[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm really not sure why you're still discussing roads?   First, there were no major roadways north of the train tracks that would have impacted CBM's first choice for a site near the Shinnecock Canal.  

That's not true.
A Long Island Railroad Map, produced in 1882, clearly shows roads north of the train tracks.

You and others also seem to forget that Shinnecock was founded in 1892 and went to 18 holes in 1895.
If it was so inaccessable, why did the they hold the second U.S. Amateur and the second U.S. Open there in 1896 ?
How do you suppose the members, guests, competitors, officials and spectators traveled to Shinnecock ?

Maidstone, just down the road in Easthampton was founded in 1899.

Trains were not the only means of transportation in the Hamptons in 1907.

"The first automobiles arrived on continuous paved road across Long Island in 1905", several years before CBM purchased the land for NGLA

As regards roads going up into the NGLA property, perhaps you missed what Bernard Darwin wrote, which I'll reproduce again below;

"At first the only access to the clubhouse was over an old, uncared-for, rough, rutted, and sandy road, over which the farmers of the former day had carted seaweed and sedge, when those things were considered valuable. The services of Mr. Seth J. Raynor were again called into requisition and he laid out a beautiful drive, which has been graded and oiled and placed in first class condition and now is ready access to the clubhouse at full speed over one of the best and pleasantest roads in the vicinity.   What would those old seaweed haulers say if they should appear some day and see this road and the new, speedy vehicles that are used on it." - as reproduced in "The Evangelist of Golf"

That's nice, but, ignores the fact that trucks/wagons made 20,000 trips to and from NGLA in 1907, of which 10,000 of those trips were made carrying tons of dirt

Here is a "good road" on Long Island at the time, from a photo a took of Bradley Klein's terrific book, "Building Sebonack".    I'm not sure if you can read the caption but it says, "Early day car travel in the Hamptons was an adventure on unpaved, rutted roads."

Yes, but, you're editorial comment, that it's a "good road" is misleading and disingenuous.
You don't know what road that is and what the year is.  Nor do you know whether it's a bad road"
For all we know, it could be 1892.
Note the narrow wheels on that vehicle

Check out the tire imprints in about six inches of sand.

While you're at it, check out how narrow those tires are.

[Sven Nilsen]

Patrick:

So you don't continue down this unnecessary road any further, Bryan's source can be found in the link posted by Steve Lang a number of posts back. 

It appears to be an online draft of a new NGLA history book.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Yes, and the holes they found based on landforms (and water hazards) were closely grouped, in the sense that the Alps hill and redan plateau are close to each other and once CBM found a site for his Eden green (where he wanted a water carry) he evidently turned and found the idea for the Cape.  

I think they were looking for landforms for ideal holes but that's a ways from a full routing, or planning all of the holes in detail, thanks.

NO, it's NOT.

When you consider that he had located the Road Hole, Cape, Eden, Redan, Alps, Sahara and had bought the land adjacent to Bullhead Bay and Peconic Bay, in conjunction with his two clubhouses, and the "other holes" (Bottle, Plateau, Leven), the routing was fixed in concrete.

Tell us how are you going to get to the 2nd tee.

Tell us, how you'll get from the Road Hole Green to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Especially after playing the "Bottle" hole.

Tell us how you'll get to the Eden hole from the Shinnecock Inn ?

The routing was fixed, He studied all 450 acres, selected 205 acres once he found the templates he was looking for, then he staked the land accordingly, and then he bought it and located his holes as he had previously determined.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Perhaps I can help clear up your frustration.  

Yes, the proposed development put together by Olmsted and Vaux for the Real Estate company “adjoined” NGLA, but only in the strictest sense of touching a single point along a boundary.   However, the vast majority of the land adjoining NGLA was not part of that Real Estate plan.

How little of that proposed development actually touched the course can best be seen in this aerial from Brad Klein’s terrific book, “Building Sebonack”.   Here, one can see out across the entire NGLA course, and virtually all of the land bordering the course (on the right in this picture where land for Sebonack Golf Course had been cleared) was available for the Real Estate company to sub-divide for building lots but they chose not to.  In the far distance near today’s 9th green and beyond was the planned development as well as the Shinnecock Inn.

Macdonald told us that everyone thought the land was more or less “worthless”.   It was worthless for farming, and apparently it was so overgrown and bug-infested that it was considered worthless for housing development, possibly because of the anticipated cost to clear it.  

Nice to see you "selectively" extracting information from Brad's terrific book.

But, If you read further, Brad clearly states that the land comprising the Shinnecock Hills was 3,200 acres that was "used for sheep grazing and for the commercial harvesting of salt hay as feed and bedding for cattle.  The arid, TREELESS land proved unyielding to farming..  One account of the era described the land as a "succession of disagreeable sand hills.'  Those sand hills didn't prove 'disagreeable' when it came to golf terrain in the for of the National Golf Links of America."




Whatever price the Real Estate company wanted to charge Macdonald for his 2.5 acre addition (at least $1,000 an acre they said, and told him they’d gotten offers for more), it sounds like a negotiating ploy.   It wasn’t until 1917 that they finally got a buyer (Charles H. Sabin) for the 300 odd acres next door (today's Sebonack GC) that had never been surveyed for housing.  I’ve yet to find a purchase price for that transaction but maybe you can because I’ve got a flight to catch this afternoon.

The Sabin property was assessed at a value of $ 160,000 in 1919.
At 300 acres, that would be $ 533 an acre.

In 1949 the Electrical Union, Local # 3 purchased the land for $ 131,250

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Agreed in concept, but think coming up with a finalized routing and all hole conceptions was more complicated and time-consuming than we know based on how overgrown the property was before it was cleared sometime in 1907.   The article I posted yesterday from mid-August of that year makes it sound like it was still a bit of a safari at that point.   Thanks.

Mike,

How can you dispute that CBM told us that he found the holes he wanted, staked the property line for the property and bought that land.

The routing was done before he staked the land.

As Sven stated, even a moron could connect the dots, you just continue to ignore the critical dots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre).  CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse.  So he paid the asking price.

Once again you're caught introducing and promoting that moronic premise.

He already had his land for the clubhouse.

He needed the land for the pro-shop

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre).  CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse.  So he paid the asking price.

Bryan:

You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse.  It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.


Sven,

Bryan has conveniently recanted his advocacy regarding the 2.5 acres for the clubhouse, stating that he was just sitting on the fence.

Too bad that the quote feature proves him wrong.............. again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Indeed I haven't "proved" it.  I was reporting what I saw from a credible source.  It could be wrong, like so many historical accounts and interpretations we see.  Or, it could be right. 

I think the source is credible so I'll stick with it until something comes along that disproves it. 

Bryan,

I thought you stated that you were neutral, sitting on the fence.

Your above post to Sven says otherwise.

Don't you remember what you write ?



The deeds would be proof one way or the other.




Mike,

The Realty company offered the 2.5 acre addition at $1875 (or about $750 an acre).  CBM tried to haggle it down to $400 an acre but the Realty Co wouldn't budge as they had CBM over the proverbial barrel knowing that he wanted it for his clubhouse.  So he paid the asking price.

Bryan:

You have yet to prove that the 2.5 acres was for the clubhouse.  It may have been for the proshop, but that is a different story.

Sven
[/quote]
[/quote]

[MCirba]

Pat,

You're rambunctious tonight!    seriously, I hope you're feeling better soon.

While I have your attention, wouldn't you agree that finding the big dune/hill for their ideal Alps hole would have been something trained experts like Macdonald and Whigham obviously spotted on their first tour or two around the Sebonac Neck property on horseback?  In fact, wouldn't they be hopeless morons to miss such an obvious landform?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're rambunctious tonight!    seriously, I hope you're feeling better soon.

Antibiotics are wonderful medicines.

While I have your attention, wouldn't you agree that finding the big dune/hill for their ideal Alps hole would have been something trained experts like Macdonald and Whigham obviously spotted on their first tour or two around the Sebonac Neck property on horseback?  

Mike,

Where I think you and others are not grasping this issue is that you seem to be confining the horseback exercise solely to the NGLA property and not the entire 450 acres..

When you consider the Sebonack property it alters the equation significantly.

There are hills at Sebonack that are more pronounced than at NGLA

When you consider that CBM was trying to replicate not just six or eight great holes, but, 18 great holes, you have to consider the following.

Why wouldn't he choose the upper land at Sebonack, great land for golf, if he didn't have a set plan.

Certainly, he'd be foolish to ignore the bluff overlooking Peconic Bay.
I can't imagine him rejecting any land on the bluff, thereby resulting in an entirely inland golf course.

Consider these template holes

Leven   17
Cape    14
Eden    13
Plateau 11
Bottle    8
Road      7
Short    6
Redan   4
Alps      3
Sahara  2

Now there are ten of his templates.

But, we know that the SI was going to be his temporary starting and finishing point, ergo

Shinnecock 10
Long           9

And, since he purchased frontage on Peconic Bay and was going to site his clubhouse there.

Home  18
Valley   1

That's 14 pretty obvious dots to connect.

Put another way, he wouldn't buy land that he wasn't going to put golf holes on.

The configuration of the NGLA site is pretty unique, and when you place those "template" holes, and others that he found so quickly, he had to know where the individual holes were intended to be located when he staked out the property he wanted to buy.


In fact, wouldn't they be hopeless morons to miss such an obvious landform?  

Easy to say now, but when you consider the land form at Sebonack, there were alternatives.

I believe that the Alps and REDAN were an early quinella.

[MCirba]

Patrick,

I agree with almost your entire post.

But the routing limiting factor was his inability to build a clubhouse anywhere he chose from the get-go, and then forced to start and end his dream golf course within a stones throw of the Shinnecock Inn was a restraint to him going well west into the land of where Sebonack Golf Club is today.

And yes, even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC to not see the Long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I'm not so sure that the clubhouse siting was a negative.

I've listed a number of factors that would lead a prudent person to conclude that he always intended the current site as his clubhouse site with the SI being a temporary convenience by default.

1.  He didn't own the land behind the 9th green
2.  He had no access to the land behind the 9th green
3.  He left a donut gap in his routing between # 1 and # 18.
4.  He would not want his clubhouse below & in the shadow of the SHGC clubhouse.
5   The site overlooking Peconic Bay is exponentially better than any site near the 9th green.

Next Bryan and his very credible source will tell us that Mike Pascucci was going to site his clubhouse next to the entrance gate.

Remember, CBM wasn't just designing/building a golf course, he was building a course comprised of 18 of the most ideal golf holes in the world, holes that required specific landforms, specific sites, and he found them all prior to staking the land he wanted to purchase.

Consider this.

If in 1907 you and I were going to build a great golf course on that 450 acres, and we were familiar with the great links courses of the U.K, wouldn't we site as many holes as we could on Peconic Bay ?

And not just one ?

Wouldn't we also try to use Cold Spring Pond and Sebonac Inlet and Bullhead Bay, if we could, rather than go inland ?

But CBM rejected great land for golf in favor of land that would accommodate his predetermined holes.

And that's just another reason that I believe he knew exactly where his ideal or template holes would be located prior to staking the land.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Should I take that as "yes"?

Only if you want to continue to misinterpret just about everything you read.

[Bryan Izatt]

In fairness, Bryan, you have also said that you are going with the version in the draft until proven otherwise.  So not exactly on the fence.

Fair enough. 

But, I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it).  On the receiving end it just feels like a personal attack (mostly Patrick and not you), absent any particular relevance to whether the information in the draft is true or not.

[DMoriarty]

My posts certainly weren't  meant as a personal attack, nonetheless I am sorry they came off that way.   The current debate struck me as illustrative of a broader point concerning the our respective approaches to critical analysis, but I haven't done a great job of explaining that point.

To my way of thinking, these discussions are more nuanced than the harsh dichotomy between fact and opinion.  Some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others, and it is inaccurate to treat all opinions as equally valid or equally flawed. Strong probability is not the same thing as slight possibility, and it distorts and bogs down the conversation when we act as is if, absent certainty, the two are of equal validity.

In other words, when almost all the evidence is on one side of the fence, then fence sitting seems only marginally more reasonable than being on the wrong side altogether.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

On page 17 in reply # 409 I asked you to name your "reliable" source, and you refused to do so.

Now, 9 pages and 238 posts later you have the nerve to ask me the moronic questions above ?

I also asked you again, on page 20, post# 491, and you refused to answer.

Can you not understand why I did not want to name the source?

Others found the same source subsequently and posted it.  I thought contacting the source would be appropriate before posting it.  I still think that was the right thing to do for me.  Others, apparently didn't feel that way and posted it.  That's up to them.

Sven has spelled out for you who the source is in the last few posts.  I honestly do hope that you know who the source is and who you are calling out for a "moronic premise".  Maybe you should man up and contact them yourself and tell them directly that they are morons.  

As for your serial pillorying of me in the last page, it's troubling to me to see your continued efforts to suppress introduction and discussion of relevant information.  I thought this site was about discussion of golf course architecture.  I didn't think this site was about proving your debating prowess, but maybe I got that wrong too.  

I'm not sure how the dissection of my evolving position on the draft contributes in any way to assessing the merits of the premise (or whatever we want to call it).  It's just a personal attack.

And, for the last time, I think the premise came from a credible source with access to more information than I have, and although I can see the merits of thinking it was the pro shop site, personally I can wait to see the deeds before I conclude that that's what the site was. I'm happy to see I'm so important to you that you need to spend so much time and green ink trying to knock me down.  It's not very productive though, in the context of this site.

[Bryan Izatt]

My posts certainly weren't  meant as a personal attack, nonetheless I am sorry they came off that way.   The current debate struck me as illustrative of a broader point concerning the our respective approaches to critical analysis, but I haven't done a great job of explaining that point.

To my way of thinking, these discussions are more nuanced than the harsh dichotomy between fact and opinion.  Some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others, and it is inaccurate to treat all opinions as equally valid or equally flawed. Strong probability is not the same thing as slight possibility, and it distorts and bogs down the conversation when we act as is if, absent certainty, the two are of equal validity.

In other words, when almost all the evidence is on one side of the fence, then fence sitting seems only marginally more reasonable than being on the wrong side altogether.

Maybe I haven't been clear either.  I respect your analytic skills and research abilities.  I was actually surprised that you hadn't found this source before I did.  I hope it won't disappear as a result of some of the moronic chatter around here.

Sure, some opinions are more plausible and better supported than others.  I doubt that many of us would  promote a slight possibility over a strong probability.  But then one person's strong probability is not necessarily another person's.

My perception of one area where we disagree, is whether it is necessary to draw a conclusion at some point in time and subsequently try to get others to agree to our position.  I don't feel a need to win over others to my way of thinking.  Others around here do seem to feel that need to win.  As a case in point, your multi-year debates with Mike are mostly, in my opinion about trying to prove to the other that your opinion has a stronger probability than theirs, and vice versa.  You both seem to need a concession - a win.  After these many years, it isn't going to happen.  Seems to me that there is room for two or more opinions.  We'll never know for certain in most cases.

Another area we appear to disagree on is the need to draw a strong probability conclusion when there is a a deterministic answer possible. The 2.5 acre clubhouse site is that kind.  I'll wait for the deeds to provide a deterministic answer, because the answer is out there.  You and others would rather draw the strong probability conclusion now.  There's room for those two approaches.  It is sad when these kind of debates get rancorous; there really is no need.

[DMoriarty]

I figured your source was a draft, but I was guessing a different author and I certainly did not expect it to be publicly accessible.  Such is the beauty and the burden of the evergrowing internet database.  All research is immediately out of date.

I don't expect to win Mike over and I am long past caring what he thinks about this stuff.  But at the same time I think a strong and vocal counterpoint is necessary to counterbalance unsound research and analysis.  And in my opinion, most of my disputes with Mike are of the strong probability vs. slight possibility variety.

As for the deed, sure it would confirm that cbm purchased the clubhouse land with the rest, but to my mind that isn't even seriously in dispute.  The deterministic answer is in cbm's 1912 letter, and an understanding of where the clubhouse sits on the land as compared to the pro shop. 

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[JC Jones]

Pat,

Bryann's source also published the Mountain Ridge history book.  Maybe you know them:

http://issuu.com/lhasak/docs/mrcc_12_final

Hasak, Inc.

The link to the NGLA book no longer exists. 

[MCirba]

David,

I wish you would answer a very simple question.  Having been out there multiple times myself I'm sure a veteran of NGLA like Patrick can explain to you how even sitting up on horses in waist - high brambles Macdonald and Whigham would have to be MORONS of the most MORONIC types to not see the long, broad ridge of the Alps hole towering over their heads on their first visit looking at the landforms of the property.  

It would be like visiting a site in Ardmore and not seeing the Quarry.

[MCirba]

I wonder if Walter Travis is talking about navigating the overgrown property with Macdonald and Whigham before they secured the property or after?   We know CBM mentioned that he'd had Travis out there prior and we know Travis was named to the Committee to select the holes and determine the distances after the land was procured.   We also know he was still named as being there late summer 1908 but that's a discussion for another day.   More relevant here is how he describes the state of the site.

[MCirba]

I think showing the whole origin story as told by CBM in "Scotland's Gift" may show pretty clearly that he wasn't writing in chronological order, otherwise he would have discovered and laid out his Alps and redan holes sometime after the clubhouse burned down and I think anyone who has been on the property would have a difficult time missing the towering Alps hill on their first visit looking for landforms.

It might be illustrative and clarifying for each of us to attempt to put these statements in chronological order as we think they happened.   I'm certainly willing and I think all of the rest of the contemporaneous events and evidence supports my timeline but understand others may interpret things differently and I'm open to revising my opinion as new evidence surfaces.

In that regard, I'm most appreciative to folks here like Steve and Bryan who keep digging for new information and who seem very fair-minded in their approach to the materials.   Thanks, guys.

[MCirba]

HJ Whigham certainly seemed to think in March of 1906 (sorry, I couldn't find the attribution of this old article except month and year) that the plan for including building lots for the Founders was still in play, calling it "ingenious'. 

[MCirba]

Indeed, two months later after returning from abroad Macdonald was still convinced of the need to buy 200 acres to carry out his planned Agreement with the Founders.

Five months later he secured 200 acres.   Coincidence?   I really don't think so.




One other thing important to note here is that already by June of 1906 CBM had pretty much given up on the idea of a course based on all template holes, but instead only a small handful of templates would be attempted.

That's why Patrick's contention that he knew all the holes he would be locating prior to routing them doesn't make sense.   In fact, CBM tells us that most of the holes at NGLA are hybrids of various things he liked as suggested by the natural ground of the site, and not imposed on top of the site based on some pre-determined attempt at direct copies of entire holes from abroad.

[MCirba]

Speaking of the hole selection process, this article by Walter Travis that appeared in April 1907 (in Outing Magazine, I believe) gives some indication about both the process as well as how far along they were at that point.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()