[Chris_Blakely]

I have played NUMEROUS Emmet courses and this has a ton of Emmet features.  Emmet's family had a farm in the area and he spent a lot of time in the area.  I have also played a lot of Raynor's courses and the green surounds and greens themselves do not bear a resemblance to his courses.  Also, where are his template par 3's??

I know of only one other course that Emmet wrote about in golf publications that he did not design.

Emmet designed Clark's private course right down the road.  That is not a coincidence.

[David Stamm]

I dont know that I'd call GCGC flat...4 has nice rolls to it, 15 goes pretty severely uphill...a lot of hills roll gently up and down.  Granted its not as hilly as LGC, but it's not as flat as Eisenhower.

Maybe Raynor was involved to some degree, but it seems to me that if CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't we would have seen even more "footprints" in the form of more template holes?  If CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't it have looked a lot more like the typical raynors we see?  With the four different par-3s for openers?  dan spooner and I both went over the course maps and there seemed to be no redan, eden, or biarritz.  CBM/Raynor would have probly used them at the par-3s, but the map doesn't indicate these shapes and lengths.  WHat about the fact that nine were built in 1909 and the other 9 in 1919.  So did Raynor/CBM come back again in 1919?

John foley and Jim kennedy are on the right track I think.  I think emmet built it, talked around the water cooler with CBM and Seth for ideas, borrowed some ideas for holes CBM and Seth used, fit the rest to the land as he found it with his own tweaks - like his version of the short at 12, as JNC said.  It certainly doesn't look as much of a raynor as Sleepy hollow or charleston or yale.

At the end of the day, what the club says goes.  Right now, they say Emmet, as does everything we've read till now.  George, as I read your post, I think you disagree that Tucker was involved originally?  and in 1919?

Moreover, at the end of the day, my piece's theory is right - you see alot of what raynor and CBM did at LGC.  That's what I said all along.  First my dtractors tried to say no it isn't, then they tried say it's more than I thought at first.  That's flip-flopping AND splitting hairs.  Moreover, my piece is for everyone - not just people so obsessed with GCA that they argue minutia like the American economy was at stake.  It's simply a nice travelogue so people will go see the course.

 
As for the origins of the course, I disagree that the club has the final say.  Very often club records are not well-kept or lost through some sort of disaster.  Therefore, club info may be incomplete.  If different and accurate origins for a course are established by an outside source, these should be accepted as the final word.

Agree, JNC. How many times, through the efforts of some on this very site, have educated the clubs as to their history and shown things to their members that they never knew about their very own club. It happens quite often. And often it's because the members have never cared enough or not knowing where to to even start and research and learn to connect the dots.

[paul cowley]

  Geo Bahto states:  "and the 17th was originally a par-5 and th 18th, a par-3. I have info from notes when I was there in 1997 that said 18 was a "weak" par-3."

Well from a design standpoint it makes sense that the original 17th and 18th were consolidated as a par 5, and the now par three 17th was added to make up for the missing par three. This makes sense on the ground and helps explain the two long bridge crossings to and from 18 tee. My gut feeling is that both the bridges and the current 18th tee were added as part of the change and that the original two holes played consecutively along the shore. They were consolidated as a par 5 in an attempt to add length to the course.

Actually my gut tells me I'm quite sure of this.

[Tom Naccarato]

I dont know that I'd call GCGC flat...4 has nice rolls to it, 15 goes pretty severely uphill...a lot of hills roll gently up and down.  Granted its not as hilly as LGC, but it's not as flat as Eisenhower.

Jay, Many times we have called that "micro-movement." Its no different then the Old Course of St. Andrews. Its usually natural movement.

Maybe Raynor was involved to some degree, but it seems to me that if CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't we would have seen even more "footprints" in the form of more template holes?  If CBM/raynor were involved, wouldn't it have looked a lot more like the typical raynors we see?  With the four different par-3s for openers?  dan spooner and I both went over the course maps and there seemed to be no redan, eden, or biarritz.  CBM/Raynor would have probly used them at the par-3s, but the map doesn't indicate these shapes and lengths.  WHat about the fact that nine were built in 1909 and the other 9 in 1919.  So did Raynor/CBM come back again in 1919?

John foley and Jim kennedy are on the right track I think.  I think emmet built it, talked around the water cooler with CBM and Seth for ideas, borrowed some ideas for holes CBM and Seth used, fit the rest to the land as he found it with his own tweaks - like his version of the short at 12, as JNC said.  It certainly doesn't look as much of a raynor as Sleepy hollow or charleston or yale.

Jay, Your suggestion here would be speculative at best. To suggest it, way too obvious and way too easy. There are no shortcuts to the facts. You have to do research. The only research you do is play the course, and play it with a pro that is selling you on cheap facts that could be inaccurate--in this case they are inaccurate. It's no different then when you called the 17th green at Yale a Biarritz.  YOU SAY, like his version of the short at 12, as JNC said, It certainly doesn't look as much of a Raynor as Sleepy Hollow or Charleston or Yale. Pardon me, but isn't this what I have been implying to you all along, that is in no way represents anything at NGLA? Raynor's name hasn't even been found in any of this research that has been done, and if it did, I would have every quickly posted it. And I'm going off of your quote of the 12th being inspired from that course. So please explain to me where that is wrong to question that?

At the end of the day, what the club says goes.  Right now, they say Emmet, as does everything we've read till now.  George, as I read your post, I think you disagree that Tucker was involved originally?  and in 1919?

Jay, George had never heard of Tucker until I brought this up to him on the phone this morning. For him to believe or not believe without doing accurate research on who Tucker actually was, would be highly speculative on his part. I don't think George would be foolish enough like you to do that. So your thinking is wrong.

The article on Tucker's involvement is from May 1919. Go look it up for yourself.

Moreover, at the end of the day, my piece's theory is right - you see alot of what raynor and CBM did at LGC.  That's what I said all along.  First my dtractors tried to say no it isn't, then they tried say it's more than I thought at first.  That's flip-flopping AND splitting hairs.  Moreover, my piece is for everyone - not just people so obsessed with GCA that they argue minutia like the American economy was at stake.  It's simply a nice travelogue so people will go see the course.

Jay, I explained to you before, you get something wrong on architecture, I'm going to call you on it because this is a Golf Architecture discussion group. I hold the same standard on anyone that thinks they can write and provide accurate information that is in fact wrong. I've always done that. Your not the first. Get over it.

More then anything, I'm hoping more that you will learn. I know I learn everyday. While you have managed to write up many published articles on golf, they are filled with way too many factual errors. I'm just trying to help.

Thank you for letting me help you.

[JNC Lyon]

  Geo Bahto states:  "and the 17th was originally a par-5 and th 18th, a par-3. I have info from notes when I was there in 1997 that said 18 was a "weak" par-3."

Well from a design standpoint it makes sense that the 17th and 18th were consolidated as a par 5, and the now par three 17th was added to make up for the missing par three. This makes sense on the ground and helps explain the two long bridge crossings to and from 18 tee. My gut feeling is that both the bridges and the current 18th tee were added as part of the change and that the original two holes played consecutively along the shore. They were consolidated as a par 5 in an attempt to add length to the course.

Actually my gut tells me I'm quite sure of this.

That definitely makes sense, although Jay Flemma's description of the article has one playing 1-7, 16 and then going right to the last hole, now 18.  What was this hole made up of?  A par along the lake that ends at the current clubhouse?  Or was it the current par five finishing in front of the Otesaga Hotel?  When was the rock-pile island tee built out in Lake Otsego/Blackbird Bay?

[paul cowley]

JNC....I would guess that the original par 5 17th ended at the clubhouse and the original 18th ended in front of the hotel.....and were combined to create a longer finishing hole...thus necessitating the 'new' par three over the pond....now the 17th.

[TEPaul]

Guys:

While I haven't followed this thread mainly because I know nothing about Leatherstocking, I do see on this thread a few precautionary warnings that this not devolve into another controversial thread like Merion's and even from the primary protagonists who have said they don't want it to.

So listen to Uncle George Bahto when he says above:

"OK - first, how about stopping the verbal wars - this crap really gets old?"

What are the verbal wars? Who's carrying on any verbal wars? From a brief scan of this thread it seems like the only ones in danger of doing that are TommyN and Jay Flemma.

So, listen to Old Tom Paul then, one of the primary protagonists and a many times re-upping veteran of the Merion thread wars-----just don't go there, it's just not worth it in the end and here's how to stop it:

1. If you think that short drop-shot par 3 hole at Leatherstocking (as an example) is inspired by NGLA on Emmet or whomever just say that's only your opinion and that you have no concrete factual evidence of that, again, it's only your opinion and interpretation and just leave it at that.

2. If you think it isn't inspired by NGLA on Emmet or whomever just say that's your opinion and you have no factual evidence of it and leave it at that, etc, etc.

3. Stay away from residual remarks of previous personal disputes like legal saber-rattlin' or whatever.

4. Try to stay away from claiming that your opinion or whatever is more valuable than someone else's. Or even that someone else's opinion is more valuable than someone's.

I can even pull up the very POST from over five years ago that started the Merion threads devolving into a five year long Merion out of control war. It is no different at all than some of the posts on this thread from #4 down to about #23 or so. No different at all, matter of fact it's almost an exact facsimile with different names and places. That is where and how these things beginning spinning out of control without anyone necessarily recognizing it at the time! 

Just don't go there. Consider the four points above and let it go unless and until something pretty concrete is found, and prepare yourself for the fact that may never happen. Unfortunately, that's the blunt reality of research material and researching.

It may just remain at a difference of opinion and interpretation------and that's OK.

Now cut it out Boys, or you may be forced to go to bed with no supper!

[Jim_Kennedy]

This is an aerial from mapquest that is several years old. I don't think the same bunkering exists today. The black oblong is the tee, the yellow line on the left is the roadway.

[paul cowley]

This is an aerial from mapquest that is several years old. I don't think the same bunkering exists today. The black oblong is the tee, the yellow line on the left is the roadway.

Its similar ....a little less sand and more bunker divisions....but that's more a factor of maintenance practice evolution.

[Mike_Cirba]

If any of you idiots had a single brain in your head you'd have recognized that the 12th at Leatherstocking is an Alps hole. 

First, from the very back tee it's COMPLETELY blind.

Second, there is a wall of fronting bunkers that one must cross.

Third, did you hear that it was COMPLETELY blind.

It's an Alps, I tell you...an Alps!!!

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's all I meant Paul, thanks.

Here's a photo of the NLE 18th at Hob Nob Hill, also an Emmet:


This one was also downhill. The oblong is(was) the tee, the circle was a pond and the squared off area (with the little flagstick) is the green.

It too is an Alps, as Mike Cirba suggested   

This place is about a 1/2 mile from my house, and I only wish it was still in existence today.

[Craig Disher]

Wayne Morrison led me to an article in the 1921 GI that amplifies what George posted about 17. Emmet, the author, isn't helpful on assigning responsibility for the design.

The holes he identifies don't completely match with the current course. For example, two of the par 4s he cites are now par 3s - 9 and 12. I think his description matches the current course at least through 8 but after that the comparison falls apart.  His describes the 14th as a long par 4 (driver/brassie - could he mean that it's a reachable par 5?) and the best example on the back 9 is the 15th which is now a short par 5.  Is it possible that the short 12th didn't exist in this early configuration? I think that might be the case.

Emmet's par sequence -  4 4 x 5 4 x 4 4 4 4 x 4 4 4 4 x 5 x
Current par sequence  -  4 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 3 5

"The fourth and the seventeenth are as fine as any long holes in the country - regular testing three shotters. The seventeenth crosses the water hazards twice, the first carry being a bay which puts in from the lake. There are five or six good drives and pitch holes, the first, fifth, eighth, ninth and thirteenth. The second, seventh, tenth, twelfth, and fifteenth are all good drive and iron holes. I do not believe there is a better drive and iron hole in America than the second hole. The fourteenth is a fine type of hole calling for a fine drive and a fine brassie."

and

"As at Pine Valley, a great many persons, including the writer, have given their best ideas and cooperation towards what is really a very fine result."

It's late and I'll have to think about this in the morning. Perhaps someone can clear this up. George?

[Tom Naccarato]

Craig, I may have failed to explain it in more detail, but I wrote that they showed many of the holes as a drive and pitch, or drive and an iron when they were the opposite.  Maybe Leatherstocking isn't really Leatherstocking, but a long lost Flynn course located on the shores of Lake Ostesaga! 

Tom Paul, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black....... But I'm glad to see you accept some responsibility!

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black......."


You're right my friend, that's exactly what it is and the way it was intended----eg the pot calling the kettle black. And I hope you take the advice from the black pot trying to advise the black kettle, AGAIN, rather than listening to some mouse who ran the hell outta the kitchen when it got hot or who had nothing in the fire in the first place.

The Merion threads and the contention over Merion did not start with MacWood and Moriarty on Merion vs some of us here, it started, as you well know, some years before that by some on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com slamming not just Merion but some of its members personally over their bunker project.

That was the day, in my opinion, this website lost its way to ever be able to have the opportunity to be all inclusive and maximally informative in the overall world of golf course architecture. In my mind, nothing could've or would've been better for this website than to have those who administered Merion architecturally contributing on here. It didn't happen with Merion nor has it ever really happened with those truly important to the administration of any important club generally discussed on here. Some may wonder why---I don't.

I still have the email with the GOLFCLUBATLAS DG printout from the Merion green-chairman who stated under it that he was about ready to actually contribute and post (as he had been asked to do) but after those kinds of personal vituperations would personally guarantee that neither Merion nor anyone there who actually had to do with what went on there architecturally would ever again consider participating on this website.

I just can't imagine now, TommyN, how many times and in how many ways I've tried to explain this and the realites of it to you over the years but you just never seem to get my drift. At this point, it probably doesn't even matter anymore.

You've got the passion, there's no question about it----unfortunately that's not all it takes.

[Tom Naccarato]

Tom,
Once again, I know where you are coming from, but much of those threads were with-in reason and may have even put this website on the map to some degree. I mean, Philadelphia Enquirer? If you remember, I wasn't the only one voicing an opinion. To single me out, well that is wrong. You should even be pointing a finger at yourself to some degree don't you think?

Also, you should let Jay fight his own battles.

Let me guess, phone call from him Friday night where he was complaining to you to get me to shut up; you told him that you could see what you could do. You call me, I'm not there to answer, but when I call you later on Saturday morning, you inadvertently answered your cell phone while you were in conversation about Merion and me. I heard as much as I wanted to hear and then hung up. If you don't believe me check you phone and see the length of the call.

Nice to know where I stand.

[TEPaul]

Tommy, first of all, I can guarantee you and I can guarantee Jay Flemma or anyone else who's involved that I never want to hear about and certainly never want to get imbroiled in any of these kinds of personal disputes amongst you guys. I don't know them and I don't want to know them or hear about them.

If, on the other hand, it is you, Tommy, or any of you with a TRUE interest in the subject of a club or course like Merion want to know the real story of it then just get in touch with me the right way and I will make it happen and you will know.

If you can convince me of your real interest I will introduce you to the president, professional, superintendent, green chairman, golf chairman, Walker Cup chairman, some of the hundred or so members I know and basically have for years, and then you will have that opportunity that I'm sure you're interested in. But that's what it takes, in my opinon, nothing more and nothing less.

You know I made it happen before and I will again, if possible, but not if I have to put up with the crap I read on here sometimes about some of these clubs and some of your opinions of the people in them and things that happen with them which I know so much better than you do is not true.

[Tom Naccarato]

I can guarantee you and I can guarantee Jay Flemma or anyone else who's involved that I never want to hear about and certainly never want to get embroiled in any of these kinds of personal disputes amongst you guys. I don't know them and I don't want to know them or hear about them.

Tom,
You have got to be kidding me! Please! Shall we bring up how you once went into my IM box and read and copied every message and then started posting it all on here on GCA? I still to this day get a kick out of that!

I think you have accomplished everything you claim you didn't want to happen. Congratulations, you've managed to turn this into a Merion discussion. The only thing missing is David Moriarty, Wayne Morrison and Tom MacWood.

As far as the Merion Golf Club and its members, for me AND THEM, it was water under the bridge a long, long time ago. Its you that didn't let it go. It's you that is bringing it up when it was a dead issue many years ago. Open up the Merion history book and see some of the photos. I helped out the club in anyway I could, working with DeVitas design, who designed and published the book. So there goes that theory of me being a bad guy in the club's eyes, or at least some of the members and employees.

Do I need to scan my note from the club pro and a very prominent member (who I'll spare giving his name, to protect his anonymity) who graciously thanked me for my help? (Does this sound like bad blood to you?) I've had nothing to say negative about Merion in over seven to eight years, nor participated in those recent threads of the last two years which brought this website to its knees. You forget the only reason why I did was because of my love of their great club and courses. You don't mention anything about that now do you? You chose to only focus on the negative.

Also, you forget that back in those days, I had a member encouraging me to post the things I did. You yourself agreed with much I had to say/all that many had to say in the somewhat negative light that had shined on Merion. Do I need to bring up all of the emails you would send to myself and others telling us that we were correct in our assumptions, yet you would have the correspondence between you and the Merion green chairman, showing us how you were playing both sides of the argument? (a true fact) I still have those emails if you ever would like to see them. Yet, your bringing up stuff that happened over 8 years ago and I'm stupid enough to still try to defend it! I will admit that I was less then supportive, but you fail to blame others who helped in that cause. Why is that? Both sides were right and both sides were wrong. END OF STORY, LET IT GO! Yet, you still bring it up; hanging on to every little detail as you see it. Go ask the club historian if I have been less then attentive in helping them with certain things the club needed or was trying to acquire.

I know the tact I took was wrong in many ways, it was inappropriate. I said some things that were out of line and I directly and indirectly apologized to those I may have upset. I was told that my apologies would be conveyed. They did the same. But also, there were things I have been told that were correct. I was even told of a story of a wall collapsing and that they feared I would find out and it would be on GCA. We both laughed. So much for the war!

Tom, I tried earlier in the weekend to make amends with Jay, and he refused. It's his deal now. But if he should write something that is speculative; should he write that a certain Biarritz green influenced by NGLA's Biarritz, then I'm going to make sure Jay knows that there is no Biarritz at NGLA. (an example, but one that isn't too far off) Why? Because it is discussion.

If Jay doesn't like people disagreeing with him, then he should stop the phone politicking. Quit the form letter writing campaign, which both threatens and asks that the receiver please not participate on his threads. (I know of two of these letters that exist) He should use that time to doing something more valuable--like doing some research to get it right the first time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

[Rich Goodale]

Bravo, Jim.

[Ted Kramer]

I'd rather read 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 of JK's most outlandish, strange, and possibly obnoxious posts than this crap . . .

Guys, please.

I've played Leatherstocking a bunch of times. I love the course. Why can't we just discuss things in a more friendly manner? I can question anyone about anything more kindly than many on this site seem to able to do. Maybe I just don't get it . . .

-Ted

[George_Bahto]

THAT'S IT - IM OUTTA HERE

[Mike_Cirba]

Seeing if we can't keep this to the topic at hand, evidently Dev Emmett created a golf course architectural/construction firm in 1919.

Might these be the unnamed "others" who designed Leatherstocking with him at that time?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
You have got to be kidding me! Please! Shall we bring up how you once went into my IM box and read and copied every message and then started posting it all on here on GCA? I still to this day get a kick out of that!"


Tommy:

I didn't post anything from your IM box on here. All I did was copy what you and MacWood wrote to each other about me and then sent it by email to you and Tom MacWood, nothing more. But I still have it in a folder somewhere if you think I should post it on here. Personally, I wouldn't recommend that though. Interesting stuff between the two of you, or, what are friends like me for anyway if not to trash behind my back? 

And maybe you might want to mention how in the world I ever could've logged onto GOLFCLUBATLAS.com under your name anyway and for what purpose.   


By the way, Leatherstocking seems like a very cool course. Do you want to teach me all you know about it or should I find out from Jay Flemma or someone else? Maybe I can find out from GeorgeB even if he just screamed he's OUTTA HERE! No matter, I know where my buddy Uncle George lives or where to find him. Now he may not want to speak to me about this because there's very little question I don't really know what the Hell is going on with this thread and I sure hope I can continue to care less.

I've already posted my basic warning which, if you missed it, is, please try not to let this turn into another Merion thread type of thing.

[JNC Lyon]

This is embarrassing to see from anyone, especially from two of the most knowledgeable people on this site.  I figured you both would be here to discuss golf course architecture rather than settle personal differences. 

 I'm posting on this thread because I played and loved Leatherstocking this fall.  I want learn about the course's origins and discuss the various influences of the existing architecture. 

One of the smartest and most passionate posters on this website just stopped posting on the thread because you two couldn't stop arguing about mindless and unimportant issues.  Mike Mosely started this thread because he wanted to promote an article by one of our own posters about GCA and to discuss a great golf course.  Certainly the thread wasn't meant to be a place for hooligans to pursue personal vendettas.  Leave the soap opera BS at home.

Mike Cirba:  It's quite possible, sort of like Walter Hatch or JB McGovern?  Would he have built other courses with help of such associates?  Was he solely responsible for the original nine, or were there others involved.

[TEPaul]

Hey, Uncle George, where the Hell are you man, cuz I'M OUTTA HERE TOO!? I want to hang with you for a while. Why don't you and me get outta these leather stockings and put on some good old fashioned cotton socks and go get a drink or three somewhere?! Mike Mosely, where the Hell have you gotten yourself to? Get in here with George and me and I'll buy you one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()