[Niall C]

At the risk of being caught in the crossfire here's a couple of comments about roads running through golf courses. Yes, there were and indeed still are courses that play over public roads (private roads under use and ownership of golf club don't really count in this context IMO). However by the time this course was being conceived and planned, I would suggest that gca's were beginning to realise the shortcomings of playing across roads.

I also note from some of the plans posted that the general area was planned for residential (?) redevelopment so no matter the amount of traffic at the time or even the state of the road at the time you wouldn't have needed to have been a fortune teller to realise that the road in question was likely to get a lot busier and probably bigger in the near future.

Furthermore if you were planning one of the most high profile yet exclusive clubs in the world, would you even consider land where the public could drive through the middle of your planned course ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Would you please tell Mike that surveying that land was duck soup compared to surveying other, really hostile sites.

Would you also let Mike know that until recently a good deal of the property at Sebonack, right next door to NGLA, was in its native state. until Mike Pascucci decided to buy and develop it.

Surveying NGLA, the land West of Shinnecock, was a simple matter in terms of surveying projects.

How does he think they surveyed the Shinnecock Golf Course, the Railway, roads and all of uncharted Long Island.

He's drawn his conclusion and is now seeking any path that will lead him to it.

If he thinks surveying NGLA was difficult, he should look at how really difficult it was to survey the Everglades.(; and NGLA was no Everglades, despite his characterization and misrepresentation of NGLA as a "JUNGLE"

[DMoriarty]

Niall, I agree with your take above.   Mike's fantasy site is hardly ideal.  And I strongly disagree with Phil's pronouncement that "in other words, if CBM looked where [Mike] believe[d], then the North Highway has absolutely nothing to do with why that land was not chosen..."  How he could think that CBM would not have cared if a highway ran right up the gut of a 160 yard wide property is beyond me.  But then Mike's fictional site is unreasonable for many other reasons, not the least of which is that he just made it up of whole cloth.  There is no factual support for its existence whatsover.  It is just something he created so he could pretend that the Sebonack Neck property was not already in play in October 1906.

______________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

For what it is worth, I am starting to think you are purposefully mischaracterizing and exaggerating the source material just to see if you can piss me off.  That sort of thing is worthy of your mentor, but it ought to be beneath you.   So if you are, knock it off.  If you aren't, then what gives? Could you please try to pay a bit more attention to the details. Thanks.  

1.  CBM didn't describe the 450 acres as a "jungle," nor did he write that the bushes were "head high or over."  You just made that up. His description is harsh enough without your silly exaggerations.   Your need to exaggerate everything only further undermines your credibility.  

2.  The main articles from October 1906 didn't say the westerly point was near the inlet "towards Good Ground."  (The third snippet might, but it seems to be derivative of the larger more detailed articles.)  The detailed articles said the westerly point near the inlet between the Shinnecock Station and Good Ground.  Once we find the inlet, the station and Good Ground have no relevance.  I've explained this a handful of times at least.  Will you would stop trying to stretch this description to where it obviously does not go?   Thanks.  

3.  If you have any lingering doubt whether Cold Springs pond was the "inlet" to which they refer, I suggest you look at the 1907 SHPBRC map where it is clearly labeled "INLET."   Also take a look at the road running along half of  the bottom of the  Cold Springs Pond which was called "Inlet Road" and still is.    This was the inlet in question, and the property in question stretched along Peconic Bay to near the inlet.  

4.   If you have any lingering belief that the earlier articles referred to a long forgotten third site "near Good Ground," take another look at the December 15, 1906 NY Sun description of the site, particularly the part where it said:  

"The location is that announced previously as the probable site.  It forms part of the large tract held by the Alvord syndicate on the sand dunes between Great Peconic and Shinnecock bays."  

As you may recall,  the Sun had previously reported, on November 1, 1906, that CBM was interested in land in the western portion of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground, and you had taken this unequivocally to mean that they were still considering land by the Canal (even though according to you the Canal is surrounded by "Good Ground" on both sides.) Well this article ought to put your mistaken belief to rest, don't you think?   It says it was the same land as reported earlier.  Is their another report I am missing?    Or can we finally move past this nonsense?  

As for your questions about the October 1906 articles and what they mean to our understanding of what happened, that is useful area to consider, but I'd really like to put this wild goose chase stemming from you claiming, as fact, that the October articles and the November 1 articles couldn't possibly be referring to the land CBM purchased.  

Do you now see that it is very likely that CBM was focusing on Sebonack Neck at least as far back as October 1906?  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

So you're convinced that the land cited in those October 1906 articles David posted is the same land where the course was eventually built?

You're telling us that the land that these articles state have been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?

[Phil_the_Author]

David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906.

A "Highway" was a road that connected cities and lay outside of their bounds. Because it did this it was considered a "major" roadway. That designation had absolutely NOTHING to do with how wide, number of lanes, how it was constructed and especially how much "traffic" would be on it in a typical day. This designation goes back many HUNDREDS OF YEARS which is how we get the name for that particular brand of nefarious robbers called "HIGHWAYMEN." Of course, maybe you think that the "Highways" in 17th century England had a great deal of auitomobile traffic...

The information contained in the New York State records that I posted parts from show the "North Highway" to have been an unpaved road. Honestly now, how many automobiles do you think travelled down that road in 1906?

No, at that time this was a minor road especially in comparison to most roads already built on Long Island. Was it major for the residents? Yes, because it was the ONLY one to use to get to certain locations with a modicum of ease, but that doesn't make it a MAJOR road as one would have viewed it at the time on Long Island. Actually, a BETTER word would be IMPORTANT road. Importance has no bearing on size or usage, just what it connects and that is what the North Highway was in 1906. Again, look at the GCGC in 1906 and the way the course was routed and all the local roads invovled. Surely you can't believe that there was greater traffic in Shinnecock in 1906 than would be found in Garden City in 1906, yet the course crossed a number of roads and that was fine. That the new club would cross roads in how how the course was laid out was probably a given and that NGLA actually does is certainly proof of that...

This is the ultimate in silly arguments...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm willing to consider that it was the same land,yes, thanks.

I'm just not sure what other "various" sites near Peconic Bay and Shinnecock he was still considering per your other Oct 1906 article.   What do you think that meant?

[Patrick_Mucci]

At the risk of being caught in the crossfire here's a couple of comments about roads running through golf courses. Yes, there were and indeed still are courses that play over public roads (private roads under use and ownership of golf club don't really count in this context IMO). However by the time this course was being conceived and planned, I would suggest that gca's were beginning to realise the shortcomings of playing across roads.

I also note from some of the plans posted that the general area was planned for residential (?) redevelopment so no matter the amount of traffic at the time or even the state of the road at the time you wouldn't have needed to have been a fortune teller to realise that the road in question was likely to get a lot busier and probably bigger in the near future.

Niall,

This isn't just a case of hitting over some roads, this is a situation where one of the two MAJOR arteries running East-West on the South Fork of Long Island, ran right down the middle of Mike Cirba's long, narrow golf course.  Look at the schematic and look at the IMPACT of the NORTH HIGHWAY on Mike's plan.[/b]



Furthermore if you were planning one of the most high profile yet exclusive clubs in the world, would you even consider land where the public could drive through the middle of your planned course ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906.

Phil, please don't let my dad know that I don't understand how the word "highway" was used in 1906.
He sent me to college as a Freshman, majoring in chemical engineering, but, my mother's influence had me gravitating to law school by my senior year.  If they knew the money they wasted on my education they'd be turning over in their grave.

I understand the word "highway" in 1906.
I also understand the meaning of the word "road" in 1906.
Further, I understand the meaning of the word, "lane" in 1906
along with the words, "path", "trail", "Railroad" and "crossing"
I also understand their relative values in terms of traffic patterns and volume in 1906.
The NORTH HIGHWAY and SOUTH HIGHWAY were THE TWO MAIN ARTERIES running East-West on the South Fork of Long Island in 1906 and they remain so today in 2011 [/b] 

A "Highway" was a road that connected cities and lay outside of their bounds. Because it did this it was considered a "major" roadway. That designation had absolutely NOTHING to do with how wide, number of lanes, how it was constructed and especially how much "traffic" would be on it in a typical day.

Phil, what cities existed on the South Fork in 1906 ?

Besides the NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY, what other roads traversed the South Fork from the Canal to Amagansett and Montauk, in 1906 and today ?  There are but two (2).  The NORTH HIGHWAY and the SOUTH HIGHWAY.[/B]

This designation goes back many HUNDREDS OF YEARS which is how we get the name for that particular brand of nefarious robbers called "HIGHWAYMEN." Of course, maybe you think that the "Highways" in 17th century England had a great deal of auitomobile traffic...

The information contained in the New York State records that I posted parts from show the "North Highway" to have been an unpaved road. Honestly now, how many automobiles do you think travelled down that road in 1906?

Plenty.  And obviously the State of New York thought so too, as they declared the crossings of the RR and the NORTH HIGHWAY to be a safety hazard.  If there was no volume, as you ridiculously insist, there would be no safety hazard, no need to reconstruct an underneath railway crossing at another location.[/color

No, at that time this was a minor road especially in comparison to most roads already built on Long Island. Was it major for the residents? Yes, because it was the ONLY one to use to get to certain locations with a modicum of ease, but that doesn't make it a MAJOR road as one would have viewed it at the time on Long Island.

Of course it does.
It was the ONLY ROAD on the North Shore of the South Fork that traveled directly East-West.[/b]

Actually, a BETTER word would be IMPORTANT road. Importance has no bearing on size or usage, just what it connects and that is what the North Highway was in 1906.

OK, so tell us, what other IMPORTANT road traversed the Canal and ran along the North Shore of the South Fork, from the Canal to Amagansett and Montauk ?

It was THE MAJOR ROAD ON THE NORTH SHORE.  A HIGHWAY, AS DECLARED BY OLMSTEAD BROS AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK.[/B]

Again, look at the GCGC in 1906 and the way the course was routed and all the local roads invovled. Surely you can't believe that there was greater traffic in Shinnecock in 1906 than would be found in Garden City in 1906, yet the course crossed a number of roads and that was fine. That the new club would cross roads in how how the course was laid out was probably a given and that NGLA actually does is certainly proof of that...

Phil, please, look at the schematic.
This isn't a road crossed by a hole, this is a road running down the middle, down the entire length of Mike's course.
For you to compare a few crossing roads at GCGC, a populated city at the time, to a major road that ran down the entire centerline of a long, narrow golf course indicates that you're either obtuse or have allowed you ego to overcome your better judgement.


David, would you please color in the NORTH HIGHWAY in the above schematic.

Evidently Phil hasn't located it yet and Mike still insists that it doesn't exist.

Thanks[/b]

This is the ultimate in silly arguments...

I agree, your comments are funny and foolish[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So you're convinced that the land cited in those October 1906 articles David posted is the same land where the course was eventually built?

You're telling us that the land that these articles state have been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?

David Moriarty,

Why does Mike, falsely and erroneously, pretend to draw conclusions for me.

He makes a statement and then proclaims that his statment represents my view.

Why is that ?  And what is that called ? 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip, I agree that it is the ultimate in silly arguments, which is why I wonder why you are bothering to make it.

I know well what a highway was and is, and I am quite familiar with non-paved highways as well as highways in rural areas including areas that would make this development seem like a metropolis.   You are apparently of the belief that if a rosd isnt paved it is easily fungible and didnt really count, as if rerouting was something lightly and easily done.  Then and now this was not the case, and the process undertaken regarding these crossings ought to have convinced you of that.  This development was major enough to require overpasses and underpasses at the RR, and I think it unreasonable to believe that CBM would have been oblivious to these roads in the fall of 1906.

But as I have said, it is all a red herring anyway  and I don't really care about the roads.  

But I am confused.  You indicated you wanted no part of this discussion but were just here to educate us on the roads.  Yet here you are.  Let me put your mind to rest.  I need no education in the roads.  In fact I find it somewhat patronizing for you to assume that I do.   As I have said repeatedly, I don't care whether it was paved (I'd have been very surprised if it was.). It is not just a road issue, it is a number of factors together that shape my conviction about Mike's fictional property.  Further lectures on the roads will not change my mind, especially if you intend in further lecturing on what i already know.  See Niall's comments above.  I agree with him.

----------------------------------------

Mike Cirba,  I'd have hoped you would have been willing to consider my perspective from the beginning, so I'm am not sure what to make of your comment.

Do you now agree that the October articles most likely describe the Sebonack Neck Property or not?

As for your last sentence, I think you are again confusing the source material.  What October article did I post mentioning various sites?  I don't have any articles handy, but I dont recall those October articles saying that.  Do you mean the November 1st Sun article and the Eagle article from around that time?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Just more of your usual "I'm right and know everything and how dare you correct me and who do you think you are nonsense..."

And I guess just some more of my blather, blather, blather... And I guess what the New York State Senate stated about the North Highway in 1906 and what they planned to do with that road and others in the south fork of Long Island is also nothing more than a bunch of blather, blather, blather...

Oh well, I guess you were right, after all, why did I even begin to think I might be able to educate you in even the smalest of things...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I think its probably 50/50 on whether it's the site they ended up with and yes, I meant the Nov 1st article if that helps advance the discussion.

If.nothing else, I think the 50 percenr chance that this was the ultimate site deserves exploration as to what it means to our understanding of the story of NGLA's origins if that's the way it went down, don't you think? 

[DMoriarty]

David,

Just more of your usual "I'm right and know everything and how dare you correct me and who do you think you are nonsense..."

Actually Phillip, you've got it exactly backward.  Read your posts.  Is it any wonder we haven't taken kindly to your latest attempts to "educate" us when they start with haughty, condescending, and false statements like:
     "David and Pat, it is quite obvious that neither of you understand how the word "Highway" was used in 1906."
  Really? Because from where I stand it is "quite obvious" that you have no idea what we understand, and I doubt Patrick will mind if I tell you that we'd appreciate it if you will quit pretending otherwise.  

Thanks.

_________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

50/50?   I won't even ask how you came up with that.   I'd say it is much better than 50/50 but I guess the way these conversations go, 50/50 is about as close to a concession as you've ever come, and should thus be considered progress.

You asked about the November 1, 1906 articles, in particular the reference to CBM mentioning "various 'sites'" in the Shinnecock area.   I don't see much mystery here, for the following reasons.  
  - The November 1, 1906 Sun article does not mention "various 'sites'" near Peconic and Shinnecock.  It mentions two sites, Montauk (which sounds like a non-starter from CBM's description in the book and his earlier comments) and "the westerly strip of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground." In case there is still any confusion about whether this is the Sebonack Neck site, the Sun seems to have clarified in their December 15, 1906 article by noting" "The location is that announced previously as the probable site.  It forms part of the large tract held by the Alvord syndicate on the sand dunes between Great Peconic and Shinnecock bays."
  - As for the November 1, 1906 Eagle article, it doesn't mention "various 'sites'" but it does mention "various sections."  Nonetheless, I have trouble seeing significance where you apparently do.   Here is how the article began:  
    A week ago last Saturday afternoon Charles B. MacDonald, in answer to a question put to him before a crowd in the lounging room at the Garden City club house, said that he had inspected land for the ideal links project in various sections around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills .
   Notice two things.  First, his statement was past tense; "he had inspected" various sections.   Second, the article only mentioned that he had inspected.  Nothing about having made multiple offers, nothing about various negotiations.  Just that he had inspected various sections (not sites.)
   So, his answer provided nothing to support a theory that there must have been a mystery third site.  It merely stated that sometime in the past he had inspected various sections in that area.  Not really earth shattering news since we know he had previously made an offer for land by the Canal, and that he was very likely in the process of buying the present site.  Those two sections constitute "various sections", don't they?  Plus there was the rest of Sebonack Neck which he had the option of considering.

I think a more interesting question about these articles is why they apparently digress from the October 1906 announcement that the CBM had already purchased the land.  I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the October announcement jumped the gun.  Apparently, despite the October reports to the contrary, there was no formal agreement in place yet, so those October articles would have been murder for CBM's bargaining position.  Viewed with this in mind, it is perhaps no big surprise that the reports a few weeks later backed well off this announcement, with the Eagle reporting what is essentially a non-answer, and the Sun throwing in another site (Montauk) and suggesting that CBM was willing to walk away from both if the price wasn't right.    

It also may be worth considering that these two papers reported CBM saying two different things at about the same time, with the Eagle making no mention of Montauk or price or negotiations, and the Sun making no mention of CBM having inspected different sites around Shinnecock.   Some of you seem to think CBM was a big whiz at using the press, so it perhaps isn't much of a leap to think he was doing some negotiation or at least damage control with these statements.  

Before I move on to the other items in the October articles, do you understand what I am saying about these  November 1, 1906 articles?   Do you disagree with what I am saying?  If so, why? 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

As I said, that is certainly a possible scenario and I think for discussion purposes we should assume you're correct.

I certainly don't want to argue further about the possibility/viability of moving a mile of dirt road through undeveloped land to accommodate a large purchase (250 acres) of Alvord's land at four times the price he paid for it.

I also think on the face of it that "various sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock likely means more than the two CBM mentioned in his book, especially since you argued earlier that the Canal site offer happened 9 months or more prior, and I'd really like to hear from you and Patrick where you think that might have been if the site I suggested is so insane, idiotic, egregious, lie-ridden, and intelluctually dishonest, but I won't hold my breath waiting for either of you to suggest an alternaitve.  

I also don't think the 450 acre parcel he ended up securing 205 undetermined acres from in December 1906 qualifies as multiple sections, either, and frankly it seems based on what we're now understanding that it may have been more of a last choice than a first, perhaps, but for now as mentioned, let's assume you're correct, and move on.

Let's assume your scenario is the right one and discuss from there.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Assuming that the land mentioned in the October 1906 article is roughly the land he inevitably purchased, I'll ask you the same question Patrick earlier refused to answer;

Are you then saying that the land that those articles state had been surveyed, mapped, and distributed to various overseas experts is the same land CBM told us he found unsurveyed and rode across with Whigham on horseback for 2 or 3 days...the same land he secured two months later on Dec 14th 1906 and later purchased the following spring after spending several months more planning it with his committee as reported in the press?

Here again is what CBM said about that land;



and here is what those articles said;




Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a thing about surveying and map-drawing, especially given 1906 technologies on what sounds like forbidding land, but if you have knowledge of the process, then I have two questions.

1) Would they have needed to clear the land to survey it?   I guess just logistically I'm trying to understand how back then one would even site a tripod if the ground was covered with thiick bushes and undergrowth, or shoot with it to distant points if you couldn't see ground level.   I may be mistaken, I don't know, which is why I'm asking.
2) Either way, whether needing clearing or not, how long would such a process likely take to shoot 450 or 250 acres and then create the topographical maps based on that survey?

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

I don't have much time, but let me throw out a few thoughts.  

As for the mid-October articles, I don't know why these articles made these claims, or the extent of their accuracy.  We can only speculate.   We know that articles were certainly less than perfect.  Most obviously, the land had not yet been purchased and the purchase would not be formalized until two months later and would not be finalized until spring. And so the announcement that CBM had purchased the land seems premature.  

As for the bit about there having been maps made and sent out, I don't know.   It could be that the articles (or more likely the sources of the information) got ahead of themselves with the other information as well, such as the claim that maps had been made and sent abroad for comment.  This may to have been something that was planned or in the works, but had not happened.  But I hesitate to just assume this sort of thing is mistaken because it is convenient to do so.  I think we should at least consider the possibility that some mapping was done by this date.

It may help to reconsider these articles within the chronology of what CBM said in his book.  One thing that I think we have all been assuming, perhaps wrongly so, is that the events described over that page and a half of Scotland's gift all took place in a relatively short period of time. like a few months.  But CBM tells us that "the Shinnecock Hills property, some 2,000 acres . . . was sold at about $50 an acre to a Brooklyn company a few weeks before [he] determined that [they] should build a course there if [they] could secure the land."   Given that the Brooklyn company (Alvord/SHPBRC) purchased the land in the fall of 1905, I think we need to reconsider, and perhaps stretch out this timeline quite a bit.    

Apparently, CBM first decided to to build a course on the Shinnecock land in the fall of 1905.  He was in Europe studying courses for the first half of 1906, until June.   So the events described in Scotland's gift -  riding the land, getting some sort of agreement from the owner, studying the contours, hiring Raynor to survey the land - all could have realistically taken place any time after his return in June 1906.  (Or some of it could have even taken place before he left, but let's set that aside for now.)   And while I have no great confidence that this is what happened,  I think it is entirely possible that the land was surveyed sometime after CBM and HJW first rode the land and when they secured on option in December 1906, whether by SHPBRC or at CBM's behest.

While we know from Scotland's gift is that the land was unsurveyed and uncleared when CBM and HJW first rode the property, we don't know when this first was.  We also know that, by mid-October, they had reportedly visited the site several times.     Recall that in Scotland's gift, CBM wrote that he first hired Raynor to survey the land, and then was so impressed he hired him to do a contour map.   I guess it is debatable, but it seems like those December articles are referring to the plans to create a detailed contour map (and model.)  This would suggest that land may have been already surveyed at this point.   Whether or not clearing would have taken place at his point, I don't know and I don't know if it would have been necessary.

Also, keep in mind that we don't know what these maps entailed.   We aren't necessarily dealing with full topographical maps here.   A survey can mean many different levels of details depending on what is going on.    Recall that one of the articles goes around the course and gives the yardage and elevation changes of the holes.  It could be something that simple.

But realize I don't have any hard answers here, at least not yet.    This is more information to consider, and this combined with the information about the previous sale, changes and stretches our timeline somewhat, and give a pretty clear indication that this land was most likely in play at least some months earlier than when it was finally optioned.


That is just some quick thoughts. I'll consider it again when I get the chance.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I generally agree with everything you just wrote and would only say that it seems the maps were pretty detailed topos if that article is accurate.

But, as far as stretching out the timeline, I wholeheartedly agree.   I think CBM knew he wanted to build around Shinnecock since 1905 as he sort of alluded in his book, and probably rode the property in the July-September timeframe, likely in the summer.

I'm also betting he got Raynor to survey it prior to securing the land...nothing but a strong hunch based on what we're learning, but I'm thinking it would be a logical step.

[DMoriarty]

I understand from the articles why you would think that any map must have been a detailed topo map, but I don't know if this is consistent with later articles talking about them working up plans.  I don't have the articles or book in front of me so will have to look later. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

In CBM's 1912 Founders Letter, he writes;

"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."




I wonder if the author of the articles has something confused around maps, or if this was back and forth exchange of maps and letters between CBM and the golf experts abroad, comparing notes related to placement of holes, and features.   We'll probably never know exactly, but it's interesting to see how collaborative this project seems to have been, seemingly with CBM's encouragement and almost insistence in soliciting opinions of others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

The notion that NGLA was the product of an international referendum is just another one of Mike's wild and unfounded efforts to prove that NGLA took nearly a half a year to design, despite what CBM told us.

Now, Mike would have you believe that NGLA was a mail in contest, with maps distributed throughout the world with CBM soliciting ideas for his golf course, [size=14point] a course that he had already routed and selected the location of the specific holes on.[/size]What a joke.  

Don't ever lose sight of the fact that Mike's sole purpose is to dispute the routing of Merion in short order vis a vis disputing the routing of NGLA in short order.

What Mike fails to realize at Merion is that CBM's involvement at Merion wasn't limited to one day, but to the almost entire time of the project.

Please continue to function as a correcting inertial guidance system for Mike's deviant efforts(;

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Deny reality all you like, it's not going to change the overwhelming weight of contemporaneous evidence that's been accumulated here.

Besides, David doesn't believe that CBM routed NGLA in 2 or 3 days on horseback either...ask him if you don't believe me. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

There is NO contemporary EVIDENCE.

Only unreliable, inaccurate newspaper accounts, relying on third party hearsay, that you falsely portray as being factual representations.

Charles Blair Macdonald told us what happened when he put pen to paper and memorialized the creation of NGLA in "Scotland's Gift".

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Nonsense.

We have contemporaneous "DIRECT QUOTES" from CBM appearing in multiple newspapers the DAY AFTER HE secured the property in December 1906, telling us EXACTLY what he is going to do with the land over the next few months.

His recollections over 20 years later were a few very brief paragraphs and I've already shown where he made errors in dates and some other minor details.  

The contemporaneous record is MUCH MORE detailed, much more compelling, and provides a MUCH fuller picture of what actually happened.

Now, it's possible that these quotes were from weeks or even months prior if CBM was indeed looking at the property for a few months, but in any regard, the scope of work remains the same no matter when it commenced.

Here it is, again;




David,

One interesting quote as we think about the timing of the surveying and clearing of the land is this one from CBM in his 1912 Founders Letter;

"I cannot speak too strongly of the work of Seth J. Raynor, civil engineer and surveyor, of Southampton.   In the purchase of our property, in surveying the same, in his influence with the community on our behalf, and in every respect, his services have been of inestimable value..."

Now, of course this isn't definitive, but it does suggest to me that Raynor may have been involved prior to securing the property.   What do you think?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

So far as I can tell those articles are entirely consistent with CBM's descriptions in Scotland's Gift.  Those articles are talking about detailed planning (as well as the creation of a detailed model of the course itself, which would be tough to do without a routing) not the initial rough routing of the course.   The ground had been studied and the initial rough routing of the course seems to have been done before the option was acquired, just as CBM presents it in the book.  

As to how much of the routing they figured out while on horseback for two or three days compared to how much they figured out while again carefully studying the land thereafter, it is impossible to say and largely irrelevant so far as I am concerned.   Either way, they found the golf course first and then shaped the purchase to the course.  

Also keep in mind that most of the information in those articles is prospective; it is about what they were apparently planning to do.  Whether they did exactly what they said they would do is another matter.

As for Scotland's Gift, it is true there are a few minor errors, but for the most part the book is remarkably accurate and it shouldn't be dismissed lightly.  If you continue to research these matters you will likely be surprised at how many contemporaneous accounts match what was written in Scotland's Gift exactly.

As for Raynor's involvement, I don't know for certain when he was hired or what for, but as I said it is entirely possible that it could have been when they were initially routing he course so as to determine what land to buy.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I think we're pretty close to agreement in most areas here, and I've learned much more than I knew previously so that's always good. 

There are still some open questions and of course, anyone can feel free to contribute other documents and information here as they are able, but I think it's been beneficial overall.

And I would wholeheartedly agree with you that CBM's book is remarkably accurate and well written, and I do marvel at his vision, chutzpah, fortitude, and persistence.   Certainly an inspirational story.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()