Was C.B. Macdonald's routing of NGLA

[Sven Nilsen]

Maybe, maybe not.  Seems like what they ended up with worked out pretty well.

Both he and Behr pretty much say the course routed itself.  When you look at the natural progression from the entry point near the Inn, up to the start of the coast line (where he found the Eden and the Cape) and continuing on up the existing road to the bluff, it isn't hard to imagine them having it pretty well figured out in a matter of days.

Its possible they didn't even venture far enough off the beaten path to see the Western portion of the property.  Everything they were looking for was right there in front of them.

Sven

[Steve Lang]

  Where are the boundaries of subject "450 acres?"  Did i miss that delineation?

The Shinnecock Inn (SI) is certainly close, but I assume that there was some sort of multi-party quid pro quo going on with use of it and to minimize capital investment for the founders.  Did the founders and friends or business guests really need such accommodations versus staying with others in Southhampton?.  

Edit... Would the founders really have accepted the SI out back within close eyeshot of the type Clubhouse that they ultimately built?  Amazing that a controlled fire to take out grass got so out of hand.

[DMoriarty]

Jeez Mike,  That was an awful long ways to go to not answer my question.   Let's try this again . . .

Here is an excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably.  It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.   The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. 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.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.

By CBM's account, which of the following events happened first?
     "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
    "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.  
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."

Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

The rising land form on 18 blocks the setting sun.

On # 1, your target fairway is well below the tee, hence you're not looking at the horizon, but, down, to the fairway well below the elevated tee.

The topo says the 18th tee is at 10 feet and the highest point beyond the 18th fairway is 40 feet.  The sun descends over the rising land form a few minutes before sunset.  I've seen you drive the ball.  You get more than 30 feet of elevation.  So, the sun must be in your eyes a few minutes before sunset and for some time before that.  If you want to be silly now and say that it's not in your eyes precisely at sunset .........  

The 1st tee is at about 45 feet, the fairway maybe 25 feet lower.  Beyond the fairway the highest point is maybe 45 or 50 feet.  So standing on the tee you'll have to explain what's blocking the sun at sunrise and for some time after as the sun rises.

Sounds like you've backed yourself into a semantic corner.

 

[Sven Nilsen]

What we need to find are the letters he sent overseas. 

Now that would be a treasure trove.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The rising land form on 18 blocks the setting sun.

On # 1, your target fairway is well below the tee, hence you're not looking at the horizon, but, down, to the fairway well below the elevated tee.

The topo says the 18th tee is at 10 feet and the highest point beyond the 18th fairway is 40 feet.  The sun descends over the rising land form a few minutes before sunset.  I've seen you drive the ball.  You get more than 30 feet of elevation.  So, the sun must be in your eyes a few minutes before sunset and for some time before that.  

If you want to be silly now and say that it's not in your eyes precisely at sunset .........  

The 1st tee is at about 45 feet, the fairway maybe 25 feet lower.  Beyond the fairway the highest point is maybe 45 or 50 feet.  So standing on the tee you'll have to explain what's blocking the sun at sunrise and for some time after as the sun rises.

Bryan,

I find this to be a perfect example of the egregious, arrogant attitude you assume when you hold yourself out to be knowledgeable, to the point of being an expert on a course that you've never played.

You've never played NGLA and I've played it hundreds of times, from sun up till sun down and all the time in between and now you're going to try to tell me and all those moronic enough to listen to you, how the holes play.

Despite the fact that you've never played NGLA, you're going to try to tell us what the conditions are like and how they affect play, and you don't see the absurdity of your claims ?  ?  ?

Don't you understand how utterly foolish you are ?

Sounds like you've backed yourself into a semantic corner.

I think it's more likely that you've made a fool of yourself.

You're like a professor who's never had sex telling a gigolo what it's like.

I can see that I'm going to have to elevate your moron "status" to a notch above the colossal category.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

You do realize that sunrise at NGLA occurs prior to 5:30am, don't you ?

And that Sunset is after 8:00pm ?

So tell us again how the sun is in my eyes when I tee off # 1 and # 18

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

You're right.  I was wrong.   Number 1 and 18 never play into the rising or setting sun for anyone at any time of the golf season at NGLA.  I can't understand the nuances of the topography and the angle of the sun and sunrise and sunset times without having played the course.

[Steve Lang]

  So, when is the CBM seance scheduled for?

i assume everyone has seen this CBM solicitation letter from Dec 3, 1906?

from good reading at  http://issuu.com/lhasak/docs/ngla_book3

[DMoriarty]

I don't have that letter.  Nice!

[DMoriarty]

While people are digesting the letter, I thought I'd post some more info on the borders.

NOTE: ALL MAPS BELOW ORIENTED NORTH TO THE RIGHT.

The articles quote CBM as saying that they had two miles at their disposal and about one mile of frontage on Bullshead Bay, and about a quarter mile of frontage on Peconic Bay. The orange line is 2 miles, exactly.  The long blue line is exactly 1 mile.  The small blue line is a quarter mile.
 

Below is my attempt at placing the blueprint borders on an aerial.  (The area on the blue print at the northern end is not decipherable, so I used old course maps to estimate the approximate edge of the bluff.)  The marked area measures 200 acres.


Next in yellow are the current property lines of the two golf course parcels from the Suffolk County map.  The acreages as measured are 52.3 and 185.3, for a total of 237.6 acres, as measured.


Next is green is my estimate of the land original purchased by CBM. It combines the lines from the parcel map (excluding the 2.4 acre parcel purchased in 1910 or 1911 and used for the pro shop) with the shoreline from the blue print and early map. It measures 205 acres.  

Next in blue is another estimate of the land currently used for golfing. It measures 162 acres. About the same as Steve's, but mine excludes the pro shop.)


Next one shows the only two areas of any significance that aren't used for golfing. The area near the 9th green was going to be the site of the bath and locker house, and possible the site of a future clubhouse.  It measures 14 acres.  The low lying area next to the 17th measures about 18 acres.  


Hope this helps.

[Steve Lang]

  David,

Well done.  You may need a 12-step program to be able to put down GE Pro's measuring tools...  watch out for KML extractions of coordinates...

In your real estate research, did you happen upon when CBM purchased the 200 acres for Ballyshears, conveniently overlooking NGLA, the Sound and out into the Atlantic? 

Were the subject 450 acres available to construct NGLA all contiguous including where Sebonac is now or perhaps did they include the Ballyshears property which would have cost CB another $40,000 or more if purchased later to start building his mansion in 1910??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

You're right.  I was wrong.   

Number 1 and 18 never play into the rising or setting sun for anyone at any time of the golf season at NGLA. 

I can't understand the nuances of the topography and the angle of the sun and sunrise and sunset times without having played the course.

AGREED

[MCirba]

Great find Steve.  Nice work David.

[MCirba]

Good to see the original plan as described in the attached Founders Agreement was still in place at that time.  

[Sven Nilsen]

*

[Sven Nilsen]

Good to see the original plan as described in the attached Foinders Agreement was still in place at that time. 

Mike:

I'd read the 4th paragraph of the letter again.  Things had changed.

Sven

[MCirba]

Sven,

I agree that he was already giving himself wiggle room and that the focus was going to be on the golf course and not a scheme to enrich the investors.  But he was also playing it both ways by telling them that the agreement they had previously signed was what was going to take place. He was a smart guy and rather shrewd.

[DMoriarty]

Read the 4th paragraph again Mike.  The idea will be carried out, but the  investment component is outside the spirit of the original idea.

[MCirba]

Jeez Mike,  That was an awful long ways to go to not answer my question.   Let's try this again . . .

Here is an excerpt from CBM:
. . . So Jim Whigham and myself spent two or three days riding over it, studying the contours of the ground.  Finally we determined what it was we wanted, providing we could get it reasonably.  It joined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course.   The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose. 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.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape.

By CBM's account, which of the following events happened first?
     "The company agreed to sell us 205 acres, and we were permitted to locate it as to best serve our purpose."
OR
    "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.  
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green.  Then we found a wonderful water-hole, now the Cape. . . ."

Thanks.

David,

Respectfully, it's a false choice.

CBM starts a new paragraph to tell us what holes he and Whigham found on their 2 or 3 days on horseback which came prior to the both the company agreeing to sell them land and prior to them staking out the land.

He is not writing in strict chronological order.

[DMoriarty]

Sven,  we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel.  By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location.  As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse.  And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land.  Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.

My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did.
______________________________________

Bryan,  this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed.  There is no reasonable debate to be had here.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,
Here again is a portion of what CBM wrote.  Two consecutive sentences:
"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.
We found an Alps; found an ideal Redan; then we discovered a place we could put the Eden hole which would not permit a topped ball to run-up on the green."

You seem to be saying that the examples in the second sentence had nothing to do with the description in the first sentence.
 - Do you really think that is reasonable reading of the passage?
 - Do you really believe that CBM just happened to provide a list of unrelated examples immediately after writing that he had earnestly studied the contours; selecting those that would fit in naturally with the various classical holes he had in mind?

I ask because it seems to me that your reading of the passage seems more than a little attenuated, and from my perspective it looks like you are letting your desired result control your interpretation, rather than following the source material.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Sven,  we are in agreement on the 2.4 acre parcel.  By the description of the exchange in the book, I have even less doubt that the were talking about the proshop location.  As you mentioned the timing is off for the clubhouse.  And CBM's description of his need for the land (location of the first tee impinging, need for a caddyshack, balls sailing off property) fits the proshop site. And the physical description of the property is of the pro shop property, even the water frontage one acre wide desc fits. And the negotiation, dollar amounts, and timing match CBM's description of the purchase of the pro shop land.  Even the developer's stated desire to accommodate the club tracks.

You are dispensing with the information that the source says that the site was for the clubhouse and was not owned and that the developer apparently made its use as a club house a condition of sale.

My takeaway is that developer wanted CBM to build his clubhouse adjacent to the developer's land for obvious reasons, but that isn't what CBM wanted and it isn't what he did.  Maybe he did, but I'll wait and see.  If you want to declare game over, that's fine for you.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that CBM agreed to the site being the clubhouse site and then built the pro shop on it instead - breaching the condition. 
______________________________________

Bryan,  this is a great example of why your insistence on (and application of) your absolute certainty standard is flawed.  There is no reasonable debate to be had here.

I think your use of the word "flawed" is flawed.  You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities.  IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.  Neither approach is flawed.  This is not a competition to see who got the right answer first.  On most of the things we talk about on here we will never know for sure what the right answer is.  There is the "fog of war" - well I think there is the fog of history too. 

We have a credible source, with access to club records, saying they didn't own the clubhouse land.  I've said that it could have been the pro shop land based on the information you've stated above.  It could also be that the source was correct. You want to draw a conclusion on the balance of probabilities.  Where there is factual information, either that the club has, or that we can glean from the deeds, I'd prefer to wait and see before drawing a conclusion.  Why the rush to judgement - this happened more than 100 years ago.  I can wait for the deed information for more certainty.  I don't need to draw a final conclusion today or even tomorrow.

[MCirba]

David/All,

In the interest of advancing the discussion I recall reading a first hand account by either Macdonald or Whigham where after discovering an Alps hole he/they turned and saw an ideal place for a redan.  Can you recall or better yet reproduce that article/account here?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I just don't think it makes sense to pretend the scales haven't tipped when, as you must realize, they have --I was quite surprised when much of the information in the draft cut against your position.   Your demanding "absolute certainty" when it suits you seems to me to be more a rhetorical tool than a real, workable standard.

People are put to death based on a lower evidentiary standard that you are willing to accept in this trivial discussion.

And there is no evidence of a "breach" because there is no evidence that CBM ever accepted the condition.

You want to draw a final conclusion based on the balance of probabilities.  IF there is the possibility of more definitive factual information coming forward I'd prefer to wait to draw a firm conclusion.

I don't think this is quite accurate on at least three  accounts.
- First, so far as I am concerned when it comes to this material there is no such thing as a "final conclusion." All conclusions are subject to revision if better information comes out.  Such is the nature of historical analysis.
- Second, you aren't waiting.  You have stated that you are going to stick with the version in the draft until it is proven false with absolute certainty. This isn't exactly waiting for definitive information.
- Third, you aren't consistent with your application of the standard.