Robert White

[TEPaul]

"Peter
That's right, the history book has the master of the hounds designing the original nine."


That is exactly right. And R.M Appleton, the new Master of Fox Hounds at MHC in 1894 was one of only three people in Massachusetts at that time, perhaps even in America at that time, who had a private golf course on his own estate---eg "Appleton Farm." 


When I was actually at "Appleton Farm" last week, I'm only sorry I didn't think to look for vestiges of his estate course that preceded golf at Myopia Hunt Club.

[Thomas MacWood]

Perhaps no evidence in your rather strange deductive mind but there is evidence that he was Myopia's professional/greenkeeper briefly and that evidence is Myopia's own evidence. If the golf club hired him and said he was their professional/greenkeeper, and paid him for that and kept a record of it which they clearly did, simple logic and commonsense would probably tell anyone they would be a whole lot more aware of it than you ever would or could be.

TE
That all makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately apparently the club didn't keep very good records.

"Robert White served briefly as Myopia's greenskeeper and profestional and in 1897 was succeeded by chubby, good natured John Jones, who remained for many years." ~~Edward Weeks

1. As reflected in Weeks' vague quote above, the records do not show precisely when White worked for the club. White had been gone for at least two years when they claim chubby good natured Jones succeeded him in 1897. Unless of course they continued to pay him through 1897 not knowing he was now living and working in Ohio.

2. Evidently they lost the records that showed they were paying Willie Campbell as their pro beginning in 1896.

3. If the records don't show precisely when White worked for the club and the records don't show Campbell ever worked for the club, one can easily conclude the club has absolutely no idea in what capacity White served the club.

[DMoriarty]

David -

that last quote by Thoreau wasn't one of his best.  It makes him sound like a harsh, narrow-minded and self-righteous prig.

I believe the quote goes on to harshly criticize those on the other end of the privilege spectrum who also rely on others for their sustenence.   The point being, I think, that life is what we ourselves make of it, not what is given to us.   Harsh, narrow-minded and self-righteously priggish?  Maybe.  Apt? Definitely.

Neither Mr MacWood nor anyone else can ever offer just his word (just his opinion) on something and get away with it. There must be more. If he wants to be taken seriously by anyone he needs to offer more than he has.

Are you kidding me??   All you do on here is offer your opinion.  With nothing ever to support it.   If you kept to this, you'd never have a thing to post about!!


Tom MacWood,

Don't give him a damn thing.   Let him try to figure it out himself.   You have given him way too much already. 

[TEPaul]

"TE has a slightly different historical take on how it all came about. His theory has Leeds redsigning the original nine in 1896 or 1897 with the help of Robert White. There are a couple of problems with TE's theory. Leeds did not touch the original nine in 1896 or 1897, and Robert White was in Cincinnati at the time....Willie Campbell was the pro at Myopia beginning in 1896.

Since his theory is now pretty much shot to hell, he's been forced to evolve it slighty. He now has White involved in the design of the original nine with the help of a time machine. I believe it is the same time machine Hugh Wilson used after his tour of the UK."


Mr. MacWood:

Go back and review what's been said on here and try to stop being silly with remarks like those above. You're simply wasting everyone's time, as usual.

[TEPaul]

"Are you kidding me??   All you do on here is offer your opinion.  With nothing ever to support it.   If you kept to this, you'd never have a thing to post about!!"

Just my opinon with nothing to support it? I've offered a direct quotation by the Club Secretary at the time from a meeting of the Myopia Hunt Club's executive committee in 1894. 

It is definitely not my problem nor Myopia's if some people choose to disregard the recorded meetings of the club itself as to what they were doing and who was doing it.



"Tom MacWood,
Don't give him a damn thing.   Let him try to figure it out himself.   You have given him way too much already."


It really doesn't matter anymore. I doubt anyone cares at this point except perhaps a couple of well known architectural revisionists on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com who have had all their "theories" debunked on a number of club's course histories now.

[Mike_Cirba]

Messrs. Paul, MacWood, Palotta, Moriarty, and anyone playing along at home;

How exactly doth one become anointed "Master of the Hounds"?

Forsooth!!  It soundeth most cooleth, and I verily wish to attain such titleage.

Pray tell??

[Bradley Anderson]

I jumped on to this thread because of my interest in the bunkering that Leeds did at Myopia.

For me White is an interesting figure because if he was involved in building the Leeds bunkering, he might have been influenced by those concepts, and on  his own golf courses later on, those principles might have at been carried. If that is indeed the case, White's body of work would be of immense interest. Because what Leeds did at Myopia is so special and unique.

Tom MacWood, are you saying that White would have had no participatory role in any of that work? Are you saying that he was more or less holed up in some dark corner of the pro-shop making clubs?

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
It is very unlikely White had anything to do with any changes to Myopia, and certainly had no connection with Leeds. Willie Campbell was the pro when Leeds became a member in 1896.

It remains to be seen how long White was at Myopia and in what capacity he worked for the club. Afterall his background was clubmaking, and according to C&W came to the US to study agronomy. It would appear he was trying to acquire greenkeeping knowledge; he didn't bring it with him.

[Bradley Anderson]

Robert White wrote this in I think 1918 or there abouts.

......the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Leeds at Myopia, Mr. C. B. Macdonald at the National, and Mr.
Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been averse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before. And they have given the benefit of their studies to the world at large. Seven years ago, when the National Golf Links was being laid out the ignorance of green committees was
beyond all belief. For example no one (except perhaps Mr. Herbert Leeds at Myopia and Mr. Herbert Windeler at Brookline) had the remotest idea what sort of seed should be sown on a putting green. The most essential part of a green committee's duty was fulfilled in the most haphazard fashion by buying whatever the seed merchant offered......

White here comes across as one who was on the ground when these events were taking place. He sure speaks highly Leeds. I think that White is here saying that Leeds also knew a thing or two about grass species.

Incidently, I have come across this before in other articles about how The Country Club had some of the best greens in America at the beginning. I wonder if Leeds might have benefited from comparing notes with Windeler.

I think all those guys were comparing notes and helping one another out back then.

By the way, White may have not known to much about agronomy when he came here, but judging from his writings, he knew as much or more than anyone else in America by the time he arrived at Ravisloe.

[Bradley Anderson]

That Robert White piece was from 1914. He was a very good writer thats for sure.

[TEPaul]

"Messrs. Paul, MacWood, Palotta, Moriarty, and anyone playing along at home;
How exactly doth one become anointed "Master of the Hounds"?
Forsooth!!  It soundeth most cooleth, and I verily wish to attain such titleage.
Pray tell??"


Mikey:

Fox Hunting definitely has a pretty interesting culture. I've heard of a Master of the Hunt but never a Master of the Fox Hounds. I live right in the middle of the so-called Radnor Hunt and I do know Hunt clubs take their hounds very seriously. I doubt most people have ever even seen real fox hounds. They are quite different dogs, for sure.  About twenty years ago I left the door open in my house and one wandered in. Very odd animal, not exactly the kind of dog that lies down and you pat. I don't think he was even aware of me---just sort of ran through the house and out again with not so much as a "By Your Leave" to me. When I went outside though there were a bunch of Hunt people after him. They take their fox hounds very seriously.

Every week or so those Radnor Hunt hounds seem to get into their own odd collective "sing-along" music festival. God what a racket they can make and they are more than a mile away as the crow flies.

Apparently, Mr. MacWood knows about less than zero about fox hunting because for some odd reason he thinks someone who served as the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia Hhunt Club was mentally and physically incapable of laying out a golf course in 1894 despite the fact that he already had a golf course on his own estate. The deductive ability of some on here is somewhere below a troglodyte, that's for sure.

[TEPaul]

Bradley, Mr. Anderson, Sir:

The info you've provided about Robert White is fantastic, particularly the last one about some of those old fashioned "amateur/sportsmen" architects who did such great golf courses in that early era; so thank you so much.

It just makes me realize what really productive threads and discussions can be and how often they aren't when a few contributors participate who do nothing other than constantly deflect intelligent and productive discussion and information.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Much of the bunkering of Myopia is of a style that one might say is "of an era." It is definitely not what one might call "modern". It's very cool though and some of it is an excellent combo of "penal/strategic".

I'm trying to determine which hole at Myopia might be in the overall in the purest most unchanged form from practically original. #9 is a pretty good candidate. It's about 37 paces long and only ten paces wide throughout. Get in any of those greenside bunkers on either side of it and depending where your ball is in relation to the banks you can have some serious problems and/or imagination inducing recorvery shots.


Furthermore, there are up to half a dozen holes on that course that should be really comprehensively discussed on here. About 3-4 of them would probably never be allowed to be designed or built today and frankly they are the coolest out there, in my opinion. Par is basically out the window on them----you gotta basically think, think, think and then hope the exact execution of your thought works out right. My God did the approach to #13 get my goat last week and I did not even remotely miss executing any of my approach shots.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. Paul,

It could not have begun any other way could it have? I mean how could a Scottish Greenkeeper/Clubmaker/Professional muster the kind of support and capital that was required in those days to build a truely great golf course?

Those first really great golf courses had to have been envisioned and built by wealthy and/or influential gentlemen. It took a great strength of will and independence to do it right. I just bet that these men were all very much alike in temperment. White refers to them as dictators.

[Bradley Anderson]

I have always wondered why that kind of bunkering is not more common in America.

But I saw some pretty deep bunkers this afternoon at Oakland Hills. There was one greenside bunker on the front of five that one of the pros was practicing hitting shots out of, and all you could see was his head when he climbed down in to it.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

That second to last post of yours has such good thoughts. Please go on and elaborate on what you're feeling and thinking. Believe me, this thread really, really, really needs that at this point!

I can understand that most participants on here don't want to touch some of these threads but thank God you have!

[Peter Pallotta]

TE, Bradley -

This may sidetrack this discussion, but your last couple of posts brought it to mind. It's one of the main reasons I'm interested in these kind of threads, and is the subject of many of my questions around here.  Those questions are basically about the fundamental principles of good golf course architecture - what they are, when they were first consciously recognized and/or articulated, whether or not those have changed over the years or just been partially hidden (or sometimes buried) under various and changing styles and tastes, and most of all what we mean or should mean when we talk about architects and their designs, i.e. how 'credit' for the design should be parceled out given the relative (and changing?) importance of the 'conceptual' aspect of design.  I asked recently about today's architects who learned their craft by getting their hands dirty (i.e. beginning on the construction side as young interns working for established designers), and I wondered about the old greats who (mostly) didn't start out that way.  There were a number of good replies, and I quote a snippet of one from Tom D:

"I think that knowledge of construction today is much more important than before because there are so many parts of a course that weren't even in the budget 75 years ago ... heavy earthmoving, drainage, irrigation, cart paths, etc.  In fact there is so much of that, that some guys forget to design cool golf holes as in the old days, when the latter was the single focus of golf course design."

So, to my point, which is that if this was as true 100 years ago as it was 75 years ago, and if design back then was (and could be) mainly about designing "cool holes", how does this change (or confirm) who we think did what back in the old days. Specifically, does it mean that the architect in a case like Myopia was the man who conceptualized the cool holes? TE - if any of this makes sense, is it something that feeds into the amateur-sportsman idea? That is, is it more likely that men like Leeds and Wilson and Crump etc were interested in and aware of (and could afford to learn and be informed about) the principles that make for cool golf holes or that the early professionals were?

Peter   

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
The article you quoted was written by Max Behr not Robert White. The article that followed it on bunker construction was written by White. White was one of the founders of the PGA; its doubtful he would be singing the praises of the amateurs at the expense of his professional bretheren.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Your last post is so good and so thoughtful, particularly the first paragraph. Of course it is also so very hard to answer but, hey, why in the world should any of us who really mentally crunch this stuff EVER expect easy answers to come out of the realm of golf course architecture with the types of questions you asked. There has got to be an enduring mystery to this stuff and that might be one of GCA's biggest assets, in the final analysis.

I mean just consider this for a moment. On the 13th hole at Myopia last week every day for four days I'm out there at about 107 yards from that green that's way up there that I can't even see. I hit my PW reliably 115 yards, I hit my 9 iron reliably about 135 yards and my 8 iron about 145 yards.

The first day a perfect PW came back at me. The second day a perfect 9 iron went up on the green and after about 3 seconds came back at me. The third day I told my partner that it's just so counter-intuitive for me to hit an 8 iron from 107 yards into a shallow back to front green behind which is death. He told me you got 107 yards, you hit a really good 8 iron 145 yards--hit the 8 iron and hit it hard. I did and I was FINALLY five feet from the pin.

That is thoughtful architecture, it's exciting architecture and it's great architecture!

Don't even get me started on #16.

Yeah, on second thought, get me started on #16.

If someone designed and built a hole like #16 as it is today they'd probably be shot. It's one of the coolest and most mindbending par 3s I've ever seen or played. So what was Herbert Leeds thinking? What were his golf architecture principles? By all accounts from Myopia, through all the collective lore (a word that some dolts on here don't accept and constantly joke about) Herbert Leeds was one tough hombre and he felt like if you were going to score on his course you were definitely gonna have to earn it with some great thought and execution! 

PS:

One of the guys I played against last week up there is a good friend of Ian Baker Finch and he had him up there recently. He told me Finch's comments on a few of those holes. The guy just loved them.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

The first wave of Scotsmen to come over here began as servants of clubs in various capacities before they were given a chance to remodel and build great golf holes. It seems to me that only Colt was regarded as an expert before he even got off the boat. Most of the others made their own names for themselves. Ross and White are good examples.

The only men who could muster the kind of support and interest that it took to build a truly world class golf course on American soil were wealthy and powerful and well connected men. These were the kind of men who would figure things out on their own or hire the experts they needed to tell them what they needed to know. And golf was wide open field of all kinds of possibilities.

The question might be asked? What happened to the gentleman architect? His breed was for a brief time because after the likes of Ross and MacKenzie began to gather steam, no group of other gentlemen would ever give their support to a gentleman architect again. Which is kind of a shame, because so many of them did such incredible work.

It makes their golf courses a special vintage indeed.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. MacWood,

I stand corrected, that was Behr. Thanks for catching that.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

The first wave of Scotsmen to come over here began as servants of clubs in various capacities before they were given a chance to remodel and build great golf holes. It seems to me that only Colt was regarded as an expert before he even got off the boat. Most of the others made their own names for themselves. Ross and White are good examples.

Bradley
Willie Park, Jr came over twice in the 1890s. Willie Campbell had a very impressive resume when he came over in 1894. Tom Dunn came over in 1899. He had probably laid out more courses worldwide than any man living. JH Taylor came over in 1900, Johnny Low in 1903 and Horace Hutchinson in 1910.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Anderson:

Your post #144 contains some of the best questions ever asked on this website, and certainly about a fascintating era and type of architect in the history of American golf course architecture. Thank God for you. I think I love you!  

I believe, by the end of WW1 essentially, those incredibly fascinating so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects like Leeds, Fownes, Crump, Wilson, (even C.B. Macdonald with his NGLA) were basically done on STARTING those single projects that they took so long on and made them and those golf courses famous forever.

Obviously, we need to ask the question why that was? In my opinion, the true answer explains one of the most important, and perhaps magnificent times, in American golf course architecture. I think it also largely explains what came before it!

I think it also contains some enduring "truths" that are remarkably hard to get anyone today to answer, much less even consider!

You're the best, Bradley Anderson. Keep it going!


Let me amend that. You didn't actually ask questions in post #144, Mr. Anderson, you merely made some of the best points seen in ages!

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. MacWood,

It is my sense that the capital and commitment that was required to build a National Golf Links, or a Merion was not going to be invested in a professional at this point in time, but more likely to be given to gentleman or amateur architect. But I think this was a brief period in golf history.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You forgot Windeler, Emmet, Macdonald, Whigham, Travis, Taylor, Adaire, and many others from the other side of the pond.

May interject some reality here? Most of these men did not START the courses they became associated with, but were redesign specialists who perfected these courses, and in most cases they had plenty of help from more seasoned designers.