News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1275 on: April 08, 2011, 05:00:53 PM »


Mike, one of the problems I have with your posts, is your convenient massaging of the language.

You've sneakily, or disingenuously taken "four (4) acres" and changed it to "four (4) SQUARE acres"

WHY did you do thiis ?

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1276 on: April 08, 2011, 05:10:57 PM »
Jim,

Let me think about it more.

Pat,

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because the way an acre was used to indicate distance was a furlog, or 220 yards x 4 or 880 yards wide..

Gotta run but will answer rest this weekend.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1277 on: April 08, 2011, 05:27:47 PM »
Mike,

An acre is a measurement of land that's not relegated to a fixed perimeter, and certainly not a square.

An acre of land can have any number of configurations, none of which need to be square.

While the equivalent of an acre, when expressed in feet, yards or rods is expressed in square yard or square rods, that doesn't force the parcel being measured to be deemed a square parcel.

In truth, you referenced acres previously when attempting to describe fairway widths and then changed your measurement to square acres, which isn't accurate.

If you check with TEPaul and Wayno, they can give you the history of the area/acreage of the fairways at Shinnecock.
How the number of acres was fairly large, then shrunk for the U.S. Open, and then expanded again, but, never, let  me repeat, NEVER was the acreage expressed as "square" acres.  That's solely your doing.

That's solely your attempt to establish fairway width in that context to further an agenda. ;D

I hope to be back this weekend also

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1278 on: April 08, 2011, 05:54:58 PM »
David,

Please see my replies below in BLUE.   Thanks.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This is just too much.  You've created yet another transaction out of thin air.  An original never before mentioned offer for 205 acres, which was then changed to 120 acres? What is this, the fifth or sixth fake site you have invented?  You cannot just make shit up, Mike!    Besides, you keep saying it was reported that he bought exactly 205 acres, but those articles report he bought 200.  So much for your transcription.  

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

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

This is almost a YEAR later.   Even if he waited until after his trip, that gets us to June (there is no reason to think he would have.)   This was OCTOBER.   The development had been planned and they were well on their way to having it in shape by October!

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

I don't have to surmise at all about his motivations!    I just have to read what he wrote.  He told us the timing.   You insert A YEAR OF HIM DOING NOTHING AFTER HE DECIDED TO BUY THE PROPERTY!  A YEAR!  TALK ABOUT SURMISING ABOUT HIS MOTIVATIONS.

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

Talk about surmising about his motivations!  This is pure fiction on your part!  We don't know what the offer for the land was.  It might have been no more specific than him asking them if they would be willing to sell him 120 some acres somewhere over by the canal, tbd later.   You cannot turn it into an exact land just because it suits you!

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

So what?  You have no idea whether he locked himself into anything specific.  You are just making stuff up.

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________

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

David, I'll get to your questions 3-7 this weekend, I promise. 

You have got to be kidding me!   These questions have been pending for months, and you have "promised" you would get to them for MONTHS!  

WHY NOT JUST ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO ANSWER?  Because f you cannot answer these questions in the months you have had to answer these questions, then YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS.  Another weekend of hoping to think of yet something else to make up isn't going to matter.


In the meantime, perhaps you and/or Jim can tell me what you think CBM meant with "4 acres" in width, because perhaps I missed it previously.

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

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

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

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

Thanks...


 First,  Your math skills suck. 208 yards equals the width of a square acre?  320 acres is pretty close to 450 acres?  Again you appear to just be making shit up.   Second, I've already addressed these issues.  Look it up.    Third,  I am done answering your questions until you answer mine in full.
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 #1279 on: April 08, 2011, 06:27:03 PM »

What is an acre wide mean?  An acre is a measure of area, not distance. Wikipedia provides two possible ways to derive a distance.

"Originally, an acre was understood as a selion of land sized at one furlong (660 ft) long and one chain (66 ft) wide; this may have also been understood as an approximation of the amount of land an ox could plough in one day. A square enclosing one acre is approximately 208 feet 9 inches (63.63 metres) on a side. ".

But, then we'd need to know which of the two CBM was referring to, or if he was referring to either.  So, it could be that 4 acres wide meant 4 x 660 feet (2640 feet) or 4 x 208.75 feet (835 feet).  Of course, maybe he didn't know what he was talking about with measurements.  Or, the reporter messed it up.  Yet another example of questionable news articles.

If he was talking about the furlong measure, then 4 acres wide by 2 miles long is 640 acres (not a familiar number).  If he was talking about the side of a square acre, then 4 acres wide by 2 miles long is 202 acres (nearer to  a familiar number).  I'd go with the latter interpretation.  Surely CBM couldn't have used some other arcane measure of the width of an acre, could he?




Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1280 on: April 09, 2011, 11:46:12 AM »
Bryan,

Actually, we know that the land wasn't 2 miles long.   From the back of today's 9th green to the Peconic Bay is 1.45 miles.

1.45 miles x 4 furlongs (acres) wide = 464 acres, which to me sounds pretty darn close to the size of the 450 acres of Sebonac Neck.

Why would CBM use an arcane term like "four acres wide" and refer to a common horse and farming and ploughing term, the furlong?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furlong

http://www.sizes.com/units/acre.htm

Well, it WAS 1906!  ;)  ;D

Besides, THINK about the context of what CBM was quoted as saying after securing 205 undetermined acres in December 1906.

CBM told us that he had 4 acres wide x 2 miles long "AT OUR DISPOSAL".

What the heck would there be to consider about a property 208 yards wide by 2 miles long???  That would be the height of absurdity  
 ;)  ;D




I don't understand why you guys don't want to believe CBM in his own words?

 :'(
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 12:37:21 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1281 on: April 09, 2011, 12:37:32 PM »
Mike Cirba,

You just grasp onto claims as it suits you, no matter how absurd, and then put blinders on against all logic.   Suddenly 1906 is the middle ages; CBM doesn't know how to say a half mile; and then there is 208 yards?? You are just making shit up.

Speaking of making shit up, CBM didn't say "for our consideration."  He said, "We have a stretch at our disposal of four acres in width and two miles long."   You cannot substitute your own words or someone else's later paraphrase when we have CBM's direct quote.  And if CBM described the "stretch" as being two miles long you cannot throw that out and substitute your own measure so you can fudge the whole thing and get a number more to your liking.    You aren't describing a "stretch," you are describing a mass that has nothing in common with either the specific land CBM is describing or with Sebonack Neck.  

Bryan's math is correct, and he knows the difference between a foot and a yard. Working off of CBM's description of a two miles stretch, and CBM's description of the total acreage of 200 acres (not 464 acres) the confusing variable fits as one side of a square acre.

Now when was it that you were going to address the rest of my questions?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 12:39:19 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)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1282 on: April 09, 2011, 01:14:40 PM »
A bit more on acreage from this site;

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/area.htm

acre 0.4 hectares 4840 square yards = 1 acre
1 furlong x 1 chain = 1 acre
10 square chains = 1 acre
4 roods = 1 acre
640 acres = 1 square mile An acre is a conventional measure of area. It was defined in the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and was supposed to be the area that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day. Acre is derived from the Latin for field, but the common field system of medieval times in Britain was ten acres. An acre is a furlong long and a chain wide. In fact, an archaic word for furlong was 'acre-length' and for chain 'acre-width'. See the length page for furlong and chain.
If you want to visualise an acre, it's a square with sides of nearly 70 yards (or 64 metres). A hectare is about two and a half acres.
The Scottish and Irish used to have different values for their acres. The Scottish acre was 6150.4 square yards and the Irish acre was 7840 square yards.
Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804 allows the use of the acre for land registration. 

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1283 on: April 09, 2011, 01:20:45 PM »
Seems to have been a much more prevalent measure in the UK.  

Where was CBM schooled again?


From this site;

http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-02/moa-10.html

Back to School

So how many do you still remember? There were 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, five yards and one foot and six inches to the rod (or pole or perch), 4 rods (or poles or perch) to the chain, 10 chains to the furlong, and 8 furlongs to the statute mile. (Yes, of course our North American readers remember all this ~ and even the rod, pole and perch ~ but metrication has dug deep into British minds and few schoolchildren can now explain why a furlong is a furrow long, despite horses in the British Isles still racing over furlongs.)

Let's start with the acre. Now that is 4,840 square yards, which is equivalent to the area of a rectangle one furlong in length and one chain in breadth. If we remember that the acre was the standard unit of area measurement and that a mediaeval ploughman with a team of eight oxen was required to till one acre a day, the significance of the furlong "furrowlong" is easily grasped. A furrow 220 yards long was about the most four yoke of oxen could pull steadily through heavy soil before they had to rest.

So the acre in mediaeval England was a furlong in length. But it was a chain wide, a chain being twenty-two yards. How was that figure chosen? Yes, twenty-two yards it is, but think of it as four rods. The rod was the ox-goad the ploughman used to control his team, and to reach his leading pair it had to be sixteen and a half feet long, five and a half yards. Such a convenient length allowed easy assessment at any time in the day of how much had been ploughed of the width of the acre.

The common land of the English villages was parcelled out as fairly as was possible and to ensure that everyone had his share of good land and bad land no one had his several acres adjoining each other. The dividing markers between acres were very narrow strips of unploughed land which, over the long years, as the land between them was worked and in consequence sank a little, appeared to be raised. When, every third or fourth year, the crop rotation allowed land to lie fallow, any games played on its rich grass would be influenced by those markers. They would be the obvious locations to site the wooden stumps at which a ball might be aimed. And so cricket, England's oldest team game, even today places the wickets one chain, 22 yards, apart.

Now let's look down the acre, the length of the furrow. Where the oxen turned and rested, where one acre butted on the next, small mounds rose from the ground. They were called butts and were utilised, as butts are today, as protection for those who stood behind the archery targets. During the many centuries in which archery was a compulsory recreation in both England and Scotland, the yew longbow in the hands of a yeoman with a strong draw could hurl the grey goose-feathered, ash clothyard about 220 yards, a furlong.

As the clothyard sticks which gave their name to the English arrows were used to measure cloth, they were a little longer than a yard, 37 inches instead of 36. So what, before it disappears from British life forever, was the inch (one-twelfth of a foot ~ as its derivation from the Latin uncia indicates)? David I, King of Scots, that saintly man, first defined the inch as the breadth of a man's thumb at the base of the nail, but the precision of its calculation (owed to the measurement of the thumbs of three men, one of small build, one medium and one large, and the sum being divided by three) suggests its use may have originated in Flanders, then the most commercially advanced state in Europe and the ancestral country of many of David's principal counsellors. The English used the Scottish inch also, but defined it later as the length of three grains of barley placed end to end.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1284 on: April 09, 2011, 01:35:40 PM »
Funny how you always have time for this distracting nonsense, and time to re-edit your posts for over an hour, but you don't have time to answer a few simple questions.  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1285 on: April 09, 2011, 01:39:53 PM »
Mike,

I understand what you're trying to do by figuring out just what CBM meant when he said 4 acres wide but can't get over the fact that regardless of what you come up with it will be no better than a guess based on your desired result...so why take the time?

Are you still working on the assumption that the routing process had not begun prior to the December agreement? Keep in mind, the land was surveyed and maps delivered to a half dozen experts around the world 2 months earlier and 4 or 5 full holes had already been located and at least 1 of them fully measured and planned...

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1286 on: April 09, 2011, 03:18:05 PM »
Mike,

An acre is a unit of measurement used to determine AREA, NOT CONFIGURATION.[/b][/color]

Nowhere does CBM reference "Square" Acres, that's your disingenuous representation.

Four Square acres would have sides of 280 yards.

And, CBM didn't make the statement you claim he made.
The statement is an alleged statement from a newspaper article.
You yourself have stated that newspaper articles are often incorrect.
I prefer calling them seriously flawed.

As to the distance from the area behind the 9th green to the 18th green being 1.4 miles, is that as the crow flies or as the golfer walks ?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1287 on: April 09, 2011, 05:25:31 PM »
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but in re-reading that article (again) I notice CBM says "The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes."

Does this suggest the first offer was on the blue site as per a few pages ago, facing the Atlantic?

He also describes differences in the topo, presumably from the first site considered. Looking at the topo maps might give us a clue as to where the first offer was.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1288 on: April 09, 2011, 05:47:18 PM »
Jeff I don't think that those articles have anything at all to do with the first offer.  Were it not for Cirba's never-ending crazy theories it never would have occurred to anyone to try to read in information about the first site into these articles.  That is because there is no reason whatsoever to read in such information.  We can't just make things up because we think it would be interesting or because it fits our preconceived agenda, yet that is what is going on here.    I took CBM to be speaking about SHGC, but really I have no idea and don't think it sheds much light on this topic at all.

None of this is that complicated.  We can glean from the October articles that The current property was in play in October 1906 and earlier, and that substantial planning had already occurred  None of Mike's crazy asides or endless creation of new sites will change this! Not even his invention of a previous offer for a 205 acre canal site meant to be far away from SHGC which was actually nowhere near the canal and right next to SHGC, which was then changed to an offer for a 120 acre canal site meant to be far away from SHGC which was actually nowhere near the canal and right next to SHGC .
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 05:49:01 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)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1289 on: April 09, 2011, 05:52:45 PM »
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but in re-reading that article (again) I notice CBM says "The soil is much better than on the Atlantic side of the dunes."

Does this suggest the first offer was on the blue site as per a few pages ago, facing the Atlantic?

It would seem so.


He also describes differences in the topo, presumably from the first site considered. Looking at the topo maps might give us a clue as to where the first offer was.


Jeff,

I think part of the problem we face in trying to locate the first site is the conflicting statements.

Whether CBM was being site specific with respect to the soil, or just making a general statement, remains open to debate.

But, he appears to be incorrect in his assessment of the soil conditions on the North Shore as he had to truck in 10,000 loads of topsoil for NGLA.

David,

I agree, CBM knew the area well.
He knew where the canal was and how far Shinnecock golf course was from his site and, he knew the size of the parcel, and it's cost at $ 200 per acre.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 05:56:29 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1290 on: April 09, 2011, 06:23:17 PM »
Guys,

You're right...my math was off on the square acre yardage.   That's what happens when I try to do this stuff without the adequate time and math was always my worst subject.   :-\

Still, 280 yards is pretty tight, but that might be an average.

I have to head out for dinner...will get to the other questions later, or by tomorrow, but for now we're agreed that he was talking about 205 acres secured by December, with likely the flexibility to weave in and out of the western border as necessary for good golf holes, while staying within the overall 205.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 06:26:06 PM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1291 on: April 10, 2011, 11:11:50 AM »
David,

I answer your questions as I'm able during a busy couple of weeks and am met with more insults.   Nice.   

The October articles do not prove that CBM was looking at the Sebonac Neck site in October.   The land described going out to the inlet near Good Ground or along the railroad tracks do not describe the property of Sebonac Neck no matter how you try to spin it.

Unless you want me to concede that perhaps he was looking at everything north of the tracks at that time, which is possible, I fail to see how Sebonac Neck is described in that article.

The fact that the October 15th article in the Evening Telegram was copied verbatim in Rochester NY, and copied by two Boston papers does not mean it was accurate in the least, frankly.

It was the ONLY NYC paper to write such an article, which differed widely from December, when CBM actually secured 205 acres, because ALL the NYC papers reported that.

Was is a scoop or a f-up?   We don't know, but to say it proves something without ANY other supporting evidence is wishful thinking on your part.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1292 on: April 10, 2011, 03:32:36 PM »
It has to be Sebonack Neck, because that is the only place where land stretches along Peconic Bay with a westerly point near the inlet.    And Mike, you are back to blatantly misrepresenting things.  It doesn't say "near Good Ground" but you know this because we covered it repeatedly.  And it doesn't say "along the RR tracks" but you know this too.  Yet you are again purposefully misrepresenting things to try and support your bogus point.

As for my questions, they have been pending for months now, and you have falsely promised that you would address them repeatedly, yet you wonder why I am frustrated that you keep trying to change the topic instead of addressing them?   That's rich.

Instead of again trying to avoid them, why not answer them or just finally admit that there is absolutely no way that the October articles were describing your canal site or any of the other sites you have created out of thin air.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 04:27:30 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)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1293 on: April 11, 2011, 07:00:04 AM »
David,

As seen in my first two answers to you above, I've addressed the answers to your questions multiple times throughout these pages in DISCUSSIONS with Bryan, Jeff, Jim, and others.

Perhaps I didn't respond directly in the interrogation style you prefer, as if I were on your witness stand?   Perhaps having a hostile questioner leads to its own delays and my resultant lack of interest in engaging with you when I know it will simply be spun in newly insulting and twisted ways?

You may think your methods are somehow yielding the facts here, but as long as you try to spin things for your agenda, they aren't, and never can be, despite how pure you believe your methods are.   

Case in point...it's clear that the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station is the canal, David.   It's clear that there is NO WAY that the land of Sebonac Neck could "skirt" the Long Island Railroad because Shinnecock GC was in the way.   

Yet, you tell us that the October article HAD to be Sebonac Neck.   That's crap, no matter how you spin it.

I will try to answer your other questions because I'm interested in the subject, but your whole method isn't designed to spur discussion, but to stifle it.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1294 on: April 11, 2011, 09:37:38 AM »
David,

Once again, if I haven't answered ALL of these questions repeatedly through discussion with others, please see my replies to your questions below in BLUE.  

Please resist the urge to become hysterical and personally insulting in your responses as you have over this past weekend.   I know it's exceptionally difficult for you, but please make at least a modicum of effort.  Thanks.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

The October article is WRONG and it's obvious.   CBM purchased 250 acres in October 1906??!?  

He didn't purchase anything until the spring of 1907, having secured the property in mid-December 1906.  

CBM may have said something to a reporter that was misinterpreted...certainly the description of the land in question could encompaass all the SHPBRC holdings north of LIRR, but the FACT that this story was NOT reported by any other NYC newspaper tells us it was bungled and erroneous.  

Might this have referred to the Canal Site offer?   Very possibly.   There is absolutely NO evidence of CBM making an offer to Alvord at any other time, and this was the only mention of an actual offer by CBM prior to the multiple articles reporting his securing the 205 acres in mid-December.

Prior to then, the land described in the news articles was quite different than what he actually secured.   Here again it is described with the "inlet" between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station, which is the Canal, first in October 1906, and then on November 1st in another paper.





Neither is the Sebonac Neck site, no matter how you try to spin it. There is no way Sebonac Neck either skirts the Long Island Railroad (Shinnecock HIlls GC was in the way), nor does it have a western border out near the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station.

The November 1st article quoting CBM from the NY Sun makes it clear that the site in western Shinnecock Hills near the canal was STILL in play at that time.


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

Now this one is pretty funny, actually.   ;)  ;D

We KNOW from the November 1st Brooklyn Daily Eagle report that CBM had been looking in "various sections" in the Shinnecock Hills.   Is it any wonder that Whigham would have been riding along with him at those "various" sites??   WHERE do YOU think those various sites were, David?

As far as the maps, do you know of any other source ever who told us that CBM sent surveyor's maps to experts abroad for their input prior to purchasing the property??   Any?

Frankly, I think the writer of the article misunderstood what CBM was saying.  

CBM had just returned a few months prior with surveyor's maps of the great holes abroad.   Where did he get these maps?

In CBM's 1912 Letter to the Founders, he includes this portion;

"We have also been helped by some of
the most eminent men in the game of golf
abroad, who have taken a most friendly
interest in the undertaking, and I have to
thank among these Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson,
Mr. John L. Low, Mr. 'Harold
H. Hilton, Mr. J. Sutherland, Mr. W. T.
Linskill, the Messrs. Walter and Charles
Whigham, Mr. Patrick Murray, Mr. Alexander
MacFee, and the late Mr. C. H
S. Everard, for the maps, photographs,
and suggestions which they have given us."


No mention of them evaluating property, or looking at maps CBM sent to them prior to his purchase.   I think the writer, who seems confused on a number of points (i.e. size of property, purchase vs offer, location, cost, etc.) also misunderstood that the maps in question were of famous holes abroad that were intended to be copied in whole and part on the new land in question.

Here's how our intrepid reporter interpreted that;



Of course, I wrote this back about 20 pages ago, but since you asked again, I'm happy to repeat myself.



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

David, the article that said the site was the same one as "previously announced" was from the NY Sun on December 15th, 1906.   The only "previous" article I've found from the New York Sun discussing the location is this one from November 1st;



Unless you can show us some article between November 1st and December 15th appearing in the NY Sun where the Sebonac Neck site is being referenced, I would surmise that it's just a reporter covering his butt as if he was "in the know" all along.


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

As mentioned multiple times already, it seems the land mentioned in the October 15th articles is virtually all the holdings of the SH&PBRC north of the Long Island Railroad.   I'm not sure exactly how near to the canal CBM's first proposed site was or not, but I would mention two things;

The Canal would be the last landmark one would pass travelling east from Good Ground until one reached the Shinnecock Hills station and would be a handy reference point.    I'm not sure CBM meant that his proposed course would have abutted it, but that generally it was near to there.    The one hypothetical course I drew had it within half a mile.   In comparison, your attempt to suggest the article was actually referring to Sebonac Neck stretched the western boundary of today's NGLA 1.5 miles to the inlet at Cold Spring, so I'm not sure why you now see a need for specificity in terms of proximity of landmarks?


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

David, this question really shows the depths of hypocrisy which you're willing to sink to simply to argue with me.

We KNOW CBM built his course RIGHT NEXT TO Shinnecock Hills GC and that his original planned use of the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse was abutting the northern section of Shinnecock Hills GC!  

How in the world can you now argue that CBM wouldn't have built a course going west of the Shinnecock Inn instead of heading north of it??

He tells us in his book that he located his first hole next to the Shinnecock Inn because he didn't have money for a clubhouse originally, yet you argue that he didn't want to go there?   Which is it??  


_____________________________________

« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 10:59:44 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1295 on: April 11, 2011, 10:02:14 AM »
Mike,

Can I pick out one of two of your points to discuss? I agree with several of your opinions in that post there, but believe you rationalize away the source material that doesn't fit your conception and exagerate the value/accuracy of that which does...maybe we all do.


As to the location in that snippet from October...I think it's unreasonable to narrow down the area being described more precise than the entire Alvord holding North of the Railroad because of the various features...Peconic Bay, SHGC, the inlet/canal...as your attempt to draw it hopefully illustrated, the area described cannot possibly be a 200 acre parcel. I think David's point about it "stretching along Peconic Bay to the North" has to mean Sebonac Neck is included in this description along with everything else.


Next...your notion that CBM would need topo maps of the holes abroad to know what he was looking for on the ground is ludicrous (respectfully). That suggests he didn't know what these holes were...almost that he read about them in a book and decided he would like to build them on a whim. I believe he knew the holes cold and his desire for maps later was so he could replicate them as close as possible. Finding the right general ground conditions would not require topographical maps of the various holes and I'm not sure how you could argue that.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1296 on: April 11, 2011, 10:48:17 AM »
Jim,

Sure, I appreciate a discussion about this.

The site I described that runs from the canal to the west to SHGC to the east to the LIRR to the south (which does not include Sebonac Neck) stretches along Peconic Bay for 1.25 miles to the north.   I think that is the general area CBM was searching in first.

As regards the maps and whether CBM would have made an offer for land without them, I guess it's possible but he certainly seemed to put a lot of emphasis on them and even though I've seen a lot of golf holes over time, if you asked me to accurately estimate the size, depth, elevation, and such of various features based on my mind's eye memory I'm pretty sure the margin of error would be significant.

I don't think CBM would have made an offer until he was ready in all respects, and the fact that the first offer he mentions in his book was for only 120 acres sounds to me like a "negotiated down", "golf-only" amount based on getting rejected on a previous offer.   ALL of the articles including his own Founders letter from 1904 talk about needing just over 200 acres for his grand plans that included an estimated 110 acres for the golf course, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre building lots for the 60 Founding members and the fact that he eventually secured and purchased EXACTLY the 205 referred to in his original Founders letter was not simply a coincidence but his intention all along.

p.s...please also see my previous post to David, where I've now taken the time to largely reiterate multiple points I'd previously stated here, and answer his questions in full, but now in one place.   Thanks.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 10:55:11 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1297 on: April 11, 2011, 10:57:46 AM »
Thanks Mike.

First, there's no reason any of those descriptions would preclude the Sebonac Neck area either, are there? It's illogical to eliminate it for no reason. If it were a different owner that would be a reason, but it wasn't. 2,700 acres sounds like a huge area to us, but someone contemplating a purchase of nearly 10% of it would have surely known about all of it. I can't picture why you would exclude Sebonac Neck based on the descriptions in those articles.


As to the maps, sure we've seen alot of golf holes, and if we were building a course with specific holes in mind we would want the details prior to construction, but we would surely be able to ride around a property and determine its suitability for creating the holes we had in mind...CBM even tells us so! I don't know why you wrefuse to believe what CBM himself says...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1298 on: April 11, 2011, 11:05:31 AM »
Jim,

Your second point is taken.  ;)

The first, I'm not sure.

CBM tells us that "everyone thought it was more or less worthless", referring to the land of Sebonac Neck.   Although that seems ridiculous to us now in retrospect, CBM tells us that it was so overgrown and insect and swamp-ridden as to be only passable on horseback.   

So, depending on the timing, I'm honestly not sure if it was included in the land described in that article or not.

But one thing is certain...we know that the southern and western boundaries in that article were NOT land on Sebonac Neck, nor was the eastern boundary of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time on Sebonac Neck.

Given the 1.25 mile stretch to the north of the Peconic Bay over between the canal and the inlet and I'd bet if I had to that Sebonac Neck wasn't being discussed yet, but I may be wrong there.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1299 on: April 11, 2011, 11:24:38 AM »
Agree on the Southern and Western boundaries. As to the rest, let's look at it this way...

If CBM realized immediately after Alvord purchased the whole thing that he wanted to build there, and made his canal site offer in the late fall of 1905 (my instinctual reading of his words, but I'm not locked in to it) then it's possible he wouldn't have thought about Sebonac Neck because it would be a heck of alot easier to get to a golf course down by the canal than up in the uncharted Sebonac Neck area. Alvord knew that as well and they couldn't agree on a price in that vicinity.

If CBM waited 9 months to do any negotiating with Alvord, surely a great deal of planning (if not implementing) had been done with roads and subdividing the land. This would have made it clear that a large purchase for the wholesale price down near the canal was a shot in the dark and an immediate switch in focus to Sebonac Neck would be required. CBM had a per acre budget and Alvord had a per acre minimum limit so the "presumed worthless" land of Sebonac Neck became the focus to see if a golf course could be built there. If CBM waited until the summer of 1906 to consider buying a parcel from Alvord (this is your reading of his words) then it couldn't have taken 10 minutes from the rejection of the canal site offer (wherever it was) for them to think about Sebonac Neck. So now they determine Sebonac Neck can work and there's an announcement in a Brooklyn newspaper that CBM agreed to buy a plot to build his golf course.

Who benefits from this information going public prematurely? Alvord! Would it further benefit Avlord to give a very non-specific description of the land in the event an interested home buyer wants to build out there? Yes.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back