William Flynn's influences

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When you start assigning anything approaching significant architectural influence of Macdonald on Pine Valley I'm afraid you're making a point so general and broad as to be virtually useless. There's plenty of evidence of collaboration of numerous architects and others with Crump (much of which was kindly listened to and not put into effect) but it does not seem Macdonald was one of them. All I've ever seen connecting Macdonald to Pine Valley was his famous remark: "This could be one of the world's great golf courses if they can get grass to grow here."

Actually, belay that remark above----it may be that Macdonald suggested to Crump that he open up some sand area to make for a few really massive bunker carries ala the "Sahara" bunker on NGLA's #2 (I think he may've said a good course needs a few of these). I'll look into all my PV files about that because if that is something Macdonald actually recommended to Crump he certainly attempted to accomplish exactly that on a number of holes at Pine Valley!

Now, Patrick, I've just given you some potentially interesting information you were not heretofore aware of. Please try not to make it look like you already knew this in the next 24 hours. I'm not exactly looking for thanks but you should always remember who your teacher is and always has been!

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

If you study the documents in the Rockefeller Archives, you'll know they were very hands on about everything, in most cases down to the smallest detail.

Macdonald was in single A ball compared to the Hall of Fame guys he was designing courses for.  I think the pedestal you put him on is a bit too high if you think those guys liked to give up power.  In the end, Macdonald was the one that left clubs, not the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Astors, etc.  They may not have known anything about building a golf course but they knew about getting what they wanted. 

OHECA?  Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

You and I both know that Macdonald was the president of the development company for Creek Club.   So your question about low bidding is unnecessarily demeaning.

I never said that NGLA was an exact copy of holes in the UK.  It was developed by polling the best holes and used as a framework to develop the course.  No two golf courses are alike and no two holes are alike.  Conceptually, many of the holes were not distinctive, they were derivative.  Likewise, all the subsequent courses built by MacRayBanks, while they were not exactly alike, utilized many of the same concepts.  While not exactly alike, they were not completely distinctive.  The more replications (not exact) the less distinctive.  That was there model or brand.  You can't have it both ways, Pat.  Though Lord knows you try 

The 3rd at Merion is still referred to as a Redan by some.  I think they are all wrong.  I know I know the hole far better than they do.  It does have the basics of one.  It has a hole, grass and a bunker below the green.  That's it.  Everything else doesn't fit.  As to better, that is my opinion.  I think Merion is a far better design than anything by MacRayBanks for many reasons.  I may be biased, but not as much as you 

Tell me specific influences Macdonald had at Pine Valley.  I doubt you can name a single one, you merely transpose his influence everywhere. 

A brand doesn't have to consist of clones to remain static.  Is Ralph Lauren a brand?  Does he stick to a narrow formula?  Are all his clothes and other items clones?  Of course not.  He makes clothes for men, women and children. 

Stop thinking so narrowly about exact replicas.  Nobody is discussing things on those terms but you.  I know it is the only way your understanding works, but it is off base.  Of the courses you mentioned, they are far more easily compartmentalized and of a kind than any other architect by a HUGE factor.  That is because the style is narrow, the concepts replicated and the aesthetics similar.  Not exactly the same but closer than any other group of architects.  Do you deny that?

[Bradley Anderson]

When ever we get into this issue about the aesthetic sensibilities of Raynor, I wince at much  of what is said.

Now my only exposure to his work is from Shoreacres and Chicago Golf Club, and Wayne I have to tell you that there are differences in those two golf courses. It's hard to explain exactly what those differences are.

Both golf course are extrodinarily beautiful, but Shoreacres has a less of the rigid bones to the features. Shoreacres has some bunkering that tie in incredibly well with the land - as good as anyone's.

I also think that one of the reasons why so many of us are fond of Raynors lines, is because they are easier to connect to everything else around them. You have to admit Wayne, that that is part of the appeal to Flynn also. Flynn didn't get all willy nilly with curvy lines ad-nauseum either.

Wayne I agree with everything you say about Raynor. I just wish you wrong.

[wsmorrison]

Bradley,

That's very kind of you to say 

I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to say there is no variation or differentiation.  It is just that there is so much less of it than any other "school" of architecture.  It is a highly recognizable brand for a reason.  A great one, but very recognizable.  As Bradley realizes better than Pat, I'm not saying they are the McDonalds of golf design, but the Macdonalds of golf design is rather easy to consider.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

And all these years I thought that the "Sahara" feature was Crump's idea.

The things you learn on GCA.com

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you study the documents in the Rockefeller Archives, you'll know they were very hands on about everything, in most cases down to the smallest detail.

That's nonsense.
They knew NOTHING about design concepts compared to CBM.
They may have micro managed the finances, but on the creative end they were in the dark.

Macdonald was in single A ball compared to the Hall of Fame guys he was designing courses for. 

Financially perhaps, but, if they were so good at it, why didn't they do it themselves, like MacDonald did.

They did the smart thing, they recognized that they didn't have the talent and went out and hired the recognized genius in that field, CBM.

I think the pedestal you put him on is a bit too high if you think those guys liked to give up power. 

They didn't possess the creative genius to do it on their own, so they hired the person who did.  As to giving up power, when they needed a tooth fixed or surgery, I'm sure they ceded those functions to those regarded as the best in their respective fields.

In the end, Macdonald was the one that left clubs, not the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Astors, etc.  They may not have known anything about building a golf course but they knew about getting what they wanted. 

On one hand you tell us that the Rockefellers were intimately involved in the design process, very hands on, and, on the other you now tell us that they didn't know anything about building a golf course.  You can't have it both ways.

CBM's personality, not his design genius is what created conflicts at clubs.

OHECA?  Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.


Sorry, my mistake.  OHEKA

You and I both know that Macdonald was the president of the development company for Creek Club.   So your question about low bidding is unnecessarily demeaning.

No it's not.
There were other architects available to design golf courses.
MacDonald got the commissions because of the products he produced, his design genius, not because he was low bidder.

I never said that NGLA was an exact copy of holes in the UK. 
That's what you implied

It was developed by polling the best holes and used as a framework to develop the course. 

That's not entirely true.
Some of the holes were derived from holes from the UK, not all of them.
And, it's been said that MacDonald's holes were better renditions than the originals.

No two golf courses are alike and no two holes are alike.  Conceptually, many of the holes were not distinctive, they were derivative. 

I don't think there's a golfer living or dead who would connect # 17 at Prestwick to # 3 at NGLA if they hadn't read about MacDonald's or NGLA's history. 

To claim that # 3 at NGLA is a derivitive of # 17 is to not understand either of the two holes architecturally.

Go through each shot and let me know how the holes play alike.
Their ONLY, partial, common denominator is the semi-blind nature of the green.

Likewise, all the subsequent courses built by MacRayBanks, while they were not exactly alike, utilized many of the same concepts. 

I believe you can say that about almost every architect.

While not exactly alike, they were not completely distinctive. 


That's some qualifier or caveat, "completely" distinctive.

Which Flynn courses are completely distinctive ?

The more replications (not exact) the less distinctive. 


That's not entirely true since the land upon which the replication was cast differs, hence, you can see the concept, but the application is entirely different.

That was there model or brand.  You can't have it both ways, Pat.  Though Lord knows you try 

There's no doubt that they had a "brand".  I was the one who pointed that out earlier in this thread, but, part of their success was taking the concept and applying it to different terrain, thus producing a different hole with some of the same design or playability characteristics.

That's what their clients wanted.

They wanted CBM's & SR's name and product

What's wrong with having it both ways if you can get it ?

The 3rd at Merion is still referred to as a Redan by some.  I think they are all wrong.  I know I know the hole far better than they do.  It does have the basics of one.  It has a hole, grass and a bunker below the green.  That's it.  Everything else doesn't fit. 

The elevation ?  The angular presentation ?  The canted green ?
They don't fit ?

As to better, that is my opinion.  I think Merion is a far better design than anything by MacRayBanks for many reasons. 

That wasn't the issue.
The issue was whether or not the original versions of Merion were better or worse than the current version.

NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion.

You know, better than anyone else, that those designing and building Merion went to the recognized expert and genius in that field, MacDonald, in order to help them design and build Merion.

The configuration of the land required to build Merion can be attributed to CBM, along with a lot of other things at Merion.

It does you no good to deny Merion's legacy.

I may be biased, but not as much as you 

There are those that would debate and/or refute that claim.

Tell me specific influences Macdonald had at Pine Valley.  I doubt you can name a single one, you merely transpose his influence everywhere. 


# 7 and the Sahara concept, even though TEPaul thinks that was Crump's idea.

A brand doesn't have to consist of clones to remain static.  Is Ralph Lauren a brand?  Does he stick to a narrow formula?  Are all his clothes and other items clones?  Of course not.  He makes clothes for men, women and children. 

That's what MacDonald did for golf, ergo, Ralph Lauren is a MacDonald clone


Stop thinking so narrowly about exact replicas.  Nobody is discussing things on those terms but you.  I know it is the only way your understanding works, but it is off base.  Of the courses you mentioned, they are far more easily compartmentalized and of a kind than any other architect by a HUGE factor.  That is because the style is narrow, the concepts replicated and the aesthetics similar.  Not exactly the same but closer than any other group of architects.  Do you deny that?

The aesthetics are far from the same.

As to a style, that's what their clients and golfers wanted, the CBM-SR brand.

And, it's survived and continues to be glorified 100 years later

[wsmorrison]

Of course the Rockefellers, Astors, Vanderbilts, etc didn't know anything about how to construct a golf course.  You think they didn't have any input at all and relied completely on the genius of Macdonald.  Firstly, I don't see Macdonald as a genius as you do.  In his time, absolutely.  I think his time quickly passed and he knew it.  He turned his back on golf and golf design.  There were several reasons.  Why do you think that is the case?  Secondly, I believe his patrons were not disconnected.  They were far too powerful.  Ask any living architect today if the guys footing the bill don't like to get involved.  I think you'll find it extremely rare and the exception rather than the rule.  They may not have been intimately involved, though I never made that claim.  Rather, I think they were somewhat involved.

Well, I don't know what OHEKA is either.  What's with the acronyms?

No, I did not imply that NGLA was made entirely of templates.  Nor did I say that they were exact duplicates.  There were many concept copies.  Though they differ from the originals, these were not what I would call distinctive.

As for the conceptual remake of #3 at NGLA from #17 at Prestwick, I don't think it takes a biographer of Macdonald to realize the connection.  I disagree with your underestimation.

You come to Merion and see for yourself whether it is similar to the Redan at NGLA.  I know them both, though not the NGLA one as well as you.  However my understanding of the 3rd at Merion East is so far better than your own.  You'll see for yourself one of these days.  Then I want you to write up a comparison and contrast between the two holes for us all.  Promise?

NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion.

That is so general as to mean nothing at all.

You know, better than anyone else, that those designing and building Merion went to the recognized expert and genius in that field, MacDonald, in order to help them design and build Merion.

No I don't.  They went to Macdonald for advice.  There is no evidence at all that he helped them design the golf course.  If they followed his advice it would've been on a lot smaller ground and would have been a 6000 yard course.  As for construction advice, he probably helped some with that, mostly agronomic advice.  Though his efforts on his own courses would show how primitive the state of turf knowledge was at the time.  He had dramatic failures at NGLA and later at Creek Club.  Though he didn't accept blame at Creek Club but pointed the finger square at Raynor.

The configuration of the land required to build Merion can be attributed to CBM, along with a lot of other things at Merion.

You are way out of your knowledge base here, Pat.  You cannot substantiate that claim.  What other things do you attribute to Macdonald.  I could use a good laugh.

#7 at Pine Valley is usually attributed to Tillinghast with Crump having final say.  Do you have new information that links Macdonald to that design?  The Sahara design isn't a Macdonald or a Crump.  They both copied it, but the guy who built it at PV produced the best examples of it in the US.

As to a style, that's what their clients and golfers wanted, the CBM-SR brand.

That is your opinion, it is not fact.

And, it's survived and continues to be glorified 100 years later

Yes, in limited fashion and while it continues to be enjoyed, it does not enjoy widespread influence today.  Mike Kaiser liked it so much, he is having a tribute course built.  But that is the first influence in American golf since Raynor and Banks stopped working.  The "National School" shut down long ago.  Different aesthetics and design theories took its place.  How many of the courses built by Macdonald, Raynor and Banks provide the same challenge to the same golfers as they once did?  The lack of elasticity and the shortcomings of their designs relegate them to fun and outstanding member courses.  They are not now championship designs.  Even one of the template holes, the Biarritz, is maintained completely differently than it once was.  The area before the swale is now green height.  Why, if the design stood the test of time so well?  Why didn't Macdonald, Raynor or Banks realize the way it could be played?

Now, back to Flynn's influences.  Sorry for the long tangent away from the subject.  Pat, how did Macdonald influence Flynn?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Of course the Rockefellers, Astors, Vanderbilts, etc didn't know anything about how to construct a golf course. 

I stated that previously and you argued the point with me.
I'm glad that you now see the light.

You think they didn't have any input at all and relied completely on the genius of Macdonald. 

Essentially

Firstly, I don't see Macdonald as a genius as you do.  In his time, absolutely. 

But, that's what we're talking about, HIS TIME.
That's the context of the discussion.
I'm glad that you again agree with me.

I think his time quickly passed and he knew it.  He turned his back on golf and golf design.  There were several reasons.  Why do you think that is the case? 

The answer could be varied.
Just look at TEPaul, an accomplished golfer who also turned his back on the game, hopefully, until I convinced him otherwise.

The same could be said of Byron Nelson.
When I asked him why he abandoned competitive golf he replied, "because I had done it all, I had nothing else to accomplish"  So, perhaps CBM felt the same.

Secondly, I believe his patrons were not disconnected.  They were far too powerful. 
Ask any living architect today if the guys footing the bill don't like to get involved.  I think you'll find it extremely rare and the exception rather than the rule.  They may not have been intimately involved, though I never made that claim.  Rather, I think they were somewhat involved.


Today, we live in a different age, the information age.
Data and know-how are acquired through a key stroke.
You can't compare CBM's era with today's, it doesn't equate.

Well, I don't know what OHEKA is either.  What's with the acronyms?


OHEKA was Otto Kahn's Estate and Golf Course.
That's how it's refered to in this region.

No, I did not imply that NGLA was made entirely of templates.  Nor did I say that they were exact duplicates.  There were many concept copies.  Though they differ from the originals, these were not what I would call distinctive.

Wayno, how could you play NGLA and not label each hole as distinctive ?

In 1910 they were outright revolutionary.

As for the conceptual remake of #3 at NGLA from #17 at Prestwick, I don't think it takes a biographer of Macdonald to realize the connection.  I disagree with your underestimation.

Could you point out the architectural similarities in the two holes ?
Start with the tee shot.
Is there ANY similarity ?

You come to Merion and see for yourself whether it is similar to the Redan at NGLA.  I know them both, though not the NGLA one as well as you.  However my understanding of the 3rd at Merion East is so far better than your own.  You'll see for yourself one of these days.  Then I want you to write up a comparison and contrast between the two holes for us all.  Promise?

Wayno, I played Merion before you took up golf.
I'm familiar with the hole.
I never said # 3 at Merion resembled # 4 at NGLA.
It does however contain some of the features found in Redans.
I identified some of them.

NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion.

That is so general as to mean nothing at all.

NGLA was the springboard from which GCA in America took off, including Merion.

You know, better than anyone else, that those designing and building Merion went to the recognized expert and genius in that field, MacDonald, in order to help them design and build Merion.

No I don't.  They went to Macdonald for advice.  There is no evidence at all that he helped them design the golf course. 

Wilson himself admits that MacDonald was a great help.
How can you deny MacDonald's involvement ?

If they followed his advice it would've been on a lot smaller ground and would have been a 6000 yard course.  As for construction advice, he probably helped some with that, mostly agronomic advice. 
Though his efforts on his own courses would show how primitive the state of turf knowledge was at the time. 

He had dramatic failures at NGLA and later at Creek Club. 


Could you identify his dramatic failures at NGLA ?
Could you identify his dramatic failures at The Creek ?

Though he didn't accept blame at Creek Club but pointed the finger square at Raynor.

Raynor was the surveyor, the engineer.
You're familiar with the terrain at The Creek and the tidal influences.
The northern section of that property is ill suited for a golf course, yet the individual hole designs are brilliant.

The configuration of the land required to build Merion can be attributed to CBM, along with a lot of other things at Merion.

You are way out of your knowledge base here, Pat.  You cannot substantiate that claim.  What other things do you attribute to Macdonald.  I could use a good laugh.

Are you denying that MacDonald suggested purchasing a parcel of land for the benefit of a better golf course ?

#7 at Pine Valley is usually attributed to Tillinghast with Crump having final say.  Do you have new information that links Macdonald to that design?  The Sahara design isn't a Macdonald or a Crump.  They both copied it, but the guy who built it at PV produced the best examples of it in the US.


Perhaps you're not familiar with the second hole at NGLA.
I believe it's called "Sahara"
MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it.
Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee.

As to a style, that's what their clients and golfers wanted, the CBM-SR brand.

That is your opinion, it is not fact.

It's a fact.
That's why they hired him, they wanted his design concepts, not anyone else's.

And, it's survived and continues to be glorified 100 years later

Yes, in limited fashion and while it continues to be enjoyed, it does not enjoy widespread influence today. 

Really ?

So Dye's 5th hole at Old Marsh, Doak's 17th hole at Pacific Dunes and Coore & Crenshaw's 4th hole at Hidden Creek just came to them out of the blue, with no thoughts of MacDonald dancing in their heads ?

Mike Kaiser liked it so much, he is having a tribute course built.  But that is the first influence in American golf since Raynor and Banks stopped working. 

Wayno, please, immediately, stop drinking the Philadelphia tap water, it's inhibiting your ability to observe, analyze and reason.

The "National School" shut down long ago. 

Perhaps you should send Mike Kaiser and email informing him of same.

Different aesthetics and design theories took its place. 

How many of the courses built by Macdonald, Raynor and Banks provide the same challenge to the same golfers as they once did? 


Probably every one of them.

The lack of elasticity and the shortcomings of their designs relegate them to fun and outstanding member courses.  They are not now championship designs. 

In large part, that's primarily due to property constraints and the resistance on the part of clubs to lengthen holes.

NGLA could lengthen a good number of their holes, however, your neighbor, the Idiot-Savant, TEPaul has been against that concept for years.

Most of the courses designed by CBM-SR didn't need additional length to retain their architectural and playing values until very recently.
Now, just about every course needs length in the context of Championship golf.  And, it appears that no matter how much you lengthen a hole, it doesn't counter the combination of PGA Tour Pros and Hi-tech.

Even one of the template holes, the Biarritz, is maintained completely differently than it once was. 

That's not true.

The area before the swale is now green height.  Why, if the design stood the test of time so well?  Why didn't Macdonald, Raynor or Banks realize the way it could be played?

They did.
However, you seem to forget the effects of the depression and gas rationing during WWII.

Now, back to Flynn's influences.  Sorry for the long tangent away from the subject.  Pat, how did Macdonald influence Flynn?

Now that I think about it, Flynn probably never heard of MacDonald.

Surely, he didn't visit NGLA when he was redoing Shinnecock.

He was probably unaware of MacDonald's courses on Long Island and elsewhere.  I'm sure he never read "Scotland's Gift" and other articles MacDonald wrote, never engaged Wilson in conversation regarding his experiences and education vis a vis MacDonald.  Didn't know about the USGA and MacDonald's role in it and the creation of the Walker Cup

If Flynn wasn't influenced by CBM, directly or indirectly, he's probably the only architect who wasn't.

He even hired Seth Raynor's alter ego and made him a partner in his practice, but, I'm sure that MacDonald wasn't any influence in that decision.

To deny MacDonald's influence on golf, golf course architecture and architects is foolish at best.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

Several of your statements I think need reconsidering...

"NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion." I disagree. Whereas it certainly influenced many to build courses and to attempt new and challenging courses, it was by no means the influence to "most."

For example, Tilly disdained the use of template holes and both thought and wrote that CBM's approach to design was wrong even though he enjoyed and recognized greatness in some of his courses. Many other architects of this same era also viewed the use of template holes in design to be the exception rather than should be the norm and both designed and wrote of it.

"MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it." This is incorrect. The first time that tilly saw the original "Sahara" was in 1895. In 1898 he photographed it and again saw and played it in 1901. This is far more than even just a few years before Macdonald "brought" the "Sahara concept" to America.
I believe that tilly designed more than his fair share of large hazards that have been called "Sahara's" by himself and others.

"Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee." This is also incorrect, unless one doesn't consider Abington Hills, Bellfield and Wanango to be real golf courses. Also, in 1915 and before, he was already working on Aronomink, Fort Sam Houston , Brackenridge Park, Wernersville and a number of others, some of which opened for play that year as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Several of your statements I think need reconsidering...

"NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion." I disagree. Whereas it certainly influenced many to build courses and to attempt new and challenging courses, it was by no means the influence to "most."

For example, Tilly disdained the use of template holes and both thought and wrote that CBM's approach to design was wrong even though he enjoyed and recognized greatness in some of his courses. Many other architects of this same era also viewed the use of template holes in design to be the exception rather than should be the norm and both designed and wrote of it.

That's absurd.

AWT replicated a "template" hole, the Sahara on a great many of his courses, sometimes more than once on the same course, ala Ridgewood.

So how can you say he disdained that practice when it was SOP for him ?


"MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it." This is incorrect.

No it's not.

CBM brought the "Sahara" to America and incorporated it into his design of NGLA.

The first time that tilly saw the original "Sahara" was in 1895. In 1898 he photographed it and again saw and played it in 1901. This is far more than even just a few years before Macdonald "brought" the "Sahara concept" to America.

Photographing a hole and incorporating it into the design and construction of a golf course are two distinctly different .

MacDonald was in the UK 20+ years before AWT viewed golf courses in the UK.

I believe that tilly designed more than his fair share of large hazards that have been called "Sahara's" by himself and others.

That was long after MacDonald's "Sahara" at NGLA.

"Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee." This is also incorrect, unless one doesn't consider Abington Hills, Bellfield and Wanango to be real golf courses.

Not according to Cornish & Whitten.

Wanago is classified as a revision, not an original golf course and Bellfield and Abington Hills aren't listed.

Also, in 1915 and before, he was already working on Aronomink, Fort Sam Houston , Brackenridge Park, Wernersville and a number of others, some of which opened for play that year as well. 

I stand by my remark that BEFORE 1915 he had completed but one 18 hole golf course.

I await information on Bellfield and Abington Hills.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You responded to me by saying, “That's absurd… AWT replicated a "template" hole, the Sahara on a great many of his courses, sometimes more than once on the same course, ala Ridgewood… So how can you say he disdained that practice when it was SOP for him ?”

First of all, it was definitely NOT SOP for him. There were occasions when he designed holes that were similar to others that CBM & other architect’s tried to replicate. The difference is that he never approached a piece of ground upon which to design a golf course and tried to force template holes onto the location. So yes, he designed some Redans, a few Cape holes and even took pride in introducing the Mid-Surrey scheme of Alpinization into American golf course design. Still, he disdained the practice of building golf courses based upon templates forced to fit rather than allowing Nature to decide what holes were best and where.

How can I say that he disdained that practice? Quite easily since Tilly HIMSELF wrote it. The best example would be one where he comments on CBM’s use of template holes and he did this in a column in the Pacific Coast Golfer after news of “Charley’s” death had reached him. Notice what he wrote. After referencing the NGLA, he said, “Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of replicas of british golf holes… I have known Charley Macdonald since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly from models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem…”
"MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it." This is incorrect.

You also disagreed with my comment by responding, “No it's not… CBM brought the "Sahara" to America and incorporated it into his design of NGLA…”

You missed my point… I don’t disagree that CBM may have built the first Sahara hole in America. I disagree that he was aware of the “Sahara concept” BEFORE AWT ever heard of it. This is simply not true and THAT is why I stated, “The first time that tilly saw the original "Sahara" was in 1895. In 1898 he photographed it and again saw and played it in 1901. This is far more than even just a few years before Macdonald "brought" the "Sahara concept" to America.

You make a strong statement by stating that, “MacDonald was in the UK 20+ years before AWT viewed golf courses in the UK…”

That is true, but So What! The above information proves that Tilly was well-aware of both the “Sahara” concept and the actual hole itself at least 16 years (1895 to 1911) before CBM opened NGLA for play with his “Sahara.”

You responded to my statement that "Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee." This is also incorrect, unless one doesn't consider Abington Hills, Bellfield and Wanango to be real golf courses…” with:

“Not according to Cornish & Whitten.”

Pat, even Geoffrey & Ron would admit their wonderful work is NOT the bible. It isn’t God inspired and does contain mistakes. They greatly appreciate learning of corrections to it.

You stated that, “Wanago is classified as a revision, not an original golf course and Bellfield and Abington Hills aren't listed.”

Wanango is one of those mistakes and was an original design of Tilly’s. One of the earliest references to the Bellfield CC can be found in the 1913 issue of the American Golfer on page 328 in reference to a golf tournament being played upon it. That’s pretty hard to do if it doesn’t exist wouldn’t you say? That year Tilly redesigned the existing 9-holes and added a new original designed additional 9 which opened for play in 1914.

As for Abington Hills, the reason Cornish and Whitten don’t mention it is because it no longer exists. It was opened for play in 1914.

Also, in 1915 and before, he was already working on Aronomink, Fort Sam Houston , Brackenridge Park, Wernersville and a number of others, some of which opened for play that year as well. 

You insist when you state that “I stand by my remark that BEFORE 1915 he had completed but one 18 hole golf course…”

You may stand on that remark now, but it is just as incorrect as the remark you originally made which is what I took exception to that when you wrote, “Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee…” Note, you stated that Tilly only had “one course” not one 18-hole course. In either case it is incorrect.

You also stated with patience that, “I await information on Bellfield and Abington Hills…” See above for the answer…

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You responded to me by saying, “That's absurd… AWT replicated a "template" hole, the Sahara on a great many of his courses, sometimes more than once on the same course, ala Ridgewood… So how can you say he disdained that practice when it was SOP for him ?”

First of all, it was definitely NOT SOP for him. There were occasions when he designed holes that were similar to others that CBM & other architect’s tried to replicate.

The difference is that he never approached a piece of ground upon which to design a golf course and tried to force template holes onto the location.

Neither did CBM

AWT's "Sahara" holes are quite common.

So yes, he designed some Redans, a few Cape holes and even took pride in introducing the Mid-Surrey scheme of Alpinization into American golf course design.

Still, he disdained the practice of building golf courses based upon templates forced to fit rather than allowing Nature to decide what holes were best and where.

Can you show me a number of examples where CBM forced the fit for template holes ?

CBM used the existing terrain and designed modified templates based on that topography.  He didn't force the fit as you imply.

How can I say that he disdained that practice? Quite easily since Tilly HIMSELF wrote it.

Pure nonsense.
One's actions speak louder than one's words.
The holes he produced refute his written word.

The best example would be one where he comments on CBM’s use of template holes and he did this in a column in the Pacific Coast Golfer after news of “Charley’s” death had reached him. Notice what he wrote. After referencing the NGLA, he said, “Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of replicas of british golf holes… I have known Charley Macdonald since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly from models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about this and that, always at variance it would seem…”


Interesting that he ONLY wrote that AFTER MacDonald is unable to respond.

In addition, AWT's actions contrdict his words.  He produced Redan's, Capes, Alps and Saharas

"MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it." This is incorrect.

You also disagreed with my comment by responding, “No it's not… CBM brought the "Sahara" to America and incorporated it into his design of NGLA…”

You missed my point… I don’t disagree that CBM may have built the first Sahara hole in America.

I disagree that he was aware of the “Sahara concept” BEFORE AWT ever heard of it. This is simply not true and THAT is why I stated, “The first time that tilly saw the original "Sahara" was in 1895. In 1898 he photographed it and again saw and played it in 1901. This is far more than even just a few years before Macdonald "brought" the "Sahara concept" to America.

You make a strong statement by stating that, “MacDonald was in the UK 20+ years before AWT viewed golf courses in the UK…”

That is true,
but So What!
The above information proves that Tilly was well-aware of both the “Sahara” concept and the actual hole itself at least 16 years (1895 to 1911) before CBM opened NGLA for play with his “Sahara.”

You responded to my statement that "Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee." This is also incorrect, unless one doesn't consider Abington Hills, Bellfield and Wanango to be real golf courses…” with:

“Not according to Cornish & Whitten.”

Pat, even Geoffrey & Ron would admit their wonderful work is NOT the bible. It isn’t God inspired and does contain mistakes. They greatly appreciate learning of corrections to it.

You stated that, “Wanago is classified as a revision, not an original golf course and Bellfield and Abington Hills aren't listed.”

Wanango is one of those mistakes and was an original design of Tilly’s. One of the earliest references to the Bellfield CC can be found in the 1913 issue of the American Golfer on page 328 in reference to a golf tournament being played upon it. That’s pretty hard to do if it doesn’t exist wouldn’t you say? That year Tilly redesigned the existing 9-holes and added a new original designed additional 9 which opened for play in 1914.

As I said, he revised an existing golf course, he didn't design a new 18 hole course.

As for Abington Hills, the reason Cornish and Whitten don’t mention it is because it no longer exists. It was opened for play in 1914.

Also, in 1915 and before, he was already working on Aronomink, Fort Sam Houston , Brackenridge Park, Wernersville and a number of others, some of which opened for play that year as well. 

You insist when you state that “I stand by my remark that BEFORE 1915 he had completed but one 18 hole golf course…”

You may stand on that remark now, but it is just as incorrect as the remark you originally made which is what I took exception to that when you wrote, “Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee…” Note, you stated that Tilly only had “one course” not one 18-hole course. In either case it is incorrect.

You knew I was referencing 18 hole golf courses, not 9 holers or 6 holers.
AWT's work prior to 1915 is miniscule.

You also stated with patience that, “I await information on Bellfield and Abington Hills…” See above for the answer…

Bellfield was a revision of an existing golf course.

As to Abbington Hills you've yet to produce evidence that he designed an 18 hole golf course, so, I continue to await information confirming same.

In the event you're able to produce it, that would make a total of two (2) courses he designed prior to 1915.  Hardly a substantive body of work.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You are running a bit free with your facts on this one. In answer to my statement , “The difference [Tilly vs. CBM] is that he never approached a piece of ground upon which to design a golf course and tried to force template holes onto the location…” was “Neither did CBM.”

That isn’t correct. I’d like to quoting old Charley himself from the booklet “National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald” that he sent to the members.

“As to the building of the golf course [NGLA], it is well known that certain holes on certain links abroad are famous as being the best considering their various lengths. It is the object of this association to model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous holes abroad, so that each hole would be representative and classic itself.”

His statement that it was “The object to… model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous of the holes abroad…” doesn’t seem to leave any room for doubt that he was going to create 18 template holes regardless of what the ground was. How anyone can take that statement to mean, “Look guys, a miracle! I found a piece of property where 18 great holes that mimic 18 of the greatest holes abroad!”

Please note that, even though I believe they were “forced,” that is, made to work on the property, that the course IS one of the greatest in the world, both then and now.

You also stated that, “AWT's "Sahara" holes are quite common…” Really now, who says so? I can accept that this is your opinion, but it certainly wasn’t Tilly’s. When he created a hole that was similar in design to a famous one from the other side of the pond HE NAMED IT AS SUCH. How many “Sahara” holes do you know of that Tilly named such? There aren’t many at all…

Now many clubs have named large cross-bunkers that he designed as “Sahara’s” but this is their interpretation and not Tilly’s nor his belief that he created a hole design based upon this template style.
Let’s give you an example of this, a course we both know well. Can you name the “Sahara” hole on Bethpage Black? Don’t be so quick to say the 7th, nor is it the 5th with the large waste cross bunker fronting the tee. Nor is it the 4th with the bunker across the facier of the second plateau. The answer is that Tilly NEVER designed a “Sahara” hole on Bethpage Black. Over the years the bunker on the 7th hole has been called Sahara, but Tilly never did.

You asked me, “Can you show me a number of examples where CBM forced the fit for template holes ?” Why yes, I believe that CB’s own words as shown above states that very thing about NGLA.

You followed that by stating that, “CBM used the existing terrain and designed modified templates based on that topography.  He didn't force the fit as you imply.” The first sentence I totally agree with. The NGLA of America is a great example of that. But it was there, as elsewhere, that he DID “force the fit” as I implied. Again, how can I state this? Simply because Macdonald himself did.
He stated that their goal was to “model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous holes abroad…” This decision was made BEFORE the course was built.

When I write, “How can I say that he disdained that practice? Quite easily since Tilly HIMSELF wrote it…” your answer approaches the ludicrous. “Pure nonsense. One's actions speak louder than one's words. The holes he produced refute his written word.”

That is pure nonsense on YOUR part, not Tilly’s. He wrote MANY times, such as when he wrote of Charley’s death in Pacific Coast golfer, that his philosophy was to take what Nature gave him and NOT use preconceived ideas, even when they were his own!

For example, one of his own favorite hole “types” was the double dog-leg par-five. Why then didn’t he have at least one on EVERY one of his designs? He didn’t. He really loved his idea of a “Reef Hole” yet he only designed and built two of them.

Tilly didn’t use templates as a rule, practice or anything other than it was the occasional right thing to do. That is why his “Redan’s” are wonderful iterations of them as are his “Cape’s” etc…

You see, THOSE ARE his actions… The problem here is that you aren’t as familiar with most of his designs… but that only places you in the same category as most everyone else.

Now after I quoted Tilly’s own words about his philosophical differences with Charley Macdonald’s you stated, “Interesting that he ONLY wrote that AFTER MacDonald is unable to respond…” Once again you are mistaken. He wrote of this several times (By the way, in my coming Volume II of Tillinghast writings I have a specific chapter that deals with the design philosophy differences he had with his contemporaries including CBM).

You also accomplished an amazing feat of mind-reading when you said, “You knew I was referencing 18 hole golf courses, not 9 holers or 6 holers...” Come on now, that may be the most absurd comment you made to me (how I hate to quote Tom Paul!). Once again I clearly stated that I took you at YOUR WORD when you wrote quite non-specifically that Tilly had only designed Shawnee before 1915.

Still, you do have a point when you state that, “AWT's work prior to 1915 is miniscule…” but then again, if you change that date to, say, 1920, what do we find?

According to Cornish & Whitten, CB had designed a grand total of SEVEN golf courses by 1920. Still, let’s give him 8 other c that they didn’t give dates for. Well that makes a grand total of FIFTEEN courses… TOTAL. Not 15 designs, but 15 TOTAL…

How does Tilly stack up in 1920? Well Tilly had designed THIRTY-ONE courses that we can DEFINITIVELY date that opened by 1920 & before. That Doesn’t include another NINE that we can definitively date to this time period that were either renovations or additions or both. This ALSO doesn’t include another twenty or so courses that probably were done in this time period and we are still investigating…

I would say that Tilly’s body of work in 1920 makes Charley’s look far more miniscule than that which can be said about 1915 when Charley had only 3 more courses to his credit than Tilly did.

Oh yes, according to Cornish & Whitten, CBM only had three other courses open for play after 1920. (remember I already gave him credit for all of the ones that had no dates). In 1920 alone there is one report that credits Tilly with “currently working on 40 projects nationwide…”  Tilly’s final numbers are staggering compared to CBM.

This doesn’t make him a better or greater architect than Charley… it also doesn’t make him a lesser one either.

Pat, this little friendly pissing match came about because I disagree with your  three assertions:

1- "NGLA is the root of most all of American golf, including Merion."
2- "MacDonald brought the "Sahara" concept to America from Sandwich, long before AWT ever heard of it."
3- "Prior to 1915 AWT only had one course to his credit, Shawnee."

I can agree to disagree on these with you and tell you that I still respect… both in the morning and now! (And to quote your evil alter-ego Tom Paul,  )