[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

We now know indisputably due to Mark Hissey's reproduction of the North Shore minutes earlier today and Joe Bausch's finding of a 1916 Grantland Rice article on Mountain Lake above that Seth Raynor did solo designs prior to 1917.  

I'm not sure yet about Westhampton, but agree that I'd like to see more info to support Barker's role.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

North Shore isn't that far from Southampton but Lake Wales sure is.

Westhampton seems like a natural for Raynor.

If Tom MacWood can supply the date of publication on the Westhampton Beach article and Barker, and the name of the publication, it might make the answer more discernable.

[Tom MacWood]

Grantland Rice wrote a wee bit about Mountain Lake in the Evening Ledger on two different occasions.  The earliest being in November, 1916, then again in February, 1920.

Joe
A very nice find, I'm glad someone else is interested in presenting contemporaneous documentation. I reckon no one will offer their opinion that newspaper articles are an unreliable source. Very strong evidence that ML was designed by Raynor in 1916 at the very least.

[Tom MacWood]

Pat
The article is from Golf magazine February 1915.

[Mike Sweeney]

Grantland Rice wrote a wee bit about Mountain Lake in the Evening Ledger on two different occasions.  The earliest being in November, 1916, then again in February, 1920.

Joe
A very nice find, I'm glad someone else interested in presenting contemporaneous documentation. I reckon no one will offer their opinion that newspaper articles are an unreliable source. Very strong evidence that ML was designed by Raynor in 1916 at the very least.

"According to John Caldwell, author of ‘Mountain Lake’ in 1986, Raynor came to Florida for the first time in his life in the Spring of 1915, where he met by Fred Olmstead and they toured the Belleaire Hotel’s two 18 hole golf courses in Clearwater, Florida. Over at Mountain Lake, Olmstead and Raynor walked the projected course often together, and at night Raynor would sit down with Olmstead’s contour map to piece the course together. By mid-May of 1915, Raynor and Olmstead had the course design incorporated into the overall plan. Models were then built by Raynor and sent from Southampton where holes 1-6 and current 16-18 were completed by December of 1916."

Tom,

No offense to Joe, but this just confirms what I wrote about 5 years ago which was an adaptation of the club history from 1986. There is no credible evidence at this point that Raynor was not in Lake Wales in the Spring of 1915.

We now have:

1. one newspaper report that says 1917 from Miami

2. one newspaper report that says 1916 opening from Philadelphia

3. one golf periodical that says 1915 in some editions and 1917 in other editions.

Sorry but this only proves that some/many outsiders don't really care about the accuracy of their reports. It also shows the lack of specificity of these outside reports. The Mountain Lake book by John Caldwell is the only one that talks specifically about Raynor's visit to Mountain Lake in the Spring of 1915. The reports all talk about a generic opening which has nothing to do with the designing of the course. Opening comes much later than designing.

At this point, the only specificity on Mountain Lake comes from Mountain Lake. Clearly 1917 was not a significant year in the MacRaynor relationship. It was an ebb and flow based on situational needs. See Yale at the end of Raynor's life and career. Raynor clearly had a reputation by the time Yale was commissioned by Yale University was not going to allow a Princeton engineer to design its course which opened in 1925.

[Tom MacWood]

Grantland Rice wrote a wee bit about Mountain Lake in the Evening Ledger on two different occasions.  The earliest being in November, 1916, then again in February, 1920.

Joe
A very nice find, I'm glad someone else interested in presenting contemporaneous documentation. I reckon no one will offer their opinion that newspaper articles are an unreliable source. Very strong evidence that ML was designed by Raynor in 1916 at the very least.

"According to John Caldwell, author of ‘Mountain Lake’ in 1986, Raynor came to Florida for the first time in his life in the Spring of 1915, where he met by Fred Olmstead and they toured the Belleaire Hotel’s two 18 hole golf courses in Clearwater, Florida. Over at Mountain Lake, Olmstead and Raynor walked the projected course often together, and at night Raynor would sit down with Olmstead’s contour map to piece the course together. By mid-May of 1915, Raynor and Olmstead had the course design incorporated into the overall plan. Models were then built by Raynor and sent from Southampton where holes 1-6 and current 16-18 were completed by December of 1916."

Tom,

No offense to Joe, but this just confirms what I wrote about 5 years ago which was an adaptation of the club history from 1986. There is no credible evidence at this point that Raynor was not in Lake Wales in the Spring of 1915.

We now have:

1. one newspaper report that says 1917 from Miami

There is no newspaper report from Miami that says 1917. That was the Golf Course Guide.

2. one newspaper report that says 1916 opening from Philadelphia

I don't believe that is what the report says.

3. one golf periodical that says 1915 in some editions and 1917 in other editions.

I assume you referring to Golf Course Guide. There were eight guides that listed 1917 and two that listed 1915.

Sorry but this only proves that some/many outsiders don't really care about the accuracy of their reports. It also shows the lack of specificity of these outside reports. The Mountain Lake book by John Caldwell is the only one that talks specifically about Raynor's visit to Mountain Lake in the Spring of 1915. The reports all talk about a generic opening which has nothing to do with the designing of the course. Opening comes much later than designing.

At this point, the only specificity on Mountain Lake comes from Mountain Lake.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom

Thanks for confirming again the inaccuracies of the outside reports.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom

Thanks for confirming again the inaccuracies of the outside reports.

I think it confirms you are confused.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom

Thanks for confirming again the inaccuracies of the outside reports.

I think it confirms you are confused.

Tom,

I am stating very clearly that Seth Raynor designed Mountain Lake in the Spring of 1915. Please show us any evidence that you have that anyone else at anytime designed Mountain Lake. Trust me, the members and board of Mountain Lake would love to hear that CB Mac was on the property.

Also please feel free to present any evidence that Raynor was at Mountain Lake at a different timeframe.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Mike is not confused. He has been consistent, clear and has presented information that has been backed up by contemporaneous accounts.

You have not even come to terms with admitting that you were incorrect and ignoring the proof of it on the other thread that paralells this one where you said, "The community was founded in 1915 - that is well documented. According to the Golf Course Guide (1917 through 1930) the golf club was founded in 1917..."

As well-pointed out by another whom you refused to acknowledge and are now quoting from without refering to his post, the Golf Course Guide in 2 of the 4 issues beginning in 1917 have CONFLICTING DATES for the "founding of the golf club." Actually, you once again misrepresent what the Guide says as the date referred to is the date of ESTABLISHMENT which can have a completely different meaning than what you originally implied it to be as the date when RAYNOR became invovled.

As Mike (& others) have clearly shown, the planned golf COURSE was a feature from the beginning of the project. The golf CLUB was not formed until after this time. That the 11/1916 newspaper account has apparently caused you to back off the 1917 date, while once again DEMANDING that  others who disagree with your statement "Very strong evidence that ML was designed by Raynor in 1916 at the very least..." are not presenting documentation. You prefaced that backing off of 1917 by saying, "I'm glad someone else is interested in presenting contemporaneous documentation..."

That's seems to reek of being quite a double-standard by one who HAS NOT presented not a SINGLE SHRED of this "STRONG EVIDENCE" to back up that statement...

Yet Mike is the one who is confused...

[Tom MacWood]

We now have:

1. one newspaper report that says 1917 from Miami

There is no newspaper report from Miami that says 1917. That was the Golf Course Guide.

2. one newspaper report that says 1916 opening from Philadelphia

I don't believe that is what the report says.

3. one golf periodical that says 1915 in some editions and 1917 in other editions.

I assume you referring to Golf Course Guide. There were eight guides that listed 1917 and two that listed 1915.

Sorry but this only proves that some/many outsiders don't really care about the accuracy of their reports. It also shows the lack of specificity of these outside reports. The Mountain Lake book by John Caldwell is the only one that talks specifically about Raynor's visit to Mountain Lake in the Spring of 1915. The reports all talk about a generic opening which has nothing to do with the designing of the course. Opening comes much later than designing.

At this point, the only specificity on Mountain Lake comes from Mountain Lake.

I presented the ML advertisment in the Miami paper and the excerpt from the golf course guide, and clearly he was confused. Its no big deal.

[Mike Sweeney]

I presented the ML advertisment in the Miami paper and the excerpt from the golf course guide, and clearly he was confused. Its no big deal.

Tom,

What am I confused about?

[TEPaul]

Mike Sweeney:

I don't think you're confused about anything to do with Mountain Lake's architectural history but perhaps you're confused by Tom MacWood and his strange agenda made up of a constant stream of deflective posts that basically say nothing at all or at least nothing that is remotely clear to anyone. Welcome to the club; I think all of us on here are confused by that and by him.

He has a pretty stock list of basic and automatic responses that include:

1. You're speculating or nice speculation
2. I don't understand what you're saying
3. You're confused
4. How much research have you done?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

Subsequent to 1915/1916/1917 did Mountain Lake undertake any major renovations ?

If so, when and by whom ?

That course also reeks of CBM/SR

I know you're familiar with the holes, but, practically every template hole of CBM/SR exists at Mountain Lake.

Like Westhampton, why would a club invite another architect in to design a course that replicates the CBM/SR templates ?

It doesn't make sense.

If a club wanted the CBM/SR template holes, why hire an imposter ?

You'd hire CBM/SR to produce CBM/SR template holes.

[TEPaul]

"Mike Sweeney,

Subsequent to 1915/1916/1917 did Mountain Lake undertake any major renovations ?

If so, when and by whom ?

That course also reeks of CBM/SR

I know you're familiar with the holes, but, practically every template hole of CBM/SR exists at Mountain Lake.

Like Westhampton, why would a club invite another architect in to design a course that replicates the CBM/SR templates ?

It doesn't make sense.

If a club wanted the CBM/SR template holes, why hire an imposter ?

You'd hire CBM/SR to produce CBM/SR template holes."





COME ON PATRICK!

What are you talking about or referring to?

Who ever said any other architect came in there and did anything other than Raynor, OR according to the DUFFUS analyst, Tom MacWood, C.B. Macdonald?

That you would even suggest such a thing or ask questions like that shows a man who distinctly does no research himself or even bothers to follow these threads.

The only architect, other than Raynor who had anything to do with the original design of Mountain Lake, or shortly after it, was Charles Banks and what he did on the course has been and is specifically documented!

So what the Hell are you talking about or asking about? I'm beginning to realize more than I ever have before, with people like you and MacWood, that the age-old adage---"A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing"-----is a very important and unfortunate reality!!!

[Tom MacWood]

First of all it was reported in the minutes that "Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club."

DAMMIT, DAMMIT, DAMMIT!

I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore.  I come on these threads to learn something.  Yet, the only thing I learn is that you keep misrepresenting the facts.  For crying out loud, KNOCK IT OFF!!

DAMN IT TO HELL AND TWICE ON SUNDAY!  I'm so sick of this.

Are you some kind of fricking idiot, Tom?

How many times do I  have to say it, MacWood?  

I've said it half a dozen times now....these are NOT NOT NOT NOT absolutely, positively NOT quotes from the minutes of North Shore!!!!!!!!!!!

Please stop misrepresenting them as such.  You're either a total idiot or a blatant fabricator of facts.

Huh?

[Tom MacWood]

I presented the ML advertisment in the Miami paper and the excerpt from the golf course guide, and clearly he was confused. Its no big deal.

Tom,

What am I confused about?

The Miami newspaper report was from 1915; the 1916 report in the Philly newspaper did not say the course opened in 1916; the great majority of Golf Course Guides said the course was founded in 1917.

[TEPaul]

"The Miami newspaper report was from 1915; the 1916 report in the Philly newspaper did not say the course opened in 1916; the great majority of Golf Course Guides said the course was founded in 1917."


Tom MacWood:

Is THAT what you think Mike Sweeney was confused about? And if so, what has he said on here that would lead you to believe he was confused about ML's architectural history or its timeline? Have you even considered Mountain Lake's own internal historical records which M. Sweeney has or is all you've considered just a Miami newspaper, a Philadelphia newspaper and this Golf Course Guide?

Are you ever going to face up to the fact that your inability or lack of inclination to research the internal records of a subject club is a massive oversight on your part or on the part of anyone attempting to do comprehensive and competent research and analysis on the history of a significant golf club and its course's architecture?

Don't worry, experience tells me you won't even respond, and if you do, not intelligently. Why would you? I think most everyone on here knows, at this point, the last thing you want to do is reveal your incompetence for historical analysis due to your lack of inclination to go to the subject (the club and course) first.  
 

[Mike Sweeney]

The only architect, other than Raynor who had anything to do with the original design of Mountain Lake, or shortly after it, was Charles Banks and what he did on the course has been and is specifically documented!

I know that Patrick and you know this, but just for completion - Brian Silva did the recent renovation of Mountain Lake.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

True and if they need any consulting I believe Ron Prichard is their consultant.

[Tom MacWood]

"The Miami newspaper report was from 1915; the 1916 report in the Philly newspaper did not say the course opened in 1916; the great majority of Golf Course Guides said the course was founded in 1917."


Tom MacWood:

Is THAT what you think Mike Sweeney was confused about? And if so, what has he said on here that would lead you to believe he was confused about ML's architectural history or its timeline? Have you even considered Mountain Lake's own internal historical records which M. Sweeney has or is all you've considered just a Miami newspaper, a Philadelphia newspaper and this Golf Course Guide?

Mike has never claimed he has internal club records. Mike has admitted his source for his information was the club history written by John Caldwell.

Are you ever going to face up to the fact that your inability or lack of inclination to research the internal records of a subject club is a massive oversight on your part or on the part of anyone attempting to do comprehensive and competent research and analysis on the history of a significant golf club and its course's architecture?

There are a lot of people making noise on this thread, but only two who have produced any contemporaneous information on Mountain Lake, Joe and myself (and Phil if you count the golf course guide info I'd already produced). George has not presented any contemporaneous info, Mike has not produced any contemporaneous info, you have not produced any contemporaneous info.

Don't worry, experience tells me you won't even respond, and if you do, not intelligently. Why would you? I think most everyone on here knows, at this point, the last thing you want to do is reveal your incompetence for historical analysis due to your lack of inclination to go to the subject (the club and course) first.  

I'm still trying to figure out how a person who produces nothing in the way of independent research can represent himself as a research expert.
 

[TEPaul]

"I'm still trying to figure out how a person who produces nothing in the way of independent research can represent himself as a research expert."


That doesn't surprise me either. I try to do my research at the clubs themselves, and generally for the clubs. Golfclubatlas.com is not the same thing as the clubs but apparently you've never understood that. I suppose you must think research is not produced until someone puts it on here. I can assure you there are a number of clubs that don't look at it that way.

On the other hand, I believe the North Shore architect attribution investigation might begin to change that somewhat and primarily because a few good researchers went about it the right way by taking their rediscovered material to the club first.

That doesn't appear to be a concept or a process you're familiar with for some reason. 

 

[Mac Plumart]

I think the quality and respect of the research on this site can and will be enhanced when the particpants begin to work together better.  The Northshore thread saw some of that.

If memory serves me correctly, an impasse was hit and someone needed to go to the NYHS and review club records.  Steve S. went to the Society and made some great finds and then Mark H. came through with amazing access to club records.  After that, the interested parties can review the information ask questions, etc.  As long as it is the spirit of team work and finding all the relevant answers, then I think the research on this site will garner more respect in the golfing community as a whole.

It is my opinion that it isn't "good" research until the clubs in question accept and respect the research that has been done and the conclusions they have reached.

When this happens, then the power of the researchers on this site can realize their full potential.  And that is using their passion and skills to verify and/or correct club histories working in lock step with the clubs themselves.

[Tom MacWood]

"I'm still trying to figure out how a person who produces nothing in the way of independent research can represent himself as a research expert."


That doesn't surprise me either. I try to do my research at the clubs themselves, and generally for the clubs. Golfclubatlas.com is not the same thing as the clubs but apparently you've never understood that. I suppose you must think research is not produced until someone puts it on here. I can assure you there are a number of clubs that don't look at it that way.

On the other hand, I believe the North Shore architect attribution investigation might begin to change that somewhat and primarily because a few good researchers went about it the right way by taking their rediscovered material to the club first.

That doesn't appear to be a concept or a process you're familiar with for some reason. 

It sounds good in concept but the proof is in the pudding, and you have produced nothing.

[Tom MacWood]

I found this in a Miami paper (January 1, 1915). I'm not sure how often CBM went to Florida but I found him and/or Mrs. Macdonald with Deering (or his brother) in 1917 and 1919 too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()