Comparing and contrasting Garden City and Myopia Hunt

[Thomas MacWood]

Interesting about Shaw. He was Crane's exact contemporary. They were born the same year, they graduated from Harvard one year apart. Crane died four years after Shaw in 1964.

Crane had three sons and three daughters, but I don't know of any connection between any of them and Shaw's children.

Because these guys were all aristocrats, accounts of their golf matches show up in a lot of newspapers. Crane, Leeds, Behr and others come and go in these articles.

In addition to the cups mentioned above, Crane also gave a cup to Carnoustie for local amateur competitions. It's called.... yep, The Crane Cup.

Bob

Actually I think it was Shaw Sr. and Crane (your favorite whipping boy) who were connected, by another sport.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

If you want to know the details of the architectural design evolution of GCGC, the guy to ask those questions of on here for legitimate and accurate answers would probably be Pat Mucci.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I was not aware that either Tillinghast or Colt had anything to do with GCGC's design evolution.

I figgered if Patrick didn't agree with what was presented he's probably speak up, although I do also know he tends to be shy about this stuff sometimes.     

[TEPaul]

"Because these guys were all aristocrats, accounts of their golf matches show up in a lot of newspapers. Crane, Leeds, Behr and others come and go in these articles."


Bob:

This one is definitely too long for me to type out on here but there is a very informative letter by that Thomas G. Stevenson, the scratch player from Myopia in the first and second decades of the 20th century about how he got into golf, Leeds and a number of other things in his golf career. That letter was written to George Batchelder, the same man ("Captain of the Green") who wrote Bobby Jones and got the letter I put on here earlier). Stevenson's long letter is really informative about certain things to do with the club.

There's another letter from Gen. George Patton to Batchelder at the end of WW2 that is also very interesting although not necessarily about Myopia. Patton, by the way, came from nearby Prides Crossing.

In that Stevenson letter he even mentions the 1910 Lesley Cup when Massachussets finally won it and that one of his opponents was an Eli by the name of Max Behr. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I was not aware that either Tillinghast or Colt had anything to do with GCGC's design evolution."

Well, MikeC, either was I. I think we all probably need to look quite carefully at where some of that kind of info is coming from, if past experience on here is to be a good indicator.

As far as I can tell, Colt never returned to the USA after 1914 so I'm wondering what exactly he did or was asked to do with the architecture of GCGC.

Maybe it was just from some old newspaper article that mentioned in 1913 or 1914 Colt stopped by GCGC and offered some opinion of the golf course. You know as well as I do how those kinds of things can get totally exaggerated today and on here!

In my opinion, discussions on the design and architectural evolutions of the golf courses from the old days we discuss on here basically are breaking down into two basic categories:

1. Figuring out what really happened way back when and by whom.
2. Figuring out how blatantly some on here try to exaggerate what happened way back when and by whom! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Travis was a huge admirer of Colt so its not surprising he was called. Colt listed GCGC as a course he redesigned in his brochure.

In researching another course today - Cambridge GC - I uncovered another reference to Willie Campbell's involvement at Myopia. Cambridge was Harvard's course and was designed by Campbell too. I also found WC designed the original course at Salem and a course at Topsfield, Mass.

[Thomas MacWood]

Colt also came to Boston in 1914.

[TEPaul]

"Travis was a huge admirer of Colt so its not surprising he was called in. Colt listed GCGC as a course he redesigned in his brochure."


Is there any actual evidence of those things OR are we all just expected to take your word for it? 

EXAMPLE:  Mr. MacWood had decided to float the idea that Willie Campbell designed the original nine hole of Myopia, despite what 1894 club records say to the contrary. He says the evidence for that is in some old Boston Globe article but when asked to produce it he's only said he doesn't want to help!   

How hard is it to figure out what's wrong with this research picture? 

Personally, I think this kind of question and point is a perfect opportunity to test the reliabliltiy of this ship passenger manifest search.

Let me see someone at least produce some evidence on here on WHEN Willie Campbell FIRST arrived in this country! 

After we've at least established that important timeline FACT we can go from there.   

[Brad Tufts]

Tom...I consider the 13th a hole where one can "use the ground" because the uphill slope can be used to put the brakes on a longer shot from the rough (not the percentage play, but it's possible), and the right half of the green/fairway just short can be used to stop a shot on top of the hill.  The strategy is that they usually put the pin on the left side, where a ball can roll back 50 yards.  If one aimed for the right edge each time, the ball usually stops up there.

And, I believe the current Myopia president Tom Stevenson is known as Jack, although Tom could be (probably is) his real name...

[JMorgan]

"Could one of today's architects build another Garden City for around $100k?"

Of course not---not even close.

The irrigation system would be at least ten times that amount.

JMorgan,

For once, TEPaul is correct.

Then again, a stopped clock is also right twice a day.

A sad day indeed, Pat ...  I don't even want to know if or how much payola was involved.

My question is transparent and naive enough I hope... two classic courses that have stood the test of time -- with modifications along the way, of course -- but were relatively inexpensive to construct ... why does this not translate to today?  Is the "modifications along the way" part the reason why?

[TEPaul]

"Tom...I consider the 13th a hole where one can "use the ground" because the uphill slope can be used to put the brakes on a longer shot from the rough (not the percentage play, but it's possible), and the right half of the green/fairway just short can be used to stop a shot on top of the hill.  The strategy is that they usually put the pin on the left side, where a ball can roll back 50 yards.  If one aimed for the right edge each time, the ball usually stops up there."

BradT:

I like that remark and those observations of yours a lot. I thought of that idea last year but it seemed so low percentage I never really mentioned it to anyone but my partner. But I'm impressed that you pick up on that.

Another way to look at it is---what else it a player going to try to do anyway? I see some who are in the rough and back at 140-150 yards just hit a little chip shot to the end of the fairway and go from there because they can't see any other way. Trying to loft something up there seems beyond them when they probably should consider taking a lot more club and hitting it lower into that upslope to try to get the ball to climb to the right side of the green or to that chipping area over there on the right (?). That made me really look at the area up by the green on the right to see if there wasn't some other way and your way is sure one. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some green addition or expansion over to the right. I never have seen the pin anywhere but on the left or the left half of the green. But before 2006 I had not been back to Myopia for something like 40 plus years. Since 2006 I've only played it less than 10 times. And also on that 13th not only have I never been in the rough it seems like I'm always right at 107 yards every single time. But it sure took me a while to figure out what club to use from there. 

I understand Leeds actually shifted that green left some at some point.

PS:

You're right the pres and grandson is Jack.

[TEPaul]

BradT:

One of the teams we played against at Myopia in July's Leeds Memorial came from Dedham CC. One of them is a good friend of Ian Baker-Finch who he had over to play Myopia and he said he just loved the course and couldn't get over the neat old architecture. He said he played great and made a lot of birdies and the hole he absolutely loved the most, interestingly, was #7 with that green that runs away so much more than it looks.

[TEPaul]

"Is the "modifications along the way" part the reason why?"

JMorgan:

That's a good question but the fact is it seems like every single one of those great old courses from the pallettes of those famous early "amateur/sportsmen" designers went through that process in that early era and we probably need to appreciate that fact and understand what it meant and means vis-a-vis real quality architecture.

Mr. MacWood:

With Willie Campbell it would be a fairly seminal bit of information to establish when he first arrived in this country, don't you think? Can a ship passenger manifest establish that date and if not, why is that? Perhaps the most appropriate question on these threads is---can you establish that date and if not why not?

Bob:

When you were playing Myopia in your college days there may've been a whole lot more trees on the interior of that course than there are now. The same with GCGC. What has happened in the last decade or so to both courses and the effort to return them to what they were at one time perhaps in their glory days is good stuff and both clubs seem to have been pretty quiet about it which isn't surprising when one considers those two clubs and their culture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan,

You have to understand that most sites at the turn of the 19th century were unfetered by environmental and permitting issues and that the land for these golf courses was cheap farm land or outlying land, fairly ideal for golf.

Today, many sites require remediation, which costs money.

Read Lowell Schulman's book, "The Miracle on Breeze Hill"

It gives some insight into the add-on costs to develop a golf course

What was simple in 1899-1910 is far from simple today.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Could one of today's architects build another Garden City for around $100k?"

Of course not---not even close.

The irrigation system would be at least ten times that amount.

JMorgan,

For once, TEPaul is correct.

Then again, a stopped clock is also right twice a day.

A sad day indeed, Pat ...  I don't even want to know if or how much payola was involved.

My question is transparent and naive enough I hope... two classic courses that have stood the test of time -- with modifications along the way, of course -- but were relatively inexpensive to construct ... why does this not translate to today?  Is the "modifications along the way" part the reason why?

Those are good questions. I'm not sure if those courses were initially inexpensive to construct relative to other courses constructed at that time....but in comparison to today no doubt they were comparatively inexpensive being low profile jobs relative to today's standard.

The question I have is how good were both courses in 1898 and 1900 respectively (again compared to the standard developed in the 00s, 10s and 20s). They were Victorian architecturally initially, so certainly the revolutionary modifications made by Leeds and Travis were largely responsible for the courses' design greatness. There were two common threads about those changes, the bulk of the changes were carried out over relatively small window of time (a few years) and both men traveled extensively in the UK observing modern architecturally develpoments prior to making the changes. And obviously not all change is good change, it despends who is making the changes and these two clearly had made a study of golf architecture.

Along that line I think it would be interesting to compare the personalities of the two men. It takes a pretty forceful person to be given more or less total controll over a club's architecture. No one afterward at those clubs ever garnered that kind power, which may explain why their changes have passed the test of time. Those clubs have a long history of being conservative, and compared to other courses of that era both are remarkably well preserved. Ironic that a courses greatness can be attributed to both change and lack of change.

[Mike_Cirba]

Why would men who were either FROM Scotland, or had frequently visited Scotland like Emmett (and according to Tom Mac, Alex Findlay), and Willie Dunn, and Tom Bendelow, and Willie Campbell (again, according to Tom), and even CB Macdonald desiging what Tom Mac calls "Victorian architecture" at this time (1890-1900)?

Why would learned men deviate so much from what they knew to be superb overseas??

[Thomas MacWood]

I think there were a number of reasons, but the bottom line inland golf was considered and thought of as a different animal. They didn't have the natural advantages so they came up with a system of artificial hazards. And as Horace Hutchinson said you can't fault a man for not being in advance of his time.

[TEPaul]

"Ironic that a courses greatness can be attributed to both change and lack of change."


Mr. MacWood:

Perhaps it is ironic or at least ironic to you but my advice to you and others would be to try very hard to look at what the over-all benefit to courses like these is with that kind of constant change (when that man in that kind of control is taking those years and sometimes decades to make those improving and perfecting changes), and then followed by no change or very little change after they are finished or dead and gone.

Why do you suppose so little change has happened to those particular courses when those years or even decades of those interesting men were over?

Isn't it fairly obvious to you? It certainly is to me. It's all about a club respecting that man and what he did and therefore being so much more unwilling to fuck around with what he did. It's also a large part of the marvelous restorations most of those famous courses of those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers have enjoyed in recent years.

With men like Leeds, Macdonald, Wilson, Fownes, Crump, Emmet and Travis et al their lifelong course projects are probably preserved far more than otherwise because these clubs both respect and in most cases GLORIFY them and consequently what they did---eg their lifelong course projects.

Perhaps you may want to start to look at the benefits and benefits to the preservation of these courses because these men are considered to be LEGENDS----instead of constantly questioning if they really deserve that "legendary" status, as you constantly seem to be doing on here in the last five years.

In my opinion, you seem to be perhaps unintentionally undermining the very thing you basically seem to want to promote--ie preservation, and THAT I do not think is particularly intelligent or constructive. But what the hell, I suppose it just takes various people whatever time they need to figure some of these really important things out.

[Thomas MacWood]

With men like Leeds, Macdonald, Wilson, Fownes, Crump, Emmet and Travis et al their lifelong course projects are probably preserved far more than otherwise because these clubs both respect and in most cases GLORIFY them and consequently what they did---eg their lifelong course projects.

Lifelong course projects? Don't you think that is a slight exaggeration? Some were long term; some were short term. And most were done with the help of an experienced hand, and in some cases considerable help. Lets not lose sight of reality.

[Brad Tufts]

Tom P:

Yeah, I think 13 is so difficult because even though most better players can have a wedge in, the target is so shallow.  The percentage play for me was usually just to hit it a few yards long and hope the pin wasn't cut against the back fringe so you had a chance at the flop and at least 10 feet of roll to get close for par.  I believe 13 might be the only hole on the course I've never birdied, strange for a 350-yard par 4 (I do only have a single birdie on #3!).

I love the give and take at Myopia, and the previously mentioned half-par holes:

#1, 274 par 4 (par 3.5)
#2, 480 par 5 (par 4.5)...this hole is downhill too
#3, 250 par 3 (par 3.5)
#4, 392 par 4....among greatest holes of its length in world?  
#5, 415 par 4
#6, 260 par 4 (par 3.5)
#7, 410 par 4
#8, 475 par 5 (par 4.5)...usually with the wind as well
#9, 130 par 3 (par 2.75?)
#10, 375 par 4
#11, 330 par 4 with tough green
#12, 455 par 4 (par 4.5, wow tough with tiny green and lots of fescue)
#13, 350 par 4 (par 4.5 with shallow green and ~60 feet uphill)
#14, 400 par 4
#15, 525 par 5 (par 4.75?)
#16, 172 par 3 (par 3.5 with ridiculous green?)
#17, 400 par 4
#18, 420 par 4

I only count 7 "medium-challenge" holes.  Few courses have so few holes that fall in the dead middle of the challenge spectrum, and even 3 or 4 of these (4, 7, 17, 18) can give pause especially with F&F conditions.

I do hope IBF does make a senior tour run, as he seems to be tearing up the "old American layouts" on his various visits...or maybe he will just start a more interesting design business.  I know Lee Janzen makes an annual visit to Myopia through the Isleworth connection with assistant pro E. Sorensen and loves his couple rounds/year.  They have discussed a Tiger visit when he's in town for the Deutche Bank, even to the point of finding a helicopter landing spot (closest polo field), but I doubt it will ever happen...

[TEPaul]

"Lifelong course projects? Don't you think that is a slight exaggeration? Some were long term; some were short term. And most were done with the help of an experienced hand, and in some cases considerable help. Lets not lose sight of reality."

No I do not think it's an exaggeration Mr. MacWood.

Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Leeds, Fowneses, to some extent Travis and Emmet at GCGC (and Ross with #2) essentially worked on those special projects all their lives and if you don't understand that historic fact, you better start understanding it.

There is no question in my mind that the "legendary" status those men are held in by their clubs and others is most of the reason those courses have not been changed more or a lot more.

You look for these so-called 'experienced hands' that helped them do what they did that in most cases never even existed anyway. For some Goddamned unknown reason to me you just can't seem to get it through your head that these men both could and did do what they've been given credit for and what lifted them to "legendary" status.

Your bullshit promotion of Campbell at Myopia and Macdonald/Whigam at Merion to a position of far more importance than they ever had is both factually and historically untrue and revisionist but it serves to undermine (untruthfully) the very legends and their legendary status that serves to stand in the way of far greater change to those courses over the years and in the future.

You want to talk to me about REALITY, Mr. MacWood? That is THE REALITY!!  

If you EVER had anything directly to do with these courses and clubs you analyze and critique this way ON HERE ONLY, even you might begin to figure this out, but on the other hand perhaps not---as the years have shown you aren't one who knows how to adapt very well to the realities of these courses and clubs. How would you----most all of them you've never even been to and you know noone from any of them. Don't you think that has got to be part and parcel of your problem and failure to understand some of these things? I certainly do, and I always have.

[Thomas MacWood]

Travis, Crump and Emmet were involved in lifelong projects? Your definition of lifelong is different than my definition. I don't consider six or less years lifelong.

I don't think its a good idea to try to jam all these guys into the same box. Each case was unique and should be studied on its own. Were there some similarities? Yes, but one should not over generalize.

What was the last change Leeds made at Myopia?

[TEPaul]

"Travis, Crump and Emmet were involved in lifelong projects? Your definition of lifelong is different than my definition. I don't consider six or less years lifelong."

Oh for God Sake, man, Crump didn't start Pine Valley when he was one year old obviously but he did it from the day he started it until the day he died and if he hadn't died when he did he probably wouldn't done it for the rest of his life, hence when he was asked when he would finish the course he famously bellowed; "NEVER." The others were basically involved in their projects for years, even decades.

If you can't understand what lifelong means in the context of those special projects you should not be on this website discussing architecture. Matter of fact, you probably shouldn't be discussing anything of importance with anyone.

[Kirk Gill]

Just a quick quote from Mr. H.J. Whigham regarding GCGC, written, I believe, in 1909:

"Here conditions are most favorable and no one can doubt that with the Long Island soil and  climate a really interesting course might be constructed. As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right. Walter Travis did a great deal when he put in about fifty new bunkers and imitated the eleventh hole at St.  Andrews on the last green. That one change in itself has been a tremendous improvement. Yet he had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out."

Pretty interesting criticism. The only mention of Myopia in the article is somewhat more forgiving:

"Ninety per cent of the courses in this country are not to be compared with the real golf links abroad. And the worst of it is that an entirely erroneous standard has grown up so that it is the most difficult thing in the world to introduce reforms. Everything now is sacrificed to the older players who want the path made easy for them, and for some strange reason the younger players are dumb. There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the real standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor, and the winter course at Aiken. There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these one has included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long way short of perfection. Is it not strange that with all the vast sums of money expended on golf links in America, so few courses should be nearly good?"

[DMoriarty]

Why would men who were either FROM Scotland, or had frequently visited Scotland like Emmett (and according to Tom Mac, Alex Findlay), and Willie Dunn, and Tom Bendelow, and Willie Campbell (again, according to Tom), and even CB Macdonald desiging what Tom Mac calls "Victorian architecture" at this time (1890-1900)?

Why would learned men deviate so much from what they knew to be superb overseas??

Mike,

I think this happened overseas as well, didn't it?   Why would they build Victorian courses overseas when they most definitely had exposure to the links courses?   I think TomM has it right, but there were other related factors, such as a desire by some to take the chance out of the game and to create a more objective set of requirements for the game.  Sort of a standardization of design.  I think generally (and there were exceptions) these courses were designed to punish bad shots and reward good ones, Good ones being defined as those straight up the fairway of sufficient distance and bad ones off-direction or shorter in distance. 

_________________

Kirk,

I was just about to quote 1909 Whigham.  I'd add this quote from the article you gave me a few months ago:

Garden City is spoiled by the number of cross hazards which occur about 250 yards from the tee, just in the place to catch a very fine drive on a calm day.  They are really bad hazards in every way, for they catch very good drives or seconds which are so bad as to be hardly worth punishing.