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.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #200 on: August 31, 2008, 09:36:49 PM »

I didn't realize that Macdonald was designing NGLA for 1909.  


He designed it in 1906-1911.
Fortunately his design was for the ages.
100 years later NGLA remains in the top 10-20 courses despite the fact that thousands followed.


Besides Pat, Macdonald was tinkering with the course well past 1909.  


I believe that's not an uncommon trait amongst architects who consider a course their pride and joy.  Ross did the same at Pinehurst # 2 and Wilson did the same at Merion.  Ditto Emmett at GCGC.


In any case, I thought that designers had the future in mind.  In fact, this is where I think Macdonald has a major flaw.  I'm not playing Monday morning quarterback, I am analyzing how his courses work over time.  This significant flaw is revealed over time.  Perhaps you think Macdonald was only thinking about his own time and so he shouldn't be criticized.  Well, I agree he was thinking about his own time (interestingly the impact of the Haskell ball was front and center at the time he planned NGLA, so there was no excuse) and that is the rub.

That's funny.
MacDonald designs a revolutionary course in 1909 and 100 years later it's still regarded as revolutionary and thought so highly of that it's perennially ranked in the top 10 to 20 courses in the country and probably the world.

That seems like a pretty good legacy to me.


He did not seem to care about or gave much thought to the future.  


If we context the future as 100 years from the date of inception, I'd say he did an extraordinary job.  I think you'll find that a universally accepted truth save for a resident from a town outside of Philadelphia.


Maybe he didn't care much for championship golf outside of NGLA.  He recommended a sporty course length for Merion when they wanted a championship design.  

In 1906 I believe that MacDonald felt that a course of a little over 6,000 yards was ideal.  He also recognized the advent of the Haskell ball and the need for additional length.  He unequivically stated that an additional 360 to 540 yards should be built into golf course design for future use (lengthening)

Perhaps this is where Flynn derived his concept of elasticity.


His designs of St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Piping Rock for example do not pass the test of time.  

That's funny.
Almost 100 years later they continue to be ranked in the top 100, that's a clear indication that they've passed the test of time.


Bunkers are out of play, hazards obsoleted and the designs become outmoded for the best players.  

While all remain wonderful courses from the good club player to higher handicaps, they simply offer far less of a challenge than courses from other designers of that era which are also unchanged.

Name me the golf courses built between 1909 and 1913 that remain unchanged that provide a greater challenge for the best players ?


Macdonald did not use enough offset fairways and greens.  His fairway lines are not interesting nor do they fit the topography very well.  

So that I can better understand your position can you identify those courses of MacDonald's that you've played ?


He used too much artificiality for the sake of template or concepts desired.  

The 18th at St. Louis CC for instance.  His use of a punchbowl green concept on a blind approach negates the proper use of the feature.  


I disagree completely.
A punchbowl green is IDEAL for a blind approach.


His routing of 16 green to 17 tee at SLCC is one of the worst routing features I've ever seen (especially in 105 degree heat carrying your own bag  :-\ )

I can't speak to SLCC since I've never played it.
I'll have to put it on my list.
I should have visited it when I was at Bellerive for the Mid Am.


What do you think of the use of sandy waste areas (not formal fairway or greenside bunkers) in the lower holes at Creek Club?  

If we're talking about the feature as it existed circa 1938,
I liked them.
I prefer them to what exists today.


I disagree with you.  Crossovers are not necessarily flaws and in fact can be strokes of genius.  You constantly bring this up, but don't understand it at all.  The crossovers at Merion are not forced.  It is a very cramp piece of property.  Macdonald recommended an even smaller one and a shorter course.  I wonder what that would have been like?  Anyway, the crossover from 2 green to 3 tee (crossing 6 tee) creates the outstanding flow of the course.  It doesn't have to crossover.  In fact, for a time, the 6th hole was played as the 3rd and there was an uphill walk from 3 green to 8 tee (behind 4 tee and 7 green).  Consider the routing progression and tell me the way it is today, with a benign crossover is ill-conceived.  Maybe you dislike the walk from 13 green to 14 tee, passing the clubhouse, its bar and one's friends at ease around the clubhouse.  Is the crossover in front of 1 tee that onerous?  Now consider the crossover at Lehigh from 1 green to 2 tee (passing 18 tee and 17 green).  It is brilliant and allows the outside/inside routing that gives you a constantly shifting wind direction and a flow of holes that works.  If it was up to you, I guess the advantages achieved would have been forgone because you don't like routings...forced or otherwise.

You say it's brilliant, I say it may be a design flaw.

As to Merion, before they rerouted # 13 you used to have to walk through the clubhouse to get to the 14th tee.  It was a very awkward routing to a dead end hole.

Didn't MacDonald suggest purchasing the property which housed holes at Merion ?



DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #201 on: August 31, 2008, 09:48:52 PM »
David,

I wonder if Myopia had a significant influence on American golf course architecture, because you don't see those kinds of bunkers anywhere else.

Although I have wondered if Robert White carried some of those principles with him in his career as an architect. Perhaps those kinds of features were built elsewhere and subsequnetly erased or built over because they were too penal?

I haven't played the course and have mostly seen photos of current bunkers, so I don't know much about Myopia's bunkers at the time, but presume they are similar.   Perhaps someone who has played it knows whether the bunkers or any other features were imitated elsewhere.

The photos of Myopia's bunkers look to me like the bunkers at GCGC, with is a product of a similar time.   Stylistically, they also look a bit more along the lines of they types of hazards one might have seen during what is often termed the "dark ages."  (Not commenting on their functionality, just the look.)

I suspect that this style was commonplace before NGLA, but was then virtually wiped off the map.   While Myopia and Garden City definitely underwent substantial changes, the extent of their survival (old style and all) probably speaks to their quality.   

That is the strange thing about this thread.   I've no interest in badmouthing either GCGC or Myopia.  I think GCGC was and is a very good course, and presume Myopia was and is as well.  And important.  And surely they were influential, especially before NGLA.   But NGLA was a major turning point the likes of which had not happened before or since.    The rules were rewritten, the approach changed. 

It fascinates me that anyone could deny this.   Either these are agenda driven positions, or many here just are not familiar with the history. 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 09:52:01 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)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #202 on: August 31, 2008, 09:58:29 PM »
DMoriarty,

It's very simple.

To deny that NGLA represented the "seminal" moment in American Golf Course Architecture is to be out of touch with reality.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #203 on: August 31, 2008, 10:00:24 PM »
Were Macdonald, Raynor and Banks criticised contemporaneously for their template method?

The only quote, in this vein, I've found is (surprise, surprise) by Colt in 1912.  But I don't think he was familiar with Macdonald's work and never saw Raynor's or Banks's in person.  

"The attempt at reproducing well-known holes with hopelessly different materials is the most futile nonsense of the lot.  How often have I seen a piece of ground suitable for a good short hole spoilt by a silly attempt at reproducing the 11th (Eden) at St Andrews!  No; I firmly believe that the only means whereby an attractive piece of ground can be turned into a satisfying golf course is to work to the natural features of the site in question.  Develop them if necessary, but not too much; and if there are many nice features, leave them alone as far as possible, but utilise them to their fullest extent, and eventually there will be a chance of obtaining a course with individual character of an impressive nature."
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #204 on: August 31, 2008, 10:09:16 PM »
David,

I can agree with you that NGLA was like nothing else before it, and from what I know, I might even venture to say that there was nothing like NGLA in the world, not just here in America.

I don't think anyone before MacDonald had the power to rally the kind of commitment that was required to make something on the scale of NGLA a reality.

Myopia and GCC had attained to their respective levels of greatness not so much by the scale of the work but by the quality and the thoughtfulness of the work.

MacDonald had an entirely different approach. Whereas Leeds and Travis reworked existing golf courses, MacDonald started from scratch and his whole vision was different.






Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #205 on: August 31, 2008, 10:14:30 PM »
Paul Turner,

Part of CBM's genius was that he was able to meld the two, the great hole concepts with the natural features of the site (terrain).

Anyone who has played # 3 and # 4 at NGLA will acknowledge that.

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #206 on: August 31, 2008, 10:19:26 PM »
Paul,

Thank you for that quote.  It appeals to me greatly.  Colt remains my favorite architect.  There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald.  I'll try to find some.  By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.

Pat,

So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club.  Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.

I'll answer your questions to me as I've begun to already.  However, you've yet to answer my question regarding your criticism, if any, of Macdonald.  Is there nothing at all in his entire portfolio that you can question or find fault with?  Has everything withstood the test of time?

Of Macdonald courses, I've played NGLA, St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Yale.  I've walked Piping Rock.  Of Raynor and Banks courses, I've played Southampton, Westhampton, Forsgate, Gibson Island, CC Charleston, Lookout Mountain, Fox Chapel and Yeaman's Hall.  Likely far more representative of their work than you've seen of Flynn.

Part of CBM's genius was that he was able to meld the two, the great hole concepts with the natural features of the site (terrain).

Macdonald's work was very limited.  I think NGLA is a triumph.  I think Creek Club is excellent and Yale quite good.  It is my opinion that he fell far short of the triumph of NGLA and the excellence of Creek and Yale in his subsequent efforts.  The derivative work of Raynor and Banks that I have experienced (Fisher's Island is notably absent) did not rise to the level of their mentor's work.  It is the going easy on Raynor and Banks that I cannot understand.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2008, 10:37:00 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #207 on: August 31, 2008, 10:35:32 PM »
Paul,

Thank you for that quote.  It appeals to me greatly.  Colt remains my favorite architect.  There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald.  I'll try to find some.  By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.

Wayno, tell the whole story, he was also very critical of Shinnecock BEFORE MacDonald's influence.


Pat,

So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club.  Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.

Wayno, you appear to be hung up on pride of authorship, while I tend to be hung up on creative design and playability.

To me, it doesn't matter who created the old sandy waste areas, I PREFER them to TODAY's version.

One of my comments was that the club should seek to restore that look/feature, including getting rid of all the Cat O' Nine tails along # 13 and # 14.  Unfortunately the Environazis would probably object to restoring the course to its previous state.


I'll answer your questions to me as I've begun to already.  However, you've yet to answer my question regarding your criticism, if any, of Macdonald.  

Is there nothing at all in his entire portfolio that you can question or find fault with?  

I can't speak to his entire portfolio because I haven't experienced his entire portfolio.  SLCC is an example I previously cited.  But, if you want to review the courses I have experienced, NGLA, Yale, The Creek, Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock I'd be happy to accomodate you, understanding that what remains today may or may not be MacDonald's work.


Has everything withstood the test of time?

I believe so.


Of Macdonald courses, I've played NGLA, St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Yale.   I've walked Piping Rock. 

Then let's stick with the ones we've both played, NGLA and The Creek.
 

Of Raynor and Banks courses, I've played Southampton, Westhampton, Forsgate, Gibson Island, CC Charleston, Lookout Mountain, Fox Chapel and Yeaman's Hall.  Likely far more representative of their work than you've seen of Flynn.

Let's seperate the architects you've conveniently chosen to bundle.

Let's render unto Raynor that which is Raynor and render unto Banks that which is Banks.

As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.



Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #208 on: August 31, 2008, 10:38:21 PM »
Wayne,

You may want hold your jury out until you have played Chicago Golf and Shoreacres. Raynor did some pretty amazing work at those golf courses. I'll grant you that nothing can compare to NGLA but the first of it's kind generally is never bettered in any art form.

I don't disagree with your views on this subject Wayne.

What I find most interesting about your views are the placement of features, and no so much the style of aesthetics. You should expand more on your views regarding the way Flynn positioned things in a way that Raynor failed to.

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #209 on: August 31, 2008, 10:38:34 PM »
As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.

Which 10, Pat?

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #210 on: August 31, 2008, 10:55:31 PM »
Wayne,

I played Glenview before it was remodeled, and I thought it was pretty good. The fairways were huge. As I recall they were 50 acres at least. And the greens were amazing. But I thought the bunkering was not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as Raynor's work at Shoreacres and Chicago Golf.

Seriously they were all saucer shaped. Maybe they got that way from several decades of edging maintenance, but I can see the same shapes in the photos of Shinecock, and I guess I'm wondering why saucers are more pleasing to look at than what Raynor did.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #211 on: August 31, 2008, 11:02:34 PM »
Wayne,

I don't mean to be a pest about this, but how's come no one on this site ever picks on Flynn's fixation with saucers?

No I did it  :o

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #212 on: August 31, 2008, 11:16:13 PM »
Paul,

Thank you for that quote.  It appeals to me greatly.  Colt remains my favorite architect.  There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald.  I'll try to find some.  By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.

Hutchinson visited Shinnecock in 1910, prior to Macdonald and/or Raynor redesigning the course.

Pat,

So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club.  Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.

I have an aerial of The Creek shortly after the course was built (pre-Flynn) and it clearly shows sandy waste areas on #9, #10, #12, #13 and #14.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #213 on: August 31, 2008, 11:52:56 PM »
Colt and Macdonald would have crossed paths at the British Am and R&A functions. They met in NY in 1913.

Paul
Didn't Colt produce a knock off of the Road Hole at Hoylake?

Peter Pallotta

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #214 on: September 01, 2008, 12:20:38 AM »
Bradley - your post #205 seems like a good one to me.

Patrick, David -

David's written two very clear and direct statements on this thread, first that Macdonald imported not golf holes but strategic principles to America, and second that NGLA was a major turning point the likes of which had not happened before or since, i.e. the rules were rewritten, the approach changed.  There is much to think about in those statements.

My struggle comes from having noted in my readings of old documents an almost continual flux in the ideas/tastes about what makes for good architecture, and thus (whether stated explictely or not) the ideas about the principles of good architecture. Few courses on either side of the Atlantic -- before or after NGLA -- seemed to have been immune to criticisms and changes at one time or another, including TOC.  That's one of the reasons I have a hard tme getting a handle on what were/are considered the truly fundamental principles of good design.  (In today's language, for example, don't many around here denigrate penal architecture and glorify strategic architecture, i.e. aren't the "fundamental" principles of good golf course architecture still being debated?)

Anyway, my point being that, while Patrick calls it seminal and David calls it a turning point, I'm still left wondering about the nature (and lasting nature) of NGLA's influence. Maybe I simply don't know enough (and gents like Phil Young on Tillinghast, Tom D on Mackenzie, Wayne and TE on Flynn and Brad Klein on Ross would know much more). But this influence, how did it manifest on the courses built after NGLA? Were Ross and Tillinghast and Mackenzie and Flynn and Behr and Colt and Fownes and Leeds and Crump "descendants" of Macdonald, and "adherents" of the fundamental principles of good golf architecture as manifested at NGLA? Did that influence last much beyond 1930s, or into the "dark ages" of gca? If not, what explains this, i.e. did the principles change, or were they simply forgotten and ignored? What does it say about how evident those principles were when in 1927 someone like Crane wrote about his ideal American course, using golf holes from a number of different American courses (including, of couse, NGLA), but then - giving a score of 95.9% to that ideal course - ranking NGLA 5th best in the world after Muirfield, Gleneagles, Prince's, and Troon, with a score of 82.7%; and ahead of Merion, Sandwich, Hoylake, Pine Valley, Lido, Walton Heath, and Sunningdale in that order? (I'm not trying to make much out of Crane's system, but just using him as an example of the flux I mentioned.)

It's hard to deny that NGLA was seminal etc. I'm just suggesting that the kinds of questions I've asked here may be worthy of discussion, and that the issue isn't so, so clear cut.

Peter     

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #215 on: September 01, 2008, 12:31:08 AM »
TEPaul,

Why did Wilson and his committee visit NGLA instead of Myopia and GCGC ?

Or, better yet, why DIDN'T they visit Myopia if it represented the defining effort in American architecture ?

Patrick,

Because he'd already seen them and played them over the previous decade.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #216 on: September 01, 2008, 12:34:56 AM »
He did? He did not compete at Myopia during his college career, and GCGC's historic redesign took place after he played there at Princeton.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #217 on: September 01, 2008, 12:40:34 AM »
Tom,

Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not play the best courses in America in the time period of 1897-1910?   

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #218 on: September 01, 2008, 01:47:02 AM »
Mike Cirba. 

This theory that he learned all he needed to know while in college is really really stretching it, don't you think?  At least isn't it well worn?  If not, then what was Myopia like when Wilson played there?    What was good in America when he was in college?  Why was it good?   How did it influence him? 

This has been an interesting discussion, let's not ruin it with more of your stretched speculation about how Wilson was an expert on golf architecture because of some college tournament or another.  Wilson tells us how qualified he was when he went to Macdonald.   Not anymore qualified than any other club member. 

Thanks.

_________________________

Peter,

I've tried and I've tried to explain, but I am worn out.   You just counter with another layer of speculation, even when it directly contradicts your own previous speculation.   [See you speculating about a Hutchinson agenda to trash all American courses except NGLA, then offering Hutchinson being the proof that American courses besides NGLA were excellent.]

If you really want answers, you don't want them from me.   I suggest you take a look at the source material.  Or you can just go with what TEPaul or someone else thinks, whether there opinion has any support or not. 

One more thing.  You have a tendency to jump the Atlantic when it suits you.   What was going on with gca over there and here was not perfectly tracking at this point in history.   

As to who Macdonald's descendants were, we are not there yet.   Getting into that would further bog down the discussion.   Most of the people you list were in America after NGLA, with the possible exception of Ross. 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 01:51:16 AM 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)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #219 on: September 01, 2008, 02:29:16 AM »
Peter,

You commented and aske, "Anyway, my point being that, while Patrick calls it seminal and David calls it a turning point, I'm still left wondering about the nature... of NGLA's influence... But this influence, how did it manifest on the courses built after NGLA? Were Ross and Tillinghast and Mackenzie and Flynn and Behr and Colt and Fownes and Leeds and Crump "descendants" of Macdonald, and "adherents" of the fundamental principles of good golf architecture as manifested at NGLA?"

In the case of Tillinghast, he was not influenced by CBM or his work at NGLA.

I have quoted Tilly's own words in the past where he spoke strongly against the design principles of Macdonald; this despite their being friends and his liking a number of his courses.

Who inspired Tilly to want to design golf courses? The answer is Old Tom Morris. After tilly came back from the 2nd of his trips to the UK (St. Andrews was but one of his stops) he wrote about the close relationship that he developed with Old Tom. He published this in the earliest known, and what may actually be his first, published articles in his writing career in 1898. Yet it was what happened when he came back that summer before he wrote his article in GOLF magazine that also contains photographs of Old Tom, St. Andrews and other players and places that speaks to this influence. For when he came back, Tilly designed and built his first golf course.

In 1908, about the time he was being asked by Worthington to design and build his golf course at Shawnee, Tilly wrote, "I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”

It was while Tilly designed and was building his first "real" course, the Shawnee CC, Macdonald was hard at work on the very unfinished NGLA. The question then is, was the design of Shawnee influenced by Macdonald and NGLA?

Besides the obvious answer being that it would have been pretty near impossible for it to have for the simple fact that it was designed and built at the same time and officially opened some 4 months before the NGLA, consider Tilly's own words on the matter.

Shawnee contained an "Alpinization" based upon "mid-surrey style" of moundings. Surely then this must be CBM's influence as he was importing the great architectural design principles from across the sea to America. In Tilly's case, one has nothing to do with the other.

Tilly had been to the UK to play golf a number of times (three that we know for certain and there may have actually been 2 or 3 other times that are still being researched) and started going there in 1895. for that purpose. Tilly befriended the finest players, played the greatest courses and spent a great deal of time talking golf, architecture, course design and maintenance with all of them.

So it wasn't CBM who influenced him; rather it was the players and grand old men of the game that were spoken of with great reverence world-wide that did. But that "influence" only went a very short distance.

During this same time period of 1910-1915 a number of UK writers criticized both the players from America and many of the courses that they played on. Tilly was among the most vociferous of the defenders and, in fact, wrote extensively saying that both the American game and the courses that had been built here were the equal or superior to any all across the sea.

He took great pride in himself and other American architects in the courses that they designed and created and how DIFFERENT they were from those in the UK. If the design and building of the NGLA was the impetus and the "seminal moment" for the great works of architecture in America, why would so many courses here, and Tilly's were among them, so different in style and design philosophy? That is, after all, what Tilly himself believed.

Tilly's philosophy was a simple one and can be summed up in 6 words.

What does the ground give me?

Tilly believed that the ground upon which a course would be built should dictate the design and cahracter of both the course and also the individual holes which make it up.

All architects see certain "styles" and features that they believe to offer the most enjoyably challenging of golf holes. Macdonald was a major proponent of this and certainly believed that the hole types found across the water were the most superior and should be imitated.

Tilly disagreed with him.

Tilly travelled everywhere with sketch pads and even paints so that in his spare time he would try to conceive of NEW hole TYPES that might be found to challenge all players, skilled or poor alike. A number of his written articles are simply based upon this very idea. That is why there are so many conceptual sketches of Tilly's preserved to this day because they can be found in the journals of the leading golf journals of the day. In fact he first included conceptual hole sketches in his advertising booklet first published in 1916 and titled, "Planning a Golf Course."

Can anyone seriously think that the following was written by a man who was influenced by CBM and the importing of ideas from across the sea as being the best way to design a golf course?

"The creation of a thoroughly modern course cannot be accomplished by the haphazard methods of the past..."

"It costs no more to follow nature than to ignore her..."

"When the famous British authority, Reginald Beale, saw this Aronomink hole in the making, he declared that it was one of the most daring conceptions he had ever studied..."

Regarding the 15th hole at Shawnee he wrote, "A unique feature is the diagonal teeing-ground, one hundred feet in length, which not only permits of lengthening the carry, but also makes it possible to change the angle entirely..."

"The shape and size of any green should be regulated by the type and length of stroke which is to find it..."

"I insist that rough country should be a prominent feature on every course but I am no believer in the matted rank grass variety..."

Tilly had great respect for the courses and players, and most importantly of all, the history of the game found in the UK. He was not afraid to use features that he saw there but would not do it simply because a template design called for something to be included.

Almost from the very first hole that he designed, tilly was an individualist and designed his courses to meet the characteristics that he saw in the ground and not to meet with a pre-conceived design philosophy or hole type.

In fact, when he did create holes that were similar in nature or "type" to others, the only person he imitated was himself and the hole types that he created for himself...

Do I believe that the design and building of the NGLA was a seminal moment in American golf? Yes and no. I think it was a PART, a major one yes, but a part only of a time frame where the American golf course designs and architects were given birth and allowed to explore their individualities, even if some of these were actually convinced that designing through pre-conceived templates was the proper format.

Oakmont, Shawnee, Pine Valley, Pinehurst #2... all were designed and built during this time period. None of these courses show themselves as having been influenced by either template-style designing or CBM's philosophy or person.

NGLA certainly deserves to stand alongside all of these courses in this seminal TIME PERIOD when American golf architecture truly was born, for since that day many of the world's greatest golf creations came to be...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #220 on: September 01, 2008, 03:16:56 AM »
Phillip.

"Hazard" reported that the greens at Shawnee had been built in April of 1910.  "Hazard" would know, wouldn't he?

They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time? 

How can you call NGLA "very unfinished" at this point in time?  What is your basis for your claim?  Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it? 

When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?

At what point in time did NGLA become influential in America?    Surely before 1911, don't you think?


Are you suggesting that Tillinghast's Shawnee had the same impact on golf in America as NGLA?   
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)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #221 on: September 01, 2008, 05:10:08 AM »
David,

You asked a number of questions of me... I believe I've answered them all:

“’Hazard’ reported that the greens at Shawnee had been built in April of 1910.  ‘Hazard’ would know, wouldn't he?”

Of course he would. This was reported by him in August 1910…


“They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time?”

I DIDN’T. I stated that they were DESIGNED and BUILT during the same time period. This runs from 1907 to 1911, and by the way it is CB Macdonald who agrees with me. In Golf Illustrated in June 1914 he wrote, “Six or seven years ago when the National Golf Links were first conceived…” That would be the year 1907… or is my math wrong? I’ve quoted it too often and won’t do so again, but it was CBM who stated the “links opened for play” in September of 1911.


“How can you call NGLA ‘very unfinished’ at this point in time?”

I DIDN’T. Look once again at what I wrote. I stated, “It was WHILE Tilly DESIGNED and WAS BUILDING his first "real" course, the Shawnee CC, Macdonald was hard at work on the very unfinished NGLA…”

Tilly and his family would vacation with Worthington and his family in the area where the Buckwood Inn and Shawnee was to be built every summer since at least as early as 1903 (I have dated family pictures of them all together including one showing the island where the majority of the golf course would be before any work was ever done). Worthington had talked to Tilly of designing a golf course for him for quite a while and Tilly began it in 1908 and spending time examining the site and layout of the course at that time. I don’t believe that the NGLA was anywhere near finished in the summer of 1908, do you? So Tilly designed and began the building of Shawnee while the NGLA was quite unfinished.


“Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?”

I agree with that, so I HAVE to ask why don’t you? After all it was YOU who stated in response to my quoting CBM and his writing on when the Links opened for play that, “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?” If you think the state of the clubhouse is IRRELEVENT, WHY did you just state the opposite in your earlier response?

And by the way, I never, not a single time, stated that CBM considered the links open for play when the clubhouse opened… YOU DID!


“When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?”

I have no idea. I DO KNOW that whenever he first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least and that he strongly disagreed with the design philosophies of CBM his whole life…


“At what point in time did NGLA become influential in America?    Surely before 1911, don't you think?”

At what point did Oakmont become influential in America? It was opened in 1903 and has hosted more national championships than any other course… I’d say that’s a course with a bit of influence, wouldn’t you?


“Are you suggesting that Tillinghast's Shawnee had the same impact on golf in America as NGLA?”

No. I am more than suggesting, I am definitively stating that A.W. Tillinghast had at least as much and most likely more influence and impact upon the game of golf in America than C.B. Macdonald. That is why his course at Shawnee in 1911 is a seminal course as it vaulted him into designing golf courses nationally within the next few years.

Within ten years of NGLA’s opening Tilly had already designed more than three times as many courses as CB. In the end he would design many, many more times the number of courses as Macdonald did and his courses would host so many more national, regional and local championships as Macdonald’s courses to make that a ludicrous comparison.

I am NOT denigrating CB Macdonald nor the incredible National Golf Links of America. I am challenging the concept that Macdonald and NGLA ALONE was the seminal turning point in American Golf. It had a number of seminal moments and persons whose designs and courses have served as inspirations for generations of designers and players.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #222 on: September 01, 2008, 06:08:38 AM »
David,

Who was golfing at NGLA in 1909?   Macdonald?   Whigham??  Emmett??

Please specify WHO was playing at NGLA.   Please cite specifics.

Didn't we go over this repeatedly ad nauseum prior?

Why did Macdonald have a dry-run opening tournament with about a dozen friends in July 1910 to get their feedback on the course and then not have a formal opening of the course til 14 months later??

Why did men like Travis write their reviews of the course upon opening in 1911 instead of when it was supposedly open in 1909??

Are you saying that George Bahto's book is wrong??


Philip,

Can't you get it straight?

CB Macdonald influenced EVERYBODY on the planet when he opened NGLA, whether they had already designed and built golf courses prior or not.   Whether they already had about 10 times more direct study of the great holes and courses abroad than he did they were still just knuckleheads waiting for him to come down from the mountaintop with the tablets.. 

Whether they disagreed wholly with his template theory of design or not!  Whether they wrote extensively of their disagreement with his approach or not!   ::) ;)

Hugh Wilson had already been on the Green Committee of the brand new course at Princeton while it was being designed and built as far back as 1901, and had played virtually every course of note in the US during his college and amateur competitive career for the next decade prior to Merion yet David takes Wilson's very humble and modest statement that was meant as a gracious compliment to Macdonald and tries to make him look like a complete dunderheaded ignoramus.   

Get it right Philip...EVERY person in the US at the time...even those who visited Europe repeatedly to play golf like Robert Lesley and Tillinghast and countless others....even those who came from Scotland directly like Findlay and Bendelow...ALL of them had not a single clue about what a good golf hole was like until they had their empty simpleton minds filled with all that is good from CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham.  ;)

Say it with me...despite his countless visits abroad and his friendship with Old Tom Morris and all the guys in Scotland at the time, Tillinghast was a babbling idiot until Macdonald set him straight.   ;D

Ya know...sometimes you can't fight religion.   ;)
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 06:31:04 AM by MikeCirba »

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #223 on: September 01, 2008, 07:50:08 AM »
Paul,

Thank you for that quote.  It appeals to me greatly.  Colt remains my favorite architect.  There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald.  I'll try to find some.  By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.

Hutchinson visited Shinnecock in 1910, prior to Macdonald and/or Raynor redesigning the course.

Pat,

So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club.  Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.

I have an aerial of The Creek shortly after the course was built (pre-Flynn) and it clearly shows sandy waste areas on #9, #10, #12, #13 and #14.


Hutchinson published his book Fifty Years of Golf in 1919.  Did he travel to the United States in between his 1910 visit and the book publication?  If not, why didn't he mention that the course had changed significantly between his earlier visit and publication?  It certainly is misleading. 


Please tell me why you posted the and/or before Raynor in your attribution.  How do you know that Raynor was involved at all in the design or that perhaps Macdonald was not at all?

As for the Creek Club, the date of the photograph you referenced is wrong.  There was no sand other than a few formalized fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers prior to 1927.  Macdonald was out of the club and Raynor was dead.  You should be more careful with the dates of photographs.  You should also contact the club and speak to someone who knows the course history 1000x better than you do.  You wouldn't make so many mistakes.  And I can prove you wrong, courtesy of my good friend, a valuable resource you fail to acknowledge.

Here's a clue for you to provide all the proof you need to realize how wrong you are.  Tennis courts.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 08:13:11 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #224 on: September 01, 2008, 08:14:51 AM »
Tom,

Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not play the best courses in America in the time period of 1897-1910?   

Mike
Was I unclear? I'm saying he did not play Myopia while playing for Princeton and played GCGC prior to Travis (and Barker's) historic redesign.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 09:19:25 AM by Tom MacWood »