[Tom MacWood]

I've only written one golf course history, The Ohio State GC. I did not contact the club because there was no need to, I already had access to the University archives. Most everyone associated with the club was quite happy with the history, in fact I don't recall a single negative comment.

TEP/Mac
Was I out of line in your opinion?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Are questions like those really relevent or relevent to this thread?

Nevertheless, I would certainly hope you are as capable of interpreting what Macdonald probably meant by Raynor being a 'post-graduate' in golfing architecture during the projects about which he used the 'By this time' (White Sulphur, St. Louis, Lido---all begun in the 1914-1915 timeframe).

In the earlier projects just after NGLA which Macdonald mentioned---eg Piping Rock (1911-13) and Sleepy Hollow (1914) he only mentioned Raynor in that he said Raynor worked in intense summer heat at Sleepy Hollow.

He did not say Raynor was an "undergraduate" in golfing architecture at that time so I fail to see why you should either. Seems like just more diversion, deflection and excessive speculation on your part.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
It is relevant to the thread because North Shore falls before 1917, and CBM was involved.

How do Shinnecock Hills, Greenwich, Blind Brook and CC of Fairfield fit into to CBM and Raynor's working relationship, are they undergraduate projects or post graduate projects?

You still haven't explained what a post graduate of golf architecture means. What does it mean? What happened in 1917, how did their working relationship change, if it did change?

[TEPaul]

"TEP/Mac
Was I out of line in your opinion?"


Tom MacWood:

I don't know anything about the structure or nature or membership of the Ohio State GC so I wouldn't comment about whether you should've approached the club first.

But I do know the memberships, archives and club materials of such clubs as Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia and I think if anyone is going to try to do a serious investigation and analysis of the architects and architectural histories of their courses, as you seem interested in or in doing, the establishment of a good on-the-site relationship with the clubs FIRST is mandatory to a comprehensive and competent investigation and analysis, in my opinion.

I'm not trying to single you out here; I would say the very same thing to anyone trying to do a serious investigation and analysis of the architects and architectural histories of clubs, and you are surely no exception, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Once again, as to what is relevant or not relevant with North Shore GC and and who thinks so with Seth Raynor and his qualifications in 1914 and 1915, I would say the following statement from C.B. Macdonald's 1928 autobiography can be analyzed as to what it means by the team recently assembled at North Shore GC (Doak, Urbina, Hissey, perhaps Bahto and Shaeffer et al) if they deem it important;


"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."


Having spoken recently to most all of them about it I have good faith in all of them to do the right thing and to interpret things correctly given the important old material from the club's 1914, 1915 records that was recently found in the New York Historical Society that say Raynor was hired as their architect with Macdonald helping in a consulting capacity and Robert White having been put on the annual payroll as the greenkeeper/construction foreman.

At this point, I don't see that there is any more to discuss and certainly not with you. Perhaps you should call up some or any of them and ask them if you can be involved with them on their team. Will you consider doing that if you are so interested in the architect and architectural history of North Shore GC, and if not then why not?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Once again, as to what is relevant or not relevant with North Shore GC and and who thinks so with Seth Raynor and his qualifications in 1914 and 1915, I would say the following statement from C.B. Macdonald's 1928 autobiography can be analyzed as to what it means by the team recently assembled at North Shore GC (Doak, Urbina, Hissey, perhaps Bahto and Shaeffer et al) if they deem it important;


"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."


Having spoken recently to most all of them about it I have good faith in all of them to do the right thing and to interpret things correctly given the important old material from the club's 1914, 1915 records that was recently found in the New York Historical Society that say Raynor was hired as their architect with Macdonald helping in a consulting capacity and Robert White having been put on the annual payroll as the greenkeeper/construction foreman.

At this point, I don't see that there is any more to discuss and certainly not with you. Perhaps you should call up some or any of them and ask them if you can be involved with them on their team. Will you consider doing that if you are so interested in the architect and architectural history of North Shore GC, and if not then why not?

TEP
There is nothing in your answer about the meaning of post graduate; nothing about 1917 or any of the courses I mentioned. You've been unable to answer my specific questions multiple times now...there are only two logical explanation for your inability, either you don't know the answer OR you know the answer, but would prefer not to acknowledge it. Actually there is third explanation, which would be a little bit of both.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

None of the above. I feel like George Bahto with his last post that he doesn't want to answer you anymore because he's tired of arguing or Phil who is sick of being called a liar.

Matter of fact, it seems nearly everyone on this website, at this point, other than you, views your constant same questions as irrelevant and your incessant questioning as irrelevant. Stop trying to waste everyone's time.

But if it makes you happy I don't think it's hard to understand what Macdonald meant when he used the word "post-graduate." To most people I'm quite sure that would mean someone who was very knowledgeable on a particular subject, in this case Raynor with golfing architecture.

But I'm certainly not going to argue with you about THAT!

[DMoriarty]

MacWood and Moriarty have accused me of lying or being a liar too (MacWood said that to me again on this very thread) or even of altering original documents of Merion's when in fact he and they (Moriarty and MacWood) have never even seen those documents, so how would they ever even know what they actually say or don't say?

To me that is a pretty clever attempted trick or ploy on their part or else just plain dialectic bullshit!

Nice to see I haven't missed much. 

[Mike Sweeney]

TEP
There is nothing in your answer about the meaning of post graduate; nothing about 1917 or any of the courses I mentioned. You've been unable to answer my specific questions multiple times now...there are only two logical explanation for your inability, either you don't know the answer OR you know the answer, but would prefer not to acknowledge it. Actually there is third explanation, which would be a little bit of both.

TomMac,

You are taking one or two lines out of a (IMO) poorly written, boring, self-ego stroking book called Scotland's Gift and turing it into a Post Graduate degree at Yale or Princeton. Did Macdonald document anything with real specificity? Tom it is a date in a book about reflections of his life written without great detail from what I remember and I don't remember much because only Max Behr's writings are more boring than Charlie's. That book is not well written IMO, I personally would not take anything in there as gospel.

[Tom MacWood]

I would agree parts of the book are boring, but I find the architectural stuff very interesting and enlightening. His memory of the facts and dates is quite good. I suppose its a useful book if the information suits you; poorly written, boring and egotistical if it doesn't. It seems clear to me 1917 was an important date for Raynor.

[TEPaul]

"I suppose its a useful book if the information suits you; poorly written, boring and egotistical if it doesn't."


I would certainly agree that it seems most everyone who's read Macdonald's autobiography, "Scotland's Gift Golf" feels there are parts of it that are interesting and parts that are boring. Most on this website are only interested in golf architecture and the history of golf architecture so for that reason they tend to find those sections in his book on golf architecture interesting, and other parts boring such as those significantly comprehensive sections on golf administration (The USGA).

I find all the parts of his book interesting because it evidences and explains, from Macdonald's persepctive, his life and times in golf which included probably a greater interest, on his part, in playing competitive golf and also in golf administration, as well as perhaps the social and business nexus of what golf at a certain level can offer particular people, than in golf course architecture. Since I view Macdonald to be one of the most important and interesting people in the entire history of golf, albeit it a massively complex and complicated man, I think his autobiography is all very interesting. Sure some of it appears egotistical----so what? I don't think there is much question but that Macdonald was a most egotistical man with strong egotistical views about golf and golf administration. In a term he was a real "elitist" and thankfully did not appear to mind explaining why he thought it should be that way. Again, I find that interesting and more than a little historically significant.

 

"It seems clear to me 1917 was an important date for Raynor."


As to that paragraph in Macdonald's book that mentions 1917 and Raynor I don't see it as necessarily an important date for Raynor; I just see it as an observation by Macdonald that after 1917 Raynor did 100-150 courses or rebuilds that Macdonald mentioned he had never even seen. For someone to assume or certainly conclude that meant Raynor had never done a design on his own before 1917 without Macdonald or that Macdonald was trying to say that in that paragraph, to me is just poor research and analysis, not to even mention pretty poor reading comprehension of that particular paragraph.

[TEPaul]

"His memory of the facts and dates is quite good."


Since you are referring to Macdonald's own autobiography in golf, "Scotland's Gift Golf" that sounds like you assume you actually know and understand the facts and the dates of Macdonald's own life and times better than he did.

Coming from any of us today that would be quite the surprising statement. But coming from you it doesn't surprise me at all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

T - the terrier - Mac,

It appears to me you are placing too much emphasis on that quote.  Again, its the type of throwaway statement that doesn't really relate to a known event that someone might make in an interview, and you seem to elevate it to a deeply considered statement.  While it may  \be, it doesn't necessiarily have to be.

For one thing, if Raynor achieved his post graduate degree, it struck me that such a degree would require a few years of work to get, no?  Maybe CBM considered his apprentice work under him as the undergraduate degree and the first few years on his own as post graduate work, thus achieving his "degree" in 1917.

We know he signed independent contracts as early as 1915, but maybe both he and CBM felt, or had an agreement that CBM would be available for help or to sell jobs for a few years.  And this was CBM's way of announcing to the world that they could hire Raynor independently and be assured of a quality project.

So, like TEPaul, I would think that despite calling out 1917, it was really just a point on the continum for at least Raynor and probably part of a long term plan to get CBM out of the day to day, without necessarily any momentus design event happening.

But, that is just how I read it, having read and reread both Scotland's Gift and George's book recently.  As always, I could  be wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I always find these back and forth exchanges interesting once you're able to filter out the jibes.

A good deal of interesting information is presented.

Your point about "weighting" the information is a good one, but, how do you place credibility on one quote and dismiss another.
Isn't that the subjective bias of the writer promoting his position, or that of the contrarian trying to dismiss the proposition ?

I think you have to travel multiple paths, one in which you cede 100 % credibility to the information, another where you cede 50 % credibility and another in which you cede 0 % credibility.

In other words, I think you have to explore all possibilities before accepting or rejecting a premise/theory/position.

[TEPaul]

"For one thing, if Raynor achieved his post graduate degree, it struck me that such a degree would require a few years of work to get, no?  Maybe CBM considered his apprentice work under him as the undergraduate degree and the first few years on his own as post graduate work, thus achieving his "degree" in 1917."


Jeffrey:

Read that paragraph again. For that matter read the page and a half again before that paragraph.

Macdonald did not say Raynor had become a post-graduate by 1917. Tom MacWood may've said that or may've said Macdonald said that but he didn't.

What Macdonald said was that Raynor was a post-graduate in golfing architecture by the time of St Louis GC, Old White and Lido. Those courses were begun in the 1914-15 timeframe, not in 1917.

And Macdonald never used the term "degree" (of a post graduate).

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

We agree that the quote doesn't necessarily create a definining point in Raynor's career.  I guess I agree with Tom the Terrier MacWood that the analogy lends itself to the idea that Raynor was being educated by CBM since the beginning, and so was intended to convey that he was moving along in his "education" so inferring that some earlier work was undergraduate (Hell, if he build models, maybe some of it should be referred to as grade school or PK!)

Pat,

I enjoy the back and forth to an extent.  In this case, I feel TMac probably is beating a horse to death.  Maybe that horse didn't move enough earth during an early construction project.  I simply offered my take on the CBM and his comments because TMac kept asking us to do so.  That was my opinion on the relative importance of that quote to Raynors history.  I placed low emphasis on it because it was written well later, was part of CBM's story and was not his real focus, and was a remembrance, not related to a specific event.

As you suggest, the debate in many of these things is EXACTLY how much to make of certain things.  I answered sometime not long ago that I place concurrent documents above later ones, and contracts and minute notes above newspaper articles, because those are generally more accurate.

Now, I know TMac disagrees, in general, about the reliability of newspaper articles and such.  He thinks they tend to be objective whereas he has found enough minutes to be fudged or incorrect for one reason or another.  But I have always found that newspapers to be suspect and also have their own motives - today it would be to portraythe club as a playground of the wealthy or an environmental disaster.

Not that any of the above is relevant to this discussion.  I just happen to disagree with TMac on this one.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Jeffrey:

Regarding some of your last remark, I'm aware there are a few on this website who are either of the notion or trying to promote the notion that a number of architects (including Hugh Wilson) who probably had a good deal of natural talent were under some special tutelage program of some degree of duration with C.B. Macdonald or had to be before they could figure out what the hell to do.

Frankly I don't really buy it. I guess some of it comes from some sort of frothing of the mind and logic of a few on here that has resulted in some overarching idolatry of Macdonald perhaps emanating from his label as the "Father" of American architecture.

The reality is probably something far less than that. Seth Raynor worked with and without CBM throughout much of his career and he probably brought a good deal to the table of the architecture that was created by them that CBM may never have been able to do or figure out on his own.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Since Raynor worked for CBM (at least on a contract basis) and then never veered far from his 18 template holes I think we can say CBM had a great influence on hime and wold have to be considered his mentor. No doubt that as time went on, Raynor asked less and less of CBM, who clearly didn't care to as much involved.

I agree that others may have asked him questions, because of the less formal nature of the gca biz back then, but wouldn't be considered students of CBM.  I get the impression that your last remarks are a bit of a stretch, though, as it concerns this conversation.  As you had noted before, this thread has transformed into a referendum on TMac's interpretive skills AFTER he finds some old documents.  It has not yet morphed into another Merion debate! (Nor should it......)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Quote by TEPaul:
The reality is probably something far less than that. Seth Raynor worked with and without CBM throughout much of his career and he probably brought a good deal to the table of the architecture that was created by them that CBM may never have been able to do or figure out on his own.

TEPaul,

I would disagree with your statement for a number of reasons.
Engineers tend to be linear thinkers.
I believe that CBM's thinking leaned more toward the creative side, hence, I doubt that SR was the architectural visionary that CBM was.


Jeff,

I wasn't referencing the debate between you and TM, just the production of material in general.

I tend to agree that contemporaneous documents seem more reliable as the account is fresher and the motive usually purer.

I also agree that, in general, newspaper articles would seem to reside on the lower end of the totem pole, but they can't be discarded simply because they're newspaper articles.

We've also seen the ODG's contradict themselves, in writing, so one has to be careful to accept "A" written word as "THE" written word.

I think we unrealistically expect precision/perfection when conducting research, when all that's available is uncertainty.

It can be a frustrating exercise, an architectural search for The Holy Grail

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Your points to Jeff in #528 I think are all good ones and I agree with you on them.

I particularly agree with you that some on here may expect too much precision or too much specific information and detail out of some of the histories and records of these projects and courses and architects we discuss. I happen to think Tom MacWood is one of them who expects too much information or asks too much from it when it was never really recorded in detail.

In that vein I am always reminded of that thread he began back in 2003 ("Re: Macdonald and Merion?") where he eventually asked who was responsible for the ideas and concepts of the various holes. I think it was that very thread that began these years long Merion thread debates on here.

We, who knew more about the history and the records of Merion than he did then told him we didn't know that because it was never specifically recorded and all that there ever was from all those who were part of it at the time, other than a few specific records or stories, was that Hugh I. Wilson was the one who was 'in the main' responsible for it.

Of course he did not accept that or agree with it and continued to argue that some such as Macdonald or Whigam or even HH Barker must have had their contributions minimized in some on-going attempt by the club and their friends to create a historically inaccurate "legend" out of Hugh I. Wilson.

You are very right, Pat; historical research and analysis is not exact or reducable to the kind of precision some on here seem to expect or even demand----it can be inexact and pretty messy business sometimes, perhaps most of the time. And that is probably why informed speculation is the best we can do from it sometimes.

But I note that one of the automatic and apparently negative retorts of the likes of MacWood and Moriarty on here is that the rest of us are "speculating" and not producing "facts" or "provable facts." 

[Mac Plumart]

I think we have to ask ourselves in many of our endeavors in life, do the ends justify the means?  In many cases, I have found myself answering that question, yes.  This thread fits that bill for me...although I had very little to do with its actual content.  Instead I have been an interested reader.  Despite the bickering back and forth and the hostilities, I believe I have learned a valuable lesson...and perhaps we all could have/should have learned a valuable lesson.  And, therefore, the end justifies the means of this thread.

Regard Patrick Mucci and Tom Paul's last posts...

Mr. Mucci said...

"We've also seen the ODG's contradict themselves, in writing, so one has to be careful to accept "A" written word as "THE" written word.

I think we unrealistically expect precision/perfection when conducting research, when all that's available is uncertainty.

It can be a frustrating exercise, an architectural search for The Holy Grail"


Then Tom Paul's says...

"You are very right, Pat; historical research and analysis is not exact or reducable to the kind of precision some on here seem to expect or even demand----it can be inexact and pretty messy business sometimes, perhaps most of the time. And that is probably why informed speculation is the best we can do from it sometimes."


All of this reminds me of what I do for a living; Informed speculation and educated guesses, however not wild mindless guesses.  In both instances (investment analysis and golf course architectural attribution analysis), it appears that a TREMENDOUS amount of due diligence must go into researching the topic, course, architect, green, hole, whatever the target happens to be that day.  But at the end of the day despite all of your efforts, you may not have the precise evidence that gives you the inarguable piece of verifiable evidence that says buy or sell a stock and/or Raynor did this course...or whatever. 

BUT if you have built up a true expertise in your field through diligent study, practical application, countless hours of reading books, magazines, newspapers, visiting course after course after course, walking the grounds, studying the archives, then perhaps you will simply know that the market is going up or that this is a Raynor green...no doubt about it.

Along these lines, check out the first post of this very thread.  George says that he was told to check out North Shore as it looks like the work of "one of his guys."

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am off-base.  But I feel that I am not, particularly in light of these last few posts and the very first post of this great thread.

[Tom MacWood]

There has been a lot of speculation, conjecture and opinion, but when is someone going to bring some actual facts to the table? What courses are on Raynor and CBM's resumes pre-1917?

[TEPaul]

"There has been a lot of speculation, conjecture and opinion, but when is someone going to bring some actual facts to the table? What courses are on Raynor and CBM's resumes pre-1917?"


Tom MacWood:


I think arguably George Bahto has already been pretty forthcoming and explanatory about the answers to your questions above. The fact that you seem to not notice those answers, to overlook them, perhaps intentionally, or want to incessantly argue with them for no particularly good or credible reason, is the problem on here.

An excellent example of this is the recent find by Steve Shaeffer of the Harmonie/North Shore Club material from 1914 and 1915 found at the New York historical Society. Those club records are pretty specific about what the club hired Raynor to do and what they hired Robert White to do (and they did mention CBM as well in what seemed like an "amateur" consulting capacity).

The problem is you don't read it the way it seems everyone else does because apparently you want to make more out of some part of it than it actually says for some particular agenda which many on here suspect you of having but which you won't admit to or even discuss on here.

[Tom MacWood]

Do you have any facts?

[TEPaul]

"Do you have any facts?"


The Harmonie/North Shore club administrative and other records that Steve Shaeffer found recently in the New York Historical Society.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()