[T_MacWood]

I have seen evidence of what George said about Macdonald not "letting anything outshine virtually anything at National - even Lido. He did not want Lido to be mentioned as a comparison to National."

Darwin was of the opinion Lido in some respects was superior:
"Mr.Macdonald will not have it that the Lido is the greater masterpiece of the two....but since I am safely out of his reach, I will dare to say....the Lido is his magnum opus."

[Donnie Beck]

Was Macdonald's defense to the 2nd half of the current #9 a huge green complex? A green maybe 70 - 80 yds in length ? Might have been interesting.

[TEPaul]

If there's anything anywhere that shows #9 green as a so-called double green I'd certainly like to see it to try to determine what the reason for it might have originaly been.

I've looked at some early drawings of the course, and I've looked at the enormous mock-up of the course hanging down in the main maintenance building I think for the purpose of determining if #9 green was ever intended to be much bigger or "double".

If it was ever intended to be double when the course was first designed it seems logical to assume that it may have been that way or planned that way simply because the old inn was behind #9 green and #9 was originally #18 and #10 was orginally #1. If that were so it would seem logical that the present green would have been the back of a double green and probably would have served as a practice putting green/18th green much like the well known #9 green/practice putting green melded combination of Oakmont.

But if the #9 green's double section extended well into the present fairway approach, with basically that front section serving as the primary green area of #9 I certainly can't really see how that would make the hole or its second half more interesting or more challenging. In my opinion, it would very likely make 9th hole and its second half less challenging and probably more one dimensional.

Furthermore, it seem very unlikely that any double green section would've been behind the present green section. All one has to do is go behind the present green to determine that. Of course, it would be possible to build another section back there but that would seem to be more invasive of the architecture of NGLA that just putting a really well conceived narrowish bunker scheme in a diagonal of perhaps 90 yards in length extending across the second half fairway connecting at the fairway bunker right out about 150 yards and ending at the bunker on the left out about 60 or less yards before the present green.

[TEPaul]

I really can't imagine that Macdonald would have ever consciously "down designed" other golf courses he worked on for the sole purpose of perserving NGLA as the star of his career in architecture. I can see Macdonald perhaps continuing to work on NGLA to perfect it in every way possible for that purpose though, and history would seem to say the latter is what he did.

It's no secret that Macdonald continued to work on and perfect NGLA for perhaps the last 20-30 years of his life (1909-1939). Many of his remarks in his own book "Scotland's Gift Golf" (published in the late 1920s) would seem to very clearly indicate that.

It also seems a fact that Macdonald basically withdrew back into NGLA for the remaining 10 years of his life. Those final 10-15 years of Macdonald's life are riddled with evidence from other club records and other evidence still existing that he both became a very difficult man to deal with as well as the fact that he seemed to completely tire of involvement in new architectural projects (certainly clearly evident in his remark to Perry Maxwell's request for architectural advice--as well as some letters by Hugh Wilson about Macdonald to Piper and Oakley) or the project of other clubs. The best evidence I've seen of that recently is from the Creek club where Macdonald and the club "csar" of the 1920s, Herbert Dean, as well as the man who had much to say about the architecture of the club from the late 1950s into the 1980s, Joe Dey, were both real antagonists of Macdonald.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Did someone say or imply Macdonald 'down designed' other golf courses? I had not heard that one.

[TEPaul]

"I have seen evidence of what George said about Macdonald not "letting anything outshine virtually anything at National - even Lido. He did not want Lido to be mentioned as a comparison to National."

Tom MacW:

Yes, you did, in post #75. You seem to imply that George Bahto said or implied that. So what is that evidence? If Macdonald really did feel that proprietary about his own NGLA how did he go about accomplishing that? By "down designing" other opportunities and projects so they'd never outshine NGLA or spending the amount of time he clearly did "perfecting" the design of NGLA?

It seems to me if he really was intent on not letting anything else he did "outshine" NGLA he'd have to do either one or the other. What other way would there be to accomplish that?

[T_MacWood]

You'll have to ask George what he meant....I didn't it read that way.

My impression is that Macdonald had a strong opinion that NGLA was superior and didn't want to hear anything to the contrary. I've never heard anyone say Lido (or any other Macdonald course) was 'down designed'.

And obviously Darwin's comments do not imply Macdonald 'down designed' anything...he thought Lido was the superior acomplishment.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I just came up with that remark "down designed". I don't think we really need to argue about what that might mean, do you? If Macdonald really didn't want ANYTHING he did to "outshine" NGLA then you tell me how he might have tried to make that happen when it came to either NGLA or his other projects?

So what if Darwin said Lido was a 'superior accomplishment'? The point is remarks like that supposedly did not make Macdonald happy. Do you have evidence of that or does George? That's all I'm asking. And if either of you, or anyone else, does have evidence of that, the next logical question is what exactly did Macdonald ever do to try to ensure that nothing he ever did would "outshine" NGLA?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Interesting specualtion regarding how he might have made it happen. IMO Macdonald taking a strong stance that nothing he designed matched the NGLA does not translate into Macdonald 'down designing' his other jobs. Especially considering his activites at the time (when Darwin made his comments) consisted of 'up designing' the NGLA. Years of perfecting the NGLA would IMO lead to his attitude that the NGLA was clearly superior, not some conscious decision to under design St. Louis or Piping Rock or Lido. I would also think the fact that he wasn't constantly improving the others would lead to a gap in quality...at least in his mind.

I think Darwin's words are pretty clear: "Mr.Macdonald will not have it that the Lido is the greater masterpiece of the two....but since I am safely out of his reach, I will dare to say....the Lido is his magnum opus."

That's pretty clear evidence if you ask me. Darwin wrote about half a dozen articles on the NGLA or Macdonald or Lido or all three. Perhaps there is more evidence within those articles.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Well then, if you'll reread my post #78 you'ill see we're probably thinking along the same lines if in fact Macdonald was in some way concerned that something else he did was considered to somehow "outshine" NGLA!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()