[Anthony Gray]

  Great HBO feature recently on The Broad Street Bullies and how they were the fisrt expansion team to challenge the original 6. If it applied to golf courses and golf architecture in America.....What would be "The Original Six" and what course came along later and could be considerd "The Bully"?


   Anthony


 

[Matthew Rose]

How about:

Ross
McKenzie
Raynor
MacDonald
Flynn
Maxwell

With RTJ being the "bully"?

BTW, Go Flyers.

[Mac Plumart]

What would you all say about the original six being...

Shinnecock Hills
Chicago Golf  Club
The Country Club Brookline MA
Newport Golf  Club
St. Andrews  Golf Club Yonkers, NY

with Myopia thrown in there to make it 6.

The "bully" being Chicago (or NGLA if you want a course that came along later) and CBM.  As he seems to be the man that revolutionized golf course architecture (and golf) in America and many seemed to follow his lead overtly or covertly.

Thoughts?

[john_stiles]

Mac is dead spot on.

It was a nice thread while it lasted.

[Chuck Brown]

This is funny; when I looked at the thread title, I expected Mac's answer.  Talk about inevitability...

Myopia is by no means the only response to the final blank, by the way.  It's an excellent suggestion.  Others:  Garden City?  (1899)  Oakmont?  (1903)  Pinehurst?  Palmetto?  Discuss.

[Mike Cirba]

I would respectfully disagree.

The original Chicago Golf Club was very geometric, routed to contain Macdonald's left-to-right shot, and nothing at all like the course that it was later developed into, particularly with Raynor's later efforts.

In 1907, Garden City and Myopia were both superior courses to Chicago, and Pinehurst #2 soon would be.

Chicago did not come on board at inception and take the world by storm.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

-   What is your source on the oft repeated but never verified tale of the reason for the routing at Chicago (CBM's shot?)    By your logic we should discount and dismiss courses that consistently favor one miss over another, shouldn't we?   I guess you must similarly sell The Old Course down the river?  Or is a right to left ball just an inherently superior miss?
-  Were Myopia and Garden City really all that in 1907?   If so then why were they both significantly altered over the next 1/2 decade?
-  And why are you using 1907??  The Wheaton course in Chicago had been around for over a dozen years before then, and it wasn't even the first course.    Did no changes take place between 1894 and 1907?  
-  Were the very early versions of the other courses mentioned less geometric?   You obviously use "geometric" as an insult, but what does it mean in the context of your criticism of Chicago?      Was the site flat?   Did it not use natural features?  Elaborate.
- Myopia and GC were superior?  You say this as if it was fact.  At best it was debatable.  
-  Comparing later versions of Pinehurst #2 to the early Chicago course?  Surely you are joking.
-  Chicago didn't take the world by storm?   Did the early versions of Myopia or Garden City?    Which was the best, most prominent course in 1895? 1900? 1905?  

In short Mike, your opinion about Chicago has little basis in reality.   Your timeline is well off.   Your description inaccurate and cliched.  You are comparing courses that aren't even of the same generation.  It seems you are just parroting the usual propaganda.

Leaving Chicago off such a list would be an absolute joke.

[Ronald Montesano]

I think we are remiss in ignoring Travis...he was so damned influential with his American Golfer, his competitive record and his importance...he died young and suddenly and would have clearly mattered more in the day than Flynn...Maxwell came after Travis, too. 

[Peter Pallotta]

John S is probably right, nice thread while it lasted. But just for fun, maybe the Original Six are Joshua Crane's (!!) most highly-ranked courses of 1927:

National, Merion, Pine Valley, Lido, Kittansett, and Myopia.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Good to see you back here.  Hope all is well.

I'm not looking to leave Chicago "off the list" of the top six early courses.   I'm merely contending that the original course was hardly superior to the others listed, and from most accounts, in the years just prior to NGLA both Garden City and Myopia were more highly regarded than Chicago and deservedly so.

Now, if someone wants to contend that the big six course prior to NGLA were Garden City and then like and then NGLA came along as the "Bully" that changed the game, I would fully agree with that assessment.

[DMoriarty]

Ronald.  Yeah, the list of designers above is strange given the question.   The only person on the list who was involved in design in America during the first decade of golf in America was CBM.  Maxwell and MacKenzie were great, but were later.  Raynor was later, as was Flynn.    If we are to list first generation designers, we have to add in the old pros, and get rid of these other guys.  

As for Travis, he was very important and earlier than most listed, but still not really first generation.

______________________________

Mike,

If not leaving Chicago off the list, then just what were you "respectfully disagreeing" with?  About all that had been posted was the list.  You did not address any of my questions.

Golf and Chicago had already been around a while before the ones you mentioned came into any prominence.  And I definitely don't know why you think it was clear cut that before NGLA that both Myopia and Garden City were vastly superior to Chicago.    I don't know myself but I do know that it was an open question and not clear cut.   As I said, in the five years after 1907 both of your favorites evolved immensely, so I think you mistake the date they came into their own.

You still are just opining with no basis or support for your opinions.  What is the point in that? 

[Mac Plumart]

Who would you guys say would be the original 6 architects?

CBM
Emmett?
Bendelow?
Ross?
Fownes?

I really don't know other than CBM.

[Mike Cirba]

Here's Chicago Golf Club in 1901.

Much of the work Travis did at Garden City and Leeds did at Myopia happened before 1907, and both had significantly more "modern trapping" and strategic interest than did the early version of Chicago.

I'm not leaving it out of the top six prior to 1907....it was a likely contender.    However, it was hardly in a league of it's own at that time, much less any "bully" pushing the others to the wayside.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mac,
I'm guessing that the anonymous other five would be transplanted Scottish pros, if we are going to look at original architects.  Doesn't mean that they were good ones, just as the original six (Hello Toronto!!) haven't necessarily maintained their strength.

[Phil_the_Author]

The San Francisco Golf Club's first course at the Presidio opened for play on May 23, 1896. It was a poor course but its members were players with a passion for the game. As a result, nearly every important West Coast golf organization and tournament can be found with SFGC members involved and events played on its course. They moved after the Army, led by a commanding officer who hated golf, used the golf course for a major war game maneuvers including both mounted cavalry and artillery in 1905 destroying the golf course. The Club then moved to their second site, the Old Ingleside Golf Course. In 1915 It was the main course used for the Panama-Pacific International Exposition golf championships, including the Open event which was won by Walter Hagen. Chick Evans and every other important professional and amateur in America participated in them.

The Club and courses they used in the early years greatly influenced the course of golf on the West coast of the U.S., far more so than any eastern course did. If one is seeking to identify which Club/course should be among the six most influential in the early years of the game, STRONG consideration should be given to SFGC...

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I am confused.  Someone posts a list of the original 5 USGA courses, plus Myopia as a good starting point for golf course design in America, and you "respectfully disagree" with the inclusion of Chicago, then go on to try and dis the course through anecdote and apples and oranges comparisons wit later courses.   Pinehurst 2??  Now you are saying maybe it belongs a list pre-1907 (your made up date?)   Did you even read the original question?  

You've posted a 1901 stick routing of Chicago.  Hard to tell much about it without understanding the flow of the land.  What is your point?    Why not post 1901 routings of Myopia and Garden City so we can better understand their vast superiority?

You can say the others were better as many times as you like, but you've offered nothing to substantiate it.  The drawing means nothing in isolation.  Let's see the comps from the other courses.

[TEPaul]

The routing of Myopia is the same today as it was in 1900.

In 1898 Myopia held its first US Open on what was known as "The Long Nine." Myopia held three more US Opens by 1908 on the course that is there today.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The original post here, using a hockey analogy, posed the following question;

"Great HBO feature recently on The Broad Street Bullies and how they were the fisrt expansion team to challenge the original 6. If it applied to golf courses and golf architecture in America.....What would be "The Original Six" and what course came along later and could be considerd "The Bully"?"

I don't see how Chicago Golf Club fits that description compared against the other courses in question?   Could you tell me what was significant about it in the 1900 timeframe, and why it should be noteworthy or somehow superior to the other courses listed here at that time?  

As Tom mentioned, Myopia's routing was finalized very early on.   Here's a 1902 map;

[Tom MacWood]

St. Andrews
Prestwick
Musselburgh
Hoylake
Sandwich
Westward Ho!

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...

I would love to do an original original 6, but Anthony's thread stated this...

If it applied to golf courses and golf architecture in America.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

To be fair, the early schematic/stick routing of GCGC doesn't do the course justice.

I don't think that early schematics detail the features and the topography and as such should just be regarded as informationally "general"

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

To be fair, the early schematic/stick routing of GCGC doesn't do the course justice.

I don't think that early schematics detail the features and the topography and as such should just be regarded as informationally "general"

Patrick,

That's a fair comment, but isn't the site of Chicago Golf Club relatively flat?

Furthermore, while the two dimensional routing map doesn't show contour, it does serve to show the routing, and it does show the features.

In the case of the early CGC, it seems to me that the routing is relatively unsophisticated at best, and the features look to be mostly penal cross hazards.

I think this is why Macdonald himself spent a good deal of time actually studying the great courses abroad in detail years later, in preparation for building his ideal course at NGLA.  

To lump in his earliest stuff with the great architect he became is inaccurate revisionist history at best, blind hero-worship at worst.

[Mac Plumart]

Mike...

To lump in his earliest stuff with the great architect he became is inaccurate revisionist history at best, blind hero-worship at worst

I think you are spot on, with the quote I posted above.

Check me if I am in error on any of these facts, but even if I slip up a bit I think the spirit of my post is correct and lines up with yours.

MacDonald built the original 9 of Chicago Golf Club in Belmont in the early 1890's, then the course was expanded to 18 a few years later.  Then the course/club moved to Wheaton a few years after that...maybe 1895.  After that MacDonald went in search of research to build his ideal course (early 1900's) and NGLA was formed (1907ish).  This to me is a de facto statement by MacDonald that Chicago wasn't ideal.  And that fact that Raynor re-did the course in the 1920's (?) further adds credance to that.  

But for the sake of this thread and in line with Anthony's original post, I thought we were going for the original 6...not the best 6 of the early courses.  At least that was my take.  

And like Peter said earlier, I think the spirit of this thread was meant to be all in fun.  So, perhaps people should feel free to make their own assumptions, put their own twist on things, and have fun with this one.

[DMoriarty]

Mike.  Nothing special about the 1900 date.   In fact it seems too late to me if we are staying in the context of the question.   Its just that the courses you are using to try and disrespect Chicago weren't around in full for too long before then.   There is a reason those six courses were the original USGA;  they were the early established clubs and in some cases golf courses.

Were later CBM courses better than Chicago?  Of course they were.  NGLA revolutionized golf design on this side of the pond.   But that doesnt change the fact that at one time (and for quite a while) Chicago was one of the best courses in the country.   For you to ignore the context of the time and compare Chicago to later versions of courses in 1907 or even later courses like Pinehurst 2 is an absolute joke and a complete misrepresentation of early golf design in America.

What is your point here? Are you seriously contending that Chicago was not one of the first six notable golf courses in the United States?   If not, then what is your point, other than the usual misleading rhetoric? 

__________________________________
Mac.  Chicago was very likely one of the best six of the early courses.    Its just that around here we tend to characterize about 40 or 50 years of courses as "early," as if they happened overnight, and all courses during almost 1/2 Century opened the same weekend.  Chicago was very early, in an era where golf was just introduced in America.   It ought to be considered in that context.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm trying to say that if we're looking for "breakout" courses prior to NGLA, then Chicago was hardly the "bully" that set the bar.

It had the advantage of being the first 18 hole course, but it wasn't very good, except in context of lack of competition.

Soon, Myopia, Ekwanok, Garden City, and then Pinehurst #2 were superior as golf courses and leaders in creating examples of strategic design and "scientific trapping".

Then, NGLA took it to a new level.   Not Chicago.

As Mac said, let's have fun with it.   I don't think there is any "misleading rhetoric" that I'm laying down, just trying to keep this in historical context and also trying to say that the Chicago Golf Club golf course we know today is most assuredly not the Chicago Golf Club course Macdonald originally laid out.   

In fact, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to pick that routing and feature map out of a hundred or so other very rudimentary, cross-bunkered affairs that were practiced early on in golf in America.

It just had more of it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()