Phillip,
You begin your rant at me above by quoting a comment I made to Jim
before you had realized you had completely ignored my post and
misunderstood how CBM and others understood the hole, and at the time of my post you were making some pretty bizarre claims about the originality of Tillie's ideas on the Cape (that Tillie had come up with the par 4 cape) and were being pretty stubborn about it. You should read my comments to Jim in that context. And it that context, you were crediting Tillie with far more than he actually did. You've since corrected that, but at the time my comments were appropriate.
Of WHAT are they REPRESENTATIVE of? Each article in the series leading up to the "Cape Hole" mentions the specific hole in the UK that it was based upon.
This is just plain silly. They were representative of American Golf Holes. Are you kidding me here?
Everything I have ever read about the Cape Hole, from 1906 on, indicates that it was an ORIGINAL CONCEPT. I recall no mention of a hole at Westward Ho, and suspect it had nothing to do with the hole (or name) at NGLA.
You stated, "So far as I know, the Cape at NGLA was considered an original." The problem with that is that you are stating as fact something based ONLY upon your knowledge. That I would state that "As far as I know all the holes at NGLA were based upon the great holes from the UK" has just as good a standing as a supposition as does yours. In fact, it may have even more so since it is based upon CBM's OWN WORDS recorded in his 1911 "National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald" wherein he writes to the members of the club on p. 12 par. 1, "Dear Sirs, Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually could be favorably compared with the championship links abroad..."
Come on Phillip. "As far as I know" includes multiple accounts of the formation of NGLA incluiding multiple firsthand accounts by CBM and HJW, and accounts but some of the leading writers of the time on both sides of the ocean including Darwin and Hutchinson. In every account that addressed it, the Cape is described as being a wholly original concept and not based on any other hole. So it is not as if I am making it up. Given that you have no conflicting information, I think your point is pointless.
"Designed after... the championship links abroad..." So why wouldn't someone believe that the "Cape" hole was therefore "designed after" the Cape hole at Westward Ho in North Devon?
Because virtually every time the hole comes up there is a discussion about how the hole concept was original to Macdonald, and not based upon any other hole.
"Whigham seemed to have a good familiarity with just about every course on every continent, but an especially in-depth knowledge of the courses in Great Britain, so I find it unlikely if he wouldn't have been familiar with Westward Ho, yet Whigham thought Macdonald's Cape at NGLA to be original." I, too, believe it to be an original and EVEN STATED SUCH, in how it took the concept of the hole and created something new and exciting out of it.
"Yet Phillip would rather assume that Tillie must have seen a cape hole elsewhere and before he saw or read of NGLA, and that this must have been his influence and it could not have been what was at the time the most famous hole in America..." Once again you twist my words. I have a strong disagreement with Tom Mac as to whether or not CBM was a MAJOR INFLUENCE in forming Tilly's design philosophy.
It was TOM who stated, "The Cape concept comes from a hole at Royal North Devon. To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho! so presumably his version of the hole was based upon his exposure Macdonald's concept." It was THAT statement of fact based upon his LIMITED "To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho" that I took exception to. Once again both you & Tom claim as fact things that are simply based upon your "knowledge" yet if someone else makes a similar statement they are by definition attacking the truth and doing it because of their "vested interests." Absurd!
Tom had recanted his statement before you went off on Tillie perhaps seeing the hole at North Devon. It is not my fault that you did not read his post. I cannot read your mind and know what you bother to read and didn't, and it makes little sense for you to scold me about an understanding that I gained from your innaccurate comments based upon your failure to read what came before.
Yet after all that you don't have even the courage of your convictions to stand upon when you state, "I don't doubt that a similar strategy might have existed somewhere, but no one ever pointed it out if it did."
Sorry David, but you lose credibility in your criticism of me when I state that the concept might have been copied from elsewhere because it hadn't been done before according to Whigham and then state that you actually BELIEVE that it "EXISTED SOMEWHERE" already without a "DOUBT"! The height of hypocrisy!
Frankly, Phillip, it is statements like these that make me wonder if sometimes you don't become a bit too emotional in these discussions, especially about all things Tillie.
I wrote that I "did not doubt" that a hole with similar concepts "MIGHT have existed somewhere," but that "no one ever pointed it out IF it did. This was my polite way of saying that your theory is
all wet. There is no evidence of any such hole much less evidence that it was the basis for CBM's cape or any other such Cape. That is why I used words like
MIGHT exist and
IF it exists. I can think of no way to make a positive any less negative than by intentionally using the double negative "I don't doubt that the something similar might exist somewhere." After all I am not familiar with every hole ever in existence so I can't rlghtly claim no such hole ever existed, can I? But I do make clear that if any such hole ever existed nothing was ever mentioned of it BY ANYONE.
Yet incredibly you claim I wrote that the hole existed
"without a 'DOUBT'"?? AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL ME A HYPOCRITE FOR SUPPOSEDLY WRITING WORDS I NEVER WROTE, WORDS THAT YOU HAVE TO TWIST BEYOND RECOGNITION TO FIT THEM IN MY MOUTH??
Really Phillip, it is too much. You are behaving like TEPaul. I understood why you might have been offended by my comment above about you having a proprietary interest in Tillie (even if, frankly, it is quite obvious to all of us who regularly read your posts) but this last bit is only cementing that impression.
The Facts Are:
- According to all accounts of which I am aware (that is to say all the accounts of which anyone is aware, except perhaps George, Tom, Jim Urbina few others are aware here) the CAPE CONCEPT WAS A CBM ORIGINAL CONCEPT AND WAS NOT BASED ON ANY HOLE ABROAD.
- CBM'S Cape concept for NGLA predated any other cape concept in America.
- CBM's Cape concept for NGLA was widely publicized from 1906 on, and may have been THE MOST FAMOUS HOLE IN AMERICA AT THE TIME.
- It is impossible to imagine that any of those who came after were unfamiliar with CBM's cape hole, at least in name, reputation, and description.
- The notion that any of those who came after somehow had somehow had their own independent epiphanies regarding the matter is beyond the bounds of reasonableness, as is the notion that they discovered an unmentioned hole somewhere that shaped their ideas before they became aware of CBM's hole.
So the notion that these holes might have suddenly and spontaneously sprouted up of independent lineage and entomology is downright absurd.
Take TEPaul's absurd suggestion above that Wilson's cape hole Merion's was entirely unrelated to NGLA's. It is not as if Wilson was unfamiliar with the concept at NGLA long before he designed the new hole at Merion!
(As an aside, both TEPaul and Wayne have in the past suggested that the 10th was Flynn's design. Every source I have seen describes it a a hole by Wilson, and they have never produced a thing publicy that says differently, except of course for Wayne's absurd theory that if Flynn ever drafted a plan then he must have been the designer. )
________________________________
While I am being frank, I am a bit surprised by your lack of understanding of CBM's and others approach to the Cape hole. It is one thing to be an expert on Tillie, but quite another understand Tillie in the context of the times. It can't be all Tillie all the time or your view will necessarily be skewed, as it was with the Cape hole.