[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

Rationalize your way out of it any way you can; you're very good at that. Piping Rock's biarritz and some "hogs-back" feature and effect on it was the point and that's what the point of my trying to explain it at various points in time and getting that photo of it posted was about. There isn't one on it and there never has been, and you should just admit it and forget about it. You said I was incorrect about that for some reason when you've probably never even seen it and you had no idea about it. Why was that?  

[George_Bahto]

Pat said: “The 3rd hole, the Redan and the 13th hole, the Biarritz (at The Knoll) both have noticeable spines or contours within the putting surfaces.

I fell in love with both holes the first time I played them.

The Redan (3rd) always bothered me because, although it has an excellent “kick-in” shoulder, a proper angle of play, proper length, and has that interesting spine running through it, etc., the front Redan bunker was only about “eye-high” deep - simple shot for a decent player.

When I restored the hole there was about 7-foot of sand had been added into the bunker, probably back when Mr. Aiello owned the course in the 50's and 60's. Well of course we took it down to the original depth and even had to put a slight grass shelf in the front right section so you could at least get out of it without killing yourself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

7 feet of sand ?

That's a lot of refills.

Was excessive sand the rule at The Knoll or was the 3rd hole an aberration ?

The 13th was always a special challenge, from the tee, on recoveries and putting.
It was a hole you recalled in terms of its uniqueness and challenge.
It was one of the first Biarritzes I ever played.
I think # 2 at ECW might have been the first

The Knoll has great putting surfaces and is one of the most underrated courses I've ever played.

Many years ago we were trying to swap courses but the daughters opted to sell to Bloomfield College.
Why Bloomfield College wanted the property is beyond me.  It proved disastrous for the College and the Membership.
The daughters also rejected numerous bids from seperate factions within the membership.

What did Bloomfield College pay for the course/property ?

What did Parsippany pay Bloomfield College for the course/property ?

What was the impetus to build another 18 holes (east) in 1961 ?
The cost to build and maintain would take decades to recapture, and that may have been an impossibility.

http://www.golfobserver.com/features/Flemma/FlemmaKnoll1_030108.php

[George_Bahto]

George,

7 feet of sand ?

Was excessive sand the rule at The Knoll or was the 3rd hole an aberration ?

That was an aberration - one of the problems is that when it is that deep, you do not enter the back of the bunker at ground level but have to actually climb down into it .... it was hard and very deep. Some of the members went nuts when I took it back to the original depth. One guy was trying to sue the town because he fell off the face and down into the bunker

There were a few more bunkers that were filled a bit but no to that extent, notably #2 that huge left greenside. It was filled in about 2-3 feet, as was thee right side bunker on the Biarritz.



The Knoll has great putting surfaces and is one of the most underrated courses I've ever played.

Many years ago we were trying to swap courses but the daughters opted to sell to Bloomfield College.
Why Bloomfield College wanted the property is beyond me. It proved disastrous for the College and the Membership.
The daughters also rejected numerous bids from separate factions within the membership.

What did Bloomfield College pay for the course/property ? 

I don’t remember the exact number but 3.5 mil comes to mind.

What did Parsippany pay Bloomfield College for the course/property ?
I think the Town paid 2.5 to 3.5 Mil that was matched by the State of NJ under the State Greenacres program.

What was the impetus to build another 18 holes (east) in 1961 ? No they wanted to expand their college campus which would have been a traffic nightmare - the town rebelled and ended up buying the course.

The lower course was suggested by Gen Sarazen as an adjunct to make some extra money and support the upper course

some of the many celebrities who frequented the Knoll in her hey-day were; Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, Sarazen (a regular), Yankees, Joe DiMaggio, Whitey Ford and most of the team, Dodger team members - Pee Wee Reese, Babe Herman, Rube Walker; Jackie Gleason, Perry Como, Frank Dailey, owner of the great nightclub in Cedar Grove - The Meadowbrook - brought band leaders up there very often. Many pros often played there as well ....................  As did Pat Mucci Jr and Sr

[Lester George]

I wasn't asking because I knew the answer, but I believe Tom Paul has got it.  And yes, they did play Sneads tournament there as well. 

Lester

[TEPaul]

George:

You might want to think about adjusting downward that remark that 7 feet of sand was removed from that bunker. If that was the case it seems like one could've basically putted the ball out of it. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
Did Macdonald have any input in Hawaii? That course is a RayBanks.   

[Lester George]

Jim,

I would not know.  It seems he was less interested in travel later in life so it would make sense.  Maybe check Bahto's timeline for a clue on that?

LG

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
I thought it was a trick question. 

[TEPaul]

Lester:

It seems CBM was not just less interested in travel later in life, it seems pretty obvious he had become a whole lot less interested in most everything (at least to do with golf and architecture ) and most everybody who was part of it. The reasons for that seem to be becoming a lot better know these days----and better yet, it is becoming quite documentable, as a lot of material pertinent to that and not seen in many many decades keeps coming out of the woodwork, so to speak!

[Lester George]

Tom,

Please elaborate.  Or call me at the office to discuss (I need to talk about some other things as well).

Lester

[TEPaul]

Lester:

I've found it's probably better not to elaborate on this DG about certain things to do with CBM's life and times, particularly things to do with other than just his golf architecture as some on here seem to get pretty defensive about it and tend to accuse me of constantly trying to bash the man or whatever. I guess they feel his "legend" should be protected at all costs. It's sort of ironic too as they're the same people who've accused some of us of trying to protect the "legends" of the likes of Hugh Wilson or Flynn or Leeds or whomever at all costs.

I'll call you about it.

[George_Bahto]

For a minute, going back to the question about Lido's Biarritz:

During stormy high tides the waves actually undercut the green - that was the main reason it was moved.

[TEPaul]

Georgie Boy:

You're right, that always has been the story with that remarkable Lido 8th biarritz green.

On that note, would you care to comment on the likelihood of Charlie actually sort of "Jumping the Shark" as that thread by Moriarty  some years ago suggested, and/or the fact that at The Lido CBM sure did try to Fuck with Mother Nature when he sure as shootin' shoulda known better, particularly seeing as it's pretty hard to miss the fact the Atlantic Ocean was within not that many feet of that particular green? 

[TEPaul]

George:

I have an interesting question for you, and I ask you, and not the others on here because I figure you have to arguably have the greatest knowledge of all things to do with CBM/Raynor than certainly anyone else on here.

So the question is---how many courses did CBM actually get involved in designing and constructing holes right on or right next to the water? By that I mean water that obviously has tides and such.

I figure the obvious answers are NGLA's #14, The Lido's 8th and of course some of those lower holes at The Creek.

I realize Mid Ocean's Cape hole's fairway is close to the water (even though the fairway does slope up and away from it significantly) but the green seems pretty high above it.

I ask this because it seems like those aforementioned holes sure did have some real inherent and on-going problems being as close to the water as they were. Do you think by Mid Ocean CBM had learned his lesson the hard way enough and that might be the actual reason some say he did not put enough holes at Mid Ocean close enough to the water?

[DMoriarty]

Lester:

It seems CBM was not just less interested in travel later in life, it seems pretty obvious he had become a whole lot less interested in most everything (at least to do with golf and architecture ) and most everybody who was part of it. The reasons for that seem to be becoming a lot better know these days----and better yet, it is becoming quite documentable, as a lot of material pertinent to that and not seen in many many decades keeps coming out of the woodwork, so to speak!

Just what this site needs, even more petty, unsupported rumor mongering aimed at tearing down the reputation and memory CBM.  CBM was an amateur architect, not a professional, and as an amateur architect his output and contribution was incredible, starting with the dawn of real golf in America and spanning over three decades thereafter.  He was still involved in designing courses as he approached 70 years old, and his seminal book on golf and golf design in America was published when  he was 73.  Notably, in that book he wrote that he was  satisfied that his mission had been accomplished.

Yet for years we have been told about this bitter, petty, egomaniac who turned his back on the game.   Yet as is almost always the case with TEPaul and his cronies, no support has been offered. Was CBM hard for some to get along with?  No doubt.  But he is not alone among great men in that.  Was he opinionated?  Of course, but doing what he did would have been impossible without strong opinions and the willingness to express them.  But beyond this I has seen nothing to justify the constant stream of crap that gets thrown out around here.   

It  is long past time for gca.com's snarky barnyard hens to quit clucking.   TEPaul, Wayne, whoever, should put up or shut up.  Make a case based on verifiable evidence or quit maligning the guy.   He deserves better than to be constantly torn down by a couple of juveniles who think that pissing on CBM's grave is just about the funniest story (if it is a story) they ever came up with.  And by making a case I don't mean droning on about what Great Auntie Miffy thinks she overheard through her petticoat after the 1939 Bleaublood Hollow Cattilion, when Charleston Buffington Wentworth, IV,  was speaking to Jack the Stableboy (who incidentally had been with the family for seven decades and was President Taft's favorite caddy because he always carried three double decker turkey and bacon sandwiches in the bag for the President when played at the club, thus the name "Club sandwich.") 

Same goes for the asinine legends about how he had a lifesize statue built of himself, and the  newest bizarre and irrelevant twist about bit about how CBM just wasn't of the same social status of TEPaul's people, the men for whom he built courses.

----------------------------------------------------

George
So when they first shortened the hole, was it the green that was moved.
---------------------------------------------------
Lester,

Perhaps you and everyone else should ask yourselves why the snarky gossip is appropriate for the website but the proof must only be discussed via back channels?    My guess is that like so much of what TEPaul regales us with, it would disintegrate into dust were it exposed to the light of day.

[TEPaul]

Lester:

Catch post #190! See what I mean? It sure didn't take long, did it?

I'll call you on the phone about it. It seems like most of the best and most significant discussion and information on architecture and architects is sort of getting transfered and discussed off this DG these days and there's not much reason left to wonder why, don't  you know?!   


"Yet as is almost always the case with TEPaul and his cronies, no support has been offered."

For all---the support for it is contained in what have become known as "The Agronomy Letters," and they are available for those dedicated researchers who would like to peruse carefully through about 2,000+ of them for various references by the conversants and contemporaries and friends of CBM (who had worked with him over the years) about him. But perhaps the poster of #190 has not done the research and is not aware of it or perhaps he is aware of it and thinks it would be wiser to just withhold that information from a frank and honest scrutiny of it on here.

But again, Lester, I'll tell  you all about it on the phone because as I just said, and just predicted this morning, there seem to be a few on here who just freak out if any truth about CBM's life and times is discussed on here that they seem to think effects his "Legend" in some wrong way!   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
In GB's Evangelist of Golf it's listed as a Raynor/Banks, with Banks finishing the job. No mention of Macdonald at Waialae.

Looks like Sam Snead's Pro Am might be the only Mac/Raynor that had anything resembling an ongoing Tour presence.

[DMoriarty]

Lester:

Catch post #190! See what I mean? It sure didn't take long, did it?

I'll call you on the phone about it. It seems like most of the best and most significant discussion and information on architecture and architects is sort of getting transfered and discussed off this DG these days and there's not much reason left to wonder why, don't  you know?!  

Since when is pathetic and unsubstantiated gossip "significant discussion and information?" What significant discussion?  What information?

If you have verifiable information bring it forward to be discussed.  If not then keep the petty rumor mongering and character assassination to the knitting circles, back fences, and back channels.  You and Wayne are obviosly more comfortable  where your ideas won't be scrutinized. 

[TEPaul]

Lester:

Actually, one of the most interesting things of all about CBM and particularly about his rather comprehensive autobiography (published in 1928, and reputedly written in Bermuda in 1927) is the fact that he seems to not even mention so many of the courses and clubs that he was back then and is today reputedly said to have had something significant to do with.

One in particular, is mentioned but so slightly it surely makes one wonder about these things because there is absolutely no question whatsoever how much he had to do with not just its architecture but with the club itself!

[DMoriarty]

For all---the support for it is contained in what have become known as "The Agronomy Letters," . . . .

That is it??  Years of badmouthing CBM, claiming he became bitter and disenchanted with golf and golf design, and this is their basis?  

They've been referencing a few argonomy letters for years on this issue.  I've seen one of their supposedly supporting letters and they have taken it totally out of context and entirely misunderstood it.   They have repeated referenced another, but it too is apparently an empty shell-- CBM yelling at someone or something, or Piper asking Wilson if CBM yelled at him.   So what?   Maybe he yelled at Wilson for not getting the tilt of the Redan correctly.   Whatever the letter, it is no basis for portraying CBM as a bitter, self-centered ogre who turned his back on the game.  That cannot be their only support, can it?  Let's see the support so we can decide for ourselves.  We don't need TEPaul telling us what to believe about CBM, do we?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I know we have all heard these CBM character assassinations for so long that most now take them as an challengable chapter of golf history.  But ask yourselves, what do we really know, other than what TEPaul and his cronies repeatedly have claimed?  What actual proof is there that CBM turned his back on the game?   Isn't it about time these guys backed up their gossip with facts?

A few questions to help others consider how easily our views of these men has been influenced around here.
--  How may think that H.J. Whigham was pretty much just a lackey for CBM?   Or should I ask how many thought this until a couple of years ago when some of us made a concerted effort to set the facts straight.   From whom did you learn that Whigham was a lackey and bag carrier for CBM?   What was your factual basis for so believing?   How many wonder how and why that portrayal got started in the first place.  
-- How many here think that CBM commissioned a life-sized (larger than life?) statue of himself to place in the clubhouse at NGLA?    What is your factual basis for so believing?   How many wonder why Wayne and TEPaul think it so important to state and/or imply that CBM built a larger than life statue of himself to display at NGLA?   Where do you suppose they came up with that?
- How many here have heard  (on the threads or through back channels) that CBM was several rings down the social ladder from those for whom he designed courses (and for that matter, down from TEPaul, as well?)   How many have heard that he was an just an employee - trading on behalf of others - for the investment house that eventually became J.P. Morgan?    What is the factual basis for this stuff?  How many wonder why CBM's supposed social status and position of employment are significant to TEPaul?   What does it have to do with gca?
____________________________________________________

Maybe Ran needs to start a new Discussion group called GCA LITE especially for TEPaul:. The motto: All the snarky gossip and innuendo you want, but with none of the facts to weigh you down.

[JESII]

David,

What makes you think any number of people on here have been swayed by Tom's comments?

Do you think it's possible you're taking this all a bit more seriously than the vast majority on the board?

I don't want to minimize the value of this highly educated group because we can all learn a great deal, but we're not re-writing the Bible.

As you've said, it is a Discussion Group, not a Masters Class.

[DMoriarty]

Jim Sullivan,  

Fair questions, as usual.  

I wish that no one would be swayed by TEPaul's comments anymore, but in the past many have been swayed by him and Wayne and their ceaseless CBM bashing.  My views of CBM were certainly swayed by them initially, before I knew better, and even among those who should and/or do know better now, there is still plenty of redual impact left over from years past.   Plus we have new posters joining us all the time and many seem to be content to take TEPaul's word for this stuff rather than demand he back up his claims with verifiable facts.    There is surely nothing wrong with demanding facts, is there? Can you honestly tell me that your view, past or present, has never been influenced by the many tall tales told about CBM and Whigham?

Do I take this stuff more seriously than many?  Apparently so, but I still don't see a problem in demanding this gossip be backed up or dropped.  My impression is that there is more to this website than gossip and kissing ass-kissing for access.   While we may be in the minority, I think some of us are actually interested in coming to a more accurate and complete understanding of golf course architecture in America.  

The endless snarky gossip and rumor mongering has set that this cause back to the point that it is difficult to get people to consider what happened without being influenced by the false impression these guys have worked so hard to create.   And while we may not be a Master's class, we aren't a bunch of seventh grade girls gossiping around the lunch table either, are we?   This isn't gossip hour or story time, is it?   It is a DISCUSSION, and we can't really discuss much if those making all the claims refuse to back them up.  

What is wrong asking that we not gossip or trash anyone, living or dead, without offering up verifiable support?  If this website is no longer a place for  frank, honest, fact-based discussion of golf course design in America and its history,  then it isn't the place for me.   If we are just here to gossip about and badmouth the living and the dead, then I have nothing to contribute.
______________________________________________________

Lester Geroge,

I don't know of any  recurring professinal tournament other than the above mentioned one, but it may be worth noting that CBM did not built his courses for stroke competitions, but for match play.  So it makes some sense that they were were not embraced for professional tournaments.  

Also, maybe the pros were afraid of being embarrassed by his courses.  When Travis took to badmouthing NGLA he even claimed that if the US Open were ever held at NGLA then some of the top professionals would refuse to compete in the tourmament because it was too hard.   A very odd statement considering that NGLA was extremely popular with the amateurs, and NGLA's annual Founder's Day ournament (qualifying stroke play then flights of 16 for match play) was a huge success.

In fact, previous to the Master's, the NGLA's annual Founder's Day tournament may have been the most important annual club event in the U.S., and arguably one of the most important annual tournaments in held the East, even perhaps more important even than the Lesley Cup.  The fields were an incredible mix of the true captains of industry and many of the top amateur players including top Amateurs from abroad.   The field was so deep that one year four of the former National Champions competing in the event failed to qualify any higher than the sixth flight of sixteen golfers.

Also, through a complicated set of circumstances there was very nearly an extremely important professional tournament at NGLA.  Had the tournament taken place at NGLA it might have severely impacted the very development of golf in America.  But perhaps more on that later, in another thread.
______________________________________________
Lester,

You mentioned the renovation/restoration of the Biarritz at the White Course.  How close is the renovation to the original?  Do you know whether the first plateau and swale were originally greenspace?   I noticed that the hole was not very long now, and assume it lost length over the years.   Do you know how long it was originally?   How long is it now, after the changes?    Also, do you happen to know the original name of the hole, if it had one?  

Thanks

[JESII]

David,

I think it's somewhere in between, although closer to the Master Class than 7th grade...I just think it should be easier to accept that Wayne didn't really piss on CBM's grave and that they were just breaking your balls a little bit.

I think, in total, you underestimate our ability to weed through garbage and overestimate our interest in doing so.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think it's somewhere in between, although closer to the Master Class than 7th grade...I just think it should be easier to accept that Wayne didn't really piss on CBM's grave and that they were just breaking your balls a little bit.

 I didn't even know about the pissing on the grave story until much later, so I doubt it was aimed at breaking my balls.  And at this point I don't know whether any of us who weren't there know if he actually pissed on CBM's grave or not.  But even if all they did was make up and spread the story about how Wayne pissed on this guys grave, I find it disturbing.  At the very least it informs us as to their (or at least Wayne's) veiwpoint on these issues.  More importantly, whether or not Wayne pissed on any or all of CBM's, Whighams, or SR's graves, it is a perfect metaphor of what these guys have been doing around here for years.   

For years Wayne and TEPaul have pulled out all the stops to tarnish CBM's reputation, making crap up about his personal life, implying he was a drunk and a misogynist, discounting his writing and work hyperbole and puffery, making up absurd stories about him building statues of himself to prove how arrogant he was.  Portraying him as a beligerent asshole who turned his back on the game, as only interested in self-promotion, as too egotistical and self-centered to ever help anyone with anything. They have even exaggerated the supposed failings of his work.  And as you know because you have been around for a while, this is just touching the surface. 

As I said, I used to buy into some of it, but as I have learned more, I have found that almost all of it is pure fabrication.  And so far as I am concerned spreading false rumors aimed at destroying a dead person's reputation is just as bad and quite possibly worse that pissing on his grave.   Suppose Wayne had simply pissed on CBM's grave but he and TEPaul had refrained from all the other garbage.  Wayne would be a jerk for having done so, but CBM's reputation would remain intact. 

Is any of it true?  If so, then let's see the facts.  As it is, these guys have un done real damage to his reputation and the reputations of Whigham and SR and unjustly so.  This is especially so among those who care about this stuff the most.   And that to me is dispicable, especially given that it was all aparently done just to make a bit bigger spot at the table for William Flynn and friends.

I think, in total, you underestimate our ability to weed through garbage and overestimate our interest in doing so.

I disagree about the former but agree with the later.   I think most of you are able to weed through the garbage yourselves, but I don't think many will bother, either because you aren't interested in doing so, or because you don't have the time, or even because you have seen what happens when people take on TEPaul and Wayne.  While this occassionally annoys and disappoints me, I certainly understand it, and cannot say I blame anyone.   

What I don't understand is frustration when some of us try to put a stop to it and when we demand that these guys back up their claims or stop with the gossip.  Sure it is ugly and uncomfortable, but think about where the state of our knowledge about gca would be if we let TEPaul and Wayne dictate the history of golf course design in America to us, as is their wont.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()