[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I see your point vis a vis any implication for that club we shouldn't get started on again.  If some of those courses weren't opened it might be hard for that club to have considered them. 

But, as I have always said, they did consider what could arguably be the best in CBM to assist them, and NGLA was in fact about 80% complete when they visited it, based on the opening/soft opening in June 1910 you and David are debating.  Either NGLA was clearly considered the it course (little doubt of that, actually) or they were more perceptive than the average club.  Either way, given those facts, and a meager but expanding portfolio by Barker or any gca, it was not such a reach that TMac has portrayed to do it themselves with a big assist from CBM. 

On that Kirby list, the club we don't mention is suprisingly high, given it would have been undergoing its bunker additions and rerouting right at that time to be ready for the 1916 AM, no?  I have the impression that its reputation continued to grow after those changes and having hosted a national event.  As we know, the lists in this thread were started by listing those courses that held tournaments.  Some things never change, do they? 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Was Macdonald's First Invitational Tournament that was not an Invitational Tournament the same deal as the first US Amateur that was Not a US Amateur?

By the way, my supposed profanity-laden post said, 'Conjecture, my a*s', and said the timelines around NGLA you try to propagate are a lot of horsesh*t.   If you prefer I don't edit, I won't.    

Both statements are still demonstrably true.  

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

David is correct that NGLA was a one-off, and because CBM had been designing and developing it for over four years by 1910, and because of his lofty goals and ebullient personality, there wasn't a person in the country interested in golf who hadn't heard of it and as we know, the guys at Merion certainly did as well.

Yes, they sought his advice and counsel, and tried to emulate his model of an amateur committee and did very well after working at it for many years just as he had.

To be frank about these lists, I think courses that had good playable turf grass and good greens almost de-facto made these lists, and I think that was at least partially responsible for the ratings of Merion and Baltusrol at that time, based on Kirkby's list.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I read a lot about the turf being an issue in those posted documents as well.  Then as now, maintenance may have had an effect on perception of gca, maybe even more so.  This discussion, including the mentions of Old Elm having the first irrigation system (in the ahead of their time thread) makes me wonder what the earliest well maintained courses were?

BTW, I also largely agree with your take that the NGLA play in 1910 was a soft opening.  But, the rest of DM's post was informative.  In the end, its not worth arguing about whether it was a soft or hard opening.  It happened that year and caught the eye of the club we won't mention, almost certainly leading them in that direction for assistance with their gca efforts.

[Tom MacWood]

Oswald Kirby was one of the better amateur golfers in the US. He won the Metroplitan Am three times, among other events.

[TEPaul]

Ralph Liviingston III and Mac Plumart:

You've made good points on this thread.

I too see this thread as not particularly helpful or educational in explaining what was really going on with architecture in America in the beginning and why some of it was done by a various type of person----eg the amateur architect or a committee of amateurs rather than a professional architecture or a particular type of professional architect.

There was a lot of dymanics in this time that has to be included in this analysis if this subject is ever going to be fully understood by some of us, as it should be.

However, perhaps you are right that the question should just be what the best was in the beginning and not who did it.

My own interest in this kind of subject has always been what should be or could be considered the FIRST really good golf architecture in America and once that is determined I feel a carefully analysis should be done on who did it and where he (they) actually figured out how to do it that early in American golf with essentially nothing around in this country to go on as a good model or reference point.

[Tom MacWood]

Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)

Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)

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)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)


Interestingly, with few exceptions, and despite their supposed excellence in 1910, almost every one of these courses was completely re-designed from scratch or went NLE within a decade or two.

Mike
What does completely re-designed from scratch mean? Which of these courses were completely re-designed from scratch? Wasn't Merion redesigned?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Start with AC and Baltusrol being completely redesigned from scratch and Fox Hills and Englewood as NLE.

Is there any work by Barker we can see today?  Arcola perhaps?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Again, what does a 1915 list have to do with the state of things in 1910?

There was a ton of activity between those years.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike and TMac,

Would redesigned from scratch be a total re-routing (or nearly so) but using the existing property?  I am sure there are more blends back then than in a trendy coffee house now, such as Shinney (redesigned by Flynn) which kept a few holes but was essentially a whole new routing.

There were a lot of those.  From my experience, Ross rebuilt Northland in Duluth and moved it across the street. Nothing was left of the original homemade course.  There are lots of those, and some where renovations were a lot less, like adding bunkering, I suppose.

Mike,

If we move away from a club we won't mention bias, it is just sort of interesting to note all that happened in those pre WWI years, isn't it?  I doubt we will find a list from 1910, although it is possible.  As with everything, the record is fragmented.  Since the club we won't mention did pick the CBM model I don't think TMac can make much of an argument based on this or any other list, can he?  What I find ironic is that they picked the CBM amateur model just as he (CBM) was starting to accept other commissions on a much more involved basis than what he undertook at the club we won't mention.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Start with AC and Baltusrol being completely redesigned from scratch and Fox Hills and Englewood as NLE.

Is there any work by Barker we can see today?  Arcola perhaps?

Arcola? I'm not sure why you insist on making this about Barker....try to stay focused.

What does completely re-designed from scratch mean?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Again, what does a 1915 list have to do with the state of things in 1910?

There was a ton of activity between those years.

If I limited myself to reports written only in 1910 the information would be pretty slim. So I included information gathered from cirica 1910, some from before, some after (have you limited yourself to reports written in 1910?). It is actually pretty remarkable how many reports and rankings there are from this period. IMO the list I created is very representative of the top courses circa 1910.

I'm sure some of these courses were altered between 1910 and 1915, but the majority were not changed significantly. And I'm confident if you dug deeper into those changes post-1910 you would find they were carried out by experienced amateurs and/or professionals, further strenthening my premise.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Was Macdonald's First Invitational Tournament that was not an Invitational Tournament the same deal as the first US Amateur that was Not a US Amateur?

You stick with your petty sarcasm, I'll stick with the facts. 

By the way, my supposed profanity-laden post said, 'Conjecture, my a*s', and said the timelines around NGLA you try to propagate are a lot of horsesh*t.   If you prefer I don't edit, I won't.    

I'd prefer it if you stopped acting like a child, but you've proven you cannot.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

So Macdonald decided to have a three day "picnic", with the first picnic being medal play, and the following two days of picnicking being match play, the former won by John Ward as the best medal picnicker and the latter by Fred Herreshoff as the best match-picnicker?  

Funny how tournaments CBM didn't win suddenly became not only unofficial events, but now not even tournaments...I wonder who brought the potato salad?  

We're arguing over nonsense here, David...the course soft-opened in 1910 with the picnic, and opened officially in 1911.  Ok?

p.s....most of the rest of your post once you got past the requisite insults was very good and I agree with 95% of it.   

All,

Here's the first and last page of the Apawamis review...the mid pages include more of the same recommending improvements to most every hole...




Here's the link to the rest for those so inclined;
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1909/ag17r.pdf

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Totally redesigned means exactly that.   I know you're going to try and tweak Phil with some nonsense about Tilly not COMPLETELY redesigning Baltusrol, and using some work that was done before then by Low and others simply because some hole corridors are the same, but that's a bunch of hooey, as the Baltusrol 100 year anniversary book illustrates.   Do you have it?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Your list is shrinking.

Belmont Springs was not open in 1908...not in 1909 either...and in 1910 had a nine-hole course designed by the land owner Willard Robinson, not Donald Ross.   Do I have to cross check all of your work??

Therefore, The number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in 1910 that were;

1) Solely designed by a golf professional

2) Already open for play and therefore viewable as to achieved results

3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis

and

4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...

the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of over a decade of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.


Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)


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)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)

[Mike Cirba]

Tom...interesting list...thank you for punctuating my point.

In 1915 Oswald Kirby ranked the following courses as the best in the East.

National - Designed by a committee of amateurs members
Baltusrol - Designed by Louis Keller and George Low, pro
Garden City - Designed by Emmet and Travis, amateur members
Brookline - Largely redesigned by Herbert Windeler, a member of the club
Myopia - Designed by HC Leeds, an amateur member of the club
Oakmont - Designed by Mr. Fownes, an amateur member of the club
Ekwanok - Laid out first by John Duncan Dunn, pro, with ongoing changes by amateur Walter Travis for the club.
Huntingdon Valley - Early John Reid (pro) layout vastly changed for years by Ab Smith, amateur for the club
Merion - Designed by a committee of amateur members, with advice from amateurs CBM and HJ Whigham
Pinehurst #2 - Designed by pro Donald Ross with amateur Walter Travis, who claimed credit for the rebunkering strategy
Pinehurst #3 - Designed by pro Donald Ross
Piping Rock - Designed by Amateur CB Macdonald

[TEPaul]

Ralph Livingston and Mac Plumart:

If I were you I would create another thread that concentrates on what Ralph said in his posts #247 and 260 and what Mac said in his posts #264. I would also suggest you include in that new thread post # 272 on this one from David Moriarty. I believe the latter has a most interesting quotation in it from Devereux Emmet who is likely one of the best opinion sources on this subject from that time.

I don't know where those 1916 remarks from Emmet come from but they are most certainly worth our close consideration in all that he says.

I also note that he mentions not just Macdonald but Herbert Leeds who I happen to think was very likely the FIRST to create really good architecture in America with Myopia and the benefit of studying Myopia and its entire architectural history is it happens to be the course that has been the least changed from perhaps as early as 1900 until today that we can find in America of a course that old in America.

Leeds was obviously a man who was essentially the opposite of Macdonald in that it seems Leeds refused to go on record in newspapers and magazines with anything he was thinking and doing during his approximately 25 years of involvement with that golf course and a few others that were the clubs of his friends.

Macdonald was most definitely not publicity shy but it appears Leeds definitely was. Matter of fact, one of the top players from abroad mentioned in an article in the first decade of the 20th century that he felt Myopia was one of the best courses in the world and that when he played it he spent time on it with a man who he said seemed to know more about the details of holes and courses abroad than even he did.

He did not mention the man's name but obviously it was Herbert Leeds. It seems Leeds may not have even told him who he was which was apparently not unusual for Leeds who was a self-proclaimed and self-admitted martinet who definitely had remarkably strong feelings about the social and cultural differences between professsionals and gentlemen amateurs. Throughout his entire career at Myopia Leed refused to let a professional come near the clubhouse!

Nevertheless, Leeds found the resource to do what he did at Myopia somewhere and that is what interests me most since he seems to have been the first to create really good architecture in America. Myopia was essentially the way it is now (with perhaps quite a bit less bunkering) in 1900 and as we know this was before Macdonald made even the first of his own three architectural study trips abroad and six to seven years before Macdonald started with NGLA.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Under what basis is Englewood included here?

Calkins in 1910 said that the course didn't have a hazard worthy of its name, and was in dire need of soft sand and scientific trapping.

Are you that desperate for reasonably decent courses designed by pro golfers through 1910 to have to include Englewood?   

What did Barker do at Waverly and when did those changes get done?

[DMoriarty]

We're arguing over nonsense here, David...the course soft-opened in 1910 with the picnic, and opened officially in 1911.  Ok?

You are arguing over nonsense.  I am writing what multiple reports said about NGLA in the summer of 1910.

You credit AB Smith with the changes at Huntingdon Valley.   Tillinghast reported that it was professional Jim Laing who was responsible for the work completed in 1909, and that it greatly improved the course.  Laing also designed the nine hole course at Old York Road.  

Just to keep a perspective on what was passing for good architecture in Philadelphia at this early period, here a  few photos of the work at Huntingdon Valley, 1909:

A feature added short of the 14th green, described as sand covered by sod on the sides:


A sand trap added to the front of the 17th green:


As far as Myopia goes, I think Leeds is an interesting example, but hardly comparable to Macdonald.  Myopia most definitely falls into the category of a course originally laid out in the dark ages but which was steadily improved over the years, thanks to Leeds hard work.    If I am not mistaken, Leeds inherited an already existing course at Myopia - at least the front nine - and worked very hard to improve it over the next few decades.  TEPaul mentioned that Myopia did not consider itself suitable for a National Amateur event through the first decade of last century.   It wasn't until 1910 that Myopia proudly announced that the construction of the course was finally complete, and that they would make no more changes.  

Apparently they spoke a bit too soon, for after Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia immediately began making substantial changes to rid the course of some of the blind spots, including removing 1500 truckloads of dirt from the 10th hole.

[TEPaul]

"As far as Myopia goes, I think Leeds is an interesting example, but hardly comparable to Macdonald.  Myopia most definitely falls into the category of a course originally laid out in the dark ages but which was steadily improved over the years, thanks to Leeds hard work.    If I am not mistaken, Leeds inherited an already existing course at Myopia - at least the front nine - and worked very hard to improve it over the next few decades.  TEPaul mentioned that Myopia did not consider itself suitable for a National Amateur event through the first decade of last century.   It wasn't until 1910 that Myopia proudly announced that the construction of the course was finally complete, and that they would make no more changes.  

Apparently they spoke a bit too soon, for after Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia immediately began making substantial changes to rid the course of some of the blind spots, including removing 1500 truckloads of dirt from the 10th hole."



 
 
I am not comparing Leeds to Macdonald as anyone familiar with both of them certainly knows they were very different men in the way they approached what they were going to do, what they were doing and what they had done in and with golf course architecture. Macdonald was without question a first rate self-promoter of what he was doing and thinking regarding golf and golf course architecture but Herbert Leeds was perhaps the polar opposite----seemingly refusing to go public about anything he did and thought.

Herbert Leeds' seemingly lost "Leeds Scrapebook" just may be one of the most valuable and important assets still missing in the history and evolution of American architecture. I think it may've been over a twenty year diary of all that he saw and thought and did with golf architecture but it was never published and was seemingly a private diary.


To me the most interesting thing about Herbert Leeds is he was the one who seems to have created the first good golf architecture in America which is still very much there for us to see and analyze today and he did it some years before Macdonald even began NGLA or even went abroad on the first of his three study trips. The other one that is still available for us to study from just about the same year (1900) is GCGC but that was changed more than Myopia ever was when Travis became involved with it after 1901, seemingly improving it considerably.

Leeds did inherit a nine hole course from 1894 when he began working on Myopia in 1896 but of those original nine holes only six of them are known to even be in the same places as today and of that they may've been quite different from the hole of Leeds' "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played and then the full eighteen holes that were completed in 1900 and ready for play for the 1901 US Open.

Even though Myopia may've been laid out by Leeds in what you call the Dark Ages, Leeds' architecture was definitely not of the Dark Age variety.

I was not aware that Myopia or Leeds proudly announced in 1910 that the course was complete and no more changes would be made. I believe Leeds continued to add bunkers on the course at will until he finally stepped down from his position as the course's architect in 1918.

Leeds did not refuse to hold the US Amateur because the course was not ready for the US Amateur. That had nothing to do with it. Leeds' reason for not holding the US Amateur was for another reason that had nothing to do with the architecture or quality of the golf course. The reason was only about the locker-room and the fact that he felt the accommodations were not suitable for the competitors of a US Amateur.

Leeds was interested in the opinions of many good golfers who played Myopia but the alterations to the course following Hutchinson's visit and remarks are not verifiably connected to Hutchinson or his remarks.

Matter of fact, one does need to question Hutchinson's remarks about the number of blind shots at Myopia being too many since it had no more in 1910 than NGLA had.

But then one would actually have to have some pretty good familiarity with both golf courses to know and understand something like that.
 
 

[TEPaul]

"In June 1910 Merion chose to engage an experienced professional and amateur, arguably the top amateur and professional architects in the country."


One more time, Tom MacWood. Merion did not engage a professional architect in 1910 or 1911, not anyone and certainly not HH Barker. Matter of fact, it is most interesting that both the committee and board meeting minutes of June/July 1910 SPECIFICALLY record that THEY did not engage (and pay for) HH Barker in 1910; they specifically recorded that HDC developer Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC as a member engaged him and paid him.

But you wouldn't know that would you because you've never done any research at Merion GC or MCC?! And even though we have provided the information in those documents word for word, as usual, you either ignore them or just rationalize away what they specifically say.

Those MCC contomporaneous meeting minutes documents can and do trump any day any inaccurate newspaper report or train schedules that are the sole sources of your meaningfully inaccurate analysis of the architectural history of Merion East.

It is pretty shocking what an amazingly poor analyst you really are of the golf and architectural history of this time even after having the facts, the documents and the truth explained to you by others who really have done the necessary in-depth research.

It doesn't look to me like you have any credibilty left on this website. Who supports what you've said about Merion on here or elsewhere? It looks like even Moriarty is beginning to disassociate himself from you which would seem appropriate after what you said to Merion attempting to disassociate yourself from any involvement with his highly panned essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."

[Mike Cirba]

You credit AB Smith with the changes at Huntingdon Valley.   Tillinghast reported that it was professional Jim Laing who was responsible for the work completed in 1909, and that it greatly improved the course.  Laing also designed the nine hole course at Old York Road.  

Just to keep a perspective on what was passing for good architecture in Philadelphia at this early period, here a  few photos of the work at Huntingdon Valley, 1909:

A feature added short of the 14th green, described as sand covered by sod on the sides:


A sand trap added to the front of the 17th green:






Ahhh yes...Long Jimmy Laing....Alas, I know him well.  

In fact, I've been fortunate enough to see his "work", or what's left of it at Olde York Road CC, now known as The Abington Club...it's classic, I can assure you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but indeed you're viewing the combined efforts of golf professionals John Reid and Jimmy Laing in those pics.

Ab Smith started his work shortly thereafter, and from the looks of it, had his work cut out for him.

The fact that by 1915 Oswald Kirkby listed it among the company of Garden City, NGLA, et.al. proves indeed the quality of the architectural work of one of the co-designers of Cobb's Creek, Mr. A.H. (AB) Smith, IN THE HOUSE!!!  

In fact, here's the Great Man himself, sitting next to George Thomas who unfortunately already seems to be making a bit of a west-coast fashion statement.  



Ab Smith, indeed...First Philadelphia Amateur champion in 1897, and winner again in 1911, Smith also coined the term "Birdie" playing golf with Crump, his brother William, and Tillinghast at Atlantic City CC.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give PROPS up HIGH to another of the great Philadelphia amateur designers.  

[TEPaul]

Michael:

That's very funny. Moriarty posts some photos of some really bad looking architecture thinking you said it was by amateur Smith when it apparently turns out to be the work of some no-count professional by the name of Laing.  But you should check Laing out with MacWood and you might just find he was the third best architect in America in 1909 right behind Macdonald and HH Barker.

I also heard Macdonald had a "super-soft" opening of NGLA in 1909 and what is now referred to as the "Charmin Soft" opening in 1908. I think the soft opening he had in 1907 was so soft no one actually felt it. But the softest opening he ever had was actually at his Hen House at Ballyshear overlooking NGLA. I'm not sure what year that one was though, even though it is believed he asked a bunch of NY showgirls to come over late one night and look over his plasticine relief models that he had specially made by Seth.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

NOBODY f's with Ab Smith on my watch!

As the Father of Philly public golf, the man is a virtual demi-god for crying out loud!!

My lord...the man designed freaking Karakung!!!
I just hope Bausch isn't reading this or he's probably already boarding a plane to kick some revisionist lala-land butt!  .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()