Tom,
Is Tom or Kelley trying to knock them down, or simply discuss them realistically? I think the latter.
Jeff
I’m not sure Tom and Kelly are saying the same thing...are they? In fact it doesn’t appear that you or Mike are saying the same thing either. Everyone seems to have his own unique opinion on this thread.
Mike started the discussion by claiming that the reputation of the old guys was largely myth, that the quality of a large portion of our classics was do to: 1) clubs that had money and could grow the course over 75 years and 2) superintendents.
He gave Raynor as an example benefiting from #1 and #2. When asked for specific examples he said “Lets see...if I had about 20 different holes with an engineered look to them and went around putting them on different pieces of land.....what would be said today??? I like Camargo, Yale and haven't played FI....all I am saying is that half the times these guys didn't know what was being done in minute detail on their projects....it evolved.....”
That sounds more like personal opinion than a myth surrounding why many of his designs are considered good today.
Kelly thinks a modern orthodoxy has been created based upon these old masters, unfortunately has been unable to articulate exactly what that orthodoxy is….like Mike his myth busting consists mostly of personal opinion or taste, and a different philosophy from MacKenzie.
Tom really hasn’t mentioned any myth specifically, commenting more on modern aspects like how Fazio, Dye, etc compare themselves to the old guys and how courses evolve.
You brought up the role majors plays in courses reputation, and I would agree to a limited degree. But I don’t think Merion, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, ANGC, Riviera, Brookline, Winged Foot, Oakland Hills, Pinehurst #2 and Inverness are inflated because of their majors. Maybe it has helped Medinah, Baltusrol, Firestone, and few others. I don’t believe the majority of golden age architects reputations are due to the majors. IMO their reputations are based upon the quality of their designs.
Regarding Ross, no doubt he did not see every course and others he spent little time overseeing. Most astute observers understand this – especially after reading Klein’s biography or articles written by Whitten - we are not under any elusions, it is well documented. He was probably the most prolific architect in history and he created a very large organization to meet the demand. I think it was the late Ross historian who said there were maybe fifty courses that he really devoted significant time to. Fifty excellent golf courses is pretty good and another fifty or more collaborative efforts and you have one of the all-time greats, not a myth.
It’s a similar situation with MacKenzie, should we discount his career because he spent only three months in Australia. There has been a lot of good research done down under and we know what he did down there. I believe all the golf courses he advised were existing in some form - some were major revisions (like Royal Melbourne); some were minor reports that may or may not have been followed. At he left the work was overseen by his partner Russell and in some cases the talented Morcom (mostly in the Sandbelt from what I understand). The work turned out pretty well I’d say, and very much in character with his designs on other continents. Is his reputation a myth and is it a myth he had a major impact upon Australian golf architecture?