I Just Thought It Worth While

[DMoriarty]

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 

The praise was not immediate, as he was criticized and mocked by some when he first hatched the idea.   And the course was not perfect but a constant evolution.  Macdonald  abandoned his original notion of 18 replicas before the course was even designed.  He also rebuilt some of the greens multiple times.   He also made several other changes as things worked and did not work.  He also had trouble growing grass on the sandy soil.  So it was far from perfect. 

That being said, certain people, certain places, and certain events fundamentally alter the way we look at the world.  NGLA fundamentally altered the way the American golfing establishment looked at American golf.   That is why the praise was so universal.

But to understand how revolutionary the course was, you really need to understand just how bad most everything else was considered.   It is really difficult to get a true sense of that, because most of the work done pre NGLA was in one way or another wiped off the map when NGLA came around.  In other words, NGLA required that they largely wipe the slate clean and start over. (with a few exceptions.)   So it is tough for us to understand what golf courses were like before NGLA.   

[Peter Pallotta]

David - this isn't much fun; you're debating a little like Pat Mucci sometimes does. I enjoy bouncing ideas around with Pat, but when it gets to rhetoric for rhetoric's sake, I lose interest. Then it's all about counter-punching and the parsing of words, neither of which I've ever enjoyed or thought worth doing.  You say NGLA fundamentally changed the way the golfing establishment looked at golf in America. I wonder if that's true, and if so what that meant on the ground over the next few decades, and what golf courses if any were outside/independent of that sphere of influence, and how the Oakmonts and Merions and Pine Valleys and Augusta Nationals might be seen in this context. Those seem to me like good and interesting questions.

Anyway, this thread is about Myopia. Like Sean said off the bat, it does have a very English feel about it, which is a very appealing (because understated) look. I'm sure it did change over the years, but I still found Hutchinson's slamming of it surprising.

Peter

 

[DMoriarty]

David - this isn't much fun; you're debating a little like Pat Mucci sometimes does. I enjoy bouncing ideas around with Pat, but when it gets to rhetoric for rhetoric's sake, I lose interest. Then it's all about counter-punching and the parsing of words, neither of which I've ever enjoyed or thought worth doing.  You say NGLA fundamentally changed the way the golfing establishment looked at golf in America. I wonder if that's true, and if so what that meant on the ground over the next few decades, and what golf courses if any were outside/independent of that sphere of influence, and how the Oakmonts and Merions and Pine Valleys and Augusta Nationals might be seen in this context. Those seem to me like good and interesting questions.

Anyway, this thread is about Myopia. Like Sean said off the bat, it does have a very English feel about it, which is a very appealing (because understated) look. I'm sure it did change over the years, but I still found Hutchinson's slamming of it surprising.

Peter

 

Peter, you injected NGLA into the discussion, I didn't.   And from your first post you didn't focus on Myopia being slammed, but on NGLA being over-hyped through some clandestine and unidentified agenda. 

That is not accurate.   Pardon me for pointing this out.   

As for your "good and interesting questions," I have tried to explore NGLA's sphere of influence.  You may not be aware, but I recently posted a IMO on this very issue.   It seems that many here don't have much interest in a frank, honest, and open exploration of the topic.

Good Luck.
DM

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I don't think it's a matter of people on here not being interested in a frank, honest and open exploration of these topics. It's more a matter of trying to have that kind of discussion on here with you. You continuously tell people like Peter Pallotta his opinions are not accurate as if your opinions ought to be taken as fact because you think you've done some research and written and IMO essay. So what?

In my opinion, Peter Pallotta has always had a far more realistic, balanced and probably historically accurate outlook on this era and most of the courses discussed such as Myopia, NGLA and Merion. And what is this IMO piece you did on NGLA's sphere of influence? Please don't try to tell me it was that essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." 

You also seem to infer that NGLA set the bar for American architecture for the foreseeable future. That was not the case. It didn't even take five years for Pine Valley to eclipse NGLA in the minds of most architecture commentators, and there most certainly aren't many similarities between the two. Check it out in the commentaries. It's really not very hard to figure out.

Furthermore, I don't know how accurate Travis was with his remarks about what Hutchinson said about Myopia having so many blind shots but the fact is it never even had as many as NGLA.

It seems to me it's pretty true to say that more really good architecture was done in inland England primarily  right around the heathlands in the decade preceding the teens but after that American quality architecture really began to assert itself, just as Tillinghast accurately chronicled. Matter of fact, Tillinghast's career-end article about his differences of opinion with Macdonald's ideas on architecture are some of the most fundamentally interesting I'm aware of but knowing some of what you've said lately you'll probably even take that as some attempt to minimize or disrespect Macdonald.

[Thomas MacWood]

One of the bi-products of Hutchinson's criticism was the major redesign of Brookline and Essex County, and prior to their redesign Ross (Essex) and Windeler (Brookline) went abroad to study British developments, in 1910 and 1911 respectively.

[Michael Powers]

I wonder if Hutchinson's article was somewhat a response to the record high scores shot at Myopia at the Open in the years prior to the writing of the article, with winning scores of 322 and 328.  There must have been some negative publicity from the players and golf writers of the time, especailly as to the punative nature of the course.  Not surprising to read that Huchinson was a friend of CBM considering the tone of the article. 

While Leed's efforts at Myopia are well documented, did Leeds spend as much time at Bass Rocks Golf Club in Gloucester?   Although the course was severly altered (for the worse I believe) to make room for a range, little has been written regarding the Rock.