds of Macdonald.
..................................

Here are a few paragraphs from the Whigham article and you can do with it whatever you please.

Article in part:
*   *
“I went out with Macdonald to ride over the land which is now the National, and on coming back to the Shinnecock Club for lunch we found four elderly members awaiting us with dire prophecies of what would happen if we selected a site so near their own club, one of the first three golf clubs in America and the most fashionable. Yet on that first Saturday of September in 1907 there were only four old members in their sixties or seventies in the clubhouse, and they confessed that they had to contribute a pretty penny each year to keep things going.

Now, I'm sure that somebody questioned or corrected this last paragraph somewhere in the back pages, but I missed it.  So what does it mean that Macdonald and Whigham rode the course in September 1907?  Did Whigham get it wrong?  Did George mistranscribe it?  Surely it can't be the right year.  But is it the right month?  Was it September 1906? 

Bryan,

Isn't this the same document where Whigham states that Macdonald routed Merion ?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

George's book says that CBM tried to buy SHGC itself, but I don't recall ever seeing any source material indicating that this was the case.  One thing that makes this seem unlikely to me is that George also wrote that he tried to purchase SHGC from the "Peconic Bay Realty Company."   Perhaps he meant Shinnecock Hills and Peconic Bay Realty Company, but so far as I know, SHGC owned much of the land on which their course sat.

As for CBM wanting land stretching along Peconic Bay for a yacht basin, I think may be misunderstanding what George wrote.  For one thing, George noted that this reason was "secondary."   So it hardly suggests that CBM would have grabbed as much land on Peconic Bay as he could.    For another, NGLA had a yacht basin, but it wasn't on the additional land stretching along Peconic Bay, it was near where Bullshead Bay met Peconic Bay.  

As for the extra 2.5 acres, I think the original property line was supposed to be fairly directly behind the 18th green, and the extra 2.5 acres are further behind, toward Sebonack.  

As for CBM's house, the 1916 atlas shows the land he owned and the location of his house.    I'll try to post it if I get a chance.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Blue X is the site of the Shinneock Inn and Shinnecock GC to the EAST.
The Red X is the site of the Shinnecock Train Station.

Mike, here are the maps and aerials you posted.

The North Highway runs smack down the middle of the phantom golf course you insisted was CBM's choice.
Now, you refute your own opinion, claiming instead that the golf course wasn't in the area you marked, which is what I had stated all along.

If you're going to make outrageous claims and misrepresent the facts along with what others have stated, you'd better erase/edit all of your previous posts because they clearly contradict your most recent claims.

YOU posted the Olmstead plan with the North Highway running right smack down the middle of your phantom, delusional golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think you need to rely on facts instead of hysteria and myth-making as to the location of the "North Highway" in 1906.

Mike, how can you deny the existance of the "North Highway" when it appears on so many independent maps and is refered to in the New York State Senate documents in 1906 ?[/b]

There is no way it ran through the land where I proposed CBM might have been looking for his golf course.

Of course it did.
YOU posted the Olmsted plan claiming that the golf course was on that site, you just never bothered to look and see that the Major East-West thoroughfare ran right smack down the middle of the site you claimed was his proposed golf course.   I've reposted your claim and the Olmsted map YOU posted, in the reply above[/b]

Not a chance.   Bryan has shown again and again that your understanding is simply wrong.

Bryan hasn't proven a thing.
Like you, he denies the existance of the North Highway, despite documented evidence to the contrary.[/b]

Patrick/David/Bryan/Jeff...others,

Many articles, including the November 1st 1906 article I posted above state that CBM had been looking at "various sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills.   Another article on the same day indicated that CBM was still looking near Good Ground in western Shinnecock Hills.

Where do you think those other sities were located?

Did it ever occur to you that like so many other flawed/inaccurate articles, that perhaps these articles are in error ?[/b]


Bryan,

That's a very interesting quote...I'd be curious to know the exact story and if Whigham got the date right.   Damn, these guys weren't very good about that, were they?  :-/

Do you think Whigham got it right when he stated that Macdonald designed Merion ?(;

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hope your eyes are OK and you'll see the  pic below clearly.
It's from the Vanderbilt Cup race of 1906.

That's certainly an interesting picture, and, I did put drops in my eyes to help me focus.
But, I'm troubled by a few details.
The first of which is that the driver is sitting on the right side of the car and the steering wheel is located on the right side.
In 1804 New York State passed a law which mandated that traffic (wagons, buggies, cars) had to drive on the right side of the road.
Wouldn't the driver and steering wheel be on the left side of the car ?
Or, do you think the photo was of a foreign car ?[/b]

Winning average speed was just over 50 m.p.h.

Evidently, those dirt roads were maintained very well, especially if cars could average 50 mph on them.
Probably because wagon and buggy traffic had been on them since the 1700's[/b]
[/color][/b]

  
Note that the race was over dirt roads, even though the road course was near Lake Success, much closer to NYC and civilization than the wilds of the Shinnecock Hills.

Why would you expect otherwise ?
It was 1906 and American cars were just coming into mass production in 1902.
Dirt roads had been used by wagons and buggies since the 1700's.
Mike Cirba claimed that the North Highway was a six lane paved road in 1906, not me.[/b]  

Good to know that the race drivers could have made it from NYC to SH in 1906 in under 2 dusty hours (if the car didn't break down).  Not to mention the lack of gas stations out that way.

With a gas tank as large as the one behind the driver, my bet is that he could make it to Chicago and back(;[/b]

I'll bet the North Highway was a real race track in those days.

No one claimed it was a race track, only that it was THE MAJOR EAST-WEST HIGHWAY ON THE NORTH SHORE OF THE SOUTH FORK. [/b]

No annoying cops and radar traps either, I'll bet.


See, you're wrong again, Southampton was always a stickler on speeding, especially with out of state drivers, you know, the kind who are totally unfamiliar with the roads and local lay of the land.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Macdonald tells us that the "yacht basin" was intended to be within Bulls Head Bay, not on Peconic Bay.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Without in any way supporting Mike's conception of where the October article said the property was, I think you are absolutely wrong on the road.

The overwhelming body of evidence, the source documentation, says I'm right.

How convenient of you to accept Mike's Olmstead map, and then, subsequently, declare it null and void when the same map destroys his premise.[/b]

You may have skipped some of the postings on the weekend.  

That's possible.[/b]

The 1873 map is not to scale and doesn't overlay on any other maps or on the modern Google aerial.  


So what, neither is the Olmstead map at scale, unless they were building roads 200' wide
The precision of the map in terms of scale isn't what's critical.
What's critical is the existance of the North Highway, which clearly appears on the 1873 map.

Why do you accept all of Mike's schematics, obviously not drawn to scale, as accurate ?
You know some of these diagrams are incorrect, scalewise, yet you allow Mike to enter them as factual in terms of their borders and features.

I know it's difficult for you to admit you're wrong on the North Highway's existance and significance, especially when I'm right, but, the facts, the source documented facts, prove the existance of the North Highway.[/b]

Your beloved North highway along with the South Highway, less than one half mile apart, serving perhaps a 1000 people between Good Ground and its surrounding 4 or 5  family hamlets and Southampton is not on  the 1903 map or the 1905 map.

You're so unfamiliar with the land that you don't even know that the neck immediately East of the Shinnecock Canal is less than a mile wide, so what difference does it make that the North and South Highways are only one half mile apart.  You're so incredibly unfamiliar with the area that you don't understand the significance of both roads.  And, the North Highway does appear on the 1873, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1916 maps.

The 1903 and 1905 and even the Olmstead map overlay both themselves and the modern physical features.  If you look at the 1873 map, the road appears to go well north of SH up around the small hamlet of Tuckahoe and then down to Southampton.  Its track doesn't map to the 1916 North Highway.  

Do yourself a favor, look at where the North Highway is from the time it crosses the Shinnecock Canal until it passes directly south of Cold Spring Pond.  You can't miss it.  Even I can't miss it and my vision is certifiably flawed.  .

And, again, it is not on the 1903 and 1905 maps.  

Of course it is.  It's staring you right in the face but you DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.
It crosses the Shinnecock Canal right next to the Railroad tracks and continues to meander East below Cold Spring Harbor.
How can you deny its existance ?

Maybe they just left that track off because it was insignificant in those years.  


They didn't leave anything off, it's sitting there as plain as the nose on your face. but, since you can't see the nose on your face, just reach up with either hand and feel it.

And, once again, I don't think it is a necessary prerequisite to knock down Mike's hypothesis.

Of course it is.
The North Highway runs right smack down the middle of his entire phantom golf course, something that CBM would never contemplate, especially on a narrow out and back routing bordered on the north by Cold Spring Pond.

I'm the one with the eye problem, but, you're blind to the facts.[/b]

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess perhaps I missed something, because I'm not understanding why we'd want to see the dimensions of today's Shinnecock GC, which bears little resemblance to the land it occupied in 1906, or even in 1916, which I've roughly illustrated below.

You've mis-positioned both Shinnecock's golf course and NGLA's golf course.

We know the 1st tee was within 200 yards of the Shinnecock in which was on the road, and that the 18th green was about 30-50 yards closer, so I think you've mis-positioned NGLA in your rendering.

The road that you show below the 1st tee and 9th green probably was realigned to run right through the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA.
In addition, it continues ENE and forms the Northern Border of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.

You show Shinnecock well North of it's actual location which is well south of the narrow southern extension of Bulls Head Bay (Sebonac Creek).  Shinnecock NEVER came close to the tip of Bulls Head Bay (Sebonac Creek)
It only went as far north as the road that you show running below the 1st and 18th holes at NGLA on your map.

Why would you present/mis-represent Shinnecock's configuration/location ?  ?  ?

In other words, your pink and green representations are seriously flawed.

Shinnecock NEVER extended up to the water as you have again, misrepresented.

Shinnecock's NORTHERN border IS THAT ROAD, the "New North Road" that would eventually be rerouted to bisect NGLA's 8th and 11th holes.

And, NGLA extended further south with the rerouted road bisecting the 8th and 11th holes, as opposed to your rendering which would have the road to the south of the 1st tee and 18th green..

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Your dogmatic ranting about the roads is just plain wrong.  The North Highway is not on the 1903 or 1905 maps.  I will argue no further.  You will never admit to being wrong.

Also, it's a good thing that I'm not David or I would have started hectoring you about misrepesenting anything I've said as supporting Mike's theses.

As for why the race car photo shows the driver on the right, I have no idea. There are multiple pictures that show it that way for multiple race cars.  Given the accuracy of reporting, and to start another conspiracy theory, maybe the papers purposely reversed all the pictures.  Or, maybe all the cars cqame from England.  The car was called a Locomobile, I believe.  It'd be a perfect fit for the people on these threads.

And, yes, Whigham's article was the one that mentioned Macdonald and Merion.  I believe that George was taking credit for starting the war of words on that subject around here.  But, I'm not going there.
 

[Mike Cirba]

Wow...when the opposition becomes this desperate and hysterical in their arguments, you instinctively know they have no ammo left....  


Patrick,

The Olmstead drawing was not a "map".   It was a "Land Plan".   It was proposed, not "as built".

You know that, but have no evidence left to base your and David's baseless claim that a highway ran through the land I suggested that CBM might have been considering for his golf course.

It's over, and I'll join Bryan in refusing that argue that one with you further as it's pointless and absurd.

Also, that green and pink drawing that you heavily criticized...it's not mine...it's David's!

I'm thinking maybe you should consider putting this whole thread to rest as it's not doing your analytical credibility any favors.


David,

Shinnecock Hills GC never owned any land north of the point I drew up to 1916.

That 1916 map Bryan produced is accurate.

The proposed expansion to the Women's Course never happened.

Also, I already conceded that by 1916 (not sure about 1906 as we have no scale maps) approximately 110 yards at the north end of Shinnecock lay east of the 2,520 yards of NGLA.

Also, with allies like Patrick here you may want to consider letting this thread die quietly as well, because you've both been proven wrong again and again.

I started this thread because of your contention on the Myopia thread that I made wild and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of NGLA that would be shocking to the members there.

Please list them again if you still believe that to be true, because I believe everything I've claimed here is supported by CBM's book, and George's book, and the contemporaneous news accounts and historical records of the times.  I also believe folks who've followed along here likely have a much more detailed, accurate understanding of the origins of that great course than they perhaps have had in the past.   I've learned a lot and I hope you did, as well.

Yes, along with the rest of us I engaged in some admitted speculation at times, such as trying to locate the site talked about in those October articles you posted, but overall, I think it's clear that I've represented the historical record very accurately.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan, I am with you on the road. Pat tells us to just look at the maps. As much as I have looked, I see no north highway on any of those 1903-5 maps.  Maybe he should add some lines where he sees them, because I sure don't.

Haven't brewed the coffee yet, but is Pat taking Mike to task for a map David produced?  A new low even for a guy who just had needles stuck in his eye.

David,

Others have said the purchase of Shinny wasn't considered, and it does seem unlikely.  If you can just give me what road CBM's house is on, I think I can figure it out, but I appreciate any info you can easily provide. Just a curiosity after seeing pix of his house in George's book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff, Bryan & Mike,

Please tell me what road/s appears above the railroad tracks between the Shinnecock Canal and points East in the pink and green color coded 1903 map above.

Thanks  

As to my taking Mike to task, with limited vision and the multiple maps submitted by Mike, Bryan, David, it's David's error on the siting of Shinnecock.  I believe that both David and Mike are wrong on the siting of NGLA in that I believe NGLA was closer to the road to the south, the North Highway.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I still don't care about this highway stuff and still haven't paid much attention to your back and forth with Patrick, but after having looked at your last post, I suspect that the two of you might be talking past one another.    

Recall that this highway nonsense began when Mike came up with his mystery site where, in October of 1906, CBM was supposedly planning to build a 120 acre course stretching from SHGC along the bottom of Cold Spring Bay and along part of Peconic Bay to the west of Cold Spring Bay.  As I understand Patrick's point, he thinks that there was a highway that would have run right up the gut of a substantial portion of Mike's mystery site.  Without wishing to fight about it with you or anyone about this, I tend to agree with him on this point.

Here is a map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book.  I've placed a blow up of the area in question in the upper right corner.  
 

As you can see, the main road runs along Peconic Bay and part of Cold Spring before cutting down to the location of the Shinnecock Inn and SHGC before heading into Southampton.   The description of the route to Southampton (and beyond) confirms this;  after crossing the "new bridge" over the canal one took a left on "Shore Road" which which ran "along Peconic Bay through Shinnecock Hills" to the Shinnecock Inn, and after the Inn, one crossed the tracks and joined the "old road" near the art colony.  So it seems that by by 1907 at the latest, the main route to Southampton was north of the tracks, along Peconic Bay and at least part of Cold Spring Bay, and thus would have run right up the gut of Mike's mystery site.  Given we are dealing with Mike, he will probably claim that this road definitely couldn't even have been contemplated in October 1906, but I think that scenario is rather unlikely. Plus, even the 1903 map shows a road along the bottom of the part of Cold Spring and that road would have run right up the gut of Mike's mystery site.  

Anyway, here are depictions of the Shinnecock Inn and the Irving Hotel in Southampton, both from the same publication. These weren't exactly frontier shacks. Note that the description under the Shinnecock Inn mentions new roads built by SHPBRC affording views of Peconic, Cold Spring, and Bullshead Bays.  



By the way, in addition to the 1873 map I posted, I have taken a look at an 1802 map and an 1845 map and they both show a northern route through the entire area.  I came across the surveyors description for parts of the North Highway and St. Andrews Road from the early teens, but haven't spent any time trying to make sense of them (without knowing the exact location of their reference markers it would be difficult, I think) but if you think you can make sense of them, I'll be glad to send them to you.
___________________________________________________

Patrick,
I created those pink and green shadows of the current courses on the 1903 map by overlaying that map with the Google Earth image, and things line up fairly well so I think my depiction is generally pretty accurate, although I can't attest to the location of the road.  I agree that it looks strange, but as I explained to Jim, I think this is because the 1903 map has Sebonack Creek as far too wide for too far south.   (The google image shows a small line of Sebonack Creek where the 1903 image shows a wide waterway or swamp.)

Were I to place the future location of 1907 Shinnecock Inn on this map, it would be about 200-300 yards south of what would eventually become the southern tip of NGLA, just across that road which runs at an angle underneath NGLA's future location.
___________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

The location of CBM's old house is at an intersection of a line straight east of the space between "Sebonack" and "Creek" on the map, and straight north of the "9" in the "29" elevation marker (a bit to the east of the creek.)  The house is visible on Google Earth.  (He also looks to have owned another house and/or some more land south of there a bit.)

_______________________________________

Mike Cirba,  

1. According to you, I have been "proven wrong again and again" while "everything" you have "claimed here is supported by CBM's book, and George's book, and the contemporaneous news accounts and historical records of the times."   Fascinating.  Statements like these really highlight your veracity and/or your analytical capabilities, or lack there of.  

2. I am not the least interested in your unsupported assertions about the 1916 map or the expansion of the women's course.  Back up your claims.  And what happened to your claim that Shinnecock did not buy any land to the north around this same time?   Shall we add that to the long list of "facts"you just made up?  

3.  Your latest drawing on the 1903 map doesn't even accurately depict what is on that 1916 map.  

4.  As for your demand that i list for you all the stupid and unsupported claims you've made about NGLA over the years, that is about as realistic as your mentor's demand that I go back and identify every single one of his insulting and inappropriate posts.   I have neither the time to create nor an interest in creating a 2000+ page faker document.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Glad you don't care about this "highway stuff", yet spend your days futilely trying to somehow prove me wrong.  

Guess that highway just plumb up and disappeared.    Don't you hate when that happens??  

And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested.   Are you trying to show how much traffic CBM would have had to contend with if his first offer to Alvord referenced in SG was accepted??  

Say goodnight, David.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
So as to not make me read through this entire Morrisonesque thread could you please give a very brief synopsis of what you are trying to prove? And please don't post a series of old news articles/maps (those repeated posts of the same articles, over and over again, always come across as a diversion tactic, its more distracting than anything), just a series of bullet points in your words, if possible.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

"Morrisonesque"?   

David,

"Faker Document"??


Guys..transparent jealousy really doesn't wear well on anyone.   You should really go write your own version of history if that's your thing.

TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;

1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process.   It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.

2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.

3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.

4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.

5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.

6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.

7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.

Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.

I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

You did so well, but I recommend editing to take out the last sentence, and maybe the first two.  Guaranteed to add animosity, whereas I will give TMac credit for NOT trying to add to it, although Morrisonesque is also a little over the top.

TMac,

The length of this thread is in part due to:

Pat Mucci's repeated insistence that NGLA nearly routed itself in a day, to which I have strongly disagreed.

David's anger that Mike has postulated that CBM might have looked at a third site, and frankly, I think its fair to say no one has signed off on that concept.

David and Pat's disagreement that the other site (even if only the first offer) could have been where Mike suggested it was, based on roads, highways, and what not.  The location of that site is still undetermined, although I think most agree that it was not the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, as George Bahto reported in his book.  (Side note, I would still love to know where it was, but its a historical side note)

The timeline still seems to be an issue, with Mike figuring the real work didn't start until after the option was formalized in December 1906, and David most strongly thinking a lot was done prior to October 1906.  It appears to me (and maybe only me) that Whigham tells us those first pony rides took place in Sept. 1906, which puts it at a later time line than many think, given that CBM says he made his first offer only a few weeks after SHPB Realty bought the land, closer to Dec 1905.

As usual, individual opinions vary with the weight placed on various documents.  Fascinating stuff, and not worth the acrimony that always gets started between us.  The higway argument and discussoin about whether Shinny was east or south of NGGLA are mere personality conflicts on our part.  I think there is general agreement on Mikes points otherwise, although I have said that while CBM had a committee, I believe he would have outvoted them 1 to 5.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I'd love to edit but am on my Blackberry and can't, unfortunately.

Just one thing I'd add...I don't think the site I proposed based on the articles was a third site but the first.

Other than that...nice synopsis.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

No problem. And my reference wasn't chronological.  The "third" site meant one not discussed by CBM, who mentioned two sites in his writings.

I would still like to know where that first offer was made near "good ground."

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I had speculated that perhaps the site in those articles was the canal site as I believe CBM made his first offer in 1906, not 1905.

You may have missed it, but no biggie.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Last night Mike Cirba wrote: "And that blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested."    

Shortly thereafter he wrote: "I had speculated that perhaps the site in those articles was the canal site . . . "

Will the real Mike Cirba please stand up?  
______________________________________________________________

Mike,

IT IS FOOLISH TO PRETEND THAT YOU WERE NEVER TALKING ABOUT THE CANAL IN ONE POST, YET PRETEND YOU WERE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CANAL A FEW POSTS LATER!

Obviously, not even you know what you are talking about! Or do you think that we are the real idiots, and will accept this nonsense?

Same goes for your laughable list.  You managed leave off almost all of what you have desperately tried yet failed to prove, and you even throw in a bunch of stuff that I explained to you years ago as if it was your own original analysis. You are delusional.

And Mike, the highway stuff is entirely irrelevant to the land CBM was considering in October and is of little interest to me. But Bryan seems interested so I passed along the information to Bryan. Unlike you, not all my posts are aimed at some petty agenda. Rather, I am often just passing on information.
  
And again with the jealousy nonsense?  Even you must be able to comprehend that there are a multitude of reasons to joke about the "publication" of the 2000+ page faker cd.  Where is this sense of humor you are always bragging about?
_________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Whether or not Mike's duplicitous tactics annoy me, the ONLY reason that this thread is as long as it is because of Mike's multitude of ridiculous claims, his habit of recycling through the same ridiculous and disproven material again and again and again, and his inability and/or unwillingness to even keep his own story straight.    

For example, Mike would have you believe that he has been suggesting the canal site all along, but you know as well as I do that he has repeatedly jumped back an forth between various theories (including his third mystery site theory) despite the underlying facts.

Look at those recent posts where he makes polar opposite claims in the space of a few hours and is so delusional that he doesn't even realize he has done so.  This is typical and you know it.  So why do you pretend like Mike is playing this straight?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Maybe he should change his name to "Mike Circling?"

But, don't kid yourself.  That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long.  We all parse words, we all analyze.  I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above.  Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter.  Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.

Thanks for the info on CBM and his house.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, don't kid yourself.  That persistence isn't the ONLY reason this thread is so long.  We all parse words, we all analyze.  I was able to sum up the disagreements in a short post above.  Both you and Pat probably have 5 pages each of posts telling everyone how bad Mike is in your eyes, whereas if you could just stick to facts and not diatribe it would be much shorter. 

Mike may be wrong, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the treatment you give him, and the only reason he gets treated that way is because you and Pat declare that it should be so.


That's absolutely untrue.

My problem with Mike isn't that he disagrees with either David or me, but that he knowingly misrepresented the facts and postulated conclusions that he knew were incorrect in order to serve his previously stated agenda, to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order.

For you to turn a blind eye to his deliberate misrepresentations is somewhat puzzling, unless, you've allowed "personality" to override intellect.

Mike has changed his position innumerable times, and not once did you stand up and say, "Mike, you've changed your position again"
Not once did you ask him what his core position was.  And, by a core position, I mean one that you don't waiver from.  One that you retain until it's proven wrong.  Time and time again, Mike was proven wrong, sometimes by his own posts.  But, never once, did you call him on his disingenuous posts.

Mike has clearly stated that his mission is to prove that CBM did not route NGLA in short order.

Thus, he's drew his conclusion and embarked upon a journey, not to find the facts, but to present anything and everything to reach his stated goal.

The length of this thread is due solely to Mike changing his position, over and over again, with David, myself and others, having to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking his "premise of the day".

So, let's not be so quick to disparage David's and my efforts to debunk so many of Mike's revolving door premises.

You seem to want to force us to accept anything and everything Mike's stated, irrespective of its inaccuracy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;

1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process.   It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.

Mike, this is what David and I have always maintained.
That you drew your conclusion before discovering/establishing the facts.
You had/have an agenda, and it's not to search for the truth, but to disprove CBM's routing NGLA in short order since that goes to the core of your Merion argument.  That's not the academic or intellectually honest method for conducting historical research.  And, in fact, it's disingenuous.

Your claim that it wasn't routed in short order holds about as much merit as your claim that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914[/b]
[/color][/b]
2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.


Only for the purpose of your agenda.
Your denial of the existance of the North Highway in as late as 1914 speaks to your bias.
It speaks to the fact that you're not searching for the facts, instead you're searching for info that will ONLY promote your stated agenda.[/b]

3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.

First, that a major presumption on your part.
CBM tells us about the 120 acre parcel and the Montauk site.
ONLY YOU are insisting upon another site.
I think you're trying to FORCE/FABRICATE information to suit your agenda. [/b]

4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.

Again, this is totally agenda driven and related to Merion.
Hutchinson was overseas and never saw the site at NGLA.
Travis was dismissed.
Macdonald had every opportunity to name the parties involved.
Only Whigham is mentioned in detail in the selecting of the site and positioning of the holes.
Yet, again, you want to FORCE/FABRICATE the involvement of Emmet, Travis and Hutchinson.
Hutchinson never saw NGLA until 1910.[/b]

5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.

Again, you're trying to FORCE/FABRICATE surplus land for building lots, even though Bryan Izatt and David Moriarty showed you that that was impossible at the NGLA site.  

In addition, do you really believe that the wealthiest men in America, men with huge estates, would build homes and live in 1 acre plots in a sub-division ?  How did Sabin respond to establishing his residence in the area ?[/b]

6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.

If you'd read page 184 of "Scotland's Gift" you'd see that CBM didn't have 18 template holes..
He certainly had 8 or 9 templates, but, he clearly states that the other ideal/classic holes WERE composites.
So, ONCE AGAIN, you're misrepresenting Macdonald's written words, and that's disingenuous.
Sahara, Alps, Redan, Short, Road, Bottle, Eden, Cape, Leven.
They're all there at NGLA.[/b]

7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.

His clubhouse choice wasn't the Shinnecock Inn.
That was a temporary choice, a short term choice of convenience.
It's my belief that Macdonald ALWAYS had the current clubhouse location reserved for his clubhouse and that the Shinnecock Inn served as a perfect interim clubhouse.

The yacht basin was NEVER a factor in determining the routing.
That's just another of your wild speculations.
Can you site any reference in "Scotland's Gift" that states that the Yacht Basin was a consideration in determining the routing ?
Absent that citation, would you admit that this is just another diversion, another wild goose chase you wish to send others on ?[/b]

Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STORY IS ?

That's our point.
YOU and YOU alone have determined the story to conform with your agenda, namely, to prove that CBM didn't route NGLA in short order.

Yet, Max Behr goes into great depth about the ideal routing, an out and back routing mirroring TOC's routing.

Max Behr goes on to say that NGLA followed this model and that the course basically routed itself.

So, here we have a knowledgeable, contemporaneous account from an architect, stating that the course routed itself.
And Mike, who posted this essay, now wants it stricken from the record because it refutes his pre-determined agenda.
Please read the following carefully.