Bottle at National Golf Links of America: Who Changed & Why? Aerial Comparisons

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe CBM  and NGLA had a falling out in 1937, with CBM dying in 1939

I'd be surprised if Maxwell did anything of substance at NGLA

[TEPaul]

"I believe CBM  and NGLA had a falling out in 1937, with CBM dying in 1937."

Pat:

Apparently you never have done any of your own research----you've just always seem to depend on others to do it for you. Macdonald died in 1939 but with a man like that, in the broad scheme of things, what's a couple of years difference?  

And I'm sure you would be surprised if Maxwell did anything of substance there because you've apparently never known anything about that anyway!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I believe CBM  and NGLA had a falling out in 1937, with CBM dying in 1937."

Pat:

Apparently you never have done any of your own research----you've just always seem to depend on others to do it for you. Macdonald died in 1939 but with a man like that, in the broad scheme of things, what's a couple of years difference?  


Simple tyop

And I'm sure you would be surprised if Maxwell did anything of substance there because you've apparently never known anything about that anyway!

What substantive changes did Maxwell make at NGLA ?

[TEPaul]

I don't know. At this point, I'm don't think anyone really knows.

[Chris Clouser]

Pat and Tom,

The only thing I have that really intimates that Maxwell did any work there was a letter from Macdonald that indicates he did.  Macdonald, I believe, put the letter together as a reference for Maxwell to do work at the Links Club.  The issue is that no one know what Maxwell did at the club.  If the only work he did at National was the rebunkering of the 8th hole then I agree it was not significant but was work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know. At this point, I'm don't think anyone really knows.

Then why did you say to me:

"And I'm sure you would be surprised if Maxwell did anything of substance there because you've apparently never known anything about that anyway!"

Implying that you were aware of the work he's alleged to have done ?

You're as much in the dark about the scope of Maxwell's work as anyone else, including myself and Chris, yet you postured as if you possessed critical information, when in reality you knew nothing !

You still haven't answered why you think it's OK for Shinnecock to lengthen their course to retain the relevance of the architectural features as they relate to interfacing with the golfer, but not OK for NGLA to lengthen their course to retain the relevance of their architectural features as they relate to interfacing with the golfer.

Why the double standard ?

Why the hypocrisy ?

Inquiring minds want to know

[TEPaul]

Pat:

With some of these matters involving historic details of significant golf courses I pretty much work on what is referred to in areas of Top Secrecy in the government and in the military as a "need to know" basis, and a guy like you definitely does not rise to the level of "Need To Know." 

[George_Bahto]

From what I understand, Charlie had gotten quite ill in late 1936 and finally lost control of National’s helm the following year. Mr. Wayne Johnson (I believe, an attorney) gained the presidency of the club for just one year - 1928-39.

I have a very nasty letter dismissing Charlie’s long time super - Mike Tureski (no severance pay at first - but relented later, giving the guy $500 or so) - once Mr. Johnson took over. Very sad, he was there for about 20 years - but he was Charlie’s guy and he had to go.
               
Johnson was replaced by Thomas Wright who served as President of National for the next 22 years.

Charlie, of course, was adamant about what features he wanted on the course and what condition he wanted the course be kept in, regardless if it did not meet with the approval of any members - except perhaps seeking input from Henry Whigham, Judge Morgan J. O’Brien and good friend  Findlay Douglas.

What would a regular “member” know about a golf course ..... hah   

Because of his dictatorial stances over the years, I believe changes were made once Charlie was out (passed).

A couple come to mind.

The top of the PN bunker on the 11th appears to be quite flat (flattened) - not as high/peaked as the one on the 8th - it doesn’t look “right.”  Could it have been that it blocked too much of the view of the green originally?

The huge berm fronting the 17th green was shaved off so more of the flag could be seen, )I think)

I’ve been advocating a rebuild of that berm for years and they may address it, I even Photo-shopped what may have looked like, using some of the old photos of the berm I have. It would enhance the hole quite a bit, in my opinion. Bill and I have spoken about this on any number of occasions.

Speaking of Bill - he and I were standing on the 12th green a couple years ago talking about his “short-cropping” more of the areas to the left of 8-green, encompassing more of the bunkering with the green (mowing patterns). We walked back left of the green and spent a lot of time discussing the great angle of play from that little shelf to the 13th green !!!!

In respect to JN and the National. It is my understanding (documented by the super at the time) that the area at the end of the 11th fairway in the right corner, near the berm area on the was too low when they built the berm guarding the road (or raised it higher - not sure which) and Jack “mentioned” he thought the fairway was too low in that area, the approach from there blind to the golfer. (It was)

I'm sure there were others.

Rather than “adding” a “name” to the architecture of the National - something they seem to guard against - , the work was done in-house, adding sufficient soil to the corner to raise the fairway and alleviate the “problem.”

Over the years suggestions have been made about tees, mowing lines, bunker positioning, etc.. I like the club’s approach to any modifications, considering most always using historic information as their guideline. If a new tees(s) is added the originals are still kept.

With all the changes to the course by Macdonald over the years, this is not easy.

Example, when Karl Olson was there they took down a great breadth of trees that lined parts of the course, uncovering abandoned bunkers. Bill Salinetti has had this situation, as well.

Now then were these “abandoned” bunkers something to “restore?” -

or was it abandoned by Macdonald .......   

And to what year do you restore the course to?  - original course (i doubt it) - - -

or do you restore it to the Walker Cup course of the early 20's   ......... 

Or do you consider the “FINAL” course Macdonald “completed” before he passed away in the 30's as the final design of NGLA


Interesting stuff

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

With some of these matters involving historic details of significant golf courses I pretty much work on what is referred to in areas of Top Secrecy in the government and in the military as a "need to know" basis, and a guy like you definitely does not rise to the level of "Need To Know." 
In other words, you didn't have a clue, but were trying to pretend that you did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From what I understand, Charlie had gotten quite ill in late 1936 and finally lost control of National’s helm the following year. Mr. Wayne Johnson (I believe, an attorney) gained the presidency of the club for just one year - 1928-39.

I have a very nasty letter dismissing Charlie’s long time super - Mike Tureski (no severance pay at first - but relented later, giving the guy $500 or so) - once Mr. Johnson took over. Very sad, he was there for about 20 years - but he was Charlie’s guy and he had to go.
               
Johnson was replaced by Thomas Wright who served as President of National for the next 22 years.

Charlie, of course, was adamant about what features he wanted on the course and what condition he wanted the course be kept in, regardless if it did not meet with the approval of any members - except perhaps seeking input from Henry Whigham, Judge Morgan J. O’Brien and good friend  Findlay Douglas.

What would a regular “member” know about a golf course ..... hah   

Because of his dictatorial stances over the years, I believe changes were made once Charlie was out (passed).

A couple come to mind.

The top of the PN bunker on the 11th appears to be quite flat (flattened) - not as high/peaked as the one on the 8th - it doesn’t look “right.”  Could it have been that it blocked too much of the view of the green originally?

George,

In what year were the road berms created ?

Nothing is visible from the hollow short of the road berm, so any "peaked" PN bunker would have to existed prior to the creation of the road berms.

The huge berm fronting the 17th green was shaved off so more of the flag could be seen, )I think)

I’ve been advocating a rebuild of that berm for years and they may address it, I even Photo-shopped what may have looked like, using some of the old photos of the berm I have. It would enhance the hole quite a bit, in my opinion. Bill and I have spoken about this on any number of occasions.

Speaking of Bill - he and I were standing on the 12th green a couple years ago talking about his “short-cropping” more of the areas to the left of 8-green, encompassing more of the bunkering with the green (mowing patterns). We walked back left of the green and spent a lot of time discussing the great angle of play from that little shelf to the 13th green !!!!

That "shelf" is no accident.  It's a manufactured plateau with a widow's/women's walk leading up to it from the NE.
It's clearly a manmade feature, a flat surface that can serve as the tee for a shot replicating the approach on # 7 at TOC.

In respect to JN and the National. It is my understanding (documented by the super at the time) that the area at the end of the 11th fairway in the right corner, near the berm area on the was too low when they built the berm guarding the road (or raised it higher - not sure which) and Jack “mentioned” he thought the fairway was too low in that area, the approach from there blind to the golfer. (It was)

George, it's pretty difficult to get your ball to the high right side of the 11th fairway near the berm.
The fairway is higher on the right side than the left side.
The entire fairway slopes from high right to low left, thus any ball landing on that fairway tends to kick left.
From the hollow, NOTHING is visible toward the green, except the berm.

Unbelievably, a fellow who I was playing with, drove it in the left rough, just short of the berm, topped his approach shot and hit a passing car.
The driver was pissed and blamed the caddy.  The situation was quickly resolved.

I'm sure there were others.

Rather than “adding” a “name” to the architecture of the National - something they seem to guard against - , the work was done in-house, adding sufficient soil to the corner to raise the fairway and alleviate the “problem.”

Over the years suggestions have been made about tees, mowing lines, bunker positioning, etc.. I like the club’s approach to any modifications, considering most always using historic information as their guideline. If a new tees(s) is added the originals are still kept.

They've departed from this protocol on # 16.

With all the changes to the course by Macdonald over the years, this is not easy.

Example, when Karl Olson was there they took down a great breadth of trees that lined parts of the course, uncovering abandoned bunkers. Bill Salinetti has had this situation, as well.

You may recall, in October of 2003 when you, TEPaul and I reviewed the golf course, I pointed out the abandoned bunker to the far right of the 5th fairway about 80-100 yards from the green.  Unfortunately, Sebonack's construction obliterated that bunker.
Likewise the bunkers to the right of # 8 fairway up by the green.

Now then were these “abandoned” bunkers something to “restore?” -

or was it abandoned by Macdonald .......   

And to what year do you restore the course to?  - original course (i doubt it) - - -

or do you restore it to the Walker Cup course of the early 20's   ......... 

Or do you consider the “FINAL” course Macdonald “completed” before he passed away in the 30's as the final design of NGLA.

To a degree, I think you have to interpolate CBM's intentions.
For example, # 8 had to be lengthened in order to retain the significance and interfacing of the centerline bunker complex.
Ditto other holes, such as # 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Had the course remained static, it would have become the American Prestwick.

Interesting stuff

[Alex Lagowitz]

Pat Mucci said: "Had the course remained static, it would have become the American Prestwick."

Interesting note, I've never viewed that in context with classical courses.
Not to get off topic, but maybe a thread needs to be started about the need for change to fight that inevitable downfall with increasing distances.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Alex,

For years, distance "creep" was accepted, but when it began to take quantum leaps, courses had to respond or be rendered outmoded or obsolete.

With rare exception, virtually every "classic" course has been lengthened.

[George_Bahto]

you asked:

"In what year were the road berms created ?"

I have no idea, but I suspect it was built and later the berm raised as needed.

Aside from rendering the approach blind in some cases. I don't see the berm as any problem.

*
also:

Rather than “adding” a “name” to the architecture of the National - something they seem to guard against - , the work was done in-house, adding sufficient soil to the corner to raise the fairway and alleviate the “problem.”

Over the years suggestions have been made about tees, mowing lines, bunker positioning, etc.. I like the club’s approach to any modifications, considering most always using historic information as their guideline. If a new tees(s) is added the originals are still kept.

They've departed from this protocol on # 16.

has someone's name been added about changes on #16?

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

I was referring to the retention of the original feature