Cinnabar Hills

[Richard_Goodale]

Cinnabar has been my USA "home" course for the 18 months I've been in Silicon Valley (i.e. my handicap is tabulated there).  However, despite the fact that it is 5 miles from my house, I have only played there 10-15 times in that period, mostly because I haven't really played that much at all in this most recent incarnation of my time on this earth.

Nevertheless, it is a golf course which deserves to be played and seen.

I played CH last Monday with my wife, from the tips, and I found it to be a a course which reveals more and more to me the more I play it.  I will go out on a limb and say that it is--EASILY--in the class of Pasatiempo, the two MPCC courses, Stanford and Stevinson Ranch, all of which I have played in 2002, and all of which are superb tests of golf.

It is a CCFAD, but one done with more than a bit of class.  It is a John Harbottle design.  The clubhouse has a library and collection of old photographs, from the Masters, the Crosby, etc. that are worth the visit itself.  There are 3 nines, each very, very good.  Conditioning is appropriate to the design.  Even the Doyen would give it his Maintenance Meld Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.  There are some awesomely subtle holes, e.g.:

The seemingly simple opening 5 on the Lake that leaves you a visually daunting, but actually very makeable chance to start off the round with a putt for an eagle.  The redanish 2nd.  The intriguing short-4 4th with the witches tit rock pinnacle to aim at.  The blind driveable 6th.  The amazingly tempting green on the 150 yard 8th.  The long 4 3rd on the Mountain 9.  The world class 4th on the same.  Then the great short 5th.  The 7th, with the 2 Carnoustie bunker right in the middle of the driving area, but with a narrow gap to the left to cut the dogleg.  Just about ALL of the Canyon 9!

I'd love to hear form others on this course. I know that Tom H knows it well, and has a love-hate realtionship due to the fact that they did a bit of bait and switch in terms of the pricing a few years ago.

It's $55 with cart on Mon-Tues and up to $120 on the weekends.  Much as I love Stevinson at $75 (and a 2 hour drive) and Stanford (for alums) at $100, and Pasa at $135, it's a good deal, at least for me.  Other thoughts?

I give it a solid 1* on the Michelin scale--that's really, really good!

[David Wigler]

Rich,

I am amazed by your comment that it easily belongs in the class of Pasatiempo.  I only played it once and came away with a vastly different opinion.  Now I will grant that I might need to play it again to grasp some subtleties that I missed and I did find it to be a good CCFAD.  I think it is a Doak 5 (Well worth playing if you are in the area but don't build a trip around it).  That would place it in the best 500 or so new courses.  I think Pasatiempo is a bulletproof 7 and any top 100 list without it is sorely lacking.

My biggest problems with Cinnabar were that I found the routing to be disjointed and there were cart paths everywhere I looked.  Not only is this a cart ball course but also no effort was made to remove them from site and (In some instances) play.  Contrast this to Barona; where there is an attempt to hide the cart paths or Victoria National, where they may as well be invisible.  The lacks of continuity in the routing and definitive lack of creativity in cart path placement are major point deductions in my book.  Not to overstate, I absolutely liked the course, but I cannot say I found it to be in Pasatiempo's league.

[THuckaby2]

I'd love to hear form others on this course. I know that Tom H knows it well, and has a love-hate realtionship due to the fact that they did a bit of bait and switch in terms of the pricing a few years ago.

Well Rich, I knew this day would come.  To say I have a love/hate relationship with this, MY BABY, is the understatement of the year.  But it's not ME you want to hear from re Cinnabar I'm sure, as you and I have sure batted this back and forth MANY times.

For the edification of anyone else that might care about this course that I frequent at least once a week (for its practice facility) and have been doing so since it's opening,  I will say that my complaints about the golf course are two-fold:

1. It is unwalkable.  Oh, Rich will likely argue this point, but don't be fooled.  At the very least, it is a LONG TOUGH walk.  That doesn't really bother me too much - hell I ride all the time.  But #2 really does... which is...

2. When this course opened, the MAXIMUM one could pay was $60 with cart.  That's now $120.  That pisses me off to no end.  This is the "bait and switch" Rich mentions which colors my view of this course to a great extend, and for which I make no apologies.  This is also why I was a charter "member" there, a status I gave up after one year in protest over the price hikes.  I am proud now to keep my handicap at a non-pretentious, much more "bang for your buck" club a few miles away:  Santa Teresa.

With that in mind, understand that I followed the development of Cinnabar closer than any other golf course in my life - given the proximity of it to me, and the excitement of what it became as it was designed, shaped and grew in... The land is indeed wonderful, and what Harbottle et al created there is indeed quite good.  I call this "my baby" because I did follow it so closely and damn right I was there opening day and many times thereafter that first year...

But I rarely play it any more, due to the price.  That is sad.

That being said, I actually do agree with Rich on a lot of this, with my only disagreements in the "is it worth the price" area.  I'd pay $15 more for Pasa ANY time, that's for sure.  Maybe familiarity does breed contempt.  I'd also be very happy for them to dice all the artifacts and scale down the clubhouse if it means getting the prices back to where the were two years ago...

But ok, we're supposed to take price out of the equation.  Doing so, Rich is right - there are a lot of great golf holes there.  Let me amplify on his thoughts with:

"The seemingly simple opening 5 on the Lake that leaves you a visually daunting, but actually very makeable chance to start off the round with a putt for an eagle."


WHOA - slow down there fella!  Reaching #1 on the Lake in two shots cannot be called very realistic except for the very longest of hitters, particularly from the back tee.  It is indeed relatively short distance wise, but it is also VERY uphill.  Darn good hole but let's not give people the wrong idea re how reachable it is...


The redanish 2nd.

#2 on the Lake, playing app. 175 yards, with prevailing wind across from left to right howling at you as you stand on top of a plateau and try to hit the hook required.  Skyline green also.  This is one GREAT golf hole.


 The intriguing short-4 4th with the witches tit rock pinnacle to aim at.

#4 Lake - another wonderful golf hole, improved tremendously since inception as two large trees on the left were lost/cut down. I have a little secret I can share re the tee shot here after playing it 25 times... but it will cost you...



The blind driveable 6th.

You mean #5 Lake - if you can drive 6 then Tiger bows to you.  5 is indeed driveable, but only in the right wind conditions.  Remember it is 360 yards from the tips!  Yes, the last part does go quite down hill.  But hey, I've yet to drive this green and well, I'm not ready to say I'm that much of a shortknocker!  So again, careful with the descriptions here.


The amazingly tempting green on the 150 yard 8th.

NOW you are talking.  That is one bewitching, devilish green.  It's about 35 yards wide and maybe 15 deep, max.  It takes one great shot to hold that green no matter what.. and the internal contours are a wonder also.


The long 4 3rd on the Mountain 9.

Another great hole - 437 from the tips, playing downhill, dogleg right, with deep bunkers at the outside of the dogleg and severe rough on the inside.  Angle is much better from the right, the tee shot is much safer hit left... risk/reward most definitely.  Another great green with good contour.  Generally plays into the wind.  Tough, fun hole.


 The world class 4th on the same.  

GOOD MAN!  I've said since inception that this is the best hole of the entire 27.  Another slight dog leg right, with a tee shot requiring MANY choices... and a devilish oak tree right in the fairway to complicate things even further.  Second is uphill and very hard to judge.  Just too much to say about this hole to put briefly here!


Then the great short 5th.

Well described on the web site... Now this one IS driveable!  But only at pretty great risk...


  The 7th, with the 2 Carnoustie bunker right in the middle of the driving area, but with a narrow gap to the left to cut the dogleg.

Oh yes!  Now THIS is a reachable par 5 - in fact short-knocker me has reached this with various different irons down to a wedge once (from the white tees on tee shot).  The bunker in the middle is just classic and absolutely makes the tee shot.  It might have been more fun when the hill on the left was less grown in - you could find a ball there whereas now it's gone - but it did need to be "toughened" I guess... Wonderful hole with another under-rated green.


 Just about ALL of the Canyon 9!

Yep, every hole on Canyon has something good to say about it... But the best by my take are:

#3 - short par 4 just brimming with choices that I like better every time I play it.  I've spent hours on just that hole, late in the day, a few times trying to figure out where best to leave the tee shot.. and no matter where you do, the 2nd is a challenge as that is a tough green to hit and hold even with the shortest wedge!

#6 - classic risk/reward par 5, just plain beautiful, actually improved since inception as an overly severe green was softened (it collapsed!).

#8 - now this is a redanish par 3, just needs a bit more contour to kick the ball left to be a real redan.  Great hole, definite challenge at 220 from the tips!



As you can see, I can go on and on and on about this golf course.  Ever love something and hate something so much at the same time?  It just pains me to no end how this course was "taken away" from me... But as you can see, I do love it so.  And in the end, Rich is right:  if you take out the dollar side of it, Cinnabar does hold its head up quite well with any of the ones he mentioned.  I just kinda wish it didn't!

Those who are interested in the course should go to their website - it is filled with quite a bit of useful info and a few good photos.  That's at:

http://www.cinnabarhills.com/

And if any visitors want to sample this course and don't mind a lot of cursing, let me know.  I am always happy once I'm on the course and have forgotten how much I paid and I do like to show it to visitors.

Funny, I'll be there in about 90 minutes.  Need to do some practice putting in anticipation of a little game I have going on Wednesday.

Sorry for the long rant.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

David

I'll agree that Pasa is prettier than Cinnabar, in an Artsy/Craftsy sense, but I am not at all sure that it is a "better" golf course.  I really liked Pasa when I played it (for the 6th or so time) recently, but I'm trying to be very objective, and it ain't that great, the more I think about it.  Probably a very good effort for 60 or so years ago, but too formulaic for today's standards.  Nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar.  IMHO, of course.

Come play it again in the next 4 months, before my home courses revert to Aberdour/Dornoch.

Cheers

Rich

[THuckaby2]

DW:  further to my epic above, note that I too argue with Rich over it's classification with Pasa.  This is a cart-ball course most definitely and you're right, they could care less.  In fact for a long time, they actively discouraged walking and only allowed two walkers per group!

Cinnabar just has so many "takeways" (ie take away this and it's great... take away that and it's great) that to put it up there with Pasa (who's problem is absurd greens at their current speeds) is a stretch.  Given the two courses are roughly the same price, $$$ can't factor much in if they are to be compared....

TH

ps - gotta go - looking forward to more on this tomorrow.

[THuckaby2]

Probably a very good effort for 60 or so years ago, but too formulaic for today's standards.  Nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar.  IMHO, of course.

Ok, I love ya Rich and damn I do trust your judgment much of the time... and those who know me know how I love to rail on Pasa... but you are, to put it politely, off your rocker here.

Pasa is FORMULAIC?  In what way?  It defies all conventions... It's greens are whacky... It requires a lot of different shots...

And Pasa is nowhere near as challenging and playable as Cinnabar?  Good God, you've gone daft!

I've played each course at least 25 times, by my recollection.  It's likely more than that.  I'd venture to say my average score is at least 5-6 shots more at Pasa than Cinnabar.  As for "playable", well, that can be defined many ways so I'll punt on that one.

But you've got some "splain'in" to do here, Lucy....

And damn, I gotta go so I won't see it till tomorrow morning.  But I look forward to the explanation!

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

Great post.  You know this track a LOT better than I do.  As for the price, to each his own, but I think you need a brief session with Dr. Katz to come to grips with the assertion that you'd rather walk Pasa for $135 than ride CH for a max of $120.  And, of course, I've walked all three 9's at CH, including the Canyon, and if a 55-year old technically obese guy like me can do that, why can't you?

I saw two bobcats in the rough last time I played CH and too many eagles and hawks to count soaring in the air.  And there wasn't a house in sight--not even a good doctor's ramshackle bungalow/GCA historical monument lying just outside of an in course "out of bounds".........

[THuckaby2]

Ok Rich, we never settled this off-line so who's gonna believe we can on-line?  

For $15 more I shall indeed walk Pasa.  I CAN walk that one without killing myself... It's a little matter of greens being somewhat in the same vicinity of the next tee, and not having to walk down from a tee back up to the fairway 14 times.  Yes, as I say, all three nines at Cinnabar CAN be walked.  Of course, people CAN run marathons also.  The course is just so geared AGAINST walking, I gave up trying to prove the point long ago.  Being told you can't walk by the pro-shop has a dilatory effect on one's psyche also.

You're right in one respect though - holding of grudges is not healthy and I do indeed need the assistance of Doc Katz to get over this.

Doubling the price just is a tough thing to get over!

Of course, Pasa did this also.... thus my rants against the Mac "gem"!

All right, now I am late.  Damn this could be fun....

TH

ps - I am with you re outside scenery - CH has it over Pasa there by far.  VERY peaceful back in that valley - I commented on that last time I was there actually playing, a month or so ago.

[THuckaby2]

Schedule the drug test, Rich.  I guess you won't believe it, but I once shot a 73 from the tips playing Canyon-Mountain.  There was no wind... and I putted like a claw-wielding god.  In that round I believe I had something like 26 putts.  Mike Golden (late of several sites, where is he these days) was with me that day...

Best ever at Pasa is 72 and if you think I putted well in the 73 at CH, this round I doubt I had more than 22 putts.  It included two chip-ins.

The ratings are actually pretty similar.  I just find Pasa a LOT tougher to score on that Cinnabar.  For me there are just plain no birdie holes at Pasa, whereas at Cinnabar you do have some short par 4's and reachable par 5's (as you stated!) even from the tips.

TH

ps - so as not to toot my own horn, please realize these are indeed both very tough courses and my rounds over 80 greatly exceed my rounds under 80 at each.  But Rich asked for best ever...

[Richard_Goodale]

OK, Tom

I think we've got Eckenrode, Naccarato, Shackleford et. al. pissing in their Okie overalls by now.  Save the stories as to how you can REALLY play, when it is all on the line, for apres Barona.

[ed_getka]

Hey guys,
 I played CH a few weeks ago for the first time and thought it was a solid course for the $55 I paid. I don't like it as much as Stevinson Ranch (another Harbottle design). CH  (I played Mountain/Canyon) is NOT even close to Pasatiempo as a test of golf. I would have to play CH 3 or 4 times to figure out the approach angles, but once that was done I could consistently score at least 5 strokes lower at CH. This is partly due to the borderline absurd green speeds at Pasa.
 Tom and I went back and forth about some of the holes on the Canyon nine that I felt were flat out GOOFY and I've changed my opinion a bit, and look forward to playing there again to try out a few things.
The course is easily walkable (I would say Poppy Ridge in the summer is a difficult walk), the only unwalkable course I have seen is Princeville Prince (my legs were shaking by the 16th tee).
   All four par 3's were good and required various clubs and shot requirements.
   As far as scenery goes, I would rather see some houses at Pasatiempo, than the freeways/cartpaths at CH.
  The Canyon nine is 9 holes too many at this 27 hole facility. I felt like Harbottle tried to squeeze some holes into some tough terrain. I don't like #3, (rethinking after talking to TH), #4 is a short narrow par 4 uphill with a tree in the left center of the fairway. #6 par 5 is a sort of double dogleg par 5 that has the toughest 2nd shot I have seen for a first round at a course. I is extremely difficult to do anything from going for the green to laying up with a short iron, due to the angle of the fairway and the narrowness of the landing area all the way to the green. #7 par 4 straight UP a hill with a blind second even for Tiger probably (even with a flag on a 12-15 foot flagstick) I couldn't see the flag even with a 9 iron approach).
   Pace of play is slow 4 1/2 to 5 hours on a weekday.

[Dan Grossman]

I have to agree with Ed as well, although I usually play on the weekends when it is $120.  I thought that the Canyon nine was pretty severe and built on land not very well suited for golf.  The Lake/Mountain nines are pretty good, although not nearly as good as Pasa.  Plus, at Pasa you can walk and not deal with those carts with the stupid distance finders.

[Richard_Goodale]

Ed

You got it right about Pasa.  It's the absurd contours/green speed combinations that makes it "hard."   Plus the blind/semi-blind shots to the green. Those don't necessarily make it "good."

Mark my words--30 years from now Pasa will be Cinnabar's dowdy and homely neighbor.....

Dan G

Ed and I can and do walk CH.  Why can't/don't you?

[Dan Grossman]

I need someplace to sit down during my 6 hour round.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan G.

Either learn Tai Chi, or play other times when you can get around in 4 1/2 hours, including some sherpa-like climbs!

[A_Clay_Man]

Rich- While only having played it once (18) no mountain) I seem to recall the facility was fabulous. I do think the holes seemed a little less than natural and perhaps a bit manufactured. But like a good glass of wine or a good women she does get better each sampling.

[ed_getka]

I know Tom doesn't mind #7 on Canyon, but if you like the hole, why do you like it? While you are at it, what makes #4 on Canyon a good hole, or bad?

I think on #4 you just knock it out around the tree with whatever club you like and then have a short iron in, but I couldn't discern any place in the fairway that would allow a view of the green, so placing the tee shot doesn't seem to provide any advantages. I've only played it once so it is very possible I missed something.

[Richard_Goodale]

7.  Talk about a skyline green!  The only way you can see it is via Uranus (sic).

4.  You gotta go around the tree to the left, either by a low Papazianic hook or a high Getkaen bomb banking off the slope to the right of the fairway.  The high fading Huckster is dead on this hole unless he is highly skilled, as the Huckster surely is.

Cheers

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich and Tom:

Now, you sound like a couple of my favourite kids of some years ago. Rich, you are right. Ch is much tougher than Pasatiempo. I played both within the past year, broke 80 at P and probably shot over 90 at CH. The latter seems awfully long compared to P.

Cart golf or not, CH  is a severe test of ones abilities.

[ed_getka]

Bob,
 Don't you think after you have played CH a few times and figured out the proper driving and lay up angles that you could lower your score by 4-5 strokes. Breaking 80 at Pasa is damn fine golf, I haven't broken 85 there.

Tom,
 #7 on Mountain. When the pin is right behind the bunker and you are hitting, say an 8 iron, do you go at the pin or do you go just right of the bunker and let the slope feed your ball to the left down towards the pin?

[johnk]

Rich,

Two concepts from MacKenzie at work, IMHO:

1. "It is a remarkable thing about golf courses that nearly every man has an affection for the particular mud heap on which he plays."

2. Thrill. I've played CH many times, and I can't really think of
anything thrilling about it.  Pasatiempo has thrills.  Many.

So for me it's no contest which I'd rather be on.  I'd choose Pasa, Stanford or San Juan Oaks any day.

[Richard_Goodale]

John

I wasn't saying that Pasa and Stanford were not nice little mud heaps, too.  They are (haven't played SJO).  As for thrills, different stokes for diffeent folks.  I personally think that CH is full of testing and exciting golf shots--that's what gets me off.

Cheers
Rich

[THuckaby2]

VERY interesting provincial conversation here for us NorCals!

So OK, to answer a few questions and give a few more rebuttals:

1. Rich, please understand we are talking about my best rounds EVER at two courses that have consistently beaten me up (well, CH from the tips anyway).  So no, our opponents need not be shaking in fear of me.  They can take solace in my 86 at Eagle Ridge in NCGA 4-ball qualifier last week.  The "Bad Tom" comes out far too often these days.

2. Re #7 Canyon:  I'm with Rich, I absolutely dig that hole for it's skyline green AND for the precision required in the tee shot - the farther left you take it and tempt the big tree and the hellacious rough gains you exponentially in yardgage toward the hole, as shots to the center kick WAY right and backwards, rolling back toward the tee in many cases!  So you can gain 60-70 yards for your 2nd by hitting a brave tee shot.  Then the green speaks for itself... however, I can understand if you don't like skyline greens (ie damn near blind) you will have a hard time liking this hole.  I tend to love them, so #7 is among my favorites in the whole 27.

3. #4 Canyon - Rich has it assessed spot on for Fading me - that is one DAMN hard tee shot and nope, I do NOT have the skills to produce the hook required more than one out of 10 tries.  From the back tees I just punt and go way right and hope to God it kicks off the hill.  From a set forward which I normally play, I can get it over the tree, but I have to hit 3wood and pray to the same Almighty I don't hit one of my low semi-skull screamers.  That tee shot is bewitching and be-deviling for me, and thus I love it.  Take out the tree and the hole is blah... although that is another damn good green also.  But anyway Ed, you're not alone, lots of people hate that hole.  It takes a certain masochistic mindset to like it, I guess!  

4. As for the relative difficulty of CH from the tips v. Pasa from same, well... it comes down to how one's game is, I guess.  At CH, there are some damn long carries from those back tees and if the wind is blowing hard, forget it - I'll punt and say CH is tougher.  But in "normal" wind at each course, Pasa plays a LOT tougher for me.  See, again, I'm no Matt Ward/Tiger Woods but making carries isn't an issue for me either... and CH just plain allows a LOT more room to miss off the tee than Pasa, where one's most utilized club is the "chipping out of the trees iron."  There's none of that at CH, except a couple holes on the Canyon nine.  The rough is also generally MUCH tougher at Pasa... Yes, CH is indeed longer from those tips, but it also runs a LOT faster than Pasa, thus doesn't "play" that much longer... And finally, CH just plain has no "killer/hope to make a bogey and survive" holes like each of 1, 3, 10, 11 and 16 are for me at Pasa, and Pasa has no "lick my chops, think birdie" holes like each of #1 and 5 Lake, 1 and 7 Mountain, and 9 Canyon at CH.  Again, maybe it's me... but I find Pasa a lot harder, for all these reasons.

5.  Finally, hey I'm with Rich also - "thrilling" shots are what make me want to play the game.  If one isn't thrilled by each of the following at Pasa, then one needs lower standards:

- tee shot on 1
- tee shot on 3
- approach shot into 9
- tee shot and approach shot on 10
- 2nd on 11
- tee shot and 2nd on 16
- tee shot on 18.

Yes, there are a LOT of thrilling shots at CH, several on each nine.  But it's not like Pasa is "thrill-less".   But of course, I guess in my best Clintonese I shall add the disclaimer that it depends on one's definition of "thrilling" - my inclusion of #1 tee shot at Pasa ought to speak volumes as to how I define it!  For me, "thrilling" = "ass-puckering", in general.  

This is a fun comparison indeed.  Hey, the way the ball is going, Rich might be right - Pasa might be anachronistic far sooner than 30 years from now... and CH does indeed have a lot of room to "grow."  I sure as hell hope this doesn't happen... but he may be on to something here indeed.  Odds are I'll still be here to find out, in any case!

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Hey, Tom, this ain't "provincial!"

We're actually talking about golf course architecture on the ground, not in terms of theories or pictures or words from some book.  That should be of value even to those people unfamiliar with either course.  A couple of points to follow up on:

1.  CH is very much "in your face" whereas Pasa is subtle.  On most holes at CH it is fairly clear what the risk/reward options are,on virtually every shot, including putts.  At Pasa many of the options are hidden (or do not exist because of the narrow corridors on many holes).

2.  I very much prefer "in your face" courses, which is why I like most links (except those which contian too many blind shots).  To me being able to see what the challenges are in front of you (and there being multiple challenges) is prefereable to the "hit it there or your dead" school of architecture.  Others have differnet preferences.  So be it.

3.  Overall I like the quality and variety of golf chots presented to you and required by you at CH.  I think by this criterion, it is a "better" course than Pasa.  Does that make it a "better" course overall.  Not sure.

[THuckaby2]

Fair enough, good sir. By "provincial" I just meant that so few people posting on this site are likely to have seen Cinnabar, that's all.  Perhaps this discussion will spur a few to check it out, which is a good thing.

In response to your very valid further comments...

Hmmmm... this is thought-provoking indeed.  I will wholly agree that the challenges at CH are in general right there for you to see, whereas Pasa is indeed more "subtle."  

Now, which is "better"?  Personal preference, yes indeed.  At first glance, I have to say I do like to "figure out" golf holes - thus I prefer the subtle.  

What's confusing me here is one statement you make:

"To me being able to see what the challenges are in front of you (and there being multiple challenges) is prefereable to the "hit it there or your dead" school of architecture. "

Wouldn't the "hit it there ore your dead" school exist MORE at CH than Pasa?  I think I get what you're saying - multiple challenges are better than just one "don't hit it here or else" single place, but isn't this two totally different issues?  Being able to see challenges clearly and obviously is not the same as having multiple challenges exist, correct?

Thus my preference is for multiple challenges, not all of which are apparent at first glance.  I gather you dig multiple challenges, all of which can be seen and conquered.

Pasa has what I want in spades.  CH does also - case in point being #3 Canyon - but not as much as Pasa.  But yes, CH would seem to have more of what you want.  

And thus I prefer Pasa, you CH.  Vive l'difference!

Isn't this the rub, in the Shakespearean sense?  IE, doesn't this come down to NGLA v. Shinnecock all over again?

TH