News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1375 on: April 13, 2011, 07:52:34 PM »
Jim,

Personally, if I was skirting a storm or I was on a plane skirting a thunderhead, I think I would want to give it a good berth, not keep as close to it as I could in going around it.  But, that's just me being cautious.

Here is yet another definition of skirt from Merriam Webster:

"a : to go or pass around or about; specifically : to go around or keep away from in order to avoid danger or discovery

b : to avoid especially because of difficulty or fear of controversy <skirted the issue>

c : to evade or miss by a narrow margin <having skirted disaster
"

I'm going with the "keep away" part of definition "a", because CBM said he didn't want to be near the noisy railroad.  Do you agree that that was one of his desires? You want to go with the "c" definition.  That's OK with me, but how do you reconcile that with CBM's stated desire to keep away from the RR.  The RR was there a long time before he was looking at properties.  Do you think he would really say that the property that was for his ideal course was narrowly close to the RR that he stated he didn't want to be near?  I guess he could have, but it doesn't make sense to me.

I think we are all convinced that the reports of the time, or even after the fact reminiscences by the involved parties, have factual errors and contradictions.  How do any of us decide which parts are true and which are erroneous.  Maybe we should only believe the "facts" where there are two or more "independent" sources that state the same fact the same way.  For instance, maybe we can't take as fact that there was an offer on 120 acres near the canal because we don't have a second source.  

Of course, then we have theories that have no sources, such as Mike's theory of a preliminary offer on 200 acres before CBM backed off to 120 acres.    :o

  

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1376 on: April 13, 2011, 07:57:38 PM »
If he was so intent on avoiding any traffic and noise, why would he have wanted a spot near the canal first (he said it, I'm going to believe it more than an article with no source reference)? You did a nice piece 3 or 4 pages ago showing pretty minimal land near the canal even at that point...you tell me...

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1377 on: April 13, 2011, 08:00:42 PM »

Jim,

Yes, it could have been an Alvord leak, but then again this is a theory for which we have no source.  But, following on your theory, did CBM then leak that he was looking at other sites in November to turn the screws on Alvord who thought they had a locked up deal?  Maybe Alvord was asking for more than $200 an acre and CBM was trying to ratchet the price down.  Just another unsupported theory.  ;)


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1378 on: April 13, 2011, 08:03:55 PM »
We're passing in the night here.  Depends on what near the canal meant.  Maybe it was near like the October property was near the inlet or the final course is near the RR.  Maybe near meant a 1000 feet.  We don't know.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1379 on: April 13, 2011, 08:10:41 PM »







I don't know...looks to me from this one that the closer to the canal the more room he'd have...but who knows.

I think the comment about the roads, and desiring privacy is a view from the end of his career as opposed to at this stage. He's quoted elsewhere as enjoying having roads to use as features/obstacles on his courses...the Merion debate bore this out.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1380 on: April 13, 2011, 09:19:18 PM »
Hate to say it Andy, but the word "skirted" is my anchor on this.

According to thesaurus.com, "skirted" as I think it was used is synonymous with avoided, bypassed, dodged, ducked, eluded, evaded, sidestepped, and steered clear of.   I have trouble understanding why the RR, which missed the property by 1/3 of a mile, did not "skirt" the property in question.

Quote
Nobody has answered my question about the likelyhood of Alvord leaking the deal...prematurely...isn't he, or his associates, the most likey source? He's got the most to gain and nothing to lose.

It is possible I guess, but I don't think too likely.   If the developer was trying to hype the development for its purposes then I would have expected that they would have hyped the real estate angle.    

I don't know where the information would have come from, but I suspect that it was from CBM talking about it.  Some of the earlier articles on NGLA had come from information CBM had sent to the founders as an update on the process, and it is possible that he communicated with some or all of the founders about his progress and one of them passed it to the press.  But this is pure speculation and doesn't really get us anywhere.  

Quote
If he was so intent on avoiding any traffic and noise, why would he have wanted a spot near the canal first (he said it, I'm going to believe it more than an article with no source reference)? You did a nice piece 3 or 4 pages ago showing pretty minimal land near the canal even at that point...you tell me...

Judging from how CBM described the timing and circumstances of the Canal property, I am under the impression that he decided to purchase land near the canal before he was aware of the development plan.  

« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 09:21:02 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1381 on: April 13, 2011, 09:34:24 PM »
David,

On the last point, the picture Bryan developed there is pre-development plan and if you want 120 acres with a significant buffer (1000 feet) from roads there's not much to choose from...not something I want to debate because I was merely making the point that CBM writing in SG that it's better to paly golf in peace and quite is ideal doesn't exactly match his early career practice.


As to "skirting the tracks", if you're trying to say the author was writing that the course avoided the tracks at all possible cost, I guess we can discuss that, but it sure would be a funny thing to write. The fact is, the land you and Bryan are presenting had noting to do with the RR tracks...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1382 on: April 14, 2011, 06:58:41 AM »
Let's not forget that "skirted" would have had an entirely different context in those parts at that time.

The Shinnecock Hills golf course skirted the LIRR tracks in places, but it also crossed right over the tracks in others, playing on both sides of it!  It had been that way for a number of years and this idea that CBM somehow skirted the tracks by over a third of a mile away is really a poor interpretation IMHO.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 10:30:56 AM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1383 on: April 14, 2011, 09:50:59 AM »


If the October 15th article was accurate, and the writer meant Sebonac Neck, and it meant that CBM had somehow secured land on Sebonac Neck by that point...

then why, a few weeks later at the Lesley Cup matches at Garden City would CBM tell folks that he was down to two sites...the first in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second in Montauk?

If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why the need for spreading disinformation?

If it was already a done deal for Sebonac Neck at that point, why even mention the Canal Site in western Shinnecock Hills at all??



Mike,

Your biggest problem with holding the November 1 articles as true and the October  one as fiction is that the October 1 came true very soon thereafter...all this word parsing aside, it happened.


Also...it wouldn't have been a done deal because nothing had been signed and no money had changed hands...



Jim,

I would disagree with your contention that the October article came true very soon thereafter.

When did CBM buy 250 acres of land that we agree could have been ANYWHERE north of the LIRR tracks (based on the description in the article) for $100,000 as described in that article?? (btw, I also agree with you that his comments 20+ years later about "wanting to be alone with nature" was simply making lemonaide out of lemons.   Most of the best courses at that time adjoined railroad tracks, including his beloved St. Andrews) 

Why was this supposed "scoop" not reported in any other NYC paper for the next two months if it was accurate?

The article has multiple errors, and to me the only valuable thing we find from it is that CBM was looking at sites seemingly between the Canal and Shiinnecock Hills GC at that time and perhaps had made an offer of some sort.    Most of the rest of the article doesn't hold up to any known facts or close scrutiny.

I think the reason why we disagree is because you still believe that CBM didn't find the Sebonac Neck site until AFTER he had been rejected from the Canal site.    I don't think that's necessarily true.

Here's what he wrote about it;  

"I offered the Shinnecock HIlls & Peconic Bay Realty Company $200 an acre for some 120 acres near the canal connecting Shinnecock Bay with the Great Peconic Bay, but the owners refused it."

"However, there happened to be some 450 acres of land on Sebonac Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay, and lying between Cold Spring Harbor and Bulls Head Bay.   This property was little known and have never been surveyed.   Everyone thought it was more or less worthless.   It abounded in bogs, and swamps...etc....The only way we could get over the ground was on ponies."

I think we're reading into it if we believe that he knew nothing about the Sebonac Neck site until after his offer for the canal site was refused.

I think both sites were still in play as of the Lesley Cup in late October 1906, AFTER that October 15th article, and exactly as was reported.


Also, it's been mentioned that my theory is somehow made up without any factual basis on the idea that CBM first likely offered for over 200 acres at the Canal Site, but then perhaps countered for only 120.   However, from 1904 on...from the time CBM drew up his Founders Agreement, it was known and repeated multiple times in the press that CBM was looking for slightly over 200 acres, and we know how he saw that land being divided up...110 acres for golf, 5 acres for clubhouse and surrounds, and 1.5 acre lots for the 60 founding members...EXACTLY 205 acres.   Hell, he wrote it up in the Founders Agreement, so that was clearly the expectation!

So, this whole idea that he made an offer for 120 acres is the one off here...not my theory.   So why might CBM have compromised from his original goal in the case of his first offer?    I think it makes perfect sense that he'd drop the building lot portion of his plan...after all, Alvord was going to be building near there and I'm sure he didn't want competition.   Perhaps the site was so good that CBM was willing to adapt?   What in heaven's name is unfounded or preposterous about that theory?

Instead, what's preposterous is this ridiculous idea that on one site, CBM would determine he needed EXACTLY 205 acres for just the golf course, yet on the other site would be just fine with slightly over half of that!   Absurd, frankly.

So, what I think happened is that in October CBM made his original offer for the Canal Site.    CBM TELLS the reporter from the NY Sun weeks later during the Lesley Cup that the Canal Site (westerly portion of Shinnecock Hills, near Good Ground) is still in play, but also throws out the negotiating ploy about a site near Montauk, and further ups the ante by saying if those don't pan out pricewise, he may have to keep looking elsewhere.

So we KNOW nothing was settled or promised between him and Alvord by the Lesley Cup.   This is a fact.

If we agree that the land referred to in the October article is all of the land held by Alvord north of the tracks, then why couldn't this article have referred to an original offer on the Canal Site?   Frankly, I think it was, and I also think that the writer transposed the number of acres from 205 to 250.

I do think that CBM knew about the Sebonac Neck site by this time (he'd been looking in "various sections" around Peconic Bay and the Shinnecock Hills as reported on November 1st in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle), but was still negotiating to get his preferred first site near the canal.

It's the only theory that holds up to all the facts that we do know, including the fact that by December, all of the articles talked about him securing 205 undetermined acres out of the 450 available, and that he would work with his committee to determine the holes to be copied and their yardages over the next several months.   This was not a site that had been worked for months previously, but one that was the negotiated second choice after it was determined good enough after multiple horse rides by CBM and Whigham.

Here's how CBM describes what happened;

"So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground. Finally (BOLD Emphasis mine) we determined it was what we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably. It adjoined the Shinnecock Hills Golf Course. The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as best to serve our purpose."


THAT is what happened by December 15, 1906.   AND that is EXACTLY what was reported in the days following December 15, 1906.

The rest happened in the following months, AFTER they got agreement (secured) with Alvord to sell them EXACTLY 205 undetermined acres of 450 available, and then proceeded as follows, exactly as CBM said in the December articles they would do;

"Again we studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted."

...and completed the purchase in spring of 1907.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 10:15:25 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1384 on: April 14, 2011, 10:13:50 AM »
Mike,

You guys all do such interesting things in these conversations. Do you really think after all this time I would assume that's all CBM said about the Sebonac Neck site based on you typing it here? How many times have you posted this page from the book?

I think they knew there was land there, but hadn't considered it for golf for any number of reasons and CBM implies exactly that in the sentences immediately after you stopped quoting him in that last post...









There's no way CBM and HJW rode the Sebonac Neck site prior to being rejected on the canal site...


As to the October article...who knows...



Your edit came through as I was posting this...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1385 on: April 14, 2011, 10:21:12 AM »
Jim,

I just thought it was quicker to post a couple of sentences than go and find that page again.

I do think they looked at that site in September as Whigham wrote, but it wasn't their first choice for a number of reasons.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1386 on: April 14, 2011, 10:29:43 AM »
Mike,

You're grasping.

You are trying to hold Wigham's word over CBM's words now, both 20 years after the fact. If you are going to believe both of them, then they rode Sebonac Neck in September after being rejected on the canal site. Any other interpretation and you have to discount either CBM or HJW, no two ways about it.


What your bolded word AGAIN does is confirm my three-step process.
1) look at the land to check suitability - obtain price agreement with no specific boundaries inside the 450
2) go over the land more closely and determine the boundaries
3) execute the transaction

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1387 on: April 14, 2011, 10:31:43 AM »




By the way Mike, another piece of the October article that illustrates accuracy is the names of advisors...

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1388 on: April 14, 2011, 10:41:33 AM »
Jim,

I don't understand why you think CBM's account and Whigham's account are at odds?   

These guys had been looking around Alvord's holdings for months by this time.   Why wouldn't they have choices 1, 2, or even choice 3 in their minds prior to negotiating?

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1389 on: April 14, 2011, 10:45:47 AM »
Another preposterous idea that's been promoted is that CBM would not have known in late 1905 that Alvord was planning a "development" there, so would have rushed his first offer for the canal at that time.

What exactly was Alvord if not a real estate developer?   Perhaps he just wanted a 3000 acre estate for himself?  ;)

http://www.belleterre.us/History/DeanAlvordandtheGloriousYears/tabid/97/Default.aspx

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1390 on: April 14, 2011, 10:52:51 AM »
Jim,

I don't understand why you think CBM's account and Whigham's account are at odds?   

These guys had been looking around Alvord's holdings for months by this time.   Why wouldn't they have choices 1, 2, or even choice 3 in their minds prior to negotiating?


I don't know Mike, you tell me...you've been trumpeting the Sebonac Neck site throughout this thread as a consolation offer after the rejection of the canal site...are we flipping that?

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1391 on: April 14, 2011, 11:24:16 AM »
Jim,

I think it's a consolation in the sense that it wasn't their first choice and we know that.

However, we also know that;

1) We both agree that the October 15th article referred to all of Alvord's holdings north of the LIRR, although I'm not 100% certain that it also includes Sebonac Neck.   I've conceded it may, especially given Whigham's "September" quote.

2) On November 1st, quoting CBM at the Lesley Cup weeks later, two articles appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and the NY Sun.   The Eagle reported that CBM had been looking at "various" sections" around Peconic Bay and Shinnecock Hills, and the NY Sun reported that CBM said he was down to two choices...one in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground (obviously the Canal Site) and one at Montauk Point.

We know retrospectively that Montauk was a negotiating ruse, but it seems at that time that the Canal Site was still in play, no?

Which makes sense to me...I would think that CBM already knew about Sebonac Neck, had likely rode it with WHigham by then, but for a number of reasons (i.e. proximity to SHGC, swamps, brush, etc.) was still hoping for the canal site and perhaps had even modified his original request from 205 to 120 acres by that time, perhaps based on Alvord rejecting a real-estate competitor in the neighborhood.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1392 on: April 14, 2011, 11:29:19 AM »
Mike,

There's alot more in that October article than just a vague reference to some plot of land...I think you ought to re-read it with as open a mind as possible.

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1393 on: April 14, 2011, 11:51:42 AM »
Jim,

As I mentioned earlier, I think the writer misunderstand what CBM was saying about surveyor's maps, etc., and his "experts" abroad who helped him.

There is no mention, anywhere, ever, that CBM sent plans of the land to those guys to provide feedback prior to purchase except for this article.

What there is, is mention in his 1912 Founders letter naming many of the same men and thanking them for their maps, etc. of the great holes abroad.

I guess it's possible that CBM went to the extent (and expense) of having his first site surveyed and mappped and sent abroad, but I think the writer is mostly mistaken on that point.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 11:56:34 AM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1394 on: April 14, 2011, 11:58:42 AM »
Jim,

Actually, now that I think about it, that's a very interesting and telling point.

At the Sebonac Neck site, does CBM tell us that he had the land cleared, surveyed, and mapped (much less sent to experts abroad) prior to agreeing to secure 205 acres?

No, he doesn't.

He tells us that he and Whigham decided that it was worthwhile after a few days of horseback rides around the uncleared property, and then getting Alvord's agreement to sell them 205 acres at the price they wanted out of the 450 available.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1395 on: April 14, 2011, 12:15:05 PM »
. . .
The rest happened in the following months, AFTER they got agreement (secured) with Alvord to sell them EXACTLY 205 undetermined acres of 450 available, and then proceeded as follows, exactly as CBM said in the December articles they would do;

"Again we studied the contours earnestly, selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes I had in mind, after which we staked out the land we wanted."

...and completed the purchase in spring of 1907.

This just may be Cirba's most specious quote and use of ellipses yet, which is saying something given that it is Mike we are dealing with!   He just happens to leave out the part about optioning the property. At this point, after going over this for this long, do we still need to keep pretending that Mike is acting in good faith, or can we call out sleazy tactics when we see them?

And of course Mike didn't understand my point about CBM's consideration of the land by the Canal.   As I read SG, CBM just missed out on trying to buy the pre-development land near the canal on the cheap, before the developer bought the property and the development began in earnest.

_______________________________

Jim, thanks for pointing out those names again.  Mike has us so focused on this description that it is easy to lose sight of the overall context of the article.   Given the names and details, it seems that this information must have come from someone on CBM's side of the the transaction.     

Isn't it amazing how mike can tell us exactly what was mistaken and what wasn't about these old articles, and with no support whatsoever?   For him, history is definitely a creative process.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1396 on: April 14, 2011, 12:28:55 PM »
David,

regarding the possible leak: agreed that it must have been from CBM's camp. I thought Alvord would be to gain, and there's the inconsistency with the Noveber 1 articles, but it's hard to picture Alvord or any of his crew knowing all those names.


Mike,

That's really the point. I think CBM had the land surveyed and maps sent abroad prior to the writing of that October article...simply because it says right there that it was completed and we know (105 years later) that those things were completed at some point. Other than history playing out, why do we need second sources from that date?

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1397 on: April 14, 2011, 12:31:08 PM »
Mike,

I don't have time right now to go through your long posting.  In a quick read, it is an interesting mix of "facts" and suppositions.  Would it be possible for you to do a simple timeline from October to December of what you think happened when and label them fact or theory.  

As I understand you, you think CBM made an offer for 205 acres in October, then modified it to an offer for 120 acres somewhere north of the RR tracks in the Shinnnecock Hills, also in October.  Was rejected by Alvord in October.  Then was looking at a canal site again as well as Montauk in November.  Then agreed to buy 205 of 450 acres in Sebonac Neck in mid December.

Re the long posting, one question for now:

Quote
So we KNOW nothing was settled or promised between him and Alvord by the Lesley Cup.   This is a fact.

How do we KNOW that.  How do we KNOW what CBM and Alvord were doing in the background?  At best, this is a supposition on your part.  All we KNOW is that he supposedly told a reporter that he was looking at other sites.  It is possible that he had deal with Alvord, but told the reporter something that implied he didn't.  Or, do you believe that CBM couldn't have mislead the reporter.  Or, the reporter might have misunderstood or misquoted.  Not that that ever happened before or since.  Anyway, I would debate that the conclusion you draw is a FACT based on this evidence.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1398 on: April 14, 2011, 12:42:39 PM »
How do we KNOW that.  How do we KNOW what CBM and Alvord were doing in the background?  At best, this is a supposition on your part.  All we KNOW is that he supposedly told a reporter that he was looking at other sites.  It is possible that he had deal with Alvord, but told the reporter something that implied he didn't.  Or, do you believe that CBM couldn't have mislead the reporter.  Or, the reporter might have misunderstood or misquoted.  Not that that ever happened before or since.  Anyway, I would debate that the conclusion you draw is a FACT based on this evidence.

More than this, according to the articles he wasn't talking to a reporter, but was responding to a question asked in front of a room full of people at Garden City. If he was engaged in discussions/negotiations with Alvord, then it hardly seems like the most opportune setting for him to provide a detailed and accurate answer to exactly what was ongoing.

Keep in mind that some of the earlier articles mentioned that the search for the site was secretive or at least under the radar.   While CBM was still in Europe, Devereux Emmet wondered whether CBM might have already found and secured the property, so apparently not even those involved knew exactly what was ongoing with the property search!     So I hardly think we can take the above as "FACT" especially given that two different accounts of what he said were reported.  
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles
« Reply #1399 on: April 14, 2011, 01:51:08 PM »
My premise stated as FACT was that CBM did not have an agreement with Alvord by the Lesley Cup.

Even David suggests that at best perhaps they were in negotiations at that point.

The mid-October report of a "purchase" was simply wrong in that regard, and many others.

Besides, can anyone provide a remotely plausible reason why CBM would have referred to being down to 2 choices...the first the Canal Site in western Shinnecock HIlls near Good Ground, and the second at Montauk if he had already struck agreement with Alvord prior to then, verbally or otherwise?

Who would he be fooling??   Alvord owned both the Canal Site as well as the Sebonac Neck site.  

Of course, the Montauk mention was a ploy to try and make Alvord think that he had other options with other sellers, but the FACT remains...

CBM did NOT have a deal of any kind by the Lesley Cup, and yes, it is a fact.


David,

Where does the November 1st, NY Sun article say he was speaking to a crowd of people?

« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 01:57:35 PM by MCirba »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back