[MCirba]

Patrick,

As a friend, I know you have bemoaned the loss of key contributors to this website and I share your sentiment.

You've just filibustered such that you've posted fifteen separate times in lengthy, scattershot fashion in approximately 2.5 hours.   As someone who has been known to go on tangents here in the past I'm trying my best in returning to put 90% more thought and research and 90% less typing into my posts.

I sense you didn't like the direction of the thread or some of the factual information that was presented and have now pretty much rendered further conversation pointless.

I'd ask respectfully that you consider what such actions might do to discourage others from participation here.

Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Sorry I set him off. Should have known and those kind of discussions with him are never worth it.

I will wait for whatever Pat has on the property behind 9 green at NGLA, and understand he doesn't have it at his immediate disposal.  I admit, that for a few different reasons, I probably suspect he doesn't really have it, but also admit I might be wrong.  It seems he should, but then, many of us, myself included, post from memory and don't always have the information at hand.

I appreciate guys like you, Bryan, David, etc. who can post various historical articles and maps.  They may be inconsequential in the whole scheme of things, but a few of us can't help but be interested in the history of golf. 

The petty arguments, eh, not so much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I'm not sure that I understand your last post.

Jeff Brauer attempted to deliberately divert my premise by whining about my style, and, you're right, it was a waste of time.
Jeff does this periodically.

My objectives are focused on the Shinnecock Inn, not the canal.
That's for you and David to debate.

The realty company didn't build the Shinnecock Inn without having ample access to the Shinnecock Inn and those advertisements prove it.

But, if I tangentially seize an element from your position, that other than the Old North Highway, no roads existed to the North, and the 1904 map would seem to support that, then how was CBM going to access a clubhouse "near" the Shinnecock Inn if NGLA didn't own the land behind/flanking/underneath the Shinnecock Inn, abutting the Old North Highway ?

If NGLA owned the land, then access wouldn't be a problem, would it.

But, if NGLA didn't own the land, what then ?

Would CBM site a clubhouse in a location that couldn't be accessed ?

You have to understand "motive".

Bryan, Jeff and others don't want me to be right.

But, if NGLA didn't own the land until after CBM died, can there be any other conclusion, when taking in all the other factors, that CBM always intended his clubhouse to be sited where it is  currently located ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Sorry I set him off. Should have known and those kind of discussions with him are never worth it.

I will wait for whatever Pat has on the property behind 9 green at NGLA, and understand he doesn't have it at his immediate disposal.  I admit, that for a few different reasons, I probably suspect he doesn't really have it, but also admit I might be wrong.  It seems he should, but then, many of us, myself included, post from memory and don't always have the information at hand.

Jeff,

Unlike yours, my memory of the conversation with the interested parties at NGLA is crystal clear.
I was informed that the club didn't purchase the land until long after the current clubhouse was built.

Would you have me call the good folks at NGLA, "liars"

I don't know why I make repeated requests that you stop whining.
I should have learned by now that whining is an integral part of your nature, woven into your very fabric.

I appreciate guys like you, Bryan, David, etc. who can post various historical articles and maps. 
They may be inconsequential in the whole scheme of things, but a few of us can't help but be interested in the history of golf. 

History ?
History as evidenced by NGLA's purchase of the land behind the 9th green subsequent to the construction of the current clubhouse ?

That's relevant history isn't it Jeff ?

The petty arguments, eh, not so much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Help me decide which pithy phrase best sums up Patrick's pathetic demeanor.....

From literature "Though doth protest too much."

Or from the playground....."He who smelt it dealt it."

?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, A productive discussion requires that we deal with the source material reasonably and honestly, and follow its lead even where it conflicts with our preconceived notions. Your post number 194 is a great example of why some doubt your willingness and/or ability to carry on a productive discussion about this material.

The idea that two independent newspapers would just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members laying around to report on less than 24 hours after CBM "announced" that contracts had been signed is beyond preposterous, wouldn't you agree?

Why do you keep trotting out this preposterous red herring?  You say this over and over again with your usual rhetorical flourish, yet no one - not me, not anyone - ever suggested that "the newspapers just happen to have a copy of a private correspondence Macdonald sent over two years prior to potential Founding members."  I've explained at least a half dozen times why the 1904 Subscription Agreement would have been recirculated at this time: CBM was providing Notice that the money was due pursuant to the 1904 Subscription Agreement!   This is directly out of the December 15, 1906 Sun article.  Read the material you post!

So just stop.  Stop with this "fantastical" red herring about whether or not they'd have something from two years before. You've admitted they had it, and they most likely had it because CBM had just re-sent it, along with the notice. How many times do we have to cover this? As for how exactly the press came to receive it, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that either the Founders provided it to the press, or that CBM/HJW provided the press with the material he had provided to the founders. It makes no difference either way.  

Beyond that, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report the next day included information that was in neither of the previous day's stories, so that couldn't have been "cribbed" as you suggested either, correct?

Incorrect.  The Brooklyn Daily Eagle tweaked the wording, but it contained the same basic information as the other articles and the 1904 Agreement. Even the bit about the matter not being settled has its roots in the 1904 Agreement, which noted that this was just a suggestion and the details could be worked out later.  More importantly, while the Eagle's version is consistent with the 1904 Agreement, the supposed extra information in this portion of the Eagle article contradicts CBM's own words from 1906.  There was to be no "bordering land not required for the links." The borders had not yet been determined, but according to CBM the borders were to be closely tailored to the golf course itself!

Also, one of the "next day" stories quotes Macdonald glowing extensively about the land he has secured, and he states, "There aresites available for houses and yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay."

This wasn't a "next day" story, but no matter.  You are taking it out of context no matter what day it was printed.

Now, I know you suggested that he was talking about building sites that the Real Estate Developer was having surveyed but none of the land of Sebonac Neck was included in the Olmsted/Vaux survey so there were in effect NO sites available for houses.   Further, the Olmsted/Vaux plan wasn't produced until sometime in the spring of 1907 so there were truly NO sites anywhere in the Shinnecock Hills at that time in December 1906.   When that plan was completed in the spring of 1907, only a single building lot down near today's 9th green was even close to the land that Macdonald had just secured and we already know access to the remote site was a major consideration and problematic risk to be overcome.

So, your position is that not only was CBM planning a huge block of "home sites" on NGLA, but that other than these "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills."  This is so disingenuous it almost leaves me wordless. . . . . Not quite though.  (Before I begin explaining the problems with this position, know that your position here is another good example of why many people don't take you seriously as a researcher and analyst.  There is just no way you can reasonably believe what you are trying to sell.)

Here is an overlay of the portion of the Olmstead plan closest to the Shinnecock Inn and NGLA.



Keep in mind at this point in time, the course was to start and finish at the Shinnecock Inn, with the Inn acting as a quasi-clubhouse.   Note that the development is adjacent to the Shinnecock Inn which was actually part of the development, and adjacent to NGLA. To put it simply:  

No reasonable person could argue that "there were truly NO sites anywhere in Shinnecock Hills" and convenient to NGLA.  

But you aren't being reasonable, so you try to fudge it. You pretend that the development didn't exist until a few months after CBM's Dec. 1906 quotes.  FALSE.  While the advertisement containing the 1907 map for the development wasn't published in the papers until a few months after the December articles, the development company had been developing the property for at least the past year.  YOU KNOW THIS.  In fact, look at the very advertisement you are using to date the development!  It indicates that they had been extensively improving the property over the past year, and had built or were in the process of building several underpasses, a bridge, and two railroad stations, roads, and a hotel.

The advertisement also prominently featured NGLA, because NGLA was adjacent to the development and apparently a big selling point.

The advertisement also noted that the golf course at NGLA would be over 200 acres. No mention of Cirba's fictional 90 acre real estate development at NGLA. As if the development would have sold CBM land to become its direct competitor!  

The advertisement also specifically emphasized that four roads had been built to access (among other things) NGLA and Shinnecock GC from any building lot in the development, and more were being added.

Of course CBM would have been aware of all of this.  He had been dealing with this company for some time (remember the 120AC offer?) and mentioned the creation of the Inn in his notice.

So tell me again, Mike, about how CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to lots in this massive development which included NGLA's de facto clubhouse?  Better yet,  stop with this sort of disingenuous nonsense.

And why would Macdonald mix up his sites within a single sentence?   Weren't the yachts going to approach the 200 acres he had just secured through the adjoining Peconic Bay?

 

Here again you are playing games to the point that I have no idea what you even mean.  He is talking about conveniently accessing the golf course. Are you suggesting that since Yachts would approach through Peconic Bay, that NGLA owned and controlled Peconic Bay as well?  He also mentions highways and RR's, which made access to the course more convenient. Did NGLA control these as well?  Look at the quote in context. AFTER an extensive discussion of the golf course itself, including a discussion of the property dimensions and the tailoring of the borders to the course itself, CBM moves on to issues of accessibilty and convenience:
     It will take two years to perfect the course.  Then our members will find a golf house ready, also, with lockers and baths. We are not going into the hash and bed business.  A modern Inn is being built within 200 or 300 yards of the first tee by outside interests. There are sites available for houses and Yachts may approach through Great Peconic Bay.  
    By the time the course is ready the location will be more accessible to New Yorkers. . . .[He then goes on to discuss accessing the course by car, train, etc.]

Nothing about subdividing NGLA for founder's lots.

Also, since we are playing games with dates, look at the verb tense.  CBM says there "are sites available for houses".  Present tense. Were there really sites available for houses on NGLA's property in December 1906?  Of course not. How could this be if CBM hadn't yet finalized the purchase?  How could it be if the final lines had not yet been drawn? Best case scenario for you is that it would be up to the founder, to divide up the land for houses after the golf course was completed, but that wasn't going to happen for two years, so how could there have been sites available for houses at this point in time? These fictional NGLA lots were a lot further off in time than the real development lots, yet you insist that CBM couldn't possibly have been referring to the development lots.

Again Mike, as with all of this stuff, it takes a willingness to honestly and reasonably deal with the source material, and not cling to our preconceived theories no matter what. Yet you insist that this quote definitely meant that CBM was going to build houses on NGLA?  That is neither honest nor reasonable.

Finally, if indeed all of these newspapers were incorrect in reporting the current project thinking, why wouldn't Macdonald, or Emmet, or Whigham, or Travis, or any of the powerful men involved with the club have asked for a retraction, or pen a correcting story?

Probably because it wasn't a big deal. If NGLA's founders knew what was ongoing, then why bother? They surely had no idea that someone like you would come along 100+ years later and repeatedly try to rewrite NGLA's history by forcing a hypothetical from the 1904 Agreement onto CBM's 1906 plans for this particular parcel.  

But let's turn it around.  If you have it correct, then what happened? Where are these 90 acres of housing for the founders? Show me on a map where it would have fit?  Why, a few months later, when Whigham described the course in detail, was there no mention of AND NO ROOM FOR a housing component?  You insist that CBM went out of his way to insist that there were going to cottages, rentals, and/or who know what else.  So where are they?  When specifically did he drop the plan?

You claim he was intending on including 90 acres of housing.  Where?  

And don't give me any more nonsense about swamps or fairway widths.  I already addressed that and you ignored my response and questions.  
___________________________________________________

[Edited this later because a number of sentences and words were incoherent.  Sorry about that, but I was in a hurry.]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Help me decide which pithy phrase best sums up Patrick's pathetic demeanor.....

From literature "Though doth protest too much."

Mike,

Please help him decide.  But first, educate him on Shakespearian quotes.

Jeff, you ignorant slut, it's "Thou doth protest too much.", not "THOUGH doth protest to much"[/size]

Or from the playground....."He who smelt it dealt it."


And Mike, to further shed light on Jeff's motives and actions, here's the email he sent me a short while ago.

"Pat, you really are an infantile prick, aren’t you?  

As they say down here in Texas, have some respect for yourself.

Jeffrey D. Brauer

President

Jeffrey D. Brauer/GolfScapes, Inc.
2771 E. Broad Street
Suite 217-132
Mansfield, TX  76063


Jeff likes to instigate dissension, and then cry that it's my fault when he gets his nose bloodied, followed by lots of whining.
It's really music to my ears.

Hey Jeff, you claim to want the facts posted, but you never answered the question as to why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.

I'm sure that Bryan made an innocent mistake by relying on third party source material, but still, since you're so adamant about having only the facts posted, why didn't you take him to task ?

Here's another clue for you, clueless one.
Mike Cirba and I are friends.
I've had him as my guest at GCGC in the past and welcome him as my guest in the future.
I do not hold his "lefty" play or misguided opinions against him.

As to Bryan Izatt, I annointed him a colossal moron, an upgrade from his lowly moron status, when we met on the first tee at Streamsong.
Bryan has a way to go before being granted "Exalted Moron" status, but, he's making great strides in that direction.

So, maybe, just maybe you should get all of the facts surrounding my responses to them before you start mouthing off and whining.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The reference I was making was to the old premise you presented where you had NGLA on the South shore of the Cold Spring Pond.
At that location, the Old North Highway ran right down the middle of the plot you identified.

Again, my interest, at this point, isn't with the siting of the course by the canal, but, the Shinnecock Inn.

Is there anyone out there that believes that CBM would build a clubhouse without access to any roads ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

You deserve every name you are called, at least in private.  I guess the code about keeping  private emails private has evaporated in your part of the world and on this website, or you have no bounds about how low you will stoop to win a childish argument of your own making.

No matter, we have a saying in Texas that the problem with mud wrestling pigs is the you quickly realize the pigs kind of like it. Congrats on your mud wrestling win.

In the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "What a stupid I am!"

Listen, if you ever can produce that simple little corroboration of when NGLA bought the land and what size it was, it would lend some learning to this site. If you can't for privacy reasons (a la TePaul several years ago with Merion) I am sure we will understand that, too, and take however it affects our position on the history of NGLA for what we each deem its worth.

Again, didn't seem that out of line to ask, but apologize for whatever apparently set you off.  But really, you would test the patience of Job with your ability to endlessly use every dirty fighting trick in the book - Lie, attribute false motives, set up straw men and false dichotomies, unwinnable scenarios, etc.  If there is a Mrs. Mucci, she must be a saint!

[Bryan Izatt]

To whomever it may concern re the GIS Viewer topo map I posted:

You should be more careful with what you rely on for your information.

Why didn't you take Bryan to task for posting a gross misrepresentation.

why you didn't you take Bryan Izatt to task for posting flawed information.

For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County.  Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction.  I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does.  If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east.  So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane.  Perhaps it is all still a public road.  I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.

In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map  and as factual about the road's name.  I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.

Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

For those interested, here is the overlay of the purported boundaries of NGLA from the schematic onto the Google Earth aerial.  The boundaries should probably be marginally shifted further to the top of the image.  You can click through to get a larger version of the image.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.

Newspaper articles are not "factual source material" but Realty Co. marketing ads are?

Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn

You don't think the Realty Co. might have gilded the lily just a bit?  What about those "Golf courses second to none in the world."?  That's golf courses plural.  It seems the people of the times were more discerning than you, and didn't fall for the hype.  Maybe motoring along the complete highway system at 20 mph wasn't all that exciting.





Here's a larger scale map of the 1904 topo you can click through to.  For your edification, the dotted roads are unimproved (meaning not capable of supporting auto traffic in those days).  The solid roads are improved.  As you may be able to see, the South Highway was improved and splits over near Far Pond with a northern track paralleling the RR on the north side on over to SHGC.  You can use your imagination to place the Shinnecock Inn.  The auto bridge over the canal was a single lane wooden bridge until 1908 which, I think, says something about the level of road development at the time.

The North Highway, which passed close to the Shinnecock Inn wasn't made passable to auto traffic until 1907 (see Goddard clip below).  It is not clear that the North highway from development plan in the Brooklyn Eagle article is the same as was "hardened" according to the Goddard book (see slip below).  The development plan North Highway doesn't map onto the existing road structure from the 1904 topo.  So, did they build a completely new North Highway in 1905-07

So, it appears that the city folks could get (albeit slowly) an automobile to close to the Shinnecock Inn by 1908.  From there they could purportedly have a short walk to the locker house and intended 1st tee of NGLA or to SHGC.

Sebonac Inlet Road was unimproved in 1904 and impassable to cars.  I've seen no evidence indicating when it was hardened.  You have said the original entrance to the current clubhouse was up White's Lane and the middle of the course, and not up Sebonac Inlet Road.  There was no track of any kind up the middle of Sebonac neck in 1904.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.

Wow, a new high in twisted logic!   


To summarize the video JC posted, which was quite cute, and you probably didn't watch because you might actually learn something:

Facts can be proven.

Opinions can't be proven.


If opinions can't be proven, they can't be refuted either.  An opinion can never be a fact.

[Bryan Izatt]

I think it's safe to say that CBM didn't design and construct his golf course without giving any thought to siting his clubhouse.

Seems reasonable.  Probably not on the first 2 or 3 day horseback ride with HJW.  He certainly had by the time the Shinnecock Inn was being built and he intended to have it on a site near the Shinnecock Inn and his intended 1st tee.


I think it's safe to say that the lack of funds delayed constructing his clubhouse.

That's what he said, so safe to say.


I think it's safe to say that CBM wouldn't site and construct a clubhouse that couldn't be accessed by car/road.

OK, but the train would have been better.


I think it's safe to say that the 205 acres CBM purchased, was land locked at the south end.

The site was landlocked on all sides where it wasn't waterlocked.


I think it's safe to say that CBM recognized the convenience of using the recently built Shinnecock Inn as a temporary clubhouse.

I don't recall that he ever said he wanted to use it as a clubhouse.  It was to provide hash and beds for the convenience of his members.  Hash and beds he didn't want to provide. 


I think it's safe to say that CBM wasn't an arsonist.
Thus, the burning of the Shinnecock Inn was an unexpected surprise to CBM.

Probably a surprise to everyone.  The Realty Co. probably was a little surprised that their $60,000 investment went up in flames after only a year.


CBM states that it was the burning down of the Shinnecock Inn that was the impetus for him to build his clubhouse.

Sure did, we're on a roll here.  But, it was also a time when he decided to abandon the site "near" the Shinnecock Inn that he'd intended to use for his clubhouse.


Regarding the current clubhouse site, he states: "... for today we have an unexcelled site"
So, did the site suddenly become "unexcelled" only after the Shinnecock Inn burned to the ground.

The site was the site, it didn't change.  Did CBM change his opinion of it as site for his clubhouse?  Who knows?


Or, was the site always "unexcelled" ?

The site was the site with whatever features it had.  Maybe he didn't recognize it initially.  Maybe he initially wanted his clubhouse to be "near" the Shinnecock Inn so they could provide the hash and beds he didn't want to or for its proximity to improved roads, or proximity to the train station.


Did CBM only become aware of the "unexcelled" site after the Shinnecock Inn burned down, or was he aware of that site
as he routed and designed holes # 1 and 18 ?

Beats me.  Do you have some facts to bring to the table or just more opinions?


CBM further states: "There are no more beautiful golfing vistas in the WORLD than those from the National Golf Club..."

So, did he have a moment of clarity, only after the fire trucks pulled up to the Shinnecock Inn ?
Did he have to wait until the smoke cleared his eyes before he had his epiphany ?

Asked and answered.  You're getting repetitive.


Like any intelligent person, especially one so studied, did he recognize the majesty of the current site from the get go.

Or, was he weighing his options ?
Let's see, shall I choose.......
1  A mundane site in the shadows of the Shinnecock Clubhouse
2  A majestic site unrivaled in golf, sitting high upon a bluff overlooking Sebonic Bay

Sounds like a rhetorical opinion coming.


My reading of his words is that when the Shinnecock Inn burned down, he gave some fleeting thought to constructing another temporary clubhouse, for convenience sake, as he still had the parking lot of the SI close by, but, instead, decided on siting his clubhouse where it was always intended.

Did he construct a first temporary clubhouse?  The SI was to provide hash and beds, not be a clubhouse.  He said he abandoned his clubhouse site "near" the Shinnecock Inn and decided to put the clubhouse overlooking Peconic Bay.  He didn't say why he abandoned his original site.  He didn't say he always intended to put it overlooking Peconic Bay.  That's your opinion and leap of logic absent of any factual substance.


Another quote from CBM is found on page 191 of "Scotland's Gift" where he states that "The Sahara of the Royal St George's at Sandwich I found in OUR SECOND HOLE.

Now, if you've played NGLA, you realize that the tee for the second hole is but a wedge from the current clubhouse.

This also leads me to believe that CBM ALWAYS intended the clubhouse to be sited exactly where it is.

His initially intended second hole would follow his initially intended first hole that he wrote was near to the initially intended clubhouse site near the Shinnecock Inn.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.Really! I hadn't really noticed that.  Too bad your story is just that - a story, an opinion, with no provable facts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just one last question, in reviewing this thread.

In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee.  In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?

If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought?  Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later?  I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?

[MCirba]

For those interested, here is the overlay of the purported boundaries of NGLA from the schematic onto the Google Earth aerial.  The boundaries should probably be marginally shifted further to the top of the image.  You can click through to get a larger version of the image.

Bryan,

Thanks for providing this.   It leads me to the conclusion that without the actual metes and bounds of the property we are debating from a shared erroneous understanding all thinking that the boundaries of that scorecard drawing are accurately drawn.   Clearly areas that ARE the golf course today fall outside those boundaries and in other areas those drawn boundaries extend into areas that are NOT NGLA, such as the extension over into Shinnecock Golf Club.  

Either that, or you've miscalculated in your drawing it over Google Earth, but I know you're pretty precise in your calculations, so I think the first statement I made is true.  Thanks for your efforts.

[JC Jones]

One of the things that confuses me about the routing is that CBM famously routed Chicago GC to protect against his slice yet didn't seem to do the same at NGLA.

edit: sorry, probably more appropriate for another thread.

[MCirba]

In the very first response, a poster suggested that routing the course where the turn hits the water would simulate TOC as much as the out and back, as TOC starts in town and only hits the firth at 7-12 tee.  In in legendary open mindset, of course Patrick dismisses this immediately in favor of his long held opinion, but I wonder what others thought on this notion is?

If he was making homage to TOC, wouldn't water at the turn, rather than a clubhouse view be his first thought?  Only to be reconsidered (as his words seem to say) under dire circumstances later?  I mean, we can all understand the magnificent water views, but do we know that is how CBM felt, given his goal?

Jeff,

IF Macdonald had a site where auto travel could easily get anywhere on his property and IF he had money for a clubhouse from the get-go, who knows what the routing would have looked like.  

We know he found desirable landforms that convinced him he could get some of his Ideal holes built, including the Alps, redan, and a place for an Eden with a pond carry that he thought appropriately penalized the duffer, and also turned and came upon the idea of the variable tee-shot carry of a Cape hole, which he thought somewhat an original concept.   That's what we know so it's safe to assume that he would have included those particular landforms in any land acquisition and would have worked those holes into any routing.

One could also assume that he would have wanted his course to reach the high bluff out where today's 1 and 18 are located but who knows for sure exactly how he envisioned that being used for golf except that it approximated the type of landforms he was seeking and provided a glorious view.   Anything else is speculation.

However, his limiting factor was that he didn't have a site easily accessible by auto traffic to anywhere on the property and he didn't have money for his clubhouse.   Thus, his die was cast in terms of where he needed to start and end his golf course.

That basic fact and the fact he wanted to use the landforms he earlier identified for the template holes as described helped define what the final routing turned out to me.  

Personally, I don't think he gave much of a damn about either the clubhouse or the proposed housing although I think it clearly was still in the plan in December 1906.   I think after securing the land CBM now had his personal playground and given his domineering personality, I think he proceeded to use the landforms as he saw fit, made adjustments as he felt necessary, extended the width of most holes to create alternate "safe" routes for the duffer, and if he used up more land than he originally estimated, probably figured it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[JC Jones]

However, his limiting factor was that he didn't have a site easily accessible by auto traffic to anywhere on the property and he didn't have money for his clubhouse.   Thus, his die was cast in terms of where he needed to start and end his golf course.

How did he get the 10k truckloads of dirt out to the site?  I can't seem to reconcile the notion that Sebonac Inlet road was not passable and yet he was capable of bringing 10k truckloads of dirt out there.  I will concede I know nothing of the difference in capability of the early 20th century autos and dump trucks.

[MCirba]

JC,

Great question and I don't presume to know the answer other than to say this was a "development" under construction.  

In other words, I'm speaking from the perspective of CBM's choices in December 1906 and earlier.   Macdonald told us that previously the site wasn't even walkable and he and Whigham had to navigate the property on horseback.

We also know that this was a multi-year effort, with Macdonald telling us that he and his committee would determine which holes to build where and stake out the boundaries over the next several months (some news reported 3 months, some 5 months) and then the subsequent construction and grow-in took years, with the course finally having a "soft opening" three and a half years later in July of 1910.

What were the logistics to get truckloads of dirt out there?   When was the property cleared of all of the brambles and the swampland filled in?   I would assume that it was after CBM secured the land in December of 1906...after all, why would he go through that major expenditure without knowing he could actually buy the land?   We don't know all the details, but if one looks at the overall timeline of the project it was a moving picture, obviously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You deserve every name you are called, at least in private.  I guess the code about keeping  private emails private has evaporated in your part of the world and on this website, or you have no bounds about how low you will stoop to win a childish argument of your own making.
Jeff,

What code ?

You're the idiot who sent the unsolicited email to me.
You're the one initiating the personal attacks.
And, every time you initiate one of those attacks, you get your nose bloodied, and subsequently begin your pitiful sniveling and whining.

No matter, we have a saying in Texas that the problem with mud wrestling pigs is the you quickly realize the pigs kind of like it. Congrats on your mud wrestling win.

Ahh yes, Texas, where men are men and the sheep are nervous.

In the words of Roberto Di Vicenzo, "What a stupid I am!"

Listen, if you ever can produce that simple little corroboration of when NGLA bought the land and what size it was, it would lend some learning to this site.

I indicated that I would do so when you asked the first time.

So, why are you repeating your request

If you can't for privacy reasons (a la TePaul several years ago with Merion) I am sure we will understand that, too, and take however it affects our position on the history of NGLA for what we each deem its worth.

When I'm in receipt of the specifics, I'll post them.
I previously indicated that I'd do so.

Again, didn't seem that out of line to ask, but apologize for whatever apparently set you off. 

"Whatever apparently set me off"  ?
So now you're pleading innocence.
Go back and reread what you typed, perhaps that will provide some insight.

But really, you would test the patience of Job with your ability to endlessly use every dirty fighting trick in the book - Lie, attribute false motives, set up straw men and false dichotomies, unwinnable scenarios, etc. 

I see, you pretend to hold out the olive branch and then make more personal attacks.

If that isn't a weasel like, low life tactic, I don't know what is.

But, let's just start with the first of your allegations.
Cite for me where I lied.


If there is a Mrs. Mucci, she must be a saint!

There is a Mrs Mucci and I've nicknamed her Farenheit, because she's perfect 98.6 % of the time
She's beautiful, inside and out.

She's certainly not a whiner.

She's a winner.

Everyone and I mean everyone understands why I married her.
No one knows why she married me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For the record, the GIS Viewer is the property of Suffolk County.  Suffolk County is responsible for naming streets in their jurisdiction.  I suspect they know the street names in their jurisdiction better than Patrick does. 

You're WRONG again.

Go to Google Maps for verification

If you take a wider view (see below), you can see that White's Lane comes from the east and enters NGLA property, goes north past some maintenance buildings and continues up the middle of the course (just as Patrick previously said it did) towards the current clubhouse where there is a short disconnect before it angles back out the east. 

That was the original entrance to the clubhouse.
At that location you will find the original entrance gate confirming same when you make the left off of Sebonac Inlet Rd into White's Lane.


So, the County obviously still considers the whole road to be White's Lane. 

NO, the county doesn't consider the whole road to be White's lane.
And, as you enter NGLA from Sebonac Inlet Rd, the massive gates greet you along with notices that it's private property.
When I'm there next I'll take pictures for you.
The road you claim is White's Lane is on private property.
It is the driveway leading to the clubhouse and NOT a public road.
Obviously, you've never been there to see for yourself


Perhaps it is all still a public road. 

It is NOT a public road.
It's on private property and is the club's driveway.

I'll leave it to Patrick to prove it's not.

Anyone who has been to NGLA knows it's private property and the driveway into the club.

But, please feel free to keep insisting that it's a public road.
I like it when you're wrong but redouble your efforts.


In the end, I will rely on the Suffolk County GIS Viewer as an accurate topo map  and as factual about the road's name. 
I will not rely on Patrick's opinions, misguided and argumentative as they are.

You can rely upon the SCGISV all you want.
The road you allege is a public road is a private driveway.

Too bad that the quality of the topo map gets lost in Patrick's stupid argumentative diversions.

Too bad that Google Maps agrees with me.
Zero in on the driveway and let me know if it says White's Lane, OR, if White's Lane enters the property by the 13th hole.

At some point you're going to have to admit that I'm right and that you and your Suffolk County GIS Viewer are wrong.
Do you have the fortitude to do that ?

My argument is factually correct and you've obviously been led down the wrong path, and a private one at that

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I'm afraid that I don't consider the "articles" as factual source material.

Newspaper articles are not "factual source material" but Realty Co. marketing ads are?

Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn

You don't think the Realty Co. might have gilded the lily just a bit?  

NO, and the 1904 map confirms same.

What about those "Golf courses second to none in the world."?  That's golf courses plural.  It seems the people of the times were more discerning than you, and didn't fall for the hype.  Maybe motoring along the complete highway system at 20 mph wasn't all that exciting.
Your ignorance is stunning.
Have you ever heard of Shinnecock Hlls, Maidstone, Oneck and Westhampton golf courses.
Other than Oneck, they're all still there and deemed second to none by some.
Have you heard of them





Here's a larger scale map of the 1904 topo you can click through to.  For your edification, the dotted roads are unimproved (meaning not capable of supporting auto traffic in those days).

That's NOT what the dotted lines mean.
In previous threads, numerous photos of cars on dirt roads were posted.

The solid roads are improved.  As you may be able to see, the South Highway was improved and splits over near Far Pond with a northern track paralleling the RR on the north side on over to SHGC.  You can use your imagination to place the Shinnecock Inn.  The auto bridge over the canal was a single lane wooden bridge until 1908 which, I think, says something about the level of road development at the time.

It says nothing about the roads, only about the bridge spanning the Shinnecock canal.

The North Highway, which passed close to the Shinnecock Inn wasn't made passable to auto traffic until 1907 (see Goddard clip below).  It is not clear that the North highway from development plan in the Brooklyn Eagle article is the same as was "hardened" according to the Goddard book (see slip below).  The development plan North Highway doesn't map onto the existing road structure from the 1904 topo.  So, did they build a completely new North Highway in 1905-07

In other words, another road.

So, it appears that the city folks could get (albeit slowly) an automobile to close to the Shinnecock Inn by 1908.  From there they could purportedly have a short walk to the locker house and intended 1st tee of NGLA or to SHGC.

What locker house ?
None was ever built.

Sebonac Inlet Road was unimproved in 1904 and impassable to cars.

Unimproved, or unpaved roads didn't prevent motor vehicles from using them as you insist.

I've seen no evidence indicating when it was hardened

The "hardening" of the roads is immaterial.
The dirt roads were more than adequate to allow vehicular traffic.

Or, do you think that CBM was lying when he stated that they used 10,000, repeat, 10,000 truckloads of topsoil to improve the quality of the turf.


And, that was prior to the completion of the clubhouse.

How do you suppose those 20,000 sorties arrived at NGLA ?
Do you think that they were airlifted ?
Or do you think that the roads, improved and unimproved, allowed them access.

Just admit that you're wrong........... again..  


You have said the original entrance to the current clubhouse was up White's Lane and the middle of the course, and not up Sebonac Inlet Road.  There was no track of any kind up the middle of Sebonac neck in 1904.

My  god, you are a colossal moron.
Let me help you................ again.
The clubhouse was built in 1909.
The entrance to the clubhouse was also created in 1909 vis a vis White's lane.

[Phil Young]

"A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring."

Such a simple sentence that I believe is being misunderstood by some.

For example, Pat wrote, “Hence, it would appear that by June 2, 1907 there was a complete highway system was in place in the area near the Shinnecock Inn. You don't suppose that those cars were airlifted in, do you?” {underline mine)

A complete highway system? Pat I think you need to get back behind the wheel of your Model A and take a ride on the LIE so that you’ll appreciate what a “highway system” is. It certainly isn’t the definition of the “system of good roads” that the advertisement was referring. These were basically wide dirt roads and nothing more.

How can I justify that statement? Simple, take a look at the road and the automobile being driven on it that was the illustration on the top of the advertisement. If anyone would want to present a picture illustrating the absolute best view of the “good system of roads” that this was describing, it would be the creator of this advertisement. Here it is:



There is absolutely no way that auto is being driven on any part of a highway system. Is it a good road by ca. 1910 standards? Absolutely yes. Could it be used for trucks hauling dirt to the building site? Absolutely yes. Could LARGE trucks be used to haul this dirt? NO! First the roads wouldn’t support them and secondly there simply weren’t any trucks “large” in the sense that we would view them today.

Consider, how was the dirt loaded into and out of these trucks? Almost certainly by hand, one shovel at a time since the hydraulics for creating a truck bed to dump the dirt from it almost assuredly not been invented by this time and large front loader type tractors also.

The problem here is that we keep viewing it in terms of our late 20th/early 21st century eyes and minds. Consider what was actually meant by the phrase, "A complete system of good roads for riding, driving and motoring." Obviously the three words have very different and specific meanings to the person who wrote it and hopefully, from his perspective, for those who would have read it back then.

Is it possible that Riding = Horseback Riding? Driving = Normal Automobile use? Motoring = Devil-May-Care high speed (for those days) adventure behind the wheel? I submit that is precisely what was meant. From the illustration shown which, again, is as an exact a depiction of what the looked like at the time of the advertisement, there is absolutely no way the "system of good roads" were the major thoroughfare as being claimed and a “complete highway system” it was not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I asked you to refute my opinions or accept them as facts.

Wow, a new high in twisted logic!  


To summarize the video JC posted, which was quite cute, and you probably didn't watch because you might actually learn something:

Facts can be proven.

Opinions can't be proven.


If opinions can't be proven, they can't be refuted either.  An opinion can never be a fact.

It's MY OPINION THAT THE SUN WILL RISE IN THE EAST TOMORROW AND THAT IT WILL SET IN THE WEST.

Let's wait until tomorrow and see if my opinion is in fact, factual.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()