North Shore CC Long Island: Tillie - Raynor

[George_Bahto]

Mark - that date of 23-24 is obviously wrong ..... now we have the correct dates.

When I first saw the course, my impression was that the front nine used portions of someone elses course but the back nine had much more Raynor feel to it.

Did you see the old green in the middle of the 4th fairway?   There is also an old green to the right of the long par-3 (Biarritz) but it is before the ravine - way off to the right.

Rand Jerris also noted that a tee or two on the front nine seemed to be pointing a bit off line, possibley indicating an old green somewhere along that line of play.

the back to back top par 3's and 5's is a dead givreaway Raynor used some of the old holes. He never did that thant I can think of on his own routing

[George_Bahto]

I can't believe this is going 8 pages

[TEPaul]

"I can't believe this is going 8 pages"


Georgie Porgie Puddin' Pie:


Believe it. This kind of thing is virtually inevitable on this website on threads Tom MacWood participates in as he unceasingly questions the accuracy of everyone else's research (including yours) no matter how well they explain themselves. He constantly questions everyone else's research except his own. Apparently the man just LIVES to prove someone---anyone---wrong about something! In the process he seems to glide off on some of the most fanciful speculative tangents imaginable as well as some bizarre and totally illogical analogies------all I suppose in the hopes of making some irrelevent point that someone at some juncture was architecturally minimized or thrown under some unrespectful bus.  

On North Shore it is clearly Robert White he is out to defend to the death even though recently he has also latched onto Charlie Macd too as someone he suspects this club and these researchers on here are not treating fairly even if Steve Shaeffer has uncovered the records whereby the club mentioned C.B. prominently in this span in the teens with this course's particular era.

And I just love Jeff Brauer's hilarious 'Down boy, down boy' analogy that this guy is like some fixated little terrier dog who just won't let go of the bone in a constant tug-of-war, and I like Cirba's remark even better that even that's fine on here so long as he doesn't start humping somebody's leg.

Frankly, Georgie, if MacWood's querying little cohort Moriarty was still on this website this thread would probably have been gaining fast on sixteen pages at this point; and of course if Patrick was around rather than chasing some young skirts around fancy swimming pools in Southeast Florida it would probably have hit thirty pages by now with at least a third of them being in some shocking green print.

[Mike Cirba]

I can't believe this is going 8 pages

George,

This thread is a piker!    

Seriously, I think this is a good thread, and helps exempllify and clarify some of the overlapping responsibilities and roles of the early practitioners.

I think over the past few years you've been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time getting a very real life education in the fact that even today most of these projects happen through the efforts of many people.

[TEPaul]

Georgie:

It's quite likely MacWood's new mission might be to claim you've been minimized and thrown under the historical bus with your involvement in the Old Macdonald project. You might try telling him all the specific facts of your contribution to that course as best as you can remember them but I'm pretty sure even that would not suffice and I'm pretty sure he would constantly question the accuracy of your account, page after page on here and probably eventually accuse even you of minimizing the involvement of and throwing under the bus one Georgie Bahto on the Old Macdonald project!

By the way, will C.B. get any co-design attribution for his personal involvement with the Old Macdonald project?

[Mark Hissey]

Mark - that date of 23-24 is obviously wrong ..... now we have the correct dates.

When I first saw the course, my impression was that the front nine used portions of someone elses course but the back nine had much more Raynor feel to it.

Did you see the old green in the middle of the 4th fairway?   There is also an old green to the right of the long par-3 (Biarritz) but it is before the ravine - way off to the right.

Rand Jerris also noted that a tee or two on the front nine seemed to be pointing a bit off line, possibley indicating an old green somewhere along that line of play.

the back to back top par 3's and 5's is a dead givreaway Raynor used some of the old holes. He never did that thant I can think of on his own routing

Dear George:

Your impression is clearly right on the money in my mind, particularly given the fact we now know that the woods to the east end had not even been cleared until 1914.

As for a thorough examination of the course, well that hasn't happened yet. The weather has been horrific on the last couple of instances I was on the course but I intend to fix that next week. i will certainly look for what you have recommended.

[George_Bahto]

Mark - let me look at my notes - I may have more there for you to investigate .........................   very interesting and thanks for what you are doing   

I love the green in 4-fairway - used to laugh every time I went by it

the story is finally coming together 

I want to think about which holes / greens were left from the Dev course

regards


TommyP - actually Mike was at one point thinking about crediting CBM with the Old Macdonald course

Mike C: yes, a good thread - I was only kidding  -   look what it has uncovered - great stuff and perhaps we come up with one gem of a course when all is said and done - that would be the culmination of it all

[Tom_Doak]

Nine pages now.

Mark/George, I don't think you should assume that 9 & 10 were not both Raynor holes.  Even though he never built back to back 3's anywhere else, the property lines at North Shore combined with the clubhouse location pretty much insist on this routing.  I've tried for a month to figure out a better way and came up with nothing.

But, I would not be surprised at all if someone found that #10 (with Tom MacWood's picture) and #11 were already there, and Raynor just turned #10 into an Eden hole by changing the bunkering.

[Tom MacWood]

One could certainly speculate or interpret the fact that he never mentioned Merion or Shinnecock or East Lake in his book should not be construed as an indication he was not involved with them to some extent; however, it seems it would be more prudent since he never mentioned them in his book that he did not consider that he had as much to do with them as some on here, such as yourself, have been constantly trying to imply he did.

It is a fact he was involved with those courses I listed, it is your speculation why he did not mention them in his book, and your speculation that CBM was not significantly involved with the "Raynor" courses prior to 1917, and your speculation as to why 1917 is not important. You often have difficulty separating fact from speculation.  

Obviously CBM felt 1917 was a significant date for he and Raynor, after all he mentions it twice in the one brief paragraph dealing with their partnership. The question is why did he feel it was a significant date. Care to speculate?

[George_Bahto]

Tom Doak:

I have no problem with #10 the Eden - it couldn’t have been placed better and fir the mold perfectly - a nice iron across the ravine.

The Redan:

The original tee, as far as I could tell was at 45 degree to the line of play - I think it shows on that oldest aerial I sent. Now, the 45 put the tee along the fence line, not the more straight-in shot as it plays now.

Also, that left bunker, I believe was all the down to the natural grade, not part way up as it is today. That would make it one of the deepest Redan bunkers I have seen.

Given that depth of bunker, the angle of play from the fence line, and the narrowness of the green, the darn hole would have been not playable.

I can handle most of it Tom and Mark but the narrowness of the green is terrible (compared to the norm).

Who built it?  I don’t know

I hit a lot of ball to that green from that angle - it is a beast of a tee-ball from there...... itz 45 feet wide!

If you look at the 1924 aerial there is an open spot just to the left of 8-green that has grown in over the years and it looks as if that was the intended tee.

[Phil_the_Author]

Several times throughout this thread it has been mentioned that Robert White had recently acted as an architect for a major renovation at Ravisloe and the he shared this credit with William Watson. From the December 1910 issue of the American Golfer magazine p. 147-8:

"Ravisloe Country Club's course at Homewood, Ill., has been remodelled under the direction of Mr. William Watson and great things are expected of the links next season..." It goes on to identify the lengthening of the course on a hole-by-hole basis. There is not a single mention of Robert White.

Earlier in this thread I quoted White directly where he stated that the greens had not been touched since the year after the course had opened (1902) with no mention of any work to lengthen the course during any of that time.

This is NOT a knock on White or his abilities. I only post this because White has been portrayed as an established architect before he arrived at North Shore rather than as the Professional/Greenkeeper that he referred to himself as. It is this portrayal that has been used numerous times as secondary proof that he MUST have been at least part of the designing team if not the major force behind it.

White would go on to become a major force as a professional and a well-known golf course architect. He just wasn't that when he arrived at North Shore. For whatever reason, it appears that whatever White did during the Ravisloe renovation must not have been in as major a role as has been portrayed...

[Tom_Doak]

George:

Well, based on your analysis in your last post, you're going to hate the Redan at Old Macdonald when you finally see it.

But of course it wasn't built by Seth Raynor.

[George_Bahto]

Tom - I saw it - actually played it with you

........................   but you have absolute good ligit reason for your angle of play

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Go back to the first page of this thread and you'll see Aleck Bauer crediting Watson & White.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I think you are reading way more into that account than what Bauer wrote. I am assuming that it is the account where he states, "It has been by virtue of this, that for the past three years I have enjoyed the privilege of directing the reconstruction of our course (Ravisloe). In this work I had the assistance of Mr. Robert White, and the able advice of Mr. William Watson, the expert, whose experience served as an invaluable aid."

There is absolutely NOTHING in that statement that leads one to surmise that White was the architect and designer of the changes. It states that the man "directing the reconstruction" was aided in this by White. This obviously is refering to the construction based upon the "advice " of the "EXPERT" Mr. William Watson. There is absolutely no way that Bauer considered Watson & White equals and collaborators in the design based upon that statement.

In fact, his calling Watson the "expert" who gave "advice" actually corroborates the American Golfer article I quoted in which it states that Ravisloe "has been remodelled under the direction of Mr. William Watson" with no mention of White.

Actually, it is easier to read that statement as meaning that Bauer designed the course with advice from Watson than it is to conclude in any way that White was beingd escribed as an architect of or collaborator on the design for the project.

Bauer clearly oversaw the project and directed White in the day-to-day aspects of the construction while Watson was the designer and "expert" who was consulted for details and to overcome problems. That really is the only way to interpret that statement.

[Mark Hissey]

Well I finally have some news for which I have been waiting for a number of weeks now. Next Tuesday I will be examining the in-house records of the Harmonie Club. If Raynors routing still exists then I am sure it is there at their clubhouse on East 60th street. I do know that it was displayed there at the club when North Shore was being built.

George, thank you for your advice and help on this. It is very sincerely appreciated.

[Tom MacWood]

TEPaul:

I think your last statement there is spot on. That is exactly how we are looking at things.

A few more points to add:

It has been mentioned at various points that two, three and five holes from the Emmet course remain. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I have also seen it mentioned that it may have been both a nine hole track (hence the need for an immediate reconstruction of a 2-3 year old course) and an eighteen hole track. I think that eighteen holes would have been impossible on the abbreviated property even if it was only 5000 yards long. But more importantly, on December 23rd, 1914 the head of the Greens Committee, J. Clarence Davies reports that the woods on the easterly side of the property will probably be used for the new golf course. The fact thta there are back-to-back par 3's and par 5's may indicate that two of these four holes are part of Emmet's routing.

Given that Emmet's routing was one for a very short course at best, and probably for a 9-holer, and given that between 2-5 holes remain, I don't think it is accurate to say that this was not an original Raynor design. In my mind it was. He barely used any of Emmet's work if at all.

Mark
I know you have your heart set on a Raynor course, but you've got to get your facts right. It was reported five holes of the original course were incorporated into North Shore. And its difficult to say what parts of other holes were also used, for example greens, fairway corridors or tees. To say North Shore should be considered an original Raynor design is ridiculous. It was a redesign, perhaps a major redesign, but redesign none the less. The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards, and it was 18 holes, not 9.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I think you are reading way more into that account than what Bauer wrote. I am assuming that it is the account where he states, "It has been by virtue of this, that for the past three years I have enjoyed the privilege of directing the reconstruction of our course (Ravisloe). In this work I had the assistance of Mr. Robert White, and the able advice of Mr. William Watson, the expert, whose experience served as an invaluable aid."

There is absolutely NOTHING in that statement that leads one to surmise that White was the architect and designer of the changes. It states that the man "directing the reconstruction" was aided in this by White. This obviously is refering to the construction based upon the "advice " of the "EXPERT" Mr. William Watson. There is absolutely no way that Bauer considered Watson & White equals and collaborators in the design based upon that statement.

In fact, his calling Watson the "expert" who gave "advice" actually corroborates the American Golfer article I quoted in which it states that Ravisloe "has been remodelled under the direction of Mr. William Watson" with no mention of White.

Actually, it is easier to read that statement as meaning that Bauer designed the course with advice from Watson than it is to conclude in any way that White was beingd escribed as an architect of or collaborator on the design for the project.

Bauer clearly oversaw the project and directed White in the day-to-day aspects of the construction while Watson was the designer and "expert" who was consulted for details and to overcome problems. That really is the only way to interpret that statement.

I fear engaging you further will throw a good thread way off the track, but I'll ask you anyway since you made the statement. What exactly have I said about White's role at Ravisloe, and what about what I've said reads too much into Bauer's comments? Could you please point to a specific post I made?

[Tom MacWood]

In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

   You have presented as someone who was an architect hired by North Shore to serve in that capacity and also as a greenkeeper/professional.
   I maintain that the opposite is true. That he was hired as greenkeeper/professional and that he was used by the club during the construction of the course to oversee the turf grow-in, primarily for the greens. Since you ask, the following quotes are but some of what you have posted on this thread:
   "Glenwood ran into financial problems in 1914 and was sold to the Harmonie Club, which eventually changed its name to North Shore. In 1915 Robert White completely redesigned the course though he did keep five holes from the Emmet-Hubbell course. I believe he remained at the club for a number of years as the pro/greenkeeper."
   "I have not found any mention Tilly being involved at any time, and the course is not included in his advertised list of designs published in the mid-20s. I've found no mention of Raynor either. I believe the bulk of the credit should go to White."
   "At this point the evidence points toward White. He is the only architect whose name can be positively linked to the project."
   "All the evidence I've seen (and there is considerable evidence) points to Emmet - White."
   You even tried top pass White off as the man who designed the changes to Shawnee in 1913 and that he was hired to do so, This despite Tilly's very clear and unambiguous statement that he was hired as greenkeeper only and that he was put in charge of the turf grow-in AFTER the changes had benn both designed and completed!
   "By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes, after he had been involved in major changes at Ravisloe with William Watson and Aleck Brauer. Are you certain Tilly was involved in the Shawnee changes in 1913?"
   Yet here we also learn that Watson was the architect there and that Brauer was the man in charge of the project and that White himself stated that he was the greenkeeper/professional during these changes and that NONE of the greens were changed since 1902!
   Tom, you are the one who keeps trying to magnify White's role at North Shore. Again, his later accomplishments as both a professional and architect were outstanding. To ascribe them to him before they actually happened is simply not proper.
   You asked me earlier a question that I refrained from answering, but I'll repeat it as it becomes in interesting example of how you choose to use the facts presented:

   "Are you disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline? "On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."

   I wasn't and haven't, but the important point for including this quote from your post is that you use it as gospel in one situation yet tell us it is wrong in another when you just stated to Mark, "The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards..."
   So one might ask, "Are YOU disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline?"
   Another example of what you have posted in an attempt to pronounce White as the driving architectural design force behind North Shore is when you try to compare the relative experience in 1915 between Raynor and White.
   For example, here's another question you asked which i didn't answer, but will do so now:
   "I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?" George Bahto can answer that better than I. But let me ask you, WHY DOES THAT QUESTION MATTER? According to the records of the club that Steve has produced, Seth Raynor was hired on November 5th 1914 to advise on course design issues. On January 26 1915 the club "approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course." So whether this would be his 1st, 5th or 101st golf course design doesn't matter because the INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that RAYNOR was hired by North Shore for the express job of golf course architect. So again, in case you missed it, based on that set of facts, what possible relevance does the question "What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915" have?
   Earlier in this thread you accused me of beuing close-minded. That isn't so. In an interesting twist to all of this, let me make you aware of something in case you weren't.
   "Are you trying to discover the truth or you trying to prove your theory, because if you were really trying to discover what happened I would think you'd approach this subject with a more open mind..."
I have kept quiet about several things because I didn't want to appear as if I was wanting credit for what is CLEARLY Steve's discovery, but I believe he will understand when you accuse me of being close minded on this that there is a need to show you that not only I wasn't but that I was probably the most OPEN-minded of all involved!
   Do you know HOW Steve discovered and then posted that the club minutes of the North Shore Country Club from 1913-198 were located in the New York public library in a special collection of the Harmonie Club? Its because I TOLD HIM! I found them and sent him the exact file number of the archives they would be found in. Do you know WHY Steve went to New York when he did to look them up? Its because he asked me if I was going to do so and I told him that I was ill and wouldn't be able to go until sometime after the new year. I asked him to come with me when I went and he decided that he wanted to go sooner. I am VERY glad that he did and made his discovery.
   When George Bahto early on decided to remove North Shore from his list of Raynor courses because of the way the debate was initially going, who was it that told him NOT top? It was ME! Why would I do that if I was close-minded and even George had become convinced at that time that Tilly was the architect? Simple answer; it was because I was given information that no one else had been given that called into question the "proof" that was cited by the North Shore club history as proof that Tilly designed the course.
   You see, the history was based on several things including an oral tradition that Tilly had been to the club and signed a contract in September 1915. I knew that was impossible because that ENTIRE month Tilly spent in FLORIDA working on Davista and several other Florida designs. The last week of the month he spent driving to San Antonio where he stayed until the beginning of November. During that time he designed Brackenridge park, Fort Sam Houston and the San Antonio CC. From there he went to Oklahoma and POINTS WEST.
   In other words, Tilly could NOT have been at North Shore when their oral history stated he was!
   I shared this information with both Steve and George and this also served as impetus for Steve to get to New York sooner rather than later.
   When Mark Hissey decided to check on Steve's information by going into the New York Historical Society himself and the Archivist there informed him that the files and archives that Steve had viewed DIDN'T EXIST, WHO was it that gave Mark the information, the exact file number and location that the now embarrassed archivist would find and that would enable Mark to confirm Steve's discovery? Why it was me.
   I'm sorry Tom, but it is YOU who is the close-minded one on this issue. There is nothing horrible about admitting when one is wrong. I've done it a number of times and will do so more in the future. Trust me, its cathartic. You're wrong on this one Tom.

To all, I apologize for the length of this, but felt I needed to give Tom a full and comprehensive answer to the question he asked.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

That is a long and involved post but I feel it is an essential one to put on this thread as an important chronicle and explanation of what really has happened and by whom with this fascinating investigation into the architect/architectural history of North Shore of this particular time period.

I think it also should be put on another concurrent thread about whether this North Shore investigation is one of the most successful and interesting investigations in GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's history.

I feel there are a number of pretty unique reasons this subject on here is perhaps the most interesting and successful investigation to date including a few reasons and factors that are developing at this very time.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

   You have presented as someone who was an architect hired by North Shore to serve in that capacity and also as a greenkeeper/professional.
   I maintain that the opposite is true. That he was hired as greenkeeper/professional and that he was used by the club during the construction of the course to oversee the turf grow-in, primarily for the greens. Since you ask, the following quotes are but some of what you have posted on this thread:
   "Glenwood ran into financial problems in 1914 and was sold to the Harmonie Club, which eventually changed its name to North Shore. In 1915 Robert White completely redesigned the course though he did keep five holes from the Emmet-Hubbell course. I believe he remained at the club for a number of years as the pro/greenkeeper."
   "I have not found any mention Tilly being involved at any time, and the course is not included in his advertised list of designs published in the mid-20s. I've found no mention of Raynor either. I believe the bulk of the credit should go to White."
   "At this point the evidence points toward White. He is the only architect whose name can be positively linked to the project."
   "All the evidence I've seen (and there is considerable evidence) points to Emmet - White."
   You even tried top pass White off as the man who designed the changes to Shawnee in 1913 and that he was hired to do so, This despite Tilly's very clear and unambiguous statement that he was hired as greenkeeper only and that he was put in charge of the turf grow-in AFTER the changes had benn both designed and completed!
   "By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes, after he had been involved in major changes at Ravisloe with William Watson and Aleck Brauer. Are you certain Tilly was involved in the Shawnee changes in 1913?"
   Yet here we also learn that Watson was the architect there and that Brauer was the man in charge of the project and that White himself stated that he was the greenkeeper/professional during these changes and that NONE of the greens were changed since 1902!
   Tom, you are the one who keeps trying to magnify White's role at North Shore. Again, his later accomplishments as both a professional and architect were outstanding. To ascribe them to him before they actually happened is simply not proper.
   You asked me earlier a question that I refrained from answering, but I'll repeat it as it becomes in interesting example of how you choose to use the facts presented:

   "Are you disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline? "On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."

   I wasn't and haven't, but the important point for including this quote from your post is that you use it as gospel in one situation yet tell us it is wrong in another when you just stated to Mark, "The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards..."
   So one might ask, "Are YOU disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline?"
   Another example of what you have posted in an attempt to pronounce White as the driving architectural design force behind North Shore is when you try to compare the relative experience in 1915 between Raynor and White.
   For example, here's another question you asked which i didn't answer, but will do so now:
   "I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?" George Bahto can answer that better than I. But let me ask you, WHY DOES THAT QUESTION MATTER? According to the records of the club that Steve has produced, Seth Raynor was hired on November 5th 1914 to advise on course design issues. On January 26 1915 the club "approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course." So whether this would be his 1st, 5th or 101st golf course design doesn't matter because the INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that RAYNOR was hired by North Shore for the express job of golf course architect. So again, in case you missed it, based on that set of facts, what possible relevance does the question "What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915" have?
   Earlier in this thread you accused me of beuing close-minded. That isn't so. In an interesting twist to all of this, let me make you aware of something in case you weren't.
   "Are you trying to discover the truth or you trying to prove your theory, because if you were really trying to discover what happened I would think you'd approach this subject with a more open mind..."
I have kept quiet about several things because I didn't want to appear as if I was wanting credit for what is CLEARLY Steve's discovery, but I believe he will understand when you accuse me of being close minded on this that there is a need to show you that not only I wasn't but that I was probably the most OPEN-minded of all involved!
   Do you know HOW Steve discovered and then posted that the club minutes of the North Shore Country Club from 1913-198 were located in the New York public library in a special collection of the Harmonie Club? Its because I TOLD HIM! I found them and sent him the exact file number of the archives they would be found in. Do you know WHY Steve went to New York when he did to look them up? Its because he asked me if I was going to do so and I told him that I was ill and wouldn't be able to go until sometime after the new year. I asked him to come with me when I went and he decided that he wanted to go sooner. I am VERY glad that he did and made his discovery.
   When George Bahto early on decided to remove North Shore from his list of Raynor courses because of the way the debate was initially going, who was it that told him NOT top? It was ME! Why would I do that if I was close-minded and even George had become convinced at that time that Tilly was the architect? Simple answer; it was because I was given information that no one else had been given that called into question the "proof" that was cited by the North Shore club history as proof that Tilly designed the course.
   You see, the history was based on several things including an oral tradition that Tilly had been to the club and signed a contract in September 1915. I knew that was impossible because that ENTIRE month Tilly spent in FLORIDA working on Davista and several other Florida designs. The last week of the month he spent driving to San Antonio where he stayed until the beginning of November. During that time he designed Brackenridge park, Fort Sam Houston and the San Antonio CC. From there he went to Oklahoma and POINTS WEST.
   In other words, Tilly could NOT have been at North Shore when their oral history stated he was!
   I shared this information with both Steve and George and this also served as impetus for Steve to get to New York sooner rather than later.
   When Mark Hissey decided to check on Steve's information by going into the New York Historical Society himself and the Archivist there informed him that the files and archives that Steve had viewed DIDN'T EXIST, WHO was it that gave Mark the information, the exact file number and location that the now embarrassed archivist would find and that would enable Mark to confirm Steve's discovery? Why it was me.
   I'm sorry Tom, but it is YOU who is the close-minded one on this issue. There is nothing horrible about admitting when one is wrong. I've done it a number of times and will do so more in the future. Trust me, its cathartic. You're wrong on this one Tom.

To all, I apologize for the length of this, but felt I needed to give Tom a full and comprehensive answer to the question he asked.

Phil
I see my fear that you would try to sidetrack this thread was well founded. In your previous post you were discussing Ravisloe and how I misread Bauer's comments. I've highlighted the one excerpt I've mine that you have quoted. I said White had been involved with the redesign of Ravisloe. How is that misreading what Bauer wrote?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

First, I want to say that this Brauer never had any involvement at Ravisloe! And, I had no early relatives in the business.....

Other than that, I concur with your views about all the written evidence and that TMac is overvaluing and over analyzing much of it in regards to White.  Of course, its just my opinion based on what I read here.

But another thought vis a vis White and his contributions occurred to me last night when I pulled out George's book to look up more on Raynor.  Specifically, just a few years later, he took on Ralph Barton at the UM course as an associate much the way CBM took him on.  In starting his own business in 1915, I presume a similar arrangement was probably on his mind and he would have supposedly had a great opportunity to partner in some way with White, but didn't.  After all, White had some construction experience in his previous annual posts at a few other courses and an interest in design, so he did have the basic qualifications.

Why Raynor didn't take on White at that point could be for a million different reasons, of course.  Why White was dismissed at North Shore a few years later as superintendent, if things were like today, could be poor turf or personality conflicts, or perhap he made design changes members didn't agree with.  We don't know.  But, we do know that in this particular incidence, White failed to make a big impression on Raynor and his employers based on their subsequent actions or non actions.  

So, for whatever he may have achieved later in life, there is no direct evidence other than a few passages acknowleding his participation in the process that his design talents had flourished at this point!

[TEPaul]

"Phil
I see my fear that you would try to sidetrack this thread was well founded. In your previous post you were discussing Ravisloe and how I misread Bauer's comments. I've highlighted the one excerpt I've mine that you have quoted. I said White had been involved with the redesign of Ravisloe. How is that misreading what Bauer wrote?"



Tom MacWood:

It is unclear to me what you think it takes to sidetrack this particular thread but I would bet some very serious money that there may be no one on this website or anyone viewing it from anywhere in the world who would consider what Phil said to you that you quoted in your last post above to be sidetracking this particular thread.

I think Phil's over-riding point and purpose for taking the time to write that post and post it IS TO SHOW just how difficult it is for anyone to have a productive and intelligent discussion with you or someone like you on this subject and other numerous ones like it on this website with your incredibly time-wasting and unproductive modus operandi of just droning on and on and on with some myopic fixated point while all the time ignoring or just disregarding the important materials and interpretations of others to the contrary of what you seem so fixated on.

In that vein, Jeff Brauer's hilarious analogy that you are like a little terrier dog in a tug-of-war over an irrelevent little bone is a most appropriate one.

You keep qualifying your little fixation on Robert White and North Shore with terms like 'the jury is still out' while totally ignoring the question of others to you about who you think this "JURY" actually is!

I'll tell you who I think the jury is on this particular subject of North Shore GC and its architect and architectural history-----I think it is primarily and ultimately the club itself and its researchers/analysts and historians then perhaps somewhat secondarily or even tertiarily people who are intensely interested in and comprehensively familiar with that history-----people such as those on this website and on this thread.

It is also interesting to me and important to me, at this point, to be able to note that withal of that opinion ("jury" ?)----the club first, and others second or third, including those participating on this thread, that your fixated point and opinion about the nature of Robert White's attribution on the design or as the co-designer of the course in this timespan has become a minority opinion of one! In that case, it would probably be appropriate for you to reconsider what the "jury" really is because it appears at this point, and failing more information on the subject, the "jury" has already offered an opinion and it appears to be contrary to your opinion.

And that is just another of the reasons I think this particular thread is one of the most interesting and successful investigations of a course's architect and architecture this website has ever had to date. And it's another good reason why Phil Young's long and involved post and response to you is both necessary and important.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I sort of regret my comparison of TMac to a Terrier.  It was very disrespectful, and not as some would joke, to the dog! I will compare him to a sly fox, in that he seems to have a talent for deft argument and raising our ire by skirting around issues in illogical ways that seem to have surface logic on first reading.  TMac does a good job of bringing forth numerous old articles that help enlighten us all, only partially negated by his occaisional (IMHO) tendency to be argumentative to stretch design credits in funny (to me) ways.

But I agree with the majority in this case, that White was the superintendent with daily construction responsibility and Raynor was the gca.

TMac does raise a few issues that might not be resolved.  First, if 2-5 holes were incorporated, at what point would this be called a major redesign by Raynor vs a new design?  The club itself used the phrase "approved the new course" implying that they were laying a totally new course over the old one plus utilizing a new 15 acre parcel.  I am not sure it is for golfclubatlas.com to decide such things, nor that anyone could set a definitve standard.

And second, should there be more extended credit for designs beyond the contracted entities?  It is still a matter of debate today among modern practitioners.  No gca wants to give up credit for their work, especially when any associates go on to their own careers and want to claim partial credit for the work they did on a project, no matter how limited, and how well covered they were by the firm and its capabilites (and these days, liability policies)  Certainly Ron Whitten and others have tried similar endeavors to name associate designers, etc.

But, to date, those in charge of construction don't get credit in most cases and I don't see why the golf course superintnendent at North Shore should get too much credit either, especially from TMac who argued things completely differently on Merion threads.  There, Barker, who consulted one day a year before and produced a routing for land that subsequently changed should be credited and Hugh Wilson was only a construction guy (to him) and should get less credit........Here, the day to day guy should get co-credit even though Rayor had a formal design contract for a fair sum (including specific amounts for construction oversight).

So, these two cases illustrate the difficulties in attributing credit consistently, even in the mind of one historian, presuming again that he isn't just taking opposite positions just for the sake of good natured argument.

BTW, I have to ask, is there any evidence that White took credit for NS in his latter years advertising and promotions?