[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

"What evidence do you have that CBM made the models himself?"

I asked that same question of Tom several times; each time he never even mentioned the question and gave no answer in any of hsi responses... I hope you do better with it!

For what it is worth, and I'm sure that it will be worth little, the models of the NGLA shown in CBM's & Whigham's famous series of articles in the 1914 issues of Golf Illustrated describing certain holes were not made by CBM nor by Whigham. They were made by "Oscar Smith Jr. of F.S. Tainter & Co., 55 Wall Street, New York." By the way, they are plaster-of-Paris models and not plasticene...   

[TEPaul]

Phil:

As far as you know weren't those models that were photographed in that article on NGLA you mentioned made after the fact of design and construction of the golf course?

I've also long wondered when that massive whole course model was made that hangs in the maintenance building.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

The same developer/land-planner/golf architect team used at ML (Ruth, Raynor, Olmsted) was also used at Fishers Island. Those two clubs were apparently like sister clubs of sorts with the same staffs working both seasonally. They must have had a lot of the same members.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Yes they were. In fact the description reads that Oscar Smith Jr. first surveyed the course and then made the models. I believe that they were made for the article itself for that reason, although I could be wrong. It was Robert White who wrote in 1918 that the course work at North Shore was done using plasticene models.

[Tom MacWood]

"When it came to accurate surveying, contours, plastic relief models of the land, draining, piping water in quantity over the entire course, wells and pumps, and in many instances clearing land of forests, eradicating the stone, finally resulting in preparing a course for seeding, he [Raynor] had no peer."

I found this in Scotland's Gift, which finally gives me a partial answer to my original question. He obviously made models for CBM - did he make models when working independently from CBM? I still have my doubts about Mountain Lake based on the timing. I think there is a good possibility CBM was involved, at least during the first phase.

[TEPaul]

Since Charlie said that about Raynor and his making and use of 'plastic relief models' I would tend to use that as a fact supported by what Charlie said about it in his autobiography.

However, the rest----eg Charlie must have helped Raynor at ML because Raynor may not have done plastic or plasticine relief models on his own seems like a stretch of logic and should be looked at as mere speculation, in my opinion.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
You're right you did answer my question about the source of your ML essay - the club history ‘Mountain Lake’ written by Jim Caldwell in 1986. You also said that Caldwell obviously had access to the club archives. I asked you if Caldwell mentioned his source (or sources), and you couldn't answer the question. Did you attempt to independently verify any of Caldwell's information, if so where did you look?

Regarding George refusing to present supporting documentation I cannot think of a legitimate reason why. If the supporting material is there it could not possibly hurt his book sales. There are a few of us who have never had a problem with such requests. Do you know of any legitimate historian who does not support their findings? We clearly have a double standard on GCA.

[Tom MacWood]

"1. CBM said Raynor went out on his own in 1917.......
.........5. Raynor was a civil engineer, and not likely to use models. He designed 50+ courses during his career,......"



Tom MacWood:

If your above remarks on Raynor were from your research and analysis on Raynor in Macdonald's autobiography, you're not the researcher I thought you were and you're worse at analysis than I thought you were which was never very good anyway.


Here's what Macdonald said in his book:

"By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen."



Apparently you don't read very carefully or you just read things into what you research and analyze that aren't there perhaps because you enter into some of these subjects with various preconceptions, assumptions or conclusions that aren't necessarily accurate or true.

Is it any wonder no one on here seems to put much crediblity in the things you say anymore?

TEP
100 to 150 is a pretty round figure wouldn't you say? And he did say built or reconstructed, not designed. I think there are a little over 100 courses in Bahto's book, and number of those are CBM solo jobs, CBM construction jobs, Banks solo jobs and courses never built. I do try to read carefully, but I also read with some understanding of what he actually did during his life. You don't like my figure of 50+ courses Raynor actually designed. What would have been a better figure?

You have condensed the quote, here is a longer version:

"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."

Obviously something happened in 1917, if its not going out on his own what was it?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Yes they were. In fact the description reads that Oscar Smith Jr. first surveyed the course and then made the models. I believe that they were made for the article itself for that reason, although I could be wrong.

I agree with that.

[TEPaul]

When George Bahto said in response to you in Post #451:

"No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement"----I took that to mean just what he said----eg that he doesn't feel like engaging in an argument with you.

I have always found George pretty good at supporting with factual information his sources for his assumptions and conclusions in his book. I guess it just boils down to the fact that some people want to get into hypothetical and speculative arguments on here more than others do.

[Tom MacWood]

Since Charlie said that about Raynor and his making and use of 'plastic relief models' I would tend to use that as a fact supported by what Charlie said about it in his autobiography.

However, the rest----eg Charlie must have helped Raynor at ML because Raynor may not have done plastic or plasticine relief models on his own seems like a stretch of logic and should be looked at as mere speculation, in my opinion.

CBM's use of models is only one reason to question the current ML story. The timing of the project is a more important reason for doubt IMO.  

[TEPaul]

"I think there are a little over 100 courses in Bahto's book, and number of those are CBM solo jobs,"



CBM solo jobs??

What are those? What is an example of a "CBM solo job?" I am not aware of any course CBM was involved with in which he said he gave his "personal attention" in which Raynor was not also involved with him.

Are you?

[Tom MacWood]

"I think there are a little over 100 courses in Bahto's book, and number of those are CBM solo jobs,"



CBM solo jobs??

What are those? What is an example of a "CBM solo job?" I am not aware of any course CBM was involved with in which he said he gave his "personal attention" in which Raynor was not also involved with him.

Are you?

TEP
CBM was involved in the design of two or three courses in Chicago prior to meeting Raynor.

[TEPaul]

"CBM's use of models is only one reason to question the current ML story. The timing of the project is more important reason for doubt IMO."


This time I must say I have no idea what you are saying or trying to say with that remark above. Why would CBM's use of models preclude Raynor's use of models on his own at ML without the help of CBM at ML? What do you mean the timing of ML is more important for doubt in your opinion? What doubt?  
 
 
 

[Adam_Messix]

TEP
CBM was involved in the design of two or three courses in Chicago prior to meeting Raynor.
[/quote]

Tom MacWood--

I'm curious as to which courses CBM as involved in Chicago w/o Raynor....I'm guessing the original Chicago Golf Club (later Belmont, then Downer's Grove), and the current location Chicago Golf Club's original course are two,I think both were involved in the 1923 redesign? (I don't have the book in front of me)  What other courses did he do in Chicago w/o Raynor?  

[Tom MacWood]

"CBM's use of models is only one reason to question the current ML story. The timing of the project is more important reason for doubt IMO."


This time I must say I have no idea what you are saying or trying to say with that remark above. Why would CBM's use of models preclude Raynor's use of models on his own at ML without the help of CBM at ML? What do you mean the timing of ML is more important for doubt in your opinion? What doubt?  
 

TEP
If you look at the timeline of Raynor's design career, and combine that information with what CBM said about 1917, I think it is unlikely ML in 1915 was a Raynor solo effort.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
CBM was involved in the design of two or three courses in Chicago prior to meeting Raynor."


Very true. However, those 1890s courses CBM did in Chicago and even including CGC do not seem to rise to the extent of architectural excellence in architecture, even in CBM's mind and opinion, that his National School courses do that essentially emanated from his idea to create an ideal golf course with NGLA and an ideal model for golf course architecture that NGLA inspired or was supposed to inspire.

I remind you that the entire method and model that CBM came up with to create NGLA and that National School came completely AFTER CBM had done those 19th century Chicago courses and moved to New York in 1900 when he came up with his entire idea of how to create NGLA and the National School architectural model.

In my opinion, those few 1890s courses he did in Chicago, including CGC, were apples compared to oranges with what he did with NGLA and later and he apparently looked at it that way too for completely apparent reasons to both him and to us today.
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
It sounds like you've also given a great deal of thought to the subject. For those of us interested in golf architecture history where can we find some of your historical essays. By the way I have your Gulph Mills report from 1999, and its very well done."


Tom MacWood:

Thank you. The GMGC design evolution report from 1999 was the first thing I did which was not long after I got interested in golf course architecture. I did another design evolution report for The Creek Club with their historian in the last few years. Other than that the only other published architectural essays were with another fellow for a chapter in a golf architecture book out of Australia, a few essays or articles on architecture or architects in the GAP's magazine and in the USGA's U.S. Amateur Championship program at Merion in 2005 and the Walker Cup program at Merion in 2009. Other than that the only one I recall is a very early "In My Opinion" piece on this website.

I would also like to add, AGAIN, that all the architectural subjects I've been involved in researching, carefully analyzing and writing about involve clubs and courses I have a really good and long term familiarity and relationship with. I would not try to do it otherwise and I've always recommended the same process and method as absolutely necessary for anyone else, very much including you, who's interested in researching, analyzing and writing about the architecture or architects of golf courses.

Matter of fact, I think the only people I've ever heard of who have tried to research, analyze and write about golf clubs and the architecture and architectural evolution of their courses without FIRST establishing a good working relationship with the subject club and a real familiarity with the golf course is you and David Moriarty.

The other real irony to me is both of you have preceded and qualified some of your remarks on here that you are actually only trying to learn about the architectural histories of these courses! But yet both of you refuse to actually collaborate with anyone at those clubs and courses who know the architectural histories of those courses and clubs and who has access to and good familiarity with contemporaneous club material that is vital to know and to analyze for a comprehensive understanding of the course's architecture and its architects. The method and process both of you have not only used but also defended is far more confrontational than collaborative. Apparently your logic is that these clubs are always trying to hide some truth and not seek it out in the maintenance of some inaccurate "legend" story.

I don't buy that at all and I have never really seen it in the architectural subjects and investigations I've been involved in which are not exactly a small amount of them, at this point.  

TEP
The Gulph Mills photo essay is very well done. The other essay is not really an historical piece per say, as far as historical research is concerned that is, its more of a repackaging or regurgitation of what others have written over the years. Do you have any other works you can point to that illustrate your qualifications as a historical researcher and writer?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
If you look at the timeline of Raynor's design career, and combine that information with what CBM said about 1917, I think it is unlikely ML in 1915 was a Raynor solo effort."


Tom MacWood:

Is it really any wonder that there does not appear to be a contributor left on this thread or on this website that seems to feel you have any credibility left?

Even though it has been explained to you a number of time by a number of people on this thread and with CBM's direct quote about 1917 and Raynor, CBM did not say that Raynor began his solo career in architecture after 1917; he only said that he felt by 1917 Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture. Your continued interpretation of what that meant regarding the beginning of Raynor's solo career in golf architecture is both bizarre and mistaken. But by this time I think most all of us on here know that many to most of your interpretations on here have become both bizarre and mistaken.

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
CBM was involved in the design of two or three courses in Chicago prior to meeting Raynor."


Very true. However, those 1890s courses CBM did in Chicago and even including CGC do not seem to rise to the extent of architectural excellence in architecture, even in CBM's mind and opinion, that his National School courses do that essentially emanated from his idea to create an ideal golf course with NGLA and an ideal model for golf course architecture that NGLA inspired or was supposed to inspire.

I remind you that the entire method and model that CBM came up with to create NGLA and that National School came completely AFTER CBM had done those 19th century Chicago courses and moved to New York in 1900 when he came up with his entire idea of how to create NGLA and the National School architectural model.

In my opinion, those few 1890s courses he did in Chicago, including CGC, were apples compared to oranges with what he did with NGLA and later and he apparently looked at it that way too for completely apparent reasons to both him and to us today.
 

Now I'm going to have to chastise you for not reading very carefully. I said Bahto's book covered approximately 100 courses, but a number of those were CBM solo jobs, CBM construction jobs, etc. etc. Who cares what you think about the excellence of CBM's early work, the point I was trying to make had to do with the number of courses covered in George's Macdonald's biography, and ultimately trying to determine how many courses Raynor designed.

[Tom MacWood]

When George Bahto said in response to you in Post #451:

"No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement"----I took that to mean just what he said----eg that he doesn't feel like engaging in an argument with you.

I have always found George pretty good at supporting with factual information his sources for his assumptions and conclusions in his book. I guess it just boils down to the fact that some people want to get into hypothetical and speculative arguments on here more than others do.

Where in the book do you find his sources?

There is a double standard. Demanding information from me (which I have no problem with by the way), while at the same time making excuses for others is the height of hypocrisy.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood--

I'm curious as to which courses CBM as involved in Chicago w/o Raynor....I'm guessing the original Chicago Golf Club (later Belmont, then Downer's Grove), and the current location Chicago Golf Club's original course are two,I think both were involved in the 1923 redesign? (I don't have the book in front of me)  What other courses did he do in Chicago w/o Raynor?  

The three I'm thinking of are Downer's Grove, Wheaton and Washington Park.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I don't want to start an argument but I must take exception to your comment, "Regarding George refusing to present supporting documentation I cannot think of a legitimate reason why. If the supporting material is there it could not possibly hurt his book sales. There are a few of us who have never had a problem with such requests. Do you know of any legitimate historian who does not support their findings? We clearly have a double standard on GCA..."

I can think of a number of reasons why he wouldn't, yet being able to do so or not doesn't change the fact that George DID give you a reason for not doing so. He said that he didn't want to argue with you. You responded by saying that you weren't arguing and in doing so, in my opinion, solidified the reason he gave in his mind. He hadn't said that you HAD argued with him, he had said he didn't want TO argue; the difference being that he was expecting one from you on the topic. I know that you generally don't like my advice, but I think if you simply had asked him WHY he felt that you would have argued with him that you may have been able to overcome his reticence.

In your comments you asked, "Do you know of any legitimate historian who does not support their findings?"

The answer is YES. The irony in that is how you followed that statement with the phrase "We clearly have a double standard on GCA..." for didn't David Moriarity, and I believe him to be a competent golf historian, REFUSE to post his essay on Merion BEFORE he was ready to do so? This even when asked about it and questions about his conclusions that had been leaked were being asked? I know this to be true because I was one of those asking him that he refused giving answers to. I also supported his right not to answer.

Another example is ME. Though I am quite certain that you are not among them, some consider me a fairly competent golf historian at least where Tilly is concerned, yet I have consistently REFUSED to provide information when asked about specific timeline questions regarding Tilly, this despite making statements that Tilly was at such-and-such a place on a certain date. You know this to be true because I have refused this information to you on this site.

My reasons for doing so are specific to the instance yet general in nature. For example, without giving it away, you once asked me about an instance involving a specific course and I refused to answer it. What you were not aware of was that I had been hired by that club to research some information for them and it involved that specific piece of information. As the report hadn't been sent to the club I felt obligated to not reveal it as I made that portion of my timeline discovery while researching their question.

Like it or not, each individual historian must answer to 2 sets of "ethics." The first is to those that his particular area of study have set up or expect. Unfortunately, the field of golf historical studies has none. The historian is then left with his own personal ethics, an example of which is the case I cited above for myself. That you may disagree with his ethics and application of them doesn't in any way challenge or diminish George's legitimacy and reputation as an outstanding golf historian. It may for you personally but that is all.

Whether giving out information would affect coming book sales or not, George had his own reasons. Frankly I believe that sales never entered the picture.

The general reason that I won't give out specific information from my Tillinghast timeline is because I have worked too darn hard and invested a great deal of personal time and resources into it to put even pieces of it out there in a public setting until I am absolutely ready to do so. If that is an inconvenience for those who want answers now to specific questions then they can simply do what I have done... do the research themselves! Either that or wait. They can also ask me in a private, non-public setting such as an email. I have chosen to give out answers to some of those questions that way in some instances while not doing so in others.

I know, Tom; once again I've written far too much but your few words challenge George's veracity and honor, and though I don't believe that you meant it as a personal affront, I feel that some understanding is needed by you and possibly others who don't usually go beyond the research part to becoming the historian themselves.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
You are a part of the double standard I was referring to, and ironically a good example can be found earlier on this thread (page 3). I asked you for examples of courses Tilly designed or redesigned that were not listed on his pamphlet. You listed a number of courses but when I asked for more specific information you refused.

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
If you look at the timeline of Raynor's design career, and combine that information with what CBM said about 1917, I think it is unlikely ML in 1915 was a Raynor solo effort."


Tom MacWood:

Is it really any wonder that there does not appear to be a contributor left on this thread or on this website that seems to feel you have any credibility left?

Even though it has been explained to you a number of time by a number of people on this thread and with CBM's direct quote about 1917 and Raynor, CBM did not say that Raynor began his solo career in architecture after 1917; he only said that he felt by 1917 Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture. Your continued interpretation of what that meant regarding the beginning of Raynor's solo career in golf architecture is both bizarre and mistaken. But by this time I think most all of us on here know that many to most of your interpretations on here have become both bizarre and mistaken.

"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."

Obviously something happened in 1917, if its not going out on his own what was it? What does post graduate mean? If he was an undergraduate prior to 1917, doesn't that indicate he was still working under the tutelage of the professor?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()