The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I'm already feeling entitled to it.

I wouldn't be surprised that he liked the idea of an out and back routing.  Nor surprised if he wanted some water frontage u on the bay, etc.  Nothing would surprise me at this point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

As I once relayed, I recall being on a jury where part of our verdict was a result of not liking the lawyers style, which is too factual.  Doesn't sound right, but bedside manner (to mix metaphors) is everything.

To sum up, I agree with many of your points. I asked Mike a few direct questions and got varying answers.  As he has said he is trying to flesh out an opinion on some vague notion that the wording in those articles bothers him.  He is likely wrong.  I

MHO, when he makes a smart remark to you, he is saving face, but he is not necessarily lying.  
That is simply you and Patrick applying negative motives to him, based on past animosities. Just my take.

I have NO past animosities with Mike.
I've had him as my guest at GCGC, welcomed him to Mountain Ridge and would play with him anytime.
You're wrong on your attibution.

Here's what Mike stated in the face of the following information.
Maps and NYSS documents bearing the dates of 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907 reference the existance of the North Highway.
We know that the Shinnecock Inn that unfortunately burned down was located on the North Highway.
But, here's what Mike declared in reference to the North Highway in 1914:


That shouldn't be surprising....here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.

If that isn't disingenuous in the face of overwhelming documented evidence, I don't know what is.
You called it lying, disingenuous seems more apt.




At times, I have wondered if it was actually west of the canal, which also seemed to have less development plans.  [/size]

I think that's a possibilty based on the claim that you could see the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

You have to admit that map from 1914 doesn't show the north highway.  While taken in the totality of documents produced before and after it probably is wrong, but given that maps are intended to be correct, I can see Mike forming an impression that there was no road there from this.

But, it really doesn't matter.  It seems pretty clear to me that the development of the whole area- roads, lots, NGLA was booming and going on simultaneously at the same time in 1906.  When CBM offered to buy 120 acres of land from the Realty Co, we simply don't know how much he knew about their plans, the plans of the state highway dept, etc.  If we presume he was not totally informed of such, and why would he be, then the discussion on how right or wrong Mike's attempt to find out where that land was is irrelevant, other than if you and he just happen to like to argue about things.

When I said you had past animosities with Mike, I was thinking only of the Merion threads, and not in the real world.  The fact remains, that it is Jim Kennedy, then you, then David, who in quick succession starting in post 62 informed the world of "Mikes agenda" and in very sinister tones at that! 

What I have never understood is how either you or he thinks that what happened at NGLA means that something must have happened at Merion.  I have read all there is on both time lines.  There are some similarities, there are some differences. To quote the kids today....Well D'uh!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You have to admit that map from 1914 doesn't show the north highway. 

Jeff, not only does it not show the North Highway, but, it doesn't show any other road in the entire South Fork, but one.
Would you call that being disingenuous ?

Here's a map from less than two years later.
Do you think these roads all sprung up between 1914 and 1916 ?
1916 Suffolk County Atlas Map


Do you think the advertisements for the Shinnecock Inn, dated 1907 were giving potential guests misleading directions.

Here is a map from the 1907 Automobile Blue Book.  I've placed a blow up of the area in question in the upper right corner.   
   

Anyway, here are depictions of the Shinnecock Inn and the Irving Hotel in Southampton, both from the same publication. These weren't exactly frontier shacks.


Jeff, please, you're far more intelligent than that.
You're defending an indefensible act.
I truely believe that you need to consult with my eye doctors about your blind spot.

While taken in the totality of documents produced before and after it probably is wrong, but given that maps are intended to be correct, I can see Mike forming an impression that there was no road there from this.

YIKES, you really can't believe that in the face of the abundance of the source documentation that preceeded Mike's claim

But, it really doesn't matter.  It seems pretty clear to me that the development of the whole area- roads, lots, NGLA was booming and going on simultaneously at the same time in 1906. 

Jeff, if you'll drive out and spend some time in that area, you'll see that it's not "booming" today and it wasn't "booming" 105 years ago.

When CBM offered to buy 120 acres of land from the Realty Co, we simply don't know how much he knew about their plans, the plans of the state highway dept, etc. 

CBM was a member of Shinnecock Hills, he was familiar with the area.
The land he sought was strictly to site his 18 ideal/classic holes.
That it was 120 acres seemed incidental, evidently he felt is was adequate to suit his purpose of siting those 18 holes.
It was a stroke of luck that the company turned him down, as the current site seems to be exponentially superior to any site near the canal, East or West.,

If we presume he was not totally informed of such, and why would he be, then the discussion on how right or wrong Mike's attempt to find out where that land was is irrelevant, other than if you and he just happen to like to argue about things.

Jeff, whenever a crime is commited, one of the first things the investigators look for is MOTIVE.
When you have a motive, often you're on your way to solving the crime.
Here, the crime is a pre-determined agenda, one that Mike's stated.
So, my purpose in participating isn't to debate/argue, although I do enjoy it, it's to prevent an attempt to revise history to fulfill a pre-determined agenda, an agenda that 's rooted in Merion, not NGLA.

I hope you understand that.

And, I do forgive you for all the insulting things you said about me.
Unlike others, I can compartmentalize easily and don't take passionate, heated, contentious debates to heart.

You may not remember it, but I had very contentious debates with Tom MacWood and David over Merion.
I since changed my opinion based on their ongoing presentations.
I had heated debates with Tom MacWood over Aronomink and Seminole.
But, like at a committee or Board meeting, where passionate, heated, contentious debates take place, once the vote it taken, we all go back to being fellow members and friends,

And so it is with GCA.com.
I've had heated debates with a good number of people with whom I retain good ongoing relationships.
Including Darth Morrissett.
Is that a helmet he's wearing or just a bad haircut.

Although, I've recently gained a new respect for certain aspects of his "game"

When I said you had past animosities with Mike, I was thinking only of the Merion threads, and not in the real world.  The fact remains, that it is Jim Kennedy, then you, then David, who in quick succession starting in post 62 informed the world of "Mikes agenda" and in very sinister tones at that! 

But Jeff, Mike confirmed my allegation when he stated his agenda.
You can't fault me for being right ..............again 

What I have never understood is how either you or he thinks that what happened at NGLA means that something must have happened at Merion. 

Jeff, Mike is trying to prove that CBM couldn't have routed Merion in short order if he couldn't route NGLA in short order.
He's stated that, you must have missed it.
This is ALL about MERION
That' was Mike's agenda from the begining.
I'm surprised you missed it.

 I have read all there is on both time lines.  There are some similarities, there are some differences. To quote the kids today....Well D'uh!

[DMoriarty]

David,

Well, I have seen it happen all ways.  Not just talking about this specific incident, but in general, when we attack, others defend.

None here are perfect, but not every fault is shared equally among us, either. You won't find me repeatedly posting false information or circling back again and again to re-cover discredited information.   That is Mike's game, and it impedes any real progress.

In some ways, I think Pat is defending his tenuous quick routing theory because I keep saying its false, for example.  I do understand what he is saying, once the parameters were set, but disagree with his phrasing.  Anyway, I think most of the length of these threads comes to that, on all sides.

Patrick has been in and out of various threads, but before this one I don't think he had any idea what it was like to have to deal with Mike over the entirety of one of these long threads.  I think this experience has shocked, dismayed, and disappointed him. So it should be no surprise that he is wary of every claim and that he has his hackles up and is ready to battle.

As for your particular battle with Patrick I haven't paid it much attention.  Last I checked, Patrick generally agreed with me that the course was routed during the 2-3 horseback ride as well as the ensuing period during which they again studied the contours in earnest, and that this process took place before they took a formal option on the property.  Just like it says in Scotland's Gift. Within those rough constraints I don't think you, Patrick, or any of us knows exactly when CBM had located every hole or when he had figured enough that we would call it a routing, and I don't think it matters much, at least not to me.  Mike is the one who has repeatedly tried to make this about whether there was a one day routing, but that is only because he mistakenly believes it helps his Merion argument.

I don't know why historical trivia is so fascinating, but I like to know the backstory.  Your theory that he just went and asked for 120 acres for just golf in the area to be developed as opposed to a specific 120 acres he had scouted is as good an explanation as any, and would fit all the known facts and fits the CBM narrative, especially if we accept the Sept pony ride from Whigham as suggesting the whole acquisition scenario played out rather quickly after June 2006.  It might explain the rather broad land desriptions in those  articles that confuse Mike, no?

First, I wouldn't call it my theory. I was just pointing out that it was a possibility, as it is a possibility that he wanted a specifically defined piece of land near the canal, and everything in between those two.

Second, I don't think this changes any of the analysis about the description in those October articles.  While CBM did not nail down the location, CBM did tell us he didn't want to be next to SHGC and that he offered to buy land "near the canal." And he made these representations in the context of wanting to buy land on the 2000+ acres of land controlled by SHPBRC, and that land ran from the canal to just past SHGC.  The canal was as far away from SHGC as he could get on that property.  Within the context of his description it would make no sense for him to have described the area adjacent to the Shinnecock as "near the Canal."

Third, Whigham said the ride was 1907, not 1906. Even if it was 1906, we have no way of knowing how long they had been working on the project prior to that ride.  You seem to be assuming that this must have been the initial ride(s) but Whigham doesn't say that.   And even if it was the initial ride on the Sebonack Neck property, that doesn't really tell us the timing of the Canal property.

I like to know the backstory as well, but only if it is knowable from the source material.  Unless some more information comes forward about the Canal property, all we will know is what CBM told us; he wanted to be far away from SHGC and he tried to buy property near the Canal, which was as far away as he could get from SHGC on that large parcel. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I'm again shocked by your position and/or reasoning.

You cite the 1907 Shinnecock Inn add as evidence for the recent creation of the New North Highway.

If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway.

The same highway that appeared in maps dated 1873, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1907 along with the 1906 New York State Senate citation of the highways existance.

How much longer are you going to continue to brainlessly insist that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 and earlier.

Talk about being disingenuous 

[Phil_the_Author]

.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Three questions for you:

1.  What do you think the orange, black and dotted black roads are called on the 1916 Atlas map?  Hint, the orange ones (including the North Highway) are "Improved or Good Roads".

2.  Can you please draw on the 1903 USGS map where the "North Highway" from 1916 is?

3.  Could you mark for us on the 1903 USGS map where you think the underpass on the "North Highway" mentioned in the Senate document was?

David,

Thanks for the 1907 map.  Why do you think that the road as portrayed on it was not on the 1903 and 1905 maps?

Andy,

Interesting.  It's from 1913.  Have you mapped it?  It seems to start and SH and go west.

Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

About the hot development of Shinnecock Hills, the 1916 map indicates maybe a couple of dozen estate lots.  It doesn't say whether there were houses on them or not.  In any event they would have been summer homes for the most part.  It doesn't seem likely that there was heavy development of either homes or supporting infrastucture.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac...I'd be happy to list the points I'm trying to make here, but more than anything, I'm trying to show that;

1) The design and creation of NGLA was a lengthy, painstaking process.   It was not routed in two days on horseback, nor does the history suggest that it was in any way, shape, or form.

To my knowledge no one is disputing the creation of the NGLA was a long process. It is one the great stories in golf architecture history. From the best hole discussion to the decision to build the ideal course in America to organizing a syndicate to going abroad studying and seeking advice to searching for and purchasing the property to laying out and building, etc. It is a well documented story, to say the least. Why does it matter if the course was routed in two days or a week? The majority of courses in that era were routed in short order.

2) I'm trying to pin down the timeline of events as they happened.

You don't like CBM's timeline in his book?

3) I'm trying to locate where some other sites may have been that CBM looked at first, and/or where he made his first rejected offer.

The 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay?

4) I'm trying to show that the design effort was a collaborative one, involving Whigham, Emmet, Travis, and Hutchinson, at minimum.

Is this a new development? He wrote that in his book and in the club prospectus. Are you under the impression CBM get too much credit for the design of the NGLA?

5) I'm trying to show that CBM did not secure just the land he thought he needed for golf, but instead bought considerably more than that, and had plans for building lots for the Founders that went by the wayside sometime between planning and production.

Good luck. Even after 1000 posts the proof for this theory still appears to be allusive.

6) I'm trying to show CBM's evolution in thinking from 18 template holes to a few reporductions and mostly what CBM called composite holes, with some originals.

Everything I have read suggests he was most interested in identifying the best most interesting features on the great courses of the world. He wrote that the drawings he made were not necessarily depicting a particular hole tee to green, but were in most instances drawings of the outstanding feature of a given hole. No doubt he understood trying to find the perfect contours to reproduce a given hole would be very difficult, and finding the perfect land to reproduce 18 holes would be impossible. He was very bright man who sought out the brightest minds for advice.

7) I'm trying to show that CBM's routing was somewhat dictated by his choice of a clubhouse at Shinnecock Inn and the desire to get to the bay for a yacht park.

They identified the 205 acres they wanted prior to November 1906 (I don't know when the Inn built or planned to be built), and I'm sure there were numerous considerations at the time they determined what particular 205 acres they would purchase, including potential clubhouse site and access to the bay, but the golfing attributes were obviously the most important consideration. As far as the routing is concerned the most important factor was the narrowness of the site, which dictated, more or less, an up and back routing. I don't think CBM would have purchased such a narrow property had he not known, generally speaking, how the course was to be laid out.

Basically, I'm trying to tell the story as it happened with contemporaneous articles and documents, mostly in CBM's words.

I'm not sure why David and Patrick want to argue with CBM but that's what they've been doing...you'll have to ask them.

You don't like the story CBM told in his book?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway"

And my local hospital has a place to view the "oldborns" right next to the viewing window for the "newborns.".....

Sometimes, new is just new, especially when cars had just been invented a few years prior.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I'm surprised you seem so reluctant to pursue any open questions here, especially those that are conflicting between CBM's account over 20 years later and contemporaneous reports of the time, including direct quotes from the man as well as his 1912 Letter to the Founders.

CBM did not have to choose a narrow strip of land...he had 450 available acres to choose from, including much of the land of today's Sebonack GC along Peconic Bay, so nobody was forcing him to do anything.   However, I would argue he was a bit hamstrung by his choice to use Shinnecock Inn as the clubhouse (in his book he tells us that it was because they did not have money for a clubhouse initiallly), and his desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing.   THOSE DECISIONS more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal.

For instance, CBM tells us he opened his course and held his first informal Invitational Tournament in 1909, when it was clearly documented that it happened in 1910.   CBM tells us the 450 acres had never been surveyed, but it was years earlier.

So, I don't see your problem with us looking at these questions?   Did you know Walter Travis was still involved as late as 1908 for instance?

[Mike Cirba]

David/Patrick,

I realize that the two of you are simply trying to rattle me with your now pages worth of accusations of lying.

It won't happen.

But I'm calling bullshit on the two of you.   Complete, utter, extraneous, insulting, non-productive bullshit.

The both of you are full of it from head to toe here.   With David, it's the usual stuff and it doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm disappointed at Patrick who I like and respect a great deal.

Yes, at times my SPECULATION on what may have happened on questions NONE of US has answers to has changed in light of new facts or evidence presented, but lying?   Give us a fucking break.

So. you two bullshitters;

Tell us precisely what LIES I've told.    Enough of your stupid, childish games.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"If the 1907 ad for the Shinnecock Inn referenced the NEWNorth Highway, that meant that there had to be an OLDNorth Highway"

And my local hospital has a place to view the "oldborns" right next to the viewing window for the "newborns.".....

Sometimes, new is just new, especially when cars had just been invented a few years prior.

So, the 1906 New York State Senate documents, citing the North Highway were a fraud, a fabrication ?

Jeff, it's better to lose an argument to me than look foolish, if not stupid, which is the direction you're rapidly heading.

The overwhelming body of evidence, from the 1700's to 1873 to 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906 and 1907 clearly establishes the existance of the North Highway before 1914, when Mike Cirba insisted that it didn't exist.

But, if you want to continue to lose credibility and intellectual respect, keep insisting that the road didn's exist until post 1914.

I tell my kids that being stubborn can be an asset, but, that there are two kinds of stubborn, "smart" stubborn and "stupid" stubborn.
You've become Exhibit "A" for "stupid" stubborn.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

The "North Highway" in 1906 was a dirt road, and it ran much closer to the railroad tracks and away from Cold Spring Bay than in Olmstead's later plan.

It was so miniscule and untravelled that even in later iterations it didn't appear on a map of paved "highways" of Long Island in 1914.   As seen, the South Highway south of the railroad tracks DID appear on that map,

It would NOT have affected any hypothetical plans CBM might have had to build a course between Shiinnecock Inn and the Inlet of Cold Spring Bay.

Where do YOU think CBM was looking for golf as he checked out "Various Sections" between Peconic Bay and Shinnecock HIlls?

Where do YOU think CBM was looking to build a golf course near the Canal separating Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David/Patrick,

I realize that the two of you are simply trying to rattle me with your now pages worth of accusations of lying.

It won't happen.

But I'm calling bullshit on the two of you.   Complete, utter, extraneous, insulting, non-productive bullshit.

The both of you are full of it from head to toe here.   With David, it's the usual stuff and it doesn't bother me in the least, but I'm disappointed at Patrick who I like and respect a great deal.

Yes, at times my SPECULATION on what may have happened on questions NONE of US has answers to has changed in light of new facts or evidence presented, but lying?   Give us a fucking break.

So. you two bullshitters;

Tell us precisely what LIES I've told.    Enough of your stupid, childish games.

Let's start with this one.
After seeing the North Highway on maps, some of which you posted, dated 1903, 1904, 1905, 1907, along with the 1906 New York State Senate documents, You stated
that as of 1914 the North Highway wasn't in existance.
Here's your quote;

here's a Highway Map from 1914 and it still wasn't in existence as only the South Highway was built.


That was a blatant lie.
You know it and I know it.
Only Jeff Brauer remains in "stupid" stubborn denial on the existance of the North Highway prior to 1914 .

In your post to Tom MacWood, I believe you made a mistake.
The 450 acres at Sebonac Neck hadn't been "surveyed".
There's a distinct difference between a "survey" and a "topo" and the two shouldn't be confused.

In your zeal to discredit Macdonald's ability to route a course in short order, you made reckless leaps of logic that went beyond reason.
You posted articles that were flawed, yet, you held them out to be "The Gospel", and to make matters worse, you repeated the process, over and over and over again.  That's disingenuous.  You made claims that were without factual support, speculation as you call it, but, you didn't present these items as "speculative" you presented them as factual, and that's disingenuous.

And, you did all this in an attempt to fulfill your predetermined agenda, an agenda that you stated, namely to prove that CBM couldn't route a course in short order.

When you have an agenda focused on but one goal, to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order, everything you presented was toward that end.  Who knows what material you reviewed that would support CBM's ability to route a course in short order, that you didn't produce.   Once an agenda is established, the bias that is inate in that agenda manifests itself in your attempt to reinforce your agenda, so, we'll never know what additional information you reviewed, but chose not to publish because it went against the grain of your agenda.

I told you that I viewed every entry you made with a degree of enlightened suspicion because I didn't trust that you'd be intellectually honest.
And that was strictly because you were driven by your agenda, and not by the desire to uncover all of the facts, even if they undermined your agenda.

I also think that you were used, that you were being supplied information by other zealots, Merionophiles, and that sometimes you posted information without studying it closely.  Surely the Olmsted Bros plans would be one of those items.  A plan that clearly shows the North Highway running smack down that narrow strip of land between Cold Spring Pond and the Railroad tracks.

From the begining, you were a man on a mission, a mission to discredit CBM's ability to route a course in short order.
You hoped to prove that if he couldn't do it at NGLA, he couldn't do it at Merion.
I recognized this from the begining and you eventually confirmed it in writing.

Despite all of the acrimony, a lot has been learned.
Like most of these quests for historical data, a good deal of information may remain unknown.
As I cited, even lengthy, detailed contemporaneous accounts of Sebonack and Atlantic, in book form, don't tell all of the details, details that we'd like to know.

What's done is done.

You may be disappointed in me, but, I can assure you that I was as much, if not more disappointed in you.

Introducing a thread under one guise, when you clearly had a hidden agenda, is disingenuous.  
It is not an exercise that's seeking the truth, rather one that's seeking a select set of information supporting the hidden agenda.

What most reading these replies don't know, is the ridiculous number of lenghty emails, dozens, that TEPaul and Wayno have sent to Moriarty, MacWood, you and me.   What the readers of GCA.com don't realize is that there was a collective effort, vis a vis your co-conspirators, to prove the agenda.  But, you were the point man, thus, you took the flak for posts and positions that were flawed, factually incorrect and disingenuous.
Sometimes I think you posted material presented to you without seeing if it passed the smell test, relying on others to have done the due diligence for you, but, that was a mistake, for as zealous as you are about Merion, your zealotry pales in comparison to others.

The vile nature of the emails from TEPaul and Wayno that GCA.com'ers didn't see is disgraceful.
The personal attacks, having NOTHING to do with the thread at hand are terrible
Those guys and you are losing your marbles over .................MERION
Are you kidding me.
The only justification over such insane conduct would be if your wife's or daughter's name was Merion and these guys were trying to have an affair with her.  But, to conduct themselves in a disingenuous to vile fashion over MERION, the golf course, and Macdonalld's involvement is patently insane and proof that you all need greater diversification, porn or a mistress in your lives

I like you, I like TEPaul, I like Wayne Morrisson, but, I don't like the conduct, the vendetta like and agenda driven approach to this thread or any other thread.

Let's go back to healthy debate, passionate debate, heated debate, even contentious debate, but, let's retain intellectual honesty and refrain from personal attacks, on and off this website.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Your demands that we expose your specific lies are always a double-edged sword for me.  You are literally asking for it, yet if I actually answer then others jump on me for picking on you and/or not sticking to substance.  Besides, look at my posts.  I don't just claim you are lying, I point out the specific lies as I go.    But since you asked, I'll will be so kind as to identify just a few of your most recent fibs . . .  

- You were lying when you wrote that I believe "the canal site was actually over right on top of the canal." That is a lie and you know it.  I have never said or implied any such thing.

- You were also lying when you wrote that you had not suggested the site described in to those articles was "near the canal."  ("That blow-up you posted is of the land near the Canal...not near the land I suggested.")   You have done so repeatedly, and did so immediately after you told me that you didn't!

- You were also lying to Jeff when you implied that you had not suggested the land described in those articles was anything but the site described by CBM as "near the canal."   Jeff mentioned you had advocated a third site, and you set him straight by explaining you had speculated about a site near the Canal.  This was dishonest because you have repeatedly speculated about a third site, one not near the canal, including in the post to me a few before your post to Jeff!

- As discussed in detail above in my posts to Jeff, your explanation of these two contradictory statements for this was also a flat out lie.  Even Jeffrey has acknowledged you were just trying to save face!

- My favorite recent lie of yours is the one where you claimed that I have been proven wrong "again and again" on this thread, while also claiming that every single one of your theories have been born out by the facts.   Now had this been a joke, it would have been quite funny for you, but you were being serious.  And dishonest.  Or, at least, delusional.

- In addition to these outright lies/delusions, there are multitudes of theories and speculations that are beyond preposterous and unreasonable.  For just the most recent example, in classic Cirbaian fashion you immediately preceded your outrage at our calling you out on your methodology with the claim that CBM's "desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing" and the location of the Shinnecock Inn "more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal."
   "More than anything?"   The yacht basin and Shinnecock Inn were more important to CBM than the perfect hill for the Alps hole?  More important than the perfect plateau for the Redan?  More important than the cape for the Cape hole?  More important than the other undulations perfectly suited for the holes he had in mind?  More important that the nature of the soil and the ideal the conditions for golf?
   The truth is that CBM described the yacht basin as an aside.  An afterthought.  An incidental.  From Scotland's Gift: "Incidentally at the National we have an excellent yachting basin . . .."  As for the location of the Shinnecock Inn, it may have been a consideration and it certainly provided CBM the opportunity to focus on what his MAIN PRIORITY which was creating his ideal course (as opposed to building a clubhouse) but it is foolish to pretend that 70 of the richest men in the world had absolutely no other choice but to build next to a Inn.  They seemed to eek by once the Inn burned, didn't they?  
   
So were these blatant and foolish misrepresentations actually lies on your part, or are you mentally incapable of understanding such things?   I don't know.   You tell me?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The "North Highway" in 1906 was a dirt road, and it ran much closer to the railroad tracks and away from Cold Spring Bay than in Olmstead's later plan.

Mike, In America in 1906 almost every road was a dirt road.
But, if you'll look at the picture of the Vanderbilt Race that Bryan posted, you'll see that they were pretty sophisticated dirt roads, so much so that cars averaged 50+mph on these roads (note, this wasn't a race track, but town roads)

Commerce and travel had been conducted on these roads for centuries.
Your attempt to minimalize or disparage these arteries of commerce and travel was but for one purpose, to fulfill your agenda.

It was so miniscule and untravelled that even in later iterations it didn't appear on a map of paved "highways" of Long Island in 1914.   As seen, the South Highway south of the railroad tracks DID appear on that map,

Mike, this is where you get yourself in trouble.
The 1914 map you presented showed only one road on the entire South Fork in 1914 and we both know that that wasn't the case.
By making that presentation and that claim, you were clearly being disingenuous, especially when the North Highway, in the Olmsted Plan YOU posted, ran right down the middle of your phantom golf course.

And, if the road was so "miniscule" as you disingenuously describe it, why did it take an act of the New York State Senate in 1906 to move where it crossed the railroad tracks ?


It would NOT have affected any hypothetical plans CBM might have had to build a course between Shiinnecock Inn and the Inlet of Cold Spring Bay.

Mike, that's a lie, and the Olmsted plan you posted proves it.

Where do YOU think CBM was looking for golf as he checked out "Various Sections" between Peconic Bay and Shinnecock HIlls?


Unlike you, I'm not going to speculate and claim that my speculation is The Gospel.
We know he mentioned Montauk and a site with 120 acres.
IF, and it's always a big IF, IF the newspaper articles were correct about being able to visualize the Atlantic Ocean and Peconic Bay from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas, I would think you would have to be close to the canal.

I think that's the only area where those two bodies of water are readily visible from everywhere except the low lying areas.

But, it's clearly NOT the land immediately south of Cold Spring Pond with the North Highway running through it.

Where do YOU think CBM was looking to build a golf course near the Canal separating Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Bay?

I believe that CBM stated that it was close to the canal, it was 120 acres.  If the Atlantic and Peconic Bay were visible from everywhere on the site except the low lying areas, I think it MAY have been immediately EAST or even possibly WEST of the Canal, but, certainly close to the canal IF the statement about the visibilty of those two bodies of water is correct..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I am getting tired of being called stupid and a liar, and you using some vague time frames, gross misrepresntations and bad logic as an excuse to do it.

You reposted a map in#1001, which Mike Cirba originally posted.  For whatever reason, that map from 1914 doesn't show the North Highway, and I noted that it didn't, while other  maps do, which I also noted.

Those 1906 documents from the State discuss taking over the road (which wasn't public) for the purpose of building that overpass.  The motion was not approved because there was a question of whether it was a state road at that point.  If they were discussing FUTURE plans for overpasses in 1906, it makes sense that those didn't get built until at least 1907, doesn't it?

The 1907 map David posted had a north highway on it, as do the ads, which say its a new highway.  Those ads say that the company built the new road.

My take is the highway was built right in that time period about 1907 when first shown on maps and ads as a highway, mostly because there were plans afoot for more developement in the area and was quickly given over to the state for maintenance, which is not uncommon even today.

I never said it didn't exist in 1914.  Whe would we debate whether a road in existence in 1914 affected the conception of NGLA in 1907?  It makes no sense for you to waste band width arguing such a proposition, does it?

Any road shown on earlier maps, such as 1873 before there were any cars is certainly not a highway is it?  They were dirt roads, privately built, not state highways.  If so, then please heed requests to mark where you see the highway on the older maps, because most of us still don't see them there.

In your earlier posts you also took me to task for saying that area wasn't booming then or now. I don't know the exact sales figures in any given year, of course, but when a developer announces a 2600 acre real estate development, and proceeds with those plans, and houses and roads get built, we can at least call it a developing area, if not a booming area. No doubt build out took many years, and there were lulls, spurts, whatever.

I have told no lies, nor said anything to you that requires an apology.  This just really gets old. Its one thing to get frustrated from time to time in a discussion, but quite another to go out of your way to be insulting.  As my father used to say "Have some respect for yourself, son!" I am asking the same of you.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I've come to realize that you'll get no respect from either Parick or David in this discussion, and neither will I or anyone who disagrees with them and even the most obvious, mundane matter

Even Bryan Izatt was thrown under the bus for daring to bring some actual facts into the mix that dispute their contentions.

Similarly...

Your attempts to ask them to do more than insult us in trying to discuss matter like other sites CBM may have considered is futile, as well.

Neither of them will show you where they think CBM might have considered locating his course before finding the land he settled on because they'd rather sit back and accuse me of lying when I'm admittedly SPECULATING on where that land might have been.

Patrick will concede that it possibly might have been "near the canal", which is even more ironic given his arguments, because BOTH the North and South roads would have passed through it had it been near there.

It's pathetic, and really sad.

They've chased people like Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, Phil Young and anyone who disagrees with their speculative, revisionist nonsense from the site, and they've made it into personal wars.

I seem to be the only one left...me, and anyone who dares to agree with the slightest point I make is guaranteed to be insulted and badgered.

Since I came back to this site about a year ago after taking six months off from their garbage I started a simple thread on Cobbs Creek and the best public courses prior to the Depression.

David and Tom MacWood took that opportunity to insult me on that thread from the very beginning, and I don't think there's been a thread I've posted on since then that hasn't been met with a vendetta-driven response from David.

I hope you guys enjoy him...because I'm done here as well.

This is absolutely beyond disgrace, and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, as well for permitting this to continue.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yes, I just lost my mind in a moment of optimism there.  I thought the gca.com "rainbows and puppy dogs word filter" might be finally working again, but alas, I was wrong.  Pat's posts still read like the crap they are.

Oh well, that's ten minutes of my life I won't get back.

BTW, in a few hours, you and I need to be mortal enemies while the Flyers and Stars play........for a few hours, I won't have ANY friends in this thread....WAH!

[Andy Hughes]

Andy,

Interesting.  It's from 1913.  Have you mapped it?  It seems to start and SH and go west.

Any thoughts on what dedication and release meant in those days?

Bryan, I have not mapped it--that would be too close to heavy lifting and I'd much rather leave that to you, Mike and David.

I believe dedication and release roughly means 'I give up my personal land for this road (dedication) and am hereafter free from any claims or damages (released) that may occur'. But that is just my reading and I'd be happy for a lawyer or realtor to correct me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I am getting tired of being called stupid and a liar, and you using some vague time frames, gross misrepresntations and bad logic as an excuse to do it.

I NEVER called you a liar.
I did state that you were gravitating toward "stupid" stubborn.

You reposted a map in#1001, which Mike Cirba originally posted.  For whatever reason, that map from 1914 doesn't show the North Highway, and I noted that it didn't, while other  maps do, which I also noted.

Those 1906 documents from the State discuss taking over the road (which wasn't public) for the purpose of building that overpass.  The motion was not approved because there was a question of whether it was a state road at that point.  If they were discussing FUTURE plans for overpasses in 1906, it makes sense that those didn't get built until at least 1907, doesn't it?

Read further.  They mention that the road was the North Highway and dthat it posed a safety hazard as it crossed the railroad tracks.

The 1907 map David posted had a north highway on it, as do the ads, which say its a new highway.  Those ads say that the company built the new road.
That's NOT what they say.  They don't say it's a new highway, they say it's the NEW NORTH highway.
We know from earlier maps, dated 1873, 1903, 1904 and 1905 that the North Highway existed.
Yet, in your blindly "stupid" stubborn attempts to not be wrong in an exchange with me, you remain in denial, despite overwhelming hard evidence.
That's "stupid" stubborn.

My take is the highway was built right in that time period about 1907 when first shown on maps and ads as a highway, mostly because there were plans afoot for more developement in the area and was quickly given over to the state for maintenance, which is not uncommon even today.
Then how do you explain the 1903 New York State Map depicting the North Highway ?
Or any of the pre 1914 or 1907 maps depicting the North Highway ?
You're just being "stupid" stubborn and aren't going to win on this issue.
I know how that pains you, but, you'll get over it in time  .

I never said it didn't exist in 1914.  Whe would we debate whether a road in existence in 1914 affected the conception of NGLA in 1907?  It makes no sense for you to waste band width arguing such a proposition, does it?

Now you are being disingenuous.
Mike declared that the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 in an effort to dismiss its existance in the Olmsted plan, a plan where Mike had sited his phantom golf course.  Mike was trying to show that if the North Highway didn't exist in 1914 it couldn't have existed in 1907 or earlier.
That you don't see Mike's motives is mind boggling.

Any road shown on earlier maps, such as 1873 before there were any cars is certainly not a highway is it?  

Jeff, you've just gone from "stupid"stubborn to stupid.
Of course there were highways in America before cars traversed them.
How do you thinik commerce and travel were undertaken

According to you and your hair brained logic, there were no roads, no highways in America until after the auto was mass produced.
Do you really believe the nonsense you're typing ?


They were dirt roads, privately built, not state highways. 
If so, then please heed requests to mark where you see the highway on the older maps, because most of us still don't see them there.
Jeff, the Olmsted plan labels the road, "THE NORTH HIGHWAY.
The NEW YORK STATE SENATE DOCUMENTS REFERENCE THE NORTH HIGHWAY.
But, you continue to be "stupid" stubborn.

In your earlier posts you also took me to task for saying that area wasn't booming then or now. I don't know the exact sales figures in any given year, of course, but when a developer announces a 2600 acre real estate development, and proceeds with those plans, and houses and roads get built, we can at least call it a developing area, if not a booming area. No doubt build out took many years, and there were lulls, spurts, whatever.

I took you to task, rightfully so, because even today, it remains a vast, sparse, underdeveloped area.
An area that you're totally unfamilar with.
So, tell me, how was it booming ?
Where are all the houses, buildings, stores, etc.. etc..

I have told no lies, nor said anything to you that requires an apology.  This just really gets old. Its one thing to get frustrated from time to time in a discussion, but quite another to go out of your way to be insulting.  As my father used to say "Have some respect for yourself, son!" I am asking the same of you.

I only responed in kind.
You may recall that you apologized for your conduct, off line.
I have nothing to apologize for.
I've not misrepresented or lied.
But, when someone else is disingenuous, I'll point it out, and I did.
YOU were the one who initiated the "liar" language when YOU stated that my calling Mike disingenuous was equivalent to calling him a liar
Don't start a fire and then claim you didn't start it, that you were just trying to put it out, that's disingenuous.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

You asked me to list out places where you have been dishonest, and I partially obliged with a list of recent "falsehoods" and now you accuse me of sitting back and accusing you of lying?   That is rich.

You seem to have this idea that if you call it SPECULATING then you can say whatever you want no matter that you know it is false.   Yet even given this your latest excuse for your misrepresentations is dishonest . . . .
- Were you "speculating" when you wrote that I believed the canal property was on top of the canal?
- Were you "speculating" about your own suggestions when you told me you had suggested property that wasn't "near the canal."
- Were you "speculating" about your own speculations, when you told Jeff you were referring to property that was "near the canal" and not a third site?  
- Were you speculating when you explained why YOU had said what you said to each of us?  Do you really have to speculate about this?
- Were you speculating when you claimed that I have been proven wrong "again and again" but that all of your theories have been born out by the facts?

How about when you "speculated" that getting to the water for the Yacht basis was more important to CBM than the quality of the land, the location of the Alps, Redan, Cape, or any other of the holes, or any other factor except maybe the location of the Inn?  Is it really fair to portray such nonsense as honest speculation based on the record when CBM himself described the Yacht basis as an incidental?

And where, exactly, did I throw Bryan "under the bus?"  Or shall we call this blatant lie another "speculation" on your part.

And as for Brauer, was answering his questions about CBM's house disrespectful.  Or how about the fact that I continue to carefully consider and comment on his comments and theorie DESPITE THAT HE HAS INDICATED THAT HIS POSTS MAY BE MORE DRIVEN BY HIS DISLIKE OF ME THAN THE FACTS?   Is that what you mean by giving him no respect?  Or is this again just more "speculation" on your part?  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I'm surprised you seem so reluctant to pursue any open questions here, especially those that are conflicting between CBM's account over 20 years later and contemporaneous reports of the time, including direct quotes from the man as well as his 1912 Letter to the Founders.

CBM did not have to choose a narrow strip of land...he had 450 available acres to choose from, including much of the land of today's Sebonack GC along Peconic Bay, so nobody was forcing him to do anything.   However, I would argue he was a bit hamstrung by his choice to use Shinnecock Inn as the clubhouse (in his book he tells us that it was because they did not have money for a clubhouse initiallly), and his desire to get out to the water for a yacht landing.   THOSE DECISIONS more than anything dictated the land available to him for golf of the 450 acres at his disposal.

For instance, CBM tells us he opened his course and held his first informal Invitational Tournament in 1909, when it was clearly documented that it happened in 1910.   CBM tells us the 450 acres had never been surveyed, but it was years earlier.

So, I don't see your problem with us looking at these questions?   Did you know Walter Travis was still involved as late as 1908 for instance?

What open questions? The seven points you raised are not open, they are covered in CBM's book. Apparently you don't like or believe the story CBM presented in his book. Is that right?

I didn't say CBM was forced to chose a narrow property, I said he deliberately chose a narrow property, which I think supports the idea he had a good idea of the routing prior to choosing those 205 acres.

Hamstrung? Assuming that the location of the Shinnecock Inn was a consideration (I haven't read through this thread so I have no idea of the timing of the inn being built) how was that a negative? The routing that resulted was brilliant IMO. Do you think the routing is flawed in some way?

The date of the invitational tournament is a mistake, but its innocent mistake IMO. It comes right after he said they began playing the course tentatively in 1909, and if I remember that was late in 1909. They wouldn't be playing an invitational tournament in winter. The mistake has no bearing on any question regarding the design of the course. Clearly if the land had been surveyed, he was not aware of it, nor did have access to a survey map. Are you just grasping for straws?

I assumed Travis was still involved in 1908 since he was still being mentioned in articles about the course.

Why does it matter if the course was routed in 2 days or a week?

I haven't been following this thread closely but I've got to believe the reason for the 1000+ posts is your let me throw it against the wall methodology. Instead of continually throwing one theory after another against the wall, why don't thoroughly research the subject then present a coherent well reasoned essay? You could test your own theories prior to presenting them and save everyone's time.