[Tom MacWood]

Phil posted an article saying that Tillie did the work and turned it over at Shawnee......

What article are you referring to?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.

The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”

That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.

By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.

Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.

That's really conjecture on your part and a rejection of your own theory on co-credit based on your quote which I cited.

MY interpretation is that SR & CBM were involved in the design.
To what respective degree I don't know.

I think that Robert White's role was one centered on agronomy, not design efforts.
Can you imagine CBM accepting design imput/directions from Robert White ?
I can't.
SR and CBM were a team, so I can see a collaborative effort from them, I just can't attribute absolute percentages.
But, it's clear, North Shore retained SR as their architect.
I suspect that CBM and SR consulted on design issues.  I don't suspect that Robert White's attempt at design recommendations would be accepted by either SR, the contracted GCA or CBM.

Should CBM be given co-design credit?

Generally, I'd say NO, but, in the case of SR and CBM, both of whom were working on the project, the idea that they didn't collaborate would seem far fetched to unrealistic.

However, SR was the contracted architect, therefore, he and he alone should be the sole architect of record.


If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?


Minutes don't always reflect the entirety of the situation or project.
SR and CBM had a unique relationship which is a matter of record.
To imply that CBM was univolved in any aspect of the design is naive at best.

Are you stating that SR NEVER spoke to CBM about design issues at North Shore ?
And that nothing CBM ever said regarding features, routing and design never made it into the final product ?

By your own test, could you please point out the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you to believe that Robert White offered up design concepts, features and routings that were accepted by SR and incorporated into the final product ?

I don't see any evidence of it happening.

You WANT to see it happening, and I think that's a difference in our perspectives

Pat
In your previous post you said if Robert White was a functional architect he would have been given credit as a functional architect. Then you pointed to the quote that said he was the greens expert and Raynor was the leading golf architect in America. First of all do you believe Raynor was the leading golf architect in America at the time?

Whether or not I believe SR as "THE" leading architect in America is unimportant, what's important is that North Shore chose to describe him as such.
I do believe that he was one of "THE" leading architects in America at that time.

And second if you are not going to give credit to White because of this quote saying he is greens expert, why are you giving design credit to CBM when this quote says his function is construction? You cannot have it both ways.

Yes, I can, and for good reason.
CBM and SR were a team.
They were closely aligned in design, construction and life itself.

To categorize White's collaboration with Raynor in the same context as CBM's collaboration with Raynor is absurd.
Raynor and Macdonald had a very special relationship, as kindred fellows and design associates.
White was an "outsider" to both of them.

Yes, I can see CBM accepting design input from White, just as I can see him accepting design input from Raynor, Whigham, Low, Hutchinson, Foulis, Emmet, Travis, Adaire, Lees, Sutherland, Colt and whole host of others.

Tom, you're being naive or duplicitous, CBM and Raynor were incredibly close, and you know that.
Whigham was CBM's son-in-law.
Emmett and Travis were fellow club members.
White was an outsider.
CBM bounced Travis as an advisor at NGLA.
I don't see him discarding his and Raynor's design theories in favor of White's, at North Shore or anywhere else.

On this issue, you're grasping at straws, inflating White's role beyond reason.

It is conjecture on my part that the green committee did not lay out the golf course and the green committee was not actively involved in designing the golf course....logical, well reasoned conjecture. However it is not conjecture on my part that green committee's primary role was oversight. That is what green committees do and the minutes back that up. By the way this entire thread, including your posts, is full of conjecture....everyone has been engaged in conjecture.

Tom, I think your lack of experience in terms of understanding the relationship of the architect retained for a design project and the green committee is unduly influencing your judgement.

In this situation you have CBM, the father or American architecture, a titan in the golf world, and his partner, and almost equally respected architect, declared by North Shore to be America's leading architect, and you're going to tell me that the green committee oversaw their work in terms of the artistic license delegated to CBM and SR ?  ?  ?

I'll guarantee you that the members of the green committee didn't have a clue when it came to routing, feature design, placement and configuration and agronomy.

Their oversight was limited to being members of the committee, not active participants in the design efforts.
Unless you think that they actively participated in every design and construction decision, in which case you'd be as naive as one can get in these matters.

CBM and SR weren't local boys starting out in the design business, they were the icons of American golf, the leading architects in America, and CBM was a TITAN in American golf, and not one to be influenced by the whims of unknowledgeable, less capable green committement.
I haven't read the contract, but, I'd be surprised if it didn't give SR-CBM complete artistic license.

Obviously Raynor spoke to CBM, they were associates, and obviously Raynor spoke to White, they were both actively involved in the project, in fact the minutes tell us they laid out the course together.

That's your intrepretation of the minutes, not mine and certainly not others.
I find your intrepretation unreasoned and imprudent.

“The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”

I'm glad you produced that quote again.
Look at it carefully, the minutes refer to the "RESULTS", not the course, not the routing, not the holes, but the entire project.
And, what role do those minutes ASSIGN to Robert White for his role in the project., that of an AGRONOMIST, not an architect, not a contractor, but, a GREENS EXPERT, and NOTHING MORE.

You can insist that he helped, co-authored, or advised on the design and routing, but, the minutes, read with the logic of the "prudent man" rule, would nullify your position.

The minutes are crystal clear to me.
SETH RAYNOR, the man they called the "leading architect in America", designed North Shore.


“I know that I am only voicing the sentiment of all our members in expressing gratification at the result accomplished, which has, at one bound, placed us in line with the golf links recognized as the best in the United States. We, of course, were greatly favored in the matter by the remarkable natural advantages offered by our land, but no results like those accomplished could have been achieved without the genius of those mainly responsible namely: Mr. Seth J. Raynor, Mr C.B. McDonald and Mr. Robert White.”

Again, the above statement references the RESULT, a combination of design, construction and agronomy and they thank each party for their respective roles, with Robert White's role being that of the agronomist, the "GREENS EXPERT", not the architect or contractor, Raynor and Macdonald.

You're reading far too much into White's role.
He was the "Greens Expert", not the architect, and the minutes are careful and specifically point that out.
YOU are the only one interpreting it otherwise.

These are the only two mentions of CBM being involved at North Shore. Are these quotes what led you to believe CBM deserved some design credit?
If you want to ignore the depth and breadth of CBM's and SR's relationship, which you apparently do, I suppose you could theorize that CBM and SR NEVER spoke to one another about any design, feature or routing concept.

I don't happen to adhere to that theory, since I believe that I do understand the relationship between SR and CBM.
If you want to ignore and deny it, that's OK, but, that's contrary to conventional wisdom and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Pat
So your function theory only applies to White, and not to CBM?

It would appear Raynor, CBM, and White were a team too since the only two mentions of CBM also give the others equal credit. I don't think it is that absurd to credit White seeing that he is credited with Raynor in laying out the golf course. Was CBM involved in laying out the golf course?

Regarding who CBM would or wouldn't listen to you obviously believe you have some special insight into his career. Are you familiar with those names I mentioned and their connection to CBM? For example how is John Sutherland connected to CBM?

The titan of golf architecture was mentioned on an equal basis with Raynor and White, twice. And in one case the titan of golf architecture was characterized as the titan of golf course construction.

I'm not ignoring the depth and breadth of Raynor & CBM's relationship, just the opposite. I've always acknowledged it. I was the first person on this thread to say CBM's involvement may have been much greater that what had been acknowledged at the time. I'm trying to give credit is due, and obviously the powers that be at NS felt credit was due to all three.

You are operating under a double standard.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You simply cannot read what is in front of your eyes. You criticize me for using the word "insist" and yet you still refuse to admit that you both stated that White was brought to Shawnee SPECIFICALLY to "make some changes" and then refer to an article which I posted as proof of this assertion despite the fact that it says exactly the opposite.

Read it again... It states that he was hired and would start work immediately. It refers to cvahnges to the course ALREADY MADE and then Tilly states that the course was now turned over to him to... wait... TURF! Not make changes too, but to TURF! And what did Tilly call him? The new GREENKEEPER!

He was hired to oversee the day-in and out care of the course and this included the NEW TURF GROW-IN ONLY! No changes... none at all...

That you still refuse to admit this despite the evidence CLEARLY proves that you are INSISTING...

As for his being invovled in the "changes at Ravisloe," I never said that he wasn't involved. I stated that he was not invovled with a MAJOR REDESIGN ARCHITECTURALLY of the course and I used his own words to prove it. You can look that one up as it is on the first few pages as well. It's the araticle he wrote where he, himself, titled it as GREENKEEPER at Ravisloe and stated that the greens had not been substantially changed since the work done in 1902...

How do you read some changes at Shawnee and Ravisloe, design or construction, or both, especially when it is followed by a question asking who did what? You obviously overstated my insistence and are now trying dig your way out of it. You were confused or wrong, whatever you prefer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,
 

How do you read that he was hired to make architectural changes there?  I mean really, what exact words in that article do you see that says White was the gca?  

Phil already explained it to you - He thinks that article says White did neither design or construction changes at Shawnee, he just GREW IT IN. It says the changes were underway when White got there and turned them over to brand spanking new greenskeeper White.  It can read no other way to me.

Yet you ignore it and bring it up again and again, just like one passage from the minutes.  You really do just like to argue, don't you, and you don't really care how sillly you sound doing it......Again, your tactics to keep a dead argument going are simply dispicable.   When wrong, you simply ignoe everything that is an incovenient truth.  As such, I await invite your non response........................


Please, give them up and lets move on to another subject.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

So your function theory only applies to White, and not to CBM?

To think otherwise is to deny the substantive connection between SR and CBM, two men who are inextricably entwined in the art/process of GCA.

It would appear Raynor, CBM, and White were a team too since the only two mentions of CBM also give the others equal credit.

That's an absurd conclusion.

They weren't a team.  White and Raynor were involved in a joint venture where each party was chosen for their respective expertise, totally seperate disciplines.  White for Agronomy and Raynor for Architecture.

I don't think it is that absurd to credit White seeing that he is credited with Raynor in laying out the golf course.

NO, he's not.  That's your agenda driven interpretation of the passages presented.

Was CBM involved in laying out the golf course?

I'll ask you again, since you failed to answer this question previously.
Understanding the close professional relationship between SR and CBM, are you stating that CBM NEVER spoke to SR regarding routing, feature and hole designs ?

A simple YES or NO will suffice.

Regarding who CBM would or wouldn't listen to you obviously believe you have some special insight into his career.

I do.

I speak to him and SR everytime I visit their cemetery in Southampton

What's comical about your position is that it hinges upon the denial on your part of their relationship

Are you familiar with those names I mentioned and their connection to CBM?
For example how is John Sutherland connected to CBM?

John Sutherland and any relationship he had with CBM is irrelevant for the purpose of any discussion regarding North Shore.

Do you know of anyone who had CBM's ear, equal to or more than SR ?
Was CBM the kind of person/personality who would accept recommendations on GCA, especially unsolicited recommendations ?.

The titan of golf architecture was mentioned on an equal basis with Raynor and White, twice.
And in one case the titan of golf architecture was characterized as the titan of golf course construction.

You quoted two articles/minutes, and CBM was mentioned in both of them.
I'd say he's batting 1,000.

I'm not ignoring the depth and breadth of Raynor & CBM's relationship, just the opposite. I've always acknowledged it. I was the first person on this thread to say CBM's involvement may have been much greater that what had been acknowledged at the time. I'm trying to give credit is due, and obviously the powers that be at NS felt credit was due to all three.

Agreed, but, for DIFFERENT reasons, for different disciplines.
The powers that be couldn't have been clearer, they stated that White's do was for Agronomy, as the "Greens Expert", NOT the architect.
They gave credit to RAYNOR for the ARCHITECTURE and to MACDONALD for the CONSTRUCTION.

The RECORD, the MINUTES couldn't be clearer.

Each man was recognized for his contribution and White's contribution was NOT in the realm of ARCHITECTURE, it was in the realm of agronomy as a a "greens expert", not a contractor or architect.

You are operating under a double standard.

NO, I'm not.
I'm operating on the basis of the factually established professional golf course architecture, surveying and construction relationship Raynor and Macdonald enjoyed.

You want to seperate and isolate them as if their partnership never existed.
And, you want to force the insertion of White as an equal in the design and construction of North Shore.
Neither of which are supported by the record and minutes.

You're the one with the flawed interpretation and conclusions.

[Tom MacWood]

"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?"

Jeff
This is what I wrote. Does this sound like I'm insisting he be the golf architect of record? I don't read an attitude of instance anywhere, and I don't read architecture or golf architecture or design anywhere either. You and Phil are wasting our time with your nonsense.

[Tom MacWood]

Obviously Raynor spoke to CBM, they were associates, and obviously Raynor spoke to White, they were both actively involved in the project, in fact the minutes tell us they laid out the course together.

I answered your question a while back. By the way you don't have to sell me on CBM's role, I was the first person to say he may have had a greater role than everyone was saying at the time. I believe all three men should be credited. 

“When we made our purchase, it was reported that our links measured about 6400 yards but we soon found out that these figures were entirely erroneous and, as a matter of fact, the actual measurement was only slightly over 5,000 yards. Even before we made our acquisition, we knew that in many respects the links were badly planned and that at some time a largely modified layout would have to be determined upon. The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States. This new course will measure about 6,400 yards, it will take in about fifteen acres of woodland and takes the fullest advantage of the natural advantages offered by the rolling ground which we own.”

How do you interpret this passage about the laying out of the golf course...was White involved?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You keep writing "By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes..."

What specific golf course CHANGES was WHITE hired to make at Shawnee in 1913?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You are illustrating my point - you are arguing with your arguers now, and their choice of words, etc. But I have no interest in that, my friend. That is different than debating the exact role of White at NS, and leads me to believe you just kind of want to keep arguing by changing the subject.

Okay, so you don't insist White get credit at Shawnee.  Thanks for admitting that there is no mention of his design work there.  A short direct answer is always appreciated.

I want to know more about Robert White now, which is why I looked up some easily accessible (and obvioulsy partially flawed) internet sources about him, combined with some ASGCA historic minutes, Cornish/Whitten etc. I have learned something here (good thing, in no small part to you and a few others) How is that for focusing on the positive of an overly long thread?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

When White, the golf professional, is described as having co-operated with Raynor, it would seem to indicate that he went along with Raynor's plans.

The minutes don't state that he co-authored the routing, only that he CO-OPERATED with Raynor, again signifying that he went along for the ride.

I suspect that those minutes were a courtesy to White, as the club's professional, and not in any way meant to convey architectural credit.

Had North Shore wanted to provide architectural credit to White, they would have been crystal clear in doing so.

Instead, they chose to credit White with agronomic involvement and specifically credit Raynor with the design of the golf course.

[Tom MacWood]

Pat
Active and intelligent cooperation is going along for the ride? You're an idiot.

[Tom MacWood]

"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?"

Jeff
This is what I wrote. Does this sound like I'm insisting he be the golf architect of record? I don't read an attitude of instance anywhere, and I don't read architecture or golf architecture or design anywhere either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Active and intelligent cooperation is going along for the ride? You're an idiot.

My reading comprehension skills are equal or better than yours.

Your agenda demands that you interpret the record/minutes in White's favor.

I have no agenda.

The record/minutes clearly describes White's role.  He was the Agronomist, the "Greens Expert", not the architect.
The job title of "architect" is clearly set forth in the record/minutes and assigned to Raynor.

And no amount of insistance on your part can change the record/minutes.

[Tom MacWood]

Had North Shore wanted to provide architectural credit to White, they would have been crystal clear in doing so.

Instead, they chose to credit White with agronomic involvement and specifically credit Raynor with the design of the golf course. [/b]

I had no idea it was so clear and conclusive. Thank you for pointing this out to us, but why did you wait so long? Whatever the case after 24 pages of debate and exploration I say better late than never.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

So I guess that, once again, you will simply make statemments claiming them to be FACT yet when asked for the proof you IGNOR the request.

You once again INSISTED "'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?'... Jeff, This is what I wrote..."

So again I ask:

Tom,

You keep writing "By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes..."

What specific golf course CHANGES was WHITE hired to make at Shawnee in 1913?

[Tom MacWood]

You once again INSISTED "'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?'... Jeff, This is what I wrote..."

Phil
You've got to be kidding me. In your mind is every post on GCA an insistence? This is definition of insistent in my dictionary: "insisting or demanding; persistent in demands or assertions." Why are you wasting our time?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You are right, I am wasting my time.....but since you are now reposting your own posts, I will repost one of your comments from mid thread, about page 12 and your reply no. 352:

Here is the timeline Steve gave us from his transcription of the club records, and based on what he has given it seems indisputable that Raynor was hired to design the golf course, and among White's primary responsibilities was the superintending the construction of the golf course. That is very clear to me.

What isn't so clear is how the process actually unfolded.

Just one question.....are you any clearer now? None of us really are and never will be.  We do not now how much input Raynor, under contract to design the course, allowed the construction superintendent, White (both by contracts with NS) to have.

We can ask until the cows come home, or wait until we can all meet up in heaven and ask them ourselves what the heck happened back in 1915-6 at NS.  But, there is nothing more to be gained by asking all of us what we think of this word order, what we think of that choice of words.  We just don't know......

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to read the many articles you (and others, notably Mark Hissey) have posted. I am richer for it.  But right now, I just want to gouge my eyes out........

If we are going on to page 25 of this, lets at least have a plan for finding new info that might settle it, shall we?  The five of us left standing just haven't provided any new real info, and our opinions just aren't going to change.  I hope your personal torment about how much White was involved doesn't angry up your blood and you can get past this and lead a peaceful life, even if tossing and turning all night most nights in anguish.

But, I am asking myself if I will even remember this thread a few days after it is taken down, or if it is worth the hassle.  Clearly, for most of us,the answer is a resounding no!

And to all a good night!

[TEPaul]

"You've got to be kidding me. In your mind is every post on GCA an instance? This is definition of insistent in my dictionary: "insisting or demanding; persistent in demands or assertions." Why are you wasting our time?"


Phil (and Jeffrey):


It's not a matter of wasting our time. The question is why are you wasting your time responding to a person who over the years has proven he doesn't read well or understand what he reads well? And he also has proven over the years he doesn't write well at all----eg he seems to be oblivious to the use and function of an article in a sentence (note above) and he seems to think instance and insistence is the same word or has the same meaning and definition (note above)! Does that seem to you like a response from someone who is a competent golf course architecture analyst and historian?    
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You don't like my definition of insistent? Perhaps you would prefer the definition of insist: 1. to demand strongly 2. to declare firmly or persistently

I don't read a demand, strong or not, in my statement, nor was my declaration firm or persistent.

And for the sake of this thread moving beyond my alleged insisting White deserves design credit for Shawnee. I will answer Phil's question, although it has nothing to do with his mischaracterization of my statement. I don't know what specific changes were made at Shawnee or Ravisloe while White was engaged at those clubs. I do know he was involved with Brauer and Watson when the changes were made at Ravisloe; I'm not sure who he was involved with, if anyone, at Shawnee. That is why I asked the question regarding Tilly, which by the way no one has answered. But thats OK, we all know there is a double standard on GCA as to who we demand answers from and those we let slide.

[TEPaul]

“TEP
You don't like my definition of insistent? Perhaps you would prefer the definition of insist: 1. to demand strongly 2. to declare firmly or persistently.”


Tom MacWood:

Where did I say I didn’t like your definition of insistent? I was only commenting on your post to Phil Young, which follows:


"You've got to be kidding me. In your mind is every post on GCA an instance? This is definition of insistent in my dictionary: "insisting or demanding; persistent in demands or assertions." Why are you wasting our time?"


I was commenting on your question to Phil asking him if in his mind is every post on GCA an instance? Did you mean an insistence? I don’t think instance means the same thing as insistence, as in insistent, insist etc, etc.

Apparently you not only don’t read or understand what others on here say, you don’t seem to even be able to read and understand what you write and say on here, so how do you expect others to understand whatever it is you're trying to say? A legitimate question, I think, for someone who likes to call himself a researcher and historian on golf course architects and architecture.

[Phil_the_Author]

Post removed...

Tom Paul, you are right...

[TEPaul]

“No Tom, I'm not wasting our time, but you are by stating as FACT things that aren't and then, get ready for the word, insisting that they are so.”


But Phil, you didn’t answer his question, which is:



"You've got to be kidding me. In your mind is every post on GCA an instance?”


 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Then for fair play's sake, I will.

You stated, "But Phil, you didn’t answer his question, which is: "You've got to be kidding me. In your mind is every post on GCA an instance?”

Yes Tom, EVERY POST on GCA is an INSTANCE; very FEW of them are INSISTENT'S...

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Played a tournament here yesterday.

Pretty unbelievable that the attribution wasn't questioned sooner.

Great Road hole green. Cool Eden. Great Maiden, and Double Plateau. Interesting Redan.

Wall Street Journal newspaper clip posted in the Locker Room.

Mike

[Joe Bausch]

Time to get this thread more like it was earlier, "Hat-paul's vs the McWood-coys".   

A couple of early articles from the Daily Eagle on North Shore and Robert White.

(click on an article to expand it if your browser doesn't automatically do so!)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()