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.


T_MacWood

Passing down legend
« on: May 07, 2004, 06:56:39 AM »
For many years we have praised the early work of Old Tom Morris at courses like Muirfield, Westward Ho! and County Down. In Philadelphia Wilson and Crump are gigantic figures whose story has been protected for decades (well deserved but it has been at the exclusion of men like Flynn, Macdonald and Colt). The handful of architectural societies are sometimes guilty of over-zealous or faulty attribution...and  ignoring the darker periods in the architect's career.

Might it be healthier to continue these passed down legends, instead of uncovering facts that might alter our perceptions? Are we better off with the legends?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 06:57:38 AM by Tom MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2004, 08:04:19 AM »
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Myths and legends are tools for religions and governments.  I think any researcher should pursue and publish an accurate history, warts and all.

Mike_Young

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2004, 08:08:30 AM »
With all due respect to the work of the past IMHO the myths far outweigh the facts.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

wsmorrison

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2004, 08:15:49 AM »
Mike,
I think I have an idea what you are referring to and may know an answer or two of yours.  But, would you cite some examples?

Chris_Clouser

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2004, 09:06:28 AM »
Wayne,

I agree totally.  I know when I began researching Maxwell I went in with some very misguided perceptions of the man and his career.  I made sure that was something that I addressed in writing the book.  In this case, I think the myths and legends that supposedly made Maxwell an ideal of the "Golden Age" will be blown out of the water and reveal what was really there.  In my opinion the real Maxwell and what he did in his career far outweigh the legends and myths associated with his career.  I think people will have a totally new perspective on him and place him in a much higher view than they did prior.  There weren't too many things about his career that I came away with the same thoughts as I had when I went in.  

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2004, 09:12:58 AM »
Tom,

Even though I have grown more cynical because of it, I am glad recent stories and books have dispelled Camelot and shown what a bunch of thugs the Kennedys were.  It certainly displaced all the books I had on them, relegating them to the basement, but I am glad to know the truth.  Being the art historian you are, what effect has David Hockney's book regarding the use of optics to create more natural paintings by the renassiance artists had on your view of their seemingly godlike talents?

TEPaul

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2004, 09:22:58 AM »
"Might it be healthier to continue these passed down legends, instead of uncovering facts that might alter our perceptions? Are we better off with the legends?"

Definitely NOT! But I'd like to know what you're referring to by 'uncovering facts' that might alter our perceptions with examples you've given. I certainly hope it's not some "new facts" you think you've uncovered from magazine articles we and many others have all seen for years concerining Macdonald's and Whigham's attributions at Merion and Colt's attribution at PVGC. I think the facts in those situations have been accurately uncovered very well in the last few years alone, particularly Colt at PVGC!

"The handful of architectural societies are sometimes guilty of over-zealous or faulty attribution...and  ignoring the darker periods in the architect's career."

Architectural societies? What does that mean? And what does 'ignoring the darker periods in the architect's career' mean? Are you now trying to establish that mysterious fact that Crump might've shot himself? The overzealous or faulty attribution that concerns me sometimes is yours in apparently attempting to establish some architectural attribution for someone who probably didn't do all the things you assume they did from a few general and indirect remarks from newspaper accounts which even if contemporaneous can be as misleading as anything else for a number of well known reasons!

But as to perpetuating a legend---if it's based on the facts and the truth I think it serves a very good purpose at some of the older courses like a PVGC or a Merion or Oakmont. It serves the purpose of having the course protected and preserved more than it probably would've been without that legend perception present all these years. Often those clubs that create a legend around their original architects are those clubs that hold a fairly well-known tournament in honor of that architect such as the Hugh Wilson at Merion or the Crump Cup at PVGC. Perhaps even the Travis at GCGC although with the cross-purpose architectural history of Emmet and Travis at GCGC that's an odd one to do. It would've been nice if ANGC had figured out a better way of glorifying its original architects, in my opinion!

I think one of the best examples of shedding some real light on a legend with the facts of how a golf course came to be was what we did in the last year or two by producing the original hole drawing designs of William Flynn at Kittanset that shone some light on exactly what Frederic Hood did and didn't do. Not just that but also producing a letter from Hugh Wilson himself that probably had never been seen before stating he was there with Flynn for a few days in the beginning of the routing and design process. That wasn't indirect newspaper accounts---that was the real thing--- a direct letter and the drawings of the holes of the course which old aerials showed was exactly how the golf course was built to those drawings. I feel the same can also be said for Shinnecock and how that decades old legend of Dick Wilson as the designer of that course was finally scotched!

I have a gut feeling, though, that if the real record is ever found and uncovered the real facts will show the important contributions of men like Pickering, Flynn, Valentine and perhaps even Toomey at Merion and men such as Govan at PVGC. These are the men who were there every single day for years and years during a slow construction and design process and probably the ones who did things we today are not imagining or understanding correctly! The record of Alison's contribution to PVGC after Crump died has apparently been vaguely known but never fully understood as to it's import, in my opinion. But it's also important to know in what context he was given to work there when he made his hole by hole recmmendations. For that one needs to understand the way the course was back then in detail as well as the way it is now and to fully understand the significance of those "rememberances" that Alison worked under!


T_MacWood

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2004, 09:32:55 AM »
Kelly
I wouldn't describe myself as an art historian....more an art admirer. Hockney's theory is interesting...it doesn't have much impact on me because I'm not crazy about renassiance art.

Artists have been using little tricks for centuries...I watched some show on the ancient art of Tibet, they preformed an ultraviolet scans that uncovered a grid-like or axis system underneath that explained why the proportions never changed in these paintings no matter what the scale. Pretty clever, and doesn't detract from their beauty IMO.

Perhaps Hockney will expose the fact that many famous contemporary artists have teams of faceless artists working under them...creating many of the ideas and often doing the actual work. Perhaps I was naive about the way art works today...very similar to golf architecture, reminds me of RTJ in his prime.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 09:33:48 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Young

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2004, 09:34:49 AM »
Wayne,
There are many examples but to use my home course as an example, we have greens built in 1960 that are attributed to Ross by the membership annd are considered sacred.  We also  have a majority of our greens that were constructed in some semblance to the drawings he mailed yet were in most cases reduced significantly in original form.  And in one case the green was turned 90 degrees to intended line of play.  And all of this is sacred.

Using Ross as an example would you agree that in most cases the "Macro Ross" is a stable philosophy that consist mainly of strategy and thus routings and shot values yet "Micro Ross" was in many cases a hodge-podge created in many instances by people that did not understand or had never built a golf course before.  Such as the case at our club.  Yet TIME has been the savior.  These early clubs would not have been accepted today.  In the day of instant gratification we have opened courses within a year of construction starts while in the 20s and 30s it could be 5 years before conditions were acceptable. And it is these conditions we equate to the architect at many of these clubs today.

All of this is not to take away from the designs of the early ages, but to say that we have created the  myths, in many cases, on places that if the original architect had seen it he might have turned it down.
Mike
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 09:37:27 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2004, 09:46:31 AM »
Tom,

Sorry to hijack the thread with art discussions, but one my first clients in my solo career is a great collector of art.  He had a favorite young artist, bought a lot of his work, but as can happen the guy got some notoriety.  Well, 0ne day my client visited his studio in Manhatten and witnessed two girls applying paint to canvases.  My client inquired of the artist what was going on and he said the girls put down the basic concepts and then he puts the finishing touches on.  My client never bought another piece from him.  He told me the story for my benefit.  Of course, the old masters were in great demand, and had students or apprentices work on their paintings, I believe this to be true, or I recall reading that soemwhere

T_MacWood

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2004, 09:48:18 AM »
TE
I had no idea that Macdonald and Whigham had been involved at Merion until a few months ago....I had never seen their names ever associated with development of the course (other Macdonald giving advice prior to Wilson UK tour). There was a thread on Merion and Macdonald many months ago and you and Wayne gave the impression it was news to you to....now you have known about the information for years and claim it has been given its proper consideration. I'm confused.

BCrosby

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2004, 09:57:45 AM »
Myths sell lots. Especailly during the last 40 years or so, golf architecture has been the handmaiden to real estate developers. Not always, but often enough.

When you are hung out for $10 or $20MM on a course development, a frank and open discussion of the merits of the course can be extremely dangerous stuff. The economic stakes are too high. You can't afford a bad review. It crushes margins. It's better to avoid those conversations altogether.

That's beginning to change a little. But only a little. Frank talk about design issues is the central strength of this site, imho. You'll never hear that talk in mass media magazines or TV. For the reasons given above.

So let's have at the myths. Somebody's got to to do it. Might as well be us.

Bob

 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 10:13:54 AM by BCrosby »

A_Clay_Man

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2004, 10:05:00 AM »
It all depends on the context, you are studying.

Is FLW any less a great archie because he was a shit?

Tom, It seems to me that using the positives, be it art, religion or any other teaching venue, to further enlightenment.

The irony with those Mustang murals is the acceptance of impermanence.

RJ_Daley

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2004, 11:07:17 AM »
Tom Paul, your post above was in the style and quality of mythical and legendary.  It really said much of what I'd like to say, only with greater insight due to Wayne and your experiences with researching matters like these.  Well done.

Tom Mac., I think that myths and legends are attributed to certain personages because they are earned through achievements that rise to greatness in some aspect of a great person's work or life.  No life is without warts.  We must have the legends to inspire the youth to study and dream.  After they study their subjects and become more familiar with less known or obscured details (the warts) they can then participate in learned circles and put things in more objective context.  Myths and legends are for the youthful mind to inspire inquiry, skepticism and cynicism are for the older/mature and contrary mind to raise debate and objectivity.  Both sides balance out in the end, I think.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

T_MacWood

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2004, 11:40:10 AM »
TE/RJ
I don't believe the legends perpetuated at Pebble Beach, Oakmont, PVGC or Merion have been a unquestioned benefit because they have ignored important contributors.

At PBGL, it unbelievable to me that the names of Egan, Fowler and MacKenzie were totaly erased from public consciousness for decades. What do we know of Loeffler and McGlynn's contribution at Oakmont? Finegan IMO went out of his way to limit the contribution of Colt--blatent legend protection. And I personally had no idea that Macdonald and Whigham were advising at Merion or that a group or committee designed the golf course, and up until a few years ago the extent Flynn's major contribution.

Another example--and I'm as guilty as anyone--is romaticizing the heavy drinking of may of these gents. Is this image we want our youth aspiring to?

Architectural societies are good at promoting their legends, but at times they over do it. The Colt Society is the worst example of inaccurate attribution...they stake claim to every golf course MacKenzie designed. These organizations also ignore and sometimes defend what I consider negative aspects of an architects career. Tilly's DH tour during the Depression and the total rejection of Burbeck being examples. Some of these architects racist or anti-semetic attitudes are also left untold. I suppose you could say these atitidues were a reflection of society, but I think it is still important to know. Do we want our youth hitching their star blindly to someone who they later discover was a racist? Full disclosure it healthy IMO.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 11:42:28 AM by Tom MacWood »

RJ_Daley

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2004, 12:00:02 PM »
Tom Mac., to the best of my knowledge Ghandi and Mother Teresa didn't build any golf courses.  You'll have to settle for hard drinkin' and high livin' legends... ::) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

T_MacWood

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2004, 12:06:33 PM »
RJ
Good point...let Ghandi and MT inspire..and let the truth come out about the "hard drinkin' and high livin' legends"...warts and all.

TEPaul

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2004, 12:41:24 PM »
"There was a thread on Merion and Macdonald many months ago and you and Wayne gave the impression it was news to you to....now you have known about the information for years and claim it has been given its proper consideration. I'm confused."

Tom MacW:

You certainly are confused! Perhaps you'll just continue to be. Wayne and I have been doing research on Merion for perhaps two years if that, although not all that intensely. We've certainly been aware of Macd's advice to the Merion committee at NGLA and we've seen a good number of the old Golf Illustrated articles and other golf magazines and local newspaper articles and accounts that mention all kinds of things including what you've produced about "assistance" from Macdonald and Whigham at Merion. The difference between you and us with material like that is we just don't put the kind of stock in it you apparently do. The reason we don't is simply because we view it as far too general to put much specific stock in. We thought you'd produced something very specific about Macdonald and Whigham at Merion but it appears you haven't, although and again, you may still think you have.

I think the fundamental difference between us and you is we probably just have a far different way of looking at the very same research material than you do. There's probably any number of reasons for that!

The fact with Merion architecturally, and very much still today is it's just very hard to tell specifically who did exactly what----basically the record just doesn't seem to exist and these magazine articles you occasionally produce just aren't really filling in the gaps as you might think they are.

Merion has all those magazine articles, and they always have. Many people over the years have obviously seen them. Many of the best articles also seem to come from local newspaper accounts but even those are usually only general as opposed to the specifics of architecture and design.

This best sources, in my opinion, are from those who were actually there and wrote about those things but we certainly don‘t usually have the luxury of that type of material. That would include Tillinghast, certainly at PVGC as he was there a good deal and was a good friend and playing companion of Crump's and perhaps Wilson too. If Tillinghast said that Macdonald and Whigham lent a great deal of assistance to Wilson on Merion East as the course was actively being built I'd take that very seriously. Unfortunately I can't see any specifics of that architecturally and even to date I can't see that he didn't just mean what Macdonald (and perhaps Whigham too) did for Wilson and the Merion committee during those two days of an intense architectural education at NGLA!

You and Paul Turner too seem to think there's always been this effort around Philadelphia to give other architects like Macdonald, Whigham and Colt short shrift in the things they did for these courses architecturally. I don't see that at all.

There's been the constant rumor around here for decades that Colt routed PVGC but that Crump basically designed that routing. Of course the way the course turned out specifically compared to those Colt hole drawings can go a long way to showing the similarities and differences that way. But is there any reason why that rumor of Colt routing the course wouldn't have been extant all these decades? And it also seems you’ve never been aware how extant that rumor has been all these decades. One just really needs to start to understand what was happening down there with Crump and Colt for that week or so they were together. There’s no known written record of that time that I know of or anyone else seems to have ever been aware of.  But during those five years Crump was there every day after Colt left for good is something you don‘t seem to understand or appreciate properly. For some reason you can't seem to understand the details of that part and you basically keep trying to deny it or skew what really happened. As for the routing question at PVGC, Colt’s part and Crump’s part in that, as you know, in just the last few years it’s probably now possible to go a long way to figuring out who did what on the routing due to the identification of the blue and the red lines and what they mean which apparently no one ever understood all these years!

You've tried to say the course was basically finished in 1914 or 1915. That's simply not the case no matter how much or how hard you want to hang onto that belief. I don't believe you even have much idea between the differences of routing a course and designing that routing. Crump was constantly changing that design (although certainly not entire routing) during those years. He certainly did change some of the details of the routing on some holes such as #12-15 and others such as #2 and #7. He apparently planned to change other holes somewhat routing-wise such as #7 (again) #9, #11, #16 and perhaps even #15 but he died before he could do that.

To be honest it pisses me off that a guy like you tends to both question and suspect the motives of people like Jim Finegan and Warner Shelley in that they may be consciously trying to perpetuate some rumor or myth about Crump and trying to glorify him and others at Merion may be doing the same with Wilson.

Merion is not doing that at all and neither is PVGC. The fact is no one really knows the specifics of the design of Merion although Merion is clearly readily admitting today that they can now see that Flynn had far more to do with the later outcome of the course, and perhaps even the initial stage of it than they initially thought. A lot of that has to do with the voluminous hole drawings that we've found regarding that, only some of which existed previously at the club.

It seems we just have a very different way of looking at things than you do. We do not believe we should try to turn the general into the specific they way you appear inclined to do. We certainly have no concern about giving attribution to whomever it was who was responsible for the specifics of Merion, it's just hard to know who that was at this point.

If we could only find something architecturally akin to what we've found agronomically about Merion that would definitely set the record straight. We're still searching for that direct architectural record, particularly of Hugh Wilson’s but places to look for it are beginning to run low, unfortunately!

T_MacWood

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2004, 12:55:20 PM »
TE
After reading through the 'Merion and Macdonald' thread, it does not appear either one of you were aware of the advisory role Macdonald and Whigham had with the committee, that is why I was confused by your comments that you had been aware of this stuff for years.

"As I said earlier there is so far no evidence that Macdonald and Raynor were advising Merion of what to build there. And who would this "committee" you refer to at Merion be? If you mean people like Mr. Francis and maybe some of the railroad magnates and a few other "bighitters" from the Merion Cricket club who were possibly involved in the funding of the courses they had other functions than the architecture." ~~TE

"I wish you could help us with the articles you mentioned that were written around the time of the opening of Merion that mention CBM and Whigham as on site advisors.  These are materials that need to be considered.  You are absolutely correct that contemporary newspaper articlesare extremely valuable.  We are fortunate that Temple University and other resource collections are present to research and we will do so.  Tom and I are very hesitant to make conclusions on hearsay and oral traditions.  We have come across so many that are wrong."  ~~ Wayne
 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2004, 12:56:40 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2004, 02:28:13 PM »
RJ;

You said on post #13 that you seemed to like what I said about legends and myths on another earlier post. But then you said this on post #13 to Tom MacWood;

"No life is without warts.  We must have the legends to inspire the youth to study and dream.  After they study their subjects and become more familiar with less known or obscured details (the warts) they can then participate in learned circles and put things in more objective context.  Myths and legends are for the youthful mind to inspire inquiry, skepticism and cynicism are for the older/mature and contrary mind to raise debate and objectivity.  Both sides balance out in the end, I think."

That right there, my friend, just might be one of the most thoughtful remarks ever put on this website! I realize it isn't specifically about golf architecture and may be more about the entire ethos of this country of ours which in many interesting ways we can see DOES apply in some interesting ways to golf architecture, certainly in the past and perhaps in the present and future too.

I'd say that myths and legends aren't just to inspire inquiry in youth, myths and legends are also to just plain INSPIRE--and sometimes almost everyone! Those who used this technique and theme correctly to inspire have made much mileage and success out of it and happily so, I'm sure. Probably the best at it in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. The things he said and imaged for all of us in this way did make us feel good about ourselves and about our whole country and our "Americanism". He did that by asking us to look back at heroes and myths that I feel are subconscioulsy within us anyway from our collective American upbringing. We all for some reasons tend to look back in time fondly from time to time---and it's generally our heroes, our myths and and the legends of old we want to look back on! They do inspire us, even if we may somewhere in our brains understand they may not be wholly true!

Who among us really believes that little George Washington really cut down the cherry tree and then admitted it when his father questioned him?  Probably many actually do but even those of us who don't will never give up what that little myth alone means to the way we look at ourselves and want to look at our selves both indivudually and collectively (the way we want to see our country).

There's this wonderful little book written perhaps 30 or so years ago called "American Myth--American Reality" that tracks and talks about these types of things and the importance of them. It concludes that the myths within us, even many of those little childhood parables we all grew up with as Americans, we do truly need--they basically create our American ethos---our American image of ourselves--our American concsciousness. Is it reality? Is it always the truth, warts and all? Of course not, but we need it nevertheless, at least I think we do, as you very smartly said in your post, at least when we're youthful and need to be inspired to dream!

How can anyone deny that America above perhaps any culture in the history of humankind is the one that inspires dreams the most? And because it does, who can deny that more dreams have actually come true here than anywhere else in the history of the world?

Do we really need to take that ability to inspire and dream away from our children by telling them the unadulterated truth about everything and everybody, warts and all? Of course not, unless we want to depress the concsiouness and the virtual drive of our culture and society and our future. A chronicle such as Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckberry Finn" is as good a descriptive juxtapostion of the childhood dream and the American Reality as could ever be found!

It's a very good thread subject Tom MacWood started here, but nevertheless, and getting back to golf architecture, George Crump really is the architect of PVGC and Hugh Wilson really is the architect of Merion.  ;)

But just like the little girl said in the "Shake and Bake" ad, others "Haaalped"!   ;)

TEPaul

Re:Passing down legend
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2004, 02:45:23 PM »
"TE
I had no idea that Macdonald and Whigham had been involved at Merion until a few months ago...."

Tom:

I realize that! I can't tell you how much I realize that--and that's precisely why you need not treat information like that as something you somehow discovered on your own as you sometimes seem to do. Not just that but you do not need to be evaluating it the way you tend to either--basically taking the general and trying to make it as specific as you seem to want to do.

That old material was once read by many people, don't forget, and many others who concern themselves with the histories of these clubs and courses have been aware of those articles and such for decades. They understand exactly how to read it and take it but you seem to view the way they do that as some big conspiracy to exclude a few architects (apparently those you seem to admire or because you found something you think original about them) you think their trying to discount to perpetuate a legend out of someone else.

I swear, Tom, that is just not the case as much as you seem to believe it and appear to be relentless in continuing to believe it. The only historical revisionism of the truth I see here is your attempts, not these clubs!

Tags: