[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I am now convinced that you absolutely do not read what I write...

You wrote, "Like I said before you have some really bizarre logic. Are you under the impression those diagrams, reflecting the design, hanging in the office of the Harmonie Club, were drawn up the afternoon of March 13, 1915..." NO Tom, that is NOT what I wrote.  Just go back on this same page and you will read this:

"4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work." This is a direct quote from Steve's notes from the board minutes. The PLANS were complete by January 26, 1915. Why is that so difficult a thing for you to understand? You evidently don't because you followed your above statement with "The only thing we know for sure is that they were created sometime prior to March 13, 1915, actually before February when construction began..."

The PLANS were complete and presented to the members for a vote on January 26, 1915. That we know for a FACT.

It was only AFTER the vote that the course was "laid out" and this was done by March 13, 1915. We know this because the membership had to APPROVE the use of the wooded area for the golf course as shown on the plans BEFORE the course could be laid out. That approval didn't occur until January 26, 1915.

As for your statement, "As I pointed out to Phil it is ridiculous to read that statement and take away that the green committee laid out the golf course. You have to approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence..." Once again you simply miss that though you may want to INTERPRET what was written in the fashion that you are, it doesn't change the grammatical FACT that the sentence states that it was the Greens Committee who laid out the course.

Is it a POORLY written sentence? YES! But that is what it says. Still, the Greens Committee DID have significant design input as can be shown by this statement from Steve's notes:

From December 23, 1914 - "... that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course." 

That sure sounds to me like it was the BOARD that made the DECISION to use that part of the property for the golf course and NOT Raynor, CBM, White or anyone else. Obviously it was based upon Raynor's recommended design as presented through the Greens Committee, yet still, the Board itself couldn't finalize this until the MEMBERSHIP APPROVED it on January 26, 1915.

Please feel free to let me know once again how my logic on this, which is nothing more than going by what is contained in the OFFICIAL RECORD, is "bizarre," "ridiculas" or "confusing."

Finally, you asked my opinion on "Should CBM be given co-design credit?"

My opinion is that based solely on the records and information in the Harmonie Club and North Shore Club records that he should not. He is mentioned a single time and, in that case, as an expert in "construction" only. Too often you have demanded that absolute proofs be given on many threads when particular points have been made. You have required these to be contemporaneous and official. Well, here we have a contemporaneous and official statement found in the club's records that declares Raynor as the SOLE architect and CBM as an expert in construction... and nothing else.

Yes, that is a strict "interpretation" yet it also meets the facts as presented. The plans were set by January 26, 1915 with not even a hint of CBM involvement nor would there be until the course was ready to open. I believe that CBM simply toured the course during construction and gave some advice as to its building; at most, any design input would have been why not put a bunker here or there and not a "don't put the 14th hole there, put it over here and run it this way and change the 15th to meet it this way..."   

That the club chooses to give CBM equal credit is certainly their right and my opinion that this was not a collaboration in any real sense of the word is simply that, an opinion.

[Mike Cirba]

"Before I'm laid out, let me lay it all out."

[Mike Cirba]

"If he's obscure, you can be sure...unless, of course, he's an amateur!"

"Don't be so ignorant, he wasn't itinerant."

"The pros from abroad, must be given the nod"

"Don't be so Myopic, Willie C. did it quick."

"Barker on the train, no need to explain"

[Phil_the_Author]

Looks like Mike has been in the medicine cabinet again...

[Mike Cirba]

"North Shore a Tilly, don't be so silly...Phil get it right, it says Raynor and White!". .

[TEPaul]

This thread has been fairly active for close to six months.

First of all, this thread and this subject, as I mentioned before on here or somewhere, just might be the best GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has ever had when it comes to a bona fide change in the attributed architect by the club and others. I say this because the entire subject actually began on here (by George Bahto, almost six months ago).

And I say it because of the nature of the  research done by Steve Shaeffer (and Phil Young) was terrific, but to me I say it because most of all it's a great example of how to do this kind of thing right by taking the research to the club first before even putting it on here. For that Steve Shaeffer should be roundly applauded and so should this thread.

All that took approximately two months and about six pages on this thread. However, the thread is now up to 22 pages? Why is that? If you look at it, the ensuing appoximately 17 pages is basically Tom MacWood just continuing to question the North Shore attribution to Raynor, as well as some minor diversions along the way of his questioning the architectural attributtion of Westhampton, Mountain Lake etc. But it's mostly him just continuing to question whether essentially Robert White should be given co-desgin credit for North Shore with Raynor and perhaps Macdonald.

I don't see that anyone has supported that suggestion in the ensuing 17 pages and a number of people, including myself, just go over the same material over and over again with MacWood essentially disagreeing with him.

I don't think there is anything more benefical on a form like this one than basically "peer review" of one's opinion. Tom MacWood sometimes mentions on subjects like this----"the jury is out." Who then in the case of North Shore is the "jury?" Is it all of us on here and including the club? If so, it seems like the "jury" has spoken and some time ago.

It seems to me that Tom MacWood has received that peer review on his opinion about North Shore and Robert White and it's pretty obvious his opinion has gotten no support, basically none at all.

I therefore move that this thread end or be shut down. It has certainly served its purpose but it seems it did that basically back in January or early February. The rest has been mind-bendingly redundant.

[JESII]

Tom,

I have paid modest attention and contributed nothing to this thread but your request there should be directed at a very small handful of people...those engaging/entertaining Tom Macwood. He has opinions, but he doesn't have a conversation without you guys repeatedly arguing with him.

Just a thought...

There is no need for the administrators to get involved.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Good point. Whether the suggestion I made is directed to everyone looking in or just the 3-5 people who keep responding to MacWood, my suggestion remains the same. I certainly wouldn't expect the two administrators of GOLCLUBATLAS.com to get involved in this thread. It's pretty obvious from a lot of past experience they don't get involved in things like this. This thread throughout has been plenty civil so that's not the problem----I think it has just gotten far past the point of constructive for North Shore or anyone else. It sounds like your post to me is also a suggestion that I stop posting on this thread. If so, that's another good idea on your part. 

[Mark Hissey]

The thread has really ceased to be constructive. But frankly I think Phil and Tom P have analyzed and explained this thoroughly.

Having been one of only two people to have actually seen the records (including the ones still residing at the Hrmonie Club and at North Shore), and to have spent more hours looking at them than anybody else, I can safely say that I have a better feel for the mindset of the club at that time than anybody. This was a club that loved formality, proper behavior, and a place in America. You can feel it in their records when you read them. They didn't want to offend anybody and they went overboard with their formal accolades.

This is my point. The members of the club were incredibly detail oriented. They laid out their minutes in an incredibly formal and thorough fashion. Had Mr White been anything more than the Greenskeeper and Club Professional, they would have said it. My experience in building golf courses makes me feel that he acted in a role no different to the role of Greenskeepers today. You WANT your Greenskepper around when the course is being built. He adds valuable opinion to things and sees exactly what goes into the course for which he becomes agronomically responsible.

White was paid extra money during construction. It is in the records. I'm firmly convinced that is because he was expending so much time during the construction, but that didn't make him the primary architect. He did spend time at the club after the course was finished but it is clear that he wore out his welcome. He didn't last long and the board tersely authorized his removal from the club if required. That is hardly how they would refer to the architectural father of the club.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike C,

Thanks for carrying the ball on an attempt at humor to lighten this one up a bit.

TMac,

Sorry to have a little fun at your expense, but as always, I couldn't resist.  I agree with Mark - those minutes and glowing references are a matter of being polite.  Not a lot more.  Another thought occurs to me............  If I read the record correctly, NS hired White, and probably hired him because they were contemplating an expanded course, and he DID have some experience in the construction/co-design - one nine hole design 20 years before in 1895 and a partal renovation of Ravisloe where he was pro 1902 - 13 years before.

So, on one hand, it is clear he was hired for his well rounded experience.  On the other hand, if they hired him to design the golf course, why didn't his contract say that, and why did they specifically hire Raynor afterwards?  If they wanted White to be involved in the design, why didn't they say so in his agreement, and why did they hire Raynor afterwards?  

In his interview, they obviously brought up the fact that they were considering an expansion.  In their discussions, I imagine White either pitched it that he could design it, or he told them that he had some experience, but couldn't really design it on his own, so they hired Raynor/CBM.  Either he or NS specifically PASSED UP a chance to put White in charge of designing the course.  To whatever degree he was involved with the design, he had to assume the role of apprentice or subserviant based on that.  Do apprentices get credit?  Do guys passed up for the job get credit?

Lastly, if he was hired after Raynor's preliminary plan, he might possibly have excercized professional courtesy and "allowed" Raynor to "keep" his design job, with the proviso that he be involved.  You clearly think it is the last option, and it may very well be, but again, IMHO, if he or they passed up the chance to have him be the designer, it certainly sets up a very limited role, no?  

Sometimes, I think we look past common sense items in the timeline while looking at some clumsy English as a prime factor, and I just don't understand that. In general, the simplest answer is usually the right one, not the most convoluted, depends on archane details one.  And as hinted in my last post, I am starting to think that when someone like you repeatedly depends on archane points and English construction of sentences while ignoring basic conventions, and that you don't seem to even consider other reasonable points of view or possibilities, that you are probably not really seeking truth, but that you have an agenda (or crusade) to make sure that credit for design is expanded to a lot more people than its generally given out to.

In some ways, I think that is a great goal.  But, if you did it by uncovering real documents, rather than arguing endlessly based on interpretation, it is in the end futile......and frustrating.  I just hate to see this website degenerate into endless bickering over the English language.  We get it. You like to find a bunch of little guys behind the big guys who made it all happen.  And I agree every project has several, down to ditch diggers who will NEVER get recogition even if they somehow saved the project by realizing the ditch needed to be dug here rather than there, etc.  

In fact, I doubt I have ever been on a job where the shapers, foreman, passersby, etc. haven't gone to the bar and told stories for years about how they saved the architects ass, saved the construction company millions, saved the owner from himself, etc.  Of course, its possible that those "saved the gca's ass" stories only ORIGINATE on MY jobs.......

[George_Bahto]

This thread has served a great service to the North Shore Country Club, their members and their new owner.

It has shown, well beyond most other posts, what we at golfclubatlas website are capable of accomplishing if focused.

Don’t let this deteriorate any more than it already has - please.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark,

That was very well summed up. As you & Tom stated this thread has run its course and I'll take my leave from it...

[Bill Brightly]

Thanks for that excellent post Mark, and for sharing the tenor of the minutes. I think almost everyone who has followed this thread will agree that this should end it.

Good luck with the restoration!

[TEPaul]

Mark Hissey:


Post #769 is excellent. I think it addresses the historical context of the course and club, and it addresses, just as well, the current context of the club pertaining to its golf architectural history of 1914-16.

Well done!

I think this entire six month investigation and revelation has been so interesting for both us and the club as well.

Tom MacWood seems to want to try to carry it on with no real identifiable point or purpose anymore, other than a highly illogical one, and also one that seems to have been completely quashed by peer review on here. It seems all that is left for him is just his own self promoting argumentation, that, at this point, is something sort of like a fly that needs to be swatted!

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.”

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.

That's an interpretation I don't agree with.

This quote doesn't provide generalized attribution, but rather, attribution and credit for SPECIFIC TASKS.

IF Robert White acted as a functioning architect, they would have given him credit, by title, deed or reference, for his efforts/work.

But, they don't.

Instead, they give him credit for being a "Greens Expert"  Not an architect, not a router, not a constructor, but a "Greens Expert"

While, in the same sentence the give SR credit for not just being the architect, but the leading architect in America.

IF he was the leading architect in America, and North Shore took pride in his retention, why on earth would they undermine his lofty position as the leading architect in America by having someone else, Robert White, assist him in that task ?

It doesn't make sense.

You don't hire the "leading architect in America" and then have someone else, a lesser known, do the work for/with him.

I think your interpretation is more than a quantum leap of faith.
And, if you saw North Shore, you would have to say that almost everything about it reeks of CBM-SR-CB.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Welcome to the club, even if you are about four months late! 

[Mike Cirba]

Mark Hissey,

Thanks for your work and research here, as well as your terrific post that talks about the "tone" of the minutes, which I think is just as important as the grammar.

This reminds me greatly of similiar threads, where helpful participants were thanked graciously for their "excellent advice that was of the most helpful nature", or words to that effect that rang to me with the validity and sincertiy of an Academy Awards speech...no more or no less.

While it's true that many people were, and are, involved in the creation of any golf course, most times there is a single person who is ultimately "in charge", and deemed and assigned responsibility for the ultimate resullts.

While it's important that we try to tell the WHOLE story, which I think this thread has done an excellent job with, and which I think Tom MacWood's perspective has added value by helping to push some here to really dig dieep, I think it's also equally important that  in our rush to give credit to all of those involved we don't simultaneously end up devaluing or diminishing the one person who truly was in charge of the creation of the golf course.

In the case of North Shore, while I think there's certainly room to celebrate and acknowledge Robert White's involvement with the early years of the club, I also think it's clear that the person responsible for the success or failure of the design of the golf course rested on the shoulders of one relatively untested Seth Raynor.

Thanks to all of you for a terrific thread.

[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 an interpretation I don't agree with.

This quote doesn't provide generalized attribution, but rather, attribution and credit for SPECIFIC TASKS.

IF Robert White acted as a functioning architect, they would have given him credit, by title, deed or reference, for his efforts/work.

But, they don't.

Instead, they give him credit for being a "Greens Expert"  Not an architect, not a router, not a constructor, but a "Greens Expert"

While, in the same sentence the give SR credit for not just being the architect, but the leading architect in America.

IF he was the leading architect in America, and North Shore took pride in his retention, why on earth would they undermine his lofty position as the leading architect in America by having someone else, Robert White, assist him in that task ?

It doesn't make sense.

You don't hire the "leading architect in America" and then have someone else, a lesser known, do the work for/with him.

I think your interpretation is more than a quantum leap of faith.
And, if you saw North Shore, you would have to say that almost everything about it reeks of CBM-SR-CB.

Should CBM be given co-design credit? If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Alright, I have a new theory on the NS design attribution.........Aliens! 

Well, ya gotta admit its just as logical as some of the stuff TMac has put on here over the last few years!

PS - New low point in my gca.com "career".....TMac telling me I have got to be logical!

Seriously Tom.....we are at the point where we are arguing semantics and sentence structure, but not architecture or even attribution.  We can to that until the cows come home or the aliens land.  Its an argument that can't be won on either side, so perhaps we just agree to disagree......until the next course comes along and we start all over.  The only thing we have proved here (again) is that there are about a dozen of us who like a good natured argument about design attribution!

And, I think most people have actually agreed that White was deeply and enthusiastly involved.  I can see why you think he should get some credit. I can see why CBM shouldn't get credit, based on how much time he actually spent.  For reasons we have expounded on - basically that the day to day superintendent (pro) of construction generally puts in some good ideas, but doesn't get credit by general standards.  You either think he should, or think he did more, based on 2 similar projects before NS and a later career in gca, which ironically seemed to get rolling right AFTER his invovment at North Shore.

I'm done. I'm not angry about anything, but I just don't see the point in agreeing on some points, disagreeing on others, and yet repeating the arguments ad nauseum in a friendly argument.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I am now convinced that you absolutely do not read what I write...

You wrote, "Like I said before you have some really bizarre logic. Are you under the impression those diagrams, reflecting the design, hanging in the office of the Harmonie Club, were drawn up the afternoon of March 13, 1915..." NO Tom, that is NOT what I wrote.  Just go back on this same page and you will read this:

"4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work." This is a direct quote from Steve's notes from the board minutes. The PLANS were complete by January 26, 1915. Why is that so difficult a thing for you to understand? You evidently don't because you followed your above statement with "The only thing we know for sure is that they were created sometime prior to March 13, 1915, actually before February when construction began..."

The PLANS were complete and presented to the members for a vote on January 26, 1915. That we know for a FACT.

I understand the plans were presented on January 26. I also understand those plans were hanging on the wall at the Harmonie Club in March, and those plans reflect the work of Raynor and White in laying out the course.

It was only AFTER the vote that the course was "laid out" and this was done by March 13, 1915. We know this because the membership had to APPROVE the use of the wooded area for the golf course as shown on the plans BEFORE the course could be laid out. That approval didn't occur until January 26, 1915.

You are confused. The course was not laid out twice. This is what it says about the woodland: "On December 23, 1914, the Club noted that a contract with White, pursuant to the action of the previous meeting of the Board, had been made, that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course." They approved the redesign plan on January 26. Logically we understand the redesign plan (i.e. the laying out of the course) took several days or weeks to evolve. We know that because they were working on it in December. Obviously the use of the woodlands was being considered when Raynor & White were laying out the course in December. There is no mention in the minutes of a specific approval for the use of the wooded land, they only asked the committee their sense or opinion. The only approval mentioned is the one for the overall plan, so once again your logic is bizarre.

As for your statement, "As I pointed out to Phil it is ridiculous to read that statement and take away that the green committee laid out the golf course. You have to approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence..." Once again you simply miss that though you may want to INTERPRET what was written in the fashion that you are, it doesn't change the grammatical FACT that the sentence states that it was the Greens Committee who laid out the course.

Go ahead an interpret it that way, and the rest of us with our feet firmly planted on the ground will respectively read it a different way.

Is it a POORLY written sentence? YES! But that is what it says. Still, the Greens Committee DID have significant design input as can be shown by this statement from Steve's notes:

From December 23, 1914 - "... that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course."  

Again that is consistent with their oversight role. White or White & Raynor were asking the board their opinion on the use of the wooded area. Asking if it would OK to use different parts of the property is not designing.

That sure sounds to me like it was the BOARD that made the DECISION to use that part of the property for the golf course and NOT Raynor, CBM, White or anyone else. Obviously it was based upon Raynor's recommended design as presented through the Greens Committee, yet still, the Board itself couldn't finalize this until the MEMBERSHIP APPROVED it on January 26, 1915.

Is this some kind of revelation? That is pretty standard fair with these types of project isn't it?

Please feel free to let me know once again how my logic on this, which is nothing more than going by what is contained in the OFFICIAL RECORD, is "bizarre," "ridiculas" or "confusing."

I prefer bizarre.

Finally, you asked my opinion on "Should CBM be given co-design credit?"

My opinion is that based solely on the records and information in the Harmonie Club and North Shore Club records that he should not. He is mentioned a single time and, in that case, as an expert in "construction" only. Too often you have demanded that absolute proofs be given on many threads when particular points have been made. You have required these to be contemporaneous and official. Well, here we have a contemporaneous and official statement found in the club's records that declares Raynor as the SOLE architect and CBM as an expert in construction... and nothing else.

Yes, that is a strict "interpretation" yet it also meets the facts as presented. The plans were set by January 26, 1915 with not even a hint of CBM involvement nor would there be until the course was ready to open. I believe that CBM simply toured the course during construction and gave some advice as to its building; at most, any design input would have been why not put a bunker here or there and not a "don't put the 14th hole there, put it over here and run it this way and change the 15th to meet it this way..."  

That the club chooses to give CBM equal credit is certainly their right and my opinion that this was not a collaboration in any real sense of the word is simply that, an opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Okay, so I wasn't done....

TMac,

When a director gets up and gives an Oscar acceptance speech, naming all the other people who made the film and award possible, do they change the credits to say "directed by James Cameron, two gophers, a lighting guy and a flunky," or does the credit stay with the director?

Does the make up artist share the award and credit with the Best Actress no matter how much glowing praise she gives her?

To make it more relevant, if there was an assisstant director who had some experience directing (on a smaller scale perhaps) and later went on to some directing success himself, he still would be credited as the assistant director on that film.  Credit wouldn't be changed later to make him co-director of the film, despite what happened later, would it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Although I would add the word "specific" to your question, this part of your answer sums up the futility and reality of the debate pretty well:

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

TMac will once again offer up the same portion of the minutes, and add interpretations of his own to desparately prove his point.......AGAIN.

I have suggested that he could, perhaps but with no guarantee, use his research skills to find more concrete evidence of specific ideas or design contributions.  I am thinking that MAYBE somewhere out there, there are letters or remninscenes like the Francis quote at Merion where he says "I made but one contribution to the design...." and then lists the triangle swap. Something like that, found by anyone, would add to the history of North Shore,and perhaps to this discucssion group.  Or perhaps not.......This group argued a few months about what kind of bicycle Francis rode across town to share his idea, didn't it?

BTW, maybe someone can refresh my memory - did the Raynor consulting and routing come before or after White was hired as pro?  If before, as I think it was, and given how important routing is, that would certainly put Raynor even more in the drivers seat, as if he isn't already.

Edit, I went back in the thread and found it myself.....

"On November 5, 1914, the Club authorized the sum of $400.00 to hire Seth Raynor in an advisory capacity for possible improvement of the existing course on the property."

"On November 12, 1914, the Club hired Robert White, at $1200.00 per year, to begin on December 1, 1914, with an option to terminate after 6 months with 30 days notice. His duties were: To take charge of the present golf course and to superintend the building of a new one, if undertaken, and to perform such other duties as the Board may direct..."

They were retained for their respective services essentially at the same time, leading one to believe that they were pretty durn shure they were going to expand the course, but left their options open just in case by hiring Raynor in two parts.  Being hired at the same time suggests they were expected to work together in their respective capacities and I have little doubt they got along and did work together in their respective areas to produce the course.  As to whether White's contribution should allow him to be credited as co-designer 95 years later by TMac, I won't bother retyping.......

In rereading, I had also forgotten that White was apparently at Shawnee in a similar capacity in 1913.  So, he liked pro jobs where he got involved in construction and good for him. But, I had earlier said he had only two similar jobs, and for the record, I guess he had at least three, and perhaps CW even missed one or two between 1894 when he arrived and 1914 when he started at NS.  That is 20 years and perhaps 3-4 involvements in golf courrse building.  They bulk of his +/- three dozen design jobs (according to Whitten) came later.  His early ones were similar to NS where he was pro or greenskeeper while they were rebuilding.

I think I might search around and see what I can find out about White.  He does seem like an intersting character but he does seem like a tweener in the gca field, having also devoted so much time to the PGA and agonomy.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

In respect to Mark Hissey's wonderful summation I wasn't planning on posting again to this thread, but I felt that something you stated needed clarification. Regarding White at Shawnee you stated, "In rereading, I had also forgotten that White was apparently at Shawnee in a similar capacity in 1913.  So, he liked pro jobs where he got involved in construction and good for him..."

That isn't accurate. Shawnee was redesigned and expanded by 500+ yards in 1912-13. Both the design and construction work was overseen by Tilly personally. White was hired AFTER all the work was done and as Tilly himself wrote, "the turf was turned over to him." White was a turf expert and there had been turf problems on the course from the first day of the original course opening in May of 1911. He did absolutely NO CONSTRUCTION WORK, whether personally or overseeing work crews, while at Shawnee.

Earlier in the thread Tom Macwood insisted that White not only oversaw construction work there but actually did a joint redesign with Tilly. He was wrong on both accounts and I both pointed it out and provided the proof. In fact, you should go back and take a look at the discussion because White's "redesign" of Ravisloe was also discussed. Interestingly, what was presented as a major project was described by White himself just a few months before he left to go to Shawnee as being minor in scope saying that the "greens had remained virtually unchanged since 1902..." So his design experience in 1915 was quite limited, especially in comparison with Raynor...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

Thanks for the clarification.  I scrolled back and found that post when looking for the hiring dates, but not all the answering posts.  CW does list Ravisloe as a White redesign without a date, and does NOT list Shawnee, BTW. (or North Shore) I guess I should double fact check before posting.  I agree that his 1915 design experience was quite limited, based on the listings in CW but got a bit paranoid that someone here would say that CW has been known to be wrong on occaision, so I almost posted that to head off the attack.

One reason that some people are concerned with this site, the internet in general is the potential for just such a thing happening.  If some future researcher does the same thing, the potential for the internet to be a great distributor of information turns into the great distributor of misinformation....compared to traditional news outlets, there is absolutely no vetting process that keeps misinformation, lies, etc. from being posted, and perhaps relied upon.

I probably will do some checking on White.  Shawnee in1912-1913, NS by 1914, left there a year or so later.  Either he liked a new challenge or they got tired of him quickly, and it would be interested to know which. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()