[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I guess I just have trouble keeping up with the standards here!

On the Myopia thread, if David told us once he told us a thousand times that similar newspaper articles that said the same thing from inside sources were "as good as it gets" as far as historical documentation, and remembrances from participants decades later shouldn't count for anything because they might have forgotten details.  We got beat up for even suggesting they be used or mentioned.

Now, both you and David cite CBM as the only source that counts, and you in particular are saying to dismiss those newspapers completely are a farce.

When someone figures out what standard I am supposed to use when deciding what to post, then please let me know.  The only thing that seems consistent is that one of you will argue that one mistake in a source completetly invalidates everything written in that source, rather than being a single mistake (in our opinions) which I always found to be a false premise. 

Oh, the other thing that is consistent is that I get the snot beat out of me by someone no matter what I say......and never seem to take the right position according to some, no matter how logical it seems to me.(insert smiley)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Did you just state that Max Behr was there WHEN the course was being routed?

NO, I DIDN'T.

What I said was that Behr was a contemporary, he played the course shortly after it opened, he was there.
And, he commented on the routing being self completing.

I think MIKE DELIBERATELY DELETED THE BEHR REFERENCE, that he originally posted

And now he claims the following:

What he wrote in 1915 has been COMPLETELY MISCONSTRUED and COMPLETELY MISINTERPETED on this and other threads.

Ok...the problem with quotes, while useful, is that they often are missing context.

[/u]


Mike, after posting all of those alleged quotes by CBM and others, now tells us, when those quotes don't suit his purpose, that they're often "taken out of context, completely misconstrued and completely misinterpreted"

It does't get more disengenuous than that.[/b]

That is the apparent meaning of your statement

"Apparent meaning" ?[/b]

"Jeff, this is where I really have a problem with your presentation and your reasoning. I didn't make the statement that the golf course routed itself.  MAX BEHR DID. He was there, he is eminenlty qualified, he made the statement, I merely quoted him.
I think Max Behr's credentials qualify him to make that judgement, don't you ? Max Behr declared that the course routed itself."


He was there, he played the course shortly after it opened, he spoke to Macdonald, he knew what he was talking about.
And, he wrote about it[/b]

Of course he wasn't there when the course was routed and please show me exactly when he was on the course even during the building process. What he wrote wasn't anywhere near as contemporaneous as the newspaper articles that Mike has produced in which CBM is quoted giving details of what was being done at that time.

When did Behr make the statement?


NO ONE, neither Mike or myself, stated that Behr was there when the course was routed.
I don't know how you come to that reading or conclusion.
Unless you're not reading the posts sequentially.

Mike posted the Behr citation.  Ask him.
But, I think he deleted the original citation, hence, unless he reposts it in its original form, it may be lost forever.
I'll try to find it..

[Jeff_Brauer]

This site is really educational. I didn't even know "disengenuous" was a word until these history threads started......nor did I know how common a trait it must be among us humans.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I think the disagreement is quite simply over the definition of the word "UNDETERMINED".

In this context you are defining it as: not yet contemplated. David and Patrick (and a mostly uninformed me as well) are defining it as not yet totally complete.

I would ask this...as I did during the Merion threads...why would CBM lock himself in to an area he wasn't sure he could use when he had the opportunity to take the time to become sure he was going to use it, and how he was going to use it?

Jim,

You've got it essentially, but I'd like to clarify one thing.  The source material makes no mention of the land for the golf course having been "undetermined" at the time the option was signed.  And it certainly makes no mention that "CBM [] formally signed papers to "secure" 205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available" as Mike Cirba falsely claims.   This is a blatant misrepresentation of the source material, as is this:  

"By all accounts, including CBM's in his book, the "Option" was for an "undetermined' 205 acres out of the 450 available, which would be determined AFTER CBM routed the course and staked out the holes and the exact boundary lines of the property."

By all accounts? Complete b.s.  Mike Cirba is just making things up. Again.    

NONE of the various accounts we've discussed say anything about CBM obtaining an option for an "undetermined" 205 acres out of 450 acres.  To the contrary, the land optioned is described with some degree of specificity.  Here is some of what CBM is quoted as saying about the land at the time the option was signed:  

"We have a stretch at out disposal of four acres in width and two miles long.  The exact lines will not be staked out until the committee has finished its plans, for latitude has been given to us in this respect, as all concerned want the course to be ideal."    

He is talking about a two mile stretch of property which was four acres wide.*  The land was also described in the articles a "strip."   He isn't talking about all 450 acres!   And CBM does not say that the option allowed him to choose any acres he wanted.  All he said was that the "exact lines" would not be staked out until they done planning. It sounds like he could adjust the boundaries, but there is nothing about him being able to choose any 205 acres out of the entire parcel!  He doesn't say that he had yet to determine the location or stake it out.  Only that it would not be finalized with exact lines until later.

Moreover, this wasn't just any two mile strip of land to be chosen anwhere in the 450 acres.  It was a specific strip of land.
- "Bullshead bay will be skirted for about one mile, and at the end of the point there is an opportunity to reproduce the famous short at St. Andrews."  But there are other opportunities as delightful --for instance, to duplicate the Redan hole at North Berwick."  When Whigham saw a certain knoll with me he cried out, "We will make a better Alps hole than at Prestwick.
- A modern in is being built within 200 or 300 yards of our first tee by modern interests.  
- At the narrow end of Bullshead Bay, where the promontory joins the mainland, is an opportunity for a perfect water hazard, to be arranged of varying widths so that while a strong driver with a following wind may attempt a 240 yard carry to the green, it will be possible to take a shorter angle to the fairgreen and get home in two.'

Yet these guys claim that, at this point, CBM hadn't gotten around to figuring out which 205 decided which of the 450 acres he would chose?  Impossible.    

According to these guys all that had happened before the option was that Whigham and CBM had ridden the property for a couple of days.  If so, then it was a hell of a few days!    At the very least they found the Cape, found the Alps, found the Eden, found the Redan, figured out that their first was close to the new Inn, knew the course was two miles long with about four acres width, knew it bordered Bullshead Bay for a mile.  Doing all that on the horseback ride sure doesn't jibe with Mike Cirba's  continued claims that the land was impenetrable, and that ll they had done on the horseback ride as look at the soil and determine that the 450 acres would generally be sufficient!

Indeed, this is one of the places Mike has painted himself into a corner.    He claims that when they rode the property, all they did was examine the soil and look at the general suitability of the land for golf.  Nothing about routing.  And he also claims that riding the property was all that happened before they optioned the land.  Taken together, these two claims are ridiculous, given the articles above.    These articles were written at the time they optioned the property, and they not only describe a substantial portion of the routing, they also describe the land they had optioned, and it was NOT an "undetermined" 205 acres out of the entire 450!

Also, if all that had happened was that CBM and HJW had ridden the property, then why do the articles state that "Emmett, Travis, Chauncey, Watson, and others" had already been over the land?  Why do the October articles state that CBM and HJW had already been over the site several times?  

A more reasonable explanation is that Cirba and Company are misreading Scotland's Gift.  There is no justification for pretending the chronology ends with "after which we staked out the land we wanted."    From there the chronology continues, with CBM first describing the land they had chosen, then writing that they optioned the property in November (really December) and purchased the property the following spring?   What would come after purchasing the property?   Developing the property, and that is precisely what CBM covers next.  They began developing the property.They needed topsoil for the impoverished soil.  At first they would try to do without a club house but after the fire they needed one and it turned out great.  

CBM then turned to the golf holes, and while he does again mention having found the Alps and Redan, this time he is focused on describing the actual golf holes, how he built them, and how they ended up better than there models.  This is not a rehash of the routing discussion, but a discussion of the actual holes as built.   And he discussed all of the golf holes based largely on the holes abroad and mentions all the others as either composites or originals.  It isn't just a rehash of the first few he found.  It isn't a routing discussion at all.  

Go back to Mike's outline.   He readily agreed that the routing took place when CBM and Whigham again studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes CBM had in mind.   Well read those articles.   This had already taken place by the time of the option.  They had studied the land and described the land they wanted.  
Compare his description of the land he found in Scotland's gift to his description of the land in those December articles.  It is THE SAME LAND:
- They found a place for the Alps, Redan, and Eden.  
- They "skirted Bull Head Bay for about a mile."  
- The first hole was to be near the Inn.

This description appears in both those articles at the time of the option and Scotland's gift.  So how can these guys argue that the land wasn't chosen at the time CBM acquired the option.   The articles were written at the time the option was obtained!  

___________________________________

[*One confusing aspect of CBM's description is that the property was two miles long by four acres wide.  The two miles makes sense.  Measuring along Peconic Bay, and then along Bullshead, and then to the first tee is almost exactly two miles.   But the width of the strip varies from around 200 yards to around 400 yards.  Acreage is a measure of area, not distance, so it makes no sense to speak of four acres length.  Rather than try to give an exact width of an inexact strip, he seems to have done some simple math based on the total acreage.  Were the land an actual rectangle two miles long and 205 acres total, the width would equal very close to four times the length of one side of one square acre (about 281 yards to about 278 yards.)   Not sure if this is right but it would perhaps explain the thought process.   Anyway this  doesn't quite work because the land is not a true rectangle, and the two miles is measured along the coast.]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your answers are so fricking delusional or obtuse, its not funny.

CBM told us he took an option in his own words, and it is you arguing that he didn't because it wouldn't be prudent. 

That's not true, on two accounts.
I clearly stated that CBM took an option in November 1906.
You want us to believe that he took the option before he located his holes and staked the property.
I maintain he took the option after he located the holes and staked the property.
Please, either read my replies more carefully, or,  have someone read my posts to you.[/b]

Or you are arguing he took it after the land was decided upon.

After he staked the property.[/b]

What reason would there be to do that? 

Because, only after it was staked and subsequently surveyed could it be defined and quantified, which in turn determined the acreage and lump sum purchase price.[/b]

Why not just buy it directly then?


Because the exact size (acreage) hadn't been determined.
Only AFTER it was staked, and subsequently surveyed, could the acreage be quantified, which in turn determined the lump sum purchase price at $ 200/acre[/b]

Obviously, I can't see the option agreement from 1906, nor am I a NY real estate lawyer or broker, but I don't believe the basic premise of an option has changed a lot, but it might vary.

Jeff, when you option land, you option a defined parcel, not some vague, undefined area.
If you don't know what land is specifically contained in the option, you can't option it.
The land has to be defined, and since that land had never been surveyed, they couldn't define the bounds, nor the exact size of the parcel, which would determine the final lump sum purchase price.   Once it was staked, Raynor surveyed it, which allowed them to option a precise tract, leading to the purchase of that exact tract.[/b]

While I would like to believe that CBM and Alvord might work on a handshake "back in the good old days" in some ways business was more informal, and in others, it was more formal than today.  But why speculate on how they did business when CBM told us he took an option?

I'll repeat this again because you either don't understand it, or don't want to understand it.
You can't option land that isn't defined, quantified and identified.
You option a specific parcel, not phantom acreage with undefined boundaries.
How do you determine the purchase price of a parcel of land if you can't determine the acreage of that parcel.
An option gives you the ability to purchase a specific parcel of land for a set amount of money.
It doesn't give you the abiliity to purchase an unknown quantity of land in an unknown location[/b]

As to Max, I have no doubt in his abilities.  The only question is your definition of short order.  CBM tells us how many days he spent on an intial visit, tells us he followed up,

and contemporaneous accounts tell us he had five months to finish it up, including that he started with the idea of 60 lots on the Sebonack site.  While I trust Scotland's Gift as a nice source, I don't think interpration of history is served by using only that, when other sources with more detail are available.  At the same time, relying on a second hand observation of Behr to make your points isn't as strong as using newspaper articles that quote CBM directly.

Contemporaneous accounts DO NOT tell us that.
The allege that.  Please tell me you understand the difference.
They are distant, third party accounts, flawed accounts that merely get repeated yet you, like Mike, attribute infallibility to them, despite the fact they they've been shown to be incorrect, time after time after time.  And, you yourself pointed out glaring mistakes in your reply # 347.

I'm content to rely on Macdonald's account rather than flawed, plagerized newspaper accounts.[/b]

In reality, I just don't see that big a difference in our opinions of what CBM wrote.  Its just that I see more than a few days in routing, especially if you include tweaking, and at a longer time frame than you want to imagine for your own agenda. 
And I think you are trying to argue away the option for reasons of your own, when CBM told us that is exactly what he did. 
If he says it, why do you insist he did it on a handshake?

Because they couldn't reduce an undefined parcel of land to a legal agreement, which is what an option is.
It gives one party the right to purchase a specified parcel of land/building that's legally defined.

How would Macdonald know he needed 205 acres if the land had never been surveyed ?
How would he know how much land he needed prior to staking the boundaries ?
How would he know how much land he needed BEFORE he located the sites for his ideal/classic holes ?
Remember, he had limited funds, $ 60,000.
Not even enough money to build a clubhouse, so money was at a premium.
Do you think he'd option and buy land he didn't need, depriving him of funds to build the golf course and a clubhouse ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I guess I just have trouble keeping up with the standards here!

On the Myopia thread, if David told us once he told us a thousand times that similar newspaper articles that said the same thing from inside sources were "as good as it gets" as far as historical documentation, and remembrances from participants decades later shouldn't count for anything because they might have forgotten details.  We got beat up for even suggesting they be used or mentioned.

Jeff, you'll have to take that up with David.

But, you yourself, pointed out in your reply # 347 that the newspaper article was seriously flawed.

The newspaper articles Mike posts, repetitively, are the same article, not independent articles, and, they contain the same errors.
You can't accept seriously flawed articles as "The Gospel" just for convenience, as Mike does.

Now, both you and David cite CBM as the only source that counts, and you in particular are saying to dismiss those newspapers completely are a farce.



Jeff, that's not true. I'm starting to question your motives or your memory.
I'm apt to dismiss them because one is merely a copy of another and they contain glaring errors.
You and especially Mike seem ready to embrace them, irrespective of their errors.

David doesn't claim CBM as the only source and has cited the newspaper articles, proving his point that the land was already determined, based on the descriptions in the articles which coincide with NGLA's boundaries.

David's response to Jim Sullivan is well reasoned and proves that the routing occured early on, using the very articles that Mike has posted ad naseum.


When someone figures out what standard I am supposed to use when deciding what to post, then please let me know. 
The only thing that seems consistent is that one of you will argue that one mistake in a source completetly invalidates everything written in that source, rather than being a single mistake (in our opinions) which I always found to be a false premise. 


Jeff, you can't claim that the newspaper articles are blatantly wrong, as you did in your reply $ 347, and then, in the next breath, cling to their infallibility.  You can't have it both ways.[/b]

Oh, the other thing that is consistent is that I get the snot beat out of me by someone no matter what I say......and never seem to take the right position according to some, no matter how logical it seems to me.(insert smiley)

Consider yourself lucky.
I know guys who say that about the way they bet/gamble, and worse yet, I know guys who say that about their home life/marriage.
Be happy it's amongst the guys on this website, where there are no real life repercussions (sp?)(;[/b]

[DMoriarty]

Here is the Aerial of NGLA.   The red line is one mile.  This was one mile of Bullshead Bay frontage mentioned in both the book and the articles.  The blue lines and red lines together equal just over two miles (2.1) which corresponds with the "two miles long" stretch mentioned in the newspaper articles.  Throw in all the holes mentioned, the Alps, Redan, Eden, Cape and the start and finish the course at the current 10th tee and 11th green, and tell me that they hadn't yet even begun to route the course yet!  Tell me they were still considering the all 450 acres.   Tell me that they had no idea of the routing at this point.  

In Mike's outline the option was obtained BEFORE they had begun studying the contours and placing the holes!  All they supposedly knew was that they could fit a course on 205 acres somewhere within the 450.   Yet they could describe the property and many of the holes?   Impossible.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I have a question for you.

CBM himself is quoted in multiple NY papers as saying that he was going to spend the next several months working with his committe to determine which holes to reproduce as well as their yardages and this happened after he secured the 205 undetermined acres.

Mike, it's the same article, printed over and over again.
It's NOT different accounts printed in multiple NY papers.
You're being intellectually dishonest AGAIN.
You offer the same article, printed multiple times, as independent contemporaneous articles when nothing could be further from the truth,
AND, those articles contain the same info, including the same mistakes, the same ERRORS IN FACT.
How can you continue the charade of claiming that these are indepedent reports when they're identical copies merely reprinted ?[/b]

Why don't you believe him?


Because these are ALLEGED quotes.  And, the quotes contain glaring errors that Macdonald would never make.
And, the quote you cited claims that the turf is fine, when we know it was horrible.
Macdonald tells us the land was impovershed and needed 10,000 loads of soil.
Yet, the articles (same article merely reprinted) claims the soil/turf was excellent.
[/b]

It's very clear that he's talking about the property he had just secured at Sebonac Neck...205 "undetermined" acres out of 450 available and he tells us exactly what his plans are in real time.

If it was undetermined, how would he know he needed 205 acres ?
Why not 120 ?    160 ?   180 ?
The land had never been surveyed, he had to ride ponies on it, so how did he ordane that he needed 205 acres as opposed to any other amount ?
[/b]

What is possibly unclear??

Max Behr's article talks about the process back then of securing enough land and then figuring out how to best fit 18 good golf holes on it as being the regular drill.   Why is that so preposterous that you can't buy a direct quote from CBM himself that this is what he was going to do?


What direct quote ?

Why did you erase the Behr quote you posted ?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Wow.

At the time of securing an undetermined 205 acres out of 450 available, CBM had it nailed down to a strip 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.

He had even identified his clubhouse, as well as features to use on 4 holes.

Sure sounds like a completed golf course routing to me!  

Bam...I'm sure from that exacting specificity the precise locations of all the eighteen greens and tees just spring like magic from CBM's fingertips.

I guess Pacific Dunes was completely routed when Mike Keiser told Tom Doak that he could have that stretch along the Pacific, and Riviera's routing was determined as soon as George Thomas decided to build within the canyon's confines??  

CBM roughly knew his start and end points when he selected the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, but so does EVERY GOLF COURSE EVER BUILT once a clubhouse site is determined.

He would have had to be foolish not to want to take his course down to the beauty of Peconic Bay, but that was 1.43 miles away, which dictated a longer, narrow swath.

Along the way, he had located a great hill for an Alps, a ridge for a redan nearby, and the inlet near Bulls Head Bay.

Big Fat Frigging Deal.   That's a golf course routing???

Thanks for proving my point, David.


Patrick,

Do you even read my posts, or the articles I've posted here?

They aren't the same articles in the least.   Of course, sometimes when someone is EXACTLY QuOTED it does come out the same!!

Here's two appearing in separate newspapers from December 15th.






These appeared on the Saturday following the Friday CBM signed the papers to secure the 205 acres.   On Monday this appeared in another paper;




Jim,

CBM originally approximated that he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course.

The Max Behr article confirms the thinking of the time that somewhere in the range of 110 acres was suffificent for an ideal course if it was properly configured.

CBM's previous rejected offer for 120 acres near the real estate component near the cancal PROVES that's what he thought he needed.

How does his securing 205 "undetermined" acres out of a 450 acre tract "box himself in"?

And how exactly does that equate to buying just the land you need for the golf course??

There hasn't been a more ridiculous attempt to equate some precise "hand in glove" fitting since OJ Simpson.    

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

What do you mean I erased the Behr quote?

Unlike others who posted it completely out of context here, yesterday I produced the entire article on which you and David are trying to base some assumption of CBM routing the course during a two-day horseback ride when it says nothing of the sort.

Here it is again.




And Patrick...have you even read the articles on this thread??  Or CBM's book???   Seriously??

Because if you had, you'd KNOW that CBM had been looking for 205 acres since 1904!!!

You should go back and read them instead of just assuming you know everything there is to know about CBM and NGLA and just taking a contentious, combative approach to everything written here because you're starting to appear very biased and a bit foolish at times and you're better than that.

Here's how it worked.

110 estimated acres for the golf course

5 acres for the clubhouse and surrounds

1.5 acre lots for each of the 60 Founders

Voila...205 acres.

It is repeated in the Founders Agreement, and in article after article.   Whigham himself repeated the plan to include Founders lots in  article HE WROTE in 1906.

They thought they had it down to a science....

Course around 6100 yards

Fairways average 50-55 yards

etc., etc. etc...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

This article from March 1906 shows why I said CBM had "cash in hand".

If he had already completed a routing for the golf course he wouldn't have had to "secure" 205 "undetermined" acres in December 1906.

He could have just proceeded to purchase and not had to wait several months until sometime in Spring of 1907 to complete the deal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Wow.

At the time of securing an undetermined 205 acres out of 450 available, CBM had it nailed down to a strip 4 acres wide and 2 miles long.

He had even identified his clubhouse, as well as features to use on 4 holes.

Sure sounds like a completed golf course routing to me!  

If you understood the error in the measurement of width, and the long narrow strip, with it's border constraints, and the siting of various holes, you would realize that on an OUT and BACK routing, by default, the routing was complete.

If you take a chain, with 18 links and you configure it out and back, with the 9th and 10th links being at the extreme end of the OUT and BACK configuration, the holes naturally fall into place.  And, when you site some of the individual links, like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th,10th, 11th, 12th and 13th, the routing is pretty much set in stone.  Then, when you add the 8th, 16th and 17th, all his primary template holes, the routing is done.

With his fixed starting and finishing points, his defined boudary to the East, his water boundaries to the East and North, and just four (4) holes, the 4th, 5th, 12th and 13th, the routing is complete.[/b]

Bam...I'm sure from that exacting specificity the precise locations of all the eighteen greens and tees just spring like magic from CBM's fingertips.


The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing.
We know that greens and tees were moved subsequently.
But, the routing is clearly there.  That a hole was 340 or 350 or 360 is of little significance to the overall routing.[/b]

I guess Pacific Dunes was completely routed when Mike Keiser told Tom Doak that he could have that stretch along the Pacific, and Riviera's routing was determined as soon as George Thomas decided to build within the canyon's confines??

I can understand your desire to create a false/flawed analogy.  You're getting desperate again.
Your own newspaper articles prove the existance of a quick and early routing.
Doak and Thomas had a different task, they were burdened with individual hole designs on a far different piece of property.
CBM had no such constraint.  He had already designed his holes, he had only to place them on the land, which wasn't a diffucult task.
As to the property, NGLA was a long, very narrow, OUT and BACK strip of land, where the routing completed itself. 
It started about 200 yards from the Shinnecock Inn, hugged the Shinnecock Golf Course property, then Bulls Head Bay, then Peconic Bay, and then returned to the starting point.  It was self completing, especially with the location of just 4 ideal/classic holes.[/b]

CBM roughly knew his start and end points when he selected the Shinnecock Inn as his clubhouse, but so does EVERY GOLF COURSE EVER BUILT once a clubhouse site is determined.

CBM had an even greater advantage, he knew where both his clubhouses would be.
And, he knew that his holes were going to hug the Eastern border of his property until they reached Peconic Bay, and then simpley return to his starting point.  As Behr stated, the course routed itself.[/color

He would have had to be foolish not to want to take his course down to the beauty of Peconic Bay, but that was 1.43 miles away, which dictated a longer, narrow swath.

I'm glad you finally agree, 9 holes out to Peconic Bay, 9 holes back to the Shinnecock Inn.
The course routed itself.
You're just about the only one who doesn't understand that.
Let me correct myself, you're the only one who does NOT want to understand that because, as you stated, your agenda is:[/b]

Mike Cirba
Instead, my agenda has been to show that CBM WOULD not have routed a course in a day's effort like the early British pros before him. That is very much to his credit, and a fundamental reason why NGLA is so monumentally great.

Along the way, he had located a great hill for an Alps, a ridge for a redan nearby, and the inlet near Bulls Head Bay.

Big Fat Frigging Deal.   That's a golf course routing???

It is when you have an 18 link chain that goes OUT and BACK and you've cited just four (4) holes, # 4, # 5, # 13 and # 14.
Take a chain, of any length, lay it out so that both ends are located at the same spot, then stretch it out as far as it will go, AND, You have your routing.  It's that easy.  And, it's made even easier when four of the links are sited.[/b]

Patrick,

Do you even read my posts, or the articles I've posted here?

Every one[/b]

They aren't the same articles in the least.  
Of course, sometimes when someone is EXACTLY QuOTED it does come out the same!!

First you tell us that they're not the same articles in the least.
Then you tell us they're exactly the same.

And, you don't know if Macdonald was quoted, you can ONLY allege that he's quoted.

Further, why would Macdonald state that the land had "fine turf" when in fact Macdonald himself wrote that the land was impoverished and needed 10,000 LOADS of soil.

Obviously, the article is seriously flawed, and, Macdonald, knowing full well that the land was lousy, wouldn't misrepresent such a critical issue.
So, your newspaper articles, which are the same artilce, parroted over and over and over again, aren't multiple sources, they're merely copies of a flawed article.[/b]

Here's two appearing in separate newspapers from December 15th.






These appeared on the Saturday following the Friday CBM signed the papers to secure the 205 acres.  

Once again, you're wrong, and the articles are wrong.
You state that the articles indicate that CBM signed for 205 acres, but, the articles claim he signed for 200 acres.
AND, both articles state that, proving what I've said to you all along, that these artlcles are seriously flawed when it comes to the facts, and that these articles are merely reprints of one another, not independent articles crafted by independent, first party research.

You continually present repetitive, seriously flawed articles and try to pawn them off as legitimate representations of the facts, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, my question to you, don't you even read your own articles, or do you just post whatever Joe and others supply you without exercising a modicum of due diligence ?[/b]



On Monday this appeared in another paper;




Jim,

CBM originally approximated that he'd need about 110 acres for his golf course.
The Max Behr article confirms the thinking of the time that somewhere in the range of 110 acres was suffificent for an ideal course if it was properly configured.
CBM's previous rejected offer for 120 acres near the real estate component near the cancal PROVES that's what he thought he needed.
How does his securing 205 "undetermined" acres out of a 450 acre tract "box himself in"?
And how exactly does that equate to buying just the land you need for the golf course??
There hasn't been a more ridiculous attempt to equate some precise "hand in glove" fitting since OJ Simpson.    


If you understood the configuration of the property, and if you paid attention to Bryan Izatt's and David Moriarty's measurements, you would understand why he needed 205 acres.

The problem is, you do NOT want to understand because it undermines your stated agenda which I posted above[/b]

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm sorry, but 4 = 18 does not compute.  

In fact, he doesn't even tell us he's found four complete holes end-to-end...just a big hill for the Alps, an adjacent redan hole, an inlet for an Eden, and the Cape.

I'm glad that retrospectively you see his task as so easy as to be almost self-evident, but I don't think you are giving CBM nearly enough credit for what he did there.

As regards your earlier contention that CBM's quote about the "good turf" and "sandy sub-soil" showing that the articles must be flawed, your argument is with Macdonald, not with me.

Why do you think CBM started construction in spring of 1907 and the course didn't open "informally" until OVER THREE YEARS LATER in summer 1910??

It's because CBM miscalculated.

He thought he had great sandy soil for growing grass, just like in the Old Country.

Unfortunately, that was not the case.

As described in George Bahto's "The Evangellist of Golf" on page 66, "Disaster on the Green 1907-1908";

"He discovered there was far less loam in the sandy soil of Long Island than there was in "similarly situated areas of Scotland and England."   A seedbed needed to be established to properly germinate rather than just dispersing seed on the ground.   The light sandy soil on Long Island was "ideal for playing the game", but was much more difficult for growing fine grasses than that of similar situations in the British Isles."

It's a great book, Patrick...you should definitely get a copy.

[Andy Hughes]

In the map David posted with the red and blue lines, where would the Shinnecock Inn have been located exactly?

[Mike Cirba]

"The exact specificity of the greens and tees is not critical to the overall routing." - Patrick Mucci

Patrick,

If that is your definition of a golf course routing, then it's no wonder that Jeff Brauer and I don't agree with you in the least.

It's ALL about the exact specificity of the greens and tees.

It's ALL about locating 18 of each at specific points on the property that make sense individually and collectively.

It's ALL about how they flow together, complement each other, and create a diverse yet consistent, contiguous challenge that captures the golfer's imagination, spirit, and interest.

It's ALL about how they utilize the best natural features of the property, and tie into the overall surrounds and aesthetic of the individual site.

No wonder we can't agree here.


As regards the amount of land CBM was looking to purchase for his dual goals of golf course and Founders Lots, please see the following;

CBM's 1904 Founders Agreement Letter;






HJ Whigham writing about the plan in March 1906;




CBM's return from abroad in June 1906;





Patrick...he wanted just over 200 acres before he even found the Sebonac Neck property.

This couldn't be clearer.

[Mike Cirba]

Andy,

Slightly above the "E" in "Google" in the lower right portion of the aerial.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yeah, it is sometimes difficult to comprehend all the time frames from way back then, as we tend to compress things.  In essence, the article was quoting CBM at the time, who was mistaken, so the article was mistaken.

Going back to a point I made earler, if CBM got back in June, and took a month or more to find and make the canal site offer, it would be August 1 or so before he even started looking at the Neck.  Assuming David and Patrick are right, and that most of the work (and I think some of it was done, as you just noted) then it was still a 4 month period of work until the option was taken.  If it was done in days, what exactly would take so long to secure the option?

And, if any issues were still left that occupied the Nov-May time frame, then there were nine months of potential routing time, although we have no idea how much of it was actually used on the routing issues, and how much on other practical and related issues.

And, for that matter, look at Merion - from June 1910 until April 1911 to approve the final routing with CBM, totaling about 10 months from first looking at the property and deciding what parts to use to starting construction.  Funny, but June 1906 to May 1907 sounds like the exact same time frame to me!

But I agree that I think Patrick and I (and you) look at routing differently.  He may draw the line of a completed routing at a rough sketch form, with tees moving several yard to achieve distances, exact green sites still subject to wiggle, etc.  While all those things can happen right up until grass seed is dropped, I tend to fix the end of routing after about 90-95% of the wiggle is taken out.  And, none of us knows when or even if CBM gave a horses petute about defining the end of routing and the beginning of detail design.  IMHO, given the link to specific yardages of his ideal holes, it would be further down the line than Patrick's terminology, but then again, its not worth arguing about among friends, either.

[Andy Hughes]

(thanks Mike)

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

In CBM's book he makes it sound like he made an offer on the Canal site a few weeks after Alvord bought the property from a British concern, which would have been in the late 1905 timeframe.

I'm not sure if his recollection is correct, but this would have been BEFORE he made his last trip abroad for several months to study holes and draw sketches and have surveyor's maps made.

In either case, your correct that this process, by definition, took much longer than the 2-3 days on horseback and CBM himself tells us that in his book.

It's a ridiculous argument at this point, where solid, detailed, quote-filled, concurrent, contemporaneous news articles are being challenged as meaningless.

CBM himself told us how this process happened, as it was happening, and consistent with what he later wrote in his book.

These guys just don't like his message because it doesn't fit their agenda that CBM would route a course in a day in their desperate, illogical attempts to credit him with authorship of Merion.

He was the antithesis of that approach, and frankly, it's an insult to his meticulous, calculated, detailed, careful, painstaking style to suggest otherwise.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Now that you mention it, I think you are right on that time frame.  My bad.

As I mentioned above, IF CBM routed Merion, it didn't happen in a day, because his letter to Gates tells us he didn't have the topo in front of him. I never had the impression that this was David's contention anyway, just that he had it routed before Nov. 15, 1910 site plan presented to the members.  Again, that is a five month time period, IF it happened that way, nine if we count his known involement in selecting the final routing in April 1911, just before construction (or just after if we count some of the land clearing going on)

I think its only Patrick that is really saying the one day theory, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves him, unless he is saying CBM routed it while at the NGLA site visit by the committee over the weekend, or in the one day when he came back to select from among five committee plans.  But, since we know he considered it in both March and April, that is still a month time frame.    Maybe he is from Venus and I am from Mars or some such, bu it all makes no sense to me.

Either way, one project does not necessarily equate  to another, so any similarities or differences can be easily explained by detailed circumstances different among each.

On the other hand, I can see exactly where DM comes from on his logic tree, and his reasons for thinking it was probably done before those newspaper articles, but as usual, there are just enough conflicting reports that we are back to the old "which one is more reliable" arguments, and we all seem to value them a bit differently.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

If David doesn't agree with Patrick on his 2-day horseback ride routing over an unsurveyed site only navigable via pony, which I know he doesn't, he should simply say so in the interest of advancing the discussion.

In fact, he won't answer that question.

Ask him yourself...I have...multiple times here but he ducks it every time.

And since I know he doesn't beieve it he should simply stop trying to defend Patrick's argument with the type of nonsense he posted last night where he tries to equate the mention of a few natural features for template holes into a completed routing.

While you're at it, ask him if he agrees with Patrick that those news articles misquoted CBM when he said he was going to spend the next five months deciding on the holes to reproduce as well as their yardages.

All that had been decided by the time that CBM secured 205 "undetermined" acres in December 1906 was;

1) The vague general outlines of the purchase, stretching from Shinnecock Inn to Peconic Bay and back

2) Natural features for an Alps, an adjacent Redan, and Eden, and a Cape.

The rest of the holes, their placement, which templates would fit...their yardages...ALL of that was to be worked out later.

You know it, David knows it, I know it....only Patrick remains convinced by mythology of his own making.

It would just make it much easier to continue discussion if David would finally just tell Patrick he's wrong, because I know David believes it.

[JESII]

It's always difficult to jump back in to these conversations after 20 hours because alot gets posted in the interim so I'll just jump in where you are now.

For the purposes of this discussion, why is it not obvious that neither Pat or I are arguing that every detail of the course was identified and planned at the time of the December option purchase? All we are saying is that he knew well enough where each hole would go to draw a line around the perimeter. This may diminish your interpretations of the term routing, but that's it. I've read numerous times on here of architects routing a course from a topo map prior to seeing the property...how could spending 2 or 3 days on the property be less informative?

Another question...what about the site NGLA currently occupies would need to be surveyed in order to determine if golf could be played there? The lack of it being surveyed is held up as a major impediment to their efforts, why would that slow him down from identifying whether or not a course could be developed?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

The short answer is, why don't you believe what CBM himself said he was going to do as a routing process AFTER he secured the 205 acres?   He said the next several months would be spent determining which holes to reproduce and the yardages of those holes.

How is that not routing??

Determining land is viable for a golf course is not routing a golf course on that land.

That's why he left himself plenty of room, latitude, and undetermined boundaries.

[JESII]

Let me go find his exact quote to dissect it for you.

I believe his words, as with Behr's, indicate alot had been done prior to the option...although I agree it's an interpretation difference you and I are sure to have.

Be back...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim and Mike,

The best argument for the routing being pretty well set is the comment about seeing the Alps and turning around to find a natural Redan.  I believe those comments refer to actions before Nov 1906, don't they?  The Cape hole would be obvious, too, and is mentioned in the articles.  That is why I can see David contending that with the east boundary naturally defined, and the west mid boundary roughed out because of those holes, and the out and back nature of the rest, a lot of the boundary had to be close by the time of the option.  I get it, I really do.

So, again, its semantics as to what is routing, and a question of just how close those holes were to being located finally, etc.  Thus, my contention that those template holes were found, and in sufficient number for CBM to know this site was workable.  I have to reread the articles again, but I believe there is some mention of finding the non template holes yet to be done.  Again, while fascinating, I don't doubt that the routing was a continuous process and some of the legal things, like options, may or may not have had an effect on the actual design and design process, which of course is our biggest area of concern.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()