I Just Thought It Worth While

[Sean_A]

The profile of Myopia always stood out to me as one of the very best, not least because I love the look of this course.  Its so old style that it could be English.  It must be a real treat for the members to play such a unique course day in and day out.  Anyway, as I have often wandered around this profile and knew it was missing form the site for some reason, I thought a link was fitting.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/myopiahunt1.html

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Sean.

Interesting how a course that Mr. Leeds worked on for so many years can seem so unlaboured and so unforced. 

Also interesting (even though often mentioned) is how perspectives change. Here's a bit of an article from 1910 taking Horace Hutchinson to task for his comments on American courses:

"Mr. Hutchinson, like many other Britishers who have in the past loomed somewhat largely in the public eye, has not been able to resist the temptation to tell us of our shortcomings, and how lamentably far we fall short of those standards of excellence in golf, in which, according to him, his compatriots stand so high—from that lofty British standpoint which is so typically patronizing and condescending.  Mr. Hutchinson airs his opinions in an article on "An English View of American Golf" in the November issue of the Metropolitan magazine. Passing by his criticism that on most of the American courses he has seen the "serious hazards are tree hazards," we are told that at Myopia some of the greens "in avoidance of the monotony of the dead level, have been carried very near the other extreme of trickiness, so swift is their gradient"; that Myopia is deplorably weak in that it has so many "blind" shots; that at Essex County the climbing is not "below the dignity of a chamois' achievement"; that The Country Club at Brookline, on which the amateur championship was played, is "an amusing course, but too short"; that Shinnecock Hills is "a pathetic sight," the play consisting principally "at short holes over hilltops"; that Garden City, damned by faint praise, is "a flat, unlovely place," which from "the aesthetic point of view would be much improved if one might take in a field gun and batter down a great brick chimney of immense height and hideousness that looms largely upon the eye"; that "the bunkers which have been formed by laying sand over the surface of certain portions of the course and arranging the sand into furrows across the line of play" offend his artistic eye; and that "when the National links is opened next year it will be far and away the best in the United States" and that "it has no weak point."

Ah, NGLA...always NGLA. It's like a course being buit today and Golf Digest ranking it #1 months before it opens. You gotta figure something's going on besides an objective assessment....

Thanks again, Sean

Peter

[Martin Del Vecchio]

My understanding is that the club requested that the page be taken down.

My understanding is that hardly any members plays the course "day in and day out," and that it stands bereft of golfers quite often.  The day I played a practice round (for the MA mid-am), there were more horses than golfers on the course.

It's a fabulous place, and I hope to return there one day.

[ward peyronnin]

Martin

You are right. The host was a club employee and when the prime movers discovered the review they supposedly made threatening noises if it was not removed.

I met two  members in Scotland in a small pub in Gullane and we shared stories etc. for an hour or two and altho i fancy myself somewhat adept at currying access recieved absolutely no encouragement from these chaps; very close to the vest.

Too bad hardly anyone knows of this storied ground

[TEPaul]

In the last 2-3 weeks this is about the 6th time I've either heard from a club or heard about a club getting concerned about the way the club or its architectural history is being treated on this website. I really don't know what to make of all this but even being the optimist I am I just can't seem to find much good in it or much good coming from it. The only possible thing I can think of is perhaps some of those on here who want to float some "alternative theories" should either contact the clubs themselves first before they do it or else use a bit more acceptable scholarship if they don't contact the clubs or those who know them well first! 

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

Thanks for reminding us about this review.

Ah, NGLA...always NGLA. It's like a course being buit today and Golf Digest ranking it #1 months before it opens. You gotta figure something's going on besides an objective assessment....

Something was going on besides an "objective assessment" but your scorn may be misplaced.  While American commentators had generally spared Myopia and (to a lesser degree) Garden City, they generally had been almost as harsh as Hutchinson when discussing American courses, and almost as effusive when discussing NGLA.  So why the harsh reaction to Hutchinson's opinion?   Two words:   Schenectady putter.

The article you site was published in the December 1910 Issue of AG (the same issue of AG as the Tillinghast (Hazard) announcement about Merion.)   At that time most of the US golfing establishment was fuming about the R&A's decision to ban the putter used so successfully by Travis (the editor of AG.)   It even looked like the USGA would break away from the R&A (as much is suggested in the same volume of AG.) 

American golf commentary became very pro-American and anti-British in almost all matters, and this article is but one example of many published around the same time.   This article, by pseudonym "Americus," was not really about the quality (or lack thereof) of American Golf but an emotional expression of the us-against-them mentality that became extremely pervasive beginning in the late summer and fall of 1910.   This subtext is so pervasive it even explicitly steeps through to the surface at one point:
 
 In the name of the goddess of golf what sort of course must we have to merit the approval of such a weathercock? If it's undulating it is barred, a la the Schenectady putter; if it's flat it is "unlovely," and likewise under the ban.

At one point the author even wrote "Such an insularity of opinion, such a narrow, prejudiced view may fairly be said to be typically British, and in highly questionable taste. Little wonder that things happened in 1776!"

Hardly an objective point of view.  And the Editor's (Travis') reaction?   Pile on by pointing out additional shortcomings of Hutchinson's views.

But why throw NGLA under the bus along with Hutchinson?  Again the same volume of AG provides the probable answer.   So far as many in the American golf establishment were concerned, C.B. Macdonald -- the sole American on the R&A Rules Committee was the Benedict Arnold of the Schenectady putter issue.  From what I can tell Macdonald was not so much opposed to the use of the putter (he expressed to the R&A that banning it would be a mistake) but was primarily concerned with keeping the USGA in step with the R&A so that there would be only one set of rules, but his was not popular middle ground.    I believe H. Hutchinson may also have been on the R&A Rules Committee.

In the same issue of AG, Macdonald took aim at something AG had previously published on the issue and explained his position.  The "Editor" (Travis) shot back, essentially noting that Macdonald was not even a real representative of the USGA as he was a member of the R&A and appointed by the R&A, but powerless nonetheless.  Travis closed his piece as follows:

It may not be inappropriate to here explain the relationship which Mr. Macdonald occupies as a representative of the U. S. G. A. on the Rules of Golf Committee. The latter body is composed entirely of members of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, appointed by the Club.  In short, it is not at all a representative organization, drawn from various clubs in different sections, such as the U. S. G. A., for instance, but a self-appointed oligarchy pure and simple. Mr. Macdonald was not appointed by the U. S. G. A. St. Andrews attends to that; the U. S. G. A.
can only humbly acquiesce when St. Andrews arrogates to itself the sole appointive power . . . and no one is eligible who is not a member of that club.Mr. Macdonald is not an official of the U. S. G. A., although representing it as a member of the Rules of Golf Committee . . . ridiculously anomalous— and quite un-American.

Surely the U. S. G. A. should at least be permitted to elect its own delegate! Not that it really matters much, his influence being so inconsequential.—THE EDITOR.

It is possible Macdonald's falling out with the American golf community may have something to do with why he was not featured more prominently regarding his contributions Merion, but I have no direct concrete proof of this so I have not really pursued it.

[Mark_F]

You just have to adore this line about the fourth hole:

"How pitched is it? In one of the US Opens contested here, a participant putted his ball off the green… and lost it!!"

And this one, too:"In that regard, Myopia must be considered more penal than strategic in nature and is none the worse for it."

What makes a penal course none the worse for it?

[Jim Nugent]

Sean, your affection for the look of this course surprises me, only because of what I have taken to be your attitude about bunkers.  Sounds like Myopia Hunt has a ton of them. 

Does anyone know if Myopia has any template-like holes on it? 

[Mike Sweeney]

Too bad hardly anyone knows of this storied ground

Join Ouimet Society, support caddy scholarships, play Eastward Ho! and Myopia Hunt.

http://www.ouimet.org/pdfs/2008%20Society%20Brochure_FINAL.pdf

[Sean_A]

Sean, your affection for the look of this course surprises me, only because of what I have taken to be your attitude about bunkers.  Sounds like Myopia Hunt has a ton of them. 

Does anyone know if Myopia has any template-like holes on it? 

Jim

I don't know the course, but I like what I see.  I sort of have a bad rap for being anti-bunkering when I am really anti over-bunkering and the unimaginative consequences/design elements which are the result of over bunkering.  For instance, in this pic below, I really detest the bunkering because its ugly, has to be maintained and its not necessary.  Its fair enough if it is used once in a while, but very sparingly just for the sake of a bit of variety.


Ciao   

[Rich Goodale]

Too bad hardly anyone knows of this storied ground

Join Ouimet Society, support caddy scholarships, play Eastward Ho! and Myopia Hunt.

http://www.ouimet.org/pdfs/2008%20Society%20Brochure_FINAL.pdf

Or, you can apply to Harvard......

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thanks for that post.  No scorn meant for NGLA (and certainly no connection to Merion). I'd just finished reading the profile of a course I liked very much, and remembered that article; and it struck me again how unusual it was that a Myopia could be slammed while a course that hadn't even opened yet could be so acclaimed. As you suggest, there were obviously agendas at work back then, and ones considered important/fundamental.

But also, I tend to like the creative product of years of study more than instant classics, in the same way that I like music made by those who've achieved mastery of their instruments. Here's a story that won't mean much to anyone else, but it's a favourite of mine. Back in the swing era, when Benny Goodman was not only a star but an recognized master of the clarinet (and so recognized even by those who didn't like the kind of music he played), he and the band were scheduled to play one night on the same bill as Frank Sinatra. Sinatra tells how all the musicians were hanging around back stage, just talking and joking and having a few drinks before the show...all except for Benny Goodman, who was off in a corner with his clarinet, practicing - something he did for hours a day his whole life.  And Frank wandered over and said something like, "Benny, come over and join us. You're already the best jazz clarinettist in the world, why are you practicing so much?" And Benny said something like, "Because if I'm not going to be great, I want to make sure that I'm at least good". 

Which makes me think of the years that men like Leeds and Crump spent trying to achieve perfection at Myopia and Pine Valley. There's something more appealing in that for me than the instant perfection that Macdonald sought at NGLA, and that men like Hutchinson seemed willing to grant him and it even before the course opened.

Peter       

[Ken Moum]

And Benny said something like, "Because if I'm not going to be great, I want to make sure that I'm at least good". 

Isn't that a lovely thought?

But the Artie Shaw loyalists be damned, Benny was better than good--WAY better.

Ken

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, Ken - yes, lovely indeed -- and thanks.

For all his (apparent) faults, there was a love of the instrument and love of the music and a desire to share with others the very best of himself in Mr. Goodman...and an essential humility underneath the drive and ambition. This is the wrong discussion board for it, but I could go on forever about him.  And I do like and admire Shaw's playing as well...but I figure that very first requirement of swing music is that it's gotta swing...and Benny's mastery and technique allowed him to craft solos of incredible verve and swing and high drama...

Peter     

[Phil McDade]

Which makes me think of the years that men like Leeds and Crump spent trying to achieve perfection at Myopia and Pine Valley. There's something more appealing in that for me than the instant perfection that Macdonald sought at NGLA, and that men like Hutchinson seemed willing to grant him and it even before the course opened.

Peter       

Peter:

Didn't Macdonald in fact spend lots of time tinkering with NGLA? From Ran's profile:

"However, in 1906, golf course architecture was raised to an even higher level as so began Charles Blair Macdonald's life long involvement with National Golf Links of America. Not immodestly, he anticipated that it would be viewed as his lasting monument. From the care he devoted to the selection of the property to the refinements he made to it over the next 30 years, he was determined to build the most noteworthy course outside the British Isles."

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil -

you might well be right, and I'm not sure I know enough to argue about it in any event. But in reading articles from the time, it's striking how early on the notion of what an "ideal" golf course NGLA was or would be was being floated, both by Macdonald and others. That this ideal was at the same time -- at least by some -- being used to disaparage other and existing courses is also striking. It was early days, it seems to me, and much was being hammered out

Peter 

[Tommy Williamsen]

My wife and I played MHC on July fourth about five years ago.  I remember every hole and almost every shot I took.  When we finished all I wanted to do was play it again.  Sean you are right that the feel is somewhat English.  But in a real sense it is one of a kind.

[Jim Briggs]

In the last 2-3 weeks this is about the 6th time I've either heard from a club or heard about a club getting concerned about the way the club or its architectural history is being treated on this website. I really don't know what to make of all this but even being the optimist I am I just can't seem to find much good in it or much good coming from it. The only possible thing I can think of is perhaps some of those on here who want to float some "alternative theories" should either contact the clubs themselves first before they do it or else use a bit more acceptable scholarship if they don't contact the clubs or those who know them well first! 

Tom,

I'm relatively new here, but didn't the link for Myopia get pulled down somewhere back in 2005, and wasn't it requested to be pulled more to keep a low profile than anything else.  Your post almost seems to suggest that a Myopia request came in on the back of the gazillion Merion posts, which is no way near the case the best I can tell.

Jim

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I'm relatively new here, but didn't the link for Myopia get pulled down somewhere back in 2005, and wasn't it requested to be pulled more to keep a low profile than anything else.  Your post almost seems to suggest that a Myopia request came in on the back of the gazillion Merion posts, which is no way near the case the best I can tell."

Jim:

No, that apparent request from Myopia to take down the course review of it on here couldn't have much to do with Merion threads (which began about 7-8 years ago) even though I did hear from one of the Myopia historians about those recent Merion threads.

In my opinion, Myopia is only concerned about unwanted publicity and that was probably the reason for their request of this website to take off the course review.

Myopia is one of the app fifty clubs on the USGA Architecture Archive list to be approached and I'm the contact for Myopia. They do have a concern about unwanted publicity and I can certainly say they would never want their course and club put through what Merion G.C. has been put through on this website. I'm pretty confident in saying that would be total anathema to Myopia.

Their architectural history, in my opinion,  just might be the most interesting one of all of the early American courses simply because it seems Myopia was considered by so many to be the first good course and good architecture in America a number of years before NGLA existed. Herbert Leeds is a very interesting guy and he did Myopia his way, that's for sure, even though he did have a pretty consistent modus operandi of asking the good players who played the course what they thought about it and sometimes reacting with his architecture to their comments.

The other interesting and really valuable thing about Myopia, in my opinion, is once Leeds made it into an 18 hole course it was never that much changed and some of what was changed over the years has to a large degree been rather recently restored---not all, but most.

What Hutchinson had to say about Myopia at the time he said it is pretty curious, in my opinion, and I can most certainly see why perhaps many Americans, and American architects (and not just Travis) reacted pretty strongly and pretty negatively to it.

Hutchinson and MacDonald had been long time friends and collaborators on a number of things to do with golf for years before that article, particularly on the Rules of Golf but also on architecture and it's interesting to note that in 1910 Hutchinson was making a tour of American courses aboard Lord Brassey's yacht and it's pretty clear to see he was naturally promoting NGLA and probably Macdonald's idea of basically mimicking the best holes abroad over here.

After a while, this clearly did not sit very well with some American architects and some were pretty vocal about it in print, certainly including Travis and Tillinghast.

There had been all kinds of undercurrents of national competitiveness in golf and then in architecture between America and GB going back to as early as the turn of the century. I can pretty much guarantee it all had a whole lot more to do a number of other things than with just two words---ie the Schnectedy Putter incident!   

One might get that impression if all one did is read some of the Travis articles of that time but although his opinion may've been the most stringent of all (due to the entire years long Schnectedy Putter situation and the whole issue of ball and implement "standardization") which was beginning to be considered at that time there was a lot more to do with it than just that.

I think some of Tillinghast's articles of the teens are the most enlightening in all this, particularly regarding American architecture vs the architecture abroad. Essentially Tillie was saying that American architects had caught up to their early GB mentors and were doing better over here than they were over there.

National competitiveness in most all things golf (the tournament players, Rules (I&B, standardization, amateur status, stymie) and architecture) was very strong back then, and it seems like the guy who really got caught in the middle of it all was Charles Blair Macdonald, as he was the one who seemed to have his feet firmly planted on both sides of the Atlantic on all those issues! 

This is why I've said for a long time now that the story of Macdonald in things other to do with golf course architecture is a great big story just waiting to be told. Most even on here don't seem to understand it all that well, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"It is possible Macdonald's falling out with the American golf community may have something to do with why he was not featured more prominently regarding his contributions Merion, but I have no direct concrete proof of this so I have not really pursued it."



Here we go again!!

Would you care to elaborate what you mean by 'Macdonald's falling out with the American golf community'? 

Now you think that some Macdonald falling out with the American golf community which you haven't even bothered to attempt to explain may be another reason why you think Merion didn't feature his contribution to their new course---Merion East---more prominently??   

I would suggest you not bother to try to research that one because proof of that is not something your likely to find unless you just try to manufacture it again.

There is little question, and for a whole host of reasons not just to do with golf course architecture that Merion and their entire ethos was a whole lot more closely aligned with Macdonald's than they were with Walter Travis's. And that might explain why they seemingly didn't give George Connell's requested Merion routing by GCGC's H.H. Barker as much as a second look and why they turned immediately to Macdonald and Whigam.

[TEPaul]

"But in reading articles from the time, it's striking how early on the notion of what an "ideal" golf course NGLA was or would be was being floated, both by Macdonald and others. That this ideal was at the same time -- at least by some -- being used to disaparage other and existing courses is also striking. It was early days, it seems to me, and much was being hammered out."


Peter:

I sure do agree with you that it is somewhat surprising how early Macdonald's basic ideas of recreating many of the architectural principles from abroad and in the process creating an eighteen hole course where all the holes were intentionally "all good" as a first in American took hold.

But if one reads his book (published in 1928) carefully, one can see it began to get on that idea beginning around 1902. He made three separate "study" trips abroad---in 1902, 1904 and 1906.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

Yes. I think one of the things that's very interesting is this idea of all 18 holes being good holes. Just the other day I read a recent interview with Jack Nicklaus in which he was asked what hole at MV was the "signature" hole; he said he didn't like that idea, i.e. in his mind, all 18 holes should be the best possible, so in that sense ALL holes there at MV are signature holes. In short, it seems to me that this idea of Macdonald's certainly has had legs, and has endured.  And while I wouldn't and probably couldn't actually criticize that goal/aim, it has always struck me as a bit "scientific" and "unnatural" for my tastes. Maybe it was a "necessary" goal back in the 1910s, something that was needed to raise the bar for all courses in America...but then, when I read about Myopia it's hard for me to imagine or accept that this was the case. And then when I think of someone like Joshua Crane, there appears to be a link with this "all good" ideal course that, again, strikes me at least as too cold and formalized for my tastes, and at worst a misunderstanding of the very important role that nature AS nature plays in the game

Peter     

[TEPaul]

"And while I wouldn't and probably couldn't actually criticize that goal/aim, it has always struck me as a bit "scientific" and "unnatural" for my tastes. Maybe it was a "necessary" goal back in the 1910s, something that was needed to raise the bar for all courses in America...but then, when I read about Myopia it's hard for me to imagine or accept that this was the case. And then when I think of someone like Joshua Crane, there appears to be a link with this "all good" ideal course that, again, strikes me at least as too cold and formalized for my tastes, and at worst a misunderstanding of the very important role that nature AS nature plays in the game."


Peter:

I don't think there's much question, that was the new direction golf and golf architecture was going in over here. They wrote about that a lot beginning probably in the teens. It was referred to by two basically synonymous terms----"modern" architecture and "scientific" architecture and I believe they were almost synonymous in what they meant.

The interesting thing is some of the ones who used that term are some of the ones who we today think of as some of the most strategic practioners of all----architects like Flynn and most certainly Tillinghast but Crump too was very much fixated on a pretty exact "shot-testing" layout with the particular "shot-testing" club requirements coming at prescribed holes in the course's seuquence.

This was basically balance and variety in a pretty strict and predetermined (scientific) structure (routing).

Did that kind of thing basically evolve out of Macdonald's pretty revolutionary architectural ideas for what would be NGLA that he began to develop right after the turn of the century? I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to accurately say it didn't. But with Crump, it seems like he was never into actually mimicking any of the holes he may've seen abroad in 1910, as his course always had very original holes and they never were given any of those old GB names, and noone I've heard about ever referred to them that way either.

[DMoriarty]

David - thanks for that post.  No scorn meant for NGLA (and certainly no connection to Merion). I'd just finished reading the profile of a course I liked very much, and remembered that article; and it struck me again how unusual it was that a Myopia could be slammed while a course that hadn't even opened yet could be so acclaimed. As you suggest, there were obviously agendas at work back then, and ones considered important/fundamental.

I understand that some here have created and keep spreading this fallacy that because NGLA had its  "official opening" in 1911 that it must not have been (and should be considered) a real and influential golf course in 1910 or earlier.   This fundamentally misunderstands and misstates the early history of NGLA and golf in America.  NGLA was acclaimed in 1910 (and earlier) because, by almost all counts, it deserved that acclaim.   Most commentators, American and British, could tell by the end of 1910 (or earlier) that the National was far and away the best course in the country, and possibly the world, and a revolutionary departure from most of what was going on.   The praise that Hutchinson heaped on the course was entirely consistent with the praise just about every other respected commentator had heaped on the course. 

Yet you apparently believe there was some clandestine agenda or conspiracy to unreasonably build up NGLA?   The praise was almost universal, so it is hard for me to see how it could have been either.   

But also, I tend to like the creative product of years of study more than instant classics, in the same way that I like music made by those who've achieved mastery of their instruments. . . .
Which makes me think of the years that men like Leeds and Crump spent trying to achieve perfection at Myopia and Pine Valley. There's something more appealing in that for me than the instant perfection that Macdonald sought at NGLA, and that men like Hutchinson seemed willing to grant him and it even before the course opened.

First, as Phil Macdade points out, your description of NGLA as Macdonald's attempt at "instant perfection" is entirely unsupportable.  The course was a longtime labor of love.  When it finally "officially" opened, the concept for the course had been around for close to a decade.    The course had not only been built, but had already gone though significant renovations!    (The green was relocated on the Sahara hole, for example, making the hole substantially longer.)  And Macdonald continued to work on the course for years even after the official opening!

Second, you again imply that the course did not deserve respect because it had not yet been officially opened.   The course had not been officially opened because Macdonald continued to work on it and try to improve it from the moment it was built.   That is precisely the fallacy of assuming that the course did not deserve respect based solely on its late opening date.    The course was already World Class in 1910 whether it was opened or not.   But Macdonald wanted to make it better and better.   

Third, you also imply that somehow Macdonald didn't properly prepare to create NGLA.  This just is not the case, for reasons well known.

"Because if I'm not going to be great, I want to make sure that I'm at least good". 

NGLA was already "Great" by 1910, but Macdonald continued to worked hard to make sure it good as well.   

TE -
 And while I wouldn't and probably couldn't actually criticize that goal/aim, it has always struck me as a bit "scientific" and "unnatural" for my tastes. Maybe it was a "necessary" goal back in the 1910s, something that was needed to raise the bar for all courses in America...but then, when I read about Myopia it's hard for me to imagine or accept that this was the case. And then when I think of someone like Joshua Crane, there appears to be a link with this "all good" ideal course that, again, strikes me at least as too cold and formalized for my tastes, and at worst a misunderstanding of the very important role that nature AS nature plays in the game

Peter, again you fundamentally misunderstand what was actually done at NGLA, but I have explained my thinking on this before and won't waste your time on it again.  You seem completely committed to a rather skewed and misleading notion of what was done there, and obviously nothing I could write will convince you otherwise. 

As for Myopia, are you aware of what the course was like in 1910?   Were all of Hutchinson's criticisms unfounded?   Have you even read the actual Hutchinson article, or are you just assuming that "Americus" is telling it to you straight?   

I've never seen it, but I have no doubt Myopia was and is a great course.  As I mentioned above, it was often considered one of the best couple of courses in the country, before NGLA.    But you just seem to assume that all criticism of Myopia is unfounded and all praise of NGLA is equally unfounded.   The historical record does not support either supposition. 

[Peter Pallotta]

David - again, thanks for that post.  But you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not committed to any one view in particular: as I've said many times, my opinions and speculations may be half-baked or wrong, but they are ideas that honestly occur to me and that I enjoy tossing out there and hearing/learning from others on. I understand (from your posts and TE's and others) how important NGLA and Macdonald were historically; I accept that. But it's true that I can't shake some questions I have about how and why such an immediate and near universal consensus formed around its greatness -- if for no other reasons than a) I tend to distrust such immediate and near universal consensus, and b) I have a simple but basic preference for the less than perfect...

Peter