[ForkaB]

Pat

I think Bob Crosby has it right.

You are in denial, but keep it up.  Your curmudgeonliness is why we all love you so much!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I doubt Pat's saying there could be no way in hell Emmet ever could've had anything to do with NGLA architecturally, only that noone today seems to know what it might have been. If Pat was actually saying there is no way in hell Emmet could possibly have had anything to do with NGLA architecturally he'd be far more curmudgeonly on the subject than C.B himself who may be the only one who ever would've known anyway!

[ForkaB]

Tom

I'd give Pat about a 7.3 for this thread on the 10 point Andy Rooney curmudgeonliness scale.  He seems to be implying that Emmet was nothing but an investor and refuses to believe it when CB himself is quoted as saying that Emmet assisted in the "laying out" of the course--which you above agree so eloquently = "routing."  If the routing of a golf course (even if in fairly primitive form) is not a significant act, then I wonder what is, in Mucci-speak that is........?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I stayed up there last June for a few days and of course being the insomniac I am I snuck down from my room in the middle of the night and raided some old desk in the far corner of the big room. I hadn't looked through the material until now, and amazingly it's in minute detail as to who did what when the course was being "layed out" except when it comes to Dev Emmet. And it's written and corroborated by both C.B and Whigham.

It involved those 2-3 days mentioned by Macdonald in his book when they were on horses, and as he mentioned in his book, finding holes---eg an alps hole, a redan hole and a cape hole etc and laying out the course. It was more like 4-5 days actually. They had only two horses although Dev was there.

Dev told C.B he wanted to get on C.B's horse behind him and C.B told Dev that could be dangerous as it was pretty rough country. Dev told Chas. that he would get incredibly close to him and hang onto him real tight at which point C.B. told Dev to just follow around behind his and Whigham's horses and while he was there to pick up and figure out what to do with the horse shit.

Dev said to C.B---

"What if there isn't any horse shit---can I help design some golf holes?

C.B. told Dev;

"Look you little fly-boy dandy, we're going to be out here laying out this golf course for the next 2-3 days at least and maybe for 4-5 days and I can tell you right now shit is going to happen!"

They did not say, however, what Dev said about that or what he did about that--although it looks like he might've taken right off out of there in the first hour or so after Whigham said he heard Walter Travis was down at GCGC at that very moment redesigning the back nine as he'd heard Travis had heard they (C.B and JW) invited Dev to the raw site of NGLA and that Dev could be in Southampton for at least 2-3 and perhaps as much as 4-5 days.

But it's certainly possible to conclude while carefully reviewing this new material which may have been buried in that desk for 95 years that Dev might've done a whole lot out there during that all important "laying out" (routing) time. Picking up the horse shit behind C.B's and JW's horses could be considered a major architectural involvement by some on this website but of course the real question becomes what he did with it.

But who knows, we have some amazing researchers on this website so anything is possible to find out---theoretically.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,



I enjoy curmudgenliness, and am reflecting on your rating.

However, on this issue it's not much of a factor.

Noone has produced a single piece of evidence that substantiates DE's specific involvement with the design and/or construction of NGLA.

Nor has anyone defined or documented the scope and extent of his involvement at NGLA.

Absent that information this thread is an attempt to create and perpetuate a myth.

TEPaul,

You're correct.

Goodnight Mrs Calabash.... and Gracie, where ever you are.  

Ablee, blee, blee .... that's all folks

[SPDB]

Pat - would you agree with Tom MacW's post #65? No one has claimed Dev Emmet was "intimately" involved, as you like to characterize. On the other hand, everyone except you seems to be willing to accept the fact that he was involved in some way more than as just a subscriber. If he was why would he be singled out against all others?

You keep saying goodnight, which I disappointingly keep mistaking as a sign that you are leaving this thread.

Where in the wide world of sports is George Bahto?

[TEPaul]

"Noone has produced a single piece of evidence that substantiates DE's specific involvement with the design and/or construction of NGLA."

Pat:

I really take very strong exception to that remark! What do you think I just produced in post #78 just above?

You also said;

"Nor has anyone defined or documented the scope and extent of his involvement at NGLA."

I take stronger exception to that. I most certainly did define the scope or let's say the spectrum of the possible architectural involvement of Emmet at NGLA! It certainly looks possible that Dev could've picked up their horseshit--at least we know he WAS there during "layout"! What he did with the horseshit he picked up is the burning question here. Maybe Tom MacWood can find some reference to what happened to the horseshit in a 1908 HARPERS or American Golfer! To get to the bottom of that fact could be immensely important to understanding the history of NGLA.

If one were to deduce what Dev did with the horseshit, if, in fact he did pick it up, one might have to think he disposed of it in some odd way or at least took it off the site and that could explain why C.B had an initial agronomic failure trying to grow grass in straight sand and had to bring in 10,000 truckloads of top soil and manure to correct that problem.

So it looks like Devereaux Emmet did have involvement architecturally at NGLA. He was given an assignment, and perhaps a hard one---but how much talent does it really take to pick up and dispose of horseshit properly during that crucial layout period? Common sense would tell most anyone with half an architectural mind that all he had to do is pick up all that horseshit behind C.B. and JW and carry it around behind them until they told him that they just had laid out a hole and then all he'd need to do is go back along that hole and spread it correctly and then run after them to the next potential hole and pick up some more!

It looks like he might've completely blown that relatively simple albeit ultimately very important assignement and so I think the question of his architectural involvement and influence on NGLA has been answered and it looks like he did more damage than anything else there and it looks like in a "net-effect" sense, if one considers his overall architectural influence on various courses he probably should've stayed in Garden City and just tried to prevent Travis from redesigning his golf course.

[T_MacWood]

I was wrong, Emmet-Sr did win the 1924 (first annual) Bahamas Am at Bahamas CC (Emmet design). He was 63. There was a nine man field (including his son)--he defeated F S Johnson of Michigan in the final match, one up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In reviewing/rereading "Scotland's Gift" it's apparent that CBM gives abundant credit to Whigham and Raynor, in terms of finding the land, routing, hole and feature design.

However, no such credit is given to Emmett.

Why would CBM specifically site them and their roles and omit Emmett if he was involved ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You certainly seem to be a guy who totally endorses inquiry of all kinds on here. Would you be willing to have a discussion on here about what really may've happened at NGLA with Macdonald and that club towards the end of his life and also what apparently happened with most all his collected material archives of his career with that course?

Or do you consider that subject to be out of bounds on a website like this one. If you endorse it for Merion though I can't imagine why you wouldn't with even NGLA. And if you do endorse the same thing with NGLA and Macdonald what're gonna say to the likes of Moriarty and Jim Kennedy on here when they start screaming bloody murder that we're just trying to disrespect Macdonald somehow?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

If you have anything factual on CBM you'd have brought it forward long ago.   No need to further sully the man with another episode of petty and unsubstantiated gossip of the rich but long-dead.   Remember that just because you believe that you can somehow channel into the minds of those who died over 70 years ago doesn't make it Fact.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

You certainly seem to be a guy who totally endorses inquiry of all kinds on here. Would you be willing to have a discussion on here about what really may've happened at NGLA with Macdonald and that club towards the end of his life and also what apparently happened with most all his collected material archives of his career with that course?

NO

Or do you consider that subject to be out of bounds on a website like this one.

I don't feel comfortable nor do I believe it deserves to be discussed in a public forum.

If you endorse it for Merion though I can't imagine why you wouldn't with even NGLA.

There are substantive differences.
Especially when it comes to the parties involved.
If everyone involved was dead, I'd feel more comfortable discussing it.

And if you do endorse the same thing with NGLA and Macdonald what're gonna say to the likes of Moriarty and Jim Kennedy on here when they start screaming bloody murder that we're just trying to disrespect Macdonald somehow?

I think there are differences, some apparent, some nuanced.

"Scotland's Gift" provides a fairly sturdy foundation when it comes to how, when and why NGLA came into existance.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Thanks for your honest answers there; they definitely say a lot!  

I think Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf" does provde a fairly sturdy foundation of how, when and why NLGA came into existence.

MCC's committee and board administrative records and the records and recollections of those involved provide a sturdy foundation of how, when and why Merion East came into existence too.

Unfortunately, some on here who claim to be interested parties were not aware of most of those records when they decided to write what they thought was the definitive account (the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" ) of how Merion East was created.

As for what Emmet's roll was with NGLA it seems to be fairly mysterious and probably always will be. It seems it may've deserved more than just the line or so Macdonald gave it in his "Scotland's Gift Golf."

I suspect the same is probably true of Travis' roll with NGLA, particularly early on (after-all before NGLA was begun Macdonald wrote a general letter that he would form a three man committee to create the course---eg himself, Whigam and Travis). Do you remember that before NGLA was begun, or perhaps even after it was begun Macdonald asked anyone from abroad who had some ideas for NGLA to send those ideas to Walter Travis c/o Garden City Golf Club?  At that time GCGC was Macdonald's golf club in New York.

I would doubt someone like David Moriarty ever knew something like that but I have little doubt that after he reads this he will claim he did know anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Thanks for your honest answers there; they definitely say a lot!  

I think Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf" does provde a fairly sturdy foundation of how, when and why NLGA came into existence.

MCC's committee and board administrative records and the records and recollections of those involved provide a sturdy foundation of how, when and why Merion East came into existence too.

Unfortunately, some on here who claim to be interested parties were not aware of most of those records when they decided to write what they thought was the definitive account (the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" ) of how Merion East was created.

As for what Emmet's roll was with NGLA it seems to be fairly mysterious and probably always will be. It seems it may've deserved more than just the line or so Macdonald gave it in his "Scotland's Gift Golf."

I suspect the same is probably true of Travis' roll with NGLA, particularly early on (after-all before NGLA was begun Macdonald wrote a general letter that he would form a three man committee to create the course---eg himself, Whigam and Travis). Do you remember that before NGLA was begun, or perhaps even after it was begun Macdonald asked anyone from abroad who had some ideas for NGLA to send those ideas to Walter Travis c/o Garden City Golf Club?  At that time GCGC was Macdonald's golf club in New York.

TEPaul,

The letter you reference was an agreement that CBM drew up in 1904.  That agreement was subscribed to by 70 friends.
Initially CBM was looking for 60 friends to put up $ 1,000 each. for the purpose of buying 200 acres on Long Island (40k-50k) with the rest used to build the course.  ter the number was increased to 70.
Evidently, by 1904 CBM had settled on LI even though he referenced buying land elsewhere, like the Cape.

In the agreement CBM specifically stated that the object of the "association", the group of 60-70 friends of golf was to build 18 holes that were modeled after the "most famous & best" holes LINKS holes abroad, considering their various lengths, so that each of the holes at NGLA would be representative  and classic in itself.


So it's clear, this project was NOT about creating new holes, but in copying the most famous and best links holes abroad.

CBM also stated in that agreement,
"Mr Charles Blair Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate with himself two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme.

He further goes on to state.
"..., I asked Jim Whigham and Walter Travis as associates.
Eventually, I dropped Travis, and Jim Whigham and myself with the kindly interest taken by Joeseph P Knapp, James A Stillman, Devereaux Emmett, Charles A Sabin, and others, forged ahead with the CONSTRUCTION  from the surveyors maps and thirty or forty drawings which I had made MYSELF abroad of different holes which I thought were worth while.

CBM had already determined what holes he was going to replicate, he had determined the routing.

In Chapter X, he details the physical creation of NGLA.

One word is used over and over and over again.   "I".   "I continued my search". "I determined", "I had in mind", " I first placed thte golf holes"
"I built", " I studied"  I distinctly altered"

The only time he uses the word "we" is in conjunction with Jim Whigham.f

It's clear that the concept of an ideal golf course, the research abroad, the sketches, the search for land, hole selection and placement in the routing and construction were all done at the direction of CBM.

I would doubt someone like David Moriarty ever knew something like that but I have little doubt that after he reads this he will claim he did know anyway.

I think there's a difference.

CBM published the details about NGLA in a book.
No such book or document existed regarding Merion, so, common knowledge was restricted and common knowledge was prone to error.
It appears that substantive information regarding Merion resides within the archives at Merion, archives which David and Tom had no access to, hence, they pieced together a treatise based upon their understanding of their research and work to date.

I thought the treatise was constructed andl written well.

In an attempt to refute their work, Wayno made an effort to, and was granted access to the archives.
Wayne then paraphrased some of his findings.
David objected because he felt that Wayne was the sole interpreter of those documents and as such he could put his spin on what he found.
Which is a valid concern.
The dilema arises when one party is granted access and the other party has to rely on that party's interpretation of what they found.
I'm sure you can understand that.

So, we have one party with access and the other without access, and absent the source documents, reliance on Party "A"'s interpretation, which could be 100 % correct, or less than 100 % correct.

To take a step back, David did explode the accepted party line that Wilson went abroad, much like CBM, and studied all the great courses before crafting Merion,  And, that's a material, a substantive find, especially when it disrupts the accepted connection between the great courses/holes/features in the UK and Merion.

As an outsider, with no skin in the game, I understand both parties positions.
You and Wayno are saying, we've seen the documents, take our word for it, this is what they say.
On the other hand, David is saying, hey, you (not you and Wayne, but Merion and others) perpetuated a myth for pedigree and glamour's sake.
False in one, false in many, I want to see the source documentation, otherwise, how do I know you're not hiding or perpetuation other myths ?

Both your positions are valid, but, one cannot satisfy the other.

My response to one of your questions centered around things that you, Wayno and I are aware of regarding NGLA and the potential to involve other living people.

The documents at Merion have nothing to do with any living person, hence I view Merion and NGLA and the discovery process differently.

[Bill_McBride]

Pat:

You certainly seem to be a guy who totally endorses inquiry of all kinds on here. Would you be willing to have a discussion on here about what really may've happened at NGLA with Macdonald and that club towards the end of his life and also what apparently happened with most all his collected material archives of his career with that course?

NO

Or do you consider that subject to be out of bounds on a website like this one.

I don't feel comfortable nor do I believe it deserves to be discussed in a public forum.

If you endorse it for Merion though I can't imagine why you wouldn't with even NGLA.

There are substantive differences.
Especially when it comes to the parties involved.
If everyone involved was dead, I'd feel more comfortable discussing it.

And if you do endorse the same thing with NGLA and Macdonald what're gonna say to the likes of Moriarty and Jim Kennedy on here when they start screaming bloody murder that we're just trying to disrespect Macdonald somehow?

I think there are differences, some apparent, some nuanced.

"Scotland's Gift" provides a fairly sturdy foundation when it comes to how, when and why NGLA came into existance.

Patrick, are you saying that some who was involved in the creation of NGLA is still alive? N Now there would be a treasure trove of information.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

No.

You didn't read the questions TEPaul posed to me carefully, especially the second question in his first paragraph.

Please don't ask me to clarify or expand on my answer as I will not discuss the subject further.

Thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()