News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #150 on: August 30, 2008, 03:47:48 PM »
Peter:

You presented your case excellently in that last post and you used much of the irrefutable evidence that most all on this website are aware of to support your case and make your point.

As far as I can see, there is no mileage whatsoever, if one or two on here just continue to dismiss, ignore or rationalize away your point that includes all that truly irrefutable evidence, much of it coming from both Hutchinson AND Macdonald himself. To continue to do that both will and I think has been shown to be patently argumentative and a real waste of everyone's time.

I'm afraid the real problem here is we just have one or a few on here who have proven that they are absolutely incapable of admitting they are incorrect about anything. No matter how odd, bizarre or patently and historically inaccurate some of the things they say and maintain on here are, they just seem they are totally unable to ever admit it, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

However, maybe there is some reason for it as in the case of Myopia. Even if they can read what a Hutchinson and Macdonald said about it and before NGLA, perhaps they just can't really appreciate what they said because these fellows have never seen it themselves which in my opinion, is not just necessary but frankly essential when we are discussing these subjects and the details of them.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 03:57:47 PM by TEPaul »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #151 on: August 30, 2008, 04:06:24 PM »
Quote
Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?- P. Palotta

One thing we do know, he (like CBM) knew the best way.  ;D

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Phil_the_Author

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #152 on: August 30, 2008, 06:35:37 PM »
David,

You asked, "Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?"

Since you didn't define "early designer" and the same post referred to "the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America..." then I am assuming that an architect who opened a golf course PRIOR to NGLA would qualify.

His name is A.W. Tillinghast, and has been posted several times on other threads, disdained this design philosophy of repetitive hole concepts from course-to-course in general, pointedly in regard to his friend Charley Macdonald and for himself specifically.

By the way, the Shawnee CC opened for play on May 1st, 1911. NGLA opened for general membership play on September 11, 1911.



wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #153 on: August 30, 2008, 06:46:01 PM »
"I've come to believe that Raynor critics are simply mad that a few simple design concepts, oft repeated, can result in so many great courses that golfers still love to play. It seems to irk them, so they resort to the "cookie cutter" slam."

I've come to realize that Raynor supporters take the trite and incorrect position that critics falsely believe that Raynor cloned his template holes and that they are all alike.  Critics and supporters are capable of knowing that it is not so.  Yet one group can remain critics and the other supporters.

I don't see the number of great courses among Raynor and Banks that others see.  I also don't know enough about routing, especially Raynor's routings, to say that he was a genius.  My instinct is that he is not.  He may have been at Fisher's Island.  I can't say since I've never been there.  I am readily willing to take Donnie Beck's opinion on that.  I don't see it at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, Southampton and Westhampton.  I don't know Yeaman's Hall well enough to decide upon its routing...though it doesn't shout genius to me from two rounds.  This doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother any of you.  It is an opinion.  We can disagree and not get carried away.

As for replicating simple design concepts (though they may differ greatly), why would that make me or other critics of Raynor and Banks mad?  I really don't care all that much.  It takes more than the design work of a solid, though not top-tier, architect to irk me.  Golf architecture is not meaningful enough to illicit those sorts of emotions.  

Fortunately, I have an opportunity to play a lot of great courses.  I enjoy playing Raynor courses, some of which I've found quite good.  Yet his aesthetics and insufficient originality and lack of  consistency reduces him to a below top-tier architect for me.   Of the Raynor and Banks courses I've played, not one has passed the Mucci test, that is a desire to go straight from the 18th green to the 1st tee.  There are too many courses that pass the Mucci test that I can place Raynor and Banks courses in my own subjective perspective.  Others differ.  That's great and one of the great things about golf architecture.  Tom Paul's Big World theory is once again validated.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #154 on: August 30, 2008, 07:14:45 PM »
TEPaul,

I read that Hutchinson didn't  like all the blind shots (over 10) that he found at Myopia, nor did he care for all the undulations. His visit caused the club to lower the hill fronting their Alps hole, removing 1500 truckloads of soil in the process. They also move some teeing areas so that players had a better view of their tee shots.

I don't know what is or isn't refutable, but it seems that even though HH liked Myopia he wasn't overly enamored by its blindness or its hilly terrain.

p.s. I don't know what would have floated HH's boat, as he also faulted GCGC' for its flatness.

He should have used the pseudonym  "Picky Brit"  ::)
 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #155 on: August 30, 2008, 07:26:24 PM »
Tom Paul,

If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle.   If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA. 

No doubt Myopia was a good course, especially when compared to the rest.   But to put it in the same category as NGLA as far as influence?   I think not.


Peter,

David M - I'm wondering whether Macdonald was a "necessary" catalyst for change, i.e. if he'd never been born, whether American architecture would've nonetheless begun to manifest the strategic principles of the world's finest golf holes, and at about the same time.

That might be too stringent a test, I realize, but my point again is simply that Macdonald was not the only one who understood the principles of good design.  Without being able to answer the questions you asked or provide proof, that theory seems sensible and believable to me.

Are you serious?   "Too stringent" is a huge understatement.  The test you propose is fantasy.    The fact is, he existed, and he made a huge difference on golf and gca in America.  Apply your test to anyone in history and see what it gets you.   One can always argue that it all would have happened anyway.   What if Thomas Edison hadn't been born?  The knowledge was out there, surely someone would have figured it out.  What about Old Tom?   What about George Washington.   What if Hitler had never been born?  The ideas where out there anyway, and the conditions were ripe for what happened, so who is to say he deserves the blame?   Absolutely Absurd.

The funny thing is, even with this outrageous test, Macdonald passes with flying colors.   If there is one guy who was "a necessary catalyst" for what happened with golf in America, it was Macdonald.     Without CBM golf in America would have been much different.   Instead of the USGA rules we would have had regional or local ruling bodies.  We'd likely have done away with the ancient rules from the beginning, before history or tradition could be established.   For all we know our golf would to to their golf like our football is to their football.   Who knows how it would have changed, but it certainly wouldn't have been like it is today.   

As for golf architecture, the same could be said.   NGLA was a model that was studied, praised, and emulated across the country.   He spearheaded a return the roots of golf, the links,  as inspiration for all golf courses, links or otherwise.    Whether or not we copied his holes, we most certainly adopted his approach and borrowed the classic principles.    Macdonald not only built some fantastic courses, he changed the way we approached course design and construction in this country.   He introduced the fundamental links land principles to America, on a wide scale, and gave them an example of just how great this could make our golf.    Did Leeds do this?  I don't think so.

You keep talking about CBM's views and ideas like they were commonplace, but you have yet to produce any consistent sources.   Surely if they were all talking about it, someone was acting on it.  Who else was building a sophisticated course based entirely on the great holes and principles from the links courses in 1907?    Not Leeds.  No way.

Imagine American golf without CBM and NGLA?   Impossible.  We'd have no Merion, that is for sure.   And no Flynn.  Probably no Pine Valley.    Would there have been a place for Colt and Mackenzie and the other greats from abroad without Macdonald creating an appreciation for an entirely different style of golf course?   Who is to say?  Would those here have stepped up their games?   Who knows?   

Let's play your game.   Take either Hugh Wilson out of history or CBM Macdonald.  Who has more impact on the original Merion East?  If the answer is not pretty obvious to you, then I don't know what else to say. 

But fortunately, we'll never know what the world would have been like withou Macdonald.   Macdonald was there.  And thank goodness for it.    Second guessing his existence is just too much. 

Peter, as opposed to speculating again and again, why don't you take a look at what was being  written in the era, and then deny Macdonald's influence.    Learn the history and you cannot.   

Quote
Yes, the Hutchinson article praises NGLA and Macdonald very highly, and rightly so. But look at what he says about some of the other courses he played back then. While he might decry the shortness of some of those courses and (ironically) the too-frequent blind shots, he speaks of good and fine and interesting tests of golf over and over again: at the Canadian courses, which among inland courses take a very high place; the highly praised Myopia;  Brookline;  Garden City, which was rather ugly but another fine test of golf; Baltusrol, too hilly in his eyes but an interesting course; and "others too many to name."

And my point: Shouldn't we assume that for a man like Hutchinson, an interesting golf course and a fine test of golf manifests the strategic principles of good architecture? (And if I CAN'T assume that about Hutchinson, why would I give his views on NGLA much credence, in this context?) And yet, none of those courses -- as far as I know -- bore any resemblance to NGLA, or to the "forms" in which NGLA manifested those principles.

Why does he give Leeds such high praise for his work at Myopia? Again, what else but the fact that the course manifests strategic principles would a man like Hutchinson find worthy of such praise? And if he had seen about 5 years later a course like Pine Valley, even in it's unfinished state, wouldn't he have seen those principles manifest there as well, and again in a form that bore little resemblance to NGLA?

Peter, perhaps he was making amends or trying to sell books.  He was after all writing in an american magazine, and that had not gone over too well in 1910.    Yes, I don't know how to break it to you, but Hutchinson was singing a different tune in 1910.  At least you thought he was.  In fact you accused him of bias and dismissed his views as unfairly harsh on American courses.   Here is one of your posts from earlier this year:

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



Quote
You say that I don't understand the importantce of Macdonald and NGLA to golf in America. You may be right about that, I'm not sure. But I can't see how you can argue definitively that -- despite that truly "ideal" nature of the course that Macdonald built -- he was the only one in America at the time who understood golf architecture's strategic principles.

Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?

You keep mentioning all these others who understood the principles like CBM did, and thought them applicable in this country.   Who were they?  Who else was talking about this stuff in the united states in 1906?   More importantly, who was building a course based entirely on these principles in 1907.  Who?    Surely they must have written something about it?  Surely they acted on it. 

It is fitting that you would end your post by dismissing and minimizing a groundbreaking explorer.   Yes, others could find South on a compass, but while these men were sitting around with their compasses in their hands, Amundsen did it.   Those who act change the world.  As for those that maybe or maybe not knew enough to act, but didn't?  They change nothing.

________________________________

Phillip, didn't you say in this very thread something about Tillinghast having certain hole styles that he used repeatedly, like the double dogleg?   

And I think it disingenuous to put Shawnee ahead of NGLA in time.   They had been golfing at NGLA since 1909.  The clubhouse did not open until 1911, and thus the official opening in fall of 1911.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 07:54:47 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #156 on: August 30, 2008, 08:30:48 PM »
One aspect I find curious in this debate is how the term "American" is chucked about.  Almost as if this is some sort of special meaning.  I can readily accept that CBM was probably one of the very few folks in the States latching onto to the concepts and ideas of design that were being "codified" (for lack of a better word) at the turn of the century and probably well before.  CBM was very well placed to be included in these discussions and what not.  He also had a solid grounding in the game as Brits knew it.  Do I think there was any special significance to CBM doing a course in America based on sound (generally agreed upon by golf "experts") design principles?  Yes, of course I do, not least the accomplishment of figuring out how to create decent conditions which in effect allowed these designs concepts to flower and be more easily understood.  However, I don't think there is any significance in that CBM was American.  He could just as easily have been a Brit.  The important thing was the idea of going about building a course using tried and tested design principles and figuring out how to make these principles playable .  Personally, I think it was in the cards for this to happen in the States if CBM did it or not, however, this doesn't take away at all from CBM.   

David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia.  There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond.  Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here.  It was thought of as good, even great.  This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM.  Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree -  when we step back and look at the bigger picture.  There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits.  Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two.

Ciao

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #157 on: August 30, 2008, 09:14:53 PM »
One aspect I find curious in this debate is how the term "American" is chucked about.  Almost as if this is some sort of special meaning.  I can readily accept that CBM was probably one of the very few folks in the States latching onto to the concepts and ideas of design that were being "codified" (for lack of a better word) at the turn of the century and probably well before.  CBM was very well placed to be included in these discussions and what not.  He also had a solid grounding in the game as Brits knew it.  Do I think there was any special significance to CBM doing a course in America based on sound (generally agreed upon by golf "experts") design principles?  Yes, of course I do, not least the accomplishment of figuring out how to create decent conditions which in effect allowed these designs concepts to flower and be more easily understood.  However, I don't think there is any significance in that CBM was American.  He could just as easily have been a Brit.  The important thing was the idea of going about building a course using tried and tested design principles and figuring out how to make these principles playable .  Personally, I think it was in the cards for this to happen in the States if CBM did it or not, however, this doesn't take away at all from CBM.

Wasn't he born in Canada?  Either way, I don't think it matters that he was an American.   Someone in another thread mistakenly joked that he was Scottish, and in some ways he might as well have been.    But it was important that he was in the U.S. and that the United States had pretty dismal golf prior to NGLA.  We did not have true links to learn from.   It was hard enough for these principles to migrate south Britain, so no wonder it was difficult to get things going in the correct direction over here.   

It is easy look back and assume would have happened anyway, but one could argue that it barely happened as is; that this great faze of American golf course architecture started to pass almost as soon as it got started, with the underlying fundamental principles being slowly watered down and sacrificed.    (It could be argued that Macdonald himself may have even been partially responsible for this.)

Quote
David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia.  There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond.  Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here.  It was thought of as good, even great.  This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM.  Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree -  when we step back and look at the bigger picture.  There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits.  Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two.

Ciao

As for Myopia, it was regarded as a good course, but as Hutchinson wrote after having seen and played them both, NGLA was "far and away the best in the United States."  Given that Peter and Tom Paul are anxious to take his word as truth, I will as well.  And remember that Myopia was still taking form, and was significantly altered after Hutchinson and Macdonald visited in 1910.  It has been reported that the changes were a result of the visit.

Also, there is more to being an influential golf course than just being good, and more to being a seminal figure.   

Was Myopia an extraordinarily sophisticated course from a strategy perspective, like NGLA?   If it was, was there anyone explaining its strategic merits so that others could learn from it?  Surely they were not self-evident in America at this time.

Was Myopia built in large part to teach America about great golf courses?  Did clubmen from all over flock to Myopia to learn about the underlying fundamental principles of links courses?    Did they try to copy Myopia's holes and try to adapt the principles underlying Myopia's holes to their terrain?   

Was Myopia the subject of an ongoing discussion/debate on two continents?   Was Myopia closely covered in the press across this continent and the other?   

Are we still building holes based on the holes at Myopia in 1909?    Which courses did Myopia influence?   What influenced Myopia? 

Leed's traveled abroad, but according to accounts from the time, it was Macdonald's trips abroad that sparked many to follow in his footsteps.   

Bottom line:

What is it, exactly, that Myopia taught America about quality golf course architecture?

I don't intend to denigrate Myopia at all.  I've heard it is terrific.   But we are pushing it if we put it with NGLA as far as influence goes.   The record at the time just does not support this.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #158 on: August 30, 2008, 09:36:25 PM »
"Tom Paul,
If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle.   If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA."

What?

I did read what he wrote from his trip over here in 1910. It's not hard to understand at all. He said from what he saw over here in 1910 he would 'put NGLA first and Myopia second---and a very good second.' Did you see something other than that? I didn't. What in the world does your second sentence mean other than complete self-contradiction? Perhaps you need to read more carefully what YOU write on here.

As far as Lord Brassey's yacht is concerned I don't see where there's a riddle. Hutchinson said he took it from Canada to Boston, but that's not really the point. My point was is there some listing you're aware of that shows Hutchinson on Sunbeam's passenger manifest entering the USA in 1910? 

Most pertinently, there is Peter Pallotta's point in reply #102 to consider, and I believe I've done that very clearly!  ;)

« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 09:38:55 PM by TEPaul »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #159 on: August 30, 2008, 09:44:22 PM »
David,

You stated, "Phillip, didn't you say in this very thread something about Tillinghast having certain hole styles that he used repeatedly, like the double dogleg?"

Yes, Tilly did like certain hole styles, but he didn't use them as often as your comment portrays. You used the word "repeatedly." This is incorrect.

Remember, you asked the following, "Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?"

It is one thing to repeat a hole style on several courses, quite another to "Rely on a stable of hole concepts" as you stated it. Tilly did NOT do that. He looked at a site for the best holes he thought were there. Sometimes they it might yield a double-dogleg, other times a redan and others a cape...

He didn't go on site looking to see how he could use those styles on the site, and THAT is what you asked about. Not only that, you stated that those architects, and you are obviously stating that this is so with Tilly, used a "stable of hole concepts" in their work... Again, this is so not Tilly.

You also stated, "And I think it disingenuous to put Shawnee ahead of NGLA in time.   They had been golfing at NGLA since 1909.  The clubhouse did not open until 1911, and thus the official opening in fall of 1911."

Obviously I disagre with you and rather strongly. you obviously have never read what Macdonald wrote in his booklet that he titled, "National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald."

CBM wrote, "The LINKS were formally opened..." Nowhere in the document does he state that the links were opened now that the clubhouse is built. ASnd, by the way, he also writes in this that there is more work to be done on the clubhouse despite it being "open."

Actually, it is you who is being disingenuous. You state, quite correctly, that some rounds were played at NGLA as early as late 1909. Guess what, some of the holes were also being played at Shawnee in late 1909 and the entire course in 1910.

The fact is that it was first the course of the Shawnee Country Club, a private club that allowed guests of Worthington's Buckhead Inn to have access while memberships were also available. It was first open for general play by guests of the Inn on May 1st, 1911, over 4 months BEFORE NGLA was open for general play.

That is a fact. It does not take away a thing from the great design of NGLA nor does it denigrate the design of Shawnee either. That you think I am being disingenuous is a pretty poor use of teh term as apparently you must think I am slighting NGLA in some manner. I assure you I am not.

Sorry David, but you are wrong on this one...

Actually, my sole point, and maybe I didn't stress it properly, is that the time period of 1908-1914, that 5+ years, may be the most singularly important period of all time from an architectural perspective. Consider what happened, and most of it was NOT influenced by NGLA. Shawnee certainly wasn't. Oakmont definitely wasn't. Pine Valley certainly wasn't. They and a number of other courses and designers were really expressing themselves at that time.

It is because of that, that I wonder if we give too much credit to NGLA as the seminal work of the day and in American golf design, rather than it being one of the great examples of the radical change that was occuring in American golf course architecture at that moment.

I think that is something that needs examining.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 09:50:42 PM by Philip Young »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #160 on: August 30, 2008, 10:00:22 PM »
"TEPaul,
I read that Hutchinson didn't  like all the blind shots (over 10) that he found at Myopia, nor did he care for all the undulations. His visit caused the club to lower the hill fronting their Alps hole, removing 1500 truckloads of soil in the process. They also move some teeing areas so that players had a better view of their tee shots."



Jim:

Perhaps you did read that and perhaps Hutchinson actually said that but one of the beauties of this website is some facts are definitely verifiable, including some that apparently contradict what was said by Hutchinson or claimed by him in 1910.

The fact is, in 1910, I can't possibly imagine what he was talking about regarding all those blind shots at Myopia. The only one I can imagine that might've been blind in 1910 and isn't today is #16 which was once a very short apparently blind par 4. Today it's a par 3 and not blind at all. By 1910 I don't believe the old 10th (The Alps which was played from around the present 10th tee to the 11th green existed any longer, but I will look into that).

The other fact is even with those blind holes or shots claimed by Huthinson at Myopia it still had less blind shots than NGLA has today, and NGLA certainly does not have MORE blind shots today than it did in 1910.

This is another very good reason why some of this old writing is suspect.



« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:02:18 PM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #161 on: August 30, 2008, 10:09:00 PM »
I played golf on various courses afterwards—on the Shinnecock Hills, finely
undulating, but too short and with too many blind shots, where natural advantages
have not been turned to the best possible account;


--Hutchinson on Macdonald's redesign of Shinnecock Hills. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #162 on: August 30, 2008, 10:12:12 PM »
"Tom Paul,
If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle.   If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA."

What?

I did read what he wrote from his trip over here in 1910. It's not hard to understand at all. He said from what he saw over here in 1910 he would 'put NGLA first and Myopia second---and a very good second.' Did you see something other than that? I didn't. What in the world does your second sentence mean other than complete self-contradiction? Perhaps you need to read more carefully what YOU write on here.

As I have said repeatedly, you are relying on a watered down review written a few years later, when he was considering changes to Myopia that he had never even seen.  He was a bit more pointed in his criticism in 1910, shortly after having played both NGLA and Myopia.   According to editorials in AG (one apparently written by Travis) Hutchinson trashed American golf courses -- especially Myopia and Garden City-- and contrasted them with NGLA greatness.   Peter Pallotta even accused Hutchinson of having some CBM bias!   Again, in 1910 Hutchinson wrote that NGLA was "far and away the best in the United States."

So much for a close second.

The comments about Garden City in the same article leave little doubt that the later article was toned down quite a bit, apparently in response to the harsh criticism he had received for his earlier candid comments. 

Quote
As far as Lord Brassey's yacht is concerned I don't see where there's a riddle. Hutchinson said he took it from Canada to Boston, but that's not really the point. My point was is there some listing you're aware of that shows Hutchinson on Sunbeam's passenger manifest entering the USA in 1910?

As Tom MacWood wrote, the answer is in the book, and not hiding at all.

Quote
Most pertinently, there is Peter Pallotta's point in reply #102 to consider, and I believe I've done that very clearly!  ;)

If you have considered it, you have done so based on a watered down review written years later and based in part on changes to Myopia that Hutchinson had never even seen.   

But again, I have no doubt that Myopia was a good course.   But there is absolutely no way it was as influential as NGLA.   If it was so influential, then figuring its influence ought to be easy enough.   So how was it influential on American golf architecture?

__________________________________________

Phillip,

I mean no more by "relying on a stable of hole concepts" than "repeatedly using hole styles . . . like the double dogleg."

My comment did not imply how often he used them, other than "repeatedly" and you agree with me on this.  In fact a few lines down you say that he would "repeat a hole style on several courses."


NGLA "formally" opened when the clubhouse opened.   Kind of hard to have a national club in the boonies without at clubhouse, don't you think?   But they had been golfing on it for a few years before then.   And I am writing about the influence the club had on golf architecture in America.   The formal opening is entirely misleading when it comes to figuring NGLA's influence.   When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?

Tell me, do you think that NGLA's influence over golf desing in america started when the clubhouse opened, or when they began golfing on the course?  I think it was probably even before then, but what do you think?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:52:13 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #163 on: August 30, 2008, 10:22:53 PM »
"Are you serious?   "Too stringent" is a huge understatement.  The test you propose is fantasy.    The fact is, he existed, and he made a huge difference on golf and gca in America.  Apply your test to anyone in history and see what it gets you.   One can always argue that it all would have happened anyway.   What if Thomas Edison hadn't been born?  The knowledge was out there, surely someone would have figured it out.  What about Old Tom?   What about George Washington.   What if Hitler had never been born?  The ideas where out there anyway, and the conditions were ripe for what happened, so who is to say he deserves the blame?   Absolutely Absurd.

The funny thing is, even with this outrageous test, Macdonald passes with flying colors.   If there is one guy who was "a necessary catalyst" for what happened with golf in America, it was Macdonald.     Without CBM golf in America would have been much different.   Instead of the USGA rules we would have had regional or local ruling bodies.  We'd likely have done away with the ancient rules from the beginning, before history or tradition could be established.   For all we know our golf would to to their golf like our football is to their football.   Who knows how it would have changed, but it certainly wouldn't have been like it is today.  

As for golf architecture, the same could be said.   NGLA was a model that was studied, praised, and emulated across the country.   He spearheaded a return the roots of golf, the links,  as inspiration for all golf courses, links or otherwise.    Whether or not we copied his holes, we most certainly adopted his approach and borrowed the classic principles.    Macdonald not only built some fantastic courses, he changed the way we approached course design and construction in this country.   He introduced the fundamental links land principles to America, on a wide scale, and gave them an example of just how great this could make our golf.    Did Leeds do this?  I don't think so.

You keep talking about CBM's views and ideas like they were commonplace, but you have yet to produce any consistent sources.   Surely if they were all talking about it, someone was acting on it.  Who else was building a sophisticated course based entirely on the great holes and principles from the links courses in 1907?    Not Leeds.  No way.

Imagine American golf without CBM and NGLA?   Impossible.  We'd have no Merion, that is for sure.   And no Flynn.  Probably no Pine Valley.    Would there have been a place for Colt and Mackenzie and the other greats from abroad without Macdonald creating an appreciation for an entirely different style of golf course?   Who is to say?  Would those here have stepped up their games?   Who knows?  

Let's play your game.   Take either Hugh Wilson out of history or CBM Macdonald.  Who has more impact on the original Merion East?  If the answer is not pretty obvious to you, then I don't know what else to say.  

But fortunately, we'll never know what the world would have been like withou Macdonald.   Macdonald was there.  And thank goodness for it.    Second guessing his existence is just too much.  

Peter, as opposed to speculating again and again, why don't you take a look at what was being  written in the era, and then deny Macdonald's influence.    Learn the history and you cannot."



All the forgoing by David Moriarty is complete historic revisionism of early American golf architecture and it will not be suffered lightly on this website by me or others. It is basically complete historic BULLSHIT.

Peter Pallotta's point is a valid one---Macdonald was not the only one in America who understood and applied the principles of good to great golf course architecture before NGLA. Herbert Leeds, for one, most certainly did. That was recognized as a FACT back then and historically it must be recognized today.  

For Christ's Sakes, Macdonald recognized Myopia himself as good golf architecture in America (as did everyone else who seemed to know anything before NGLA including MacWood and Moriarty's own H.H. Barker.  ;) ). Macdonald's very own statement about Myopia stands as unrefutable testimony to that fact.

These kinds of super-stubborn revisionist proponents on this website like Moriarty have just got to go. I, for one, will never stand for this type of assinine intransigent stubborn argumentativeness in the face of historic fact and reality and historic TESTIMONY, including C.B. Macdonald's own.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:25:04 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #164 on: August 30, 2008, 10:29:12 PM »
Bill Brightly,

Yale was a superior site .......... to LIDO  ;D

Westhampton is no bargain as a site either.

Morris County ?

Wayne Morrison,

Here's what Horace Hutchinson had to say about Shinnecock before MacDonald.

"Very nice, extremely nice.  It is very, very LADY like.
It is so lady like that when I make a bad shot I haven't the heart to give vent to my feelings, fearing I would offend some one and break the third commandment."


TEPaul,

Quote
EVERYONE most certainly does not think ALL of the holes of NGLA are replicas of holes from the UK. It is these kinds of constant exaggerated statements that do not belong on this website.

That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals


Anyone who’s read Macdonald’s own book “Scotland’s Gift Golf” or is relatively familiar with what it says knows that

Few on this site have read "Scotland's Gift" and, if it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have either.

And, for those who have read it, I doubt that the great majority would remember that one sentence on page 192.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:36:37 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #165 on: August 30, 2008, 10:49:34 PM »
"David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia.  There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond.  Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here.  It was thought of as good, even great.  This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM.  Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree -  when we step back and look at the bigger picture.  There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits.  Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two."


Sean Arble:

I think the above is a very important statement in the discussion or argument of today with David Moriarty. The fact is Myopia most certainly was a most important example of really good golf course architecture in America as well as a great example of the fundamental prinicples of golf course architecture, and the fact is it preceded NGLA by a number of years. The fact that David Moriarty has never even seen it might explain some of his ignorance or lack of appreciation lor understanding of it. And the undeniable fact is Myopia basically as it still exists today PRECEDED NGLA by a number of years.

David Moriarty, at least answer one really simple question----eg have you ever even seen Myopia? Don't try to lie about it or fudge it because we definitely will find out and I'm pretty sure you know that and how we will.  ;)

This fellow David Moriarty better damn well wake up and get with historic reality or some of us on here will never cease to be all over his ridiculously revisionist case.

It looks like he is trying to ramp up his historic revisionism again and probably just to call attention to himself again. If he ramps up his revisionistic bullshit like he did with that assine essay of his on Merion and the months of his illogical responses on this DG on Merion, and again on this thread and subject, he can expect me at least and probably some of the rest of us who actually understand the accurate evolution and history of American architecture to ramp it up on him, and if he continues to do this that is exactly what I intend to do, and I hope the rest who understand this history do that to him as well.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 10:56:41 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #166 on: August 30, 2008, 10:59:50 PM »
All the forgoing by David Moriarty is complete historic revisionism of early American golf architecture and it will not be suffered lightly on this website by me or others. It is basically complete historic BULLSHIT.

Peter Pallotta's point is a valid one---Macdonald was not the only one in America who understood and applied the principles of good to great golf course architecture before NGLA. Herbert Leeds, for one, most certainly did. That was recognized as a FACT back then and historically it must be recognized today. 

For Christ's Sakes, Macdonald recognized Myopia himself as good golf architecture in America (as did everyone else who seemed to know anything before NGLA including MacWood and Moriarty's own H.H. Barker.  ;) ). Macdonald's very own statement about Myopia stands as unrefutable testimony to that fact.

These kinds of super-stubborn revisionist proponents on this website like Moriarty have just got to go. I, for one, will never stand for this type of assinine intransigent stubborn argumentativeness in the face of historic fact and reality and historic TESTIMONY, including C.B. Macdonald's own.

Tom, while you managed to attack me once again, you failed to address a single point I made or answer a single question I asked.   

What purpose do posts like this serve, other than to obfuscate the issue?   If you think Myopia was so influential pre-1909, I'd love to year your basis for so thinking.   The later Hutchinson article is blown out of the water by the earlier article 1910.   So what else you got? 

Sean Arble:

I think the above is a very important statement in the discussion or argument of today with David Moriarty. The fact is Myopia most certainly was a most important example of really good golf course architecture in America as well as a great example of the fundamental prinicples of golf course architecture, and the fact is it preceded NGLA by a number of years. The fact that David Moriarty has never even seen it might explain some of his ignorance or lack of appreciation lor understanding of it. And the undeniable fact is Myopia basically as it still exists today PRECEDED NGLA by a number of years.

David Moriarty, at least answer one really simple question----eg have you ever even seen Myopia? Don't try to lie about it or fudge it because we definitely will find out and I'm pretty sure you know that and how we will.  ;)

This fellow David Moriarty better damn well wake up and get with historic reality or some of us on here will never cease to be all over his ridiculously revisionist case.

It looks like he is trying to ramp up his historic revisionism again and probably just to call attention to himself again. If he ramps up his revisionistic bullshit like he did with that assine essay of his on Merion and the months of his illogical responses on this DG on Merion, and again on this thread and subject, he can expect me at least and probably some of the rest of us who actually understand the accurate evolution and history of American architecture to ramp it up on him, and if he continues to do this that is exactly what I intend to do, and I hope the rest who understand this history do that to him as well.

Same goes, for this post.  It is nothing but a transparent attempt to influence people's opinions while offering nothing of substance.  If I am wrong about Myopia, I'd be glad to learn.   

How did Myopia, pre-1910, influence golf design in America? 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #167 on: August 30, 2008, 11:01:39 PM »
"That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals."


Oh for God Sake, Patrick, what a bunch of crap that is. I've been SAYING that for years on here and the back pages of this website is compeletly replete with it. If you don't realize that you either don't read these threads or you just don't read very well. I can probably go back over eight years on these NGLA threads on here and prove that.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 11:08:32 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #168 on: August 30, 2008, 11:08:37 PM »
"That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals."


Oh for God Sake, Patrick, what a bunch of crap that is. I've been doing that for years on here and the back pages of this website is compeletly replete with it. If you don't realize that you either don't read these threads or you just don't read very well. I can probably go back over eight years on these NGLA threads on here and prove that.

Please be my guest, I'd love to see you produce the appropriate citations.

You may recall that I asked, TIC, which holes were # 12 and # 18 copied from.

On # 12, I'd like to see the original tee left of the 11th green,  restored for the Walker Cup (back to the berm) thus bringing the cross bunkering back into play.



TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #169 on: August 30, 2008, 11:20:22 PM »
"Tom, while you managed to attack me once again, you failed to address a single point I made or answer a single question I asked.   

What purpose do posts like this serve, other than to obfuscate the issue?   If you think Myopia was so influential pre-1909, I'd love to year your basis for so thinking.   The later Hutchinson article is blown out of the water by the earlier article 1910.   So what else you got?"

David Moriarty:

I am not attacking you, I'm only responding to what you say on this website. In my mind, responding to what you say the way I do is definitely not attacking you, even if you apparently have always seen it that way---eg to attack what you say is synonymous with attacking you! ;)

I don't really care a whit for you---what I say is only in response to what I consider to be the really preposterous, illogical, revsionist bullshit you put on here, and not as your opinion, but what you claim to be historical fact!   ::) 

Futhermore, what I'm trying to respond to on this thread is Peter Pallotta's point on Reply #102. I believe it to be a most important point to make on Macdonald and the era that came before NGLA. 

My basis for saying why Myopia was so important to tracking the beginnings of good to great architecture in America is very much from what Macdonald himself (and others) said about MYOPIA prior to NGLA. Would you like me to produce AGAIN, what Macdonald himself (and others) said in that vein? I sure hope not as it has been put on this website SO MANY times in the past. So, why don't you consider NOT ASKING THE SAME FUCKING QUESTION AGAIN AS IF IT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE. IT HAS BEEN, AND FACTUALLY, NUMEROUS TIMES!

« Last Edit: August 30, 2008, 11:30:26 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #170 on: August 30, 2008, 11:22:04 PM »
TEPaul,

Myopia was certainly important, as was GCGC, but, NGLA was revolutionary.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #171 on: August 30, 2008, 11:31:20 PM »
Keep it up, fellows.

This is perhaps the best of the early architecture threads, and there are some wonderfully relevant posts.

Perhaps the fact that it isn't just about 1 single course (Merion) has led to greater participation, and thus greater education.

I'm just going to sit back and read so as not to bollocks it up, but I did just want to point to one personal irony, given that I've been accused of insulting the designs of Macdonald/Raynor.

NGLA is one of the only 10's I've ever played, and I could die happily playing Mid Ocean or Fishers Island forever.

Now, back to meatier matters....

Have at it fellows.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #172 on: August 30, 2008, 11:35:33 PM »
"TEPaul,
Myopia was certainly important, as was GCGC, but, NGLA was revolutionary."


Patrick:

That isn't the point. MY point is the consideration contained in Peter Pallotta's reply #102. I think you got your response to that post of his very wrong.

And this guy David Moriarty's horsehit responses to it today are pretty much beyond the pale!

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #173 on: August 30, 2008, 11:46:37 PM »
The fact is, Patrick, you are the guy who has always harped on everyone else on here that one can't really understand a golf course unless they've seen it, played it, and probably numerous times in various condtions. That's what you've always said and maintained on here, right? Do you deny that now? ;).

And the fact is neither you, MacWood or Moriarty have ever been to Myopia or played it in various conditions.

Therefore, there's not a lot any of you can say about it and its significance back then or today unless you all want to show yourelves to be real hypocrites.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #174 on: August 31, 2008, 12:00:08 AM »
Mike Cirba:

Have you ever been to Myopia?

The reason I ask is if you never have you can appreciate the point I'm making to Patrick.

How many times on here has he maintained that one should not critique a golf course or its architecture if they've never even been there?

Patrick has never been there even though I offered the other day to take him there when our time permits. Those others, MacWood and Moriarty, I doubt have ever been there either and so the very same caveat applies to them as Patrick Mucci has always maintained. None of them can have it both ways, that's for sure.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 12:01:40 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back