News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1025 on: March 19, 2011, 03:39:42 PM »
David,

Never said I didn't like you. As you know, I have said I think I would like you in person, and have offered on two occaisions to try to meet you while I am in LA. Offer is still open while I regularly travel there.  Your posts to me have been mostly respectful and well considered on this thread.

Not only that, but you actually improved discussions by actually admitting you didn't know or couldn't know something to a higher level of detail.  I got to thinking how much all this acrimony stems from not admitting things like that.

I was going to comment on the yacht basin thingy.  To me, that falls in the category mentioned above, ie. we can't know that level of detail. CBM obviously wanted great holes, which might be accomodated in various ways, but of course, if he wanted a yacht basin, that could only be accounted for on the water.  Ditto, there was only one way to use the Shinny Inn.  Short version, it probably isn't a productive argument to try to shave the cheese that fine as to whether the yacht basin was "incidental" or a larger concern in the design program.  I mean, I don't care if it was  22% priority or a 87% priority. It had some priority, and enough to work it in the plan, so why split hairs on that?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1026 on: March 19, 2011, 03:44:51 PM »
TMac,

The areas that I agree would be of further interest to Mike is the timeline - CBM describes events but doesn't apply dates to them in Scotland's Gift on pages 187-9 for the most part.  We can read Whighams eulogy and decide if that tells us they first rode the property in Sept 1906 or not.  There was some belief, based on CBM's "a few weeks after they bought the land" that he made an first offer in 1905, not 1906.

Does it matter? No, not as you state in terms of the end result.  If it wasn't great, no one would care.

Is it interesting? To me, yes.  Not so much that I am interested in being called a stupid, disingenous liar on the world wide web, but I am interested.  And just as knowing whether there was a routing before the Nov 15, 1910 Merion meeting or after could affect perception of how Merion developed, it would just help our understanding of the development of another important early course, no?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1027 on: March 19, 2011, 03:47:35 PM »
Mike
I don't believe I have chased off anyone, nor did I insult you on that thread or any other thread. You have tendency to allow your emotions to get the best of you, which often results factual errors.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1028 on: March 19, 2011, 03:49:45 PM »
Jeff,

I've come to realize that you'll get no respect from either Parick or David in this discussion, and neither will I or anyone who disagrees with them and even the most obvious, mundane matter

Mike, respect is earned, it's not garnered by being disingenuous.


Even Bryan Izatt was thrown under the bus for daring to bring some actual facts into the mix that dispute their contentions.

Bryan never got thrown under any bus.
Bryan is a big boy, posted some info and offered his opinion, which like any opinion, is open for discussion.


Similarly...

Your attempts to ask them to do more than insult us in trying to discuss matter like other sites CBM may have considered is futile, as well.

Both David and I have done far more than insult you.
We've proven that your agenda driven claims, claims you called speculative, but tried to pawn off as The Gospel, were wrong.


Neither of them will show you where they think CBM might have considered locating his course before finding the land he settled on because they'd rather sit back and accuse me of lying when I'm admittedly SPECULATING on where that land might have been.

Why do you insist on wanting us to engage in a "pin the tail on the donkey" exercise ?
You feel comfortable making bold, reckless claims, while trying to pass them off as factual.
Neither David nor myself want to engage in that foolish exercise.
I don't know, exactly, where CBM looked, so why are you demanding that we identify the exact site for you ?


Patrick will concede that it possibly might have been "near the canal", which is even more ironic given his arguments, because BOTH the North and South roads would have passed through it had it been near there.

Mike, I suspect that you don't know where the South Highway passed over the Canal, but, it's good to know that you finally admit to the existance of the North Highway prior to 1907.  There's sufficient seperation between the North and South Highway, in fact, a railroad runs between them.


It's pathetic, and really sad.

They've chased people like Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, Phil Young and anyone who disagrees with their speculative, revisionist nonsense from the site, and they've made it into personal wars.

That's a blatant lie, something you're becoming adept at.
Let me clear the record for you.
Ran Morrissett banned TEPaul from this site due to TEPaul's conduct, not once, but twice.
TEPaul didn't withdraw from this site because of anything I typed, or anything David typed.
TEPaul was removed from this site by Ran Morrissett because of what TEPaul typed.

For you to try to tell others that TEPaul withdrew from this site because of me and David is a disgraceful blatant lie on your part.
A clear indication of the lengths you'll go to to forward your agenda.
Ran Morrissett banned TEPaul from this site because of TEPaul's conduct, TEPaul did NOT willingly remove himself.
Please, try something new, Get your FACTS right before you post.

I would like you to correct your accusation and apologize to David and myself for lying to participants and lurkers on this site regarding TEPaul's removal.

As for Phil Young, I like Phil Young.  We disagree on how to play the 3rd hole at Baltusrol and other issues, but, I have absolutely NO PERSONAL WAR with him.  Same goes for Wayno.  We disagree on a number of items, mostly MERION and Moriarty and MacWood related, but, I can assure you that I have NO PERSONAL WAR with Wayno.

Your above statements are just another lie in a series of lies.


I seem to be the only one left...me, and anyone who dares to agree with the slightest point I make is guaranteed to be insulted and badgered.
Mike, you can't make up things, speculate and call it factual.
And, you can't demonize those that oppose your disingenuous presentation, a presentation you admited was agenda driven.


Since I came back to this site about a year ago after taking six months off from their garbage I started a simple thread on Cobbs Creek and the best public courses prior to the Depression.

David and Tom MacWood took that opportunity to insult me on that thread from the very beginning, and I don't think there's been a thread I've posted on since then that hasn't been met with a vendetta-driven response from David.

I hope you guys enjoy him...because I'm done here as well.

I'd have to review it, but, I don't think I entered a single reply to the Cobb's Creek thread.


This is absolutely beyond disgrace, and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, as well for permitting this to continue.

Mike, please stop with the self pity, you brought this all on yourself.
You created this thread as a subterfuge, an attempt to prove that CBM didn't route Merion in short order.
You admitted that after I pressed you.
You presented knowingly flawed newspaper articles and held them out as accurate.
You misrepresented, you were disingenuous and you liedl
And now, you're trying to blame David, MacWood and me for the way you conducted yourself and our opposition to your admittedly speculative claims that you held out as the Gospel.



Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1029 on: March 19, 2011, 04:00:01 PM »
TMac,

The areas that I agree would be of further interest to Mike is the timeline - CBM describes events but doesn't apply dates to them in Scotland's Gift on pages 187-9 for the most part.  We can read Whighams eulogy and decide if that tells us they first rode the property in Sept 1906 or not.  There was some belief, based on CBM's "a few weeks after they bought the land" that he made an first offer in 1905, not 1906.

Does it matter? No, not as you state in terms of the end result.  If it wasn't great, no one would care.

Is it interesting? To me, yes.  Not so much that I am interested in being called a stupid, disingenous liar on the world wide web, but I am interested.  And just as knowing whether there was a routing before the Nov 15, 1910 Merion meeting or after could affect perception of how Merion developed, it would just help our understanding of the development of another important early course, no?


I think it is interesting too, which is why I'm suggesting Mike thoroughly research the subject and present a well reasoned essay. Instead of throwing one theory after another against the wall why not do your due diligence. Like what David did with Merion and I've done with other essays. He should put his name, credibility, and reputation behind something, instead of continually throwing crap around and wasting a lot of time.

I don't see the correlation with Merion. There is no question who was responsible for the NGLA, who designed Merion is an open question. The questions about when Merion was routed are key to determining who was responsible.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1030 on: March 19, 2011, 04:16:35 PM »
TMac,

To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people.  The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.

While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing.  For that matter, valuble documents from Andy and Bryan might not have come forward using that method, so there is a benefit from doing that.

And, my only interest is in seeing how lots of "real world" factors like budget, contracts, etc. all came together in those days, apart from all the "ideal" links talk.  As we have seen, nearly every design project entails some compromises to work through.

Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach?  Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1031 on: March 19, 2011, 06:03:41 PM »

Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?

Now you're lying.
I never called "EVERYONE stupid, liars, or both."

I said that Mike was disingenuous, you introduced "liar" to the equation.
And yes, I did call you "stupid" stubborn which later evolved, through your continued denial of the existance of the North Highway, to simply "stupid"

Stop whining and try being genuinely honest and accurate with your posts


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1032 on: March 19, 2011, 06:14:17 PM »
Pat,

I am being honest.  Please draw a line on any pre 1907 map to show me where this alleged North Highway was in the area under discussion. Thanks.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1033 on: March 19, 2011, 06:23:15 PM »
Pat,

I am being honest.  Please draw a line on any pre 1907 map to show me where this alleged North Highway was in the area under discussion. Thanks.


Sure, but, before I do, and since you want to complain about me calling Mike disingenuous, a "liar" in your words, I just wanted to post a quote from Mike Cirba's reply # 462 where he addressed you and referenced David and Myself.


Quote from: MCirba on February 28, 2011, 07:11:06 AM
Jeff,

These guys are both lying through their teeth and playing fast and loose with the facts.


Why didn't you object to Mike's calling me and David liars ?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1034 on: March 19, 2011, 06:57:52 PM »
Jeff,

To answer your question about the existance of the North Highway, here are some maps and documents dating from 1873 to 1916.

Look at the area starting with the Shinnecock Canal, going East, North of the Railroad tracks and tell me if you see the NORTHERN MOST ROAD ON THOSE MAPS, RUNNING EAST-WEST PARALLEL TO THE COASTLINE AND BENEATH COLD SPRING POND.

That's the NORTH HIGHWAY.
It's LABELED the NORTH HIGHWAY in the Olmsted map.
It's referenced in other maps and in the 1906 New York State Senate documents and the 1907 Shinnecock Inn advertisement.

Your continued insistance that the road didn't exist can only be explained by a "stupid" stubborn mentality and the real motive, to not have to admit that I'm right and you're wrong.  That's really the core of this issue and we both know it, despite your protests to the contrary..


























DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1035 on: March 19, 2011, 07:54:41 PM »
Jeffrey,

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that you suggested that your opinions are driven more by your dislike of my presentation, than by the actual facts?   If not, I have no idea what you meant by the story about your jury verdict based not on the facts but the presentation.

I was going to comment on the yacht basin thingy.  To me, that falls in the category mentioned above, ie. we can't know that level of detail. CBM obviously wanted great holes, which might be accomodated in various ways, but of course, if he wanted a yacht basin, that could only be accounted for on the water.  Ditto, there was only one way to use the Shinny Inn.  Short version, it probably isn't a productive argument to try to shave the cheese that fine as to whether the yacht basin was "incidental" or a larger concern in the design program.  I mean, I don't care if it was  22% priority or a 87% priority. It had some priority, and enough to work it in the plan, so why split hairs on that?

   I think that even including it as a factor falls into the category of "we can't know" because there isn't much to go on even suggesting it was a factor.   It was definitely a nice thing to have and it was mentioned and an "incidental" but that doesn't necessarily mean it entered into the decision making process.  
   In other words, it is a causation issue, and I don't know that there is a reasonably basis for thinking it entered into the decision-making process.   There is certainly nothing about Whigham exclaiming from the Alps, "And the Yachts can park over there!"  
  That it was accessible via water might been a factor in the advantages of the general, regional location, as were the RR and the road.  CBM makes it clear he wanted the course accessible to NYC (thus the elimination of Cape Cod.)  That was an important factor, but to the general location, not the specific layout.
  So while it was undoubtedly a nice bonus to have a yacht basin so close to the course, I have trouble understanding how it could have influenced the layout.   There were many other yacht basins in the area (some probably not that much less accessible to the Shinnecock Inn than this one) and I have trouble believing that CBM would have compromised the course to make it yacht basin adjacent, as opposed to near a yacht basin.
  Besides, Mike claimed that the yacht basin was the most important factor, along with the location of the Inn.  I hardly think it 'splitting hairs' to call Mike out on this, given he is obviously suggesting that CBM was more concerned with the incidentals than with the quality of the golf course.  CBM makes it quite clear that the quality of golf was his priority.

Quote
To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people.  The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there are "people who matter" when it comes to determining what really happened at Merion (or anywhere else.)  What really happened at Merion isn't at all dependent upon whether a couple of history fakers currently have the ears of some of those at MGC.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 10:09:42 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1036 on: March 19, 2011, 08:10:34 PM »
Jeffrey,

After writing this I have debated whether to post it because while I mean what I say I really don't mince words and it may come off as harsh.  (What's new, right?)  Please accept my assurance that I am not trying to embarrass you or Mike, but rather am trying to explain to you my perspective on all of this and my frustration with some of it.  I'd like your opinion on it because, beleive it or not I would like to get past some of this this animosity.  Here goes . . .  

Quote
While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing.

Really?  Did you stop to consider the hypocrisy in this statement? Because I seem to recall you repeatedly railing on my various theories even when they have been thoroughly researched and even when there was nothing contradicting them!  In fact not long ago I posted about some research I had done about Shinnecock and you repeatedly posted about how I should have done more research and made sure I got my facts straight BEFORE I posted, even though I had done extensive research and even though I had my facts straight.  From one of your posts on that Shinnecock thread:  

"I mean, don't you think its the responsbility of someone publishing (if posting an IMO or club specific treastise thread here is publishing, which I think it rapidly is becoming) to make every effort to get the facts right before putting it out in public?  If we require a bibliography from the historians of the 70's (who ironically were closer to the events than we are now) how can we pass off "logic" and presumption now?"

Similarly, you have come after me and MacWood on similar grounds on Merion, Myopia, and other courses, although I would put the quality and depth of our research and analysis against the field, including the self-appointed experts on those very same courses. So why the hypocracy? Why the double standard? Why rail on us for quality work and then condone and support Mike specious and unsupportable claims and games?  

And what of Mike's own hypocrisy? Shouldn't Mike at least be held to his own standard? Here is what he had to say on that same Shinnecock thread:

In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible.

Surely you must have gotten a laugh just now out of the absolute absurdity of this? At least a chuckle? While Mike has presented a number of new and different versions of NGLA's established history, has he DONE ALL HIS HOMEWORK?  Honestly?  Has he done any?  And do you suppose he took each of his garbage theories to NGLA prior to posting them here?  I sure hope he didn't embarrass gca.com by actually presenting this crap to these clubs.  

Quote
Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach?  Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?

Again hypocrisy, given your criticisms of TM's approach and mine.  But lets set that aside and consider the difference in our approaches. The difference between approaches is not one of preferences, it is of INTENTION and RESULT.  MacWood's approach works and so does mine, and each of us is primarily interested in figuring out what really happened.  In contrast, Mike's approach produces an endless procession of bogus claims. Because with Mike facts and truthfulness are subservient and malleable to the desired conclusion.  And the result is the constant misrepresentations, exaggerations, changes in direction, etc. Anything to serve the conclusion.  

Look Jeffrey, I don't think Mike is necessarily dishonest at his core.  He's pulled some nasty crap with me (like his witch-hunt about the intentions of my essay) but I write most of that off to emotion getting the best of him.  But that said, perhaps because of the mentoring he has received from some (but not all) of the "researchers" with which he has associated himself, he has absolutely no concept of how this process is supposed to work.  As I have written to you before, one cannot start with big picture conclusions and work backward from there, but that is all Mike does. All of his "research" and "facts" are meant to serve his predetermined conclusions, and they inevitably get twisted and turned to serve that purpose.  And because he is always overly emotional about this stuff (see his unprovoked, "David, Fuck Off and Die." comment on the other thread today) he slips into a web of idiotic misrepresentations and contradictions, and unfortunately tries to escape by spinning more.    

That is why, within three posts, he can tell me that he never suggested land "near the Canal" and tell you that he has only suggested the land "near the Canal," yet not even notice that he has contradicted himself.  That is why he argues that all that was done on the horseback ride was a general inspection of the soil and contours on the 450 acre site, and at the same time argues that during the horseback rides they had chosen the site, found six holes, a yacht basin, found the first and last holes, could describe the dimension, had numerous others inspect the site, and everything else described in those December Articles.  That is how he can argue that a site not anywhere near SHGC can also be adjacent to SHGC.  He can berate Patrick for thinking the horseback rides were productive when his own theory dictates that everything mentioned in those December Articles happened on those same rides! He can argue that "to lay out" a course definitely meant to design it when referring to Wilson and Merion, but definitely didn't mean to design it in the case of Campbell at Myopia.  And that is why he agreed with me as to the meaning of the October articles one day, but when asked to consider the implications of this not only dropped this understanding, he considered questions based on this understanding to be "stupid and insulting." Etc.

In the above examples, his analysis was subservient to his conclusions and the analysis and facts could discarded and changed as he saw fit.  It has been going on for years!   Remember how Mike used to argue that CBM and HJW were not known for their expertise as golf course designers in 1910?  (Even he ought to admit that was absurd, but I am sure he won't.)  Similarly, remember how he used to argue that NGLA wasn't even that big a deal by 1910, that it was just being constructed, and that it wasn't all that well known?  Remember how he (and others) used to focus on the opening date of the clubhouse to try and create the false impression that the golf course at NGLA was more a contemporary of Merion than a predecessor?  Remember how he used to take his cue from Wayne and try to portray NGLA as a course with at least one foot and maybe two feet stuck in the dark ages of design?  I won't even get into the nonsense concerning Hugh Wilson's trip or various other aspects of Merion's history.  

So while I understand my shots at Mike sound harsh, and will try to tone it back, it is more about his approach than anything else.  His approach is at the root of all of this.    
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 10:50:03 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1037 on: March 19, 2011, 11:49:31 PM »
David,

Maybe it is all in the approach! I'm pissed, but only at the Stars losing in a shootout to those disingenous Philly Flyers.  Damn.

I really have no problem pointing out my inconsistencies, Mike's inconsistencies, etc.  We all have them.  Sometimes I marvel at how, almost on cue, the Philly crowd takes amost an exact opposite meaning of the importance of certain things solely if you mention you think its important.  It often does seem intentional, or as I once explained (and think I took some flak for it, it sounds to me like certain thought patterns just go together, much like conservatives and liberals can often be presumed to favor certain ideas. People just think differently, which is not surprising, and I don't think people in other political parties are bad americans, for instance, even if the debate gets heated on more important issues than the North Highway.

As I have mentioned, I don't care for the overuse of disengenous, and don't see why these threads need to escalate to the point of that, although I do understand that we all get angry sometimes.  It sort of strikes me as calling someone unamerican, or whatever.  Its an insult and not really true of much of the discussion here. 

Inconsistent, yes, disingenous, no, at least IMHO.

I have noticed you have toned it way back, and for one appreciate it.  That is all anyone here can ask from you.  Better that than having another interested contributor force himself to leave the site.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1038 on: March 20, 2011, 02:48:45 AM »
Thanks for the 1907 map.  Why do you think that the road as portrayed on it was not on the 1903 and 1905 maps?

You're welcome.  Sorry I haven't responded sooner, and sorry that I apparently threw you under the bus.  I'll focus on the second of these two maps, assuming (perhaps wrongly) it was the most up to date.

The 1904 Map.   To clarify, "1905 map" looks like it was actually the 1904 map, at least according to the copyright notice in the lower right corner   Also it looks like parts of the road are there on the 1903 and 1904 maps, just not all of it.  
 
I am not sure about your interpretation of the legend (which only stated that the red dotted lines are poor roads.)  This was a AAA map, and I suspect that those red lines (with mileage marked between various points) corresponded with recommended drives and/or described routes, and some of these had to utilize poor roads. And if one looks closely one can see that all the roads are there in black, and the red lines are added onto these roads.  So while we might assume that the AAA would have recommended the best road corresponding with its destination or route, I don't think we can make too many assumptions about the quality of the other roads.  Some of them might have been almost as good or as good but just not going to the right place.  As for the black dotted lines, it could be that they were of poorer quality, but it also could be that they were roads that had not been designated as public roads, or some such thing.  

And with this particular map, isn't much of the road already there?    The first section next to the canal is not, but once the road curves up, it looks like most of the road was there except for the small section under the "I" in "HILLS."  Or am I not getting something? Granted, on this road it is marked with dotted lines, but I am not sure what this means.

Is it possible that this was a period of transition toward roads suitable for automobiles, and that this northern route was not updated/build for automobiles as early as the southern route, but that this was going on during this time period?

Quote
Andy,

Interesting.  It's from 1913.  Have you mapped it?  It seems to start and SH and go west.

Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?

That information Andy posted was what I was referring to in my previous post. Are you sure you don't want to figure out how to draw that out?  The book contains some interesting background information on what highways meant early on in Southampton and what was going on with the dedications and releases. I think it is a bit out of range even for this far reaching thread, though, especially because I honestly don't see much relevance to these road issues.  I think Andy provided the link, but if you want me to relink it I will.
_______________________________________________________

Jeffrey,

I agree that people in other political parties are not bad people, but I think that many of the pundits and zealots on both sides are extremely dishonest in their presentation of the material and that they play us for fools and will try and twist anything to try and get us to buy what they are selling.  I think that calling these people out is necessary, as unpleasant as it may seem.

And while I agree that we could all be more polite, I still think you only pay attention to one side of the rudeness, and you always ignore the context.  
- What could be more rude than to blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent another's position and/or the source material?  
- What could be more rude in these discussions than repeatedly hopping back and forth between contradictory positions so as to never have to honestly address the ramifications of either one?  
- What could be more rude than refusing to answer legitimate questions or to consistently back up one's claims?

How much of this sort of thing must we put up with before harsh words are in order?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 02:51:04 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1039 on: March 20, 2011, 02:49:11 AM »
Andy,

I'll try to map it when I get home from Bandon next week.  I love heavy lifting. ;)

That's also my reading of "dedication and release".  Just wondered if I was on the right track.  I guess it meant that the section of "highway" described was privately owned until 1913.

Did you read the preamble to the Liber, that described what a highway meant back in the day?  I found that interesting too.  I wonder if that description of what highways meant extended to highways at the end of the 19th century?

Quote
Andy,

Interesting.  It's from 1913.  Have you mapped it?  It seems to start and SH and go west.

Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?

Bryan, I have not mapped it--that would be too close to heavy lifting and I'd much rather leave that to you, Mike and David.

I believe dedication and release roughly means 'I give up my personal land for this road (dedication) and am hereafter free from any claims or damages (released) that may occur'. But that is just my reading and I'd be happy for a lawyer or realtor to correct me.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1040 on: March 20, 2011, 02:52:50 AM »
Bryan, our posts crossed. Good luck with figuring out the road and hope your are enjoying bandon.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1041 on: March 20, 2011, 03:03:55 AM »
Patrick,

I assume you missed this in the recent deluge of posts and recriminations.  So once again, could you please answer the questions below.  And please don't just repost the maps and say that they are there.  If you could draw a nice green line through them that'd be nice.  And, if you culd compare their location to the North Highway on the 1916 map that would be nice too.

Patrick,

Three questions for you:

1.  What do you think the orange, black and dotted black roads are called on the 1916 Atlas map?  Hint, the orange ones (including the North Highway) are "Improved or Good Roads".

2.  Can you please draw on the 1903 USGS map where the "North Highway" from 1916 is?

3.  Could you mark for us on the 1903 USGS map where you think the underpass on the "North Highway" mentioned in the Senate document was?


.....................................................


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1042 on: March 20, 2011, 03:07:27 AM »
Bryan, our posts crossed. Good luck with figuring out the road and hope your are enjoying bandon.

I am enjoying Bandon, although at times there is too much rain, cold or sleet.  Too bad you couldn't make it up here.  SoCal is sadly underrepresented.  I doubt I'll have much luck with the roads or persuading Patrick that he's wrong.  Oooops, is that another bus coming.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 03:21:29 AM by Bryan Izatt »

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1043 on: March 20, 2011, 03:41:33 AM »
David,

I'm having ongoing problems with my screen flipping back up when I get past about ten lines of interspersing comments in your reply.  So, I'll have to just try to hit on a couple of points.

Yes it is possible that some sections of the highway were on the 1903 and 1904/5 maps.  But not most of it.  Could you do an overlay to demonstrate which parts match. I can't from here andI don't think Patrick can or will do it.

Thanks for your thoughts on what you think the red and black and dotted line roads mean.  Have you looked at the legend on the 1916 map.  It clearly says what the red and black (solid and dotted) roads were then.  Many roads are the same between the 1903 and 1916 maps.  I'd appreciate your perspective on what that 1916 legend means.  I don't believe it means a thoroughfare or road as we currently understand it, nor as a major atererial route for commerce, as Patrick sees it.

Yes, I'd agree that the north highway was being developed or improved to handle automobiles somewhere after 1905 and before 1916.  According to Andy's find, the SH section was only made a public road in 1913.

I did read the beginning section of the Liber, and yes it makes interesting reading about what highways meant back in the early times of Southampton.  It persuades me that the "highways" in 1873 or even 1903 were not the avenues of commerce Patrick sees them as.  And, yes, the road thing is tangential, but then so is a lot of the heated commentary about character shortcomings on this thread.

One last request.  Could you place on a map where you think the Senate document places the North Highway grade separation from railroad tracks.  On the 1913 map would be the best, since I think it is the most reliable.  The senate document is very specific.  I've asked Patrick the same question, but I suspect he will not answer, and I'd like someone to confirm or deny where I think it was.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 03:50:34 AM by Bryan Izatt »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1044 on: March 20, 2011, 10:06:15 AM »
TMac,

To be fair, the question of who routed Merion is only an open question to some people.  The people who matter (the club itself) I believe have no doubts about who designed their course and who helped substantially.

While I understand your positions and differences in approach, and see the benefits of Mike doing more research before posting his online thoughts hoping for collaboration from others, it is a discussion board and nothing prohibits him from doing what he is doing.  For that matter, valuble documents from Andy and Bryan might not have come forward using that method, so there is a benefit from doing that.

And, my only interest is in seeing how lots of "real world" factors like budget, contracts, etc. all came together in those days, apart from all the "ideal" links talk.  As we have seen, nearly every design project entails some compromises to work through.

Does your difference in preferred approach allow you (or anyone) to take real pot shots at Mike's approach?  Does anything presented - especially given the thin if non existent corrleation to Merion that others seem to see in this thread give Patrick a carte blanche to call everyone stupid, liars, or both?

The people who matter? That sounds like something coming out of the Kremlin or Red China. This is the 'official' story...case closed. Those same people has no doubts about the previous story too. There are two or three theories floating about and no one has been able to prove theirs to the others' satisfaction, it is an open debate.

I don't have a problem with Mike starting a thread with hopes of getting some collaboration. I don't think that is what has occurred here, or at least was his intention at the start, but whatever the case, at some point I think it would be good for him to sit down, try to figure it out himself and put it into an essay. Everyone approaches these questions with a bias of some sort, but one of the beneficial bi-products of researching and writing an essay that you are going to present to the group is the desire to appear as objective as possible. Your name and reputation is at stake, and you know going in this group will pick it a part with fine toothed comb. You have to approach the subject with an open mind, and question everything, especially your own biases. You figure out what are confirmed facts, and what are open questions, and dig like hell to answer the open questions, and by the end, hopefully, the essay writes itself and the question of bias is mute.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1045 on: March 20, 2011, 01:42:24 PM »
Bryan,

I don't know how to draw on schematics/maps and the like,

But, on the 1903 map, the North Highway starts south of the Railline, crosses it beneath the "S" and the "H" in Shinnecock and continues as the Northern most road.

If the North Highway, the only East-West roadway on the North Shore of the South Fork wasn't a major commercial and travel artery, what road was ?  What East-West road serviced the entire North Shore of South Fork, from the Canal to Sag Harbor and out toward Montauk ?

The location of the railroad crossing and the North Highway is irrelevant to establishing the EXISTANCE of the North Highway.
What difference do 500 yards, 1,000 yards or 1,500 yards mean ?  The critical issue is the documented reference to the North Highway, a highway Mike Cirba claimed, didn't exist in 1914, despite its appearance on a map he posted from 1907.
 
You're also laboring under the opinion that the North Highway was static, fixed in concrete from 1873 to present day.

Looking at the 1903 NYS map, it would seem that the crossing beneath the "S" and the "H" in Shinnecock would be a likely site to reconfigure the crossing, but, again, the exact location of where the North Highway crosses the railroad is irrelevant to establishing the factual EXISTANCE of the North Highway in 1914 and earlier, which is what you're also, foolishly, attempting to deny

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1046 on: March 20, 2011, 08:57:34 PM »
I am enjoying Bandon, although at times there is too much rain, cold or sleet.  Too bad you couldn't make it up here. SoCal is sadly underrepresented.  I doubt I'll have much luck with the roads or persuading Patrick that he's wrong.  Oooops, is that another bus coming.

I'd love to have made it, and hope you are all having fun. Thank goodness for the greatest advancement in golf technology of the past 100 years.   Rain gloves.  

Quote
Yes it is possible that some sections of the highway were on the 1903 and 1904/5 maps.  But not most of it.  Could you do an overlay to demonstrate which parts match. I can't from here andI don't think Patrick can or will do it.

I will try to put something together this evening.  

Quote
Thanks for your thoughts on what you think the red and black and dotted line roads mean.  Have you looked at the legend on the 1916 map.  It clearly says what the red and black (solid and dotted) roads were then.  Many roads are the same between the 1903 and 1916 maps.  I'd appreciate your perspective on what that 1916 legend means.  I don't believe it means a thoroughfare or road as we currently understand it, nor as a major atererial route for commerce, as Patrick sees it.

Here is the legend from the lower left corner of the 1916 Atlas page.



The red line marks off the area as the area covered by the Southampton Village scale plan.  I am not sure whether this raises questions as to whether the rest is actually to scale or not. The brown lines designated "improved or good roads."  I assume that this would have been different than the same description a dozen years before.  I would guess that these road would have been some sort of hard pavement.  The others are described as "old wood roads."  There were such a thing as plank roads, but I don't think that this is what it is referring to.  Probably less developed roads than "the improved or good roads" but as I said that may not have meant the same thing in as in 1904.

Quote
Yes, I'd agree that the north highway was being developed or improved to handle automobiles somewhere after 1905 and before 1916.  According to Andy's find, the SH section was only made a public road in 1913.

Why do you think the development started somewhere after 1905?  I think we'll no more about that segment if you draw it out.  (Have fun with that.)

Quote
I did read the beginning section of the Liber, and yes it makes interesting reading about what highways meant back in the early times of Southampton.  It persuades me that the "highways" in 1873 or even 1903 were not the avenues of commerce Patrick sees them as.  And, yes, the road thing is tangential, but then so is a lot of the heated commentary about character shortcomings on this thread.

I am not sure I would draw the same conclusions, but no matter.

Quote
One last request.  Could you place on a map where you think the Senate document places the North Highway grade separation from railroad tracks.  On the 1913 map would be the best, since I think it is the most reliable.  The senate document is very specific.  I've asked Patrick the same question, but I suspect he will not answer, and I'd like someone to confirm or deny where I think it was.

I assume you mean the 1916 map?   I think the underpass is where "North Highway" crosses the RR tracks about 400 ft. east of the Canal.  Is this where you were thinking?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1047 on: March 21, 2011, 02:42:07 AM »
Arggh, I lost my response.  This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy.  The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.

David,

Thanks for the legend.  I did look up wood roads, and it appears they were mono directional two rut sand tracks for wagons hauling lumber from the forests in the area.  If they were old wood roads in 1916 I assume they were probably old in 1906/07 too.  The Shinnecock Hills were pretty well deforested at that time. Hardly the busy arterial road that Patrick would have us believe.

The Senate document places the crossing as 9,440 feet from Good Ground Station or where the old wood road crosses the tracks under the "H" in Shinnecok. If the 1916 map is to be believed, that's not where the crossing was in 1916.  And, I have no explanation of that.

Patrick,

The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe.  What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.

The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 02:46:46 AM by Bryan Izatt »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1048 on: March 21, 2011, 04:56:56 AM »
Thanks for the legend.  I did look up wood roads, and it appears they were mono directional two rut sand tracks for wagons hauling lumber from the forests in the area.  If they were old wood roads in 1916 I assume they were probably old in 1906/07 too.  The Shinnecock Hills were pretty well deforested at that time. Hardly the busy arterial road that Patrick would have us believe.

Interesting.  What is your reference?   I ask because I have seen the same phrase used elsewhere in Long Island to describe good gravel roads.   And the "wood road" reference classifies every single road as "wood roads" (including roads in the village of Southampton) except for the recommended roads.  It doesnt seem likely that they were all old lumber roads.  And the lumber explanation does not match the description of how the highways were formed in the city records, does it?   Also,  I don't know the history of SH but I have read in an old history that the area had very few trees and may never have had trees.   (In fact I have a photo somewhere I will try and find.)Is it possible that that the name was used for roads that crisscross the countryside like lumber roads, even if they weren't lumber roads? 

Quote
The Senate document places the crossing as 9,440 feet from Good Ground Station or where the old wood road crosses the tracks under the "H" in Shinnecok. If the 1916 map is to be believed, that's not where the crossing was in 1916.  And, I have no explanation of that.

Not sure I follow you here.  I measured 9440 ft from the Good Ground Station and I come out at North Highway crossing, just east of the canal.  There is still an underpass there today.   I have the old Good Ground station at the where Springville Rd crosses the tracks in Hamptons.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1049 on: March 21, 2011, 04:19:28 PM »

Arggh, I lost my response.  This stupid flipping screen thing is driving me crazy.  The emoticons are back but the preview is gone again.

My screen has also started jumping again once I get further into a response.
The first few lines are OK, but, after that, the jumping begins.


The point I'm trying to make is that the North highway otherwise known as Cherry Tree road was not a busy superhighway in 1906 as you would have us believe.  

Bryan, in Mike's attempt to marginalize and dismiss the North Highway, he refered to it as a "Superhighway" 
Why would you resort to employing the same tactic ? 
I never said it was a "superhighway". 
What I claimed was that it was THE MAIN road, from the canal, running East-West on the North Shore of the South Fork.
The overwhelming body of evidence, vis a vis maps and New York State Senate documents support my claim


What ever issues you have with Mike about highways in 1914 is not ny battle.

The conclusion I would draw is that there was an improved road called the South highway and a network of old logging tracks in the Shinnecock Hills in 1906/07.

Then you've drawn the wrong conclusion.
Why would the owners of the NEW Shinnecock Inn site their brand new, huge hotel on the North Highway, if it wasn't a main artery in 1906    ?  ?  ?

Do you think they'd site this magnificent new large hotel on a two rut logging path as you claim ?


I know how difficult it is for you to admit that I'm right and you're wrong, but, you've had so much experiece at that, that you'd think you'd be used to it by now  ;D ;D

It's clear, by the reference to the "New" North Highway, that there was an "Old" North Highway, the one that appears northernmost on all of the maps dating back to 1873.

Do you think that that Shinnecock Hills Golf Club sited their clubhouse on or off of a two rut logging path, or off of a main road ?




Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back