[DMoriarty]

Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me.   As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.  

[JESII]

David,

You're right about the listing of "founders".

Regarding the term "apportion"...not looking for any magic just a definition for apportioning an amount of ground required to build (at their own expense I assume) a bungalow...regardless of what a bungalow actually is.

[MCirba]

Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me.   As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.  

David,

You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse.   Sven's questioned the knowledge of the "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.  

He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.

Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?

[DMoriarty]

I think that the founder who provided the quote anticipated that the NGLA would designate places for each founder build a structure ("small bungalow") with a locker, bath, and necessities.  The article said nothing about who would own the title to the land on which the "small bungalows" were built, but given the developer's restriction it seems pretty clear that it would have been NGLA.  

This was just a few months after the Inn burned down, so they may have been still trying to work this stuff out.  

[MCirba]

Regarding the term "apportion"...not looking for any magic just a definition for apportioning an amount of ground required to build (at their own expense I assume) a bungalow...regardless of what a bungalow actually is.

Jim,

What a sweet deal that must have been!   Here, you can build at your own expense a little dumper, place to bathe and to hold your valuables on our property.   Welcome to NGLA!  

[DMoriarty]

Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me.   As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.  

David,

You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse.   Sven's questioned the knowledge of the "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.  

He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.

Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?

Jeez, Mike. Can you really be this obtuse?  Or are you just playing games?

I wrote no IMMEDIATE plan in 1906.   Immediate. You do understand what IMMEDIATE means, don't you?  

________________________________________

As for your latest photo, I hear the "gentlemen" at Dismal River built me a bungalow.  See photo in the sidebar.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike, the misleading nature of your arguments never ceases to amaze me.   As you know, there was no immediate plan for a clubhouse in 1906. CBM told us that. And, as you know, there weren't (and aren't) 70 bedrooms upstairs at NGLA.  

David,

You may want to take that up with Sven who earlier today stated that CBM had always intended to build a clubhouse calling into question the knowledge of the quoted "founder" who said there were no plans for a clubhouse.   Sven responded to me that he questioned the knowledge of the individual  "founder" because the original 1904 Founders Agreement called for a clubhouse with the associate membership funding it.  

He stated that its inclusion in the 1904 Founders Agreement made it "dispositive" of CBM's intentions.

Or was that merely a "suggestion" as well?

Mike:

Go back and read what I wrote, and in the future please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I never mentioned the Founders Agreement (although that is one of many places the plan was referenced).  In addition, I never said it was an immediate concern.  

When the clubhouse was to be built, and there is no doubt in my mind that the plan was always to move away from the Shinnecock Inn at some point, it was to be funded by the money paid by the Associate members.  

What David said is correct.  There was no "immediate plan" for a clubhouse in 1906 (once they had use of the Shinnecock Inn).  And the clubhouse that was built was and remains incapable of hosting more than "a limited number of guests" (a direct quote from the 1912 Southampton Magazine article on the course).

Your pattern of misrepresentation can only be the result of one of two causes:

1.  You are an absolute idiot and are incapable of processing the English language; or

2.  You are intentionally trying to muddy the debate.

Which one is it, Mike?

Sven

[MCirba]

David,

I did note your avatar.  They seem to be all the rage at the fashionable clubs this year.   Probably inspired by the NGLA model.  

[DMoriarty]

Seriously though, Mike, Sven has it about right, and this is a recurring problem in these discussions and a real detriment to productive discussion.  It seems you are either unwilling or incapable of discussing this material without distorting it.

[MCirba]

Sven,

Idiot?   Really?

Can you please point out for me specifically where CBM said that there was would be no housing component on his golf course that had been mentioned consistently from 1904 through 1906 or that he wouldn't be apportioning extra land for other purposes as outlined in his original agreement.

Factual evidence...not what you think is "common sense", because some of us don't agree.

Thanks.

**ADDED**  And as far as trying to "muddy the water" of this debate, I'm trying to lighten the tone.

We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.   

If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up.   Thanks.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

Where are the 90 acres available for 1.5 acre lots?

Where are the Bungalows?

Where are the cabins/cottages?

Look at what he did, not what he did or didn't say.

To respond in a general way to your last post, look at what you just wrote.  You make the statement that the housing was consistently mentioned from 1904 through 1906.  It may have been, but was it consistently mentioned by CBM?  Was it mentioned by him at all as more than a possibility?  Was it being consistently mentioned because different outlets were citing his one mention of a proposed plan that may or may not have been a binding point in his recruitment of founding members?

If you can't understand how you twist facts into unviable and unsupportable conclusions, and then use those conclusions as new facts, you really don't understand what it is like for the rest of us who are trying to work with the information available without getting too far down the road of speculation.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Back to another point that has been touched up in the thread.

With respect to the original locations of the 1st and 18th holes, shouldn't the plaster model (which I understand was started some time in 1907, and correct me if I'm wrong on that) give us a good idea as to the initial configuration?

From the looks of it, both holes were doglegs, and there was room in the middle.

[MCirba]

Sven,

I know what he built; it's self-evident.  

He acquired 200 acres and built the course using 160-165 of those acres for the golf course.  Those are the fact, again self-evident.

But the discussion, or debate as you called it, is when the original plan he outlined in 1904, that was called ingenious by Whigham in the spring of 1906, that was reiterated in Dec 1906 news reports without rebuttal got changed into what got built on the property starting in May 1907. 

Don't confuse what got built with what may have been originally intended.  If you're content to just credit CBM as architect and aren't all that interested in the process that's fine too but I think these details are fascinating.

[MCirba]

Is there a bigger out and back routed "core" golf course on the planet?  For comparison, does anyone know the total acreage taken up by The Old Course?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

I know what he built; it's self-evident.  

He acquired 200 acres and built the course using 160-165 of those acres for the golf course.  Those are the fact, again self-evident.

But the discussion, or debate as you called it, is when the original plan he outlined in 1904, that was called ingenious by Whigham in the spring of 1906, that was reiterated in Dec 1906 news reports without rebuttal got changed into what got built on the property starting in May 1907.  

Don't confuse what got built with what may have been originally intended.  If you're content to just credit CBM as architect and aren't all that interested in the process that's fine too but I think these details are fascinating.

We've been down this road Mike.

I am not convinced that he thought of the housing component as more than just an idea of what to do with extra land if there was any.  But all of that changed when he compiled his thoughts on an ideal course, and actually started looking in earnest at a real piece of property.  That span of time between June and October 1906 is a highly relevant yet lightly documented period.

The difference between you and I on this point is that you think that he was bound by the terms in the subscription proposal, or at least was trying to honor them.  I think that he didn't give a crap if there was any extra land, all he was concerned about was procuring a suitable piece of land and building as good a course as possible.  I also happen to believe that he had a fairly good idea as to what that course would look like before he took the option, and that concept did not include any areas specifically set aside to provide for the 1.5 acre plots.

You and I both have been teased with purported evidence that he was going to try to abide by the housing promise with respect to the 120 acre parcel by the canal.  I don't see how that could be possible, but I'll wait to see what the evidence holds when and if it is presented.  In any case, this was a different piece of land, and at a time prior to his trip abroad, thus prior to the finalization of his concept.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Here's an article for Bryan or anyone else looking into the clubhouse issues.  In May 1910, the club worked out a deal to use the Shinnecock clubhouse.  Certainly not an ideal situation, but it appears it sufficed until the club was able to build a permanent structure.

The article also provides a little insight to the relationship between the two clubs at the time.

May 7, 1910 - The Evening Post

[MCirba]

Sven,

Thanks for that and I understand and appreciate your opinion.

I just looked it up and The Old Course is approximately 95 acres.  CBM had seen several of the famous holes many times before his 1906 trip abroad.  He had written in 1904 that he needed 110 acres for the course and reportedly offered for 120 acres for this project.  He later built courses like Lido on 120 acres and recommended that among to other clubs after NGLA.  

Here he sought 200 acres and eventually used 165 measuring  generously.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Thanks for that and I understand and appreciate your opinion.

I just looked it up and The Old Course is approximately 95 acres.  CBM had seen several of the famous holes many times before his 1906 trip abroad.  He had written in 1904 that he needed 110 acres for the course and reportedly offered for 120 acres for this project.  He later built courses like Lido on 120 acres and recommended that among to other clubs after NGLA.  

Here he sought 200 acres and eventually used 165 measuring  generously.

Mike:

We talked about this as well.  Not sure why we keep circling back.

It is all dependent on the land, the holes he wanted to build and how those two aspects work together.

If you are insinuating anything further, please spit it out.  Its no fun trying to read between the lines, and I want to make sure you don't accuse me of conceding to something I haven't.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

Honestly, I have a few formative thoughts but I'm still in the discovery process.  Although you and presumably David may find my questions idiotic or frustrating I personally think this has led to a good overall discussion and a fair amount of new information brought forward. 

I sense you feel we already know most of what we need to know so I'm sorry if that is incorrect but you seem to have predisposition in some areas I don't think are settled at all so that may be the source of friction I'm sensing from you.  That's ok.. as long as we keep it mutually respectful.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

I think you're reading me wrong.

I don't think we know everything we need to know (quite the opposite, actually), and I am open to changing my opinions on what happened when and if new information comes to light.  But I do look at every report with a critical eye, and as we've discovered not everyone got it exactly right back then (or in the interim).

If you're sensing any sort of predisposition on my part, isn't that the nature of debate?  There are quite a few ideas presented on this thread that didn't add up, the purchase of the land the clubhouse now sits on being one of them.  If I ruffled any feathers in the discussions on those points by disagreeing with the initial premise, all I can say is if something doesn't make sense, I'm not going to let it slide.  So sorry for that.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

I appreciate you clarifying your position for my understanding.  Thanks and it's much appreciated.

[DMoriarty]

We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.  

If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up.   Thanks.

While you obviously think you are quite funny with this sort of mocking, absurdist crap, this is precisely the kind of thing that makes reasonable conversation with you so difficult.  The article described the structures as small bungalows which can contain lockers, baths, and necessities.   Rather than accept this or even seriously consider it, you choose to incessantly mock it.  Even your offline mentor has explained to you what was likely being described, but you won't let that stop you.  You just continue with the Beavis-and-Butthead routine.  

You know that what you are saying is wrong and/or misleading, but you say it anyway for rhetorical effect.

[MCirba]

David,

You don't understand the absurdity of what your implying?  Did you miss my followup questions or answers to the person you're  calling my mentor, aka "the Lurker"?

You're suggesting that these bungaloes were limited to areas to poop, wash up, and store valuables, with not enough room to bed down for the night. What's more, you've suggested that they would be built at members expense on land still wholly owned by the club.  

How else could I possibly respond?  If I ever suggested something so ridiculous you'd never let me hear the end of it and rightly so!

Your stronger argument was that these dwellings were a planned concession to the fire at the Inn a few months prior, which is possible.  But in trying to eliminate what might have been the last vestiges of a scaled down attempt at implenting the original Founders Agreement you turned bungaloes into bathrooms and there's no way in Hades that's what was planned.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

Idiot?   Really?

Can you please point out for me specifically where CBM said that there was would be no housing component on his golf course that had been mentioned consistently from 1904 through 1906 or that he wouldn't be apportioning extra land for other purposes as outlined in his original agreement.


Mike,

I reviewed all of the documents along with "Scotland's Gift" and I can't find, specifically, where CBM said that there was to be no movie theatre on his golf course.  I also didn't see where he said that there wouldn't be a double decker driving range.

You can't be serious in putting forth the proposition that because CBM state that there would be no ____ (fill in the blank) that that meant that he was planning on introducing same

Factual evidence...not what you think is "common sense", because some of us don't agree.

Other than you, who doesn't agree ?

Would you please answer the question I asked you about CBM creating homes flanking the fairways.
Thanks

Thanks.

**ADDED**  And as far as trying to "muddy the water" of this debate, I'm trying to lighten the tone.

You sure fooled me😜

We've reached a point where a plan for member's "bungaloes" appearing in an article in summer 1908 has been brought to our attention and we're now arguing that they were basically port-o-potties with a safe.   

Mike, if we've learned one thing in the past decade+ discussing architecture, it's how inaccurate and unreliable contemporaneous newspaper accounts are

If you can't see the humor in that you should reconsider and lighten up.   Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The theory you've put forth is patently insane, which is far beyond moronic.

I want you to try to answer the following question honestly.

Do you really think that CBM, after all his study abroad, after the creation of his ideal holes, after his initial design at Chicago, would create his "Ideal Golf Course" with homes between the holes and flanking each fairway ?  ?  ?

Don't make any attempts to divert or deflect the above question, all that's required of you is a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

So, what is it, "yes" or "no"

Would you also cite where he utilized that "model" on any of the subsequent courses he designed ?

David,

I know you're aware of the large "bathing house" on the beach below the flagpole on # 18.

Mike, maybe CBM bought all that acreage at Ballysheer for his cottages.😜

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()