[TEPaul]

"By the way I'm considering adding Barker to my GCGC attribution since he assisted Travis on the redesign."


That doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully GCGC isn't and I very much doubt they ever would. Who amongst any golf clubs actually listens to what you think about architectural attribution, Tom MacWood? Can you name one who actually has? Please tell us who they are so some of us can check with them.  

Who listens to you? I certainly do know the likes of Merion, Myopia, Pine Valley and North Shore sure don't. 

It doesn't look like you're that interested in historically accurate architectural attribution anyway; it rather looks like your schtick on here is to try to prove anyone and everyone wrong somehow and to date it appears you've been a pretty complete failure at that unfortunate game.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
There is a difference between an amateur golfer who never accepts a fee for anything golf related, and an amateur golfer whose profession is golf architecture. Tillinghast,Travis, Emmet, Langford, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Gannon would fall into the latter category."


Tom MacWood:

That question all depends on what particular era one is talking about. I'm quite sure you know and understand less about the history and technicalities of USGA amateur status standing and legislation than you do about architectural attribution. As usual with you what you think you understand and what you actually do understand is pretty much worlds apart. 

[Tom MacWood]

"By the way I'm considering adding Barker to my GCGC attribution since he assisted Travis on the redesign."


That doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully GCGC isn't and I very much doubt they ever would. Who amongst any golf clubs actually listens to what you think about architectural attribution, Tom MacWood? Can you name one who actually has? Please tell us who they are so some of us can check with them.  

Who listens to you? I certainly do know the likes of Merion, Myopia, Pine Valley and North Shore sure don't.  

It doesn't look like you're that interested in historically accurate architectural attribution anyway; it rather looks like your schtick on here is to try to prove anyone and everyone wrong somehow and to date it appears you've been a pretty complete failure at that unfortunate game.

That ain't saying much. If you go by their most recent golf history book GCGC doesn't recognize Tilly, Colt, Emmet #2, or Doak's contributions either. The clubs are often the last to come along. Merion thought for decades Wilson traveled abroad before designing the course....Myopia had no idea the most important golf professional/architect of the era was their first professional...PVGC thought Crump died from a tooth ache...and we are still trying to figure out why NS thought Tilly designed their golf course.

[Phil_the_Author]

And Tom Mac, I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to even acknowledge, no less attempt to answer my question.

Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses.

[Tom MacWood]

And Tom Mac, I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to even acknowledge, no less attempt to answer my question.

Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses.

Phil-the-author
I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:

You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine]  

In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

My contention is that by 1910, the three courses that were clearly acknowledged as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA, which was just opening.

They were all designed by amateurs.  Thus, ALL of the best courses by 1910 were indeed designed by amateurs and my saying so is a true statement.  

I'm not including Shawnee because I don't believe it opened until 1911, correct?

Tom MacWood has tried to list a bunch of courses, primarily those designed by HH Barker, along side them on yet another "list", in some attempt to give courses like Waverly and Atlanta Athletic the same credentials when that is simply preposterous.

It doesn't fly to anyone who knows golf history and golf courses, but it might look like expert opinion to those with simply a passing interest.

Tom has started this thread by taking a statement I made on the Merion thread...that Myopia, GCGC, and NGLA were generally acknowledged as the three best courses in 1910, that they were all designed by amateurs, and that was the model Merion sought to emulate and did so, and attempted to refute it by seemingly creating a thread that is simply about generic golf courses by 1910, yet his motives are once again completely transparent, and every day he's tried to fit insults about "insurance salesmen" into the dialogue and then accuse others of using this as a Merion thread....it's quite  comical, really.

In fact, the irony is that he's only proven my statement to be more true than most probably realized, by his continued biased refusal to acknowledge hard physical evidence such as what I produced in last night's post.

Thanks, and no offense was meant to Tillinghast's early contributions here.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Technically, as NGLA was not OFFICIALLY opened until 1911 then it shouldn't be counted either. My point with Tilly and Shawnee is that in 1910, even though the course wasn't open yet, he was a PRACTICING professional architect and that he had been hired for a very significant commission.

I do understand and agree with the rest of your comment.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

I thought about it for a minute, and whether you answer my question or not is of no significance because there really is no way you can defend your statement in light of what Tilly was doing at Shawnee.

What I feel I must comment on is your insulting and sarcastic statement, "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"

NONSENSE!

If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #31 as you did in #35?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #37 as you did in #38?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #44 as you did in #45?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #46 as you did in #47?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my new comment in post #50 as you did in #52?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my comment which ONCE AGAIN contained the question you were ignoring in post #56 as you did in #57 while ignoring the question once again?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU respond to my reply to your #57 with an answer in #60, where I AGAIN asked the question, with a response in #62 where you once again ignored the question?
I responded in #67 and once AGAIN asked the question to which you SARCASTICALLY responded in #68 with "Thanks."

Who do you think you are kidding with "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

I agree, as well, with the only caveat that Tillinghast wasn't a professional golfer who dabbled in architecture for extra money like the Barkers and Campbells and Dunns who preceded him.

He was instead a well-established amateur golfer who became a full-time professional architect, which is quite a distinction from the historically inaccurate, tragically biased point Tom MacWood is trying to make.  

I say "tragically" because Tom is simply a great researcher, yet seemingly has self-imposed blind spots cause him to miss or deny meaningful events, or misinterpret them altogether.

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont?   Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all.  Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then  continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.    

I included Oakmont based on the early map Joe produced. It appears the course has changed very little since then. I can't explain why the course was not praised early on, perhaps being somewhat isolated, but that would certainly change shortly. The course was being seriously considered for the US Amateur in 1912, so some must have thought highly of it, but for whatever reason they took themselves out of the running. It was chosen in 1917, but the War cancelled that event.

I think Joe's map was 1915. My understanding is that the changes at Oakmont were coming on very rapidly between about 1909 and 1915, and that these included not only new bunkers but also a substantial lengthening and the rebuilding of at least some greens.  I guess it is a judgment call as to whether the course was far enough along by 1910 to be one of the best.

But it is interesting how little acclaim the course got before 1910.   I am not sure I agree that it was that it was isolated. Pittsburgh was economically powerful, and was much more convenient from the east than most other "Western" courses.   The Fownes family was very well traveled and a constant fixture at annual tournaments from Lakewood to Pinehurst.  I get the impression that before 1910 the course was considered to be a bit of a pushover and perhaps not all that good.   One early reference to a top Oakmont golfer suggested he was handicapped by the lack of competition in his area and also by the course on which he regularly played.   

Don't get me wrong.  Obviously at some point the course began to be considered one of the best.  The question for me is when.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom the Mac,

I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:

You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine]  

In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?

His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience.

[Tom MacWood]

David
You're right the map was from 1915, but most of the reports I've read have Fownes installing his new bunkering scheme in 1909-1910. From a golfing perspective I do think it was isolated. It was not really in the East (Boston, NY, Phila) and it was not in the West (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) - it was in no man's land. But none the less it still did get a fair amount of positive press. In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.

[Tom MacWood]

Shivas
I would post the articles but for whatever reason the site has removed that option. I'll see if I can scan them and email them to you.

[Tom MacWood]

Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)

Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)

Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)

Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)

Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)

Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)

The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)

Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)

Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)

Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)

Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)

Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)

Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)

Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)

Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)

Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)

National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)

Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)

Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)

Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)

Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)

Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)

Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)

Columbia - H.Barker (1910)

[Mike Cirba]

 In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.


Tom,

Great to see this exercise is finally leading to your concurrence that the very best American golf courses by 1910, by a long, long shot, actually, were all designed by amateur golfers doing it for their own clubs.

These were the only courses ever mentioned as approaching anything like the best courses abroad, although Chicago is a stretch that had more to do with Macdonald's personality and ego than the architecture of the golf course on the ground at that time.     

NGLA, on the other hand...

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

"His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience."

Sorry Tom, but you know NOTHING about the design and construction of Shawnee.

You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.

The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.

Worthington had NOTHING to do with the design of the course. He was involved in many, many business projects and turned it all over to Tilly. And by the way, he did NOT have "a great deal of experience" in golf course design and/or construction as you so boldly stated. His was minimal and his work was terrible, which is the main reason he put faith in Tilly and hired him to do it.

Finally, even if I accept that nonsense about Worthington, you simply said that to AVOID ADMITTING you were wrong in reagrd to your statement that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." because Tilly most certainly WAS inexperienced and untested and yet was designing and building the golf course at Shawnee. Unless you now want to call him a LIAR and call every other majopr golf writer at the time who praised Tilly for his design at Shawnee, and who didn't mention Worthington as doing anything in that regard.

You lose all credibility by making these unfounded and completely incorrect statements.

There is nothing demeaning about saying, "Phil, you're right. Tilly was the exception to what I wrote about experienced and tested architects at work in 1910." But you simply can't bring yourself to do it. That is so sad...
 

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Macwood...

To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?

Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.

Thanks in advance.

[Mike Cirba]

I think the list, much like Tom's list of public courses, speaks for itself.

There are good reasons for the courses you've never heard of, and most of the rest are a combination of name-dropped architects people might be familiar with and a generous dollop of courses like Baltusrol that were pretty awful then but in the next decades were completely redesigned into what people know them as today.

Tom likes to pretend that he knows something the rest of the folks here don't know by including them, but that veneer is paper thin once you scratch the surface.

If Tom Paul is the "Crazy Uncle" of this website, then Tom MacWood is the guy who corners you for a half-hour at a cocktail party trying to tell you all the reasons that the brilliant creations of "Homewood", "Nassau" and "Waverly" were actually the tipping point in US architectural history.   

[Phil_the_Author]

Mac,

I agree with Mike on this.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil-the-author
Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience?  If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays.

By the way Worthington also designed the Inn.

[Tom MacWood]

 In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.


Tom,

Great to see this exercise is finally leading to your concurrence that the very best American golf courses by 1910, by a long, long shot, actually, were all designed by amateur golfers doing it for their own clubs.

These were the only courses ever mentioned as approaching anything like the best courses abroad, although Chicago is a stretch that had more to do with Macdonald's personality and ego than the architecture of the golf course on the ground at that time.    

NGLA, on the other hand...

By 1910, if you had aspiration for anything good, you hired an experience professional or amateur golf architect. Fownes had been evolving Oakmont for seven years by 1910. Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell in 1894, and Leeds began perfecting the course in 1899 or eleven years prior. James Foulis was involved in the original design of Chicago in 1895, and his brother David overhauled the course in 1910. Travis had design experience when he began remodeling GCGC in 1906 (and by 1910 he had a wealth of experience), and he was assisted by Barker.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom Macwood...

To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?

Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.

Thanks in advance.

I couldn't tell you; I haven't followed that project. What can't you get your arms around?

[Tom MacWood]

I think the list, much like Tom's list of public courses, speaks for itself.

There are good reasons for the courses you've never heard of, and most of the rest are a combination of name-dropped architects people might be familiar with and a generous dollop of courses like Baltusrol that were pretty awful then but in the next decades were completely redesigned into what people know them as today.

Tom likes to pretend that he knows something the rest of the folks here don't know by including them, but that veneer is paper thin once you scratch the surface.

If Tom Paul is the "Crazy Uncle" of this website, then Tom MacWood is the guy who corners you for a half-hour at a cocktail party trying to tell you all the reasons that the brilliant creations of "Homewood", "Nassau" and "Waverly" were actually the tipping point in US architectural history.   

Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Macwood...

To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?

Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.

Thanks in advance.

I couldn't tell you; I haven't followed that project. What can't you get your arms around?

Tom M...

In terms of what I can't get my arms around, here is my best shot at explaining that.

In doing your research and reaching conclusions, would you consider someone as deserving a credit in the context of architectural attribution if they advised on only one (or just a few) aspect(s) of the course?

For instance, if Architect X routed the course, placed bunkers, shaped greens and then Architect Y came out to see the course and said the bunker on hole 16 should be deeper and move to the left 10 yards.  Would you consider Architect Y as deserving credit for being an architect on the course?

The reason I  chose Old MacDonald is you have Doak and Urbina listed as architects, but Bahto and Klein were also involved. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()