Garden City, Myopia and Chicago Golf Club

[Bill_McBride]

Bob:

Having just spent the last three days at Myopia I should probably post a thread on the course and the holes----as among its so many neat features the course is right now at a point where I could probably say it had just about the most ideal "maintenance meld" I've seen---until a pretty fierce thunderstorm took it out Saturday afternoon.

TE, do you have the photo posting thingie under control yet?

[Ray Richard]

Based on my experiences viewing “ too many golf courses”- in my travels, and walking and talking golf courses for a long time, and watching golf on TV to excess and reading blogs and viewing websites -the best course in the world is Myopia Hunt.

My reasons are as follows.

1.   The ghost of Bobby Jones predominates-he played there while at Harvard.
2.   Top notch agronomy and if you go ten feet outside of the fairway you are in wild fescue blowing in the wind.
3.   Architecture/elevations/visuals are outstanding-I  believe 12 holes have elevated tees with great views. The place hasn't been tweaked by anybody.
4.   Understated clubhouse and membership.

This place is a treasure.

[TEPaul]

"TE, do you have the photo posting thingie under control yet?"

It wouldn't matter if I did (which I don't) since I went to Prairie Dunes a couple weeks ago and my f... camera crapped out on me around the 15th hole.

[Sean Leary]

Bob:

Having just spent the last three days at Myopia I should probably post a thread on the course and the holes----as among its so many neat features the course is right now at a point where I could probably say it had just about the most ideal "maintenance meld" I've seen---until a pretty fierce thunderstorm took it out Saturday afternoon.

I was on the north shore of Boston at Tedesco when that storm came in.  Just crazy. From sunny to the blackest cloud I have ever seen.

Tom,  we are still waiting for your thoughts on Prairie Dunes you promised...

[TEPaul]

"Tom,  we are still waiting for your thoughts on Prairie Dunes you promised...    

Forthcoming.

[Mark Bourgeois]

You damn well better post something on Myopia. Include lots of course details, stuff on club atmosphere and your meetings with John Updike. You did meet Updike, didn't you?

Bob

Tom,  we are still waiting for your thoughts on Prairie Dunes you promised...

Sean and Bob,

Don't you know your Updike?

"Gods don't answer their letters."

Mark

PS Panhandle Bill, for a spine-tingling thrill, enter that line in your New Yorker dB and read the article that pops up.

[JMorgan]

Tom, how many championships did Myopia and Chicago host, pre-1904 and 1904-1930?

[TEPaul]

JMorgan:

What I know about Myopia is it hosted four US Opens between 1898 and 1908.

However, as an example of how different tournament golf was back then from what it is today, Herbert Leeds (Myopia) felt that the course was not ready in that decade to host a tournament of the magnitude of the US Amateur and could only accomodate US Opens. The fact is back then the US Amateur was a far more significant tournament than a US Open.  

[JMorgan]

JMorgan:

What I know about Myopia is it hosted four US Opens between 1898 and 1908.

However, as an example of how different tournament golf was back then from what it is today, Herbert Leeds (Myopia) felt that the course was not ready in that decade to host a tournament of the magnitude of the US Amateur and could only accomodate US Opens. The fact is back then the US Amateur was a far more significant tournament than a US Open.  

Tom, do you know if any changes were made to Myopia to accommodate those early tournaments?  I'm pretty sure that pre-1904 GCGC hosted the Met Open in 1899 and the 1900 and 1902 Amateurs, plus a US Open.  The course was lengthened from 6070 to 6400 for , I believe, the first Amateur (Holes 4, 6, 16, and 17, if I remember correctly). I would argue that Garden City was the premier US course at that time, but very soon to be eclipsed.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Havinmg played in my first Travis this year at Garden City, I will agree with all that Jamie wrote earlier.
What struck me was the superb simplicity of the architecture, no gimmicks.
Wonderful subtle green complexes with exquisite bunkering, and certainly a true test of playabilty of all levels.
When we played three of the longer par fours required 2 irons or woods to reach the greens, that by itself suggests that the course has stood the test of time.
The shot selection on the par threes is ingenius, all different clubs and style of shots.
The atmosphere around the club is rather similar to that of the older clubs back home on the UK...even the smell of the old locker room took me back to my youth...a true rose of American golf...I cannot wait to return.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, do you know if any changes were made to Myopia to accommodate those early tournaments?  I'm pretty sure that pre-1904 GCGC hosted the Met Open in 1899 and the 1900 and 1902 Amateurs, plus a US Open.  The course was lengthened from 6070 to 6400 for , I believe, the first Amateur (Holes 4, 6, 16, and 17, if I remember correctly). I would argue that Garden City was the premier US course at that time, but very soon to be eclipsed."

JMorgan:

All I can offer you on a comparison of GCGC and Myopia in first decade of the 20th century is this passage containing remarks from GCGC's Walter Travis in November 1906:

        "In an article in Country Life in America, published a month after he won that event, Travis termed Myopia links "the best in the country...the creation largely of one man," and he went on to make this appraisal: "Laid out originally on the long side with reference to the gutta ball, it just happened, with the advent of the rubber-core ball, to meet every requiremnt of the modern game by simply adding hazards where experience suggested. As a whole, it is beyond criticism, no two holes are alike, and there is not a single hole which is in anyway unfair or which does not call for good play. The charm of the course lies in its diversity, the excellence of the length of each hole, the physical characteristics, the well conceived system of hazards, good lies throughout, tees better than most putting greens, and putting greens, most undulating, which are the finest in the country, and equal to the best anywhere in the world."
       
 

[TEPaul]

JMorgan:

Perhaps the thing that separated Myopia from GCGC most is the natural topography of Myopia. GCGC was considered to be one of the top three courses in those days but it is  basically on a flat plain, and there seems to be little question the wonderful natural topography of Myopia with its elevation changes and the clever use of that topography and elevation change for golf holes got their notice in the early days.

In 1898 Leeds reconfigured the original nine hole course, known as the Long Nine, into the present 18. The club bought a couple of parcels of land that contain the present 4th-7th, the 10th and 11th and the 17th and 18th. The 1st was simply added on to begin next to the clubhouse and the 3rd was added to connect the 2nd (the original 1st) to the new 4th.

The original holes of the former Long Nine were #2, #8, #9, From a tee to the right of #9 green to #11 green (The Alps), #12-#16.

It is important for us to consider that almost all those holes of that original Long Nine have been in uninterrupted use for almost 115 years. Of those original holes (1893) the greens of #8, #11, #13 and #16 are something that any golf architecture fan has to see to understand a lot of what was best of all about that really early era of golf and architecture in America. In a natural topographical sense GCGC does not have any greens that comes even remotely close to those four originals.

[JMorgan]

And we know how Travis felt about GCGC, feelings which no doubt festered until he got his way with the course.

As fodder for another topic, I've often wondered about Travis' motivation when he criticized courses.  As editor of American Golf, for instance, he let a pretty damning assessment of NGLA rip a few months after the magazine had published a rather glowing account of the inaugural match on the course, in which he and CBM and Emmet played.   Of course, he was originally one of the three associates planning NGLA, then was dropped.  

[TEPaul]

JMorgan:

It's probably safe to say that Travis's disagreements with Macdonald over the Schnectedy Putter issue colored his opinion of Macdonald and NGLA. Any criticism Travis cast at NGLA in those days just may've been about the only critical opinion of the course back then. The only other golfer/architect who criticized it (even if he hadn't seen it at that point) was perhaps J.H. Taylor. It seems the only reason he criticized it was because he felt it was too hard for the average golfer and consequently set a bad example in architecture for that reason.

Don't forget that a guy like Taylor was a professional and probably had a keen interest in popularizing the game. Making a course hard didn't exactly fit that philosophy. Gentleman tournament golfers and architects such as Fownes, Crump, Macdonald et al (the early "amateur" architects---eg they called themselves "sportsmen") didn't really have that concern as they were not exactly out to make money off golf. In a sense they were the ones who seemed more interested in simply defining what great golf architecture should be!

[TEPaul]

JMorgan:

I probably shouldn't say that Travis and Taylor were the only ones to ever criticize NGLA or more accurately Macdonald.

It seems to be a different matter altogether, and certainly a later matter and issue but it does appear (and it's able to be documented) that later some such as Tillinghast tended to criticize the architectural style of Macdonald for not being natural enough in look. In a real way the entire idea of true "copy" holes (and plasticine models of holes to be used elsewhere) became a pretty contentious issue in architecture.

Into the teens and certainly into the 1920s amongst some the idea of copying holes, particularly from GB, became something not to do. The best of the architects working in America then much preferred to do holes that were considered originals. Right around the middle of the teens it's not hard to tell from the old articles that some American architects were becoming pretty competitive in style and in print with some of their former mentors from abroad. We can certainly see this cross Atlantic ultra competitive zeal forming even more in the national championships on both sides.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
Of course, he was originally one of the three associates planning NGLA, then was dropped.  

JMorgan,

I think you and Tom MacWood are the only two people who elevate Travis's involvement to associate status.

Nowhere, in MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift" does he credit Travis with any semblance of design credit.

When pressed to provide specific details of Travis's contribution to NGLA, Tom MacWood couldn't produce a single example.

How do you support your claim that Travis was considered a design ASSOCIATE at ANY point in the NGLA project ?
[/COLOR]

[JMorgan]

 
Of course, he was originally one of the three associates planning NGLA, then was dropped.  

JMorgan,

I think you and Tom MacWood are the only two people who elevate Travis's involvement to associate status.

Nowhere, in MacDonald's book, "Scotland's Gift" does he credit Travis with any semblance of design credit.

When pressed to provide specific details of Travis's contribution to NGLA, Tom MacWood couldn't produce a single example.

How do you support your claim that Travis was considered a design ASSOCIATE at ANY point in the NGLA project ?
[/COLOR]

Patrick,

Macdonald says so himself in Scotland's Gift.  (If I had the book handy, I'd give you the page number.)  I believe it's in the chapter that comes before "The Ideal Golf Course."  

If you can't find it, I'll give you the page and quote when I get home.  In fact, I read it again just this morning when thinking about what Tom Paul was saying about Myopia.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan,

The references you mention are on page 176 and 178.

When read carefully they convey a message quite different from yours.

You stated," Of course, he was originally one of the three associates planning NGLA ..."

MacDonald stated that he outlined his concept for NGLA by a formal, written letter of intent, an agreement in which he stated that each of the holes at NGLA would be modeled after a famous hole in the UK.  He further went on to say that"  

Mr Charles Blair MacDonald will take CHARGE of this matter and associate with himself two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme.  In the meantime you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter ENTIRELY in HIS hands."

"As I stated in my agreement to associate with me two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three to carry out this general scheme, I asked Jim Whigham and Walter Travis as associates.  Eventually, I dropped Travis ..."

He goes on to state that others, and he lists them,  
"... forged ahead with the CONSTRUCTION from the surveyors' maps and the Thirty or Forty drawings WHICH I HAD MADE MYSELF ABROAD OF DIFFERENT HOLES WHICH I THOUGHT WERE WORTH WHILE.

He doesn't appear to give much in the way of design credit to anyone, let alone Travis.

Hence, calling Travis one of the three associates PLANNING NGLA is inaccurate.

MacDonald had the vision for NGLA long before he asked anyone to be involved, including the holes that he intended to construct at NGLA.  On Page 187 he references the process.  Only Whigham and Raynor appear to have been his imtimate associates on the project.

Please also read the next to the last paragraph on page 295, it's one of my favorites, unfortunately, many on GCA.com don't adhere to Charles Blair MacDonalds directive.

[JMorgan]

Patrick,

See above.  You know as well as I that Macdonald was ALWAYS in charge.  I never said he gave or intended to give DESIGN credit to Travis. Macdonald states that Travis was "associated" at one time with the founding of NGLA... and then suddenly he wasn't.

Whatever "dropped" means or implies, I don't know.    

My point is, their relationship seems to have cooled, the same way Travis's relationship faltered with Emmet after he picked apart the design of Garden City or criticized Dev in print about the proper way to care for greens.  (Emmet even tried to patch things up with Travis later in life, but it is not known if Travis came round.)  

Going back to my original point, Travis as editor of the American Golfer published a pretty scathing critique of NGLA, reproduced in part below:

"It is quite possible that for such men as Vardon or Braid or Ray the course might furnish an intersting rest, although on this question we 'hae our doots,' as more than one of our own leading professionals have asserted that it is too severe, even going a step further and saying that if ever an open championship is held there they would not participate, not altogether by reason of its difficulties, but also its flukiness.  For instance, at the last tournament held there, we know of several cases where six or seven putts were taken on each of several greens.  Not a little of this is due to the attempt at copying foreign holes, forgetful of climatic differences.  There, usually, the turf is soft, yet firm.  At the National, in the playing season, different conditions obtain."

Then the editorial quotes Colt regarding the folly of reproducing well-known holes and blind shots.

It continues:

"What do we find at National?
"A blind tee-shot and a blind approach at the first hole.
"A blind tee-shot at the second.
"A blind second shot at the third.
"A semi-blind tee-shot at the fourth.
"A blind second shot at the fifth.
"A blind tee-shot and a blind second at the seventh.
"A blind second shot at the tenth.
"A blind tee-shot at the eleventh.
"A blind second shot at the twelfth.
"A blind approach at the fourteenth.
"A blind second at the fifteenth.
"A blind tee-shot and a blind second at the sixteenth.

"While there are no 'mountains,' yet one is painfully aware after a round that there is a terrible lot of climbing.

"Again, to quote Mr. Colt: 'We cannot afford to sacrifice everything to the tee-shot.'  The late Freddie Tait dubbed Sandwich as a one-shot course -- the tee-shot.  This is practically true of the National."

And so on.  

Not exactly a glowing review from someone who was supposed to be "associated" with the course in some way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan,

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

I think you could apply that adage to Travis in relation to his review of NGLA, which is quite scathing and absent any  redeeming remarks countering the criticism about the golf course

What I find very interesting about Travis's comments are his reference to a blind second shot on # 7.

That would seem to confirm my theory regarding the intended play of # 7 and the impact of the "Hotel" bunker complex.

I know the spot he references as the DZ and it is blind.
That's why moving a tee back 30 or so yards makes such sense.

It's also interesting to hear his comments on the drive on
# 15.   Again, I know the spot he's referencing as the DZ.

So many of these DZ's have been lost, that's why added length to some of the holes made sense and continues to make sense, like on # 7 and # 18.

I wonder why he didn't list the second shot on # 18 as being blind ?

[Michael Christensen]

getting back to Myopia...there are some of the most fearful shots in all of golf on that course:

- putting from above the hole on #4 (especially with a middle right pin)...unless you hit the hole you are off the green

- hitting from right rough on #8 to front right pin...good luck keeping that shot on the green

- pitching from above the green on #13...good luck keeping it on the green and on the fairway in front of the green

There are just so many unique shots out there...and tough decisions to make.  My favorite location on the course is on #2 tee.....you see a lot of the course and the view of the hills and mansions (actually just one big one!) beyond the course is phenomenal....

[TEPaul]

MichaelC:

From your post above you seem to know Myopia well.

I appreciate the areas and shots you mentioned as ultra intense---eg #4, approaching #8 from the right rough, above #13 etc. Last weekend there were probably a few more to add to that---ex. one does not really want to be above the pin or green on #11 or #1. And one does not want to be in the wrong positon around #6.

(Honestly, I looked at #8 green with the eye of a curious hawk and I swear at the speeds they were running I doubt 10% of that 8th green is pinnable).

I heard a good one last week about #13. If your approach shot to that green remains visible from the fairway below you can pretty much count on the fact it is coming back off the green and way down below the green if not in that bunker about 20 yards below the green from which an "up and down" would be a f...ing miracle.

When the course is playing as firm and fast throughout as I saw it last Friday one does wonder what in the hell kind of shot one's supposed to hit to that 16th green to hold it. I'm sure there must be a way but as yet I haven't found it.

I intentionally hit a 7 iron to a back left pin about a mile in the air and landed it short enough not to see it land and it still got a bit over the green.

The golf course was as much fun to play as the proverbial barrel of monkeys. I wish all our 1500 contributors on this website could see a course like Myopia playing the way it did last week. To me it was truly the "Ideal Maintenance Meld".

[Michael Christensen]

I have been lucky to play MHC several times.....F&F is the standard there...unless it is a rainy spring/summer, expect to hit front of greens and be over the green with anything less than a great shot...I've been in your shoes at #16...but with a front pin...had no way to get it on the green.....actually played short on purpose...just enough to clear middle bunker

I don't think #1 gets enough credit as a good starting hole.....you can play anything from 7 iron to driver off the tee.....go left off the tee..DEAD...go right long...DEAD....take a 4 and run to the 2nd tee...where 2 good shots leave a good chance at birdie...unless you get in the chocolate mounds short...#3 is an all world par-3...usually into a stiff breeze, it plays 260+.....

#6 is a lot like #1....you try to drive the green, there is all sorts of trouble...marsh short and right and long over the green....6 iron is usually my play there, then 9 iron or wedge

I just love the atmosphere of the whole place...from the horses you see trotting throughout the course to the liquor lockers.....it is the must play on the north shore!

and pro is a great guy....of course has the pedigree from GMGC...so he can do no wrong!
 

[Mike_Cirba]

The August 16, 1909 edition of "The American Golfer" (available to search and scan online at www.usga.org) has a bunch of pics of Chicago GC at the time.  

It's not the most natural looking course, that's for sure.  

[TEPaul]

Mike:

When it comes to the look of naturalism in architecture, particularly bunker types and styles, my interest is not just to name courses but to find out which ones were the absolute earliest in America.

To date we can apparently take courses like GCGC and Myopia back to just a year or two after the turn of the century. If you can find some other courses that looked that natural at that time or earlier I'd love to know what they are.

As a basic guide to study the evolution from an artificial to a more natural look in American architecture Ross' earliest stuff compared to how he evolved his style may be the most useful.

But the one I'm most interested in at the moment simply because he was so early in American architecture is Alex Findlay.

Ironically, it's probably not early professionals we should be looking at simply because they never spent that much time on any projects. We should probably be looking at these early "amateurs" who put so much effort into their few projects.

The question is where and from whom did they get their ideas on a more natural look.

As you know, I think more than we suspect was fact of what had happened in the English heathlands. I think that was their model as much as the linksland for the simple reason they realized it was basically made and not found as in the early linksland courses.