Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Why is Columbia listed as being designed by Walter Travis? Columbia is listed as a Travis redesign. The routing is intact.   How much of Mayfield was Bert Way's efforts? Way was a construction specialist.  How much of Barker is left at Druid Hills? Except for one hole (Bob Cupp's doing, the routing remains as Barker left it. Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.

What pictures of golf at NGLA in 1909 are you referring to?   Who was playing there in 1909? The pictures in the January 1910 Harpers. I'm not sure who the golfers were in the photograph....it does not say in the captions. Does that make a difference?

I think Merion was very wise to bring M&W in to view their proposed property and help them select the best of their five routings.  They clearly referred to the fact that M&W had made a great study of course building.    Macdonald was also the most famous golfer in America at the time and having him involved with their new course, especially with the proposed real-estate component, certainly was also a vehicle for adding lustre to sales efforts.   A better question is why wouldn't they have sought his advice if they were able to obtain him?

I have no desire to turn this into full fledged Merion thread (as opposed to a Merion thread posing as a Macdonald thread)...your questions and false premises have been adressed multiple times.

Patrick,

It's unlikely that the entire issue of American Golfer, August 1910 is incorrectly dated.  

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I see basically none with the possible exception of the slight diagonal line along the right side bunker/right green side.

But to me that similarity is way too general to establish Merion's #3 as a redan in feature "principle." To me that would be something like saying all greens with even a single side set on any kind of diagonal are redan greens.  

[TEPaul]

"Way was a construction specialist."


Mr. MacWood:

Does that mean you think Bert Way never routed or designed golf courses?   

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald was also the most famous golfer in America at the time....."

Mike Cirba:

I think that opinion may be more than just a little bit debatable!   

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Mac

HH must have been a brilliant router to have done all of that during his 20 minuites onsite! 

[Thomas MacWood]

"Way was a construction specialist."


Mr. MacWood:

Does that mean you think Bert Way never routed or designed golf courses?   

TE
No, not at all. Way's Aurora designed in 1926 is an excellent course, underrated. Everyone is very familar with Firestone-South, what most don't realize is Way laid it out in 1929. 

I'm certain Way was a major asset at Mayfield during construction afterward as pro/greenkeeper, but with that being said it seems clear the course was designed by Barker. Travis said Barker laid out Mayfield, Verdant Green said Barker planned Mayfield, Barker himself advertised he laid out Mayfield and Geo Thomas' book lists Mayfield as 'Barker and Way.' Clearly Barker was the main man at Mayfield.

Mike
20 minutes or 20 days or somewhere in between, no matter the time frame anyone who routed Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills and quite possibly Merion has my admiration.

[wsmorrison]

Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.

That is easy to say and hard to prove.  Brilliant for what kind of golf?  I maintain that almost all of us on this site, except for superintendents at their specific courses and the architects who post on this site, are incapable of knowing how brilliant a routing really is, especially compared to other possibilities that were options available to the architect.

How many routings have you done, Tom MacWood?  How much did you study the overall land and the site (not just the course) in considering other possible routings?  Please tell us in what ways Barker was a brilliant router.  That statement on its own is not persuasive.  Just because a course is great and thoroughly enjoyable, doesn't mean that the routing is the best one available and that would vary depending upon what sort of course was being called for.  

Is there a routing you know that cannot be improved upon?  For you to answer that question, you would have to take a lot of time to study courses, many days worth.  That isn't unique to you, it applies to all of us.  We overestimate our understanding of what is a great routing...except for Pat and crossovers, then he underestimates  

I suspect the number of courses where you have done extensive analysis of the course and its surroundings is very small.  How much time did you spend on each site on Long Island?  At Columbia?  At Mayfield?  At Druid Hills?   Just what sorts of attributes are required for you to consider a routing brilliant?

[Thomas MacWood]

Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.

That is easy to say and hard to prove.  Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh? I maintain that almost all of us on this site, except for superintendents at their specific courses and the architects who post on this site, are incapable of knowing how brilliant a routing really is, especially compared to other possibilities that were options available to the architect. I beg to differ. When the golf course sits on what is clearly a challenging site topographically - like Mayfield, Yale or Cape Breton - and the final result is a great golf course, that is a brilliant routing in my book.

How many routings have you done, Tom MacWood? Only one, a nine-holer for a project in LArch. Any buffoon can route a golf course, just like any buffoon can compose a song or draw a picture. I've done both of those things too.  How much did you study the overall land and the site (not just the course) in considering other possible routings? There are many things to consider, the severity of the topography, the use of natural features, the quality of the invidual holes, how the holes flow together, the variety, etc. One interesting test I use when judging a routing, especially on severe sites, like the three courses I mentioned above, at the end of the round could you approximate the routing on paper (assuming you had not seen it on paper prior to playing the course)...I think it would be very difficult with those three, especially Mayfield.  Please tell us in what ways Barker was a brilliant router. The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia.   That statement on its own is not persuasive.  Just because a course is great and thoroughly enjoyable, doesn't mean that the routing is the best one available and that would vary depending upon what sort of course was being called for.  

Is there a routing you know that cannot be improved upon? For you to answer that question, you would have to take a lot of time to study courses, many days worth.  That isn't unique to you, it applies to all of us.  We overestimate our understanding of what is a great routing...except for Pat and crossovers, then he underestimates  

I suspect the number of courses where you have done extensive analysis of the course and its surroundings is very small.  How much time did you spend on each site on Long Island?  At Columbia?  At Mayfield?  At Druid Hills?   Just what sorts of attributes are required for you to consider a routing brilliant? Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?

[wsmorrison]

Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?

No, I am saying that we are in the same category; enthusiasts who really don't understand routings well enough to determine how great they are compared to other alternatives.  When I asked you how much time you spent on site at particular courses you've commented on the brilliance of the routing, I am trying to show that you could not fully understand the implications of the routing and the alternatives, nor could anyone else other than a few gifted architects that are able to do so in a short period of time. 

Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh?

I've seen different routings by classic era greats for a given piece of land that varied significantly.  One was suited towards a nice membership layout, the other for a championship level test with a great deal of high demand shot testing.  The routings were suitable for different demands.  One wasn't necessarily better than the other.

[Thomas MacWood]

Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?

No, I am saying that we are in the same category; enthusiasts who really don't understand routings well enough to determine how great they are compared to other alternatives.  When I asked you how much time you spent on site at particular courses you've commented on the brilliance of the routing, I am trying to show that you could not fully understand the implications of the routing and the alternatives, nor could anyone else other than a few gifted architects that are able to do so in a short period of time. 

It doesn't take years of contemplation to recongize a special routing. One day at Fishers Island or Maidstone was plently of time.

Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh?

I've seen different routings by classic era greats for a given piece of land that varied significantly.  One was suited towards a nice membership layout, the other for a championship level test with a great deal of high demand shot testing.  The routings were suitable for different demands.  One wasn't necessarily better than the other.

A great routing is a great routing, but the routing is only one aspect of a design - overall length, the nature of the greens, the frequency and severity of the hazards all go toward the type of course.

Columbia and Mayfield are a blast to play today, but were championship venues in the day.

[Peter Pallotta]

"The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."

So, can we assume that Barker, for one, understood the principles of good golf course architecture? When would this understanding have first come to him? 



Peter 

[Thomas MacWood]

"The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."

So, can we assume that Barker, for one, understood the principles of good golf course architecture? Based on what I have seen, better than most. What is your opinion? When would this understanding have first come to him? He grew up in Leeds, Yorkshire, and was protege of Sandy Herd. He was one of the top amateurs in Britain (a contemporary of Colt, Darwin, Low, etc) and as a result was exposed to a number of high profile courses in Britain and Ireland. And he made at least one well publicised return (to London) on a golfing exhibition in 1910. He also collaborated with Travis on the historic redesign of GCGC and collaborated with Colt at Winnetka. I'm sure they all had an influence.

What is the significance of the smiley face?



Peter 

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Do you know that the 17th is an original Barker hole?  What work did Travis do several years (1917?) after the opening of Columbia CC's present course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M -

This thread has had a number of sidebars, one of which was a discussion about who other than Mr. Macdonald understood the principles of good golf architecture in the early days of American golf.  The smiley face meant that I wasn't about to seriously open up that debate again on the back of your exchange with Wayne.

Peter   

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Do you know that the 17th is an original Barker hole?  What work did Travis do several years (1917?) after the opening of Columbia CC's present course?

Yes, the 17th is an original Barker hole. Travis (and Harban) lengthened the course (by about 300 years), introduced a new bunkering scheme and resurfaced all the greens. The contours of the greens are typical of Travis. I think it is the 10th hole that has the wild mulit-level green that Travis repeated on several courses. Ironically the original 16th green was based on the crazy 12th at GCGC was made into a more conventional green. The biggest change to the layout would be at the 4th and 5th. The 4th was converted form a short par-4 to a long par-3 and the par-5 5th was lengthened by over 100 yards. The changes took place over about 3 or 4 year period.

[Andy Hughes]

Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."

Tom or Wayne, is the 17th an example of good routing as the hole is unusual and fun, or not good routing as the golfer needs to backtrack off the par 3 to get to the 17th tee? Or did Barker (or Travis) just kind of run out of room towards the end? I admit to finding routing very mystifying.

[wsmorrison]

That's a good question.  It is a bit awkward of a trek from 16 green (I like that hole quite a bit, though the predecessor seemed just fine).  The 17th hole plays a bit strange today with the steep upslope to the green.  I guess it may have played better with older balls and implements, though that approach would have been quite difficult.

I agree that routings are mystifying.  I don't think it is at all as simplistic as Tom MacWood would have us believe.  The architects that post or check out this site must chuckle at some of our pretensions.

[Thomas MacWood]

AH
I see it as example of a good routing. That hollow, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the more interesting natural features on the property. Barker was able create two holes that took advantage of that land form and the stream that runs through it. Two excellent holes in a relatively small space is a good routing in my opinion.

The walk back to 17th tee is not all that long, a 50 or 60 yards jog maybe (aprox. a half wedge), and once you get up to the 17th tee and look down on the fairway in the hollow, most would conclude that jog was well worth it. Most importantly, as you said, in the end the two holes are unusual and fun.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

I enjoyed your post and I think you understand things at a much deeper level than I do, partly because I don’t worry too much about where I am going, and would never want to try to set down in writing where I have been and where I think I may be going.  I may have tried briefly but I just don’t have the smarts to articulate nor do I think it would be of much benefit to me and certainly to anyone else.  The ability to articulate a vision requires mental exercise on a daily basis; much like training for a big athletic event requires daily training.  Interestingly, some athletes have found that working on a farm does more to help them train for a season than working with a trainer in a gym, so I think the mental training requires a heavy dose of the natural world.  Certainly there are boundaries within which you explore, or maybe you could call them prejudices, that you either set yourself or are naturally set by your upbringing, but there is still a lot of room within those boundaries to exercise your mind.  Allowing those explorations to flood into your personal and professional life is important, there really can be no separation if you are to be totally honest about what you do.

Kelly
I think the difference maybe I look at a routing from the perspective of a golfer and you look at routings as a professional router. For example I never consider alternative routings when evaluating a routing (unless there is some obvious mistake). Bascially I look at a routing as journey from point A to point B or  point A to the end.  Or maybe 18 small journeys that add up to one big journey. I enjoy being taken up hills, across ridges, down valleys, through valleys, through trees, into open spaces, etc. When I become more or less lost, and have no idea where I am in relation to the rest of the course, I think that is a good use of the land.

I've noticed a common thread with many of the routings that have stood out to me, the ninth hole does not return to the clubhouse.

[George Pazin]

When I become more or less lost, and have no idea where I am in relation to the rest of the course, I think that is a good use of the land.

This would seem at odds with the mother of all routings at TOC; I haven't had the pleasure, but I can't imagine getting lost there.

[JESII]

Tom M,

I think your last two sentences there are very interesting.

the ninth not returning is an interesting thing isn't it...sort of doubles your chances of screwing something up when you are bound to the clubhouse at a premature point in the round...

I can't quite get me hands around the "getting lost" phenomenon of determining the quality of a routing...I admittedly have no clue what is involved with the routing process and can't ever remember commenting on the quality of a particular routing, but feeling lost doesn't ring true to me...frequent twists and turns are great, but it's the holes that come from it that matters, isn't it? 

[Thomas MacWood]

George
Its hard to get lost on an open relatively flat property. Is St. Andrews a great routing? I'm not sure.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom M,

I think your last two sentences there are very interesting.

the ninth not returning is an interesting thing isn't it...sort of doubles your chances of screwing something up when you are bound to the clubhouse at a premature point in the round...

I can't quite get me hands around the "getting lost" phenomenon of determining the quality of a routing...I admittedly have no clue what is involved with the routing process and can't ever remember commenting on the quality of a particular routing, but feeling lost doesn't ring true to me...frequent twists and turns are great, but it's the holes that come from it that matters, isn't it? 

I would agree that the quality of the holes that come out is what matters, as long as the holes flow naturally with one another. I've played some modern courses that are collection of good to very good holes, that don't flow that well together. Muirfield Village comes to mind. There are some holes that use the land brilliantly, but other holes that seem to be forced on to the land or a little too contrived for my tastes. All eighteen holes are good to very good but I would not consider that course well routed.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the lost idea. That applies mostly to severe or heavily rolling property - Sand Hills is another example. On the other hand Cypress Point is an excellent routing but you always know where you are in realtionship to the rest of holes.

[JMorgan]

Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.     

JMorgan,

I know I'm old, but, I wasn't playing GCGC and NGLA in 1911.

While I might be able to speak to playing GCGC over the last 11 years and NGLA for considerably longer, I'm not qualified to speak to both courses circa 1911.

It would take me quite a while to relate my experiences on a feature by feature, hole by hole basis.

As I type this, I'm considering having a get together that might focus on both courses, with the possible inclusion of Atlantic City, if I can get Wayno to join me.

I think a get-together is an excellent idea, Pat.

And perhaps you could cover those 11 years in a short hole-by-hole piece for the "In My Opinion" section.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

It's unlikely that the entire issue of American Golfer, August 1910 is incorrectly dated.  

Mike, you continually take a particular and expand it to a universal.
Just because all collies are dogs doesn't mean that all dogs are collies.

MacDonald is crystal clear that an informal tournament amongst his friends took place in 1909.  He names some of the participants and the outcome of some of the matches.

It's also clear that a formal Invitational was held in 1910, some of the participants and the outcome of the matches in that tournament DIFFER from the tournament in 1909.

Despite proof of the two seperate tournaments, you continue to ignore the facts and continue to deny the existance of the tournament in 1909.

When such overwhelming facts are presented and you continue to deny those facts, one has to conclude that you have an agenda that conflicts with the facts.  An agenda that must deny the existance of play in 1909 in order to perpetuate itself.

My guess is that CBM, 18-19 years removed, didn't accurately recall in which tournament John Ward shot his 74, since John Ward participated in both tournaments.

But, again, the evidence is clear, a tournament amongst MacDonald's friends was held at NGLA in 1909.   

To deny it is ...........  disengenuous and/or agenda driven.