Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Anthony Fowler on August 27, 2008, 02:08:27 PM
-
If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.
I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses. At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor. Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves. Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better.
-
I've been hard on those guys for years now, for several reasons. On this site it is like pissing into
the wind for the most part ;)
-
Wayne, I'm glad to hear it. I'll keep pissing until the GCA gods strike me down.
-
Wayne,
Your pants must be getting wet by now.
Anthony,
See above. ::)
p.s. A quick look at what are considered to be the 100 or so best classic venues* in America always includes a dozen or so CBM/Raynor courses. Go figure.
*by the way, these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.
-
What would be interesting is if a modern architect copied a bunch of modern great holes, and kept doing that over and over.
Imagine a course with great holes like those found at the great moderns.
What modern holes would you like to see copied ala CBM and Raynor?
-
p.s. A quick look at what are considered to be the 100 or so best classic venues* in America always includes a dozen or so CBM/Raynor courses. Go figure.
Jim, in a sense, I asked why M&R are so highly regarded and you responded by pointing out that they are highly regarded. No Argument.
For the most part, I'm sure these courses deserve their place on the lists. I am not saying the MacDonald and Raynor built bad courses, but could they have been better with more unique holes and concepts? The aesthetics and conditioning alone of some of these courses will jump them onto top 100 lists. Could they be more fun, more interesting, more unique, and more revolutionary with some more uniqueness?
If I built the undeniably greatest course ever, and then made copies of it in 12 different places around the world, would I deserve to fill the entire top 10 with my courses? Would the presence of all of them in the top 10 vindicate them from criticism that they lack uniqueness? I'll even come up with original and unpretentious names to call the courses like American Golf Club of the United States, Country Club of North America, and Best Golf Links of the Universe.
these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.
Shinnecock blew up their MacDonald. Worked out well for them.
-
Jim,
Good pressure means only my shoes are getting wet ;) ;D
Anthony,
Good response regarding Shinnecock Hills. HUGE improvement there and I defy anyone to argue the contrary.
-
Anthony - A vocal minority of us are with you on this.
Certainly the template holes capture a lot of wonderful ideas. But enough with the mechanical replications already.
Copyright law makes a distinction that is helpful here. Copyright doesn't protect the idea, it protects a particular expression of an idea.
Raynor replicated CBM's particular expression of several design ideas. Raynor made little attempt to express his own interpretation of those ideas. So I've never quite gotten why Raynor is in the Pantheon of great architects.
Bob
-
Claude Monet did lots of pictures of lilies on a pond and of the Houses of Parliament. They're all great. Same with Raynor and MacDonald.
-
Sean, I was actually thinking along these lines to myself. Since CBM & SR copy European holes, I was also thinking of American golf holes (modern and classic) would make for good template holes. I still reject the idea of template holes, but I think it would be a fun exercise.
My nominations:
16 at Merion
4 at Bethpage
10 at Riviera
1 or 10 at Oakmont
7 at Pebble
Green complex at 8 at Pacific Dunes or 13 at Rustic Canyon
-
If I built the undeniably greatest course ever, and then made copies of it in 12 different places around the world, would I deserve to fill the entire top 10 with my courses?
Yes, of course you would. If there were no courses better than yours, how could they be ranked as better than yours?
-
Here's a theory: in CBM's day (100 years ago), it might have been perceived as desirable that golf have a generally uniform playing field, like baseball or basketball. The field (or gym) could be bigger or smaller, but the bases and lines should be in the same place. The closer to the great holes of Scotland you could keep your new course, the closer you could come to what self-appointed arbiters like CBM thought of as a "regulation" course.
I know there were many different kinds of courses in Scotland even then, but perhaps MacDonald wasn't a big fan of most of them, and thought international golf should be (and was going to be) played on more conventional grounds.
-
For the most part, I'm sure these courses deserve their place on the lists. I am not saying the MacDonald and Raynor built bad courses, but could they have been better with more unique holes and concepts? The aesthetics and conditioning alone of some of these courses will jump them onto top 100 lists. Could they be more fun, more interesting, more unique, and more revolutionary with some more uniqueness?
How do you answer those questions? Do you think the Mac/Raynor courses could have been better, more fun, more unique, etc?
My sense is that if the courses deserve their elite status, it's hard to second-guess them. I'd like to know how Raynor and Macdonald could have improved them.
-
We go easy on Macdonald and Raynor because they built fun and challenging golf courses that are also aesthetically pleasing. And as a bonus many of those courses are built on wonderful sites. The Creek, Fishers Island, NGLA, Chicago, Shoreacres, St. Louis, Yeamans Hall, Lookout Mountain, Camargo and Yale. M & R were blessed with some unbelievable sites; those I just listed are all very different natural envirnoments, which makes each course unique. Their style travelled well.
-
these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.
Shinnecock blew up their MacDonald. Worked out well for them.
Ok, lets get the historians here to correct me, but the highway department split Shinnecock into two, and CB Mac was fighting with Shinnecock, so the changes were made by Flynn.
There is a reason that Mike Keiser is building a CB Mac tribute course at Bandon.
-
Mike -
I understand why you might build a CBM tribute course. I have a harder time imagining a Seth Raynor tribute course.
Bob
-
I have a harder time imagining a Seth Raynor tribute course.
Bob
Bob,
Somewhere in the archives I remember you drinking the Yale juice when your wife had a Yale reunion. 8)
Please review the Fishers review!
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/fishers1.html
I think "greatness" stops there for Raynor solo courses, but "fun" jumps in pretty quickly at Mountain Lake, The Knoll and a bunch of others.
-
Wayne,
I wouldn't argue w/Flynn's work at Shinnecock, as we can see, it too stands the test of time, not unlike CBM/SR.
Anthony,
Context.
Bob,
Of the 3 Alps holes of Raynor's that I've played I cannot say that any is like the other, past the initial concept.
-
Raynor and Macdonald weren't trying to fool anybody by claiming originality. And their courses are really fun to play.
-
If they were capable of putting the template holes into the flow of a particular course, then what is wrong with using them? Shouldn't one just look at a particular course and say, "Damn, that tested my game, provided playing many types of shots, had variety from hole to hole, was a beautiful walk, and was a heck of a good time." Who cares if there is another course somewhere else that has similar holes? It's about the experience for the few hours you have at one course and if the holes work then why complain.
-
Mike -
My problem with Raynor is not that his courses aren't good. They are very good. The issue is how much credit Raynor ought to get as a designer. I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea.
Bob
-
What would be interesting is if a modern architect copied a bunch of modern great holes, and kept doing that over and over.
Somebody has been doing it, based on what I've see on the PGA Tour telecasts over the last 10 years.
-
AnthonyF:
I have something of a response for you but I'm gonna think about it awhile before posting it so as to hopefully not start another barroom brawl on here like a Friday night in Dodge City right after the cowboys got paid.
As I'm sure you're aware there are a few guys on here who become downright hysterical if someone even mentions Macdonald's name without genuflecting first.
-
people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea.
Were MacDonald's template holes his original idea?
-
Mike -
My problem with Raynor is not that his courses aren't good. They are very good. The issue is how much credit Raynor ought to get as a designer. I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea.
Bob
But this is what Phil was saying about Claude Monet. Even if you know you are going to paint lillies on a pond, you still have to spread it beautifully on the canvas.
-
"I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea."
BobC:
Apparently you aren't aware of Raynor's "Lion's Mouth."
Absolutely awwwwwsome...GRRRRrrrrrrrr....WOOOoooofph....MUUUuuunnncchh
-
Anthony
Are there any specific M & R courses you don't like or understand?
-
If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.. No two holes play exactly the same.. Different Topography.. Different Vistas.. Different soils... If you bothered to look at their use of topography to create angles and lines of play you wouldn't ask why they are considered great but rather why haven't more architects followed their example..
-
If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.
I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses. At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor. Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves. Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better.
Contrary to popular legend Macdonald and Raynor were two different people.
What were Macdonald's "replica courses?"
For that matter, of Macronald's existing work, what holes were exact copies? Of what?
What are the copies at NGLA? Sleepy Hollow? Piping Rock? Mid-Ocean?
Are all of CBM's Redan's the same?
Most have built a redan but there is very little debate about which North American Redan is the best.
-
OK Anthony, I will try to explain it to you. (Even though I know this will re-awaken Wayne... and I am still exhausted from the last time we had this discussion...)
The templates were modeled after the best holes, or best parts of holes, in Europe. There were no great courses in America when NGLA was built, so there were certainly no "styles" for architects. Macdonald developed his own style, which was to build template holes on great pieces of property. And the results were STUNNING! He blew away all the other golf courses in the US, and that in turn, gave rise to a demand for more great courses.
Macdonald became in great demand, as did his protogee Raynor and later Banks. They built private clubs for members who WANTED THAT STYLE.
While template holes may have been used, the land on which these holes were built varied greatly. They are NOT the same holes! I challenge you to play Fishers Island and say you are bored by the holes...
And they are great, classic holes. People loved the courses then and still love them now. Rather than use a simplistic criticism, most people choose to be amazed at how well the style has withstood the test of time.
So Tilly and Ross and Flinn ;D and others also benefited from the great demand for better courses as the game grew in popularity and people saw what was possible. They each developed their own style and built great courses.
It is also silly to say Macdonald and Raynor built only templates, while Tilly etal all never repeated themselves, and built unique features every time a shovel hit the ground...
I find it kind of silly to look back in 2008, after golf course architcture has developed into an artform, and somehow be critical of the use of templates 100 years ago.
As I see it, the minimalist style (which I also love) was a natural progression from the use of templates. So yes, Anthony, if an architect built only templates today he would be roundly criticized. But to do so now shows a lack of understanding and appreciation for the history of GCA.
But go ahead, Wayne, knock yourself out... ;D
-
Anthony,
You cite #4 on Bethpage Black as a hole you would like to see serve as a template for others.
As I posted on another thread, tilly did not generally like the use of templates; he was, though, a believer in hole styles that he liked, and the 4th at BB is one of these. It is a classic double-dogleg (just look from overhead and its clear). It is a right to left, right to left hole.
The reason Tilly liked Double Dogleg's is because they maximized the use of angles and shot values. They also could greatly vary and so it is not uncommon to find holes that run right-left-right on the same course as ones that run left-right-left.
As on the 4th at BB, just as that runs right-left-left, there are others that run left-right-right and every conceivable combination of those two turns made in a alrge or slight way on a single hole. It is a fabulous "style" rather than a template and certainly is one that is applied individually by site rather than by demand that a "redan" (for example) be placed upon a golf course.
-
OK Anthony, I will try to explain it to you. (Even though I know this will re-awaken Wayne... and I am still exhausted from the last time we had this discussion...)
The templates were modeled after the best holes, or best parts of holes, in Europe. There were no great courses in America when NGLA was built, so there were certainly no "styles" for architects. Macdonald developed his own style, which was to build template holes on great pieces of property. Ane the results were STUNNING! He blew away all the other golf courses in the US, and that in turn, gave rise to a demand for more great courses.
Macdonald became in great demand, as did his protogee Raynor and later Banks. They built private clubs for members who WANTED THAT STYLE.
While template holes may have been used, the land on which these holes were built varied greatly. They are NOT the same holes! I challenge you to play Fishers Island and say you are bored by the holes...
And they are great, classic holes. People loved the courses then and still love them now. Rather than use a simplistic criticism, most people choose to be amazed at how well the style has withstood the test of time.
So Tilly and Ross and Flinn ;D and others also benefited from the great demand for better courses as the game grew in popularity and people saw what was possible. They each developed their own style and built great courses.
It is also silly to say Macdonald and Raynor built only templates, while Tilly etal all never repeated themselves, and built unique features every time a shovel hit the ground...
I find it kind of silly to look back in 2008, after golf course architcture has developed into an artform, and somehow be critical of the use of templates 100 years ago.
As I see it, the minimalist style (which I also love) was a natural progression from the use of templates. So yes, Anthony, if an architect built only templates today he would be roundly criticized. But to do so now shows a lack of understanding and appreciation for the history of GCA.
But go ahead, Wayne, knock yourself out... ;D
Hi Bill,
Thank you for the very thorough and well thought out reply. There is no doubt that they executed their "style" well, created courses that pleased their clients, and created demand for more courses. For all of these things CBM, SR, and CB deserve their due. Your point about other classic architects repeating concepts is valid, but nobody else came close to their extent.
From a philosophical point I don't like the notion that one would come to a beautiful site and "build" the holes he wants there instead of using the intricacies of the site to create new hole concepts.
You concede that architects today would be rebuked for this approach, but you say that this is simply the evolution of great architecture. I am willing to partially buy this argument, but I am not willing to fully handicap CBM just because he came earlier. We can respect him for being a revolutionary in the game without listing him as one of the greatest ever. Haydn and Muddy Waters revolutionized music at their respective times but most don't consider their talents as equal to Beethoven and The Beatles, respectively (I am simply using this as an example and am not trying to start a music debate). If you carry your argument to fruition, CBM deserves his place in history as a great predecessor, but not one of the few greatest architects.
Thanks again for the wonderful reply. I do find it informative and compelling, but I must respectfully disagree on these few points.
Anthony
-
Anthony,
This is why many try to stay way from such discussions. It just became clear in your last post that you weren't hear to add anything new, or learn something that might influence your decision, you just wanted to mentally masturbate in front of a crowd.
I'm not impressed.
-
Anthony,
There is also another way to look at this. I have been fascinated by the places on each course that Macdonald, Raynor and Banks chose to build certain templates. My theory is that they first located the best locations for their par 3's. For example, the Short at Sleepy Hollow overlooks the Hudson River, and at first glance, it looks like a shot that flies the green will run down to the River! (Not really, but your attention is invariably drawn to the river.) And 20 years later Banks would place his Short at Hackensack overlooking the Oradell Reservoir. (And by coincedence, the backside of the cliff of the Hudson River.)
I have no doubt that the sites were scouted for the best place for a Redan. And why not? Redans are fabulous holes and golfers LOVE to play them. As someone else said above, these guys were building playing fields for golfers, not painting pictures for art critics. Take away the Redan from a MacRaynor and it is a worse golf course.
Critics of MacRaynors simply assume that since templates were used, it is a given that the "best possible use of the land" is ruled out. It is a cute argument because it can be neither proved nor disproved. But I look at it this way: if in fact CB SR and CB were "limited" by templates, they did an amazing job on each piece of property because the courses that they came up with are still loved today. They could not simply allow the land to dictate every hole, they had to figure out the best use of the land with respect to the placement of templates. I'm sure Tom Doak and the team can respond better as to which is harder: follow the land or follow the templates, but each style surely presents routing challenges.
But the one thing templates assured was 18 excellent golf holes, and that is what you get on a MacRaynor.
-
Anthony,
This is why many try to stay way from such discussions. It just became clear in your last post that you weren't hear to add anything new, or learn something that might influence your decision, you just wanted to mentally masturbate in front of a crowd.
I'm not impressed.
Jim, this is pretty harsh, and I hope that none of it is true, although it clearly seems that way to you.
I only hoped to add by asking what I viewed was a fair question: would we be as easy on a modern architect for doing the same thing? The best answer thus far has been Bill's, saying that no we would not but since MacDonald came at a bleak time, we should cut him some slack. Some have essentially argued that the execution was so good and the end products were so good that we shouldn't care, which is fine.
I have learned from a few of the posts and I hope that can continue. I would love to hear more about the angles and lines of play that Donnie described. Can you provide and explain some good examples?
There was no intention of impressing you or masturbating, but once I have been accused of excreting two different bodily fluids on the same thread, I think it's time to take a break.
-
What is it allowable to replicate (Redan, Road Hole, Alps) and what is plagiarism? I come back to my point about Fowler - he didn't seem to replicate himself.
-
If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.. No two holes play exactly the same.. Different Topography.. Different Vistas.. Different soils... If you bothered to look at their use of topography to create angles and lines of play you wouldn't ask why they are considered great but rather why haven't more architects followed their example..
Couldn't agree more! I've played the National, the Creek, Yale, Mid-Ocean and Mountain Lake, and walked Chicago. Each is different, each is wonderful in its own way. It's all in how the template hole fits on that particular piece of property. Each of those holes has a Redan, no two are alike. That's true of them all. These are among the highest regarded courses in the country, and it's not just because Macdonald and/or Raynor designed them.
However, I'm not calling all of you clowns. Just some of you. ;D
-
Anthony,
If I was a bit harsh (and knowing myself I probably was) and it bothered you I apologize, but I am in perfect harmony with Donnie Beck's sentiment: "If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions" (I think you could insert several other architect's name's into this declaration).
-
There are a number of courses where the template holes were forced into the routing and shaped well above the natural grade and features of their surroundings. Now, I am not trying to say that these aren't excellent clubs, solid courses and fun shots. But you tell me how various holes at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, St. Louis CC, Sleepy Hollow, Lookout Mountain, Westhampton (3rd and 7th) and even Yeaman's Hall (13th) and the Creek Club (17th) harmonize with their surrounds and don't look very out of place. If Macdonald was somewhat natural in style, especially between the tee and green, Raynor was much less so and Banks even less so than Raynor with Forsgate a solid example of fun but anti-naturalism in design.
I believe many of those that revere Raynor and Banks courses (Macdonald was far more original and had a more natural style--though many of his greensites were poorly tied into the surrounds...he seemed to not care that much) enjoy the strength of those courses, interesting shots and prime sites. The aesthetics, save for NGLA, are poor in my eyes. It is a subjective analysis and just an opinion. There is no right or wrong. I just don't get why more people don't object to the aesthetics of Raynor and Banks courses. Of course no two holes or templates are alike, but come on...nothing else would do in their locations? Most of us are not architects. Most of us are talking out are asses when we think we know something is brilliantly routed. We know we like the course and it sounds like we know what we're talking about when we comment on routings. How many of us non-architects actually spent time trying to route? I know Tom Paul spent hundreds of hours doing so on several sites. I did for many hours on two sites. But we are kidding ourselves if we can look at a Raynor routing and really know if it can be improved upon or not.
I will ask the professional architects on this site a probing question. Given that Macdonald had a a tremendous amount of land to consider placing his National Links course, did he choose the best spot? Tom Doak will be particularly interesting to hear from since he knows the adjacent land and land available to Macdonald better than any of us by a large factor. Did he compromise the best golf course he could have built because he found the right spots for some of his templates? Could the existing land he built on be better routed if he had not insisted on templates and designed with a perfectly clean slate?
I know that Macdonald and Raynor provided us with excellent work, particularly Macdonald. But I don't think Raynor is in the top tier because he is so compartmentalized (even though he didn't clone designs...they are not exactly alike) and with concepts that are not his own, even if they were only a fraction of hole concepts on each course. What if Fisher's Island was completed and the bunker plan fully implemented? How would it differ from what exists today?
-
What if Fisher's Island was completed and the bunker plan fully implemented? How would it differ from what exists today?
Wayne,
What bunker plan would that be ??? I highly doubt he had intention of any more bunkers at Fishers. If you closely at the land on Fishers you will see that he used landforms in all the traditional location of cross bunkers. There are forced carries on every tee shot on fishers.
#1 160 carry over fescue to fwy. No need for addition cross bunkering on opening hole.
#2 redan no additional bunkers
#3 the greatest short par in the world IMO.. Look at the use of landform. AMAZING... 170 to carry into the fairway on the left side. The further right the tee ball the more the banking falls off creating longer carry to the preferred angle into the green. The use of land created the same effect as cross bunkering.
#4 190 carry to the elevated fairway. Again tee ball closest to the hazard on the right side of the hole creates the best angle into the green around the Alps and even affords a glimpse of the green with a properly hit tee shot.
#5 Biarritz No need for additional bunkering
#6 170 carry to left side of fairway 250 to top of the hill on right preferred flat landing zone. Again Brilliant use of land. The rolling nature of fairway no need for additional bunkering.
#7 160 or so carry over native rough down the hill to fwy pond on the right at 250 guarding best angle into angled green. (Again pond instead of bunker)
#8 is there a better example of the road hole. Carry the dunes on the right for the proper angle
#9 fwy bunker
#10 No bunkering at all.. and one of the toughest holes on the course. 170 or so carry over fecsue to fwy
#11 Eden
#12 190 carry up the hill into fwy.. Again land forms the bunker
#13 170 over waste area 220+ to get over the hill
#14 cape uses cove on the left side.. Closer you flirt with the pond the better the angle to green.
#15 190 carry to fwy
#16 short
#17 190 over pond to fwy
#18 absolutely brilliant shape of carry over the cove. Very similar to #3 shortest bail out to left about 190 carry right side falls away to the best angle in and carry is 230 plus.
I would find it hard to believe he intended on additional bunkering at Fishers.
-
Anthony:
Just curious -- have you ever played The National Golf Links of America?
If the answer is no, I'll forgive your question.
If the answer is yes, how can you say they weren't a pretty good team?
I agree with you they could have been more original. That's why Macdonald got bored with it and referred the rest of the work to Raynor.
-
As Ronald Reagan would say, now there you go again Wayne...
I actually think Raynor was a superb router. Granted, I am no expert on routing, but his courses seem to have great variety of direction into, with and across the prevailing winds versus an up and back pattern. There is great use of the natural terrain in choosing where green complexes and tees should go. I think Banks came up short on doglegs, especially on my home course Hackensack (but he designed three on a third nine that sadly, never got built thanks to the Great Depression and the land was sold after WWII when the club was in financial difficulty...)
Raynor chose to use his engineering skills to fill wet areas and move dirt far more than others. But while a "naturalist" might take points off for this, an educated historian would recognize that Raynor was certainly in step with the times as the "Man conquers the environment" move was in full swing in the US. While Raynor was performing miracles building the Course at Yale, the astonishing New Hudson River Bridge (now called the George Washington Bridge) was in it's early stages.
To say Raynor "forced" many templates on the land is purley speculative, and also quite unfair. Every architect must "force" certain things on a golf course, the only question is a matter of degree. Once the architect selects a green site, isn't he "forced" to put the next tee with 50 yards or so of that green? The vast majority of courses have four par 3's "forced" onto the land, etc.
Wayne obviously prefers a naturalist approach where as little dirt as possible is moved. That is certainly a valid opinion and I can understand why some would give extra credit to architects who build in that style. I think it is cool that he has developed such a great eye. Perhaps Wayne would also prefer an artist who painted a pretty picture with very few strokes. But he should not feign surprise that most golfers do not care. Most golfers know a good golf hole when they play one. They really don't care how many mules were used during construction. And most golfers absolutely love the holes that Macdonald and Raynor built. Deal with it.
-
Bill,
I respect your opinions and agree with many of them, including the concept of man over nature. However, it needn't be mutually exclusive. Cascades and Indian Creek are as manufactured as any golf course designed by Macdonald or Raynor, including Lido in the case of Indian Creek. Experts have a hard time discerning what is natural and what is man-made at either Cascades (very hard to tell) or Indian Creek (which is completely man-made from 1" above sea level to 35'.
Naturalism to me is not only using the natural features as much as possible but also making the man-made features (or architecture) look natural. Minimalism is (for me anyway) using the natural features with as little man-made features as possible. So don't think me a minimalist as per my definition. Think of me as a naturalist according to my definition. I welcome man-made features, I just don't want them drawing so much attention to themselves away from what should be a pastoral sense.
Have you seen CC Charleston? Fox Chapel? The other courses I mentioned? If you think they don't have forced holes or holes for their own sake rather than fitting into a flow or a surround, then we do not have the basis for a discussion since we see things too differently. Have you seen the short holes on nearly all the Raynor courses? The Edens? The Biarritz is about as artificial as possible in the way Raynor went about it...linear swale of consistent depth. The swale at North Berwick is far more appealing. The way Bobby Weed designed his variation of a Biarritz green at Glen Mills is brilliant in comparison to the geometric and artificiality of Raynor's versions, especially with those horrid flanking bunkers and occasional fronting bunkers...sorry, I know Hackensack has/had one like this.
If the Biarritz model as expressed by Raynor was so time tested, why are all of them maintained so differently today with green height cut both before and after the swale? Why didn't Raynor vary the model presentation very much? How did he miss the more interesting setup of green height before and after the swale?
I can deal with the way Raynor built his golf courses whenever I want. I don't have to deal with it. We've gone over this before, maybe I should step back and not bother or interrupt this thread any longer.
-
Wayno:
Don't get into an Internet fist fight with Donnie because he's a really good fellow and he's also a lot bigger than you and he will beat the tar outta you in a nanosecond unless you do something really disgusting and completely against the etiquette of gentlemanly pugilism like bite his ear off first.
Look, Wayno, I was going to save this for a very considered response to Anthony Fowler's initial question, but I think you need to understand a few things at this point.
First, you really do have a heightened sense and understanding of the importance and perhaps even subliminal satisfaction of what naturalism is and means in golf architecture and even if it's not used in the extreme how a good architect can blend in what he makes to get it to look like it sort of is real naturalism at least in a damn fine "fool the eye" sense (how many golfers actually go out off a green and pick up the obvious natural grades and then walk it in to see how well what was made ties in like we sometimes do? ;) ). You know Pal, who knows and understands the real "Nature Faker" who could do that so well better than you do?
But second, and perhaps most importantly (and this is what I was going to get deep into with my considered response to Anthony Fowler), you have got to understand that many, many golfers, perhaps even most, may not like the look of naturalism at all. Matter of fact they may even enjoy the manufactured look of a style like Macd/Raynor more, particularly if a course plays as well as most all of theirs do.
Have you ever wondered why this may be so? Have you ever really considered perhaps the biggest dynamic of all in golf architecture, perhaps one of the biggest and most important dynamics of mankind---the dynamic of Man and Nature, the dynamic of Man against Nature which is fairly primal, the dynamic of man's struggle to survive in Nature, to overcome it, to conquer and control it all in furtherance of the primal goal of instinctual survival, and then perhaps dominance which is uniquely human?
If this be the case, and of course it is, is it any wonder why Man may actually glory in the things he makes and that look like he made them? Isn't this THE instinctual or even subliminal contest with Nature to prove he's got what it takes to be dominant over all things he can see and touch and even imagine?
I do realize this makes one of the most important premises of Maxie Baby Behr pretty wrong because the last eighty years since he wrote what he did about the everlasting importance of extreme naturalism in golf has probably proven wrong his hope and wish and belief that all golfers should and probably would demand extreme naturalism in golf architecture. I think it's pretty certain to say the last eighty years has proven that a very large slice of them really don't care about that, and the most frightening of all is very many may actually like the other more for the very reasons I just outlined above.
Now don't worry your pretty little head about this tonight or you might blow the top off of it thinking too much. You get some rest now and we'll speak tomorrow---OK, Wayno? NIGHTEE NIGHT NOW! SWEET DREAMS AND DON'T LET THE BEDBUGS FIGHT---I mean BITE.
-
If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.
Not if those holes had substantive architectural value and playabilty merits.
I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses.
Which ones have you played and how many times on each ?
At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor.
Have you played the Redan at Morris County ? Piping Rock ? NGLA ?
The Knoll ?
What do you find humorous about any of them ?
Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves.
And maybe the template holes have enduring architectural values and substantive merits in the context of playability.
Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better.
"Redans" bring an inherent quality with them when translated into playability.
They demand precise execution on the heels of developing a strategy for playing them.
Have you ever played a BAD Redan ?
If so, which one ?
Wayno,
Please don't cite # 3 at Merion ;D
-
..........
Wayne,
Does that look artifical to you ???
-
Tom,
I don't have a fight to pick with Donnie. I look forward to meeting him one of these days, perhaps with the Divotees. I certainly don't want to antagonize him, especially if the information I was told that the Raynor plan was not completed and the fairway bunkering that was planned was not implemented is untrue. And also if Donnie really is that big, I certainly don't want to piss him off ;) In an aesthetic sense, I'm a lot more aligned with Maxie Behr than I am with Seth Raynor. I'm OK with that.
As for a possible majority of golfers preferring the manufactured look of Raynor and Banks, I don't think that has been tested since most of their courses are very private and rarely seen outside the memberships. Why is that? Few of the courses have stood the test of time as tests of the very best players. A lack of elasticity and bunkering schemes relegate a lot of these courses to enjoyable club courses but are they championship courses that have stood the test of time like other designers have in their portfolios? In general, I think the answer is clearly no. There was, in my mind, a lack of foresight from Macdonald, Raynor and Banks that wasn't evident in Wilson, Crump, the Nature Faker, Tillinghast, Thomas, Colt, maybe MacKenzie and a few others of that era.
OK, I'm off to bed. But I will say this, you can have man over nature, but hidden out of respect for nature. That is a much more agreeable and less egotistical approach. And guess what? It looks a HELL OF A LOT better! To me, golf architecture reaches its zenith with great golf presented in a naturalistic fashion. It is simpler to create interesting and fun golf without regard to a natural aesthetic, but if you can have both, why not? The Nature Faker also thought, with his green keeper background, that natural lines and tie ins would hold up longer (Max Behrian if you like) and cost less to maintain over time. So perhaps it isn't just about aesthetics but also practical as well.
However, to each his own. As I said, my position is my opinion and it is no better or worse than anyone else's, especially Big Donnie Beck! ;D
-
Donnie,
Fisher's Island is on one end of Raynor's continuum. I grant you that looks great and natural. It is one of the great sites in all of golf. I don't know what most of the rest of the golf course looks like since that image and later ones of the same hole are the most photographed or at least the most posted. However, for everyone of those kind of holes, there are many times more on other courses that are highly manufactured, artificial and out of sync with the surrounds.
-
"Wayne,
Does that look artifical to you? ???"
Donnie:
What in the hell is that? All I can see is rocks and shit strewn all over the place, seaweed, some bushes that are unclipped and unkempt and outta control and a lot of humpy bumpy terrain where one of your older and more fragile members is gonna stub his toe, break his whatever, and over which you're gonna get your ass in some deep CaCa.
What are you doing Donnie? Have you been out there fishing for the last year or something? I can hardly see your golf course. Is that a little piece of it sticking out up there somewhere? What is that up there anyway? Is it a little piece of the "Be-a-Ritz"? if it is it don't look ritzy enough. Now get on it and clean that random highly natural looking mess up!
-
...
-
There are a number of courses where the template holes were forced into the routing and shaped well above the natural grade and features of their surroundings.
Since when is shaping above the natural grade a bad thing ?
Ross's greens on many courses are almost universally above grade.
Being above grade is critical to good drainage in many areas.
Even Hidden Creek has almost every green above grade.
Now, I am not trying to say that these aren't excellent clubs, solid courses and fun shots.
But you tell me how various holes at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, St. Louis CC, Sleepy Hollow, Lookout Mountain, Westhampton (3rd and 7th) and even Yeaman's Hall (13th) and the Creek Club (17th) harmonize with their surrounds and don't look very out of place.
Okay, I'll tell you that the 3rd and the 7th hole at Westhampton don't look very out of place, especially the 3rd hole which sits below the tee.
I also like the look of the 7th hole.
I don't think that # 17 at The Creek looks out of place at all.
I lament the missing donut in the green and the bunkers that used to surround the entire green. The hole remains a neat little short hole.
If Macdonald was somewhat natural in style, especially between the tee and green, Raynor was much less so and Banks even less so than Raynor with Forsgate a solid example of fun but anti-naturalism in design.
Forsgate is a terrific golf course, sporty, fun, unique and challenging.
Its design isn't anti-naturalism.
It's design is intended to examine the golfer's skills while providing enjoyment, and in that regard Banks succeeded royally.
I believe many of those that revere Raynor and Banks courses (Macdonald was far more original and had a more natural style--though many of his greensites were poorly tied into the surrounds...he seemed to not care that much) enjoy the strength of those courses, interesting shots and prime sites.
Wayno, you continually forget that CBM brought interesting architecture to America, vis a vis NGLA and its descendents.
The aesthetics, save for NGLA, are poor in my eyes.
The aesthetics at The Creek are "POOR" ?
The aesthetics at Yale are "POOR" ?
Wayno, Shirley you jest.
It is a subjective analysis and just an opinion.
On that we agree. However I detect a Flynn bias in your typing.
There is no right or wrong.
Now we disagree.
I just don't get why more people don't object to the aesthetics of Raynor and Banks courses.
Perhaps because you don't get it and they do. ;D
And, perhaps because their courses present a sporty challenge to every level of golfer
Of course no two holes or templates are alike, but come on...nothing else would do in their locations?
Again, you fail to understand that the client wanted their "BRAND", their style of golf course due to the enduring values represented in the holes they designed.
Have you ever played The Knoll ?
Most of us are not architects. Most of us are talking out are asses when we think we know something is brilliantly routed. We know we like the course and it sounds like we know what we're talking about when we comment on routings. How many of us non-architects actually spent time trying to route?
What does Tom MacWood's routing skills have to do with CBM-SR-CB ?
I know Tom Paul spent hundreds of hours doing so on several sites.
TEPaul also spent five years in 7th grade.
I did for many hours on two sites.
But we are kidding ourselves if we can look at a Raynor routing and really know if it can be improved upon or not.
You could say that about almost any course.
Do you not find the crossovers at Merion and Lehigh to be a flaw in the routing and hole designs ?
The GCA.com universe was highly critical of the cross overs in Rees Jones's routing of Atlantic, claiming that crossovers were a design flaw, until I pointed out that Merion and Lehigh had the same design flaw in the routing. Then, suddenly, it became acceptable. Many look at crossovers as a design and routing flaw. I'm sure you'll claim that they are a great way to transition within the limitations presented by the property. Of course you could say that about Atlantic as well.
I will ask the professional architects on this site a probing question.
Given that Macdonald had a a tremendous amount of land to consider placing his National Links course, did he choose the best spot?
Since when did he have a tremendous amount of land to consider ?
Could you cite your reference ?
The current site was not the first site he wanted, which was 120 acres.
The current site was on a parcel of 450 acres, of which he purchased 205 acres.
Does it matter if he chose the best spot if he produced the best course the land could produce ?
Tom Doak will be particularly interesting to hear from since he knows the adjacent land and land available to Macdonald better than any of us by a large factor.
Tom Doak is a "johnny come lately" when it comes to that land, and I doubt he knows more about the land available to MacDonald better than George Bahto and others.
Did he compromise the best golf course he could have built because he found the right spots for some of his templates?
Let me see if I understand your question.
First, MacDonald begins to create the course of the century in 1906, a revolutionary course unlike any other in America, a course that remains in the top 10 or so, 100 plus years after it started, and you ask if he compromised the best golf course he could have built because he found the right spots for some of his templates ?
Second, the current site was not his first choice.
Initially he wanted to buy 120 acres further west, close to the Shinnecock Canal, but, the owners of the land wouldn't sell it.
Third, the land that NGLA now sits on had never been surveyed when CBM wanted to buy it, it was part of a 450 acre parcel. The land abounded in bogs and swamps. And, the key to the purchase was the reasonability of the selling price.
Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin were pretty effusive in their praise, but, old Wayno thinks a better golf course could be built on different land ?
You must be kidding, and don't call me Shirley.
Why do you presume that the decision to buy the parcel was entirely dependent upon the predetermination of the routing and hole design ?
CBM himself states that the template holes he had in mind fit in NATURALLY to the land he wanted to buy.
Could the existing land he built on be better routed if he had not insisted on templates and designed with a perfectly clean slate?
Evidently, you don't know much about that land.
Please call Tom Doak and have him explain the routing restrictions of the property to you, basically, only permiting an out and back routing.
I know that Macdonald and Raynor provided us with excellent work, particularly Macdonald.
But I don't think Raynor is in the top tier because he is so compartmentalized (even though he didn't clone designs...they are not exactly alike) and with concepts that are not his own, even if they were only a fraction of hole concepts on each course.
First you tell us that Raynor provided excellent work, then, in the next paragraph you tell us that he's not in the top tier.
Which is it ?
What if Fisher's Island was completed and the bunker plan fully implemented? How would it differ from what exists today?
The routing would be the same.
You don't know if the bunker plan would remain because you don't know what the effects of the Great Depression and WWII would have been on it.
Stick to Flynn where you're recognized as not being a novice and out of your element ;D
-
"As for a possible majority of golfers preferring the manufactured look of Raynor and Banks, I don't think that has been tested since most of their courses are very private and rarely seen outside the memberships. Why is that? Few of the courses have stood the test of time as tests of the very best players. A lack of elasticity and bunkering schemes relegate a lot of these courses to enjoyable club courses but are they championship courses that have stood the test of time like other designers have in their portfolios? In general, I think the answer is clearly no. There was, in my mind, a lack of foresight from Macdonald, Raynor and Banks that wasn't evident in Wilson, Crump, the Nature Faker, Tillinghast, Thomas, Colt, maybe MacKenzie and a few others of that era.
OK, I'm off to bed. But I will say this, you can have man over nature, but hidden out of respect for nature. That is a much more agreeable and less egotistical approach. And guess what? It looks a HELL OF A LOT better! To me, golf architecture reaches its zenith with great golf presented in a naturalistic fashion. It is simpler to create interesting and fun golf without regard to a natural aesthetic, but if you can have both, why not? The Nature Faker also thought, with his green keeper background, that natural lines and tie ins would hold up longer (Max Behrian if you like) and cost less to maintain over time. So perhaps it isn't just about aesthetics but also practical as well.
However, to each his own. As I said, my position is my opinion and it is no better or worse than anyone else's, especially Big Donnie Beck! ;D"
Wayno:
I do hope you have gone to bed. You'll need your rest because after this post you will need all the strength you can muster for the Great Naturalistic Golf Architecture Revolution that may begin tomorrow.
You said your opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's, especially Donnie Beck's?? Are you kidding me? Of course your opinion is better than theirs. You are a true Naturalist, my friend, and you are about to take on that entire old elitist super-arrogant ruling class that thought they could not just take on but put a full court press on good old Mother Nature and pin her to some horribly artificial man-made contraption like the berm behind the "Alps" hole at NGLA until she couldn't take it anymore and cried "Macdonald/Raynor" in defeat.
These arrogant Nature dominanting wankers apparently don't appreciate the true meaning of "One never fucks with Mother Nature."
You are the new ruling class, Wayne Morrison, and don't you forget it. Tomorrow you go out and learn to shit in the wood as well as Maxie Baby Behr could while I email the Fates and Spirits and call in this next hurricane brewing in the Carribean and bring it up this way and unleash all its fury on Fishers Island G.C. that will make the 1938 hurricane look like a BURP! ;)
-
Wayno,
Seems to me that Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Ridgewood and Bethpage have withstood the onslaught of hi-tech a lot better than any Flynn courses.
AWT should be proud.
-
"TEPaul also spent five years in 7th grade."
Hey look, you snark-assed bozo, if you did 7th grade at Seabreeze Private in Daytona Beach, Florida with rock-headed people like Fireball Roberts' brother and then had to go to St Mark's School in Boston with juvenile protoge geniuses like Herbert Leed's sister's grandchildren you would've spent ten years in 7th grade!
-
Donnie:
Post #49's old and new photos are two of the coolest comparative golf architecture photos I have ever seen. Way to go Man. By the way the new one really does prove how much photography flattens out topography.
-
It is too easy to just lump Macdonald and Raynor together, intermingle their work, and then make broad generalizations across both. While I generally agree with Bill Brightly and Donnie Beck and a few others, I am commenting on Macdonald only.
Macdonald was not importing and blindly and mechanically copying golf holes, he was importing the fundamental principles of strategic design and applying them in new and varying situations. His supposed "templates" were vehicles for expressing some of these principles, but even these varied greatly from site to site. They were not meant as "templates" in the sense of any sort of mechanical copies, but were unique expressions of some key fundamental principles. Macdonald said of the Redan (emphasis added:)
There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.
"Infinite variations on any course" . . . . this is not rote copying from a template.
Could designers could get away with this now? Yes, and the do get away with it. Many if not most architects build the same holes over and over again, often times even building the same basic hole multiple times on the same golf course! Unfortunately for us, most these designers do not have nearly as diverse or repertoire as Macdonald, who could at least design a full course without repeating himself. As Macdonald said in the same article after noting that there are only four kinds of good golf holes, "the local scenery supplies the variety." I'd venture to say that those who best grasped the fundamental principles made the best designers. I'll go even further and suggest that these same fundamental principles are what made the "golden age" golden.
________________________________________________
I will ask the professional architects on this site a probing question. Given that Macdonald had a a tremendous amount of land to consider placing his National Links course, did he choose the best spot? Tom Doak will be particularly interesting to hear from since he knows the adjacent land and land available to Macdonald better than any of us by a large factor. Did he compromise the best golf course he could have built because he found the right spots for some of his templates? Could the existing land he built on be better routed if he had not insisted on templates and designed with a perfectly clean slate?
A related question. Don't designers oftentimes find one or two key holes and then base the rest of the course around those holes?
As far as I am aware, the Alps and Redan were the two "template holes" that were placed before the rest of the routing was done. It is difficult to imagine better use of that land.
Also, second-guessing the routing at this point seems a bit presumptuous even for the professionals. Non-golf factors often limit the routing possibilities and we don't know what were those limitations. For just one example that we do know, NGLA was planning on using the hotel as a clubhouse, and this may well have impacted the routing.
-
...
Donnie,
Great photos.
Wayno keeps refering to CBM's-SR's-CB's unnatural designs because he read about it somewhere.
Anyone who's viewed that photo or played the hole/course knows how off base he is.
Forgive him, he's a blind Flynnophile. ;D
-
Anthony - I don't kow how to answer your question. I just have more questions:
What would American architecture have been like without him?
Did he fill a need, or create one?
Peter
-
I believe Wayne & TE have done a disservice to Flynn with their constant harping on Macdonald and Raynor (and Ross for that matter). You get the impression they believe tearing down M & R somehow elevates Flynn (and Wilson). I think the opposite is true, which is sad. Flynn was a brilliant architect. Ironically Flynn has more in common with Macdonald & Co and Ross than he does with the ultra-naturalistic architects like Mackenzie, Simpson and Thomas.
IMO one of the reasons golf architecture is so interesting is due to the diversity of styles. Alison, Thompson, Travis, Langford, Strong and Colt all have very different styles - I say viva la differance. I don't know how a reasonable judge of golf architecture could play the NGLA, Yale, Chicago and Fishers Island and not be totally blown away by their talent.
-
Wayne might have a point on this one...
[IMG]
-
Wayne,
I have played CC of Charleston 25 years ago but I was too young and ignorant to look around for the arcitecture...at that time I had no idea that Raynor was Banks' mentor. I am playing Fox Chapel next month. Driving 7 hours just to see it and can't wait.
Don't worry too much about the front section of Biarritz greens, the pin should rarely be there anyway. The idea was to thread a long tee shot in between the70-yard long bunkers with enough force to roll down and back up the swale and stay on the green. I dont think the front sections were putting surfaces, but advances in agronomy and turf management left the front sections as "properly-irrigated" (soft) fairways rather than the hardpan that must have existed 80-90 years ago. So I've come to believe that today's putting surfaces are the closest we can get to the "firm and fast" approaches required to execute a proper "Biarritz Shot." At the time these holes were built, this tee shot had to be the most difficult shot on the course: 220 to the green with wooden shafts, etc. No golfers could fly the ball to the green as we can now. Had the architects have made the swale in a "non-linear" manner it would have been way over the top.
I never claimed that Raynor and Banks did not leave engineered looks. I simply try to point out that most golfers still like the look and love to play the holes. I know it bothers you that most golfers don't take points off for the look as you do.
And I try to place their construction technique in the proper historical perspective, because it is important. These courses were built in the early part of the 20th century. Raynor and Banks are probably the two biggest examples of "Man over Nature" movement exhibited on golf courses. In any event, these courses represent an important segment of the spectrum of great courses that exist today.
As TE pointed out so eloquently, you have a great eye for naturalism on golf courses. I think that is cool and I am learning to look for that. But to use your love for naturalism as a reason to denegrate MacRaynors is simply wrong. It is like going to a heavy metal concert and screaming at the band that aren't playing enough acoustic ballads...
-
"I believe Wayne & TE have done a disservice to Flynn with their constant harping on Macdonald and Raynor (and Ross for that matter). You get the impression they believe tearing down M & R somehow elevates Flynn (and Wilson)."
Tom:
I have never done anything like that at all and if you really don't know that you should. I'm telling you right now I have never done that with Macdonald/Raynor or Ross or Flynn or Wilson or Crump and I'm definitely telling you right now that is not the way I feel--never have. If you don't pick up on what I'm telling you right now and engage me as to why I say that and mean it----well, then Mr. MacWood, you really are going to show yourself to be the gutless and arrogant little purveyor of total triviality and untruths this website has ever had the misfortune to suffer.
Are you going to engage on this now Mr. MacWood? Can you do it? Do you have the guts to even try?
I will guarantee you it will not be painful whatever your insecurities are or whatever mine are. You and I need to get to the basics of some of our sensibilities and if we do this website will be a whole lot better for it. I just know it will.
Do you have the guts? It won't be a fight, it will be a catharsis--I can feel it and I'll guarantee it.
-
Anthony
Excellent posts which have provoked some interesting thinking from others. Thanks.
Even though this may be a kiss of death, I agree with you regarding the "humor" to be found in any and all discussions of Macdonald and Raynor's work and/or theories. I am continually amused when playing with good friends from this site who feel obliged to tell me when I get to some hole on one of their favo(u)rite courses: "This is our 'Redan!'" or "Doesn't that green have a Biarritzy feel to it?" or "That tuft of grass obscuring the green is an "Alp."
The Monet analogy used above by others is illustrative of this particular form of mania. It would work if MacRaynor's ouevre of Redans actually consisted of "water lillies," but the irony is that none of them that I have seen (including NGLA) are actually water lillies, but rather other varieties of flower. NGLA is a tulip, Wailae is a hibiscus, etc., ad infinitum. If Monet painted a hibiscus and called it a water lilly, we would all laugh. Why are we less critical when discussing a golf hole? Why do we fail to see the humo(u)r of it all and even more importantly why do some of us react so negatively to those of us who enjoy a good laugh or even just a sly giggle from time to time?
Rich
-
"As TE pointed out so eloquently, you have a great eye for naturalism on golf courses. I think that is cool and I am learning to look for that. But to use your love for naturalism as a reason to denegrate MacRaynors is simply wrong. It is like going to a heavy metal concert and screaming at the band that aren't playing enough acoustic ballads..."
BillB:
Wayne isn't really denigrating MacRaynor, he's just telling you what he likes and what he doesn't like and he doesn't like the MacRaynor style because it doesn't look natural to him. So What?
We just don't need anyone and certainly not these two complete jackasses constantly lambasting Wayne Morrison and telling him he's trying to perpetuate some glorification campaign of Wilson or Flynn because he doesn't like the look of MacRaynor architecture. Both he and me hardly even know those two clowns---as everyone can see they came after Merion and us over five years ago with this hard-on for Macdonald/Whigam apparently that we or Merion were slighting and minimizing them. Why did they do that? What did we or Merion ever do to perpetuate or inspire that? We never minimized or denigrated MacRaynor, it was not the case, never has been, and all we've done heretofore is say so.
If anyone needs slighting and minimizing it is both MacWood and Moriarty, I know it, you know it and everyone else should too.
Get real and get honest here Bill, you know damn well what I'm saying is the truth. If you want to see the thread both where and how this all began I'll find it, bring it up and show it to you and you can see for yourself.
-
Read Anthony's first post again Rich, then his second. All he came on here to do (it appeared) was slap a friend in the face, and all the negative reponses were from buddies who were standing up for the slap-ee.
Maybe if he started the conversation with his third post the reactions would have been different.
p.s. I missed the humo(u)r, he airmailed it right over my Double Plateau.
-
Who is the "friend," Jim? If it is Macdonald or Raynor, now that is funny. :)
-
Anthony Fowler:
I promise I will give you my best and consdered response and opinion to your initial post, after a while.
But in the meantime, congratulations, you started a pretty hot thread here with a ton of dynamics but you knew that would happen when you thought up the subject, didn't you?
Your thread has just made me realize, for the first time in my life. that I actually grew up on nothing but Macdonald/Raynor courses. I never actually thought about it that way before, and so I'm going to tell you what my opinion was of them and their various holes through the eyes of a "clear clay" kid that just might be more pure and more "real" than a bunch of jaded golf course analysts on this website.
Now, I'll tell you what they were and the way I looked at them and the various holes. I wasn't much into golf back then but because my dad was who he was and what he was as a player I saw these ones all the time as a kid. He belonged to them all and the only one he didn't he played all the time anyway because of his friends.
They were: Piping Rock, The Links, NGLA, The Creek, all on Long Island.
The holes that fascinated me the most were the template holes. I may've know their names but I doubt it, I can't remember now, so the very idea of "copy" holes meant nothing at all to me. But their primary features on those template holes, what I came to understand as their primary architectural and playibility features on most of those template holes were just so cool, so challenging and so awe-inspiring if and when you ran afoul of them and had to deal with them. But when I did it right on those holes, those template holes, as I was taught to try to do with particular shots and shot requirements to play them right, it was about the most gratifying feeling imaginable in golf.
Do you get a drift here, Anthony, about what it may be all about in golf with most people and not just amongst these jaded, over-analyzing arrogant yahoos on here who are so fixated on anything and everything to do with golf architecture? Perhaps they should just let all that over-analyzing crap go and get back to the "kid" in them and play the shots and suffer the ups and downs of their wonderful time-tested concepts.
There was only one template that was pretty much a bust for me as a kid back then and even today and that was "The Eden". The Creek's isn't much, Piping's is really bad with no potential hope with where it is and what it is. NGLA's got my attention and if The Links had one I can't even remember it. But that Links redan hole---Oh My GOD, I'll never forget it and it used to drive my Dad and all his scratch-playing friends nuts. They never stopped talking about it as they alternately loved it and hated it.
SAVY?
-
Rich,
I am sure you realize that you and Anthony are not laughing with the other but at the other. He thinks all their holes are the same. You think they are all different. I think you've both entirely missed the point.
DM
-
TP....you are right as usual, and I have not been as faithful of late proclaiming that, but my mission lately...well has been my mission lately.
But all missions aside, people don't really want to be part of nature, as much as they want to experience nature.
Do you crave living in a house shaped as an acorn or birds nest, or something equally as contrived?....of course not, because you are not a damned idiot.....or a squirrel or a bird!
Gotta catch a plane...love...peace.
-
Paul, you've got a beautiful mind--and so visual. Too bad some of the opinionated "know-nothing" assholes on here can't see you and spend time with you on-site. It would be so helpful to this website what they could learn. You're maybe the most "outside the box" thinker I know and you give people the feeling you care what they think and that you're willing to listen and consider it all too. But when the time comes you pull the trigger. Somebody has to and somebody always does and that's the other part most on here don't even get the why or wherefore of.
-
"But all missions aside, people don't really want to be part of nature, as much as they want to experience nature."
Paul:
You're probably gone and off catching a plane but that remark reminded me of a question. Here is is:
What do you think came first, the wilderness or civilization?
-
Rich,
I am sure you realize that you and Anthony are not laughing with the other but at the other. He thinks all their holes are the same. You think they are all different. I think you've both entirely missed the point.
DM
Dave
The important thing is to laugh, regardless of why. Try it sometime. :)
-
"This is our 'Redan!'" or "Doesn't that green have a Biarritzy feel to it?" or "That tuft of grass obscuring the green is an "Alp."
The Monet analogy used above by others is illustrative of this particular form of mania. It would work if MacRaynor's ouevre of Redans actually consisted of "water lillies," but the irony is that none of them that I have seen (including NGLA) are actually water lillies, but rather other varieties of flower.
Rich
Never having seen a Mac/Raynor, the above sentences sum up my thoughts. Everytime someone splashes a photo of a _____ I think WHAT? It happened the other day with a few people claiming the 10th at St Georges Hill was an Alps. It just ain't so. Its really disheartening when these "truths" are expoused and yet some of the main design elements of the template are missing. Afterall, that is what CBM was importing, design concepts, not holes. However, the idea that these templates are in truth not what they are claimed to be gives me hope and makes me want to see these old steam engines. The funny thing is I have played one Banks relic many times and I think it is a good course (one which Anthony should have included in To the Nines) and with TLC it could be wonderful. There is always hope and as you say, a chance for a good laugh, or at least a smile.
Ciao
-
I think WHAT? It happened the other day with a few people claiming the 10th at St Georges Hill was an Alps. It just ain't so. Its really disheartening when these "truths" are expoused and yet some of the main design elements of the template are missing. Afterall, that is what CBM was importing, design concepts, not holes. However, the idea that these templates are in truth not what they are claimed to be gives me hope and makes me want to see these old steam engines.
When you look at the MacRaynor courses, they did get a little carried away with the Par 3's and the Redan, Eden, Short.......
However, on the 4's and 5's it is design elements at best on a few holes, and they took the great fun concepts.
When people talk about The Road Hole at National, Yale and Mountain Lake, it is a big stretch to call any of those even an interpretive copy.
-
"But all missions aside, people don't really want to be part of nature, as much as they want to experience nature."
Paul:
You're probably gone and off catching a plane but that remark reminded me of a question. Here is is:
What do you think came first, the wilderness or civilization?
Tom....caught the plane [strange term that], and back in EST [you know in all honesty PST makes me a little nervous, hard to relax and feel totally at home]....but, I probably should have added the need for man to tame nature as well, and I think this is reflected in golf.
Wilderness came first and the need and effort to tame it proclaimed the ascendancy of Man.....or some such gibberish.
Just called out my last plane to catch.....later my friend ;)
-
"Tom....caught the plane [strange term that], "
I can see you catching a plane but like George Carlin said you may not want to catch a nonstop flight because I'm sure you'll want to get off at some point.
Actually my "deep and all things considered", august history teacher, Professor Radcliffe Poopedysnoop, has allowed that civilization came first for the simple reason raw Nature never realized it was wilderness until "civilizing" mankind proclaimed it so.
-
TE,
I think I understand Wayne's posts quite well and I enjoy the back-and-forth. You say Wayne does not "denigrate" MacRaynors...Since denigrate means "to deny the importance of" I'll agree. But Wayne sure takes his shots with phrases such as "forced upon the land" and over-engineered look" etc. I just try to point out that Wayne seems to use a "naturalist grading scale" when looking at a golf hole, so a Raynor course will not fare well, but from a playability standpoint the courses get unusually high grades from golfers.
Wayne did not "denigrate" Raynor when he pissed on his grave, but it was not exactly a compliment...
As to the ridiculous attacks on you by those two, I feel very bad. I wish it would stop, or at least have it remain in only one thread so 99% of the board could ignore it.
-
"But Wayne sure takes his shots with phrases such as "forced upon the land" and over-engineered look" etc. I just try to point out that Wayne seems to use a "naturalist grading scale" when looking at a golf hole, so a Raynor course will not fare well, but from a playability standpoint the courses get unusually high grades from golfers."
BillB:
I think you have that exactly right about Wayne---eg he does use what might be called a "naturalist grading scale" when looking at golf architecture. So, because some of Raynor's lines and shapes do not look natural to him on certain sites he doesn't really like that look. He's always recognized Raynor architecture does play well though.
I think the arguments arise with him and others when they tell him Raynor's lines do look natural. Perhaps they do to some people but they don't to Wayne and that's his point. (a participant on here, T. MacWood, once countered that even if some of Macdonald/Raynor lines may be straight and such, that they are natural because straight lines are found in raw nature too. That is not Wayne's point at all. He simply thinks of it in the context of the raw natural lines of particular sites and if they aren't straight he does not think straight architectural lines look natural in those atmospheres. Just a difference in perspective, I guess.
To me this should all be OK and it's probably why I created the idea and coigned the term "The Big World Theory"---eg a unique art form like golf course architecture (interactive) actually needs a wide spectrum of types and styles to prosper---that probably is one of the most important facets of GCA---it should never proceed down a road towards greater standardization---a road towards less standardiztion and more diversity of types and styles is a good thing in my mind, even if I too have my own particular preferences.
"Wayne did not "denigrate" Raynor when he pissed on his grave, but it was not exactly a compliment..."
It apparently needs to be pointed out again that Wayne never did that---it was just a joke but some people on here apparently don't have the same types of sense of humor either. ;)
As for those other two, I have no problem with them about what they think about Macdonald, I only resist when they constantly tell me what I think of Macdonald and that I denigrate him in some attempt to glorify Wilson or Flynn or some such garbage. I don't put much value in much of anything to do with what they say or do on this website anyway so I have no problem telling them they have no idea at all about what I think of Macdonald or Raynor. As I realized last night I grew up on app four courses that were all Macdonald/Raynor. That's all I knew then and I loved them all in what might be called a "clear clay" approach but I did not study the details of golf architecture back then, I just played them and I loved them, particularly most of the template holes that I never even realized back then were template holes.
The idea that Macdonald copied holes or concepts of holes from abroad to design them never even occurred to me back then. Perhaps some of these people on here should try to get back to that thinking and philosophy and just play them and enjoy them for what they individually are.
-
TEPaul
Perhaps they should just let all that over-analyzing crap go and get back to the "kid" in them and play the shots and suffer the ups and downs of their wonderful time-tested concepts.[/b]
For once you've said something really intelligent. ;D
This is what it's all about, PLAYING GOLF, on a site especially prepared for that endeavor.
Think of a golf course as steeplechase course rather than a race course along Daytona Beach
The template holes bring with them an examination of one's planning and execution skills.
They are time tested in their ability to conduct that examination.
Like your dad's example of a hole baffling his group of players, the 13th at The Knoll, a Biarritz used to do the same to a group of my friends.
With the wind, the hole brought different strategies and probably heightened the element of luck along with the demand for proper planning and execution.
Even today, the hole remains a unique challenge.
Templates bring with them, the enduring architectural, and more importantly, the intended PLAYING values.
All too often, many lose sight of the fact that playing values are THE most important element in playing the game of golf, not the style and not the aesthetics.
Does it bother anyone that many of the bunkers in the UK are circular bunkers without much contour or free form ?
The Road Hole Bunker comes to mind.
Is it less effective or less worthy because it doesn't have frilly edges ?
Or less of a geometrical/circular shape ?
The 7th at NGLA is a spectacular hole, despite the impact of hi-tech on distance.
The angle and configuration of the green in concert with the topography and surrounding bunkers is simply brilliant, thwarting approach and recovery shots from almost every angle at every distance.
Should that "concept" be trademarked, restricted and protected by copywrite laws ?
Or should that concept be introduced elsewhere ?
To state that features, holes, routings and courses are inferior or tainted because they contain non-original concepts (templates) is absurd.
Westhampton is a great golf course.
Piping Rock is a great golf course
The Creek is a great golf course
Yale is a great golf course
NGLA is a great golf course.
So how and why do you denigrate them by attaching demerits because they contain wonderful holes that examine the golfers ability to plan and execute properly ?
Is the 3rd, the Redan at Piping Rock a bad, mediocre, good or great hole ?
Is it lesser of a hole because the 4th at NGLA preceeded it ?
-
"It apparently needs to be pointed out again that Wayne never did that---it was just a joke but some people on here apparently don't have the same types of sense of humor either. "
TE
He didn't? You ruined my morning...Tell me that he at least looked for the grave and couldn't find it...
-
"This is our 'Redan!'" or "Doesn't that green have a Biarritzy feel to it?" or "That tuft of grass obscuring the green is an "Alp."
The Monet analogy used above by others is illustrative of this particular form of mania. It would work if MacRaynor's ouevre of Redans actually consisted of "water lillies," but the irony is that none of them that I have seen (including NGLA) are actually water lillies, but rather other varieties of flower.
Rich
Never having seen a Mac/Raynor, the above sentences sum up my thoughts. Everytime someone splashes a photo of a _____ I think WHAT? It happened the other day with a few people claiming the 10th at St Georges Hill was an Alps. It just ain't so. Its really disheartening when these "truths" are expoused and yet some of the main design elements of the template are missing. Afterall, that is what CBM was importing, design concepts, not holes. However, the idea that these templates are in truth not what they are claimed to be gives me hope and makes me want to see these old steam engines. The funny thing is I have played one Banks relic many times and I think it is a good course (one which Anthony should have included in To the Nines) and with TLC it could be wonderful. There is always hope and as you say, a chance for a good laugh, or at least a smile.
Ciao
Sean,
He was importing design concepts, and not holes. But your "design elements" requirement is much more specific and formal than CBM's. He did not insist that every single "design element" be included every time he used the term, but believed that a few basic principles could be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.
I really don't get the point of your criticisms or Rich's.
You really ought to play NGLA before you dismiss these courses as "steam engines."
Bill,
There are substantial disagreements about the importance of Macdonald (and Raynor) in a number of different contexts and on a number of different levels. As for whether Wayne and TEPaul have denigrated Macdonald (or Raynor) in these conversations, their past statements speak for themselves.
As to the ridiculous attacks on you by those two, I feel very bad. I wish it would stop, or at least have it remain in only one thread so 99% of the board could ignore it.
In this thread alone I have been called an asshole, a clown, a complete jackass, and probably a few other things I didn't bother to read. I don't recall ridiculously attacking anyone, or even attacking anyone.
I wish that you and others would not play along with TEPaul when he paints himself as the victim here. Again, his words and actions here and in the past paint a much different picture.
And I too wish the ridiculous attacks would stop, but they won't until more on the website stand up to TEPaul and anyone else who makes such attacks.
-
DMoriarty,
Why would you bother to engage in dialogue with someone who's NEVER played a CBM-SR-CB golf course, yet offers criticism of the holes on those golf courses ?
It's a waste of time because he has no context in which to judge your opinions or answers.
P.S.
I'd love to know what holes # 12 and # 18 at NGLA are fashioned after ;D
-
"In this thread alone I have been called an asshole, a clown, a complete jackass, and probably a few other things I didn't bother to read. I don't recall ridiculously attacking anyone, or even attacking anyone.
I wish that you and others would not play along with TEPaul when he paints himself as the victim here. Again, his words and actions here and in the past paint a much different picture.
And I too wish the ridiculous attacks would stop, but they won't until more on the website stand up to TEPaul and anyone else who makes such attacks."
Mr. Moriarty:
There are two entirely separate issues here:
The first and most important issue to this website is; did we or Merion ever minimize the contribution Macdonald/Whigam made to MCC and Merion East?
The issue of whether Wayne Morrison (or me or Mike Cirba) denigrated Macdonald or Raynor because he does not really like their style of architecture has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether Merion or us here on this website EVER tried to minimize Macdonald/Whigam's 1910-1911 contribution to MCC or Merion East.
The fact is neither Merion nor us nor anyone else ever attached to Merion ever did that to Macdonald/Whigam and consequently the truth is it makes no difference at all historially or otherwise if you and Tom MacWood just keep claiming we all did because it is just not true, it is not and never has been the case and MCC's and Merion G.C.'s record make that abundantly clear.
The facts are both you and Mr. MacWood have for almost five years now used two altenative approaches to try to continue to make it look like Merion or us minimized Macdonald/Whigam's contribution to MCC and Merion East;
1. You two just continue to claim we and Merion minimized their contribution and denigrated them even though that has never been remotely the case.
2. You two created a scenario that is a complete and total exaggeration of what Macdonald/Whigam actually did contribute to MCC and Merion East including this hair-brained totally unsupportable story you created out of whole cloth (including an attempt to move events dates around which is timeline impossible to do anyway for the obvious reason of records to the contrary) that Macdonald did a routing the club used for Merion East and that he was the primary creative force behind the routing and design of Merion East. There is no such thing and obviously that's the reality behind why you never produced it, never will and never can and the other reality is MCC records prove who really did do those things for MCC and Merion East, despite the fact you claim it was impossible for Wilson and committee to do it because they were novices which is total bullshit too, and it was not Macdonald and Whigam. As the MCC record shows, and has always shown (and we have never denied it) Macdonald/Whigam advised them on a few general aspects to do with the land and basic architectural principles and its potential golf agronomy and that was the extent of it for which they were thanked very publicly.
Why have you two continued your preposterous accusations and this fanciful story of a massively exaggerated Macdonald/Whigam contribution? Apparently it is all you can do to keep your names in front of this website.
No one believes either of your preposterous approaches any longer but yet you two carry on like a broken record.
The third issue of whether you are a clown, jackass or asshole is a totally separate issue as well and has nothing whatsoever to do with the accurate historical record of Merion East, that's for damn sure. ;)
-
Gents,
I have recently (May) been engaged to build a CBM/Raynor style National Club (ala Sandhills, Ballyhack, Sutton Bay) in the mountains of North Carolina.
We are currently finishing the Preliminary Design Phase (routing and design feasibility) and I must say we are having a great time trying to assemble as many of the great template holes on the site as possible.
Of course, all of you are candidates for membership.
Lester
-
Lester:
My suggestion to you is that you invite MacWood and Moriarty on-site for a week or two. Obviously, there is nothing either of them could do out there to help you during the on-site routing and designing up phase but you may be able to help them some to understand the basics of this stuff and what really goes on out there. Neither of them have ever experienced anything like that apparently and it sure does show with their participation on here.
If you would consider this I believe it would be a great help and benefit to GOLFCLUBATALS.com for which the site would give you great thanks.
For my part and my thanks, I will come down there free of charge and personally advize you on three holes and hole concepts from my familiarity from the old days on Macd/Raynor courses of Long Island.
If your routing could use it and handle it they are:
1. A par 4 Road hole of no longer than 350 yards (ala the old 8th Piping)
2. A Knoll hole (ala Piping's #13)
3. A reverse redan (ala the old Links Club---undeniably the greatest reverse redan hole ever done).
You can buy me a couple of barrels of red wine if you want to but it's not necessary for me to do this service for you.
-
Tom Paul
I wish you could give it a rest. If as you say no one listens anyway (I've heard otherwise) then for the sake of the website let it go.
I've never said that Merion intentionally minimized Macdonald's contribution. But they did misunderstand their contribution for a number of years and may still for all I know. All the railing against me won't change that.
As for you and Wayne, your past posts (deleted or not) and publications speak directly to the issue.
-
Tom,
I would like to buy you the wine. Are you a "better" consultant before or after you drink it?
Seriously, you are welcome to come see the site if you like, and I would consider using any holes I thought may improve the course. Let me know.
Lester
-
"I've never said that Merion intentionally minimized Macdonald's contribution. But they did misunderstand their contribution for a number of years and may still for all I know. All the railing against me won't change that."
Merion has never minimized or misunderstood Macdonald/Whigam's contribution. It is all there in the MCC records from 1910 and 1911, Hugh Wilson covered it all in 1915 and Alan Wilson covered it all in 1926. Merion has never minimized or misunderstood it. At this point the only people who appear to exaggerate it and misunderstand it are you and Tom MacWood, and somehow I don't see that changing as clear as it is. The only ones who really need to give it a rest are the two of you.
-
"Are you a "better" consultant before or after you drink it?"
Lester:
I'll let you be the judge of that. All I can tell you is I feel one way produces more dramatic results than the other way. It all depends what you want. My only caveat is I really don't do dramatic stuff in the a.m.; that's pretty much p.m. stuff with a lot of arm waving and such. The a.m. stuff produces some very calm, beautifully "tied-in" and subtle architecture and concepts. The a.m. stuff is also far more ground game oriented. The p.m. stuff is way more aerial oriented concepts and really late in the p.m. the aerially oriented stuff can get way up there in the air. Matter of fact, on one consulting job around here, I think it was with Gil, one of my really dramtic p.m. concepts got so high in the air it never came back down again. I don't know what happened---all I know is somehow I woke up in my own bed the next morning.
-
Here's why I go easy on MacRaynor - I have liked every course of theirs I have seen or played. How much more do I need to think about it?
Now, I just need to go easier on the MacDonald's and the Burger Kings........
-
Lester.....TomP is great in any capacity that you can get him. He adds great thought and insight to any team or group and is a very serious "teacher" of the game [I've dropped the "student "moniker], especially because he has been able to "meld" so much knowledge from a diverse lifetime of golf related experiences......and all of it seems to be coming together in some kind of convergence.
Which makes me a little nervous! ;)
-
Nice picture Jeff....I was thinking about posting one like that but it was taken when I was standing over a subway grate and I'm not sure it will pass the ethics test.
-
Lester.....TomP is great in any capacity that you can get him. He adds great thought and insight to any team or group and is a very serious "teacher" of the game [I've dropped the "student "moniker], especially because he has been able to "meld" so much knowledge from a diverse lifetime of golf related experiences......and all of it seems to be coming together in some kind of convergence.
Which makes me a little nervous! ;)
Paul Cowley,
How much were you paid to write this ?
As TEPaul's Guardian and Trustee, I didn't authorize any payments.
Is there a slush fund I don't know about ?
Is Wayne Morrison lending him money ?
A full inquiry and audit will be forthcoming.
Lester George,
Forget about that Bozo, I've already bought my tickets.
See you in the Fall.
-
Templates bring with them, the enduring architectural, and more importantly, the intended PLAYING values.
All too often, many lose sight of the fact that playing values are THE most important element in playing the game of golf, not the style and not the aesthetics.
Does it bother anyone that many of the bunkers in the UK are circular bunkers without much contour or free form ?
The Road Hole Bunker comes to mind.
Is it less effective or less worthy because it doesn't have frilly edges ?
Or less of a geometrical/circular shape ?
The 7th at NGLA is a spectacular hole, despite the impact of hi-tech on distance.
The angle and configuration of the green in concert with the topography and surrounding bunkers is simply brilliant, thwarting approach and recovery shots from almost every angle at every distance.
Should that "concept" be trademarked, restricted and protected by copywrite laws ?
Or should that concept be introduced elsewhere ?
To state that features, holes, routings and courses are inferior or tainted because they contain non-original concepts (templates) is absurd.
Exactly!!!
Today I was fortunate enough to play Camargo for the first time. It's my third Raynor (after Yale & Mountain Lake) and I did not feel one bit cheated by the fact Raynor adapted great strategic design principles to the land he built the course on. While it may be fun to some & annoying to others that you can pick out an Eden or double plateau, the holes don't look the same at all from course to course. There is a lot of variety possible while using principles that work.
Raynor's courses make you think. They make you play a large variety of shots. They give you the opportunity to take advantage of course contours to get the ball closer to the hole than might otherwise be possible. And because of all of this they are fun to play.
Camargo is a hilly, exciting piece of property. I did not see a single place where I thought a "template" was forced. The routing is very well done. The course flows well and has a lot of variety from hole to hole. I feel really fortunate any time I have a chance to play a Raynor, CBM, or Banks course. If only more architects were so unoriginal.
-
"Wayne did not "denigrate" Raynor when he pissed on his grave, but it was not exactly a compliment..."
It apparently needs to be pointed out again that Wayne never did that---it was just a joke but some people on here apparently don't have the same types of sense of humor either. ;)
Maybe I'm just unsophisticated, but I usually don't associate childish jokes about urinating on someone's grave with respect for their work.
-
Macdonald was not importing and blindly and mechanically copying golf holes, he was importing the fundamental principles of strategic design and applying them in new and varying situations. His supposed "templates" were vehicles for expressing some of these principles, but even these varied greatly from site to site. They were not meant as "templates" in the sense of any sort of mechanical copies, but were unique expressions of some key fundamental principles.
I really think a lot of people misunderstand the term template. It sounds as though the same hole was built over & over which isn't the case at all. It's the fundamental principles that are key.
-
John,
You say Raynor courses make you think. Certain holes clearly do and certain courses contain more of these sorts of holes than others. But what is the mystery about the Biarritz? The Short? The Redan? The Eden? The concepts are easily recognizable and the game plan a given. Of course you must execute the shot called for, but the template concept (not exact replication) clearly takes away the uncertainty about what is presented and the way to play it. Of course wind direction, distance and elevation are different so the shots are not exactly the same, but there are no strategic demands, merely execution demands. Original holes tied into the surrounds adds another layer of difficulty...uncertainty. This adds to the mental demands of a hole and a course. Add in perceptual miscues and the ideal maintenance meld and you have the golfer thinking. Identifying the best thinker should be part of the demands. Tiger not only has the best execution ability, he is also the best strategist out there. Give the better golfers more to think about, not less. Replicated design principals (not exact holes) give golfers less to think about.
-
John,
You say Raynor courses make you think. Certain holes clearly do and certain courses contain more of these sorts of holes than others. But what is the mystery about the Biarritz? The Short? The Redan? The Eden? The concepts are easily recognizable and the game plan a given. Of course you must execute the shot called for, but the template concept (not exact replication) clearly takes away the uncertainty about what is presented and the way to play it. Of course wind direction, distance and elevation are different so the shots are not exactly the same, but there are no strategic demands, merely execution demands. Original holes tied into the surrounds adds another layer of difficulty...uncertainty. This adds to the mental demands of a hole and a course. Add in perceptual miscues and you have the golfer thinking. Identifying the best thinker should be part of the demands. Tiger not only has the best execution ability, he is also the best strategist out there. Give the better golfers more to think about, not less. Replicated design principals (not exact holes) give golfers less to think about.
Maybe I like Raynor because I'm not a what you could call a better golfer. ;D
You're right that holes like the Short don't have a lot of mystery in how to play them and aren't necessarily strategic. For a player like me, other features of the hole such as steep dropoffs & deep bunkers add a lot of visual intimidation. They make it tougher to commit to & execute a shot, especially if there's wind & the greens are firm. The challenge presented to an elite player may not be that great, but I'm really only capable of assessing a course based on how it plays for someone near my ability level. I had very few shots today at Camargo that I felt were no-brainers.
-
Wayno,
I think you, me and many others convey the assumption of architectural sophistication upon golfers who really don't recognize the signals sent by the features which comprise a hole.
I'll guarantee you that the great majority of first time players don't have a clue that the 13th green at NGLA and the 18th green at GCGC are derived from the 11th at TOC.
I'll take that guarantee a step further.
I'll guarantee you that MOST players who've ever played those holes don't know of their derivation and that they're clueless as to the configuration and juxtaposition of the features at NGLA, GCGC and TOC.
As to the "short". The beauty of the short is the pass/fail nature of the approach, and, the confounding nature of the putting surface on the better shorts. Some, like # 17 at The Creek have been neutered by having the internal contours removed. Others, like # 11 at Westhampton or # 6 at NGLA are brilliant. Hitting the green is only have the battle. Missing the green only compounds that battle.
Biarritz's are devilish to figure out and play, as are Redans.
Secondly, you erroneously conclude that the great majority of golfers get to play these courses ad naseum, and as such, their familiarity level negates the intended strategy because you feel that if you've seen one, you've seen them all, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The 16th at Sleepy Hollow (short) is radically different than any short I've played, from the perspective of playability, which, in the ultimate, IS ALL THAT COUNTS.
As to the mental demands of a hole, they exist every time you step up onto a tee.
I've played "short" holes hundreds of times, yet, when I stepped up onto the tee on # 16 at Sleepy Hollow, nothing I had previously played prepared me for that shot.
And, I dare say, that if I played Sleepy Hollow every day, the challenge wouldn't diminish in direct proportion to my increased play.
The same goes for Redans and Biarritz's.
The same goes for the Alps and Bottle holes.
YOU want them to be cookie cutter, play one you've played them all, but, they're not.
I've probably played my home course in NJ more than 3,000 times.
That's a lot of golf. Would you say that playing 3,000 rounds on the SAME course should familiarize me with each hole ? Do I not recognize and understand the presentation ? Does this make playing these holes any easier ?
If it did, surely my handicap on my home course would be + 18.
You have a bizarre notion that repeat play, or play on holes of similar concept somehow diminishes their value and the challenge they present.
But, it doesn't.
The values on the template holes endure.
They endure with repeat play.
They are "holes for the ages" due to the values they possess and present to the golfer.
-
Pat,
I look forward to explaining my points that you obviously misunderstood. I also look forward to correcting most of your own ;) We will play some golf (if my finger ever heals) and sit out on the patio of Featherfield Farm, watch the sun set and commence your education once the first cork is pulled. ;D
-
They are "holes for the ages" due to the values they possess and present to the golfer.
Wayne,
Here are two modern versions of a Redan by C&C and Brian Silva. Other than the 1500 or so nuts here, who in the world would know these are replica holes, and more importantly what are the chances that they play similarly? I have not played Silva's Black Creek.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000004701.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000109.jpg)
-
Unfortunately I have not been fortunate to play enough of Raynor's work to be qualified to respond other than saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the adaptations of the redan and biarritz at Lookout Mountain are fantastic and fit the site extremely well. Neither would jump out at you in a photograph but the architectural principals behind the designs are well displayed there, albeit in subtle fashion.
As for Patrick Mucci's question as to whether one has ever played a bad redan, I must honestly answer yes - at Shinnecock Hills, which I consider to be the finest golf course I have ever played. The hole is poorly manufactured and doesn't "work" in my opinion regardless of green speeds. It's not a bad hole, but is a bad redan.
Mike
-
I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.
Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles. So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s. But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.
I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.
I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them
Peter
-
The way Bobby Weed designed his variation of a Biarritz green at Glen Mills is brilliant in comparison to the geometric and artificiality of Raynor's versions, especially with those horrid flanking bunkers and occasional fronting bunkers...sorry, I know Hackensack has/had one like this.
Wayne, I too liked Weed's version at Glen Mills, particularly the way he utilized the downsloping backside of the left hand bunker maintained as fairway to kick the ball right onto the green. Perhaps the rear plateau could have been a little deeper, but a nifty use of the Biarritz on a reachable par five (where I witnessed an eagle by the Redanman!).
Mike
-
Wayne,
My view may not be shared by anyone else, but I have yet to play a par 3 that isn't first and foremost about execution. C'mon, there are three ways to hit the ball and three trajectories to hit it on, nine possible combinations, period, and a player is locked into one place to hit from, over and over and over.
If "The concepts (used by CBM/SR) are easily recognizable and the game plan a given" then your statement that "Original holes tied into the surrounds adds another layer of difficulty...uncertainty" is no more true, unless you are saying that this "original" hole can change it's shape daily, presenting something totally unrecognizable between visits. The only things that change on either type of hole, other than the cup, are your mental state and the elements, effectively changing the game plan for each.
-
Thanks to everyone for making this an exciting thread. I feel the need to respond to everyone who has put so much thought into their responses, but the variety and passion of views already expressed make me partly content to just sit back and read. I have no intention of having the last word on the matter.
First, I would like to clarify my initial post as there has been some discrepancy. I in no way am claiming that M&R's courses are not good or that they did not make a good team. You have asked me if I have played NGLA as if I cannot possible have any credibility on the matter having not. No, I have not played NGLA. I would love to see it and many other M&/orR courses to see first hand some of these great holes, shots, angles, etc. However, I have not made any claims that I am not entitled to make having not played some of these great courses. I simply posed a question: "Why do we go easy . . . ?" and made an observation: "We would tear apart any modern architect . . . " I think this observation holds true and have heard many people criticize Fazio, Dye, Jones (all of them) for manufactured approaches and reuse of hole concepts, aesthetic devices, etc.
Another quick but unimportant clarification. In my initial post I referred to the humor of the modern copies, second generation template holes by Silva, Brauer, Doak, C&C et al. I was only trying to point out that they are in some way copies of copies. RFGoodale brings up another humorous aspect of template holes, that people talk about them way too often and try to create one in their minds when it's absent. It's as if a mundane hole now has new life by being called a quasi-alps hole. RFG and I agree in our enjoyment in laughing at ourselves. Haven't all of us at one point said, "OOOH, this is sort of a ______ hole!"
I used the word "copy" to describe template holes, but I well realize that they are not copies. Many of them play very differently from one another (and from the concept for that matter), but I still reject the notion that concept copying should be free from criticism.
Back to the initial question. Why do we go easy on M&R? I have heard 4 types of answers Feel free to point out others that I missed.
1. We don't or we shouldn't.
2. The work they did, while primitive, was so much better than everything else at the time that we give them a pass and thank them for their incredible contribution to the game.
3. Approach to design doesn't matter. All that matters is the quality of the end product. M&R made great courses so why criticize the methods.
4. The conquest of man over nature is something to behold, and the MacDonald approach is actually desirable to most people.
2 may be a valid point but doesn't explain why M&R should be on the short list of "greatest architects." I and others have already fumbled around with this point.
3 is actually the most compelling argument to me. Ideology can be a dangerous thing even if it seems harmless like "naturalism." Maybe it's best to abandon principled philosophies and only look at end products. However, the question still remains. Could M&R courses have been better if they had been more willing to deviate from the template strategy? I think yes, but I will allow others to have it out on this one and wait until I have seen more of the courses to express this strongly.
4 is simply a question of preferences. I can imagine that some people have these preferences, but they are certainly not my own.
I would like to thank everyone for the though and effort they put into their replies and discussions. In particular, I would like to respond to TEPaul because he made it clear that he had carefully considered his direct replies to me. Tom, I partially get your drift and hope to get it more upon playing some of these courses that you have cited. I believe that some of the concepts really are great concepts. However, I find it disconcerting that M&R lacked the originality to try lots of new concepts and that they may have overlooked the opportunity to make exciting unique holes because they were so focused on making the templates work. I lament the fact that many of the original hole intents (if any) are lost on the modern golfer. On most Redans I’ve played, the best play is a high cut landing as close to the hole as possible (it might kick a little, but that only leaves an uphill putt). Likewise I have never ran my tee shot through a Biarritz gully because today’s greens just don’t release that much (even on courses that pride themselves on F&F). There are a lot of other holes over the templates that require fun, challenging, and exciting shots to be played. I can imagine the fun of some of the templates if they are done right, but I don’t understand why those are so much more appealing than more unique hole types that may also put a similar level of demand and excitement in a shot.
Once again, thanks to everyone. As I said, I have no intention of having the last word, and will look forward to a continued, lively discussion.
-
Whatever we do, let us consider Macdonald separate from Raynor.
Macdonald's influence on American golf architecture is significant. It is also significant to realize that he was a fairly short window of influence. How could American golf architecture not become Americanized? The fact that it did infuriated Macdonald and he retreated. Perhaps he thought his model was in good hands with Raynor and he was getting a lot of work but the architectural influence was narrowing all the time and he was being criticized by a later cast of architects that did not like his model. I do not forget that some of Macdonald's original hole ideas even those with concept components directly linked to UK holes but utilized differently turned out great. One of my favorite holes in golf is the 6th at Creek Club. I believe Macdonald's place in American golf architecture is on high and most secure.
And what of Raynor? He got great sites, built a range of courses from decent to solid and some undeniably excellent. Macdonald's influence on him is evident. Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture? Was he too much the apprentice that carried on his mentor's work in a narrowly defined way? What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?
-
Wayne,
In general I would agree with your request on Raynor. He was clearly engineer first and creative second type of guy. I personally don't consider Yale a Raynor-only course and I don't know Fishers well enough to say if he had any original stuff there. However, I have never seen a hole like the third at Fishers anywhere, maybe Donnie can chime in if there is history or originality there or elsewhere at Fishers. I will also say that the third and fourth at Southampton are very unique but all of these could easily be attributed to working with great land.
Maybe Flynn learned a thing or two from the MacRaynor school after all. ;)
-
Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture?
The bottom line in judging a golf architect is how good were his golf courses. Undeniably Raynor has a deep portfolio of excellent courses, not only in sheer numbers, but also in the variety of course types - parkland (Camargo), mountain (Fairyland), open prairie (Chicago), headlands (Fishers Island), wetlands (Yeamans Hall), lakeside/ravine (Shoreacres), seaside (Wailai) and rugged forest (Yale). I'm not sure how you would characterize his Florida courses or The Creek, they are unique sites as well. If he hadn't died prematurely - had completed CPC and whatever came after - would the debate be is he America's greatest golf architect?
What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?
I don't think originality was his greatest strength, but tht is probably true with most of our tier 1 architects. Producing great golf courses is their greatest strength. Herbert Strong may be one of the most original architects of that era, and where did that get him? Not far, most of his courses have been redesigned or closed. In comparison to his contemporaries, I would guess Raynor's courses have been changed the least over the years.
Raynor's ability to excell in a wide range of environments may not be the originality you're looking for but IMO it elevates him into a very elite group. And I think it could be argued that his original holes are his best holes.
-
I don't believe Creek Club is a Raynor design. Macdonald fingered him for the engineering errors made in the lower holes. Macdonald was the president of the development company, the august membership expected him to oversee the design and build of the course. That's what happened. In this regard, I'll go along with the one man in America that has studied all the records of the club for years and also saved them for posterity. His analysis points squarely to Macdonald as the designer. I'm do not know how the Yale golf course design came about. I don't know what proportion or what specific design work is Raynor or what is Macdonald. Contemporary accounts contradict one another.
If he hadn't died prematurely? He did. So did a number of other talented architects. If he had completed Cypress Point? He didn't. We don't know how that design would have been received since it has not been seen in decades. Certainly the site itself is among the greatest ever utilized for golf. It is hard to imagine that any one of the top ten architects of that era would not have come up with something great. These sort of "ifs" could be applied to nearly every architect. So let's discount them from the start.
Which original holes of Raynor particularly appeal to you and why?
-
Interesting thread....it's almost become a GCAtlas template thread in that it gets to be played again over and over, but with subtle and not so subtle changes....you get the picture.
While speaking of pictures one just popped into mind while perusing this thread....and that was of a hybrid Redan/Biarittz hole that I think I will build.
I would start by taking a typical Biaritzz layout and place it a redanish angle to the tee....I would then kick up the front and middle creating a hole that slopes back to front, but leave the rear flattish and maybe even kick up the rear edges.
Then I would add a very long helping kick on canted ramp to the front of the green that would be slightly banked and curving back to the tee.
Then, having tired, I would take a nap under a tree.
-
Wayne
I don't think there is any debate Raynor is among our greatest golf architects. If he hadn't died early the debate would have changed. I don't think there is much doubt about that, based upon what he had on the table and what his protege did after he died.
Not every golf architect had a commission like CPC. He won what could be argued the greatest opportunity in history.
Off the top of my head I really like the 3rd and 4th at Yale for the use of the water hazard. The 18th is one of the wildest holes in golf. The 8th at Fishers Island and 15th at Shoreacres are both great short par-5s. The 12th at Camargo with it steep fall off and diagonal hazard also stands out in my mind.
-
Certainly Raynor did some good hole. So did lots of architects.
A useful way to locate Raynor among the greats is the question I asked above.
I can imagine tribute courses to CBM, Ross, Thomas, Colt, Tillie and others.
I can't imagine anyone building a tribute course to Raynor. That's not because his courses weren't any good. It's because people see him for what he was. A talent largely derivative of the talents of someone else - CBM.
Bob
-
Peter Pallota,
If you read what Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin wrote, contemporaneously, I think you'd change your mind and choose the latter
-
Bob
Aren't they in fact building a tribute course to Raynor? In some ways building a tribute course for Macdonald and/or Raynor is easier than most because their style is so disctinctive and identifiable, and that style melded well in most any environment.
On the other hand trying to build a tribute course for golf architects is an excercise in futility because its difficult to separate the qualify of the hole design from the site/evironment. They go hand in hand. How do you build a tribute to the 16th CPC or the 13th ANGC or the 18th at Pasateimpo?
Are you a fan of greatest hits albums?
-
Tom -
The issue isn't whether tribute courses can be well done or not. The issue isn't whether you can really replicate the 13th at ANGC, etc.
The issue is you wouldn't do a tribute course to someone who himself did tribute courses.
Bob
-
Patrick Mucci said:
“Peter Pallota,
If you read what Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin wrote, contemporaneously, I think you'd change your mind and choose the latter.”
Whoa, Pat, on that I would very strongly disagree with you, at least until some very strong (and probably contemporary to the early time) evidence is produced to virtually prove your point. For starters, you should produce whatever you have from Hutchinson and Darwin that speaks directly to this point----eg Peter Pallotta’s point. And don’t forget, as good and informed as Hutchinson and Darwin were on architecture at that time they were British and therefore obviously not as well informed of what was going on over here at that time as some Americans were.
This is the point Peter Pallotta made:
“I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.
Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles. So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s. But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.
I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.
I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them.”
Personally, I tend towards the former too, as Peter Pallotta does. Macdonald was a hugely important factor to early American architecture but to think he was the only one over here in the first decade of the 20th century with a good understanding of architectural principles to me is misunderstanding that era, what was going on in some areas and who was doing it. It certainly does occur to me at a time like this, Patrick, that since you’ve never seen Myopia, for instance, you aren’t able or capable of appreciating it and its very early significance. On this point I do have Macdonald’s own confirmation!
-
In my initial post I referred to the humor of the modern copies, second generation template holes by Silva, Brauer, Doak, C&C et al. I was only trying to point out that they are in some way copies of copies.
Are you suggesting that none of the above, or others, haven't taken the time to see the originals?
2q. The work they did, while primitive, was so much better than everything else at the time that we give them a pass and thank them for their incredible contribution to the game.
2a. may be a valid point but doesn't explain why M&R should be on the short list of "greatest architects." I and others have already fumbled around with this point.
I think you are correct, you and others have fumbled around with this point, i.e. you just called CBM's work 'primitive'. CBM/SR make the short list, (you'll probably consider this a non-answer) because their most highly rated courses (a dozen or so) have stood the test of time, and countless critics of architecture and golf course raters, some of whom actually know what the hell they're talking about, have said it is so.
[quote
I lament the fact that many of the original hole intents (if any) are lost on the modern golfer. On most Redans I’ve played, the best play is a high cut landing as close to the hole as possible (it might kick a little, but that only leaves an uphill putt). Likewise I have never ran my tee shot through a Biarritz gully because today’s greens just don’t release that much (even on courses that pride themselves on F&F).
The percentage of golfers capable of hitting a 'high cut' is quite lower than you imagine it to be. Of course you could look at in another way if you chose to, modern equipment afforded you another way to play a Redan. If you ever find the cup cut just a few steps past the swale on a Biarritz green you will be happy that you know how to run a ball in. Your point has merit, but I don't think you can name one golf hole anywhere, 'template' or 'original', that hasn't suffered to some degree by modern advances.
I can imagine the fun of some of the templates if they are done right, but I don’t understand why those are so much more appealing than more unique hole types that may also put a similar level of demand and excitement in a shot.
I don't think I've read, in this or any other discussion of this topic, that 'more unique hole types' were less appealing.
-
Tom -
The issue isn't whether tribute courses can be well done or not. The issue isn't whether you can really replicate the 13th at ANGC, etc.
The issue is you wouldn't do a tribute course to someone who himself did tribute courses.
Bob
Bob
The idea that the true measurement of an architect is how many want to make a tribute course is strange IMO. Based upon your theory how does Stanley Thompson measure up? CH Alison? Tom Simpson?
Claiming Macdonald & Raynor did nothing but tribute courses is misleading. No doubt they were inspired by certain classic holes and different interpretations of those holes appear on all their courses, but they were a lot more than that. They were brilliant routers who took full advantage of the natural advantages of the given site. Their original holes are every bit as good as their knock offs. And they also developed their own unique style, a very bold and distinctive style that stands up well today IMO.
-
But what is the mystery about the Biarritz? The Short? The Redan? The Eden? The concepts are easily recognizable and the game plan a given. Of course you must execute the shot called for, but the template concept (not exact replication) clearly takes away the uncertainty about what is presented and the way to play it. Of course wind direction, distance and elevation are different so the shots are not exactly the same, but there are no strategic demands, merely execution demands.
These are all par threes. What par 3's give the golfer more to think about than NGLA’s redan? What par threes provide more strategic avenues?
_________________________________________________
Peter,
You start off by stating that “the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.” I agree that this is an important question. But it is not the one you attempt to answer. Catalyzing a change does not require inventing a principle or being the only one who knows about those ideas. It only requires bringing about change. One cannot compare the state of golf course design before NGLA and after, and not see the change that the course brought.
And I don’t know who else you think really understood and was advocating these principles in America. Leeds? Travis? Who? For argument, I take your word for it that there were others, but I have seen little evidence of it. But whoever they were, if they did understand and advocate for the incorporation of these fundamental principles into golf course design in America, they were not doing it on the worldwide stage like Macdonald. And they did not provoke a running discussion on two continents about their ideas and work. But most importantly, whoever these people were, they did not design a golf course based entirely upon these fundamental principles; a course almost universally considered far and away better than anything else in the country, and one of the best in the world.
And Peter, I don't know if these fundamental principles are democratic and graspable by anyone, but if they are and this means we cannot credit someone like Macdonald with actually having an influence, then I have trouble seeing how anyone could ever be considered an influence, especially in the more artistic endeavors.
Macdonald did not invent the fundamental principles, but he told us where to find them, how to find them, and he showed us how to incorporate them into our golf courses. He didn't just give us fish, he also taught us how to fish.
I shocks me that we even question whether “Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American Architecture.” This great age of golf design was not inevitable.
_______________________________________________________________________________
. . . It is also significant to realize that he was a fairly short window of influence. How could American golf architecture not become Americanized? The fact that it did infuriated Macdonald and he retreated. Perhaps he thought his model was in good hands with Raynor and he was getting a lot of work but the architectural influence was narrowing all the time and he was being criticized by a later cast of architects that did not like his model.
He was "a fairly short window of influence?" On what is this claim based? Is it because many architects quit building holes with names like "Redan" and "Road?" Is it because others preferred a different aesthetic style? His influence went well beyond these things, and was not nearly as superficial.
But even if we stick to your narrow understanding of Macdonald’s model . . . If his realm of influence was so short lived, then why do you suppose that the best architects going are still openly emulating him today? Do you mean “short window of influence” in a geological timescale?
How many cape greens did your man Flynn build?
You also claim that Macdonald became “infuriated” and “retreated” because “American golf architecture became Americanized.” On what basis do you make this claim? I know that Macdonald was not happy with how golf was being governed in the United States during the period of “Americanization” of golf in America. But what you are claiming is different. What is your basis?
And what of Raynor? He got great sites, built a range of courses from decent to solid and some undeniably excellent. Macdonald's influence on him is evident. Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture? Was he too much the apprentice that carried on his mentor's work in a narrowly defined way? What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?
My understanding is that Raynor often applied the same fundamental concepts in similar ways on different sites. But he still had to work the holes into the site he was given. What designer did not apply the same fundamental hole concepts over and over again? They all have to fit their ideas onto the site, and most importantly they all have to make courses that are enjoyable to play. It sounds like Raynor was pretty good at this.
-
Tom -
I am referring to Seth Raynor.
The point of the tribute course thing is that it unpacks views about the standing of an architect. It's a thought experiment I think is useful.
I can easily imagine tribute courses to CBM, Alison, Simpson and many others. They were all imaginative, innovative architects.
Such a course for Raynor wouldn't make much sense, however. That is because he spent the bulk of his career building tribute courses. So you would have to go meta with Raynor. You would end up with a tribute course to tribute courses to tribute courses. Or something.
It is a way to get a handle on Raynor's standing among other architects. The fact that doing a tribute course to Raynor makes little sense is suggestive of the lack of heft of his contributions to gca.
Bob
-
Bob--
They've already built a tribute course to Raynor, Black Creek in Chattanooga. In my opinion, it would be easy for an architect today to pick up the Raynor mantle and build Raynor type courses without missing much of a beat because his style and the template holes are not that difficult to do given today's earth moving equipment.
I've enjoyed playing many Raynor courses however, he doesn't receive the kind of criticism that Pete Dye sometimes gets for using the same hole types over and over again. I think Doak said in TCG, but when you play a Raynor course, the player looks forward to seeing what the Redan, Short, Eden, Road; etc. are going to look like.
I agree with Tom MacWood that Raynor was able to use the templates in many different types of settings successfully and there is something to be said for that.
Hope things are greening up in Atlanta and that the run from the 15 inches we received are coming to Lake Lanier.....
-
Certainly Raynor did some good hole. So did lots of architects.
A useful way to locate Raynor among the greats is the question I asked above.
I can imagine tribute courses to CBM, Ross, Thomas, Colt, Tillie and others.
I can't imagine anyone building a tribute course to Raynor. That's not because his courses weren't any good. It's because people see him for what he was. A talent largely derivative of the talents of someone else - CBM.
Bob
I haven't had the chance to play there, but Black Creek looks & sounds pretty good to me. It's not simply a tribute to Raynor, but his courses & work were certainly an inspiration.
http://golfclubatlas.com/blackcreek.html
It's exactly the kind of course I would love to play every day.
-
"Their original holes are every bit as good as their knock offs."
Mr. MacWood:
In my opinion, that sounds and looks good but it's a real overstatement. Maximumally, I doubt a third or less of their original holes are as good as their templates and maybe even less than that, even though NGLA is proably an exception to that. The holes from them that really insterest me are some that have only a vestige of template a hole. A great example is the green on The Creek's #1.
-
John
That is a good point. Brian Silva has definitely been inspired by Raynor's style in recent years.
-
Here's a thought---a question;
If there never had been a Macdonald and if Raynor had gone into golf architecture on his own and for some reason did all the courses he did do just as he did them, would Seth Raynor have been considered the architect some consider him to be? I guess another question would be----would the template hole concept have been as accepted as it was?
-
John Mayhugh:
Do you thing the inspiration to do a Raynor tribute at Black Creek was Silva's or Doug Stein's? ;)
-
John Mayhugh:
Do you thing the inspiration to do a Raynor tribute at Black Creek was Silva's or Doug Stein's? ;)
Obviously the initial inspiration was Doug Stein's. But there is plenty of inspiration to go around.
Doug's a genius in my opinion.
-
I've played BC a couple of times. Fun course. Doug Stein did a great job.
But promotional materials aside, it epitomizes my conundrum well.
As I played it I wondered what exactly is BC a tribute to? Is it a tribute to Raynor's tribute to CBM? To CBM's original tribute to his UK links models? (I thought BC was more about CBM. But your results may vary.)
With Raynor, there's no way to know where to stop these crazy regressions. I can't think of any other architect for whom that is true. Which, I think, says something about his status as an architect.
Bob
-
Someone may have already asked this, but does anyone else here agree with me that Raynor was one hell of router?
I mean say what you will of the style of his features, and maybe even of his fairway bunker placements, but didn't he lay out some pretty darn good routes?
I know of one town where there is a Raynor course and a Bendelow course both laid out on almost identical pieces of land with ravines bisecting the properties. Bendelow attacks the ravines perpendiculary every time his route crosses them, but Raynor attacks the ravines on angles that are just exquistely thought out.
-
Oops, I didn't mean to knock Bendelow on that last post. But I just think that Raynor was a world class router. And isn't that really one of the key standards by which an architect is measured? Am I missing something here?
-
Tom Paul wrote:
"Here's a thought---a question;
If there never had been a Macdonald and if Raynor had gone into golf architecture on his own and for some reason did all the courses he did do just as he did them, would Seth Raynor have been considered the architect some consider him to be? I guess another question would be----would the template hole concept have been as accepted as it was?"
Tom I met a guy at our invitational this years from Blue Mound and he didn't even know what a template hole was. I asked him about the unique Redan at his course and I had to describe it for him because I didn't remember it's number. This guy knew his own Raynor holes by their number. But he knew that it was great hole. So there you go.
-
I've played BC a couple of times. Fun course. Doug Stein did a great job.
But promotional materials aside, it epitomizes my conundrum well.
As I played it I wondered what exactly is BC a tribute to? Is it a tribute to Raynor's tribute to CBM? To CBM's original tribute to his UK links models? (I thought BC was more about CBM. But your results may vary.)
With Raynor, there's no way to know where to stop these crazy regressions. I can't think of any other architect for whom that is true. Which, I think, says something about his status as an architect.
Bob
Bob
The fact that you don't know if Macdonald or Raynor inspired BC is inmaterial, and may not be the fault of Macdonald or Raynor. The more important question is is the course a good one.
-
FWIW
Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf
-
Someone may have already asked this, but does anyone else here agree with me that Raynor was one hell of router?
I mean say what you will of the style of his features, and maybe even of his fairway bunker placements, but didn't he lay out some pretty darn good routes?
I know of one town where there is a Raynor course and a Bendelow course both laid out on almost identical pieces of land with ravines bisecting the properties. Bendelow attacks the ravines perpendiculary every time his route crosses them, but Raynor attacks the ravines on angles that are just exquistely thought out.
Bradley,
I couldn't agree more.. He didn't use ravines here at Fishers but his use of the natural contours to create angles is amazing..
-
Adam:
I agree with you on Raynor ... in the early days of this site I wrote to some people's consternation that I could design a Raynor course in my sleep. That is not to say he didn't build some great courses ... he had great sites to work with, and great sites always shine through unless the architect is not competent.
-
FWIW
Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf
Tony
Thanks for the article! I thought it was interesting that NGLA has "through the green" sprinkle irrigation from its beginning (or near).
Was this common for the big new courses in America? Obviously is contrast to the UK with a more temperate climate where fairway irrigation has only been installed realtively recently, and only on the bigger courses for the main.
I guess for climate reasons, golf could never have been invented in the US.
-
Adam:
I agree with you on Raynor ... in the early days of this site I wrote to some people's consternation that I could design a Raynor course in my sleep. That is not to say he didn't build some great courses ... he had great sites to work with, and great sites always shine through unless the architect is not competent.
Tom
Have you done any self analysis? As you know football coaches thoroughly scout and analyze their competition to see if they have an tendencies, in certain situation the competitor may do the same thing. Knowing that gives you a competitive advantage. Coaches will also do a self anaylsis periodically, either at the end of the season or during a break in the season, to see if they have any tendencies they need to break.
If you have done a self analysis of your designs, what have you found?
-
TonyM:
Thank you for that Hutchinson article. It appears to fairly well address Peter Pallotta's inquistiveness reflected in his post #102. It seems to confirm that Macdonald was certainly not the only one or the first one over here to understand the principles of golf architecture or put them into effect on this side. Hutchinson's remark that in the twenty plus years since his last visit to America, Americans had gone after golf with a vengeance certainly confirms what I've always believed about those early years before NGLA, and it certainly confirms the early importance of Leeds and Myopia in the history of American architecture.
The fact that NGLA may've had some form of underground irrigation system in 1910 is interesting too.
Since it now does appear that Hutchinson arrived in this country (apparently Boston) aboard Lord Brassey's yacht, Sunbeam, in 1910, it would be worthwhile to see if the Sunbeam's passenger manifest list is digitized and available on some website. That would certainly say a bit more about the comprehensiveness of those passenger manifest lists around that time.
-
Donnie:
How are holes 13, 14 and 15 at Fishers Island doing this year after those water level problems a year or so ago?
-
FWIW
Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf
Perhaps Hutchinson's article, written in 1910 would provide more insight to NGLA.
Everyone thinks that ALL of the holes at NGLA are replcas or interpretations of holes from the UK.
Nothing could be further from the truth. MacDonald himself stated that while some were replicas and others composites, some of the holes are ABSOLUTELY ORIGINAL.
The notion that CBM & SR merely copied or morphed existing holes is nonsense.
Ben Sayers's article in the July 1913 edition of "Golf Monthly" was effusive in his praise.
Darwin's articles in the "London Times" in September 30, 1913 and August 26, 1922 are also worthy of review.
I believe it was Darwin who stated that the 18th at NGLA was the finest finishing hole in the world.
While hi-tech/distance has muted some of the bunkering schemes the hole remains a spectacular challenge.
-
Tom Paul
The 1910 article is also more revealing on the state of golf in the US pre-NGLA. Caused quite a stir as I recall.
Tom MacWood told you where to look to clear up your yacht mystery.
-
Pat hits on the ket point: because Raynor relied on a very spefic set of design concepts, some on this site seize upon that and say he "copied" holes from site to site. It is a simplistic argument and totally fails to recognize the variety of sites Raynor built on, which in and of itself provided the great variety of his courses and how they play.
I've come to believe that Raynor critics are simply mad that a few simple design concepts, oft repeated, can result in so many great courses that golfers still love to play. It seems to irk them, so they resort to the "cookie cutter" slam.
Tom Doak did come up with a new way to demean Raynor's work: "he had great sites to work with." I guess that is the ultimate archies slam.
-
“Everyone thinks that ALL of the holes at NGLA are replcas or interpretations of holes from the UK.
Nothing could be further from the truth.”
EVERYONE most certainly does not think ALL of the holes of NGLA are replicas of holes from the UK. It is these kinds of constant exaggerated statements that do not belong on this website. Anyone who’s read Macdonald’s own book “Scotland’s Gift Golf” or is relatively familiar with what it says knows that.
“The 1910 article is also more revealing on the state of golf in the US pre-NGLA. Caused quite a stir as I recall.”
First of all, it appears Hutchinson’s article was written in 1913 or at some point after the US Open of 1913. It is obviously a compilation of Hutchinson’s diary much of it from his trip to America aboard Lord Brassey’s yacht (a trip Macdonald also mentions in his book). It is interesting to see this Englishman’s take on things in 1910 after apparently not having been in this country for over twenty years (a most important early timespan in the history of American golf architecture he was not here to observe but which he descibes as a time when American's embraced golf with a vengeance).
NGLA did create quite a stir and primarily because Macdonald clearly intended it to create quite a stir and promoted it and the theme and idea of what it was to be for a number of years before and during the creation of NGLA.
What is important to note vis-à-vis Peter Pallotta’s post (#102) and point is that Macdonald was not the only one in America in 1910 or in the decade before it to understand well the principles of golf course architecture. One excellent example was Herbert Leeds, who created one of the few best courses and architecture in America a number of years previous to Macdonald’s NGLA and he did it with apparently a lot less intentional fanfare or promotion (even if Myopia held four US Opens between 1898 and 1908).
"Tom MacWood told you where to look to clear up your yacht mystery."
I am not the one who has tried to imply that ship passenger manifest lists are perhaps totally reliable in establishing that someone was or was not abroad. That implication has come from others. I would also like to see one of those people produce the ship manifest that establishes the exact date Willie Campbell first arrived in this country. That would at least be helpful to one heretofore unsupported architectural claim regarding an important American golf course.
-
BillB:
I think you might find that back in the day Macdonald/Raynor worked it was not exactly the fact that they both used replica or template or concept copy holes in all of their designs but it was the use of plasticine models of replica holes that bothered a number of architects (and Macdonald or Raynor were certainly not the only ones who did that). Their complaints were that it was not the right thing to do in trying to adapt a golf hole type and concept (copy) to particular sites and landforms that were not as natually conducive to them as their originals or prototypes abroad. Their point was they simply didn't fit well for obvious reasons. There is plenty of this specific complaint in the old text material from that time.
It seems most complaints regarding Macdonald/Raynor's use of this kind of concept copying cropped up much later, primarily in our own time (quite recently).
Tom Doak has always been pretty vocal on here and elsewhere about the fact he just doesn't like the idea of copy type holes. He obviously believes original holes on original landforms are the best policy and he certainly isn't the first golf course architect to feel that way and express that belief.
This seems to be a pretty basic philosophical preference to do with golf architecture generally and so it's too bad that so many on here merely look at it as nothing more than a criticism of Macdonald or Raynor.
It also seems pretty obvious that there are a few on this website who take enormous umbrage if anything at all critical is said about Macdonald or Raynor. I think that's too bad and it is also historically limiting because there is very little question that a number of architects during Macdonald/Raynor's own lives and careers were getting away from this philosophy, style and approach (if they ever even embraced it at all in the first place which most did not), and were either vocal about it or pretty obvious about it in the things they were doing and the direction they were going and why.
This is all most important to know and to know the extent and nature of it back then. This is all made just that much more interesting by the fact that Macdonald/Raynor's architecture and its style has obviously enjoyed a real renaissance of appreciation in the last few decades, AS HAS the architecture of others from their time who were clearly going in different stylistic directions and approaches.
-
Tom Paul
You are mistaken about the timing of Hutchinson's trip. You should really take a look at his many writings. You may start to understand the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America.
While you would like for it to be accurate, Peter Pallota's speculation is inconsistant with the historical record. At least as I know it. He has not produced anything to make the case otherwise.
--------------------------------
Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?
-
"Tom Paul
You are mistaken about the timing of Hutchinson's trip. You should really take a look at his many writings. You may start to understand the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America."
Am I? It seems both Hutchinson and C.B. Macdonald put Hutchinson's trip aboard Lord Brassey's yacht in the summer of 1910. So what is it that you now find wrong about that? And I have taken a look at Hutchinson's writing. I believe I have most or all of his books right here in my office. As for all his articles, I'm not sure how many I've seen but certainly a number of them. As far as understanding NGLA and M/W as well as the importance of them to golf and architecture in America, I'm quite sure I understand and have understood for years the importance of both fundamentally and in far more detail than you do and probably ever will. As well as I understand them, I've just always tried to make it my policy not to unnecessarily exaggerate any of them or their importance. I very much wish some, certainly a few on here, would somehow and someday learn how to do that too, as I feel it truly is most important to an overall comprehensive understanding of not just the history and evolution of golf architecture in America but the entire subject of golf architecture generally.
"While you would like for it to be accurate, Peter Pallota's speculation is inconsistant with the historical record. At least as I know it. He has not produced anything to make the case otherwise."
Peter Pallotta may've been speculating but his speculation is neither inaccurate nor inconsistent with the historical record. It very well may be inaccurate and inconsistent with the historical record as you understand it, but all that means is you don't understand the historical record very well.
Myopia, itself, when it was done, by whom and what it was considered to be before the existence of NGLA is more than enough evidence to support the accuracy of Peter Pallotta's speculation and the accuracy of the historical record of quality golf architecture in American and before Macdonald's NGLA. While you may be right that Peter Pallotta did not produce anything to make his point and case, I certainly just did---I produced Myopia, as an excellent example and made Peter's case and point for him.
Furthermore, the case of Myopia (and previous to NGLA, what it represented and what it meant to this point and case) is not a point and case I need to speculate about as I do have C.B. Macdonald's own words to make that case for both Peter Pallota and me. Are you going to next try to question the accuracy of Macdonald's own words about his opinion of Myopia? That would be a pretty neat trick indeed as it seems your intention over the last five years or so has been to promote C.B. Macdonald and his importance. :)
I suppose you could continue to dismiss, ignore or rationalize this case and point away but given all this evidence and the historical record I can hardly see how without continuing to make yourself look really foolish and uninformed on the reality of early American architecture.
Just as with Mr. MacWood, it might help you a great deal if you bothered to actually see Myopia before attempting to dismiss, ignore or rationalize away its importance to American architecture as well as to Peter Pallotta's point.
It would also help Pat Mucci's understanding of its importance and significance to this point and on that note the other day I offered to take Pat there when he has the opportunity. He said he would certainly take me up on that, and I'm quite confident he will be impressed.
-
TE
I happen really like Tom Doak's architectural style. From what I have read of his writings and seen on the ground, I believe that Tom's style (outside of Old Macdonald) is to design about as differently from Raynor as possible. That's fine. TD builds beautiful and fun courses. But he is still clearly DENIGRATING Raynor when he says he had great sites to work with. Talk about damning with faint praise...Gee, I guess the site at Yale must have been a 1920's architects dream...
-
BillB:
I'd buy that, I suppose. I've never really tried to analyze how great all Raynor's sites were, but from what I know of his courses he certainly did have some wonderful sites but I don't know that I'd say they all were. I most certainly would say many of them were extremely different from one another.
Frankly, I've always believed that an architect who can create something on a basically flat, fairly naturally featureless site that golfers consider to be very good, is a very fine golf architect indeed.
At the other end of the spectrum, if an architect can create something really good on a massively complicated site like Raynor/Macdonald did at Yale or Flynn did at HVGC and certainly The Cascades, I would also say they are very good architects indeed! Perhaps one of the most important tools or talents of all to have at one's disposal on a really complicated site is a good engineer and Raynor apparently was that as was Flynn's Howard Toomey. If you ask me, Flynn himself, even if he wasn't one professionally, probably had the intuitive talent of a really good engineer. ;)
-
Tony - thanks for the link. I'd read that article a long while ago, and may have drawn different conclusions from it than you and others have.
David M - I'm wondering whether Macdonald was a "necessary" catalyst for change, i.e. if he'd never been born, whether American architecture would've nonetheless begun to manifest the strategic principles of the world's finest golf holes, and at about the same time.
That might be too stringent a test, I realize, but my point again is simply that Macdonald was not the only one who understood the principles of good design. Without being able to answer the questions you asked or provide proof, that theory seems sensible and believable to me.
Yes, the Hutchinson article praises NGLA and Macdonald very highly, and rightly so. But look at what he says about some of the other courses he played back then. While he might decry the shortness of some of those courses and (ironically) the too-frequent blind shots, he speaks of good and fine and interesting tests of golf over and over again: at the Canadian courses, which among inland courses take a very high place; the highly praised Myopia; Brookline; Garden City, which was rather ugly but another fine test of golf; Baltusrol, too hilly in his eyes but an interesting course; and "others too many to name".
And my point: Shouldn't we assume that for a man like Hutchinson, an interesting golf course and a fine test of golf manifests the strategic principles of good architecture? (And if I CAN'T assume that about Hutchinson, why would I give his views on NGLA much credence, in this context?) And yet, none of those courses -- as far as I know -- bore any resemblance to NGLA, or to the "forms" in which NGLA manifested those principles.
Why does he give Leeds such high praise for his work at Myopia? Again, what else but the fact that the course manifests strategic principles would a man like Hutchinson find worthy of such praise? And if he had seen about 5 years later a course like Pine Valley, even in it's unfinished state, wouldn't he have seen those principles manifest there as well, and again in a form that bore little resemblance to NGLA?
You say that I don't understand the importantce of Macdonald and NGLA to golf in America. You may be right about that, I'm not sure. But I can't see how you can argue definitively that -- despite that truly "ideal" nature of the course that Macdonald built -- he was the only one in America at the time who understood golf architecture's strategic principles.
Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?
Peter
-
Peter:
You presented your case excellently in that last post and you used much of the irrefutable evidence that most all on this website are aware of to support your case and make your point.
As far as I can see, there is no mileage whatsoever, if one or two on here just continue to dismiss, ignore or rationalize away your point that includes all that truly irrefutable evidence, much of it coming from both Hutchinson AND Macdonald himself. To continue to do that both will and I think has been shown to be patently argumentative and a real waste of everyone's time.
I'm afraid the real problem here is we just have one or a few on here who have proven that they are absolutely incapable of admitting they are incorrect about anything. No matter how odd, bizarre or patently and historically inaccurate some of the things they say and maintain on here are, they just seem they are totally unable to ever admit it, even in the face of irrefutable evidence.
However, maybe there is some reason for it as in the case of Myopia. Even if they can read what a Hutchinson and Macdonald said about it and before NGLA, perhaps they just can't really appreciate what they said because these fellows have never seen it themselves which in my opinion, is not just necessary but frankly essential when we are discussing these subjects and the details of them.
-
Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?- P. Palotta
One thing we do know, he (like CBM) knew the best way. ;D
-
David,
You asked, "Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?"
Since you didn't define "early designer" and the same post referred to "the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America..." then I am assuming that an architect who opened a golf course PRIOR to NGLA would qualify.
His name is A.W. Tillinghast, and has been posted several times on other threads, disdained this design philosophy of repetitive hole concepts from course-to-course in general, pointedly in regard to his friend Charley Macdonald and for himself specifically.
By the way, the Shawnee CC opened for play on May 1st, 1911. NGLA opened for general membership play on September 11, 1911.
-
"I've come to believe that Raynor critics are simply mad that a few simple design concepts, oft repeated, can result in so many great courses that golfers still love to play. It seems to irk them, so they resort to the "cookie cutter" slam."
I've come to realize that Raynor supporters take the trite and incorrect position that critics falsely believe that Raynor cloned his template holes and that they are all alike. Critics and supporters are capable of knowing that it is not so. Yet one group can remain critics and the other supporters.
I don't see the number of great courses among Raynor and Banks that others see. I also don't know enough about routing, especially Raynor's routings, to say that he was a genius. My instinct is that he is not. He may have been at Fisher's Island. I can't say since I've never been there. I am readily willing to take Donnie Beck's opinion on that. I don't see it at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, Southampton and Westhampton. I don't know Yeaman's Hall well enough to decide upon its routing...though it doesn't shout genius to me from two rounds. This doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother any of you. It is an opinion. We can disagree and not get carried away.
As for replicating simple design concepts (though they may differ greatly), why would that make me or other critics of Raynor and Banks mad? I really don't care all that much. It takes more than the design work of a solid, though not top-tier, architect to irk me. Golf architecture is not meaningful enough to illicit those sorts of emotions.
Fortunately, I have an opportunity to play a lot of great courses. I enjoy playing Raynor courses, some of which I've found quite good. Yet his aesthetics and insufficient originality and lack of consistency reduces him to a below top-tier architect for me. Of the Raynor and Banks courses I've played, not one has passed the Mucci test, that is a desire to go straight from the 18th green to the 1st tee. There are too many courses that pass the Mucci test that I can place Raynor and Banks courses in my own subjective perspective. Others differ. That's great and one of the great things about golf architecture. Tom Paul's Big World theory is once again validated.
-
TEPaul,
I read that Hutchinson didn't like all the blind shots (over 10) that he found at Myopia, nor did he care for all the undulations. His visit caused the club to lower the hill fronting their Alps hole, removing 1500 truckloads of soil in the process. They also move some teeing areas so that players had a better view of their tee shots.
I don't know what is or isn't refutable, but it seems that even though HH liked Myopia he wasn't overly enamored by its blindness or its hilly terrain.
p.s. I don't know what would have floated HH's boat, as he also faulted GCGC' for its flatness.
He should have used the pseudonym "Picky Brit" ::)
-
Tom Paul,
If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle. If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA.
No doubt Myopia was a good course, especially when compared to the rest. But to put it in the same category as NGLA as far as influence? I think not.
Peter,
David M - I'm wondering whether Macdonald was a "necessary" catalyst for change, i.e. if he'd never been born, whether American architecture would've nonetheless begun to manifest the strategic principles of the world's finest golf holes, and at about the same time.
That might be too stringent a test, I realize, but my point again is simply that Macdonald was not the only one who understood the principles of good design. Without being able to answer the questions you asked or provide proof, that theory seems sensible and believable to me.
Are you serious? "Too stringent" is a huge understatement. The test you propose is fantasy. The fact is, he existed, and he made a huge difference on golf and gca in America. Apply your test to anyone in history and see what it gets you. One can always argue that it all would have happened anyway. What if Thomas Edison hadn't been born? The knowledge was out there, surely someone would have figured it out. What about Old Tom? What about George Washington. What if Hitler had never been born? The ideas where out there anyway, and the conditions were ripe for what happened, so who is to say he deserves the blame? Absolutely Absurd.
The funny thing is, even with this outrageous test, Macdonald passes with flying colors. If there is one guy who was "a necessary catalyst" for what happened with golf in America, it was Macdonald. Without CBM golf in America would have been much different. Instead of the USGA rules we would have had regional or local ruling bodies. We'd likely have done away with the ancient rules from the beginning, before history or tradition could be established. For all we know our golf would to to their golf like our football is to their football. Who knows how it would have changed, but it certainly wouldn't have been like it is today.
As for golf architecture, the same could be said. NGLA was a model that was studied, praised, and emulated across the country. He spearheaded a return the roots of golf, the links, as inspiration for all golf courses, links or otherwise. Whether or not we copied his holes, we most certainly adopted his approach and borrowed the classic principles. Macdonald not only built some fantastic courses, he changed the way we approached course design and construction in this country. He introduced the fundamental links land principles to America, on a wide scale, and gave them an example of just how great this could make our golf. Did Leeds do this? I don't think so.
You keep talking about CBM's views and ideas like they were commonplace, but you have yet to produce any consistent sources. Surely if they were all talking about it, someone was acting on it. Who else was building a sophisticated course based entirely on the great holes and principles from the links courses in 1907? Not Leeds. No way.
Imagine American golf without CBM and NGLA? Impossible. We'd have no Merion, that is for sure. And no Flynn. Probably no Pine Valley. Would there have been a place for Colt and Mackenzie and the other greats from abroad without Macdonald creating an appreciation for an entirely different style of golf course? Who is to say? Would those here have stepped up their games? Who knows?
Let's play your game. Take either Hugh Wilson out of history or CBM Macdonald. Who has more impact on the original Merion East? If the answer is not pretty obvious to you, then I don't know what else to say.
But fortunately, we'll never know what the world would have been like withou Macdonald. Macdonald was there. And thank goodness for it. Second guessing his existence is just too much.
Peter, as opposed to speculating again and again, why don't you take a look at what was being written in the era, and then deny Macdonald's influence. Learn the history and you cannot.
Yes, the Hutchinson article praises NGLA and Macdonald very highly, and rightly so. But look at what he says about some of the other courses he played back then. While he might decry the shortness of some of those courses and (ironically) the too-frequent blind shots, he speaks of good and fine and interesting tests of golf over and over again: at the Canadian courses, which among inland courses take a very high place; the highly praised Myopia; Brookline; Garden City, which was rather ugly but another fine test of golf; Baltusrol, too hilly in his eyes but an interesting course; and "others too many to name."
And my point: Shouldn't we assume that for a man like Hutchinson, an interesting golf course and a fine test of golf manifests the strategic principles of good architecture? (And if I CAN'T assume that about Hutchinson, why would I give his views on NGLA much credence, in this context?) And yet, none of those courses -- as far as I know -- bore any resemblance to NGLA, or to the "forms" in which NGLA manifested those principles.
Why does he give Leeds such high praise for his work at Myopia? Again, what else but the fact that the course manifests strategic principles would a man like Hutchinson find worthy of such praise? And if he had seen about 5 years later a course like Pine Valley, even in it's unfinished state, wouldn't he have seen those principles manifest there as well, and again in a form that bore little resemblance to NGLA?
Peter, perhaps he was making amends or trying to sell books. He was after all writing in an american magazine, and that had not gone over too well in 1910. Yes, I don't know how to break it to you, but Hutchinson was singing a different tune in 1910. At least you thought he was. In fact you accused him of bias and dismissed his views as unfairly harsh on American courses. Here is one of your posts from earlier this year:
Also interesting (even though often mentioned) is how perspectives change. Here's a bit of an article from 1910 taking Horace Hutchinson to task for his comments on American courses:
"Mr. Hutchinson, like many other Britishers who have in the past loomed somewhat largely in the public eye, has not been able to resist the temptation to tell us of our shortcomings, and how lamentably far we fall short of those standards of excellence in golf, in which, according to him, his compatriots stand so high—from that lofty British standpoint which is so typically patronizing and condescending. Mr. Hutchinson airs his opinions in an article on "An English View of American Golf" in the November issue of the Metropolitan magazine. Passing by his criticism that on most of the American courses he has seen the "serious hazards are tree hazards," we are told that at Myopia some of the greens "in avoidance of the monotony of the dead level, have been carried very near the other extreme of trickiness, so swift is their gradient"; that Myopia is deplorably weak in that it has so many "blind" shots; that at Essex County the climbing is not "below the dignity of a chamois' achievement"; that The Country Club at Brookline, on which the amateur championship was played, is "an amusing course, but too short"; that Shinnecock Hills is "a pathetic sight," the play consisting principally "at short holes over hilltops"; that Garden City, damned by faint praise, is "a flat, unlovely place," which from "the aesthetic point of view would be much improved if one might take in a field gun and batter down a great brick chimney of immense height and hideousness that looms largely upon the eye"; that "the bunkers which have been formed by laying sand over the surface of certain portions of the course and arranging the sand into furrows across the line of play" offend his artistic eye; and that "when the National links is opened next year it will be far and away the best in the United States" and that "it has no weak point."
Ah, NGLA...always NGLA. It's like a course being buit today and Golf Digest ranking it #1 months before it opens. You gotta figure something's going on besides an objective assessment....
Thanks again, Sean
Peter
You say that I don't understand the importantce of Macdonald and NGLA to golf in America. You may be right about that, I'm not sure. But I can't see how you can argue definitively that -- despite that truly "ideal" nature of the course that Macdonald built -- he was the only one in America at the time who understood golf architecture's strategic principles.
Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?
You keep mentioning all these others who understood the principles like CBM did, and thought them applicable in this country. Who were they? Who else was talking about this stuff in the united states in 1906? More importantly, who was building a course based entirely on these principles in 1907. Who? Surely they must have written something about it? Surely they acted on it.
It is fitting that you would end your post by dismissing and minimizing a groundbreaking explorer. Yes, others could find South on a compass, but while these men were sitting around with their compasses in their hands, Amundsen did it. Those who act change the world. As for those that maybe or maybe not knew enough to act, but didn't? They change nothing.
________________________________
Phillip, didn't you say in this very thread something about Tillinghast having certain hole styles that he used repeatedly, like the double dogleg?
And I think it disingenuous to put Shawnee ahead of NGLA in time. They had been golfing at NGLA since 1909. The clubhouse did not open until 1911, and thus the official opening in fall of 1911.
-
One aspect I find curious in this debate is how the term "American" is chucked about. Almost as if this is some sort of special meaning. I can readily accept that CBM was probably one of the very few folks in the States latching onto to the concepts and ideas of design that were being "codified" (for lack of a better word) at the turn of the century and probably well before. CBM was very well placed to be included in these discussions and what not. He also had a solid grounding in the game as Brits knew it. Do I think there was any special significance to CBM doing a course in America based on sound (generally agreed upon by golf "experts") design principles? Yes, of course I do, not least the accomplishment of figuring out how to create decent conditions which in effect allowed these designs concepts to flower and be more easily understood. However, I don't think there is any significance in that CBM was American. He could just as easily have been a Brit. The important thing was the idea of going about building a course using tried and tested design principles and figuring out how to make these principles playable . Personally, I think it was in the cards for this to happen in the States if CBM did it or not, however, this doesn't take away at all from CBM.
David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia. There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond. Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here. It was thought of as good, even great. This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM. Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree - when we step back and look at the bigger picture. There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits. Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two.
Ciao
-
One aspect I find curious in this debate is how the term "American" is chucked about. Almost as if this is some sort of special meaning. I can readily accept that CBM was probably one of the very few folks in the States latching onto to the concepts and ideas of design that were being "codified" (for lack of a better word) at the turn of the century and probably well before. CBM was very well placed to be included in these discussions and what not. He also had a solid grounding in the game as Brits knew it. Do I think there was any special significance to CBM doing a course in America based on sound (generally agreed upon by golf "experts") design principles? Yes, of course I do, not least the accomplishment of figuring out how to create decent conditions which in effect allowed these designs concepts to flower and be more easily understood. However, I don't think there is any significance in that CBM was American. He could just as easily have been a Brit. The important thing was the idea of going about building a course using tried and tested design principles and figuring out how to make these principles playable . Personally, I think it was in the cards for this to happen in the States if CBM did it or not, however, this doesn't take away at all from CBM.
Wasn't he born in Canada? Either way, I don't think it matters that he was an American. Someone in another thread mistakenly joked that he was Scottish, and in some ways he might as well have been. But it was important that he was in the U.S. and that the United States had pretty dismal golf prior to NGLA. We did not have true links to learn from. It was hard enough for these principles to migrate south Britain, so no wonder it was difficult to get things going in the correct direction over here.
It is easy look back and assume would have happened anyway, but one could argue that it barely happened as is; that this great faze of American golf course architecture started to pass almost as soon as it got started, with the underlying fundamental principles being slowly watered down and sacrificed. (It could be argued that Macdonald himself may have even been partially responsible for this.)
David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia. There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond. Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here. It was thought of as good, even great. This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM. Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree - when we step back and look at the bigger picture. There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits. Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two.
Ciao
As for Myopia, it was regarded as a good course, but as Hutchinson wrote after having seen and played them both, NGLA was "far and away the best in the United States." Given that Peter and Tom Paul are anxious to take his word as truth, I will as well. And remember that Myopia was still taking form, and was significantly altered after Hutchinson and Macdonald visited in 1910. It has been reported that the changes were a result of the visit.
Also, there is more to being an influential golf course than just being good, and more to being a seminal figure.
Was Myopia an extraordinarily sophisticated course from a strategy perspective, like NGLA? If it was, was there anyone explaining its strategic merits so that others could learn from it? Surely they were not self-evident in America at this time.
Was Myopia built in large part to teach America about great golf courses? Did clubmen from all over flock to Myopia to learn about the underlying fundamental principles of links courses? Did they try to copy Myopia's holes and try to adapt the principles underlying Myopia's holes to their terrain?
Was Myopia the subject of an ongoing discussion/debate on two continents? Was Myopia closely covered in the press across this continent and the other?
Are we still building holes based on the holes at Myopia in 1909? Which courses did Myopia influence? What influenced Myopia?
Leed's traveled abroad, but according to accounts from the time, it was Macdonald's trips abroad that sparked many to follow in his footsteps.
Bottom line:
What is it, exactly, that Myopia taught America about quality golf course architecture?
I don't intend to denigrate Myopia at all. I've heard it is terrific. But we are pushing it if we put it with NGLA as far as influence goes. The record at the time just does not support this.
-
"Tom Paul,
If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle. If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA."
What?
I did read what he wrote from his trip over here in 1910. It's not hard to understand at all. He said from what he saw over here in 1910 he would 'put NGLA first and Myopia second---and a very good second.' Did you see something other than that? I didn't. What in the world does your second sentence mean other than complete self-contradiction? Perhaps you need to read more carefully what YOU write on here.
As far as Lord Brassey's yacht is concerned I don't see where there's a riddle. Hutchinson said he took it from Canada to Boston, but that's not really the point. My point was is there some listing you're aware of that shows Hutchinson on Sunbeam's passenger manifest entering the USA in 1910?
Most pertinently, there is Peter Pallotta's point in reply #102 to consider, and I believe I've done that very clearly! ;)
-
David,
You stated, "Phillip, didn't you say in this very thread something about Tillinghast having certain hole styles that he used repeatedly, like the double dogleg?"
Yes, Tilly did like certain hole styles, but he didn't use them as often as your comment portrays. You used the word "repeatedly." This is incorrect.
Remember, you asked the following, "Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?"
It is one thing to repeat a hole style on several courses, quite another to "Rely on a stable of hole concepts" as you stated it. Tilly did NOT do that. He looked at a site for the best holes he thought were there. Sometimes they it might yield a double-dogleg, other times a redan and others a cape...
He didn't go on site looking to see how he could use those styles on the site, and THAT is what you asked about. Not only that, you stated that those architects, and you are obviously stating that this is so with Tilly, used a "stable of hole concepts" in their work... Again, this is so not Tilly.
You also stated, "And I think it disingenuous to put Shawnee ahead of NGLA in time. They had been golfing at NGLA since 1909. The clubhouse did not open until 1911, and thus the official opening in fall of 1911."
Obviously I disagre with you and rather strongly. you obviously have never read what Macdonald wrote in his booklet that he titled, "National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald."
CBM wrote, "The LINKS were formally opened..." Nowhere in the document does he state that the links were opened now that the clubhouse is built. ASnd, by the way, he also writes in this that there is more work to be done on the clubhouse despite it being "open."
Actually, it is you who is being disingenuous. You state, quite correctly, that some rounds were played at NGLA as early as late 1909. Guess what, some of the holes were also being played at Shawnee in late 1909 and the entire course in 1910.
The fact is that it was first the course of the Shawnee Country Club, a private club that allowed guests of Worthington's Buckhead Inn to have access while memberships were also available. It was first open for general play by guests of the Inn on May 1st, 1911, over 4 months BEFORE NGLA was open for general play.
That is a fact. It does not take away a thing from the great design of NGLA nor does it denigrate the design of Shawnee either. That you think I am being disingenuous is a pretty poor use of teh term as apparently you must think I am slighting NGLA in some manner. I assure you I am not.
Sorry David, but you are wrong on this one...
Actually, my sole point, and maybe I didn't stress it properly, is that the time period of 1908-1914, that 5+ years, may be the most singularly important period of all time from an architectural perspective. Consider what happened, and most of it was NOT influenced by NGLA. Shawnee certainly wasn't. Oakmont definitely wasn't. Pine Valley certainly wasn't. They and a number of other courses and designers were really expressing themselves at that time.
It is because of that, that I wonder if we give too much credit to NGLA as the seminal work of the day and in American golf design, rather than it being one of the great examples of the radical change that was occuring in American golf course architecture at that moment.
I think that is something that needs examining.
-
"TEPaul,
I read that Hutchinson didn't like all the blind shots (over 10) that he found at Myopia, nor did he care for all the undulations. His visit caused the club to lower the hill fronting their Alps hole, removing 1500 truckloads of soil in the process. They also move some teeing areas so that players had a better view of their tee shots."
Jim:
Perhaps you did read that and perhaps Hutchinson actually said that but one of the beauties of this website is some facts are definitely verifiable, including some that apparently contradict what was said by Hutchinson or claimed by him in 1910.
The fact is, in 1910, I can't possibly imagine what he was talking about regarding all those blind shots at Myopia. The only one I can imagine that might've been blind in 1910 and isn't today is #16 which was once a very short apparently blind par 4. Today it's a par 3 and not blind at all. By 1910 I don't believe the old 10th (The Alps which was played from around the present 10th tee to the 11th green existed any longer, but I will look into that).
The other fact is even with those blind holes or shots claimed by Huthinson at Myopia it still had less blind shots than NGLA has today, and NGLA certainly does not have MORE blind shots today than it did in 1910.
This is another very good reason why some of this old writing is suspect.
-
I played golf on various courses afterwards—on the Shinnecock Hills, finely
undulating, but too short and with too many blind shots, where natural advantages
have not been turned to the best possible account;
--Hutchinson on Macdonald's redesign of Shinnecock Hills.
-
"Tom Paul,
If you read Hutchinson then you will know the answer to your Yacht riddle. If you read his writings from 1910 you will not rely on his as you do for the greatness of American achiecture outside of NGLA."
What?
I did read what he wrote from his trip over here in 1910. It's not hard to understand at all. He said from what he saw over here in 1910 he would 'put NGLA first and Myopia second---and a very good second.' Did you see something other than that? I didn't. What in the world does your second sentence mean other than complete self-contradiction? Perhaps you need to read more carefully what YOU write on here.
As I have said repeatedly, you are relying on a watered down review written a few years later, when he was considering changes to Myopia that he had never even seen. He was a bit more pointed in his criticism in 1910, shortly after having played both NGLA and Myopia. According to editorials in AG (one apparently written by Travis) Hutchinson trashed American golf courses -- especially Myopia and Garden City-- and contrasted them with NGLA greatness. Peter Pallotta even accused Hutchinson of having some CBM bias! Again, in 1910 Hutchinson wrote that NGLA was "far and away the best in the United States."
So much for a close second.
The comments about Garden City in the same article leave little doubt that the later article was toned down quite a bit, apparently in response to the harsh criticism he had received for his earlier candid comments.
As far as Lord Brassey's yacht is concerned I don't see where there's a riddle. Hutchinson said he took it from Canada to Boston, but that's not really the point. My point was is there some listing you're aware of that shows Hutchinson on Sunbeam's passenger manifest entering the USA in 1910?
As Tom MacWood wrote, the answer is in the book, and not hiding at all.
Most pertinently, there is Peter Pallotta's point in reply #102 to consider, and I believe I've done that very clearly! ;)
If you have considered it, you have done so based on a watered down review written years later and based in part on changes to Myopia that Hutchinson had never even seen.
But again, I have no doubt that Myopia was a good course. But there is absolutely no way it was as influential as NGLA. If it was so influential, then figuring its influence ought to be easy enough. So how was it influential on American golf architecture?
__________________________________________
Phillip,
I mean no more by "relying on a stable of hole concepts" than "repeatedly using hole styles . . . like the double dogleg."
My comment did not imply how often he used them, other than "repeatedly" and you agree with me on this. In fact a few lines down you say that he would "repeat a hole style on several courses."
NGLA "formally" opened when the clubhouse opened. Kind of hard to have a national club in the boonies without at clubhouse, don't you think? But they had been golfing on it for a few years before then. And I am writing about the influence the club had on golf architecture in America. The formal opening is entirely misleading when it comes to figuring NGLA's influence. When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?
Tell me, do you think that NGLA's influence over golf desing in america started when the clubhouse opened, or when they began golfing on the course? I think it was probably even before then, but what do you think?
-
"Are you serious? "Too stringent" is a huge understatement. The test you propose is fantasy. The fact is, he existed, and he made a huge difference on golf and gca in America. Apply your test to anyone in history and see what it gets you. One can always argue that it all would have happened anyway. What if Thomas Edison hadn't been born? The knowledge was out there, surely someone would have figured it out. What about Old Tom? What about George Washington. What if Hitler had never been born? The ideas where out there anyway, and the conditions were ripe for what happened, so who is to say he deserves the blame? Absolutely Absurd.
The funny thing is, even with this outrageous test, Macdonald passes with flying colors. If there is one guy who was "a necessary catalyst" for what happened with golf in America, it was Macdonald. Without CBM golf in America would have been much different. Instead of the USGA rules we would have had regional or local ruling bodies. We'd likely have done away with the ancient rules from the beginning, before history or tradition could be established. For all we know our golf would to to their golf like our football is to their football. Who knows how it would have changed, but it certainly wouldn't have been like it is today.
As for golf architecture, the same could be said. NGLA was a model that was studied, praised, and emulated across the country. He spearheaded a return the roots of golf, the links, as inspiration for all golf courses, links or otherwise. Whether or not we copied his holes, we most certainly adopted his approach and borrowed the classic principles. Macdonald not only built some fantastic courses, he changed the way we approached course design and construction in this country. He introduced the fundamental links land principles to America, on a wide scale, and gave them an example of just how great this could make our golf. Did Leeds do this? I don't think so.
You keep talking about CBM's views and ideas like they were commonplace, but you have yet to produce any consistent sources. Surely if they were all talking about it, someone was acting on it. Who else was building a sophisticated course based entirely on the great holes and principles from the links courses in 1907? Not Leeds. No way.
Imagine American golf without CBM and NGLA? Impossible. We'd have no Merion, that is for sure. And no Flynn. Probably no Pine Valley. Would there have been a place for Colt and Mackenzie and the other greats from abroad without Macdonald creating an appreciation for an entirely different style of golf course? Who is to say? Would those here have stepped up their games? Who knows?
Let's play your game. Take either Hugh Wilson out of history or CBM Macdonald. Who has more impact on the original Merion East? If the answer is not pretty obvious to you, then I don't know what else to say.
But fortunately, we'll never know what the world would have been like withou Macdonald. Macdonald was there. And thank goodness for it. Second guessing his existence is just too much.
Peter, as opposed to speculating again and again, why don't you take a look at what was being written in the era, and then deny Macdonald's influence. Learn the history and you cannot."
All the forgoing by David Moriarty is complete historic revisionism of early American golf architecture and it will not be suffered lightly on this website by me or others. It is basically complete historic BULLSHIT.
Peter Pallotta's point is a valid one---Macdonald was not the only one in America who understood and applied the principles of good to great golf course architecture before NGLA. Herbert Leeds, for one, most certainly did. That was recognized as a FACT back then and historically it must be recognized today.
For Christ's Sakes, Macdonald recognized Myopia himself as good golf architecture in America (as did everyone else who seemed to know anything before NGLA including MacWood and Moriarty's own H.H. Barker. ;) ). Macdonald's very own statement about Myopia stands as unrefutable testimony to that fact.
These kinds of super-stubborn revisionist proponents on this website like Moriarty have just got to go. I, for one, will never stand for this type of assinine intransigent stubborn argumentativeness in the face of historic fact and reality and historic TESTIMONY, including C.B. Macdonald's own.
-
Bill Brightly,
Yale was a superior site .......... to LIDO ;D
Westhampton is no bargain as a site either.
Morris County ?
Wayne Morrison,
Here's what Horace Hutchinson had to say about Shinnecock before MacDonald.
"Very nice, extremely nice. It is very, very LADY like.
It is so lady like that when I make a bad shot I haven't the heart to give vent to my feelings, fearing I would offend some one and break the third commandment."
TEPaul,
EVERYONE most certainly does not think ALL of the holes of NGLA are replicas of holes from the UK. It is these kinds of constant exaggerated statements that do not belong on this website.
That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals
Anyone who’s read Macdonald’s own book “Scotland’s Gift Golf” or is relatively familiar with what it says knows that
Few on this site have read "Scotland's Gift" and, if it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have either.
And, for those who have read it, I doubt that the great majority would remember that one sentence on page 192.
-
"David, one aspect I think you are taking for granted is Myopia. There is no question it was a very well respected course on both sides of the pond. Whether or not Leeds made quite a studied effort of creating Myopia may not be of material relevance here. It was thought of as good, even great. This in no way takes away from the NGLA, but it does show that NGLA wasn't the only club on the block and I think that the seed of change was too deeply rooted to not occur with or without CBM. Again, that isn't to say CBM wasn't important, he most certainly was, but many others influenced architecture as well and I think to a higher degree - when we step back and look at the bigger picture. There is just no way I could place CBM on the top of the heap by himself in American architecture mainly because I think American architecture was hugely influenced by the ideas of Brits. Afterall, it was only an ocean separating the two."
Sean Arble:
I think the above is a very important statement in the discussion or argument of today with David Moriarty. The fact is Myopia most certainly was a most important example of really good golf course architecture in America as well as a great example of the fundamental prinicples of golf course architecture, and the fact is it preceded NGLA by a number of years. The fact that David Moriarty has never even seen it might explain some of his ignorance or lack of appreciation lor understanding of it. And the undeniable fact is Myopia basically as it still exists today PRECEDED NGLA by a number of years.
David Moriarty, at least answer one really simple question----eg have you ever even seen Myopia? Don't try to lie about it or fudge it because we definitely will find out and I'm pretty sure you know that and how we will. ;)
This fellow David Moriarty better damn well wake up and get with historic reality or some of us on here will never cease to be all over his ridiculously revisionist case.
It looks like he is trying to ramp up his historic revisionism again and probably just to call attention to himself again. If he ramps up his revisionistic bullshit like he did with that assine essay of his on Merion and the months of his illogical responses on this DG on Merion, and again on this thread and subject, he can expect me at least and probably some of the rest of us who actually understand the accurate evolution and history of American architecture to ramp it up on him, and if he continues to do this that is exactly what I intend to do, and I hope the rest who understand this history do that to him as well.
-
All the forgoing by David Moriarty is complete historic revisionism of early American golf architecture and it will not be suffered lightly on this website by me or others. It is basically complete historic BULLSHIT.
Peter Pallotta's point is a valid one---Macdonald was not the only one in America who understood and applied the principles of good to great golf course architecture before NGLA. Herbert Leeds, for one, most certainly did. That was recognized as a FACT back then and historically it must be recognized today.
For Christ's Sakes, Macdonald recognized Myopia himself as good golf architecture in America (as did everyone else who seemed to know anything before NGLA including MacWood and Moriarty's own H.H. Barker. ;) ). Macdonald's very own statement about Myopia stands as unrefutable testimony to that fact.
These kinds of super-stubborn revisionist proponents on this website like Moriarty have just got to go. I, for one, will never stand for this type of assinine intransigent stubborn argumentativeness in the face of historic fact and reality and historic TESTIMONY, including C.B. Macdonald's own.
Tom, while you managed to attack me once again, you failed to address a single point I made or answer a single question I asked.
What purpose do posts like this serve, other than to obfuscate the issue? If you think Myopia was so influential pre-1909, I'd love to year your basis for so thinking. The later Hutchinson article is blown out of the water by the earlier article 1910. So what else you got?
Sean Arble:
I think the above is a very important statement in the discussion or argument of today with David Moriarty. The fact is Myopia most certainly was a most important example of really good golf course architecture in America as well as a great example of the fundamental prinicples of golf course architecture, and the fact is it preceded NGLA by a number of years. The fact that David Moriarty has never even seen it might explain some of his ignorance or lack of appreciation lor understanding of it. And the undeniable fact is Myopia basically as it still exists today PRECEDED NGLA by a number of years.
David Moriarty, at least answer one really simple question----eg have you ever even seen Myopia? Don't try to lie about it or fudge it because we definitely will find out and I'm pretty sure you know that and how we will. ;)
This fellow David Moriarty better damn well wake up and get with historic reality or some of us on here will never cease to be all over his ridiculously revisionist case.
It looks like he is trying to ramp up his historic revisionism again and probably just to call attention to himself again. If he ramps up his revisionistic bullshit like he did with that assine essay of his on Merion and the months of his illogical responses on this DG on Merion, and again on this thread and subject, he can expect me at least and probably some of the rest of us who actually understand the accurate evolution and history of American architecture to ramp it up on him, and if he continues to do this that is exactly what I intend to do, and I hope the rest who understand this history do that to him as well.
Same goes, for this post. It is nothing but a transparent attempt to influence people's opinions while offering nothing of substance. If I am wrong about Myopia, I'd be glad to learn.
How did Myopia, pre-1910, influence golf design in America?
-
"That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals."
Oh for God Sake, Patrick, what a bunch of crap that is. I've been SAYING that for years on here and the back pages of this website is compeletly replete with it. If you don't realize that you either don't read these threads or you just don't read very well. I can probably go back over eight years on these NGLA threads on here and prove that.
-
"That's nonsense and you know it.
I've NEVER seen anyone on this site claim that some of the holes at NGLA are originals."
Oh for God Sake, Patrick, what a bunch of crap that is. I've been doing that for years on here and the back pages of this website is compeletly replete with it. If you don't realize that you either don't read these threads or you just don't read very well. I can probably go back over eight years on these NGLA threads on here and prove that.
Please be my guest, I'd love to see you produce the appropriate citations.
You may recall that I asked, TIC, which holes were # 12 and # 18 copied from.
On # 12, I'd like to see the original tee left of the 11th green, restored for the Walker Cup (back to the berm) thus bringing the cross bunkering back into play.
-
"Tom, while you managed to attack me once again, you failed to address a single point I made or answer a single question I asked.
What purpose do posts like this serve, other than to obfuscate the issue? If you think Myopia was so influential pre-1909, I'd love to year your basis for so thinking. The later Hutchinson article is blown out of the water by the earlier article 1910. So what else you got?"
David Moriarty:
I am not attacking you, I'm only responding to what you say on this website. In my mind, responding to what you say the way I do is definitely not attacking you, even if you apparently have always seen it that way---eg to attack what you say is synonymous with attacking you! ;)
I don't really care a whit for you---what I say is only in response to what I consider to be the really preposterous, illogical, revsionist bullshit you put on here, and not as your opinion, but what you claim to be historical fact! ::)
Futhermore, what I'm trying to respond to on this thread is Peter Pallotta's point on Reply #102. I believe it to be a most important point to make on Macdonald and the era that came before NGLA.
My basis for saying why Myopia was so important to tracking the beginnings of good to great architecture in America is very much from what Macdonald himself (and others) said about MYOPIA prior to NGLA. Would you like me to produce AGAIN, what Macdonald himself (and others) said in that vein? I sure hope not as it has been put on this website SO MANY times in the past. So, why don't you consider NOT ASKING THE SAME FUCKING QUESTION AGAIN AS IF IT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE. IT HAS BEEN, AND FACTUALLY, NUMEROUS TIMES!
-
TEPaul,
Myopia was certainly important, as was GCGC, but, NGLA was revolutionary.
-
Keep it up, fellows.
This is perhaps the best of the early architecture threads, and there are some wonderfully relevant posts.
Perhaps the fact that it isn't just about 1 single course (Merion) has led to greater participation, and thus greater education.
I'm just going to sit back and read so as not to bollocks it up, but I did just want to point to one personal irony, given that I've been accused of insulting the designs of Macdonald/Raynor.
NGLA is one of the only 10's I've ever played, and I could die happily playing Mid Ocean or Fishers Island forever.
Now, back to meatier matters....
Have at it fellows.
-
"TEPaul,
Myopia was certainly important, as was GCGC, but, NGLA was revolutionary."
Patrick:
That isn't the point. MY point is the consideration contained in Peter Pallotta's reply #102. I think you got your response to that post of his very wrong.
And this guy David Moriarty's horsehit responses to it today are pretty much beyond the pale!
-
The fact is, Patrick, you are the guy who has always harped on everyone else on here that one can't really understand a golf course unless they've seen it, played it, and probably numerous times in various condtions. That's what you've always said and maintained on here, right? Do you deny that now? ;).
And the fact is neither you, MacWood or Moriarty have ever been to Myopia or played it in various conditions.
Therefore, there's not a lot any of you can say about it and its significance back then or today unless you all want to show yourelves to be real hypocrites.
-
Mike Cirba:
Have you ever been to Myopia?
The reason I ask is if you never have you can appreciate the point I'm making to Patrick.
How many times on here has he maintained that one should not critique a golf course or its architecture if they've never even been there?
Patrick has never been there even though I offered the other day to take him there when our time permits. Those others, MacWood and Moriarty, I doubt have ever been there either and so the very same caveat applies to them as Patrick Mucci has always maintained. None of them can have it both ways, that's for sure. ;)
-
"Please be my guest, I'd love to see you produce the appropriate citations."
Patrick:
I'd be happy to. It's all there in the back pages. ;)
However, it's not really your misunderstandings about NGLA and Macdonald I'm really after, it's David Moriarty's, because they're so outrageous and historically revionist. You don't suffer from those same ridiculous misunderstandings because at least you understand the history of NGLA and probably Macdonald too.
However, I think you are still attempting to defend some of Moriarty's points about Macdonald and Merion and even Macdonald and his singular importance to the development of great architecture and architectural principles in America because you got conned on this whole Merion thing by Moriarty and you are unwilling to admit it and you you probably always will be unwilling to admit it. ;)
-
Mike Cirba:
Have you ever been to Myopia?
The reason I ask is if you never have you can appreciate the point I'm making to Patrick.
How many times on here has he maintained that one should not critique a golf course or its architecture if they've never even been there?
Patrick has never been there even though I offered the other day to take him there when our time permits. Those others, MacWood and Moriarty, I doubt have ever been there either and so the very same caveat applies to them as Patrick Mucci has always maintained. None of them can have it both ways, that's for sure. ;)
Tom,
Unfortunately, I've never been there and can only judge Myopia by the pictures I've seen, the early accounts I've read, and the fact that before 1910, it was considered the best golf course in the United States (with the only direct competition coming from Garden City).
Someday I very much hope to rectify that omission.
From what I've seen, it's absolutely terrrific and utilizes the property extremely well. It also has almost wholly original hole ideas, which may make it even more impressive than some of the great courses that came a decade later.
I'm also biased in favor of Myopia because I read an essay by John Updike several years ago that described the joys of the course that was simply brilliant.
-
MikeC:
The important thing to realize about Myopia is the way it was then (when we are talking about Macdonald and Hutchinson's opinion of it) and the way it is now (after a certain amount of historic restoration) is the same. It's pretty amazing that way.
And the point is, the way it was then and the way it basically is now PRECEDED NGLA. So we really do have an apples to apples comparison of architecture in America before and at the time we are discussing here.
-
MikeC:
The important thing to realize about Myopia is the way it was then (when we are talking about Macdonald and Hutchinson's opinion of it) and the way it is now (after a certain amount of historic restoration) is the same. It's pretty amazing that way.
And the point is, the way it was then and the way it basically is now PRECEDED NGLA. So we really do have an apples to apples comparison of architecture in America before and at the time we are discussing here.
Tom,
One of the most amazing things about Merion is how similiar it is today to what existed in 1930, and even earlier to 1916 (except for a few holes).
From the tone of your response about Myopia, I'm sensing that it might be even more unchanged, and back to an even earlier date.
Would that be a correct assessment?
-
This is a good thread, Mike C - especially for what it's trying to grapple with. And to me, what it's really trying to grapple with is the definition of great (and lasting) architecture and the nature of architecture's strategic (and fundamental) principles.
David - First off, I know I can fall into rhetorical flourishes now and again, but geez, your post to me was an education in that regard. Second, I am trying (if very slowly and un-systematically) to read the historical record, and when something strikes me or I've reached a tentative conclusion, I come on here and think out loud, on the page.
Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees, or you are, or we both are. At the very least, we may have very different ideas about what the term "strategic principles of good architecture" means in this context. I think Sean and Philip and TE have all captured some of what I'm trying to get at.
Was Macdonald hugely INFLUENTIAL? Yes, for many reasons and in many ways. If I've not understood or agreed to that before now, I've been wrong. But note: what got me to comment on this thread in the first place was something you wrote early on, i.e. that Macdonald was "importing the strategic principles of design" to America. Now, those are not necessarily the same thing, are they? That the forms of and rigour with which those principles manifested themselves at NLGA were (justifiably) the talk of the town does not mean that the principles themselves were not understood by many an expert, or that without a Macdonald they would never have been expressed. Does it?
What ARE those strategic principles? (That's a genuine question). Didn't Old Tom Morris near the end of his days have some idea of those principles? Didn't he transit those ideas? Weren't the array of experts who responded to that Macdonald "survey" on great/ideals holes aware of the principles that underpinned those golf holes? Didn't Ross, Fowler, Colt etc know about them? Does the fact that Macdonald was the one who tried to hit a home run with an ideal golf course -- and that he had the clout and the ambition and talent to pull it off -- mean that more modest or less high profile attempts (constrained/limited by a variety of factors) disregarded those principles?
If you are arguing that Macdonald was the father of American golf course architecture, I'd say that was a handy and serviceable theory. I spent some time writing television biographies -- I tried first to get the subject's life history correct, and then to create a compelling narrative around the subject's significance by developing a serviceable theory, i.e. one that I believed in and that could be reasonably argued and maintained...but one that, years later, I sometimes found lacked nuance, or that diminished the lives and works of the subject's contemporaries. That's all I'm saying, David - i.e. that assigning Macdonald a preeminent role in the history of golf course architecture is a serviceable theory, but that -- even just intuitively -- it strikes me as one that lacks nuance...
Peter
-
Its a good thing no one reads these threads or takes them seriously.
-
"Would that be a correct assessment?"
MikeC:
Definitetly!
From what I understand of its evolution, Myopia from 1910 is today even more unchanged than Merion from 1930.
The more I consider it, the more I realize that these few people on here recently who are trying to comment on Macdonald, NGLA, and Myopia's signficance and history (or lack or it back then ;) ) and the way the course was then and is today really can't have much of an informed opinion on the course because they've never even been there.
Have you noticed, as I have, that whenever I ask them if they've ever been there they are strangely silent? ;) ::)
The thing that really occurs to me, though, is how a guy like MacWood thinks he knows something about those people and that culture back then and what they were and weren't capable of regarding architecture----eg--ex--R.M. Appleton! ;)
Believe me, Mr. MacWood hasn't a clue. You cannot understand the history of that place, that time and those people without at least going there and taking it all in and by just trying to read about it from some uninformed perch in Ohio.
This guy is fixated on being perceived as an "expert" reseacher. He may develop into that someday if he can figure out that he just has to go about it very differently than he heretofore has, and that certainly includes at least setting foot on these courses he tries to critique or analyze in detail.
As for this man, David Moriarty, I very much doubt there will ever be any hope for him as far as understanding this world and time and the architecture of it, unless and until he changes his approach to it. He too is far too inexperienced---he has also tried to understand these clubs and courses from afar which noone can do effectively, and he seems to also be incapable of admitting it or understanding the importance of that simple fact of golf architecture analysis.
-
"Its a good thing no one reads these threads or takes them seriously. "
Mr. MacWood:
My mission with you on here is to continue to insure that almost noone takes you and your bizarre and unsupported statements and implications seriously. Believe me, people who who care about these clubs and courses do read these threads as I do hear from them, thankfully. The most important of those people are the ones from the clubs who are being discussed. With clubs such as Merion and Myopia, you and your cohort are total jokes and are becoming more so as these threads on these subjects continue. Keep it up, as it most certainly helps my case! ;)
-
PeterP:
All you need to do is go right back to your post #102 and defend it. It is historically accurate, that's for sure. Expand on it if you want to but what you said in post #102 is historically accurate and completely defensible factually.
-
Peter,
Except for one guy (Ross, sort of) you had to jump an Ocean to try and make your point. But given that we are talking about golf course achitecture in the U.S. you help make my point instead.
If you please. Hop back over to this side of the Atlantic and explain to me, in 1906-09 in the US, who exactly were these experts who not only understood these fundamental principles, who were not only teaching them to others, who not only had the where-with-all, the connections, and the resources, but who also applied them in the ground?
Who were all these others who you mysteriously refer to in all you posts? You cannot just claim that surely others must have been importing these ideas and must have been influential, but refuse to offer up anyone. Let me help. There was one guy with the initials of HJW who seemed to have a pretty good grasp of what was going on, and was trying to explain to others. But then that doesn't help you much does it? Who else? I am all ears.
These ideas were not self-evident. While you may find it unbelievable that most in America did not inherently grasp simple fundamental strategic principles of quality design, they did not. Then Macdonald and Whigham explained it to them and SHOWED THEM and then many others explained it to them and showed them. And most still did not get it. Why do you think that Macdonald had a series of magazine articles explaining the fundamental concepts behind some of his holes? Was he preaching to the choir?
Look some of our so-called experts today only see one option in the Redan and completely miss the subtle strategic beauty of the balance between a flanking move around the bunker versus a direct attack. Yet you think the golfing world in America before 1910 not only grasped this rather sophisticated concept, but understood it enough to apply it and teach it to others?
Hell, you've been in this discussion for what, a thousand posts or so? Yet you still claim that you don't know what these fundamental concepts were??? If they were so self-evident and commonly understood then they must be moreso now. So why don't you just grab them out of the thin air and explain them to us? Maybe build a world class course or two? No big deal. These were common ideas, lots of people must have grasped them. No need for Macdonald to have taught us.
-
"I'm also biased in favor of Myopia because I read an essay by John Updike several years ago that described the joys of the course that was simply brilliant."
MikeC:
Is that right? I wish you'd make me aware of what that essay is, I'd love to read it. As I guess you might suspect, Myopia seems to be Updike's club, or at least that's what I've been led to believe. With that in mind, last year I was very much hoping to meet him at a tournament up there but he wasn't around. This year, I went to the parking lot to get my car and I swung back around to pick up my partner who was sitting on the steps talking to Updike. I did have a chat with him about the course, it's architecture, the fact that it was one of the earliest examples of great golf architecture in America, the USGA's new architecture archive and its interest in the course and Leeds as a pioneer in American architecture. I said I hoped he would contribute some of his feeling in that vein and he said he'd be glad to consider that. Clearly, he loves the place and the course and obviously has some great observations on the essence of it.
CharlesF:
I wouldn't call this a great debate, simply a production of information back and forth. One of the things this discussion shows me is that people who have never even seen a course or courses and the work of the early architects who did them really don't have much basis to intelligently comment on a point like Peter Pallotta is trying to make.
How is someone like David Moriarty going to be able to offer an intelligent evaluation of whether or not Myopia was and is an example of great golf architecture before NGLA's existence if he's never even seen the place? I would say the same is true of GCGC or even Oakmont. The other day we found a picture of a 1903 stick routing of Oakmont that is remarkably similar to the way the course is today. Think what that means. There is nothing personal here. I don't view it as his fault that he doesn't understand these things. How would he if he's never even seen them? In my opinion, it's really only a matter of the fact that he needs to understand that he can't really form an intelligent opinion on this kind of issue unless and until he actually gets to know the subject courses we're talking about here.
This extremely fundamental fact just keeps getting dismissed and ignored on here by the other side of this discussion. It just can't be dismissed or ignored if there's ever going to be an intelligent opinion and discussion from the other side.
For starters, would you agree with that---eg if you've never even seen a course how can you really intelligently comment on it in detail? ;)
-
If you are arguing that Macdonald was the father of American golf course architecture, I'd say that was a handy and serviceable theory. I spent some time writing television biographies -- I tried first to get the subject's life history correct, and then to create a compelling narrative around the subject's significance by developing a serviceable theory, i.e. one that I believed in and that could be reasonably argued and maintained...but one that, years later, I sometimes found lacked nuance, or that diminished the lives and works of the subject's contemporaries. That's all I'm saying, David - i.e. that assigning Macdonald a preeminent role in the history of golf course architecture is a serviceable theory, but that -- even just intuitively -- it strikes me as one that lacks nuance... -Peter Palotta
Underlying all arguments about CBM is that sentiment, i.e., the place he has been given in the history of GCA is overblown and it diminishes the work of others. I don't think another million words would resolve that dispute, there are too many competing views and too many personal agendas for that to happen.
I'm no historian, biographer, or manifesto scribbler. From my perch CBM looks like the man who took the physical steps to bring forth the idea that the architecture of a golf course could be made perfect, and his quest showed others (not just the architects of his day) that the goal was attainable.
-
JimK:
I sure do hear what you're trying to say but I just don't think this time and its accurate history is anywhere near as complicated to understand as some on here are trying to make it.
There is no question at all that CBM was a huge promoter of excellence in architecture in America. In that particular way, from the positions he held and due to his visibility and prominence due to his over-all position including the way he went about promoting NGLA there's no question he was the most influential of all at that time, and certainly to that type of client or club or project like an MCC who wanted to go about it the way he did (without a professional lead architect).
But this is not what Peter Pallotta was saying or talking about. His point was that as some on here are trying to make it seem that CBM (and perhaps Whigam) were the only ones in America would really understood the principles behind creating great golf course architecture in America.
That is just not the case at all and the evidence of that fact was more than visible at that time and for us now. Myopia and a few others were there before NGLA to prove that Macdonald was not the only one in America before NGLA to understand and apply these things.
Macdonald himself said as much when he talked about the quality of a couple of courses before he did NGLA.
A couple of people on here are trying to deny that. They can't deny it factually because they would be denying what Macdonald himself said while trying to exaggeratedly promote him. None of us on the other side of the discussion are minimizing Macdonald's roll (as this guy on here keeps claiming we are)---we're only putting it in the perspective it was really in back then.
Frankly, Peter Pallotta's point really isn't even about Macdonald, it's about people like Leeds who preceded NGLA with his Myopia Hunt Club course. Someone like David Moriarty just can't overlook someone like that and the importance in America architecture of what he did there before NGLA. Apparently the real reason he's doing that is because he just doesn't understand much about it and how in the hell could he if he's never even seen it? Nobody can have a really informed and intelligent opinion about something they've never even seen! This is just a fact that will always be inescapable in discussions like these ones. ;)
-
The fact is, Patrick, you are the guy who has always harped on everyone else on here that one can't really understand a golf course unless they've seen it, played it, and probably numerous times in various condtions. That's what you've always said and maintained on here, right? Do you deny that now? ;).
That's correct.
Of course you argued with me on that point until I informed you that those weren't my original words, they were MacDonald's and could be found on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift"
I've never critiqued Myopia.
Could you cite any post of mine where I commented on the playability of the golf course ?
Absent that citation would you please edit your posts ;D
And the fact is neither you, MacWood or Moriarty have ever been to Myopia or played it in various conditions.[/b][/color=green]
I've NEVER critiqued the golf course at Myopia.
You must have me confused with someone else.[/b]
Therefore, there's not a lot any of you can say about it and its significance back then or today unless you all want to show yourelves to be real hypocrites.
You're confusing/mixing apples with oranges, or, straight jackets with evening jackets.
One doesn't have to play a golf course to understand its historical significance.
One doesn't have to have been at Pearl Harbor to understand the impact of December 7, 1941, and its historical significance.
Shirley, you understand the difference now that I've pointed it out to you. ;D
-
Here is Peter's post # 102.
I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.
TEPaul, we know that this statement is inaccurate because some of the holes at NGLA are ABSOLUTE ORIGINALS, not imported in principle or kind from anywhere.
Thus, if the underlying assumptions are incorrect, the conclusions or inferences are probably incorrect.
Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles.
You would have us believe, and TEPaul would support your premise, that these priciples were widely known and accepted as tenets by the golfing universe.
Could it be that CBM was the first to "collectivize" them ?
The first to apply them in the ultimate architectural package ?
So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s.
"Foremost promoter" ?
Who else was promoting those principles in 1906-1911 ?
Who else conceived of the idea of collectivizing these principles by creating a golf course that contained nearly all of them ?
But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.
That's your opinion.
Could you cite the others who knew and cared about these principles.
It certainly wasn't Wilson or anyone else who hadn't traveled abroad.
Who had the vision to assemble these principles, find the land where they might thrive, and combine them with great original holes to be placed on the same land ?
Perhaps the easiest way to examine and refine your premise is to eliminate any and all architects who hadn't traveled to the UK to examine golf courses prior to 1906.
Which of those individuals that you referenced as having identified and understood those principles visited the UK prior to 1906 ?
I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.
Please present the supporting documentation that names those individuals in America who identified and understood and discussed those principles prior to 1906. And, could you also provide the supporting documentation evidencing their ability to identify and understand those principles?
I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them.
AHA, finally, you've hit on a critical point.
"for all with the eyes to see them."
It takes more than eyes to see and UNDERSTAND the principles.
It takes intellect and a talent to observe and perceive them.
You seem to think that anyone with decent vision can see the golf courses, holes and features and understand the underlying principles behind them.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Unless of course, you think that anyone in America could go overseas, come home and then produce the same quality work that Tom Doak has.
There's far more to architectural theory and practice than eyeing golf holes.
-
TEPaul,
Why did Wilson and his committee visit NGLA instead of Myopia and GCGC ?
Or, better yet, why DIDN'T they visit Myopia if it represented the defining effort in American architecture ?
-
Pat:
Those are good questions, even though we've dealt with the answers before on here. I'm going over to hit some balls but I will answer them tonight.
-
Here's a question for you, Pat. While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him. Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work.
You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA. I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically. Or perhaps you think his work perfect ;) In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings. All architects had/have them. Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).
For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.
-
Patrick -
I used these thoughts on another thread, but they may be applicable here. I think “judgment” has long-been a fundamental part of the game (e.g. judging distances, judging risks and rewards etc). I think we can extrapolate from that to say that golf holes designed to test and challenge a golfer’s judgment have also long-been a fundamental part of the game.
Bernard Darwin quotes a golf professional in the 1920s saying that he’d rather play TOC than anywhere else because “you may play a damned good shot and get into a damned bad place”, and then adding, “I think that is the real game of golf." Darwin relates this idea to Old Tom Morris' line about golf as a game that’s "aye fechtin' against ye" -- a game that demands at once a dour and daring spirit in the playing. In the later words of John Low, golf is a “contest of risks”.
And again, I think we can extrapolate from this and say that the golf holes/courses that best ‘frame’ and best allow for these risks and that risk-testing are what underpin the real game of golf and thus good golf course architecture. That idea, in short, is a principle of good golf course architcture.
I imagine that as far back as Old Tom (at least) there was this awareness of the principles of golf architecture, even if they were not always manifested across all 18 holes of a golf course or uniformly so. Do you think I'm wrong about that?
Peter
-
Here's a question for you, Pat. While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him.
Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work.
In the context of 1909, I don't see any flaws in his design work.
Other than forced crossovers, what flaws do you see in Flynn's work ?
You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA. I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically.
I guess it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback 100 years after the fact.
But, when you evaluate work "in the moment", contemporaneously, it's
a far more daunting task.
If you examine the the first or early by-pass procedures in the context of today's medical/surgical practices, I'm sure you could be critical, but, at the time, those procedures were "cutting edge", and so was MacDonald in 1906-1911.
Or perhaps you think his work perfect ;)
I find NGLA close to perfection.
In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings. All architects had/have them. Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).
For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.
OK, tell us of his shortcomings.
-
Wayno,
You stated:
Of the Raynor and Banks courses I've played, not one has passed the Mucci test, that is a desire to go straight from the 18th green to the 1st tee."
So that I can better context your posts and position, could you list for me the Raynor and Banks courses you've played.
Thanks
-
Patrick -
I used these thoughts on another thread, but they may be applicable here. I think “judgment” has long-been a fundamental part of the game (e.g. judging distances, judging risks and rewards etc). I think we can extrapolate from that to say that golf holes designed to test and challenge a golfer’s judgment have also long-been a fundamental part of the game.
I'd go a step beyond that and state that judgement was a prerequisite to playing the game well in the early years. You have to remember, there were no yardage markers, no 150 posts, no lasers and GPS systems. It was all about the "visual" and "feel".
Bernard Darwin quotes a golf professional in the 1920s saying that he’d rather play TOC than anywhere else because “you may play a damned good shot and get into a damned bad place”, and then adding, “I think that is the real game of golf." Darwin relates this idea to Old Tom Morris' line about golf as a game that’s "aye fechtin' against ye" -- a game that demands at once a dour and daring spirit in the playing. In the later words of John Low, golf is a “contest of risks”.
More likely, he was refering to the vagaries of golf, not the architectural principles found in golf.
And again, I think we can extrapolate from this and say that the golf holes/courses that best ‘frame’ and best allow for these risks and that risk-testing are what underpin the real game of golf and thus good golf course architecture.
I don't think that you can extrapolate that from Darwin's remarks.
I think it requires a quantum leap on your part to go from Darwin's remarks to your conclusion, a leap that I don't think you can complete.
That idea, in short, is a principle of good golf course architcture.
I think that's a real stretch, or perhaps I haven't understood you correctly.
I imagine that as far back as Old Tom (at least) there was this awareness of the principles of golf architecture, even if they were not always manifested across all 18 holes of a golf course or uniformly so.
Do you think I'm wrong about that?
Yes and No.
I think some principles were self evident, others more subtle and others difficult to ascertain.
Remember, "Links" golf had a fairly well defined and limited field of play. One that didn't have great elevation changes.
Certainly, we can state this without fear of contradiction at TOC.
When golf moved inland from the Links, perhaps some principles had to be adjusted and perhaps new principles discovered.
The land considered for NGLA was not an ideal site in 1906.
It was filled with bogs and swamps and had substantive elevation changes.
If, as you state, these principles were universally acknowledged, why didn't someone put them into practice before MacDonald ?
Or, could it be that MacDonald, studied and understood the great principles, developed some of his own and using his acquired knowledge of architecture and his skill as a golfer, combined the best of both worlds, theory and playability, to form the finest golf course in the world in 1906-1911 ?
-
Here's a question for you, Pat. While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him.
Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work.
In the context of 1909, I don't see any flaws in his design work.
Other than forced crossovers, what flaws do you see in Flynn's work ?
You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA. I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically.
I guess it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback 100 years after the fact.
But, when you evaluate work "in the moment", contemporaneously, it's
a far more daunting task.
If you examine the the first or early by-pass procedures in the context of today's medical/surgical practices, I'm sure you could be critical, but, at the time, those procedures were "cutting edge", and so was MacDonald in 1906-1911.
Or perhaps you think his work perfect ;)
I find NGLA close to perfection.
In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings. All architects had/have them. Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).
For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.
OK, tell us of his shortcomings.
I didn't realize that Macdonald was designing NGLA for 1909. Besides Pat, Macdonald was tinkering with the course well past 1909. In any case, I thought that designers had the future in mind. In fact, this is where I think Macdonald has a major flaw. I'm not playing Monday morning quarterback, I am analyzing how his courses work over time. This significant flaw is revealed over time. Perhaps you think Macdonald was only thinking about his own time and so he shouldn't be criticized. Well, I agree he was thinking about his own time (interestingly the impact of the Haskell ball was front and center at the time he planned NGLA, so there was no excuse) and that is the rub.
He did not seem to care about or gave much thought to the future. Maybe he didn't care much for championship golf outside of NGLA. He recommended a sporty course length for Merion when they wanted a championship design. His designs of St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Piping Rock for example do not pass the test of time. Bunkers are out of play, hazards obsoleted and the designs become outmoded for the best players. While all remain wonderful courses from the good club player to higher handicaps, they simply offer far less of a challenge than courses from other designers of that era which are also unchanged.
Macdonald did not use enough offset fairways and greens. His fairway lines are not interesting nor do they fit the topography very well. He used too much artificiality for the sake of template or concepts desired. The 18th at St. Louis CC for instance. His use of a punchbowl green concept on a blind approach negates the proper use of the feature. His routing of 16 green to 17 tee at SLCC is one of the worst routing features I've ever seen (especially in 105 degree heat carrying your own bag :-\ )
What do you think of the use of sandy waste areas (not formal fairway or greenside bunkers) in the lower holes at Creek Club?
I disagree with you. Crossovers are not necessarily flaws and in fact can be strokes of genius. You constantly bring this up, but don't understand it at all. The crossovers at Merion are not forced. It is a very cramp piece of property. Macdonald recommended an even smaller one and a shorter course. I wonder what that would have been like? Anyway, the crossover from 2 green to 3 tee (crossing 6 tee) creates the outstanding flow of the course. It doesn't have to crossover. In fact, for a time, the 6th hole was played as the 3rd and there was an uphill walk from 3 green to 8 tee (behind 4 tee and 7 green). Consider the routing progression and tell me the way it is today, with a benign crossover is ill-conceived. Maybe you dislike the walk from 13 green to 14 tee, passing the clubhouse, its bar and one's friends at ease around the clubhouse. Is the crossover in front of 1 tee that onerous? Now consider the crossover at Lehigh from 1 green to 2 tee (passing 18 tee and 17 green). It is brilliant and allows the outside/inside routing that gives you a constantly shifting wind direction and a flow of holes that works. If it was up to you, I guess the advantages achieved would have been forgone because you don't like routings...forced or otherwise.
-
Mike Cirba and Peter Pallota,
Tom Paul would like you to quit offering your opinion on the quality of Myopia's golf course unless you have played it.
I have never played it either, but I have no doubt it is very good. But who cares about my opinion of the quality? Certainly not me. Rather, I am curious about the influence Myopia had on golf course design in America. My opinion, your opinions, and Tom Paul's opinion about quality of Myopia's golf course have nothing do to with whether or not other designers and builders at the time were significantly influenced by the design, and whether or not this influence (if any) had a positive or negative impact on gca in the United States.
________________________________
Tom Paul, as I said immediately above, your opinion or mine as to the quality of Myopia's course is irrelevant.
Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910. After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works.
Funny isn't it? Hutchinson and Macdonald visit Myopia, and as a result of their single visit Myopia immediately began making changes to to the course based on Hutchinson's criticisms. Sounds to me like Leeds was the one being influenced by Hutchinson and his like-minded traveling companion, not the other way around.
-
David,
I wonder if Myopia had a significant influence on American golf course architecture, because you don't see those kinds of bunkers anywhere else.
Although I have wondered if Robert White carried some of those principles with him in his career as an architect. Perhaps those kinds of features were built elsewhere and subsequnetly erased or built over because they were too penal?
-
I didn't realize that Macdonald was designing NGLA for 1909.
He designed it in 1906-1911.
Fortunately his design was for the ages.
100 years later NGLA remains in the top 10-20 courses despite the fact that thousands followed.
Besides Pat, Macdonald was tinkering with the course well past 1909.
I believe that's not an uncommon trait amongst architects who consider a course their pride and joy. Ross did the same at Pinehurst # 2 and Wilson did the same at Merion. Ditto Emmett at GCGC.
In any case, I thought that designers had the future in mind. In fact, this is where I think Macdonald has a major flaw. I'm not playing Monday morning quarterback, I am analyzing how his courses work over time. This significant flaw is revealed over time. Perhaps you think Macdonald was only thinking about his own time and so he shouldn't be criticized. Well, I agree he was thinking about his own time (interestingly the impact of the Haskell ball was front and center at the time he planned NGLA, so there was no excuse) and that is the rub.
That's funny.
MacDonald designs a revolutionary course in 1909 and 100 years later it's still regarded as revolutionary and thought so highly of that it's perennially ranked in the top 10 to 20 courses in the country and probably the world.
That seems like a pretty good legacy to me.
He did not seem to care about or gave much thought to the future.
If we context the future as 100 years from the date of inception, I'd say he did an extraordinary job. I think you'll find that a universally accepted truth save for a resident from a town outside of Philadelphia.
Maybe he didn't care much for championship golf outside of NGLA. He recommended a sporty course length for Merion when they wanted a championship design.
In 1906 I believe that MacDonald felt that a course of a little over 6,000 yards was ideal. He also recognized the advent of the Haskell ball and the need for additional length. He unequivically stated that an additional 360 to 540 yards should be built into golf course design for future use (lengthening)
Perhaps this is where Flynn derived his concept of elasticity.
His designs of St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Piping Rock for example do not pass the test of time.
That's funny.
Almost 100 years later they continue to be ranked in the top 100, that's a clear indication that they've passed the test of time.
Bunkers are out of play, hazards obsoleted and the designs become outmoded for the best players.
While all remain wonderful courses from the good club player to higher handicaps, they simply offer far less of a challenge than courses from other designers of that era which are also unchanged.
Name me the golf courses built between 1909 and 1913 that remain unchanged that provide a greater challenge for the best players ?
Macdonald did not use enough offset fairways and greens. His fairway lines are not interesting nor do they fit the topography very well.
So that I can better understand your position can you identify those courses of MacDonald's that you've played ?
He used too much artificiality for the sake of template or concepts desired.
The 18th at St. Louis CC for instance. His use of a punchbowl green concept on a blind approach negates the proper use of the feature.
I disagree completely.
A punchbowl green is IDEAL for a blind approach.
His routing of 16 green to 17 tee at SLCC is one of the worst routing features I've ever seen (especially in 105 degree heat carrying your own bag :-\ )
I can't speak to SLCC since I've never played it.
I'll have to put it on my list.
I should have visited it when I was at Bellerive for the Mid Am.
What do you think of the use of sandy waste areas (not formal fairway or greenside bunkers) in the lower holes at Creek Club?
If we're talking about the feature as it existed circa 1938,
I liked them.
I prefer them to what exists today.
I disagree with you. Crossovers are not necessarily flaws and in fact can be strokes of genius. You constantly bring this up, but don't understand it at all. The crossovers at Merion are not forced. It is a very cramp piece of property. Macdonald recommended an even smaller one and a shorter course. I wonder what that would have been like? Anyway, the crossover from 2 green to 3 tee (crossing 6 tee) creates the outstanding flow of the course. It doesn't have to crossover. In fact, for a time, the 6th hole was played as the 3rd and there was an uphill walk from 3 green to 8 tee (behind 4 tee and 7 green). Consider the routing progression and tell me the way it is today, with a benign crossover is ill-conceived. Maybe you dislike the walk from 13 green to 14 tee, passing the clubhouse, its bar and one's friends at ease around the clubhouse. Is the crossover in front of 1 tee that onerous? Now consider the crossover at Lehigh from 1 green to 2 tee (passing 18 tee and 17 green). It is brilliant and allows the outside/inside routing that gives you a constantly shifting wind direction and a flow of holes that works. If it was up to you, I guess the advantages achieved would have been forgone because you don't like routings...forced or otherwise.
You say it's brilliant, I say it may be a design flaw.
As to Merion, before they rerouted # 13 you used to have to walk through the clubhouse to get to the 14th tee. It was a very awkward routing to a dead end hole.
Didn't MacDonald suggest purchasing the property which housed holes at Merion ?
-
David,
I wonder if Myopia had a significant influence on American golf course architecture, because you don't see those kinds of bunkers anywhere else.
Although I have wondered if Robert White carried some of those principles with him in his career as an architect. Perhaps those kinds of features were built elsewhere and subsequnetly erased or built over because they were too penal?
I haven't played the course and have mostly seen photos of current bunkers, so I don't know much about Myopia's bunkers at the time, but presume they are similar. Perhaps someone who has played it knows whether the bunkers or any other features were imitated elsewhere.
The photos of Myopia's bunkers look to me like the bunkers at GCGC, with is a product of a similar time. Stylistically, they also look a bit more along the lines of they types of hazards one might have seen during what is often termed the "dark ages." (Not commenting on their functionality, just the look.)
I suspect that this style was commonplace before NGLA, but was then virtually wiped off the map. While Myopia and Garden City definitely underwent substantial changes, the extent of their survival (old style and all) probably speaks to their quality.
That is the strange thing about this thread. I've no interest in badmouthing either GCGC or Myopia. I think GCGC was and is a very good course, and presume Myopia was and is as well. And important. And surely they were influential, especially before NGLA. But NGLA was a major turning point the likes of which had not happened before or since. The rules were rewritten, the approach changed.
It fascinates me that anyone could deny this. Either these are agenda driven positions, or many here just are not familiar with the history.
-
DMoriarty,
It's very simple.
To deny that NGLA represented the "seminal" moment in American Golf Course Architecture is to be out of touch with reality.
-
Were Macdonald, Raynor and Banks criticised contemporaneously for their template method?
The only quote, in this vein, I've found is (surprise, surprise) by Colt in 1912. But I don't think he was familiar with Macdonald's work and never saw Raynor's or Banks's in person.
"The attempt at reproducing well-known holes with hopelessly different materials is the most futile nonsense of the lot. How often have I seen a piece of ground suitable for a good short hole spoilt by a silly attempt at reproducing the 11th (Eden) at St Andrews! No; I firmly believe that the only means whereby an attractive piece of ground can be turned into a satisfying golf course is to work to the natural features of the site in question. Develop them if necessary, but not too much; and if there are many nice features, leave them alone as far as possible, but utilise them to their fullest extent, and eventually there will be a chance of obtaining a course with individual character of an impressive nature."
-
David,
I can agree with you that NGLA was like nothing else before it, and from what I know, I might even venture to say that there was nothing like NGLA in the world, not just here in America.
I don't think anyone before MacDonald had the power to rally the kind of commitment that was required to make something on the scale of NGLA a reality.
Myopia and GCC had attained to their respective levels of greatness not so much by the scale of the work but by the quality and the thoughtfulness of the work.
MacDonald had an entirely different approach. Whereas Leeds and Travis reworked existing golf courses, MacDonald started from scratch and his whole vision was different.
-
Paul Turner,
Part of CBM's genius was that he was able to meld the two, the great hole concepts with the natural features of the site (terrain).
Anyone who has played # 3 and # 4 at NGLA will acknowledge that.
-
Paul,
Thank you for that quote. It appeals to me greatly. Colt remains my favorite architect. There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald. I'll try to find some. By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.
Pat,
So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club. Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.
I'll answer your questions to me as I've begun to already. However, you've yet to answer my question regarding your criticism, if any, of Macdonald. Is there nothing at all in his entire portfolio that you can question or find fault with? Has everything withstood the test of time?
Of Macdonald courses, I've played NGLA, St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Yale. I've walked Piping Rock. Of Raynor and Banks courses, I've played Southampton, Westhampton, Forsgate, Gibson Island, CC Charleston, Lookout Mountain, Fox Chapel and Yeaman's Hall. Likely far more representative of their work than you've seen of Flynn.
Part of CBM's genius was that he was able to meld the two, the great hole concepts with the natural features of the site (terrain).
Macdonald's work was very limited. I think NGLA is a triumph. I think Creek Club is excellent and Yale quite good. It is my opinion that he fell far short of the triumph of NGLA and the excellence of Creek and Yale in his subsequent efforts. The derivative work of Raynor and Banks that I have experienced (Fisher's Island is notably absent) did not rise to the level of their mentor's work. It is the going easy on Raynor and Banks that I cannot understand.
-
Paul,
Thank you for that quote. It appeals to me greatly. Colt remains my favorite architect. There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald. I'll try to find some. By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.
Wayno, tell the whole story, he was also very critical of Shinnecock BEFORE MacDonald's influence.
Pat,
So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club. Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.
Wayno, you appear to be hung up on pride of authorship, while I tend to be hung up on creative design and playability.
To me, it doesn't matter who created the old sandy waste areas, I PREFER them to TODAY's version.
One of my comments was that the club should seek to restore that look/feature, including getting rid of all the Cat O' Nine tails along # 13 and # 14. Unfortunately the Environazis would probably object to restoring the course to its previous state.
I'll answer your questions to me as I've begun to already. However, you've yet to answer my question regarding your criticism, if any, of Macdonald.
Is there nothing at all in his entire portfolio that you can question or find fault with?
I can't speak to his entire portfolio because I haven't experienced his entire portfolio. SLCC is an example I previously cited. But, if you want to review the courses I have experienced, NGLA, Yale, The Creek, Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock I'd be happy to accomodate you, understanding that what remains today may or may not be MacDonald's work.
Has everything withstood the test of time?
I believe so.
Of Macdonald courses, I've played NGLA, St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Yale. I've walked Piping Rock.
Then let's stick with the ones we've both played, NGLA and The Creek.
Of Raynor and Banks courses, I've played Southampton, Westhampton, Forsgate, Gibson Island, CC Charleston, Lookout Mountain, Fox Chapel and Yeaman's Hall. Likely far more representative of their work than you've seen of Flynn.
Let's seperate the architects you've conveniently chosen to bundle.
Let's render unto Raynor that which is Raynor and render unto Banks that which is Banks.
As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.
-
Wayne,
You may want hold your jury out until you have played Chicago Golf and Shoreacres. Raynor did some pretty amazing work at those golf courses. I'll grant you that nothing can compare to NGLA but the first of it's kind generally is never bettered in any art form.
I don't disagree with your views on this subject Wayne.
What I find most interesting about your views are the placement of features, and no so much the style of aesthetics. You should expand more on your views regarding the way Flynn positioned things in a way that Raynor failed to.
-
As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.
Which 10, Pat?
-
Wayne,
I played Glenview before it was remodeled, and I thought it was pretty good. The fairways were huge. As I recall they were 50 acres at least. And the greens were amazing. But I thought the bunkering was not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as Raynor's work at Shoreacres and Chicago Golf.
Seriously they were all saucer shaped. Maybe they got that way from several decades of edging maintenance, but I can see the same shapes in the photos of Shinecock, and I guess I'm wondering why saucers are more pleasing to look at than what Raynor did.
-
Wayne,
I don't mean to be a pest about this, but how's come no one on this site ever picks on Flynn's fixation with saucers?
No I did it :o
-
Paul,
Thank you for that quote. It appeals to me greatly. Colt remains my favorite architect. There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald. I'll try to find some. By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.
Hutchinson visited Shinnecock in 1910, prior to Macdonald and/or Raynor redesigning the course.
Pat,
So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club. Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.
I have an aerial of The Creek shortly after the course was built (pre-Flynn) and it clearly shows sandy waste areas on #9, #10, #12, #13 and #14.
-
Colt and Macdonald would have crossed paths at the British Am and R&A functions. They met in NY in 1913.
Paul
Didn't Colt produce a knock off of the Road Hole at Hoylake?
-
Bradley - your post #205 seems like a good one to me.
Patrick, David -
David's written two very clear and direct statements on this thread, first that Macdonald imported not golf holes but strategic principles to America, and second that NGLA was a major turning point the likes of which had not happened before or since, i.e. the rules were rewritten, the approach changed. There is much to think about in those statements.
My struggle comes from having noted in my readings of old documents an almost continual flux in the ideas/tastes about what makes for good architecture, and thus (whether stated explictely or not) the ideas about the principles of good architecture. Few courses on either side of the Atlantic -- before or after NGLA -- seemed to have been immune to criticisms and changes at one time or another, including TOC. That's one of the reasons I have a hard tme getting a handle on what were/are considered the truly fundamental principles of good design. (In today's language, for example, don't many around here denigrate penal architecture and glorify strategic architecture, i.e. aren't the "fundamental" principles of good golf course architecture still being debated?)
Anyway, my point being that, while Patrick calls it seminal and David calls it a turning point, I'm still left wondering about the nature (and lasting nature) of NGLA's influence. Maybe I simply don't know enough (and gents like Phil Young on Tillinghast, Tom D on Mackenzie, Wayne and TE on Flynn and Brad Klein on Ross would know much more). But this influence, how did it manifest on the courses built after NGLA? Were Ross and Tillinghast and Mackenzie and Flynn and Behr and Colt and Fownes and Leeds and Crump "descendants" of Macdonald, and "adherents" of the fundamental principles of good golf architecture as manifested at NGLA? Did that influence last much beyond 1930s, or into the "dark ages" of gca? If not, what explains this, i.e. did the principles change, or were they simply forgotten and ignored? What does it say about how evident those principles were when in 1927 someone like Crane wrote about his ideal American course, using golf holes from a number of different American courses (including, of couse, NGLA), but then - giving a score of 95.9% to that ideal course - ranking NGLA 5th best in the world after Muirfield, Gleneagles, Prince's, and Troon, with a score of 82.7%; and ahead of Merion, Sandwich, Hoylake, Pine Valley, Lido, Walton Heath, and Sunningdale in that order? (I'm not trying to make much out of Crane's system, but just using him as an example of the flux I mentioned.)
It's hard to deny that NGLA was seminal etc. I'm just suggesting that the kinds of questions I've asked here may be worthy of discussion, and that the issue isn't so, so clear cut.
Peter
-
TEPaul,
Why did Wilson and his committee visit NGLA instead of Myopia and GCGC ?
Or, better yet, why DIDN'T they visit Myopia if it represented the defining effort in American architecture ?
Patrick,
Because he'd already seen them and played them over the previous decade.
-
He did? He did not compete at Myopia during his college career, and GCGC's historic redesign took place after he played there at Princeton.
-
Tom,
Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not play the best courses in America in the time period of 1897-1910?
-
Mike Cirba.
This theory that he learned all he needed to know while in college is really really stretching it, don't you think? At least isn't it well worn? If not, then what was Myopia like when Wilson played there? What was good in America when he was in college? Why was it good? How did it influence him?
This has been an interesting discussion, let's not ruin it with more of your stretched speculation about how Wilson was an expert on golf architecture because of some college tournament or another. Wilson tells us how qualified he was when he went to Macdonald. Not anymore qualified than any other club member.
Thanks.
_________________________
Peter,
I've tried and I've tried to explain, but I am worn out. You just counter with another layer of speculation, even when it directly contradicts your own previous speculation. [See you speculating about a Hutchinson agenda to trash all American courses except NGLA, then offering Hutchinson being the proof that American courses besides NGLA were excellent.]
If you really want answers, you don't want them from me. I suggest you take a look at the source material. Or you can just go with what TEPaul or someone else thinks, whether there opinion has any support or not.
One more thing. You have a tendency to jump the Atlantic when it suits you. What was going on with gca over there and here was not perfectly tracking at this point in history.
As to who Macdonald's descendants were, we are not there yet. Getting into that would further bog down the discussion. Most of the people you list were in America after NGLA, with the possible exception of Ross.
-
Peter,
You commented and aske, "Anyway, my point being that, while Patrick calls it seminal and David calls it a turning point, I'm still left wondering about the nature... of NGLA's influence... But this influence, how did it manifest on the courses built after NGLA? Were Ross and Tillinghast and Mackenzie and Flynn and Behr and Colt and Fownes and Leeds and Crump "descendants" of Macdonald, and "adherents" of the fundamental principles of good golf architecture as manifested at NGLA?"
In the case of Tillinghast, he was not influenced by CBM or his work at NGLA.
I have quoted Tilly's own words in the past where he spoke strongly against the design principles of Macdonald; this despite their being friends and his liking a number of his courses.
Who inspired Tilly to want to design golf courses? The answer is Old Tom Morris. After tilly came back from the 2nd of his trips to the UK (St. Andrews was but one of his stops) he wrote about the close relationship that he developed with Old Tom. He published this in the earliest known, and what may actually be his first, published articles in his writing career in 1898. Yet it was what happened when he came back that summer before he wrote his article in GOLF magazine that also contains photographs of Old Tom, St. Andrews and other players and places that speaks to this influence. For when he came back, Tilly designed and built his first golf course.
In 1908, about the time he was being asked by Worthington to design and build his golf course at Shawnee, Tilly wrote, "I was invited to run out to Frankford, a suburb of Philadelphia where at that time golf had yet to be introduced. Selecting the most available ground [which, by the way, is almost on the links of the present Frankford Country Club], I laid out a rather crude course, using for holes, tin cans which had once contained French peas. With a group of curious, skeptical citizens around me I next proceeded to demonstrate the various strokes to the best of my ability until one of the spectators expressed a desire to try his hand at it…”
It was while Tilly designed and was building his first "real" course, the Shawnee CC, Macdonald was hard at work on the very unfinished NGLA. The question then is, was the design of Shawnee influenced by Macdonald and NGLA?
Besides the obvious answer being that it would have been pretty near impossible for it to have for the simple fact that it was designed and built at the same time and officially opened some 4 months before the NGLA, consider Tilly's own words on the matter.
Shawnee contained an "Alpinization" based upon "mid-surrey style" of moundings. Surely then this must be CBM's influence as he was importing the great architectural design principles from across the sea to America. In Tilly's case, one has nothing to do with the other.
Tilly had been to the UK to play golf a number of times (three that we know for certain and there may have actually been 2 or 3 other times that are still being researched) and started going there in 1895. for that purpose. Tilly befriended the finest players, played the greatest courses and spent a great deal of time talking golf, architecture, course design and maintenance with all of them.
So it wasn't CBM who influenced him; rather it was the players and grand old men of the game that were spoken of with great reverence world-wide that did. But that "influence" only went a very short distance.
During this same time period of 1910-1915 a number of UK writers criticized both the players from America and many of the courses that they played on. Tilly was among the most vociferous of the defenders and, in fact, wrote extensively saying that both the American game and the courses that had been built here were the equal or superior to any all across the sea.
He took great pride in himself and other American architects in the courses that they designed and created and how DIFFERENT they were from those in the UK. If the design and building of the NGLA was the impetus and the "seminal moment" for the great works of architecture in America, why would so many courses here, and Tilly's were among them, so different in style and design philosophy? That is, after all, what Tilly himself believed.
Tilly's philosophy was a simple one and can be summed up in 6 words.
What does the ground give me?
Tilly believed that the ground upon which a course would be built should dictate the design and cahracter of both the course and also the individual holes which make it up.
All architects see certain "styles" and features that they believe to offer the most enjoyably challenging of golf holes. Macdonald was a major proponent of this and certainly believed that the hole types found across the water were the most superior and should be imitated.
Tilly disagreed with him.
Tilly travelled everywhere with sketch pads and even paints so that in his spare time he would try to conceive of NEW hole TYPES that might be found to challenge all players, skilled or poor alike. A number of his written articles are simply based upon this very idea. That is why there are so many conceptual sketches of Tilly's preserved to this day because they can be found in the journals of the leading golf journals of the day. In fact he first included conceptual hole sketches in his advertising booklet first published in 1916 and titled, "Planning a Golf Course."
Can anyone seriously think that the following was written by a man who was influenced by CBM and the importing of ideas from across the sea as being the best way to design a golf course?
"The creation of a thoroughly modern course cannot be accomplished by the haphazard methods of the past..."
"It costs no more to follow nature than to ignore her..."
"When the famous British authority, Reginald Beale, saw this Aronomink hole in the making, he declared that it was one of the most daring conceptions he had ever studied..."
Regarding the 15th hole at Shawnee he wrote, "A unique feature is the diagonal teeing-ground, one hundred feet in length, which not only permits of lengthening the carry, but also makes it possible to change the angle entirely..."
"The shape and size of any green should be regulated by the type and length of stroke which is to find it..."
"I insist that rough country should be a prominent feature on every course but I am no believer in the matted rank grass variety..."
Tilly had great respect for the courses and players, and most importantly of all, the history of the game found in the UK. He was not afraid to use features that he saw there but would not do it simply because a template design called for something to be included.
Almost from the very first hole that he designed, tilly was an individualist and designed his courses to meet the characteristics that he saw in the ground and not to meet with a pre-conceived design philosophy or hole type.
In fact, when he did create holes that were similar in nature or "type" to others, the only person he imitated was himself and the hole types that he created for himself...
Do I believe that the design and building of the NGLA was a seminal moment in American golf? Yes and no. I think it was a PART, a major one yes, but a part only of a time frame where the American golf course designs and architects were given birth and allowed to explore their individualities, even if some of these were actually convinced that designing through pre-conceived templates was the proper format.
Oakmont, Shawnee, Pine Valley, Pinehurst #2... all were designed and built during this time period. None of these courses show themselves as having been influenced by either template-style designing or CBM's philosophy or person.
NGLA certainly deserves to stand alongside all of these courses in this seminal TIME PERIOD when American golf architecture truly was born, for since that day many of the world's greatest golf creations came to be...
-
Phillip.
"Hazard" reported that the greens at Shawnee had been built in April of 1910. "Hazard" would know, wouldn't he?
They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time?
How can you call NGLA "very unfinished" at this point in time? What is your basis for your claim? Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?
When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?
At what point in time did NGLA become influential in America? Surely before 1911, don't you think?
Are you suggesting that Tillinghast's Shawnee had the same impact on golf in America as NGLA?
-
David,
You asked a number of questions of me... I believe I've answered them all:
“’Hazard’ reported that the greens at Shawnee had been built in April of 1910. ‘Hazard’ would know, wouldn't he?”
Of course he would. This was reported by him in August 1910…
“They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time?”
I DIDN’T. I stated that they were DESIGNED and BUILT during the same time period. This runs from 1907 to 1911, and by the way it is CB Macdonald who agrees with me. In Golf Illustrated in June 1914 he wrote, “Six or seven years ago when the National Golf Links were first conceived…” That would be the year 1907… or is my math wrong? I’ve quoted it too often and won’t do so again, but it was CBM who stated the “links opened for play” in September of 1911.
“How can you call NGLA ‘very unfinished’ at this point in time?”
I DIDN’T. Look once again at what I wrote. I stated, “It was WHILE Tilly DESIGNED and WAS BUILDING his first "real" course, the Shawnee CC, Macdonald was hard at work on the very unfinished NGLA…”
Tilly and his family would vacation with Worthington and his family in the area where the Buckwood Inn and Shawnee was to be built every summer since at least as early as 1903 (I have dated family pictures of them all together including one showing the island where the majority of the golf course would be before any work was ever done). Worthington had talked to Tilly of designing a golf course for him for quite a while and Tilly began it in 1908 and spending time examining the site and layout of the course at that time. I don’t believe that the NGLA was anywhere near finished in the summer of 1908, do you? So Tilly designed and began the building of Shawnee while the NGLA was quite unfinished.
“Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?”
I agree with that, so I HAVE to ask why don’t you? After all it was YOU who stated in response to my quoting CBM and his writing on when the Links opened for play that, “NGLA "formally" opened when the clubhouse opened. Kind of hard to have a national club in the boonies without at clubhouse, don't you think?” If you think the state of the clubhouse is IRRELEVENT, WHY did you just state the opposite in your earlier response?
And by the way, I never, not a single time, stated that CBM considered the links open for play when the clubhouse opened… YOU DID!
“When did Tillinghast first play NGLA?”
I have no idea. I DO KNOW that whenever he first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least and that he strongly disagreed with the design philosophies of CBM his whole life…
“At what point in time did NGLA become influential in America? Surely before 1911, don't you think?”
At what point did Oakmont become influential in America? It was opened in 1903 and has hosted more national championships than any other course… I’d say that’s a course with a bit of influence, wouldn’t you?
“Are you suggesting that Tillinghast's Shawnee had the same impact on golf in America as NGLA?”
No. I am more than suggesting, I am definitively stating that A.W. Tillinghast had at least as much and most likely more influence and impact upon the game of golf in America than C.B. Macdonald. That is why his course at Shawnee in 1911 is a seminal course as it vaulted him into designing golf courses nationally within the next few years.
Within ten years of NGLA’s opening Tilly had already designed more than three times as many courses as CB. In the end he would design many, many more times the number of courses as Macdonald did and his courses would host so many more national, regional and local championships as Macdonald’s courses to make that a ludicrous comparison.
I am NOT denigrating CB Macdonald nor the incredible National Golf Links of America. I am challenging the concept that Macdonald and NGLA ALONE was the seminal turning point in American Golf. It had a number of seminal moments and persons whose designs and courses have served as inspirations for generations of designers and players.
-
David,
Who was golfing at NGLA in 1909? Macdonald? Whigham?? Emmett??
Please specify WHO was playing at NGLA. Please cite specifics.
Didn't we go over this repeatedly ad nauseum prior?
Why did Macdonald have a dry-run opening tournament with about a dozen friends in July 1910 to get their feedback on the course and then not have a formal opening of the course til 14 months later??
Why did men like Travis write their reviews of the course upon opening in 1911 instead of when it was supposedly open in 1909??
Are you saying that George Bahto's book is wrong??
Philip,
Can't you get it straight?
CB Macdonald influenced EVERYBODY on the planet when he opened NGLA, whether they had already designed and built golf courses prior or not. Whether they already had about 10 times more direct study of the great holes and courses abroad than he did they were still just knuckleheads waiting for him to come down from the mountaintop with the tablets..
Whether they disagreed wholly with his template theory of design or not! Whether they wrote extensively of their disagreement with his approach or not! ::) ;)
Hugh Wilson had already been on the Green Committee of the brand new course at Princeton while it was being designed and built as far back as 1901, and had played virtually every course of note in the US during his college and amateur competitive career for the next decade prior to Merion yet David takes Wilson's very humble and modest statement that was meant as a gracious compliment to Macdonald and tries to make him look like a complete dunderheaded ignoramus.
Get it right Philip...EVERY person in the US at the time...even those who visited Europe repeatedly to play golf like Robert Lesley and Tillinghast and countless others....even those who came from Scotland directly like Findlay and Bendelow...ALL of them had not a single clue about what a good golf hole was like until they had their empty simpleton minds filled with all that is good from CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. ;)
Say it with me...despite his countless visits abroad and his friendship with Old Tom Morris and all the guys in Scotland at the time, Tillinghast was a babbling idiot until Macdonald set him straight. ;D
Ya know...sometimes you can't fight religion. ;)
-
Paul,
Thank you for that quote. It appeals to me greatly. Colt remains my favorite architect. There are other contemporary accounts critical of Macdonald. I'll try to find some. By the way, Hutchinson was very critical of Macdonald's Shinnecock Hills.
Hutchinson visited Shinnecock in 1910, prior to Macdonald and/or Raynor redesigning the course.
Pat,
So you like the old sandy waste areas of the lower holes at Creek Club. Well, they were by Flynn and not Macdonald or Raynor.
I have an aerial of The Creek shortly after the course was built (pre-Flynn) and it clearly shows sandy waste areas on #9, #10, #12, #13 and #14.
Hutchinson published his book Fifty Years of Golf in 1919. Did he travel to the United States in between his 1910 visit and the book publication? If not, why didn't he mention that the course had changed significantly between his earlier visit and publication? It certainly is misleading.
Please tell me why you posted the and/or before Raynor in your attribution. How do you know that Raynor was involved at all in the design or that perhaps Macdonald was not at all?
As for the Creek Club, the date of the photograph you referenced is wrong. There was no sand other than a few formalized fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers prior to 1927. Macdonald was out of the club and Raynor was dead. You should be more careful with the dates of photographs. You should also contact the club and speak to someone who knows the course history 1000x better than you do. You wouldn't make so many mistakes. And I can prove you wrong, courtesy of my good friend, a valuable resource you fail to acknowledge.
Here's a clue for you to provide all the proof you need to realize how wrong you are. Tennis courts.
-
Tom,
Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not play the best courses in America in the time period of 1897-1910?
Mike
Was I unclear? I'm saying he did not play Myopia while playing for Princeton and played GCGC prior to Travis (and Barker's) historic redesign.
-
I have an aerial photograph from 1923-24 (it was published in 1924) that shows the huge expanse of sand. From what I understand Flynn was engaged by the Creek in 1927. When you look at the photo it is pretty obvious its not Flynn, the sand does not create any segregated fairways, just huge blocks of solid sand separating those holes. Another interesting feature of that early course the 17th green is totally surrounding by sand, the green is in effect an island (a fairly common feature with Macdonald's Short holes). I'm not sure who altered that or when, but it isn't like that today or a couple of years ago when I visited.
Hutchinson published his book Fifty Years of Golf in 1919. Did he travel to the United States in between his 1910 visit and the book publication? If not, why didn't he mention that the course had changed significantly between his earlier visit and publication? It certainly is misleading.
He did not travel to the US after 1910. The book is his memoir, he clearly explains what years he came to the US. Its not confusing in the least if you've read the entire book. In the forward HGH explains the book was written in 1914 (also prior to Macdonald at Shinne) and explains why it was not published until 1919.
Please tell me why you posted the and/or before Raynor in your attribution. How do you know that Raynor was involved at all in the design or that perhaps Macdonald was not at all?
I have no special knowledge of who did what at Shinnecock. Raynor and Macdonald were a team, sometimes Raynor was the designer and Macdonald acted as consultant, sometimes CBM is the designer and Raynor in charge of construction. I was just trying to cover my bases.
As for the Creek Club, the date of the photograph you referenced is wrong. There was no sand other than a few formalized fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers prior to 1927. Macdonald was out of the club and Raynor was dead. You should be more careful with the dates of photographs. You should also contact the club and speak to someone who knows the course history 1000x better than you do. You wouldn't make so many mistakes. And I can prove you wrong, courtesy of my good friend, a valuable resource you fail to acknowledge.
My photo is not wrong. It was published in a magazine, and I don't believe TE's time machine had been invented yet.
Here's a clue for you to provide all the proof you need to realize how wrong you are. Tennis courts.
What tennis courts? I don't see them.
-
What magazine was this aerial published in? Could the photo you have be made during construction? If you have a 1923/1924 photograph showing sand in the areas you indicated, you ought to bring it to the attention of the club.
In 1926 there was no sand in the area between 9 and 12 and also along 13 and 14. Of course the 10th hole, being on the beach had sand around it as did the 11th green.
Tennis courts were built for the club to the left of the 5th green in 1927. There are multiple sources to confirm this. Also the beach road was not yet put in where it is today. The dating of our photograph (we do not have permission to post it due in part to copyright issues) is clearly sometime prior to 1927 and Flynn's work. Again, the aerial photograph that shows no sand between 9 and 12 and along 13 and 14 and is certainly prior to the tennis courts being built.
-
"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910. After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works.
Funny isn't it? Hutchinson and Macdonald visit Myopia, and as a result of their single visit Myopia immediately began making changes to to the course based on Hutchinson's criticisms. Sounds to me like Leeds was the one being influenced by Hutchinson and his like-minded traveling companion, not the other way around."
No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?
This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?
-
What magazine was this aerial published in? Could the photo you have be made during construction? If you have a 1923/1924 photograph showing sand in the areas you indicated, you ought to bring it to the attention of the club.
In 1926 there was no sand in the area between 9 and 12 and also along 13 and 14. Of course the 10th hole, being on the beach had sand around it as did the 11th green.
Tennis courts were built for the club to the left of the 5th green in 1927. There are multiple sources to confirm this. Also the beach road was not yet put in where it is today. The dating of our photograph (we do not have permission to post it due in part to copyright issues) is clearly sometime prior to 1927 and Flynn's work. Again, the aerial photograph that shows no sand between 9 and 12 and along 13 and 14 and is certainly prior to the tennis courts being built.
Wayne
There are no tennis courts in my aerial. Basically everything is sand beyond the fairways and greens at 9, 12, 13 and 14. I just noticed what appear to be wooden bridges over the sand connecting the 12th and 13th tees to their fairways.
Its kind of cool the way the creek cuts through the sand between 13 and 14, and then turns toward the 13th green. #13 must have been something else back then.
-
Phil - thanks much for that post. It was very useful on a lot of fronts, including re: Old Tom's influence (on Tillie for example), which I'd been wondering about. The last paragraph from your last post articulates a reasonable view of Macdonald's and NGLA's influence, IMHO.
David - we must be misunderstanding eachother, and talking about different (an increasingly different) things as the thread progressed. That's too bad - I think a question like what happened to an awareness of fundamental principles during the so-called dark ages is worth asking (even if others already know the answer) -- but maybe not on this thread.
Peter
-
"They were golfing at NGLA in 1909, so how can you say that Shawnee and NGLA were being built at the same time?
How can you call NGLA "very unfinished" at this point in time? What is your basis for your claim? Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?"
"By the way, when Horace Hutchinson visited America on Lord Brasseys yacht in 1910 he spent a week with me at Roslyn and three or four days at Southampton. Together we made a study of the National, and I received much valuable advice. I listened attentively to everything he suggested----where the bunkers should be placed, where undulations should be created on the putting greens, etc, etc. I know he impressed on me that the human mind could not devise undulations superior to those of nature, saying that if I wished to make undulations on the greens to take a number of pebbles in my hand and drop them on a minuature space representing a putting green on a small scale, releasing them, and as they dropped on the diagram, place the undulations according to their fall. This I did for some of the National greens where I had no copies of the original undulations which nature had made on the great greens of the world."
How can one call NGLA "very unfinished" in 1909, Mr. Moriarty??
One simple way would be to read Macdonald's own words including the appropriate dates regarding his own words very carefully and consider what they mean. Maybe you consider a golf course "finished" and ready to be opened for play before green surface undulations are designed and created, including the necessary app one year to allow the grass to "grow in" on those greens but obviously Macdonald didn't and I doubt anyone else did or would who has even a modicum of commonsense and logic!
Oh don't worry, I have every confidence you will think of something to rationalize away how mistaken you are. Isn't the most important thing on here to never have to admit you're incorrect? ;) It is not really us who's showing you don't have much crediblilty with the things you say on here----you continue to do an excellent job of showing why that is yourself.
-
Who inspired Tilly to want to design golf courses? The answer is Old Tom Morris. After tilly came back from the 2nd of his trips to the UK (St. Andrews was but one of his stops) he wrote about the close relationship that he developed with Old Tom. He published this in the earliest known, and what may actually be his first, published articles in his writing career in 1898. Yet it was what happened when he came back that summer before he wrote his article in GOLF magazine that also contains photographs of Old Tom, St. Andrews and other players and places that speaks to this influence. For when he came back, Tilly designed and built his first golf course.
Phil
Tilly was clearly impressed with Old Tom the golf icon, but did he equate golf architecture with Old Tom? Tell us the story about Tilly's first course (perhaps its own thread so as not to sidetrack this one).
-
Tom MacWood,
Are you going to tell the Creek Club where they can obtain the 1923/1924 aerial photograph and I assume accompanying article or not? I asked you where the photograph was published. You did not answer. You don't have to tell me or anyone associated with me, but I know for certain having spoken to a member there that they would be very interested in obtaining a copy of the photograph. In fact, the gentleman I spoke with assisted you in your visit to the Creek Club. Perhaps you will repay the consideration.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Wayne Morrison asked you what magazine you claim that 1923-4 aerial of The Creek is in? Are you going to consider answering that or are you going to ignore it and launch into another of your cat and mouse games as you have with Myopia and your claim that Willie Campbell designed their original nine?
If that really is an aerial from around 1923 or 1924 and it shows sand in the areas you describe the club would like to know about it, as it might help solve something of a riddle we have just discovered with the discovery of another aerial from apparently 1926.
I realize with this ridiculous "Pledge" you've made you may not want to help me on this issue but I am working on this course with Gil Hanse for the club. If you don't want to make this information available to me or the club maybe you'd consider doing it for Gil Hanse. If you want his contact information, I'd be happy to provide it. Or you might want to consider providing it to Craig Disher who works with us on the USGA Architecture Archive and on The Creek for aerial analysis. I'd be glad to provide you his contact info too.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Wayne Morrison asked you what magazine you claim that 1923-4 aerial of The Creek is in? Are you going to consider answering that or are you going to ignore it and launch into another of your cat and mouse games as you have with Myopia and your claim that Willie Campbell designed their original nine?
If that really is an aerial from around 1923 or 1924 and it shows sand in the areas you describe the club would like to know about it, as it might help solve something of a riddle we have just discovered with the discovery of another aerial from apparently 1926.
I realize with this ridiculous "Pledge" you've made you may not want to help me on this issue but I am working on this course with Gil Hanse for the club. If you don't want to make this information available to me or the club maybe you'd consider doing it for Gil Hanse. If you want his contact information, I'd be happy to provide it. Or you might want to consider providing it to Craig Disher who works with us on the USGA Architecture Archive and on The Creek for aerial analysis. I'd be glad to provide you his contact info too.
TE
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.
-
TEPaul,
You said to David: No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?
How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1911/ag54j.pdf
-
It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here. No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position. I wish a long lost relative of CBM (or at least zealous supporter of all he ever did) would show up and unreasonably stand his ground despite the facts just so he could be on equal footing.
Phillip,
I agree that Tillinghast turned out to be a terrific designer and was a major force in gca in America. As you say, within a few years after Shawnee he was a design muckity-muck. But he wasnt in 1906-1907 when just idea of NGLA was already being covered on two continents. He wasn't in 1909, when they started golfing at NGLA. He wasnt in in 1911 when, with the completion of the clubhouse, NGLA was "formally" opened.
Shawnee and NGLA were not designed and built "at the same time." NGLA was designed and built first, and they were golfing on NGLA before AWT started building Shawnee. Surely in 1909 and 1910 Tillie was considering more than just the contours of the ground around Shawnee. He of all people was not living in a design vacuum.
It is imprecise and innacurate just to expand the dates to your liking then say they were all equally responsible for the change in direction of golf in the US. There was a chronology, and you are mis-using the "formal" opening date of NGLA to blur that chronology and make it appear that Tillie and Macdonald were doing their thing at the exact same time, as you do when you write . . .
. . . The question then is, was the design of Shawnee influenced by Macdonald and NGLA?
Besides the obvious answer being that it would have been pretty near impossible for it to have for the simple fact that it was designed and built at the same time and officially opened some 4 months before the NGLA, consider Tilly's own words on the matter.
It was not "pretty near impossible." NGLA was designed and built (not successfully grown in, but built) before Tillie did a thing at Shawnee. You can't just pretend that they were simultaneous events based on the "formal" opening date.
I asked you twice when NGLA became influential in golf design. You did not answer but instead asked me questions about Oakmont.
When did NGLA first become influential in golf design? Before or after Tillinghast built Shawnee?
You state "I DO KNOW that whenever [AWT] first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least…"
Such a thing would be impossible for you to "KNOW" unless you were Tillie, and maybe even impossible then. You are not Tillinghast. You don't know.
As I should realize more around this nut-house, oftentimes we are more influenced by our adversaries than our allies. This is especially true when like Tillie one is trying to create an independent name for himself. But whether he knew it or not Tillie owed CBM bigtime. They all did.
And if you think that Tillie and CBM were really that far apart in their views in this very early period, then I suggest you don't understand CBM as well as you apparently think you do.
______________________________________
Mike Cirba,
I don't care who was golfing at NGLA in 1909. My understanding of the historical record is that Macdonald and others were golfing on NGLA's course in 1909. Surely I can reasonably come to this understanding without having to produce scorecards for you. Try Macdonald's own book, for example. Or his other writings on the subject. Or Bahto's book.
You ask if Bahto's book is wrong? Not where he says they were golfing at NGLA in 1909. There were plenty of reviews of NGLA prior to its "formal opening." You've even posted at least one of them.
As for the 14th month wait before the "formal opening" of the club, my understanding is that the club was not formally opened until the clubhouse was completed. But the golf course had been around for a few years before then.
Besides, what is your point? You seem to be denying that he course and designer were hugely influential before the "formal" opening of the club. Such a denial is untenable.
_________________________
TEPaul,
You are wrong about the timing and impetus for the work at Myopia. Just read the source material.
As for NGLA, Macdonald was in contact with Hutchinson, receiving advice throughout. Not just at the 1910 visit. They were playing on the course in 1909 and in 1910. Revisions were already being made. But you act as if it was still under major construction. This is not the case.
-
Just because I came across this article this morning en route to other topics ...
American Golfer, August 1910
"Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.
"At the invitation of some of the founders, a number of players took part in a tournament which informally marked the opening of the course on July 2, 3 and 4, and some grand golf was witnessed. At present the greens are a little on the rough side, as is naturally to be expected, seeing that they are only a little over two years old, but they are sufficiently advanced to compare favorably with many others which have been down for years, and in the course of another season or two will unquestionably approximate perfection. With the exception of one or two holes the fair green is also good, and it is only a question of another season before these will be brought into prime shape and the whole course in first class condition."
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/NGLAfirstplayers.jpg)
Can you name the participants?
-
No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?
This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?
All this is wrong. You are simply wrong about your information.
Why go into such hysterics when you clearly do not have your facts straight?
_____________________________________________
JMorgan,
Thanks for bringing up that article again.
It seems everyone has an agenda for pushing back NGLA's history, and it is nice to be reminded of the facts occasionally.
As for the participants, I think I see Lynn Shackelford and Patrick Mucci.
-
David
Please turn to pages 68 + 69 in George's book and re-read.
I've typed it before on another thread and am on a blackberry so typing is a bit of a chore.
It starts, "On July 2 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational tournament was held for a select groip of founders and friends invited to participate."
If you're going to contend that NGLA was hugely influential prior to then, I think its only fair to tell us who played it before then.
-
JM
I see Macdonald and Travis sitting next to each other, and Dev Emmet in short sleeves and no tie. He was obviously about forty years ahead of his time. One of those guys - middle back row - is Max Berh I think. And to the right in the background are two shadowy figures, one appears to be holding a glass of Merlot and the other is urinating.
-
Unfortunately, as Peter intimates, this thread has taken a turn for the worse. There are a handful of guys who just can't let anything go and it is plainly clear that the motives are more personal than instructive. Is there really much point in squabbling over days, weeks, months in these debates? Given the obviously large gaps in nearly all the records, I find it remarkable that such bickering could continue. Personally, I think Peter's question(s) is more apt for a discussion.
Ciao
-
"TEPaul,
You are wrong about the timing and impetus for the work at Myopia. Just read the source material."
Mr. Moriarty:
No sir, you're the one who is wrong. The impetus for the design and construction of what is Myopia's eighteen holes (today's eighteen holes) was as a result of the 1898 US Open which was played on what was referred to as "the Long Nine" and Leeds' desire for a proper eighteen after the US Open of 1898. The eighteen hole course was complete by the spring of 1900 and was tested in the spring of 1900 by British stars Taylor and Vardon. As a result of this Myopia was awarded the 1901 US Open which was played on the eighteen that is today's course. Two additional US Opens were played on this course by 1908.
That you still try to deny this clear fact is additional reason for your rapidly declining crediblity as a researcher and golf architecture analysis of this interesting era, Mr. Moriarty. I expected you to try to rationalize this away somehow but I didn't really expect you to deny something this obvious. You are doing this to yourself, Mr. Moriarty, there is no question about it. It has nothing to do with any of us. We are merely pointing out the facts, as we have done with both Merion and NGLA!
Unfortunately, I'm afraid you will probably find that not even Mr. MacWood will support you on this with Myopia, Mr. Moriarty, but I would certainly not stipulate to even that at this point, seeing as how Mr. MacWood continues to play his cat and mouse games on all these subjects and all their threads, apparently now including Macdonald/Raynor's The Creek Club! Quite a pair of "independent, expert" researchers :o you two are! ::)
-
David
JMorgan's quoting of the article is consistent with George's book and what I wrote when he mentions the soft opening tournament in July 1910.
All of the major reviews...Travis, Darwin, Hutchinson, etal came 1910 or later.
What is it about the article that supports your position of the course being open for play in 1909?
-
Damn, I knew I should have posted the Liberty Bell Ball pics instead ... ;D ;D ;D
-
Tom, why the digression? We are discussing the changes made to the course. Here is what you wrote:
No, sir, Mr. Moriarty, it's more like downright hilarious that you think Myopia made the changes you just mentioned as a result of Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit in the summer of 1910. The fact is Leeds made those changes to the course which resulted in the way the course is today, including the 10th and 11th holes, a full ten years before Hutchinson and Macdonald visited Myopia. The course as it is today was used in three US Opens from 1901 to 1908. Again, that is not AFTER Hutichinson and Macdonald were there for that match Hutchinson described in that article, it was a decade before that. Do I need to explain to you what a decade is too?
This is exactly why anyone, and most certainly including you, needs to go to a course and understand IT and its history if they are going to even begin to consider anything about it comparatively from that early time. How ironic can it be how well you make my own point on that with the kind of factual misinformation on Myopia you just gave? Is it any wonder with this kind of modus operandi on your part that seemingly everyone, except you and Mr. MacWood, feel your essay on Merion is just riddled with the very same type of misinformation rendering your premises, inferences and conslusion falacious?
The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms.
________________________________
Mike Cirba,
In his book, Macdonald wrote that they began playing over the course tentatively in 1909. Bahto wrote the same thing in his book.
You mistakenly assume that the August 1910 tourney was some sort of inaugural play. It was not.
___________________________
Sean, I don't know why we are squabbling over the dates either. There is no legitimate dispute about the dates.
-
"How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:"
JimK:
Let me ask you how familiar you are with the architecture of Myopia? After that let's talk about what that article really says about the details of those changes to the course after Hutchinson's 1910 visit. When you say above how do I explain how that article says 'many of those changes' happened in that timeframe, perhaps you should go back and read the article again as to what that article said those changes really were.
I think one of the most important aspects of that article is what it's author actually had to say about the nature of Horace Hutchinson's course critques of Myopia and GCGC. I think that can most certainly give us a pretty interesting contemporaneous glimpse of what an apparently important golf and architecture writer of that time thought of Hutchinson's critiques on American architecture. That he felt they were inconsistent is pretty crystal clear, to say the least.
On the other hand, that particular article is one of the very best contemporaneous ones I've ever seen regarding the importance of the so-called "amateur/sportman" architect compared to the Scottish professionals over here in that early time. The article is also very enlightening on the importance and significance of Myopia Hunt Club's course in that early time! ;)
-
Myopia was not the only course that was changed after Hutchinson and Macdonald's visit. Brookline & Essex County undertook major redesigns shortly after Hutchinson's critique. And in 1910 Donald Ross of Essex traveled to the UK for the expressed purpose of studying British golf architecture.
-
"Tom, why the digression? We are discussing the changes made to the course. Here is what you wrote:
The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms."
Mr. Moriarty:
No digression intended at all.
Then let's discuss the nature and detail of those changes apparently made following Hutchinson's 1910 visit to Myopia.
Do you feel you are sufficiently familiar with the details of what those changes were since you've never been to Myopia, have never observed any of its holes, have never stood on any of its holes to comment on the meaning of what was described by Bunker Hill in his article?
Furthermore, how do you feel about "Bunker Hills'" comments on the nature of Hutchinson's architectural critiques of Myopia and GCGC?
How do you feel about Hutchinson saying Myopia had too many blind shots when the fact is it never had as many as NGLA did and does now? Do you think perhaps Macdonald misunderstood Hutchinson and thought he said perhaps Myopia and NGLA did not have ENOUGH blind shots? ;)
Nevertheless, Bunker Hill's article most certainly does give us a most important contemporaneous glimpse of what American golf architectural analysts thought of the crtiques of some one from the other side such as Horace Hutchinson.
Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that American architects also began to criticize some of the things about Macdonald's architecture and to perhaps even attempt to marginalize Macdonald himself in the directions a number of them decided to go.
I, for one, believe and have always believed Macdonald to be a most important contributor to the history and evolution of American golf course architecture. What I'm getting really tired of, though, is your unsupportable attempts to exaggerate him and his legacy into something that everyone over here paid everlasting homage to in everything he said and did in architecture over here.
Bunker Hills article in American Golfer is excellent testimony to precisely what I mean by that. Perhaps you should read it again a few more times and begin to appreciate better what it really says and what it really means regarding this important era! ;)
-
Mr. MacWood:
You've never seen Myopia either, have you? Consequently, do you believe you are capable of really discussing the nature and detail of those changes to Myopia following Hutchinson's 1910 visit? If you've never seen the course, please tell me why and how you feel you're capable of understanding or contributing productively to such a discussion?
And what about Wayne Morrison's and my question to you regarding this 1923-24 aerial of The Creek Club you've recently mentioned on here? Are you going to just avoid and ignore that too and play another of your cat and mouse games of claiming you have something without producing it or explaining where the club or even architect Gil Hanse might find it? :P
-
Mr. MacWood:
You've never seen Myopia either, have you? Consequently, do you believe you are capable of really discussing the nature and detail of those changes to Myopia following Hutchinson's 1910 visit? If you've never seen the course, please tell me why and how you feel you're capable of understanding or contributing productively to such a discussion?
TE
Its never stopped before. I studied the evolution of Hollywood, Engineers, Quaker Ridge, GCGC and Bethpage all before ever stepping foot on the property. I'm capable of discussing the evolution of Myopia from the beginning through 1918 when Leeds stepped down....just not with you.
Playing the course doesn't give you any special historical insight as you have proven often.
-
"Tom, why the digression? We are discussing the changes made to the course. Here is what you wrote:
The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms."
Mr. Moriarty:
No digression intended at all.
Then let's discuss the nature and detail of those changes apparently made following Hutchinson's 1910 visit to Myopia.
Do you feel you are sufficiently familiar with the details of what those changes were since you've never been to Myopia, have never observed any of its holes, have never stood on any of its holes to comment on the meaning of what was described by Bunker Hill in his article?
Furthermore, how do you feel about "Bunker Hills'" comments on the nature of Hutchinson's architectural critiques of Myopia and GCGC?
How do you feel about Hutchinson saying Myopia had too many blind shots when the fact is it never had as many as NGLA did and does now? Do you think perhaps Macdonald misunderstood Hutchinson and thought he said perhaps Myopia and NGLA did not have ENOUGH blind shots? ;)
Nevertheless, Bunker Hill's article most certainly does give us a most important contemporaneous glimpse of what American golf architectural analysts thought of the crtiques of some one from the other side such as Horace Hutchinson.
Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that American architects also began to criticize some of the things about Macdonald's architecture and to perhaps even attempt to marginalize Macdonald himself in the directions a number of them decided to go.
I, for one, believe and have always believed Macdonald to be a most important contributor to the history and evolution of American golf course architecture. What I'm getting really tired of, though, is your unsupportable attempts to exaggerate him and his legacy into something that everyone over here paid everlasting homage to in everything he said and did in architecture over here.
Bunker Hills article in American Golfer is excellent testimony to precisely what I mean by that. Perhaps you should read it again a few more times and begin to appreciate better what it really says and what it really means regarding this important era! ;)
So let me get this straight . . . . You wrongly ridicule and mock me, declare unequivocally that I am wrong, say my errors are indicative of larger flaws in my approach to the material, throw in MacWood for good measure, take a few more baseless shots at my essay . . . When you finally realize that it was you who were wrong all along, you simply just adjust your scorn a bit, and go on baselessly criticizing me, MacWood, and now Jim Kennedy?
The problem here, Tom, is that you just that assume to be true what you want to be true, or draw your conclusions based on misleading or incomplete information. Same thing Wayne did with his repeated assertions that Hutchinson was critical of Macdonald's changes at Shinnecock.
As for Myopia, as you know I haven't played there. I have read about the course though, including a number of articles that were written before and after Hutchinson's visit.
-
"TE
Its never stopped before. I studied the evolution of Hollywood, Engineers, Quaker Ridge, GCGC and Bethpage all before ever stepping foot on the property. I'm capable of discussing the evolution of Myopia from the beginning through 1918 when Leeds stepped down....just not with you.
Playing the course doesn't give you any special historical insight as you have proven often."
Not just playing the course gives me an historical insight into the course in combination with understanding in detail both when and how it was created and evolved but it also gives me a visual indication and understanding of what a writer's description of the changes was and whether some of those descriptions were right or wrong. This is something you cannot possibly visualize or understand if you've never been on that ground and studied it at considerable length. If Myopia is anything it is most definitely not a flat site or course. To even remotely understand and appreciate what all its vertical dimensions mean to its architecture it's a must to visit and study that course on-ground.
Apparently, you just think you can say anything at all dont' you, Mr. MacWood, and that anyone or everyone should just believe it? This kind of dialogue really is proving your lack of credibility on here. I think it's necessary to finally prove that about you (and that other fellow) and I will not be pulling any punches in that vein from here on out, that's for sure.
If you don't want to discuss anything with me regarding Myopia, then what in the world have you been doing and are doing now? ??? Don't discuss it with me henceforth, then, but who are you going to discuss the evolution of this golf course with on here who's familiar with it? Are you going to discuss it with Mr. Moriarty who, like you, has never seen it either? ;)
That would be a most productive discussion, don't you think, Mr. MacWood----a couple of guys trying to act like they understand what these things look like on the ground without ever having been on its ground?
You two really are a couple of beauties, no question about it! ;)
How low are you and Mr. Moriarty really willing to see your crediblity sink on here?
-
Mr. Moriarty:
Vis-a-vis your last post, then try to explain THE DETAILS of this remark of yours about Myopia in detail:
"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910. After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works."
Furthermore, both you and Tom MacWood and perhaps even Jim Kennedy might want to try another analysis of what "Bunker Hill" really said about the nature and consistency and apparently the value of Hutchinson's 1910 architectural critiques of GCGC and Myopia in 1910.
It may help your understanding, and certainly Mr. MacWood's of this important era as well for you both to consider again what Bunker Hill said about those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (He referred to them as those men who just did it for the love of it) and their importance to this time and its best architecture.
Mr. MacWood has referred to that particular subject on here a few times as "My Schtick". ;) ??? ::)
-
Mr. Moriarty:
Vis-a-vis your last post, then try to explain THE DETAILS of this remark of yours about Myopia in detail:
"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910. After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works."
Furthermore, both you and Tom MacWood and perhaps even Jim Kennedy might want to try another analysis of what "Bunker Hill" really said about the nature and consistency and apparently the value of Hutchinson's 1910 architectural critiques of GCGC and Myopia in 1910.
It may help your understanding, and certainly Mr. MacWood's of this important era as well for you both to consider again what Bunker Hill said about those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (He referred to them as those men who just did it for the love of it) and their importance to this time and its best architecture.
Mr. MacWood has referred to that particular subject on here a few times as "My Schtick". ;) ??? ::)
The "DETAILS" of the changes to the 10th at Myopia made after Macdonald's and Hutchinson's visit, but it is all covered either in the article Jim posted, or in other writings from around the same time.
-
Yes, the details of the change made to #10 is discussed in that article seemingly in detail. Since I believe I've read everything from all American Golfers and Golf Illustrated on the courses I'm interested in beginning a number of years ago, I do admit when I first ran across that description of the shot into #10 a few years ago I thought it must have been talking about the old original "Alps" hole at Myopia.
Then, I realized a few years ago since the original Alps hole at Myopia went out of existence before 1900 when Leeds designed and created this eighteen hole course that it was all about the approach shot to the present 10th green. A bunch of us were out there last year discussing and trying to imagine what that must have been like and what it must have played like.
None of us around today will ever be able to imagine that (or I can't since I've never seen and on-ground photo of it back then), but certainly some of us who know the course can comment intelligently about what it looks like and plays like now. Would you like to comment on that in detail, Mr. Moriarty?
Is it important to be able to comment on these things in detail now? Sure it is, in my opinion, and for a number of reasons.
First, that's what we do on here---eg comment on all kinds of details on architecture, past, present and future.
Second, it is very important to an overall understanding of that time what some of the contemporary commentators thought about architecture and also what they thought about the architectural opinions of others.
Third, we are getting through this article of Bunker Hills' what he thought about the opinions and critques of various golf courses over here from Hutchinson, an Englishman, and how inconsistent he thought his opinions were.
Fourth, I think this is most important to know----eg an important American architectural analyst's (Bunker Hill) opinion of a guy like Hutchinson, and particularly considering that we seem to have a few on this website who are trying to make it look like a man like Hutchinson and his opinions were roundly admired by all over there and over here.
This article makes it pretty clear that was not exactly the case over here then.
Lastly, I personally wish the approach to present #10 (The Alps) never had been changed. I think the present nuances of the approach today are excellent (again would you like to describe it in detail, Mr. Moriarty? ;) ) and I realize it may not have been quite as dramatic as the totally blind second shot to the wonderful #3 (The Alps) at NGLA but at least it would've been closer to that than it is today.
Of course this does beg the question of why Hutchinson never said anything critical about the totally blind approach shot to NGLA's "Alps" but he did about Myopia's! ???
Bunker Hill was exactly right----not very consistent in his architectural analysis that England's Horace Hutchinson!
-
How about the other "slight" changes that were apparently made after Hutchinson? Why don't you try to discuss those in detail Messers Moriarty and MacWood? Can you give us any intelligent opinion on either of them and what they may've meant?
-
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.
LET EVERYONE ON THIS SITE KNOW THAT TOM MACWOOD WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO CREEK CLUB BASED UPON A HINT OF INFORMATION HE REFERENCED ON THIS SITE. HE REFUSED TO SHARE WHAT HE CLAIMS IS SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION OF CREEK CLUB; EVEN WITH THE CLUB ITSELF, NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF TOM PAUL. HE WON'T EVEN INDICATE THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE CLUB SO IT MIGHT OBTAIN THE INFORMATION ON THEIR OWN.
AND THIS POSITION IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLUB'S HISTORIAN ARRANGING THE PRIVILEGE OF MACWOOD TO VISIT THE CLUB AND WALK THE COURSE. HE DOES NOT DESERVE FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS. I'D KEEP HIM OUTSIDE THE GATES LOOKING IN FROM NOW ON. HE SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED FROM PRIVATE CLUBS FOR HIS ARROGANCE AND DISDAIN FOR THOSE THAT HELP HIM.
-
Sherlock (aka TEPaul)
If you and your arch-enemy Moriarty want to dust it up be my guest, but I asked you a civil question about apparent discrepancies in what you said about the time frame of changes that occurred after HH visited Myopia and what was reported in the link I posted.
I don't really think I need to see Myopia to ask that simple question, do I?
-
I don't mean to be a pest about this, but how's come no one on this site ever picks on Flynn's fixation with saucers?
Bradley,
A very fair question. In researching Flynn's courses, he certainly did have some simple bunker outlines. However, his bunker style was as broad as any architect and the range of his bunkers would astound most people. In general, the saucer look was an evolved look dictated by maintenance practices and not by design. I'll put together a set of architectural drawings and construction era photographs to show you what I mean. It may take me a few days to get to it, but if you remind me, I would be delighted to show you.
Flynn's range of bunkerings included simple bunker shapes (strategically situated) to complicated natural looking bunker edges to undulating sandy waste areas. I'll try to put together a representative sampling to illustrate this position.
WSM
-
“I don't really think I need to see Myopia to ask that simple question, do I?”
JimK:
Of course not, but if you wanted to discuss in detail what those changes mean it would certainly be necessary to see Myopia, in my opinion,
You said:
"How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:"
What I was trying to explain, JimK, is the article did not say there were many changes made as a result of Hutchinson’s opinions, it says one important one was made and two other “slight” ones.
To be honest with you I can hardly imagine what Bunker Hill is talking about regarding #5. If anyone could see that hole they’d likely understand what I mean by that.
-
Tom Paul, the point you were trying to make was that the changes had occurred earlier, but you were wrong about this.
The articles leave no doubt that the changes were made consequent to Macdonald and Hutchinson's visit. Same at Essex and The Country Club.
Not sure what you think lording your access to these places adds to the discussion, other than to give insight into you. If anything our access has been a hindrance to your understanding of these clubs' histories.
-
David,
As usual you make a number of statements and complaints and yet will not give consideration that the very thing you are complaining about is what you yourself are doing. You make statements and put words in peoples mouths that are untrue, as you have with me on this thread, and when then take umbrage when they are challenged and denied?
And then you cry out in frustration “It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here…” when it is incumbent upon you as much as all others to create the conversation yet immediately you state it isn’t your fault but the other person’s. And how do you do this? By INSULTING that other person.
“No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position…” Sorry David, my position isn’t absurd. It’s Factually correct, historically accurate and it is YOU who is being absurd and not giving an inch, although I reserve that you have the right not to, UNLIKE yourself who by that very statement demands that others do.
So once again I must defend what I stated to you not in the nature of the conversation that you claim you are seeking but by having to DENY your claims of what I said.
You first begin by stating “I agree that Tillinghast turned out to be a terrific designer and was a major force in gca in America. As you say, within a few years after Shawnee he was a design muckity-muck. But he wasnt in 1906-1907… He wasn’t in 1909… He wasnt in in 1911…”
I agree completely with that and always have… That doesn’t mean that 1911 and Shawnee wasn’t seminal and that it can’t be pointed to as part of the major changing of golf in America. THAT IS WHAT I STATED. And I didn’t stop there, I STATED that it was in this time period which, by the way I DIDN’T define but believe is from the mid-1900’s to early teens, that golf architecture and course designing in America to a giant leap forward. This doesn’t denigrate Macdonald and NGLA, rather it celebrates them as a major part of it.
“Shawnee and NGLA were not designed and built "at the same time." NGLA was designed and built first, and they were golfing on NGLA before AWT started building Shawnee.”
Sorry David, but NGLA & Shawnee were both designed and built in the same time period as I have consistently spoken about. Secondly, Shawnee, as I showed in an earlier post, was most definitely being designed and worked on in 1908 BEFORE ANY PLAY was being conducted on NGLA! That sure sounds pretty contemporaneous to me.
“Surely in 1909 and 1910 Tillie was considering more than just the contours of the ground around Shawnee. He of all people was not living in a design vacuum.”
Of course he wasn’t, and part of not living in that design vacuum was his own discussions with his friend Charley during this very time about design philosophy and his disagreement with CB’s, and it is Tilly himself who wrote that he spoke to him and disagreed with him during those days. Of course, I guess Tilly’s own words aren’t good enough for you.
“It is imprecise and inaccurate just to expand the dates to your liking then say they were all equally responsible for the change in direction of golf in the US. There was a chronology, and you are mis-using the "formal" opening date of NGLA to blur that chronology and make it appear that Tillie and Macdonald were doing their thing at the exact same time…”
Sorry David, but I NEVER “expanded the dates to my liking” as you claim. The dates are there for all to see and so are the works of a number of architects who arose to prominence at this same time. It is imprecise and inaccurate of you to deny this. THAT is the reason I mentioned BOTH OAKMONT and PINEHURST #2 which were designed and built just BEFORE NGLA. BOTH were written about as major works BEFORE NGLA was. And yes, once more, the design of Shawnee was DEFINITELY NOT IN ANY WAY INFLUENCED BY NGLA & CBM. For you to even imply such, and you have done far more than that, shows that you have little to no knowledge of Tilly at this time and later on and certainly none as to the creation of Shawnee.
“I asked you twice when NGLA became influential in golf design. You did not answer but instead asked me questions about Oakmont.” Yes, you did ask me. Unlike the rest of your response I most certainly DID answer you. Just as with Tilly’s work at Shawnee and Ross’s work at Pinehurst and others, it became “influential” following its opening. It certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built.
Now of course you’re thinking I am probably blaspheming here by that statement, so let me ask you this. Name a SINGLE GOLF COURSE anywhere in America whose design was changed by what was happening at NGLA BEFORE IT OPENED FOR PLAY.
You can’t because there wasn’t any.
Which architect had more major courses designed and built by 1920? As I mentioned earlier Tilly had so many more that the comparison isn’t even a reasonable one. Yet it then begs the question that if Macdonald and NGLA was this SINGULSR seminal all-changing moment in golf course architecture in America, WHY WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN SO?
EVERYONE would have been flocking to CB’s door and not the large numbers that sought out Tilly & Ross and others at this time.
I admitted not knowing when Tilly first played NGLA or, for that matter, if he EVER played it. I assume that he did at some point. You make a big deal out of this and yet YOU yourself, despite all of your demands that I name this date, NEVER produce it yourself. WHY is that? Possibly because you don’t know and by the focus on my stating as such it somehow reinforces your belief?
I answered you, now you answer me… When DID Tilly play NGLA for the first time. Believe it or not this is a genuine question as I would really like to know the answer.
You follow this by the comment about me that, “You state ‘I DO KNOW that whenever [AWT] first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least…’”
You follow this with one of the most ridiculous statements that I have seen on GCA in a long time. “Such a thing would be impossible for you to ‘KNOW’ unless you were Tillie, and maybe even impossible then…”
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for TILLY to know what TILLY believed? You strain all credibility with that.
You go on with “You are not Tillinghast. You don't know.” You are correct, I am not Tillinghast. You are wrong when you state that I don’t know (and this is in reference to Tilly’s differences of opinion about design philosophy and course construction with CBM as well as whether or not CBM & NGLA influenced the design and building of Shawnee). I most definitely DO! I have produced Tilly’s own words on the subject in general and SPECIFIC and yet you ignore them completely.
You then blatantly and arrogantly insult me and Tilly himself. “As I should realize more around this nut-house, oftentimes we are more influenced by our adversaries than our allies. This is especially true when like Tillie one is trying to create an independent name for himself…”
David, you began these particular comments of yours by stating, “It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here… No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position…”
David, look in the mirror for a change. When a child has continuous problems getting along with all of his classmates it almost always really is that child’s fault.
You now close with two statements. The first is every bit the type of the MOST ABSURD POSITION that you accuse others on here of creating when you state, “But whether he knew it or not Tillie owed CBM bigtime. They all did…” Absurd… totally absurd. Tilly never received a single commission because of CBM. He never designed in the manner or philosophy of CBM he did so many more courses and more recognized great courses than CBM; yet you state that HE owed CBM “big-time?” Beyond ludicrous!
The other statement, “And if you think that Tillie and CBM were really that far apart in their views in this very early period, then I suggest you don't understand CBM as well as you apparently think you do…”
No David, I readily admit that I don’t know as much about CBM as many others do and have much to learn. Unfortunately, I DO KNOW FAR MORE about Tilly as both a man and a designer than anything that you can consider. I don’t have to suggest, I can unequivocally state that you don’t know Tilly or understand him as well as apparently you think you do…
Finally, agree or disagree with me, even doing so strongly is not just fine but proper and as it should be. The uncalled-for insults are not. You who have complained about others treating you in this manner are so quick to behave that way yourself.
It is YOU who can’t have a conversation when you do this…
-
Wayne:
I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. MacWood not wanting to help anyone associated with me including The Creek Club and Gil Hanse.
The primary reason I say that, at this point, is because since his return to this website some months ago, I can't see he's provided any information of even passing importance to anyone or any club or course, despite Mr. Moriarty's cheering his contributions on from the "cheap seats" of architectural analysis. Mr. MacWood's contention of Willie Campbell and Myopia is hardly important given what the club has to the contrary and this magazine article with a 1923-24 aerial of The Creek probably isn't very important either regarding sand on those lower holes. Frankly, Mr. MacWood doesn't even have any idea what the ramifications may be involving that.
I say that while having in mind one important exception----eg that article from an English magazine reporting Wilson abroad in 1912 that he produced a few months ago. I consider that to be of importance, even if it was not the thing that at first proved Wilson was abroad in the spring of 1912.
I consider the indication or even proof of that to be the ship passenger listing Mr. Moriarty discovered which I consider some proof insofar as to whatever extent a listing like that is reliable. Frankly, that particular contribution by Mr. Moriarty which I also consider very important but only in and of itself, certainly not important as to who designed Merion East, is probably the only thing he's produced of any importance to any club or golf course since he first came onto this website some years ago. The additional proof of that 1912 Wilson trip abroad is that letter from Richard Francis to Russell Oakley in the spring of 1912 that I went to the USGA this May to look through the files for something of that nature, even if I wasn't expecting that exactly---I was just trying to do a 1911 timeline on Wilson's whereabouts particularly in Philadelphia. That, in my opinion proved Wilson was over there then or clearly Francis would not have written that letter. Mr. MacWood's later discovery of that English magazine article merely reconfirmed what had already basically been proven but still, I consider that to be very a very important discovery.
Other than that important item that Mr. MacWood provided, I'm not sure any of these clubs need to consider Mr. MacWood's help or information regarding what he says he has.
But you are right in that his attitude to others isn't very cooperative or impressive, is it? ;)
-
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.
LET EVERYONE ON THIS SITE KNOW THAT TOM MACWOOD WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO CREEK CLUB BASED UPON A HINT OF INFORMATION HE REFERENCED ON THIS SITE. HE REFUSED TO SHARE WHAT HE CLAIMS IS SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION OF CREEK CLUB; EVEN WITH THE CLUB ITSELF, NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF TOM PAUL. HE WON'T EVEN INDICATE THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE CLUB SO IT MIGHT OBTAIN THE INFORMATION ON THEIR OWN.
AND THIS POSITION IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLUB'S HISTORIAN ARRANGING THE PRIVILEGE OF MACWOOD TO VISIT THE CLUB AND WALK THE COURSE. HE DOES NOT DESERVE FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS. I'D KEEP HIM OUTSIDE THE GATES LOOKING IN FROM NOW ON. HE SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED FROM PRIVATE CLUBS FOR HIS ARROGANCE AND DISDAIN FOR THOSE THAT HELP HIM.
LET IT BE KNOWN, UNLIKE SOME, GAINING ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MY MOTIVATION FOR STUDYING GOLF ARCHITECTURE HISTORY. THE CREEK IS IN GOOD HANDS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND TE IS WORKING WITH THE CLUB RIGHT NOW AND HAS WORKED WITH THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN HE WROTE THEIR ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION.
LET IT ALSO BE KNOWN I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HELP TE OR ANYONE OR ANY BODY ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. CAN WE STOP YELLING NOW?
-
"Tom Paul, the point you were trying to make was that the changes had occurred earlier, but you were wrong about this."
No, Mr. Moriarty, even if you may think you know what the point was I was trying to make better than I do ;)---the point I was trying to make is that the golf course is really pretty much the same today as it was in 1900. I thought you were trying to say that the eighteen hole course we know today did not occur until after 1910. When you said it was 'very different' then that's what I thought you were referring to. That is not the case.
On the other hand, Herbert Leeds did have a most interesting method of collecting information and ideas as to how to improve the course and a pretty interesting way of going about it. Ironically, it wasn't too much different from the way W.C. Fownes went about improving and evolving Oakmont over the years; and that would not be unusual at all since all these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers from that time who were so important to the early development of American architecture, and who fascinate me so much, knew one another pretty well. It was a small and very tight fraternity back then for a lot of interesting historical reasons!
And I think the salient point to understand and take from this interesting time and those interesting group of "amateur/sportsmen" architects is that they never turned to the likes of the immigrant Scot professionals such as Willie Campbell and H.H. Barker.
They turned basically to one another and perhaps the primary reason, as Bunker Hill (obviously a pretty important and savy observer of that early time) mentioned in this article posted on here, WAS THAT they felt the work of those early Scottish immigrants and perhaps what they knew (or didn't really know as Bunker Hill mentioned) just wasn't any good and consequently they weren't worth turning to for conceptual architecture and design ideas. Macdonald, himself, essentially said as much and I think just about all those other "amateur/sportsmen" designers of his ilk felt the same way back then.
I also believe that began to change into the teens and particularly after WW1, also for a number of interesting and important historical reasons, and that would seem to be the reason why none of them or any others like them really started another long-term project after that like Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley, all of which are still considered today some of the greatest and most important golf course architecure ever done! ;)
-
As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.
Which 10, Pat?
Cherry Hills
Boca Raton
Kittansett
Atlantic City (pre & post Doak)
Seaview (pre & post Marriott)
Springdale
Woodcrest
Shinnecock Hills
Green Valley
Lehigh
Remodels
Columbia
Woodmont
TCC
PV
The Creek
Glen Head
Westchester
Merion
-
"LET IT ALSO BE KNOWN I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HELP TE OR ANYONE OR ANY BODY ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. CAN WE STOP YELLING NOW?"
Of course we can stop yelling now, Mr. MacWood. On that note, I will personally ask Wayne if he would mind not using all capital letters on here. It was Wayne who was the only one yelling and the reason for that is he really does have such a wonderful stentorian voice when he allows it to air out in full throat. As for me, I've been using small letters with the occassional capital in the beginning of sentences (If I didn't do that I fear my first grade English teacher at Seabreeze Private School in Daytona Beach, Florida, the incomparable and awesome Miss Dull, might come back and haunt me). I tend to speak rather sotto voce all the time---the only exception being when my wife tries to tell me I'm wrong about something.
Again, it really doesn't matter to me and us on here and others with me who are involved in these projects. The important research for these projects has never been done on this website anyway (other than perhaps an occasional question and such which has never amounted to more than perhaps 1% of research input).
You don't do these kinds of projects apparently either because you don't know how or you just don't want to or both, so don't worry about not helping me or anyone I'm associated with including the likes of Gil Hanse. I'm quite sure all of understand we've done just fine without your help and will continue to do fine without it in the future. :-*
-
[quoe]“Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?”
I agree with that, so I HAVE to ask why don’t you? After all it was YOU who stated in response to my quoting CBM and his writing on when the Links opened for play that, “NGLA "formally" opened when the clubhouse opened. Kind of hard to have a national club in the boonies without at clubhouse, don't you think?” If you think the state of the clubhouse is IRRELEVENT, WHY did you just state the opposite in your earlier response?[/quote]
[color-green]
The date the clubhouse officially opened is irrelevant because they lacked sufficient funds to consider building a club house and intended to use the Shinnecock Inn as the initial clubhouse since it was located so close to the current 10th tee and 9th green.
Mike Cirba,
MacDonald reported that a competition was held in 1909 amongst some 20 of his friends. He mentions John M Ward, Fred Herreshoff, W. T Tuckerman and Robert Watson, along with himself. I would imagine that it was an impressive group.
-
"Not sure what you think lording your access to these places adds to the discussion, other than to give insight into you. If anything our access has been a hindrance to your understanding of these clubs' histories."
I believe I've explained that a number of times Mr. Moriarty. I think a real familiarity with a golf course itself including the ethos of its membership and administration historically and otherwise lends a most important element to truly understanding a course and its architecture. When one, at any time or era, writes about the architecture of a course and particularly changes to it, I'm sure even you may be able to understand how important it is to someone reading and trying to understand that writing being totally familiar with a golf course on-site to be able to visualize and understand just what those things mean and most importantly look like in comparison.
But that's OK if people like you and Tom MacWood don't or can't understand that concept. I can understand if you two decided to research someone and write about him in detail that it doesn't seem important to you that you should meet him and get to know him, at some point. I'm sure it's probably much easier to write revisionist history that way.
-
Thanks, Pat. That is a pretty good sampling, though one must be careful to know what one is playing/looking at.
Cherry Hills: There is quite a lot that isn't Flynn. Do you know what is and is not Flynn?
Boca Raton: You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn. They went NLE in WW II. The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses.
Kittansett: Wonderful Flynn with input by Wilson and Hood.
Atlantic City CC: Doak improved an already solid course. If some of the original sandy waste areas were able to be restored, it would be even better.
Seaview Pines: Do you know what is Flynn and what is Gordon?
Woodcrest: Significantly altered over the years, now no longer a good example of Flynn's original work
Shinnecock Hills: Flynn's crowning achievement and my favorite American course. By the way, is completely Flynn except for the tee box on the 7th hole. Heck of a tee box though ;)
Green Valley: Designed and owned by Flynn as a public course, significantly altered over time and now not a good example of Flynn's original work.
Lehigh: If it wasn't for the crossover, this would be a fine course ;) Actually, the crossover creates a very good routing, without it the course would have a poorer routing progression.
Columbia CC: We are still trying to determine the extent of Flynn's work there. Do you know what is Flynn?
Woodmont: Flynn designed the Town and Country Club, later renamed Woodmont. Did you play it prior to 1948? After 1948 it was run as a public course by the name of Glenbrook. Woodmont was designed in 1950 by Tull and Will. Perhaps that is the course you played.
TCC in Brookline: Flynn did quite a bit of work there, some of it erased by Cornish. Do you know what is and what is not Flynn? It is a hard one to figure out.
Creek Club: Not much Flynn left. What is left may soon disappear. Do you know what he did?
Glen Head: Formerly Women's National. Flynn got paid a fair amount of money for work there. Unfortunately, we don't know what he did. Do you?
Westchester: Flynn built the course for Travis. He did some redesign work there, but we can only make educated guesses as to what it was. Do you know?
Merion: My second favorite course in America. I hope you'll come back soon to get reacquainted. I look forward to discussing the architectural evolution of the East Course with you.
-
"Boca Raton: You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn. They went NLE in WW II. The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses."
Look, Wayno, don't you start getting into totally messing up events and their dates like these two totally remarkable "independent, expert" researchers, Messers MacWood and Moriarty.
Pat Mucci played golf in that impressive 20 man field Macdonald invited to play NGLA in 1909, a year before Horace Hutchinson taught Macdonald how to design interesting undulations into NGLA's greens.
For some reason Mr. Moriarty has not yet figured out WHY that meant the course was not yet finished and ready to be opened for play! I guess Mr, Moriarty thinks when Tillie, Crump and a couple of other friends first played Pine Valley with only five holes done that also meant Pine Valley was finished! ::)
-
David,
Who was golfing at NGLA in 1909? Macdonald? Whigham?? Emmett??
I answered this question previously, about some 20 of his friend played a competition in 1909.
Please specify WHO was playing at NGLA. Please cite specifics.
W.T. Tuckerman, Fred Herreshoff, John Ward, Robert Watson, MacDonald and others.
Didn't we go over this repeatedly ad nauseum prior?
Why did Macdonald have a dry-run opening tournament with about a dozen friends in July 1910 to get their feedback on the course and then not have a formal opening of the course til 14 months later??
Your statement above is false.
MacDonald held an invitational tournament in July of 1910, about a year after the get together in 1909.
He did NOT create that invitational tournament for the purpose of obtaining feedback from the participants as you ERRONEOUSLY stated.
That the tournament served the purpose of revealing any shortcomings that might need correcting is a materially different understanding of the event.
Why did men like Travis write their reviews of the course upon opening in 1911 instead of when it was supposedly open in 1909??
I can't speak to the timing of Travis's article, but, in 1910 Horace Hutchinson wrote a glowing account of the golf course.
Hutchinson also referenced other articles that had been previously written about the golf course.
He stated, "My own opinion of the qualities of this course is so high that I am almost afraid of stating it too strongly"
Are you saying that George Bahto's book is wrong??
No, what's wrong is your convoluted, self serving interpretation of what George wrote ;D
-
Patrick:
It's getting a little too hard to tell with the way you construct some of your posts which of the words in them are yours and which are the words of others.
I need to know which words are yours so I can quote the right things you've said when it's necessary for me to insult you which is around 98.2% of the time.
-
David
JMorgan's quoting of the article is consistent with George's book and what I wrote when he mentions the soft opening tournament in July 1910.
All of the major reviews...Travis, Darwin, Hutchinson, etal came 1910 or later.
What is it about the article that supports your position of the course being open for play in 1909?
Mike Cirba,
MacDonald's OWN account of play in 1909 would seem to be a reliable source, don't you think.
I already provided the names of about 5 of the 20 some participants in the event.
-
Thanks, Pat. That is a pretty good sampling, though one must be careful to know what one is playing/looking at.
Wayno,
I thought it was a nice sampling of courses.
I was disappointed when Marriott chose to disfigure the Pines course.
I thought it was a terrific layout.
I also would have liked to have played the holes across the road at Woodcrest that are shown in some of the plans.
I thought Woodcrest had some great holes.
As to knowing what I was playing/looking at, I wasn't searching for pedigrees when I was playing those courses, nor did I inquire as to whom did what, from inception up until the day I first played those golf courses.
The next time I get the chance to play any of them, I'll try to be more observant.
Cherry Hills: There is quite a lot that isn't Flynn. Do you know what is and is not Flynn?
Probably not to any great detail.
I could ask you the same about NGLA.
Boca Raton: You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn. They went NLE in WW II. The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses.
I never said that I played both courses.
I first played the South or Hotel course in the early 50's
C&W attribute the current hotel course to Flynn.
If it's not Flynn, whose course is it.
And, at what location was the South course ?
Kittansett: Wonderful Flynn with input by Wilson and Hood.
Atlantic City CC: Doak improved an already solid course. If some of the original sandy waste areas were able to be restored, it would be even better.
Seaview Pines: Do you know what is Flynn and what is Gordon?
Woodcrest: Significantly altered over the years, now no longer a good example of Flynn's original work
Shinnecock Hills: Flynn's crowning achievement and my favorite American course. By the way, is completely Flynn except for the tee box on the 7th hole. Heck of a tee box though ;)
Green Valley: Designed and owned by Flynn as a public course, significantly altered over time and now not a good example of Flynn's original work.
Lehigh: If it wasn't for the crossover, this would be a fine course ;) Actually, the crossover creates a very good routing, without it the course would have a poorer routing progression.
Columbia CC: We are still trying to determine the extent of Flynn's work there. Do you know what is Flynn?
Wayno, I used to play there in a tournament every year.
But, my focus was far removed from golf course architecture.
Friends of mine who were attending the Univ of Maryland on golf scholarships fixed me up with the Drum Majorette and other assorted coeds, and provided me with several bottles of white lightning. Other than some titilating flashbacks, my recollection of those weekends remains a blur.
Woodmont: Flynn designed the Town and Country Club, later renamed Woodmont. Did you play it prior to 1948? After 1948 it was run as a public course by the name of Glenbrook. Woodmont was designed in 1950 by Tull and Will. Perhaps that is the course you played.
TCC in Brookline: Flynn did quite a bit of work there, some of it erased by Cornish. Do you know what is and what is not Flynn? It is a hard one to figure out.
Creek Club: Not much Flynn left. What is left may soon disappear. Do you know what he did?
Glen Head: Formerly Women's National. Flynn got paid a fair amount of money for work there. Unfortunately, we don't know what he did. Do you?
Westchester: Flynn built the course for Travis. He did some redesign work there, but we can only make educated guesses as to what it was. Do you know?
Merion: My second favorite course in America. I hope you'll come back soon to get reacquainted. I look forward to discussing the architectural evolution of the East Course with you.
My preference would be to play the courses absent any discussion.
We can discuss the architecture afterwards over a round or two.
If a Drum Majorette isn't there, my powers of observation and recall will remain intact.
-
Wayno & TEPaul,
I have an aerial photo of The Creek and it appears that there are NO tennis courts to the left of # 5, unless they were covered by a white roof.
It was given to me by The Creek.
It differs from the photo on page 30 in The Creek's losely bound historical book which TEPaul assisted with.
I had thought that the photo was circa 1938, but, if the tennis courts were introduced in 1928 and the white structure isn't a roof for the tennis courts it would seem to be taken prior to 1928.
Again, the club is in possession of that photo.
I can see how Tom MacWood and/or David Moriarty would be reluctant to share their research efforts.
The air of hostility that's been created will certainly thwart any collaborative effort on anyone's part
It's unfortunate that you can't work together to unearth valuable discoveries, especially since you all appear willing and skilled in digging for source material.
I'd like to see the rift resolved, but it's up to you fellows to come to terms with each other.
-
Pat,
I was hoping you would supply the drum majorettes, whatever they are. If they aren't available, cheerleaders will do. Don't come down without them ;)
The photo you have is from sometime between 1928 and late 1930s. The white you see are the tennis courts being resurfaced. Our good friend recently came across a photo prior to 1927, probably 1926.
We're not asking Tom MacWood to provide us with any information, though the source of his photograph is as benign a request as you might think. However, why he wouldn't assist the club that assisted him and granted him the privilege of making their course available to him for his inspection, well, there are simply no excuses at all. The club historian is the man that granted access to MacWood. And we see how MacWood chooses to repay the favor. His character is revealed.
I withdraw my invitation for him to visit and my offer to show him everything. Your wish for reconciliation cannot happen. It is of his own making.
-
Wayno,
Why do you think these clubs have removed or altered so much of Flynn's work ?
Cherry Hills: There is quite a lot that isn't Flynn. Do you know what is and is not Flynn?
Boca Raton: You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn. They went NLE in WW II. The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses.
Kittansett: Wonderful Flynn with input by Wilson and Hood.
Atlantic City CC: Doak improved an already solid course. If some of the original sandy waste areas were able to be restored, it would be even better.
Seaview Pines: Do you know what is Flynn and what is Gordon?
Woodcrest: Significantly altered over the years, now no longer a good example of Flynn's original work
Shinnecock Hills: Flynn's crowning achievement and my favorite American course. By the way, is completely Flynn except for the tee box on the 7th hole. Heck of a tee box though ;)
Green Valley: Designed and owned by Flynn as a public course, significantly altered over time and now not a good example of Flynn's original work.
Lehigh: If it wasn't for the crossover, this would be a fine course ;) Actually, the crossover creates a very good routing, without it the course would have a poorer routing progression.
Columbia CC: We are still trying to determine the extent of Flynn's work there. Do you know what is Flynn?
Woodmont: Flynn designed the Town and Country Club, later renamed Woodmont. Did you play it prior to 1948? After 1948 it was run as a public course by the name of Glenbrook. Woodmont was designed in 1950 by Tull and Will. Perhaps that is the course you played.
TCC in Brookline: Flynn did quite a bit of work there, some of it erased by Cornish. Do you know what is and what is not Flynn? It is a hard one to figure out.
Creek Club: Not much Flynn left. What is left may soon disappear. Do you know what he did?
Glen Head: Formerly Women's National. Flynn got paid a fair amount of money for work there. Unfortunately, we don't know what he did. Do you?
Westchester: Flynn built the course for Travis. He did some redesign work there, but we can only make educated guesses as to what it was. Do you know?
Merion: My second favorite course in America. I hope you'll come back soon to get reacquainted. I look forward to discussing the architectural evolution of the East Course with you.
-
You know the answer to that, Pat as well as anyone. It had nothing to do with the quality of design at Cherry Hills. Boca Raton courses were taken over by the Navy in WWII and went fallow. Kittansett is intact. Atlantic City CC needed portions of the course raised. This was not economically feasible at the time Flynn redesigned an existing course on site. Seaview Pines added 9 holes and compromised the original 9-hole routing. Tree proliferation did not help. Woodcrest was a misguided attempt to improve the course designed as a public course which went private, similar to the process at Green Valley. Lehigh is intact. Columbia CC has most of Flynn's work intact. Woodmont was taken over by the government and sits on the site of NIH. TCC in Brookline is mostly intact though Cornish made some ill-advised changes, perhaps due to a committee head that wanted to leave a mark. Creek Club, nature in the form of significant hurricanes likely washed away some of the Flynn components in the lower holes. Overall, he didn't do that much work, but a good portion remains. Why it all wasn't implemented, including 2 new holes has as much to do about an inability to acquire real estate as it has to do with keeping the Macdonald designs. Glen Head, it is hard to say since we don't know what he did. Westchester seems to have retained Flynn's changes. Merion fortunately has retained all of Flynn's work. In summary, very little was removed or altered of Flynn's portfolio of work. Coincidentally, the courses you've seen had as much of it as anywhere. You need to see more.
-
Wayno,
What's always surprised me is the lack of action when clubs find out that features and/or holes were previously altered/disfigured.
You would think that they would be in a hurry to correct the previous mistakes.
-
Pat:
As to why some of Flynn's courses were changed the way they were I don't think one could find a general reason for that that has anything to do with Flynn's architecture. I think one could find that to be true of some of any golf architect's courses, although any of that would probably be impossible to generalize about as well. Each club seems to have it's own unique story that way.
What's more interesting is how much redesign work by all architects on other architects original courses has been removed in an attempt to go back to an original architect's design when feasible. With my own club, however, on that note, I sure am glad we decided not to take out anything Perry Maxwell redesigned of original Ross.
"What's always surprised me is the lack of action when clubs find out that features and/or holes were previously altered/disfigured.
You would think that they would be in a hurry to correct the previous mistakes."
Although you may not mean that the way it sounds to me----eg that sounds like a philosophy that anything that was ever changed from original is an act of disfiguring or some architectural detriment to the course. I don't believe anyone can generalize about that either. I think every situation has to be analyzed individually and very carefully.
There's no question any and every architect made mistakes at times or something that was originally done just didn't pass the all important "test of time" for some valid reason. If a club just rushes into restoration without even considering why something was altered in the first place they can run the risk of just restoring something that didn't work well in the first place for a valid reason.
-
Phillip,
We seem to have recurring communication problems, in that we get bogged down on my discussion style, perceived slights and insults, and strange minutiae not really pertinent to the broader issues. No doubt it is my failure, so I apologize for any perceived insults and slights, and will do my best to be a bit more clear and focused.
1. The historical record does not support your contention that NGLA "became 'influential' following its opening, or your contention that NGLA "certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built. The club's formal opening was inSeptember 1911, wasn't it?
I don't have all my source material with me, but here is a rough list of some of the indicators of NGLA's incredible impact in 1910 and before.
1905, newspapers all over the country began covering Macdonald's plan for for a national golf links modeled after the great holes overseas.
1907. NGLA built and grassed. Macdonald would continue to tinker with the course over the next 20+ years.
1908. NGLA at least partially regrassed due to turf problems.
1909. Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA.
Reports emerged praising the course, even though it was not yet formally opened. For example,
-- One major figure in American golf simply called it the finest.
-- A major mainstream magazine featured NGLA, explained many of its holes.
-- Same article proclaimed that Macdonald's NGLA marked a new era in golf.
1910. Hutchinson played NGLA and he and CBM play number of other American courses. NGLA head and shoulders above the rest.
Macdonald held an informal tournament at NGLA featuring some of the most notable figures in American golf.
GA, GI, and mainstream newspapers covered the tournament and praised the course. Travis and Behr both play.
NGLA praised in mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
Reportedly, as a result of Macdonald's success many clubs are sending their pros abroad to study the great courses.
2. You ask me, "Name a SINGLE GOLF COURSE anywhere in America whose design was changed by what was happening at NGLA BEFORE IT OPENED FOR PLAY."
Merion East.
3. Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't "Hazard" report that the greens at Shawnee were built in 1910, and that the hazards were built that year as well? See above for a general idea of NGLA's progress and reputation by 1910.
4. You wrote that Tillie had "his own discussions with his friend Charley during this very time about design philosophy and his disagreement with CB’s, and it is Tilly himself who wrote that he spoke to him and disagreed with him during those days.
I don't doubt they disagreed about some things.
I am not familiar with the Tillinghast writings to which you refer. If you would please point me to them, I'd like to take a look.
I've read the Tillie quotes you posted above and they do not move me.
5. You ask, "Yet it then begs the question that if Macdonald and NGLA was this SINGULSR seminal all-changing moment in golf course architecture in America, WHY WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN SO?"
In short, Macdonald was famous, was a force of nature, had access to resources, found a good site, and built a great course. In addition the course as extremely well hyped and highly anticipated. Most importantly, the fundamental concepts were largely absent in US courses, so this was all pretty new to most everyone.
6. You wrote: EVERYONE would have been flocking to CB’s door and not the large numbers that sought out Tilly & Ross and others at this time.
It is my understanding that once NGLA became internationally renown (before it was "formally opened") Macdonald was inundated with requests for help from all over the country. Macdonald was an amateur with other interests and concerns. He could not possibly have designed and built all the courses he was asked to build.
7. You wrote "It would be IMPOSSIBLE for TILLY to know what TILLY believed? You strain all credibility with that."
I did not claim he did not know what he believed. I wrote that you do not know what all of his influences were.
Not even he may have been totally cognizant of everything and everyone who shaped his work.
In my opinion, this is true of anyone in any medium that involves requires creative imput.
8. You wrote "You then blatantly and arrogantly insult me and Tilly himself. “As I should realize more around this nut-house, oftentimes we are more influenced by our adversaries than our allies. This is especially true when like Tillie one is trying to create an independent name for himself…”"
I insulted neither Tillinghast nor you. AWT was trying to make a name for himself. That is no insult.
As for you, my statement had nothing to do with you whatsoever.
9. As for about everything else, you completely misunderstood me. No doubt my fault. Addressing your comments would be would be entirely unproductive.
-
1. The historical record does not support your contention that NGLA "became 'influential' following its opening, or your contention that NGLA "certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built. The club's formal opening was inSeptember 1911, wasn't it?
I don't have all my source material with me, but here is a rough list of some of the indicators of NGLA's incredible impact in 1910 and before.
1905, newspapers all over the country began covering Macdonald's plan for for a national golf links modeled after the great holes overseas.
1907. NGLA built and grassed. Macdonald would continue to tinker with the course over the next 20+ years.
1908. NGLA at least partially regrassed due to turf problems.
1909. Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA.
Reports emerged praising the course, even though it was not yet formally opened. For example,
-- One major figure in American golf simply called it the finest.
-- A major mainstream magazine featured NGLA, explained many of its holes.
-- Same article proclaimed that Macdonald's NGLA marked a new era in golf.
1910. Hutchinson played NGLA and he and CBM play number of other American courses. NGLA head and shoulders above the rest.
Macdonald held an informal tournament at NGLA featuring some of the most notable figures in American golf.
GA, GI, and mainstream newspapers covered the tournament and praised the course. Travis and Behr both play.
NGLA praised in mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
Reportedly, as a result of Macdonald's success many clubs are sending their pros abroad to study the great courses.
David,
I think this timeline is important, and I also think it's incorrect.
I'm not contending that NGLA wasn't hugely important and influential but I'm challenging when it became so.
Macdonald, by weight of his prominence and personality, did in fact trumpet his plan quite early and it did get some press. However, your statement that NGLA was built and grassed completely by 1907 is very misleading, and what you called "tinkering" involved building greens, bunkers, and entire hole strategies.
And yes, Macdonald did quickly experience a complete agronomic failure that set him back at least 18 months.
You continue to state that by 1909, "Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA", and then claim that during that year, "Reports emerged", "One major figure in American golf", and "Same article proclaimed", but do not clue us in to who that was.
I have no doubt that much like Mackenzie and Jones at ANGC, or virtually any architect at any course before or since, people "played" the course prior to opening, and hit shots to test distances, hole values, etc., but does that mean that we should now retroactively move back the opening date of every course on the planet 2 years, and claim that whatever influential value each course had they already had at that earlier stage??
However, to have widespread impact and influence, that means everyone had to know what it actually was, and what the strategies of the holes were/are. If they were never there, or hadn't played it, or read about the holes, how would they know?
And yes, there was a very small cognescenti of the time who might be like the GCA of that time who were more aware of what Macdonald was doing, much like we might anticipate what a Tom Doak was building at Pacific Dunes, but I have to ask once again....WHO was playing the course in 1909??
Instead, from all reports I've seen, it wasn't until 1910 that Macdonald unveiled his course to a wider group than the original close-knit crew of himself, Travis (who got booted), Emmett, Whigham, and very few others. He did this in the form of an Invitational Tournament, which JMorgan thankfully covered with news article and picture on this forum.
After that tournament in early July 1910, we THEN see the articles by Travis, and Darwin, and other prominent writers extolling the virtues of the course and it was THEN that the impact of NGLA as well as it's influence began to become more widespread. But, it also wasn't until 14 month later when the course finally opened to full membership play that more than just a small handful of top golfers had the opportunity to play there. In that vein, I'm wondering aloud rhetorically if the Merion committee actually played the course in spring of 1911, or whether they simply walked it. If I recall the wording of the meeting minutes precisely, I believe it's the latter.
Before then, it was largely an exciting rumor, and given the length of time it was taking due to agronomic issues, I'm also sure the project had it's skeptics as time went by, as well.
Why is this important?
It's important if we are going to try to use NGLA as a direct link to the building of other historic courses in/near that same timeframe, and its important if we are to truly understand the relationship of many of these early designers to each other.
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?
And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?
-
Mike Cirba:
As usual your posts on the timeframe NGLA was abuilding and growing in is on the money, based on supportable fact as well as based on commonsense.
It's a shame this entire subject of Macdonald and NGLA and Macdonald/Whigam and Merion East has come to this.
The truth is the actual historic facts and perceptions from that time surrounding NGLA do not need to be exaggerated to anywhere near the point some are exaggerating them now. And either does Macdonald and his legacy.
He was important to the history and evolution of American golf as was his NGLA but he was by no means the only one or even the first one as some are trying to make him out to be.
In my opinion, you get it, MikeC. A few others just don't.
-
TEPaul,
What is really a shame is that you and Wayne cannot accept what the Darwin's and Hutchinson's of the time knew, that CBM was onto something as yet unseen on this side of the pond, and that he deserved the moniker 'Father of GCA in America' (wasn't it Darwin who hung that one on him).
Add in his other accomplishments in the world of golf and it's impossible to find someone 'on par' w/CB.
The writers of his day saw it pretty clearly.
-
Mike, I fail to grasp the point of this exercise. A cynic might suggest that for you this is all about Merion East, and that you are trying to push back NGLA's influence simply because you will not acknowledge that NGLA and Macdonald were a major influence over the creation of Merion East. But given the ample direct evidence of M&W's and NGLA's influence at Merion, that would be a monumental waste of time.
David,
I think this timeline is important, and I also think it's incorrect.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were errors in the time-line. As I said, it was rough and mostly off the top of my head. But as far as I can tell you have not pointed out any actual factual errors.What specifically is factually incorrect and what is your basis for suggesting the correction.
. . . your statement that NGLA was built and grassed completely by 1907 is very misleading . . .
Very misleading? My understanding is that in 1907 all 18 holes were in place and the entire 18 holes were grassed, and then some of the course had to be regrassed in 1908. Which holes, specifically, were not built and grassed in 1907?
Hole strategies? I am aware that the Sahara hole was lengthened after this date, but what hole strategies were not in place at this time? As I have explained on numerous occasions, Macdonald believed that one should observe actual play before placing many of the fairway bunkers.
. . . to have widespread impact and influence, that means everyone had to know what it actually was, and what the strategies of the holes were/are. If they were never there, or hadn't played it, or read about the holes, how would they know?
I think perhaps requiring "everyone" to have to have known about the course is a bit broad. Could you please you narrow this group a bit? When it came to influence, wouldn't a "very small cognoscenti" with power and influence matter most?
After that tournament in early July 1910, we THEN see the articles by Travis, and Darwin, and other prominent writers extolling the virtues of the course and it was THEN that the impact of NGLA as well as it's influence began to become more widespread.
I believe there was substantial and detailed coverage of the course well before this tournament. Do you really deny this?
It's important if we are going to try to use NGLA as a direct link to the building of other historic courses in/near that same timeframe, and its important if we are to truly understand the relationship of many of these early designers to each other.
What courses are we talking about here, specifically?
-
TE
I really like your phrase "Big World Theory." As much as I am a fan of MacRaynors, there are so many other styles that I also thoroughly enjoy.
While we can debate exactly how important Macdonald's work was, NO ONE questions that is was hugely important. In the spectrum of golf course styles, Macdonald holds a prominant place and his school is further bolstered by the work done by Raynor and Banks, who underscored the proposition that adherence to certain key principles of design will ensure great playing fields for golf that will stand the test of time.
Although I can't prove or quantify it, I also think that Macdonald had a huge indirect influence on the leading architects of the day. Once National was built, I just have to believe that it caused a stir among all the existing clubs in the U.S. I can easily envision the leaders of those clubs realizing that their crude 9 or 18 hole courses would have to be re-built or the clubs would die. And the leaders of these clubs, or newly forming clubs, would naturaly have a goal to build a course as good as NGLA. In the smoke filled rooms these guys would probably say "let's get Macdonald" or "let's get somenone as good or better than Macdonald."
I can envision Tilly and Ross and others going through an interview process where they were asked if they can build a course as good as NGLA. I bet they all got sick of hearing about National and Macdonald. I bet it helped spur Tilly on. I bet it helped focus him on doing something different, something that was "better" in Tilly's mind. I'm sure this hardened his position that the land should dictate the course. And it worked: he built fabulous courses in his own style.
So while the Macdonald school was expanding, the "anti-Macdonald" school grew even more. Competition and human nature led to vastly different styles and a great many wonderful courses. The "Big World Theory" was born.
-
TEPaul,
What is really a shame is that you and Wayne cannot accept what the Darwin's and Hutchinson's of the time knew, that CBM was onto something as yet unseen on this side of the pond, and that he deserved the moniker 'Father of GCA in America' (wasn't it Darwin who hung that one on him).
Add in his other accomplishments in the world of golf and it's impossible to find someone 'on par' w/CB.
The writers of his day saw it pretty clearly."
Jim Kennedy:
That kind of post is what really bothers me. I should probably say it really pisses me off.
I've never said Macdonald and his NGLA was not a really important influence on American golf and architecture. I have never said that. Maybe Wayne did but I don't think so. And I've never said that Hutchinson and Darwin weren't very knowledgeable (It isn't very hard to tell from numerous sources that Macdonald might have considered Hutchinson to be his primary mentor in a number of things to do with architecture AND golf---including I&B and the Rules).
This is exactly why I just can't stand this compelelely exaggerated stuff that the likes of Moriarty and MacWood seem to be infecting this website with. They've been claiming for seemingly years now that we are totally denigrating and minmizing Macdonald, NGLA and Macd/Raynor architecture.
Neither one of us are doing that and never have.
What we are doing is seriously disagreeing with a guy like Moriarty that MacDonald was the total be-all and end-all over here in golf architecture before, during and for some time after NGLA----that he was the only positive or beneficial influence in golf archtiecture over here then---that he was the only one who understood the priniciples of golf course architecture before and during the creation of NGLA.
That is why I latched on to what Peter Pallotta said in this vein a few days ago on this thread.
That is just not the case---it is not an historic fact at all no matter how or how many times this basically know-nothing guy from California tries to claim it is. For starters he has no understanding at all about the significance of a Myopia and Leeds who did much of what he did before Macdonald began NGLA.
My point is that Macdonald was definitely not the only one who understood good architecture well over herebefore NGLA or could create really good architecture over here before NGLA. I'm not saying Macdonald WAS NOT perhaps the most influential over here because he certainly seemed to be for many reasons, just not that he was the only one or even he was the first one to do good architecture here.
As far as what Americans and some really good American golf writers thought of Hutchinson's opinions on American architecture and particularly on his opinions on Myopia and GCGC, I suggest you reread Bunker Hills article about that. Did you miss where he said he thought Hutchinson was being inconsistent in his opinions and how he pointed out how and why that was?
What I am particularly interested in is not what you or Moriarty or MacWood or Wayne's or my opinion of Macdonald or Hutchinson is, what I am really interested in is what the opinion of them was of others of their time and certainly over here in America amongst American architects and including a really good golf architecture writer of this time----in this case Bunker Hill.
That's the kind of thing we need to study if we are going to really understand that age and what was going on during it.
We are not minimizing Macdonald or Huthinson, we are only trying to research and reflect how they were seen in their own time over here by our world of golf course architecture.
If you want to join those other two guys and try to claim Macdonald was the only one over here before and around NGLA then this is what you're going to run into from us. We believe we have history on our side and not only can prove it, we have proved it. Who really cares about a couple of guys who continue to totally deny that historical proof at all costs?
-
Who was Bunker Hill?
-
Tom,
I can't imagine how my last could have pissed you off.
You and Wayne may believe you haven't been trying to knock CBM off his historical perch, but that's not how it appears to me, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief.
-
David,
I'm not sure why this is difficult.
I'm clearly not an expert on NGLA but everything I have seen indicates that the course didn't open until a "soft" opening for Macdonald's friends and some expert golfers (the "Invitational Tournament" referred to as a "trial run" in George Bahto's book) in July 1910 and then a formal opening in September 1911.
Over and over you've told us that NGLA was a hugely influential course and I agree but I'm questioning when that influence became manifest.
You've told us "they" were playing NGLA in 1909. I'm just looking for some understanding of who "they" were, and that should tell us pretty clearly just exactly who might have been influenced by NGLA prior to 1910.
Thanks.
-
BillB:
I really like what you said in that last post, particularly those last two paragraphs. I think historically they are right on the money.
Personally, I think Herbert Leeds's Myopia is as good or as interesting as NGLA, at least almost, and the fact is it was almost ten years earlier and that is the thing I think is so significant to American arhitecture. I don't think Leeds and Myopia had anywhere near the publicity and influence on American architecture because I don't think Leeds had any interest in that---eg he was just trying to build a much better golf course than what he found there. But Macdonald was very definitely trying to have as big an influence on American architecture as he possibly could have. He said that for years before building NGLA and he even was very vocal about why he thought he should do that, and that was to basically be the purpose for doing NGLA in the first place.
But what were and are the significant similarities but most particularly the significant differences between those two golf courses and their architecture and what can that tell us about some of the fundamental "principles" of golf course architecture back then and who knew them best or even if one knew them better than the other or thought of them differently somehow?
That is probably the ultimate question, and I think the best way to answer it is go through the holes and their architecture of both courses in some real detail and compare and constrast them to determine the answers to this question.
I'll try to do that on another post after a little while. I think you may find it interesting and edifying and perhaps historically telling.
-
Jim,
Enjoy your belief, no matter how inaccurate. It must comfort you not to be alone in that belief.
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?
And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?
Patrick,
According to George Bahto's book, the first Invitational Tournament (referred to as a "trial run") at NGLA took place in early July 1910. JMorgan quoted a news article and provided a picture earlier on this thread.
Hutchinson's article was in 1910, as well, as was Travis's and Darwin's.
-
Just because I came across this article this morning en route to other topics ...
American Golfer, August 1910
"Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.
"At the invitation of some of the founders, a number of players took part in a tournament which informally marked the opening of the course on July 2, 3 and 4, and some grand golf was witnessed. At present the greens are a little on the rough side, as is naturally to be expected, seeing that they are only a little over two years old, but they are sufficiently advanced to compare favorably with many others which have been down for years, and in the course of another season or two will unquestionably approximate perfection. With the exception of one or two holes the fair green is also good, and it is only a question of another season before these will be brought into prime shape and the whole course in first class condition."
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/NGLAfirstplayers.jpg)
Can you name the participants?
Patrick,
In case you missed JMorgan's article. I bolded a few of the most important bits.
Thanks
-
"You and Wayne may believe you haven't been trying to knock CBM off his historical perch, but that's not how it appears to me, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief."
Jim Kennedy:
Maybe that's how you feel about the way we see it but that is definitely not the way we see it or feel about the way we see it.
I know exactly how I feel about CBM and his architecture and I know how Ive felt about him and his architecture long before his website existed.
I definitely don't need MacWood or Moriarty or you to tell me how I feel about him but it's fine with me whatever you want to think----it's a great big world out there in golf and architecture and there's plenty of room in it for anyone, no matter what their opinions are or how bizarre they are.
It isn't productive for you three to spend pages constantly arguing with me over what my opinion of Macdonald and his architecture is, that's for sure. ;)
-
TE
Let me say at the outset that I know very little about Myopia and Leeds.I honestly never heard about Myopia until I started hanging out here. I take your word that what was on the ground was as good as "groundbreaking" as NGLA. But doesn't that further prove the point about Macdonald's influence? If Myopia was there for 10 years before NGLA, how significant could it have been in terms of the EFFECT it had on other gca's and the golfing world? Perhaps it took a boastful self-promoter such as Macdonald to get things really cooking in the US? Myopia may fascinate you from a research standpoint, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...
And I also wonder about the actual effect that Macdonald's work in agronomy had on other courses. Forget the design of holes for a moment. Bahto implies that NGLA may have had turf that far surpassed what everyone else was playing on. If that is true, NGLA would have sparked a demand for similar conditions, and those expectations would have filtered down to every gca building courses, right?
-
Tom,
It doesn't surprise me that Wayne would come back with a smart ass remark to an observation on my part, I thought you were more open. Your last post
to me shows that you aren't.
-
IMO there is big difference between the infleunce Macdonald & Leeds had upon golf architecture in America. Macdonald set out on a well publicized mission to design golf's ideal course; Leeds was a redesign specialist who perfected his course incrementally and with little fanfair. Macdonald was involved in laying out numerous courses and produced several proteges; Leeds was dedicated to one course. Macdonald was well connected to the best design authorities in the UK (Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, Colt, Darwin, etc); Leeds traveled overseas to study golf courses but there is no evidence he had the same connections. Macdonald was famous on both sides of the pond; Leeds was well-known in Boston, but not a household word beyond that. Macdonald was part of the American golf establishment; Leeds was not, preferring to exert his influence in house. Macdonald wrote extensively on the subject; Leeds wrote nothing on the subject. Macdonald was as famous or likely more famous than the NGLA; Myopia was better known than Leeds.
-
Tom MacWood,
I find it ironic that with everything you just mentioned there...how Macdonald clearly stated his intentions to build the Ideal course and trumpeted that message to any and all who would listen (including the press), how he was well connected to the best design authorities...how he had connections on both sides of the Atlantic...how he was certainly the most famous amateur (re: Tournament) golfer in this country, how he was part of the American golf establishment, and then how he wrote extensively and architecture and other golf matters, and how he was such a larger than life figure that he even dwarfed the grand accomplishment of building NGLA (as well as other notable courses)....
I find it ironic that on many of these threads there is a case being made that Macdonald was somehow slighted in his own time, and that his true work was minimized or forgotten.
If you told me that Leeds designed some great course we weren't aware of i might believe it given that he wasn't a man seeking the glory or spotlight.
However, given Macdonald was a Rock Star on the order of Tiger Woods in his day, to claim he had some great input into some great course design that was never property noted or recognized seems absurd on the face of it.
-
Mike
I don't think its that ironic. Frank Lloyd Wright was bigger than any of his very significant designs, the same with Picasso and his art. Macdonald was huge personality, with a huge ego, and also extremely talented and on the cutting edge of his field, not unlike Wright and Picasso.
One of the primary reasons a person is influencial is due to their ability to generate publicity. If you are unknown its hard to influence anyone.
I don't believe Macdonald was slighted in his own time. I don't believe Macdonald's influence is being slighted today. I think there are a handful of zealots who would like to diminish his reputation for obvious reasons; that is what this debate is all about.
-
I don't mean to be a pest about this, but how's come no one on this site ever picks on Flynn's fixation with saucers?
Bradley,
A very fair question. In researching Flynn's courses, he certainly did have some simple bunker outlines. However, his bunker style was as broad as any architect and the range of his bunkers would astound most people. In general, the saucer look was an evolved look dictated by maintenance practices and not by design. I'll put together a set of architectural drawings and construction era photographs to show you what I mean. It may take me a few days to get to it, but if you remind me, I would be delighted to show you.
Flynn's range of bunkerings included simple bunker shapes (strategically situated) to complicated natural looking bunker edges to undulating sandy waste areas. I'll try to put together a representative sampling to illustrate this position.
WSM
Wow, that will be a very cool set of pictures. I have always suspected that the edging of those bunkers removed some of the design attributes. So if you actually put that series of photos together Wayne I might be able to use them for my power point on the evolution of bunkers and how maintenance edging among other factors changes the lines.
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?
And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?
Patrick,
According to George Bahto's book, the first Invitational Tournament (referred to as a "trial run") at NGLA took place in early July 1910.
That's NOT TRUE.
George stated the following on page 68.
"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."
A few points are worth noting.
MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
of American Golfers at the time
George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
to conduct a trial run.
A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
What was that ? A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?
The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
play the course at one's leisure. It was an Invitational Tournament for the
best golfers in America at the time.
A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
I've already named some of the participants
John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.
You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.
-
A question -- as I (with no horse in this race) am, nevertheless, a glutton for punishment:
Has anyone ever compared the ideal shots over 18 holes at Garden City (pre-1905), Myopia, Ekwanok, Wheaton, CC of Atlantic City, etc., with those of NGLA?
-
JMorgan,
The terrain at GCGC and especially AC is very flat.
It would be difficult to offer a comparison versus NGLA where the terrain is far more varied.
-
“You and Wayne may believe you haven't been trying to knock CBM off his historical perch, but that's not how it appears to me, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief.”
Jim Kennedy:
Maybe that's how you feel about the way we see it but that is definitely not the way we see it or feel about the way we see it.
I know exactly how I feel about CBM and his architecture and I know how Ive felt about him and his architecture long before his website existed.
I definitely don't need MacWood or Moriarty or you to tell me how I feel about him but it's fine with me whatever you want to think----it's a great big world out there in golf and architecture and there's plenty of room in it for anyone, no matter what their opinions are or how bizarre they are.
It isn't productive for you three to spend pages constantly arguing with me over what my opinion of Macdonald and his architecture is, that's for sure.
“Tom,
It doesn't surprise me that Wayne would come back with a smart ass remark to an observation on my part, I thought you were more open. Your last post
to me shows that you aren't.”
Jim Kennedy:
More open? About what, your opinion of what I think of Macdonald or my own opinion of Macdonald? If you want to know my opinion of Macdonald in any context you should probably just ask me specifically what it is and I’d be glad to tell you. But I don’t really want to get into some argument with you about your opinion of my opinion of Macdonald or whether you think I’m open about your opinion of my opinion of Macdonald.
-
Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.
-
"Wow, that will be a very cool set of pictures. I have always suspected that the edging of those bunkers removed some of the design attributes. So if you actually put that series of photos together Wayne I might be able to use them for my power point on the evolution of bunkers and how maintenance edging among other factors changes the lines."
Bradley:
In our opinions, there is no question about it. Numerous sources seem to confirm that fact and probably the best and most reliable one being Merion's long time super, Richie Valentine, Joe's son (Merion's father and son combo of Joe and Richie lasted many, many decades one after the other. Flynn apparently trained Joe Valentine as Merion's super).
Flynn's basic bunker modus operandi may've had as much too to with the long term evolutionary development of interesting grass surrounds as any architect ever.
This kind of thing is right up your alley, I know!
-
"IMO there is big difference between the infleunce Macdonald & Leeds had upon golf architecture in America. Macdonald set out on a well publicized mission to design golf's ideal course; Leeds was a redesign specialist who perfected his course incrementally and with little fanfair. Macdonald was involved in laying out numerous courses and produced several proteges; Leeds was dedicated to one course. Macdonald was well connected to the best design authorities in the UK (Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, Colt, Darwin, etc); Leeds traveled overseas to study golf courses but there is no evidence he had the same connections. Macdonald was famous on both sides of the pond; Leeds was well-known in Boston, but not a household word beyond that. Macdonald was part of the American golf establishment; Leeds was not, preferring to exert his influence in house. Macdonald wrote extensively on the subject; Leeds wrote nothing on the subject. Macdonald was as famous or likely more famous than the NGLA; Myopia was better known than Leeds."
Mr. MacWood:
There is almost nothing in that statement of yours I'd disagree with or even try to expand on or subtract from (with the possible somewhat trivial point that Leeds was pretty well connected in the American golf establishment, administratively and otherwise and probably could've been much more so if he wanted to be). Essentially there was no one at all of any importance in the world of early American golf architecture and in and around the time Macdonald was creating NGLA who was not aware of Myopia and Leeds and what he'd done there!
The point I've been arguing for the last several pages of this thread is not who had more influence on American architecture and otherwise in golf, or who used it most effectively or anything like that.
My only point in the last several pages was to Peter Pallotta's post and point to David Moriarty that he (Peter Pallotta) felt that Macdonald was not the only one or even the first one in America before NGLA who really understood and applied some very fundamentally good golf architecture principles in America and consequently created what was considered then and probably still is considered now to be one of the first really good courses and really good architecture in America. And the next fascinating point is he did this almost a decade before Macdonald did it at NGLA. The complete confirmation of that fact seems to come from Macdonald himself!
That, I believe was Peter Pallotta's basic point or feeling and it was his response to David Moriarty apparently saying he felt Macdonald was the first one here to understand and apply really good and fundamental golf architectural principles in this country-----and I was agreeing with Peter Pallotta and in the process disagreeing with David Moriarty. It seems David Moriarty was saying that wasn't the case and the FIRST one who understood good golf architectural principles over here, and perhaps even first transported them over here and applied them well over here in the creation of an American golf course was C. B. Macdonald with his Myopia.
I wasn't arguing for who was the most influential, I was arguing for the fact that Macdonald was not the first to understand and apply good golf architectural principles in America and create an enduringly great golf course in America.
-
from a tongue in cheek cynical perspective, the logic would go about like this:
the site from time to time takes on a soap opera melo-drama comparison, if you are going have heroes, then you must have villains.
-
Patrick,
Where can I find information about the 1909 tournament held at NGLA won by John Ward? Nothing I've come across mentions it.
Thanks
-
Carl,
You said, "the site from time to time takes on a soap opera melo-drama comparison, if you are going have heroes, then you must have villains..."
We have a "Moriarity" so that must make Wayne & Tom Paul Holmes & Watson... But which is which? ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?
And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?
Patrick,
According to George Bahto's book, the first Invitational Tournament (referred to as a "trial run") at NGLA took place in early July 1910.
That's NOT TRUE.
George stated the following on page 68.
"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."
A few points are worth noting.
MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
of American Golfers at the time
George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
to conduct a trial run.
A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
What was that ? A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?
The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
play the course at one's leisure. It was an Invitational Tournament for the
best golfers in America at the time.
A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
I've already named some of the participants
John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.
You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.
Patrick,
I just went back and looked again.
I believe you're mistaken.
The NGLA tournament you're talking about that John Ward medalled with a 74 took place in July 1910.
It's the same tournament discussed in George's book...the "trial run" I referred to earlier.
You can read the details at the following link, which is the story JMorgan referenced earlier;
There are some GREAT pictures there, as well.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag43d.pdf
I'm still waiting for someone to show me who "they" were who were playing the National prior to 1910?
-
Bill Brigthly:
I think your post #299 is an excellent one. Both paragraphs are probably worth a thread of their own. The first one is most important to me at this point because I think the appropriate answer to it can really focus the distinction I've been trying to make on this thread. That paragraph and an answer to it may seem to some to have to be redundant but I don't think so and I believe you will see why.
I'll give it a shot in a while.
-
One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence. I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site" - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).
Peter
-
Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.
JMorgan,
I know I'm old, but, I wasn't playing GCGC and NGLA in 1911.
While I might be able to speak to playing GCGC over the last 11 years and NGLA for considerably longer, I'm not qualified to speak to both courses circa 1911.
It would take me quite a while to relate my experiences on a feature by feature, hole by hole basis.
As I type this, I'm considering having a get together that might focus on both courses, with the possible inclusion of Atlantic City, if I can get Wayno to join me.
-
Patrick,
Where can I find information about the 1909 tournament held at NGLA won by John Ward? Nothing I've come across mentions it.
Thanks
Mike,
John Ward only won the qualifying medal.
The Tournament was played at Match Play, not unlike the current National Singles Tournament.
W.T. Tuckerman won all of his three matches and was the First Flight winner.
C.B. MacDonald won all of his three matches and was the Second Flight winner.
At the conclusion of the tournament MacDonald states, "From that time on we had enlightened criticism."
Accounts of the tournament in 1909 can be found in "Scotland's Gift"
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?
And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?
Patrick,
According to George Bahto's book, the first Invitational Tournament (referred to as a "trial run") at NGLA took place in early July 1910.
That's NOT TRUE.
George stated the following on page 68.
"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run. An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."
A few points are worth noting.
MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
of American Golfers at the time
George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
to conduct a trial run.
A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
What was that ? A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?
The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
play the course at one's leisure. It was an Invitational Tournament for the
best golfers in America at the time.
A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
I've already named some of the participants
John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.
You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.
Patrick,
I just went back and looked again.
I believe you're mistaken.
I am NOT mistaken
The NGLA tournament you're talking about that John Ward medalled with a 74 took place in July 1910.
It's the same tournament discussed in George's book...the "trial run" I referred to earlier.
NO IT'S NOT.
Another tournament was held a year earlier.
Please get your facts right.
You can read the details at the following link, which is the story JMorgan referenced earlier;
There are some GREAT pictures there, as well.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag43d.pdf
Mike, you continue to refuse to recognize that there were TWO DIFFERENT events. One held in 1909 and the other in 1910.
MacDonald himself recounts the 1909 tournament in 'Scotland's Gift"
Please stop denying that one tournament was held in 1909 and the other in 1910.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me who "they" were who were playing the National prior to 1910?
I SHOWED YOU WHO THEY WERE.
I named five of the participants.
Why do you continue to deny the existance of that tournament ?
A tournament that MacDonald himself recounts in "Scotland's Gift"
Someone is either feeding you false information or you aren't doing your homework.
-
Patrick,
I'm really confused now.
Are you telling me that John Ward medaled in the Invitational Tournament with 74's in both 1909 and 1910?
I'm simply trying to find an account that talks about some play in 1909...I see nothing in George Bahto's book, I can find nothing in American Golfer or other publications of the time.
Please educate me, because all accounts I've read refer to the July 1910 tournament as the first.
Thanks
-
I'm not sure why this is difficult.
It shouldn't be difficult, but we have had many obstacles to overcome. I am glad that at least now you are focusing on July 1910 date versus the September 1911 "formal opening," as you had been for months. Baby steps.
You've told us "they" were playing NGLA in 1909. I'm just looking for some understanding of who "they" were, and that should tell us pretty clearly just exactly who might have been influenced by NGLA prior to 1910.
The reason I have emphasized that some were playing the course in 1909 was to put an end to this unfounded speculation that the course was still in the throws of primary construction at that time. It was not. All the holes were there.
As for who played, I am not sure whether Macdonald said all who played, nor do I think it matters.
____________________________________
Patrick, Mike:
I've always been confused about the July 1910 tournament, described in the August 1910 AG. In his book, Macdonald described an informal tournament which took place in 1909, not 1910. I had always suspected that Macdonald simply had the date wrong, and that the informal tournament actually was in 1910 rather than in 1909. I thought this because Macdonald included the story of Ward going 2-2-4-2 on holes 1-4 (then 10-13.)
After looking at the source material again, I think a better explanation may be that there were two tournaments, a very informal one with approximately 20 friends (including Ward) in 1909, and the July 1910 tournament where Ward had such a great stretch. The reason I am leaning this direction is because Macdonald runs through some of the brackets and the winner, but they do not at all match the July 1910 results.
1909 Tournament: Ward lost to Herreshoff who lost to Tuckerman in the final of the "First Eight." Macdonald beat Robert Watson (1 up) to win the SECOND eight.
1910 Tournament: Ward beat Behr, then Travis beat Ward, and Herreshoff beat Travis in the final. Macdonald lost in the first round of the "First Eight" to Travis. Neither W.T. Tuckerman or Robert Watson even played in the 1910 tournament.
Looks like two different tournaments. Perhaps Macdonald mistake was to describe Ward's feat as having occurred a year earlier than it did.
Mike, while I don't understand what it gets you, a few if the names from the 1909 tournament were Ward, Tuckerman, and Robert Watson.
________________________________
One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence. I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site" - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).
Peter
I generally agree that this is what Macdonald meant by an ideal golf course, and my understanding is that this concept in and of itself was groundbreaking. I would add that for Macdonald there were a couple of other specific requirements for an ideal course-- seaside linksland and no trees in play. An inland course with trees in play could be an excellent classic course, but it could not be ideal. For example, CBM considered NGLA and St. Andrews ideal, while he considered Yale classic.
-
Pat
The American Golfer article of August 1910 makes it clear that John Ward shot 74, not in any qualifying round, but in his 1st round of match play, beating the medallist, our own Maxie Behr! Ward went out (in, today) in 42 and back (out, today) in 32! He started the back nine with a 2 at today's 1st. The article makes it clear that this was a new course record, so it seems very unlikely that he also shot a 74 at some gathering in 1909.
Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
Rich
-
"Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
Rich:
You might indeed suggest such a thing, and it is probably extremely commonsensical. But if you are asking Patrick that question--no way in Hell will he concede a point like that---not because it might be true or commonsensical but because he thinks it might prove him wrong and I think we all know in his mind admitting such a thing or conceding such a thing as the possiblilty that he might be wrong is unimaginable!
-
"Quote from: Peter Pallotta on Today at 08:37:58 pm
One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence. I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site" - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).
Peter
I generally agree that this is what Macdonald meant by an ideal golf course, and my understanding is that this concept in and of itself was groundbreaking. I would add that for Macdonald there were a couple of other specific requirements for an ideal course-- seaside linksland and no trees in play. An inland course with trees in play could be an excellent classic course, but it could not be ideal. For example, CBM considered NGLA and St. Andrews ideal, while he considered Yale classic.'
Well, shit guys, that's amazing. From the foregoing it looks like you might be getting closer together. Good stuff!
Let's pick up on this tomorrow and discuss whether time has told since Macdonald made that "ideal vs "classic' proclamation if there was actually something different (inferior, better or middling) that the future brought that determined whether golf architecture could be better or worse or something in between if it was treeless and seaside (ideal) or somewhere in the trees (classic). ;)
-
Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
Rich
Rich,
No doubt Scotland's Gift had the wrong date for Ward's excellent round. But other than the inclusion of Ward's excellent round in both, the 1910 tournament sounds little or nothing like the 1909 tournament, as described in Scotland's gift. Isn't it more likely that Macdonald simply confused in which of the two tourneys Ward shot his great round. This would have been a simple mistake to make if CBM's record's did not show stroke scores for the match play.
Otherwise, CBM not only had the date wrong but also the winners, runners up, and even the participants.
-
I think the matter rests between Bill B and Peter P. CBM was hugely influential with the idea of building an ideal course based on tested and accepted design principles. CBM was also hugely influential in that he raised the quality bar of courses (and redesign work) which followed. While CBM was terribly influential, he wasn't the only guy on the block peddling good ideas. Leeds knew the score and from my perspective, I don't quite understand why the debate takes an American viewpoint. It is clear that what was happening on both sides of the pond was known and commented on. It is also clear that CBM was part of the "good design/sound principles debate which was happening on both sides of the pond, but it seems mainly in the UK until CBM takes the bull by the horns. Given this, why divide design philosophy/theory by country? This seems a strange tendency imo, especially as we, or more accurately they, are talking about the same ideas. On a further note, Peter P seems to be asking what were these ideas - was there a concensus which could describe/explain the concepts?
What isn't clear, is how influential CBM was with his style of architecture. Wayne seems to think that after a relatively short period of time, CBM's influence waned, basically with the arrival second wave of archies, which tended to be of the professional ilk and from the so called Philly School (is Shack was clever he would have called it the Philly Schuyl).
Does this sound about right as a summary?
All the nonsense about NGLA dates and other stuff, is interesting, but fluff.
Ciao
-
Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
Rich
Rich,
No doubt Scotland's Gift had the wrong date for Ward's excellent round. But other than the inclusion of Ward's excellent round in both, the 1910 tournament sounds little or nothing like the 1909 tournament, as described in Scotland's gift. Isn't it more likely that Macdonald simply confused in which of the two tourneys Ward shot his great round. This would have been a simple mistake to make if CBM's record's did not show stroke scores for the match play.
Otherwise, CBM not only had the date wrong but also the winners, runners up, and even the participants.
Rich brings up a good point about incorrect dates. Its not all that uncommon to find a date or two wrong in these memoirs or rememberances written several years later. If you have one date in a book or letter written several years after the fact and a different date in contemporaneous newspaper or magazine article which do you give more weight? I would go with the contemporaneous report.
-
Tom MacWood,
If I read you correctly, you're agreeing that NGLA's first tournament was in 1910, correct?
I would go with the contemporaneous report as well, particularly as the article in American Golfer makes very clear that the course is just opening...that things are a little rough yet...that all of the holes are grand experiments and almost all of them work...it clearly sounds like a grand unveiling.
I'm not sure why Macdonald would have held this tournament in 1910 inviting top players to see the course and comment on the holes if he'd already done it in 1909.
Besides, I have not found a single 1909 article from any source that talks about either the course being open or a tournament taking place. Have you come across anything?
Given Macdonald's penchant for making news, I would be surprised if this 1910 tournament wasn't the inaugural.
-
Mike
I haven't been following the controversay about 1909 and 1910 tournament, so my answer would be I have no idea either way. And for me its really not that important, I know for a fact they were playing golf at the NGLA in 1909...so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make. Are you still trying to make the case Macdonald & Whigham were not qualified to help at Merion?
-
Sean,
I did not intentionally try to "Americanize" the discussion but I just don't know enough about UK courses, their architects and UK history to broaden the debate. So in responding to the original thread: why does Macdonal get a pass repeating, I have to respond with the knowledge base that I have: US courses and US history.
But I would be very interested to learn if Macdonald had a big impact on gca in the UK. If you agree that Macdonald's work and words spurred on Tilly, Ross and others, do you think he changed what was happening on the ground in the UK? Or was it already happening?
Or a broader question, did the explosion of new golf courses in the US in the first part of the 20th century have an impact on UK gca?
-
Mike
I haven't been following the controversay about 1909 and 1910 tournament, so my answer would be I have no idea either way. And for me its really not that important, I know for a fact they were playing golf at the NGLA in 1909...so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make. Are you still trying to make the case Macdonald & Whigham were not qualified to help at Merion?
C'mon Tom...that's not an answer and I know you have intellectual curiosity about this.
I've asked repeatedly and I'm still left wondering. WHO was playing golf at NGLA in 1909? If you know that they were playing golf in 1909, can you tell us your source and who they were?
My point is simply trying to determine what impact NGLA might of had on who, when, and where.
A year's worth of activity is significant in those nascent moments of what would become the Golden Age. Surely you would understand that more than most.
-
Honestly I have no interest. They were playing golf at NGLA in 1909, so what's the point.
I've never quite understood your reasoning for trying to diminish the qualifications of Barker and M&W. Clearly the braintrust at Merion thought they were highly qualified...and I couldn't agree more with their assessment.
It seems to me you trying to make the case your wife is ugly or stupid or both. Who does that reflect on?
-
Honestly I have no interest. They were playing golf at NGLA in 1909, so what's the point.
I've never quite understood your reasoning for trying to diminish the qualifications of Barker and M&W. Clearly the braintrust at Merion thought they were highly qualified...and I couldn't agree more with their assessment.
It seems to me you trying to make the case your wife is ugly or stupid or both. Who does that reflect on?
Tom,
CB Macdonald was a wonderful, great, awesome, sublime, prophetic, pioneering, almost divine architect, so these repeated attempts to tell the world that I'm trying to diminish his qualifications are flaccid and misguided.
I just want to know WHEN his influence began to take hold, and with WHO.
If you (or anyone else) have no real evidence that golf was played at NGLA before 1910 and the inaugural Invitational tournament that American Golfer covered and George Bahto's book details, then just as you said...I'll agree with your recommendation and hold onto the belief that the contemporaneous account that I've linked to here is the correct one, and golf was first played there on a larger scale (beyond the development committee) in July 1910.
That seems reasonable and likely given that Travis, Hutchinson, and Darwin all wrote their NGLA articles in 1910.
As far as the influence of Barker, please explain to me why we should hold him in reverence above others who did "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" at that time such as Dunn, Bendelow, and even Findlay in those early years.
Certainly, it seems very little of his work survived, and it also seems that besides those few clubs where he worked as Professional, his architectural work between 1910-15 covered a large geographical area which also makes clear that much of his work was either paper jobs or quick one-day visits/routings, given that during that whole time he was employed by other clubs as their golf professional.
-
Kelly,
Thank you for your post #335. There's a lot there to digest.
I had exactly the same feeling when I first saw the Redan at North Berwick. On my second visit, it was still awe inspiring, as is much of the course.
While many heap acclaim on Macdonald, with most of it justified, I think the inspirations from the UK merit most of the acclaim as regards conceptual inspirations for Macdonald. I would have a higher regard for Macdonald, Raynor and Banks if they weren't so easily defined. Art and architecture should not be so narrowly compartmentalized.
-
Honestly I have no interest. They were playing golf at NGLA in 1909, so what's the point.
I've never quite understood your reasoning for trying to diminish the qualifications of Barker and M&W. Clearly the braintrust at Merion thought they were highly qualified...and I couldn't agree more with their assessment.
It seems to me you trying to make the case your wife is ugly or stupid or both. Who does that reflect on?
Tom,
CB Macdonald was a wonderful, great, awesome, sublime, prophetic, pioneering, almost divine architect, so these repeated attempts to tell the world that I'm trying to diminish his qualifications are flaccid and misguided.
I just want to know WHEN his influence began to take hold, and with WHO.
I take it you are not convinced the powers that be at Merion were too sharp when they engaged Macdonald & Whigham.
If you (or anyone else) have no real evidence that golf was played at NGLA before 1910 and the inaugural Invitational tournament that American Golfer covered and George Bahto's book details, then just as you said...I'll agree with your recommendation and hold onto the belief that the contemporaneous account that I've linked to here is the correct one, and golf was first played there on a larger scale (beyond the development committee) in July 1910.
You don't consider photographic evidence of golfers playing over the NGLA in 1909 evidence?
That seems reasonable and likely given that Travis, Hutchinson, and Darwin all wrote their NGLA articles in 1910.
As far as the influence of Barker, please explain to me why we should hold him in reverence above others who did "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" at that time such as Dunn, Bendelow, and even Findlay in those early years.
Anyone who had played courses like Mayfield, Columbia and Druid Hills realizes Barker was much more than 18 stakes on a Sunday. Trying to make that case does not do your credibility much good with those of us who appreciate his work. But its free country, you have every right to present yourself as a dumb dumb.
Certainly, it seems very little of his work survived, and it also seems that besides those few clubs where he worked as Professional, his architectural work between 1910-15 covered a large geographical area which also makes clear that much of his work was either paper jobs or quick one-day visits/routings, given that during that whole time he was employed by other clubs as their golf professional.
Interesting speculation.
-
The American Golfer article of August 1910 makes it clear that John Ward shot 74, not in any qualifying round, but in his 1st round of match play, beating the medallist, our own Maxie Behr!
That was in the July, 1910 tournament, NOT the 1909 Tournament.
Ward went out (in, today) in 42 and back (out, today) in 32! He started the back nine with a 2 at today's 1st. The article makes it clear that this was a new course record, so it seems very unlikely that he also shot a 74 at some gathering in 1909.
MacDonald is quite clear and devotes an entire page to the 1909 event.
I doubt he had a senior moment and doubled up on the events.
Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
You might, but, it's more likely that the article got the dates wrong.
Examples of this are replete in the genre. ;D
-
Now, one could argue that the duplicates exceed the original in strategy, but I think only someone who has played both several times can make such a case....
Kelly,
I wholeheartedly agree with both halves of this sentence....
...and even then you must temper their remarks with the fact that the basis of their arguments lie with favoritism, or I believe the term may be provincialism.
....but I don't understand why, if it's possible to argue that the 'duplicates' exceed (or even just equal) the originals in strategy, that argument is provincial. Can no one be objective and come to that conclusion?
-
Kelly,
I have not yet played the original but it is definitely on my to do list...
I will grant you that in terms of creating that awe inspiring feeling you describe, nothing can compare to an original.
But Macdonald's work certainly bolstered the importance of the original. By repeating the original's design concepts, he made the original famous. (Or more famous, I don't know if the hole was considered "famous" in 1908.)
You say that you played many Macdonald and Raynor courses before going to North Berwick. So I'll guess you played 10-20 different Redan versions before you played the original. It is perfectly natural to "be blown away" when you finally played the original. But Macdonald helped build that drama for you, he set the stage. And in doing so, he made North Berwick's Redan a better experience for you.
This gets to the gist of Macdonald's genius. I'll let some "take points off" for a lack of originality but what he did was to accurately understand what FEATURES make for great golf holes. He captured all those features and put them on one golf course and changed the game.
The fact that he "borrowed" these design concepts does not bother me in the least. In fact, as a student of history, I find it incredibly cool that I can trace so many American golf holes back to their original roots. That adds great texture to the game of golf.
-
"Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact. Examples of this replete in the genre.
Rich:
You might indeed suggest such a thing, and it is probably extremely commonsensical. But if you are asking Patrick that question--no way in Hell will he concede a point like that---not because it might be true or commonsensical but because he thinks it might prove him wrong and I think we all know in his mind admitting such a thing or conceding such a thing as the possiblilty that he might be wrong is unimaginable!
TEPaul,
How do you account for the different results in the matches ?
Did they replay the matches because they didn't like the results ?
It's clear that two SEPERATE Tournaments took place.
One, an informal gathering of MacDonald's friends in 1909 and the other a formal INVITATIONAL in 1910.
The record is clear, you just don't want to accept the facts.
-
"Did they replay the matches because they didn't like the results ?"
No, Macdonald only did that for the National Championship ;D
-
Mike Cirba & TEPaul,
With respect to the 1909 and 1910 tournaments,
How do you account for the fact that the field, matches, winners and runner's up were different ?
I'm anxious to hear your explanation.
-
Kelly:
Your last post is a very good one---as usual, and for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that you expressed a sentiment in your first paragraph that was very much expressed when Macdonald himself was talking about the entire concept of using the best features of holes from abroad in the making of his NGLA, or even in what he probably felt should be done with American architecture (I'll get into more of that later with a quote from his book and such).
But another reason your post is a good one is because you express again your obviously strong sentiment that golf architects and golf architecture should keep on stretching for some fresh and effective ideas now and into the future.
In that vein, the thing I've always liked about your attitude and approach to golf architecture is that you mention this constant search for new and interesting ideas to apply while never really identifying what they might be. To me this just exemplifies the fact that you really are on that constant search and have not arrived at any final destination or goal in that search. Perhaps there isn't one, and perhaps that's your very point----it's the search that's the real deal because it gets away from ever settling for some standardization, style or perhaps even principle.
But if one really tries to do that---to do what you may be doing in that vein, I should ask, where in the world are you looking? In how many places, contexts, philosophies etc?
Last night I was speaking to Peter Pallota on the phone, and in the course of that conversation we both agreed there are probably just layers and layers, and other layers upon other layers if one really does consider golf and golfers and golf course architecture altogether somehow.
What could possibly come out of trying to consider all these things together if one is actually looking to find or take something truly positive from it? That is a good question, indeed, don't you think? It just may be the everlasting riddle in all of golf and golf course architecture.
I think there may be an answer, and a pretty good one and it was a concept that Macdonald himself articulated a number of times. Unfortunately, his answer and concept, which was agreed with and also articulated by a few others who were arguably the best architects of his times, such as Mackenzie, probably does seem to be something of an nonanswer to many golfers and golf architecture analysts, and golf architects.
That answer and concept was of course the concept and idea of "controversy" or what they apparently looked at as "beneficial controversy." It's effect and result was supposed to be that something really good should be and must be hotly contested and apparently always. Consensus of opinion seemed to be anathema to them, including something that everyone felt was good.
Isn't it just amazing that they felt that if everyone agreed that something was good, that there must be something wrong with it---that it was actually lacking interest because there was consensus of opinion about it?
Apparently to some of those guys controversy actually equalled interest, that real interest has to amount to what is controversial in the end and in the final analyis.
But in some sense it seems that Macdonald was contradicting himself in this way if he truly approved of using even the best of known and recognizable features from abroad.
But what may be a really important distinction in what Macdonald meant in that vein has just occured to me, which might help explain what he was thinking. He may've meant the known and recognizable features from abroad were not necessarily things he should actually make in his architecture but merely search for in the way of natural landforms on various sites. But knowing his architecture as I do I can tell that is not exactly what he did, and Piping Rock's redan---in my opinion one of the best playing redans in the world----was certainly not wholly natural----he definitely had to make a lot of it and it definitely shows.
I'm drifting around here but on another post I want to get back to your constant search for fresh and interesting ideas.
-
"TEPaul,
How do you account for the different results in the matches ?
Did they replay the matches because they didn't like the results ?"
Pat:
Basically, I'm not trying to account for the different results in the matches because I can't really see the importance in any of it, but you are. ;)
-
Tom MacWood,
Why is Columbia listed as being designed by Walter Travis? How much of Mayfield was Bert Way's efforts? How much of Barker is left at Druid Hills?
What pictures of golf at NGLA in 1909 are you referring to? Who was playing there in 1909?
I think Merion was very wise to bring M&W in to view their proposed property and help them select the best of their five routings. They clearly referred to the fact that M&W had made a great study of course building. Macdonald was also the most famous golfer in America at the time and having him involved with their new course, especially with the proposed real-estate component, certainly was also a vehicle for adding lustre to sales efforts. A better question is why wouldn't they have sought his advice if they were able to obtain him?
Patrick,
It's unlikely that the entire issue of American Golfer, August 1910 is incorrectly dated. ;)
-
"Kelly,
I have not yet played the original but it is definitely on my to do list..."
BillB:
I have, and I can tell you there's definitely a lot about it and with it that is different and looks different from all the other redans done over here. However, there are about three basic similarities, at least, that probably do constitute what may be considered the basic "principles" of the redan hole or green.
-
"How much of Mayfield was Bert Way's efforts?"
Mike Cirba:
Tom MacWood has allowed on another thread on here some time ago that Barker designed Mayfield and Bert Way who was the pro there for many years and had been the pro at the club's former course, which Way designed, only constructed Mayfield to Barker's design.
Of course, as he almost always does on here, Tom MacWood offered no actual evidence at all for why he said that.
-
There are few courses in my experience that have elicited a more powerful emotional response than the NGLA, Yale and Fishers Island. Regarding the importance of comparing these 'copies' to the original I'm not quite sure what the 4th at Fishers Island is a copy of or is based upon (Alps? Punchbowl?)...all I know is there isn't hole in the world quite like it. If an emotional response is the measurement of a great course, the sum of the emotional responses at the NGLA is hard to beat.
-
"How much of Mayfield was Bert Way's efforts?"
Mike Cirba:
Tom MacWood has allowed on another thread on here some time ago that Barker designed Mayfield and Bert Way who was the pro there for many years and had been the pro at the club's former course, which Way designed, only constructed Mayfield to Barker's design.
Of course, as he almost always does on here, Tom MacWood offered no actual evidence at all for why he said that.
Tom,
That must be why the club advertises themselves as a Bert Way designed course. I'm sure it was all the unknown genius of HH Barker.
Another of those foolish clubs, evidently. ::) ;)
-
"Kelly,
I have not yet played the original but it is definitely on my to do list..."
BillB:
I have, and I can tell you there's definitely a lot about it and with it that is different and looks different from all the other redans done over here. However, there are about three basic similarities, at least, that probably do constitute what may be considered the basic "principles" of the redan hole or green.
Tom, sorry to put you on the spot here, but what similarities between the original and Macdonald's Redan holes do you see on the 3rd at Merion East? That is besides grass, sand and a hole ;)
-
Tom MacWood,
Why is Columbia listed as being designed by Walter Travis? Columbia is listed as a Travis redesign. The routing is intact. How much of Mayfield was Bert Way's efforts? Way was a construction specialist. How much of Barker is left at Druid Hills? Except for one hole (Bob Cupp's doing, the routing remains as Barker left it. Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.
What pictures of golf at NGLA in 1909 are you referring to? Who was playing there in 1909? The pictures in the January 1910 Harpers. I'm not sure who the golfers were in the photograph....it does not say in the captions. Does that make a difference?
I think Merion was very wise to bring M&W in to view their proposed property and help them select the best of their five routings. They clearly referred to the fact that M&W had made a great study of course building. Macdonald was also the most famous golfer in America at the time and having him involved with their new course, especially with the proposed real-estate component, certainly was also a vehicle for adding lustre to sales efforts. A better question is why wouldn't they have sought his advice if they were able to obtain him?
I have no desire to turn this into full fledged Merion thread (as opposed to a Merion thread posing as a Macdonald thread)...your questions and false premises have been adressed multiple times.
Patrick,
It's unlikely that the entire issue of American Golfer, August 1910 is incorrectly dated. ;)
-
Wayne:
I see basically none with the possible exception of the slight diagonal line along the right side bunker/right green side.
But to me that similarity is way too general to establish Merion's #3 as a redan in feature "principle." To me that would be something like saying all greens with even a single side set on any kind of diagonal are redan greens. ::)
-
"Way was a construction specialist."
Mr. MacWood:
Does that mean you think Bert Way never routed or designed golf courses? ;)
-
"Macdonald was also the most famous golfer in America at the time....."
Mike Cirba:
I think that opinion may be more than just a little bit debatable! ;)
-
Tom Mac
HH must have been a brilliant router to have done all of that during his 20 minuites onsite! ;)
-
"Way was a construction specialist."
Mr. MacWood:
Does that mean you think Bert Way never routed or designed golf courses? ;)
TE
No, not at all. Way's Aurora designed in 1926 is an excellent course, underrated. Everyone is very familar with Firestone-South, what most don't realize is Way laid it out in 1929.
I'm certain Way was a major asset at Mayfield during construction afterward as pro/greenkeeper, but with that being said it seems clear the course was designed by Barker. Travis said Barker laid out Mayfield, Verdant Green said Barker planned Mayfield, Barker himself advertised he laid out Mayfield and Geo Thomas' book lists Mayfield as 'Barker and Way.' Clearly Barker was the main man at Mayfield.
Mike
20 minutes or 20 days or somewhere in between, no matter the time frame anyone who routed Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills and quite possibly Merion has my admiration.
-
Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.
That is easy to say and hard to prove. Brilliant for what kind of golf? I maintain that almost all of us on this site, except for superintendents at their specific courses and the architects who post on this site, are incapable of knowing how brilliant a routing really is, especially compared to other possibilities that were options available to the architect.
How many routings have you done, Tom MacWood? How much did you study the overall land and the site (not just the course) in considering other possible routings? Please tell us in what ways Barker was a brilliant router. That statement on its own is not persuasive. Just because a course is great and thoroughly enjoyable, doesn't mean that the routing is the best one available and that would vary depending upon what sort of course was being called for.
Is there a routing you know that cannot be improved upon? For you to answer that question, you would have to take a lot of time to study courses, many days worth. That isn't unique to you, it applies to all of us. We overestimate our understanding of what is a great routing...except for Pat and crossovers, then he underestimates ;)
I suspect the number of courses where you have done extensive analysis of the course and its surroundings is very small. How much time did you spend on each site on Long Island? At Columbia? At Mayfield? At Druid Hills? Just what sorts of attributes are required for you to consider a routing brilliant?
-
Anyone who has played these courses realizes Barker was not a good router of a golf course, he was brilliant.
That is easy to say and hard to prove. Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh? I maintain that almost all of us on this site, except for superintendents at their specific courses and the architects who post on this site, are incapable of knowing how brilliant a routing really is, especially compared to other possibilities that were options available to the architect. I beg to differ. When the golf course sits on what is clearly a challenging site topographically - like Mayfield, Yale or Cape Breton - and the final result is a great golf course, that is a brilliant routing in my book.
How many routings have you done, Tom MacWood? Only one, a nine-holer for a project in LArch. Any buffoon can route a golf course, just like any buffoon can compose a song or draw a picture. I've done both of those things too. How much did you study the overall land and the site (not just the course) in considering other possible routings? There are many things to consider, the severity of the topography, the use of natural features, the quality of the invidual holes, how the holes flow together, the variety, etc. One interesting test I use when judging a routing, especially on severe sites, like the three courses I mentioned above, at the end of the round could you approximate the routing on paper (assuming you had not seen it on paper prior to playing the course)...I think it would be very difficult with those three, especially Mayfield. Please tell us in what ways Barker was a brilliant router. The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia. That statement on its own is not persuasive. Just because a course is great and thoroughly enjoyable, doesn't mean that the routing is the best one available and that would vary depending upon what sort of course was being called for.
Is there a routing you know that cannot be improved upon? For you to answer that question, you would have to take a lot of time to study courses, many days worth. That isn't unique to you, it applies to all of us. We overestimate our understanding of what is a great routing...except for Pat and crossovers, then he underestimates ;)
I suspect the number of courses where you have done extensive analysis of the course and its surroundings is very small. How much time did you spend on each site on Long Island? At Columbia? At Mayfield? At Druid Hills? Just what sorts of attributes are required for you to consider a routing brilliant? Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?
-
Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?
No, I am saying that we are in the same category; enthusiasts who really don't understand routings well enough to determine how great they are compared to other alternatives. When I asked you how much time you spent on site at particular courses you've commented on the brilliance of the routing, I am trying to show that you could not fully understand the implications of the routing and the alternatives, nor could anyone else other than a few gifted architects that are able to do so in a short period of time.
Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh?
I've seen different routings by classic era greats for a given piece of land that varied significantly. One was suited towards a nice membership layout, the other for a championship level test with a great deal of high demand shot testing. The routings were suitable for different demands. One wasn't necessarily better than the other.
-
Are you trying build up your own qualifications by trying to diminish mine? Where have I seen this before?
No, I am saying that we are in the same category; enthusiasts who really don't understand routings well enough to determine how great they are compared to other alternatives. When I asked you how much time you spent on site at particular courses you've commented on the brilliance of the routing, I am trying to show that you could not fully understand the implications of the routing and the alternatives, nor could anyone else other than a few gifted architects that are able to do so in a short period of time.
It doesn't take years of contemplation to recongize a special routing. One day at Fishers Island or Maidstone was plently of time.
Brilliant for what kind of golf? Huh?
I've seen different routings by classic era greats for a given piece of land that varied significantly. One was suited towards a nice membership layout, the other for a championship level test with a great deal of high demand shot testing. The routings were suitable for different demands. One wasn't necessarily better than the other.
A great routing is a great routing, but the routing is only one aspect of a design - overall length, the nature of the greens, the frequency and severity of the hazards all go toward the type of course.
Columbia and Mayfield are a blast to play today, but were championship venues in the day.
-
"The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."
So, can we assume that Barker, for one, understood the principles of good golf course architecture? When would this understanding have first come to him? :)
Peter
-
"The ability to route holes over severe terrain and the ability to maximize the natural features of the site, and at the end of the process produce a collection of excellent holes that works together as a homogenus whole. Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."
So, can we assume that Barker, for one, understood the principles of good golf course architecture? Based on what I have seen, better than most. What is your opinion? When would this understanding have first come to him? He grew up in Leeds, Yorkshire, and was protege of Sandy Herd. He was one of the top amateurs in Britain (a contemporary of Colt, Darwin, Low, etc) and as a result was exposed to a number of high profile courses in Britain and Ireland. And he made at least one well publicised return (to London) on a golfing exhibition in 1910. He also collaborated with Travis on the historic redesign of GCGC and collaborated with Colt at Winnetka. I'm sure they all had an influence.
:)What is the significance of the smiley face?
Peter
-
Tom MacWood,
Do you know that the 17th is an original Barker hole? What work did Travis do several years (1917?) after the opening of Columbia CC's present course?
-
Tom M -
This thread has had a number of sidebars, one of which was a discussion about who other than Mr. Macdonald understood the principles of good golf architecture in the early days of American golf. The smiley face meant that I wasn't about to seriously open up that debate again on the back of your exchange with Wayne.
Peter
-
Tom MacWood,
Do you know that the 17th is an original Barker hole? What work did Travis do several years (1917?) after the opening of Columbia CC's present course?
Yes, the 17th is an original Barker hole. Travis (and Harban) lengthened the course (by about 300 years), introduced a new bunkering scheme and resurfaced all the greens. The contours of the greens are typical of Travis. I think it is the 10th hole that has the wild mulit-level green that Travis repeated on several courses. Ironically the original 16th green was based on the crazy 12th at GCGC was made into a more conventional green. The biggest change to the layout would be at the 4th and 5th. The 4th was converted form a short par-4 to a long par-3 and the par-5 5th was lengthened by over 100 yards. The changes took place over about 3 or 4 year period.
-
Barker often accomplished this by thinking way outside the box, like the 2nd at Mayfield or 17th at Columbia."
Tom or Wayne, is the 17th an example of good routing as the hole is unusual and fun, or not good routing as the golfer needs to backtrack off the par 3 to get to the 17th tee? Or did Barker (or Travis) just kind of run out of room towards the end? I admit to finding routing very mystifying.
-
That's a good question. It is a bit awkward of a trek from 16 green (I like that hole quite a bit, though the predecessor seemed just fine). The 17th hole plays a bit strange today with the steep upslope to the green. I guess it may have played better with older balls and implements, though that approach would have been quite difficult.
I agree that routings are mystifying. I don't think it is at all as simplistic as Tom MacWood would have us believe. The architects that post or check out this site must chuckle at some of our pretensions.
-
AH
I see it as example of a good routing. That hollow, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the more interesting natural features on the property. Barker was able create two holes that took advantage of that land form and the stream that runs through it. Two excellent holes in a relatively small space is a good routing in my opinion.
The walk back to 17th tee is not all that long, a 50 or 60 yards jog maybe (aprox. a half wedge), and once you get up to the 17th tee and look down on the fairway in the hollow, most would conclude that jog was well worth it. Most importantly, as you said, in the end the two holes are unusual and fun.
-
Tom,
I enjoyed your post and I think you understand things at a much deeper level than I do, partly because I don’t worry too much about where I am going, and would never want to try to set down in writing where I have been and where I think I may be going. I may have tried briefly but I just don’t have the smarts to articulate nor do I think it would be of much benefit to me and certainly to anyone else. The ability to articulate a vision requires mental exercise on a daily basis; much like training for a big athletic event requires daily training. Interestingly, some athletes have found that working on a farm does more to help them train for a season than working with a trainer in a gym, so I think the mental training requires a heavy dose of the natural world. Certainly there are boundaries within which you explore, or maybe you could call them prejudices, that you either set yourself or are naturally set by your upbringing, but there is still a lot of room within those boundaries to exercise your mind. Allowing those explorations to flood into your personal and professional life is important, there really can be no separation if you are to be totally honest about what you do.
Kelly
I think the difference maybe I look at a routing from the perspective of a golfer and you look at routings as a professional router. For example I never consider alternative routings when evaluating a routing (unless there is some obvious mistake). Bascially I look at a routing as journey from point A to point B or point A to the end. Or maybe 18 small journeys that add up to one big journey. I enjoy being taken up hills, across ridges, down valleys, through valleys, through trees, into open spaces, etc. When I become more or less lost, and have no idea where I am in relation to the rest of the course, I think that is a good use of the land.
I've noticed a common thread with many of the routings that have stood out to me, the ninth hole does not return to the clubhouse.
-
When I become more or less lost, and have no idea where I am in relation to the rest of the course, I think that is a good use of the land.
This would seem at odds with the mother of all routings at TOC; I haven't had the pleasure, but I can't imagine getting lost there.
-
Tom M,
I think your last two sentences there are very interesting.
the ninth not returning is an interesting thing isn't it...sort of doubles your chances of screwing something up when you are bound to the clubhouse at a premature point in the round...
I can't quite get me hands around the "getting lost" phenomenon of determining the quality of a routing...I admittedly have no clue what is involved with the routing process and can't ever remember commenting on the quality of a particular routing, but feeling lost doesn't ring true to me...frequent twists and turns are great, but it's the holes that come from it that matters, isn't it?
-
George
Its hard to get lost on an open relatively flat property. Is St. Andrews a great routing? I'm not sure.
-
Tom M,
I think your last two sentences there are very interesting.
the ninth not returning is an interesting thing isn't it...sort of doubles your chances of screwing something up when you are bound to the clubhouse at a premature point in the round...
I can't quite get me hands around the "getting lost" phenomenon of determining the quality of a routing...I admittedly have no clue what is involved with the routing process and can't ever remember commenting on the quality of a particular routing, but feeling lost doesn't ring true to me...frequent twists and turns are great, but it's the holes that come from it that matters, isn't it?
I would agree that the quality of the holes that come out is what matters, as long as the holes flow naturally with one another. I've played some modern courses that are collection of good to very good holes, that don't flow that well together. Muirfield Village comes to mind. There are some holes that use the land brilliantly, but other holes that seem to be forced on to the land or a little too contrived for my tastes. All eighteen holes are good to very good but I would not consider that course well routed.
I wouldn't get too caught up in the lost idea. That applies mostly to severe or heavily rolling property - Sand Hills is another example. On the other hand Cypress Point is an excellent routing but you always know where you are in realtionship to the rest of holes.
-
Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.
JMorgan,
I know I'm old, but, I wasn't playing GCGC and NGLA in 1911.
While I might be able to speak to playing GCGC over the last 11 years and NGLA for considerably longer, I'm not qualified to speak to both courses circa 1911.
It would take me quite a while to relate my experiences on a feature by feature, hole by hole basis.
As I type this, I'm considering having a get together that might focus on both courses, with the possible inclusion of Atlantic City, if I can get Wayno to join me.
I think a get-together is an excellent idea, Pat.
And perhaps you could cover those 11 years in a short hole-by-hole piece for the "In My Opinion" section.
-
Patrick,
It's unlikely that the entire issue of American Golfer, August 1910 is incorrectly dated. ;)
Mike, you continually take a particular and expand it to a universal.
Just because all collies are dogs doesn't mean that all dogs are collies.
MacDonald is crystal clear that an informal tournament amongst his friends took place in 1909. He names some of the participants and the outcome of some of the matches.
It's also clear that a formal Invitational was held in 1910, some of the participants and the outcome of the matches in that tournament DIFFER from the tournament in 1909.
Despite proof of the two seperate tournaments, you continue to ignore the facts and continue to deny the existance of the tournament in 1909.
When such overwhelming facts are presented and you continue to deny those facts, one has to conclude that you have an agenda that conflicts with the facts. An agenda that must deny the existance of play in 1909 in order to perpetuate itself.
My guess is that CBM, 18-19 years removed, didn't accurately recall in which tournament John Ward shot his 74, since John Ward participated in both tournaments.
But, again, the evidence is clear, a tournament amongst MacDonald's friends was held at NGLA in 1909.
To deny it is ........... disengenuous and/or agenda driven.
-
Patrick,
Now that's just plain silly.
Here, we have some of the top golf course researchers in the world working to elevate Macdonald's status.
Why Tom MacWood and David Moriarty could tell you the name of Hugh Wilson's maid in 1908 and the name of Herbert Barker's ship in 1915, and the exact date and hour of HJ Whigham's induction into the Loyal Order of Toadies in 1904 but they can't cite a single piece of existing documentation that shows a single person playing on NGLA in 1909. who wasn't one of the original owners/designers, such as Emmett, Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, or others. ;)
ALL accounts of the 1910 tournament...American Golfer's...George Bahto's...and other news accounts of the time all stated that the July 1910 tournament was the inaugural.
Even at that time, they mentioned that the course condition was very rough and unfinished.
IN fact, it wasn't until 14 months later that the course actually opened to membership.
My agenda is to stop this ridiculous attempt to change the historical record.
If "they" were playing NGLA in 1909, and "they" were more than just Macdonald and his closest co-developers and co-designers, then it should be a very simple matter to provide proof here.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, Patrick.
I'm just asking to see the proof. ;D
-
Patrick,
Now that's just plain silly.
Here, we have some of the top golf course researchers in the world working to elevate Macdonald's status.
Why Tom MacWood and David Moriarty could tell you the name of Hugh Wilson's maid in 1908 and the name of Herbert Barker's ship in 1915, and the exact date and hour of HJ Whigham's induction into the Loyal Order of Toadies in 1904 but they can't cite a single piece of existing documentation that shows a single person playing on NGLA in 1909. who wasn't one of the original owners/designers, such as Emmett, Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, or others. ;)
ALL accounts of the 1910 tournament...American Golfer's...George Bahto's...and other news accounts of the time all stated that the July 1910 tournament was the inaugural.
Even at that time, they mentioned that the course condition was very rough and unfinished.
IN fact, it wasn't until 14 months later that the course actually opened to membership.
My agenda is to stop this ridiculous attempt to change the historical record.
If "they" were playing NGLA in 1909, and "they" were more than just Macdonald and his closest co-developers and co-designers, then it should be a very simple matter to provide proof here.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, Patrick.
I'm just asking to see the proof. ;D
I've provided the proof a dozen times, you just fail to acknowledge it.
It's on page 194 of "Scotland's Gift" the book that MACDONALD wrote.
Get the book, read page 194 and you'll see the proof that's been offered to you at least a dozen times.
-
Patrick,
I seem to recall you disputing Alan Wilson's recollections of things in the 1920s.
We already know that Macdonald made a mistake on the date of Ward's round...it was a LOT of years later when he was transcribing his recollections.
Macdonald trumpeted his idea of an "ideal course" at NGLA to anyone and everyone who would listen for quite a number of years.
Are you telling me that after about 5 years of planning he finally got it open to play and there is not ONE SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT that anyone can find to validate play there in 1909??! :o ;)
-
Patrick,
I seem to recall you disputing Alan Wilson's recollections of things in the 1920s.
Primarily because they conflicted with others.
We already know that Macdonald made a mistake on the date of Ward's round...it was a LOT of years later when he was transcribing his recollections.
Macdonald trumpeted his idea of an "ideal course" at NGLA to anyone and everyone who would listen for quite a number of years.
Are you telling me that after about 5 years of planning he finally got it open to play and there is not ONE SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT that anyone can find to validate play there in 1909??! :o ;)
Mike, your logic defies description.
Must we recollect the newspaper accounts of Wilson's alleged trip abroad prior to 1912.
Perhaps, because it was an informal gathering of MacDonald's friends and not a formal tournament, IT WOULDN'T BE IN ONE SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT !
When MacDonald goes to great lengths to name some of the participants and the results of some of the matches, I doubt he conjured up a tournament that never existed.
It's mind boggling to me that you refuse to accept a fairly well documented fact from the architect himself. Not just a vague recollection mind you, but, a recall that names participants and the results of a series of matches.
Your repeated failure to accept the documented evidence and your propensity for faulty logic, strikes at your credibilty and screams ....AGENDA, loud and clear. ;D
-
"Perhaps, because it was an informal gathering of MacDonald's friends and not a formal tournament, IT WOULDN'T BE IN ONE SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT !"
Patrick,
If the only play at NGLA at that time was just Macdonald playing a roughly-hewn, still being-built course that was about 75% completed in 1909 with a few of his closest friends, then please don't claim that the course had world-class influence by that time because it clearly didn't.
It was a highly anticipated offering, for certain, and there was a lot of excitement, but it wasn't yet a huge influencer of golf course design for one simple reason;
If ain't nobody seen or played it, then nobody could learn the lessons it taught. ;)
-
If ain't nobody seen or played it, then nobody could learn the lessons it taught. ;)
Mike,
Sitting next to Shinnecock Hills Golf Club one of the founding clubs of the USGA, I doubt that nobody saw the course during construction. The fact that CB Mac was persona non grata at Shinnecock probably made it more interesting to many people.
-
Sweens,
Based on the state of the Shinnecock course at that time, do you really think that the membership there was in the vanguard of intellectual thinking about golf course architecture in 1909/10?
They were probably just happy that Macdonald took out some trees blocking their view of the bay! ;D
-
Kelly,
One of the best things about this site is the participation on working architects!
I can easily understand your desire to build unique and creative golf holes. But have you ever built any Redans? (Sorry if I am not familar with all of your work.) If not, is that because you felt that there are enough Redans out there already? As an absolute rank "armchair architect" I imagine that I would build a Redan on every course that I designed if I saw a proper place for one. My logic would be that I know I would be building a fun, challenging hole that golfers would enjoy. Or is that taking the easy way?
-
Now, one could argue that the duplicates exceed the original in strategy, but I think only someone who has played both several times can make such a case...
.
Kelly,
I wholeheartedly agree with both halves of this sentence....
...and even then you must temper their remarks with the fact that the basis of their arguments lie with favoritism, or I believe the term may be provincialism.
....but I don't understand why, if it's possible to argue that the 'duplicates' exceed (or even just equal) the originals in strategy, that argument is provincial. Can no one be objective and come to that conclusion?
That was my post, agreeing with you and asking a question of you, to which you answered:
Jim
I don't really like expressing this because I would rather say otherwise so I don’t seem too negative, but I really have lost faith in people being able to acknowledge someone’s opinion to embrace that opinion when it contradicts their own about a subject in which they have a particular interest or stake. This realization has come to me on many different levels: political, religious, architectural, etc. Typically, what I see between two people is the repetition of their own views rather than a mutual exploration of each person’s views. That said, I hope it explains my statement which you questioned.
I didn't question you, your statement, or your belief, I asked you a question, that's all. As a matter of fact I agreed with most of what you said, and I think the above will show that. And no, you didn't answer it but that's OK.
-
If ain't nobody seen or played it, then nobody could learn the lessons it taught. ;)
Fascinating. You spent months arguing that Wilson need not have seen the great links courses before designing Merion East, even though the design was reportedly modeled after holes on the great links courses. Yet now you claim that nobody could learn anything from NGLA unless they saw it and played it? I am not sure. Is this Irony? Hypocrisy? Both?
Or do you now agree at least some of Merion is based on NGLA?
___________________
You claim that NGLA was 75% built in 1909. Any support? Or are you just making things up to suit your argument?
________________________
Here, we have some of the top golf course researchers in the world working to elevate Macdonald's status.
Why Tom MacWood and David Moriarty could tell you the name of Hugh Wilson's maid in 1908 and the name of Herbert Barker's ship in 1915, and the exact date and hour of HJ Whigham's induction into the Loyal Order of Toadies in 1904 but they can't cite a single piece of existing documentation that shows a single person playing on NGLA in 1909. who wasn't one of the original owners/designers, such as Emmett, Macdonald, Travis, Whigham, or others. ;)
Mike, this sarcastic nonsense wore thin months ago. Give it a rest, why don't you?
1. I don't take requests. I doubt Tom MacWood does either. It doesn't matter who played. The course was far enough along to be playable and not deeply marred in construction like you and others have repeatedly suggested.
2. Even so, I have given you some names and others have as well. You have even been provided with the location of a photograph of golfers playing the course in 1909! Yet here we are still. So what is this about?
3. NGLA's influence went far beyond those who played the course.
ALL accounts of the 1910 tournament...American Golfer's...George Bahto's...and other news accounts of the time all stated that the July 1910 tournament was the inaugural.
Even at that time, they mentioned that the course condition was very rough and unfinished.
That is NOT what the article said. And Bahto said they were playing the course in 1909.
IN fact, it wasn't until 14 months later that the course actually opened to membership.
A few posts above you highlighted where the article said that the tournament marked an "informal opening." Yet you are already back to this bit about the course not being open to the members until Sept. 1911. As CBM wrote, the club "formally opened" in Sept. 1911 when the clubhouse was finished. But it had been informally opened for quite some time.
My agenda is to stop this ridiculous attempt to change the historical record.
Then your enemy is within.
-
Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor? Well, there are several reasons, more than I care to go into here. But golf is a sport, something most people do for enjoyment, and the one overriding quality of MacDonald/Raynor is that they are really fun to play. Game, set, match MacDonald/Raynor!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor? Well, there are several reasons, more than I care to go into here. But golf is a sport, something most people do for enjoyment, and the one overriding quality of MacDonald/Raynor is that they are really fun to play. Game, set, match MacDonald/Raynor!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll bet John Ward of Garden City thought so as well. I'd imagine that going 2-2-4-2 on Holes 1-4 (then 10-13) at NGLA would be an quite a thrill for top player even today. But to do it in 1910? Incredible.
____________________________
Mike Cirba,
Here is John Ward playing at NGLA.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/993253c5.jpg?t=1220510374)
The photo was published in October of 1909.
Now can we stop this nonsense?
-
The illustrations in the May 1909 article in Scribners are some of the most striking golf history in my opinion. They clearly shows the course in all its glory - Redan, the Alps, the Sahara, the Home hole - being played over.
Mike
I'm still trying to figure out what point you're trying to make. Are you claiming that Macdonald was not that prominant in 1910 or the NGLA was little known in 1910 or both?
-
"Perhaps, because it was an informal gathering of MacDonald's friends and not a formal tournament, IT WOULDN'T BE IN ONE SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT !"
Patrick,
If the only play at NGLA at that time was just Macdonald playing a roughly-hewn, still being-built course that was about 75% completed in 1909 with a few of his closest friends, then please don't claim that the course had world-class influence by that time because it clearly didn't.
Mike,
First you repeatedly deny the existance of the event and now you make a WILD statement that they played a roughly hewn, still being built course that was about 75 % completed in 1909.
What concrete evidence do you have to support your wild contention ?
How do you know the state of the golf course at the time of the event, and event that you've repeatedly denied the existance of ?
If you didn't know about the event, how do you know the status of the golf course at the time of the event ?
What 25 % remained to be built ?
How was it roughly hewn ?
You've made these statements, now back them up with facts.
It's obvious that everything you type is agenda driven.
It was a highly anticipated offering, for certain, and there was a lot of excitement, but it wasn't yet a huge influencer of golf course design for one simple reason;
If ain't nobody seen or played it, then nobody could learn the lessons it taught. ;)
We know that that's not true.
Many had seen it, and, they were prominent in the golfing world.
People like Travis and his peers.
And, in 1909 people played the golf course.
People who were prominent in the golfing world.
-
Kelly,
Thanks four answer and I understand how you feel. I think this ties into this thread because you would seem to be in the school of architects striking out in the opposite direction of using templates. Perhaps like Tilly and Ross 80-90 years ago, you can study and appreciate the work of Macdonald and Raynor, learn from it, and then design in your own style, which happens to be far different from Macdonald and Raynor.
But now I am even more curious: wouldn't it be professionally challenging for you to build one? Having explained your feelings about copying a Redan, you would have to overcome those feelings yet still build a good golf hole. And you have seen the original and been awed by it. Seems to me that it would cause you a few sleepless nights while you were building one!
Finally, you obviously build dogleg lefts and dogleg rights. Is it wrong to say that a Redan-style green complex (whether on a Par 3, 4 or 5) hole is simply another tried-and-tested basic tool available to any architect? You are not "pandering" when you build doglegs. Is it wrong to consider a Redan green complex as a staple?
-
Kelly,
Honestly, I didn't take it as a personal attack. What I was trying to say was I agreed that sometimes we are 'homers', but that doesn't necessarily mean we cannot respect the works of other architects and enjoy them for what they are.
-
How Scotch golfers commented on the construction of the National course at Shinnecock Hills, from the NYT February 19, 1909
Glasgow-Golf courses as constructed in this country have, in a number of instances, appealed strongly to the humor of our leading golfers. There recently appeared in one of the local papers an article regarding what American golfers are willing to do in order to get a course that will approach the ideal links. It refers to the work which has been done on the course at Shinnecock, and says:
"Good progress, it seems, has been made with the construction of the American ideal course at Shinnecock, Long Island, and there is a prospect that it will be opened tentatively for play next June. In the United States they believe that dollars can do almost anything, and as this curious project in golf course architecture is backed by a large millionaire element, no money will be spared in the attempt to do for Shinnecock what nature has done for some of the most famous courses in this country. Already about $65,000 has been expended on the new course, which is to consist of 18 holes made as nearly as possible like 18 of the best holes on Scottish and English greens, among those selected for reproduction being the Alps at Prestwick, the famous short hole and "Road" hole at St. Andrews, and well known examples from North Berwick, Leven, Sunningdale, Sandwich and other noted greens.
Some golfers have questioned the possibility of the scheme ever becoming a success, but in the opinion of those interested golfers who have seen the course in progress of formation--the American ideal is going to turn out one of the two or three finest courses in existence. We shall known by-and-by. Certainly it was a novel notion to attempt the task of copying nature on so lavish a scale as to produce a golf course chockful of superlatives. One would think that when the wonderful affair is completed it will present a terrible ordeal for the duffer, but perhaps it will be reserved only for the ideal golfer, in which case there would not be much danger of congestion occurring.
"Perhaps the next American experiment will take the form of an attempt to make a course from first to last like the classic Old Course of St. Andrews, but while the dollars would not be wanting for the work of construction, money could not buy the St. Andrews traditions, and without these and the golfing atmosphere so peculiar to the Auld Grey City a second Old Course would hardly be complete."
A January 3, 1909 NYT article mentioned that a group of Scotsman leased ground in Haworth, NJ (formerly the Haworth CC) to build a Scottish-American Golf Course with duplicates of famous holes from Scotch links. The total yardage was to be 6019. Was the course built?
-
That 1909 article from Scotland is a good example of the exposure the National project was getting throughout the world of golf.
-
My lord fellows...please relax!
David...thanks for sharing that picture, and for Tom MacWood to cite Scribners and for Wayne to cite a 1909 article and other sharing of information.
See...that wasn't so bad, was it? ;)
I'm simply trying to understand the early evolution of the golf course, who was playing it when, and how it evolved in the first couple of years in an effort to better understand it's possible influence on other architects and courses built around the same time.
Don't you think it's unusual that construction started in 1907 yet the course wasn' t formally opened until 1911, with a "trial run" invitational tournament in July 1910?
Yes, we know about the agronomic failure that set them back 18 months, but I think it's fair to say that by 1910 and certainly by 1911 it was starting to have a very direct influence in thinking of what was possible in US architecture, at least from an internal hole strategy standpoint. I'm not sure that the routing was much of a lesson, as it was simple out and back as borrowed from abroad.
I do think agronomic issues probably existed for a time as the 1910 American Golfer article mentions that the course is still in pretty raw shape.
I am just trying to figure out where things stood at a point in time.
That's all...thanks.
-
"That 1909 article from Scotland is a good example of the exposure the National project was getting throughout the world of golf."
I don't think there's any doubt at all but that what Macdonald was doing with NGLA got an immense amount of attention and for a number of truly interesting reasons.
Those various OTHER reasons are probably what also need to be presented and discussed on here to do this era and NGLA and even the likes of Myopia (which preceded NGLA by almost ten years) historical justice.
To simply try to say that Macdonald was just this great golf architectural expert at that time unlike no other in America is not to do this era and others who were part of it historical justice.
The attention NGLA got and Macdonald too and very much through his own promotion had perhaps more to do with his contention that golf archtitecture in America was at a pretty miserable state in the over-all. NGLA was promoted and touted by him as an example of not just good golf architecture but how to make golf architecture in America so much better in the over-all. This is part of the reason Macdonald conceived of the idea of a "national" course with a national membership (which he also very much specifically promoted and worked on himself with his regional friends and acquaintenances). Macdonald was very much looking to the future of golf and architecture in America and I can and will provide his own statement to support that fact:
"All this is very true (I'll supply later what he was was referring to as 'very true' but for now he was referring to what was often called back the "The genius of locality") when it was written, but how about to-morrow? The birth of a nation creates a new soul. As we gaze back we will reverence the past, but it is to the future we must look."
What about Herbert Leeds of Myopia who had designed and created a really good American course and architecture almost ten years before NGLA? Was Leeds publicly promoting the future of better golf architecture in America and stating what came before him was rudimentary crap? Not at all---or not that I'm aware of. All Leeds was trying to do is create a really good golf course and architecture for his own club off a pretty basic nine hole course that preceded him and his Myopia efforts that lasted twenty and more years.
Then we all need to look very carefully at the dynamic that existed previous to NGLA with the way golf and architecture was preceived over here by Americans and over there by primarily the Scots and the so-called linksmen. To say that there was national pride and national defensiveness and national promotion from both sides would be a massive UNDERSTATEMENT, that's for sure.
Into this dynamic enter Macdonald in which he basically proclaimed most all golf courses over here to be crap (with his three exceptions of GCGC, Myopia and Chicago GC) he comes up with the novel idea to actually transport over here some really famous holes and their solid and fundamental architectural "principles", and not to just transport their basic architectural "principles" but also their well known names too.
To say this did not create huge interest as well as perhaps an equal amount of confusion and national competitiveness and defensiveness (which already very much existed anyway before Macdonald's idea) would be a massive misreading of the situation and its time.
Confusion and misunderstanding on both sides was certainly evident and we can most certainly read about it all from old news accounts. But of course there was perhaps an equal amount of interest in the idea, which again, was totally novel to that time and which some called visionary it was so novel. It seems what Macdonald did and would continue to do and which he was always so good at was to create an atmosphere of "controversy" (don't forget he did say ultimately that "controversy" may be at the very heart of great golf course architecture! ;)
But the point and question for us, at least for me, is---did Macdonald's ideas for basic architectural "principle" copying from abroad or actual hole and name copying from abroad carry through into the future of American architecture as he may've perceived it or felt it should?
It did to some extent but I doubt it did even close to the way he may've visualized it, and that of course is the real story of the evolution of American golf course architecture apart from and in comparison to Macdonald's so-called "National School" style.
And then there is that question about whether Macdonald was the first over here to understand really good architectural ideas or principles? To say that would be to completely miss the fact of a Herbert Leeds who preceded Macdonald by close to a decade. And not just that but one needs to deal with the question of whether Myopia's architecture looks anything like or plays anything like Macdonald's National School style? Maybe just a little bit but not much, in my opinion, and the reason probably is Leeds preceded Macdonald and his NGLA style ideas.
To me perhaps the most interesting question of all is where Leeds developed his own ideas on golf architecture. I think I can pretty much guarantee one thing----he definitely didn't learn them from one Willie Campbell.
To find that answer truly interesting question (since Leeds seems to be the first to produce something really good over here) one needs to look at Leeds himself, his own life, his other interests and where he had been both previous to and during his creation of Myopia!
-
I'm simply trying to understand the early evolution of the golf course, who was playing it when, and how it evolved in the first couple of years in an effort to better understand it's possible influence on other architects and courses built around the same time.
Whatever you say.
Don't you think it's unusual that construction started in 1907 yet the course wasn' t formally opened until 1911, with a "trial run" invitational tournament in July 1910?
Unusual yes, but not unprecidented, Pine Valley took even longer. It would have something to do with the scale and the scope of the projects, and the challenging sites chosen.
Yes, we know about the agronomic failure that set them back 18 months, but I think it's fair to say that by 1910 and certainly by 1911 it was starting to have a very direct influence in thinking of what was possible in US architecture, at least from an internal hole strategy standpoint. I'm not sure that the routing was much of a lesson, as it was simple out and back as borrowed from abroad.
The numerous articles in American and British magazines and newspapers - by Macdonald and about Macdonalds & his ideal golf course - dating back to at least 1906, if not earlier, no doubt captured the imagination of golfers every where. I believe the NGLA project in the US, and similar high profile projects in the UK like Princes, the redesign of TOC, the redesign of Westward Ho!, and the numerous new heathland courses, generated a lot of interest in golf architecture generally. I have not seen much evidence of interest in agronomic issues beyond the insiders.
The other high profile project in America would be the redesign of GCGC, which followed Travis's famous critique of the course.
I do think agronomic issues probably existed for a time as the 1910 American Golfer article mentions that the course is still in pretty raw shape.
I am just trying to figure out where things stood at a point in time.
That's all...thanks.
-
"Don't you think it's unusual that construction started in 1907 yet the course wasn' t formally opened until 1911, with a "trial run" invitational tournament in July 1910?"
MikeC:
I don't think the question of when NGLA actually formally opened for play is the real question here or the point (of course we do know from Macdonald himself NGLA formally opened for constant play in Sept, 1911).
What is far more interesting, I think, at least to me, is whether any or even all of these famous so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects that included the likes of Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump etc all of whom had those so-called "special" projects, understood going into them that they both should and would spend the many, many years on them that all of them did?
That is the most interesting question of all to me because the answer to it really can tell us so much about golf course architecture and what it may take to do it as well as it can be done.
Tihs might be evidence of the answer to that question:
"A first class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience."
C.B. Macdonald said that and he included it in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf" that was published in 1928.
But I think the most salient thing of all about that statement of his, is he did not say it retrospectively, he claims in his book that he wrote that statement in an article that was published in December 1897!!
The next most interesting question is was that idea that a massive amount of time would be needed to build and improve these types of courses and architecture his own or did he get it from someone else. Another question is----was he the first to do it that way?
Apparently not, again it seems Myopia's Herbert Leeds was almost ten years ahead of him and both the Fownes and perhaps Emmet were some years ahead of him with that method and modus operandi too.
By the way, Mr. MacWood, Pine Valley did not set a precedent for the longterm creation and development method of NGLA for the simple reason PV came after NGLA. But a few others probably did like GCGC, Myopia and Oakmont, all of which seemed to use that extended development method and came before NGLA. It would be pretty illogical to say that Macdonald did not see that and wasn't aware of them and that methodology.
The real question to me, though, is did any or even all of them realize when they began that they would be at those special projects that made them all famous for as many years as they all took with them?
Perhaps another couple of ideas that most seem to miss that Macdonald might have pioneered himself, though, were the ideas of creating a course via a committee and also creating a course by permanently bringing a professional engineer on board first. Is this why MCC put a professional engineer onto the Wilson Committee or even why Flynn eventually picked an engineer as his permanent partner?
-
How Scotch golfers commented on the construction of the National course at Shinnecock Hills, from the NYT February 19, 1909 . . . .
The American artlcle was dated Feb 19, 1909. Does it provide the date of the Glasgow article it is reciting?
A January 3, 1909 NYT article mentioned that a group of Scotsman leased ground in Haworth, NJ (formerly the Haworth CC) to build a Scottish-American Golf Course with duplicates of famous holes from Scotch links. The total yardage was to be 6019. Was the course built?
The club was actually a combination of the Haworth Club and the Scottish Golf Club.
One of the movers behind the plan was How Scotch golfers commented on the construction of the National course at Shinnecock Hills, from the NYT February 19, 1909 . . . .
The American artlcle was dated Feb 19, 1909. Does it provide the date of the Glasgow article it is reciting?
[/quote]A January 3, 1909 NYT article mentioned that a group of Scotsman leased ground in Haworth, NJ (formerly the Haworth CC) to build a Scottish-American Golf Course with duplicates of famous holes from Scotch links. The total yardage was to be 6019. Was the course built?
[/quote]
The club was actually a combination of the Haworth Club and the Scottish Golf Club.
Other articles emphasize that the club will be imitating many Scottish Clubs not so much in terms of golf holes, but rather in terms of atmosphere and egalitarianism. In other words, they planned to structure membership and fees so that a broader range of people could enjoy the course.
Did you notice who one of the driving forces behind the club was Herreshoff, a friend of Macdonald's from NGLA who, according to Macdonald, was playing the course in 1909?
_________________________________________
TEPaul,
You've claimed that Leeds was about 10 years ahead of Macdonald. Wasn't Macdonald designing courses in Chicago before Leeds was even a member of Myopia?
You also state unequivicolly that you know for certain that Leeds was not influenced by Willie Campbell. How do you know this for certain? Isn't it at least possible that Leeds was influenced by Campbell?
-
Wayno,
Old friends of mine, contemporaries of my dad owned Haworth Golf Club.
Unfortunately, both have passed away.
I'll try to see what I can find from others who knew them.
-
Thanks, Pat. I hope that if you find out anything, you'll come down here to show it to me.
-
I am only about 10% invested in this thread, so if this comment is out of context, I apologize...but...
As to the "IDEA" of NGLA (Shinnecock as referred to in the article Wayne posted), it seems wholly logical to me that just the idea alone would be enough to inspire others, anywhere in the world, to study and learn about these concepts that CBM deemed so important.
The fact that CBM was such an influential presence in the world of golf at the time is obviously a huge contributor to my belief that HIS idea could have a profound effect on others prior to his idea being formalized in the ground...why would HE consider this or that so important?
-
C'mon David...the original Chicago Golf Club sucked eggs. It's been used a a point of humor throughout golf architecture history to point out how Macdonald routed the course to favor his ball flight, and it's almost as stellar a routing as his work later at Shinnecock, which was somewhere between unimaginative and abysmal.
I'm sorry, but let's at least try to have a little bit of objectivity on some of these matters.
-
C'mon David...the original Chicago Golf Club sucked eggs. It's been used a a point of humor throughout golf architecture history to point out how Macdonald routed the course to favor his ball flight, and it's almost as stellar a routing as his work later at Shinnecock, which was somewhere between unimaginative and abysmal.
I'm sorry, but let's at least try to have a little bit of objectivity on some of these matters.
Mike,
I did not offer any opinion on its quality, but noted that Leeds was not a decade ahead of Macdonald when it came to designing golf courses.
In 1895 Chicago had what was considered to be a very good golf course, compared to what else was else existed in the United States at the time.
The current golf course at Myopia did not exist at this point, did it? What was Myopia ike in 1899? Comparing Myopia, 1899, to Chicago Golf Club, same year, was Leeds was years ahead Macdonald? I don't think so, but I'd love to hear how you or anyone else could support such a claim.
Do you really think at that point, compared to what else was around at the time, that Chicago Golf Club "sucked eggs?"
-
David,
I will say this.
I'm glad we're talking and debating now, instead of insulting.
We're also SHARING, which I think is a great step forward. I appreciate you putting out the stuff about NGLA in 1909 as it was something I'd never come across before.
Thank you.
Now, back to life and death issues.
Chicago Golf Club was historic, no doubt, but by 1905 Myopia and Garden City were the best courses in the country by quite a long stretch, having leap-frogged most of what was originally built by a mile or two.
Macdonald then upped the ante with NGLA, and pulled it off.
That's why I was trying to nail down more precisely WHEN that took place, because it's been vague in most written accounts, and seemingly over a much more extended period than I previously believed.
By the way, since I don't want to corrupt the Cobb's thread with our ongoing religious war, our records indicate that Ab Smith likely did the yeoman's work through the building process. One account talks about Hugh Wilson spending six months on the project, but Ab Smith seemed to spend almost all of his free time at the site during construction and really stayed with the whole idea of public golf throughout his entire lifetime.
He also designed Philadelphia's second public course (Karakung) and also did work on Juniata, which opened in 1927, as well.
If anyone other than Robert Lesley or Clarence Geist, or Ellis Gimbel, or the other GAP fathers could be called the "Father of Philadelphia Public golf", that man would surely be Ab Smith...the first Philly Amateur champion in 1897 who repeated in 1911.
-
JES II,
With MacDonald having helped create the USGA in 1894 and winning the US Amateur in 1895, and with golf being epicentered in the East, he was certainly an important figure, and ANYTHING he did would be on almost anyone in the golf world's radar screen.
As to Mike Cirba's comment that the Chicago Golf Club sucked, quite the opposite is true.
One must evaluate the course/s opened in 1893/5 in the context of what other courses existed on those dates.
Leeds didn't build Myopia until 1896 & 1901.
GCGC's recognized date of establishment is 1899, although some attribute Emmet's completion date as 1901, with Travis's dates as 1916.
In the early 1890's most golf courses were crude designs, layed out randomly. There were few, if any outstanding golf courses in the U.S. in 1892-3.
One has to understand how the original Chicago Golf Club got started, the land it occupied, MacDonald's reluctance to design it, his dissatisfaction with the finished product and his desire to create another golf course in another location, later determined to be in Wheaton.
Mike Cirba's agenda driven, presumptive conclusions aren't borne out by contemporary reports, which are important when trying to ascertain context.
-
Patrick,
When Chicago Golf Club was built, where do you think it stood among the greatest courses in the world? Perhaps the 397th best course in the British Isles?
Comparing it against the greatest courses in the US is hardly a measurement as it's agreed that there were no golf courses in the US at that time worth a snot's worth of spit.
-
Mike, I don't want to corrupt this or any other thread with your religous war, so I'll discuss Cobb's on the Cobb's thread.
I am not so sure whether Myopia and Garden City were better than Chicago by "a long ways" in 1905. Travis hadn't made his changes at Garden City. And many changes were in store for Myopia after 1905, including the addition, by one report of 100 bunkers. Plus, by 1905 Macdonald was already writing about his plans.
But it is beside the point. All I said is that Leeds was not a decade ahead of Macdonald in 1909. Surely you agree with this?
-
Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor? Well, there are several reasons, more than I care to go into here. But golf is a sport, something most people do for enjoyment, and the one overriding quality of MacDonald/Raynor is that they are really fun to play. Game, set, match MacDonald/Raynor!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Lehman, et. al.,
Isn't that the ULTIMATE test of architectural merit ?
The desire, when walking off the 18th green to go straight back to the 1st tee, to play another round ?
If that, and the test of time are the ultimate determiners of architectural worthiness, then don't CBM's-SR's & CB's courses meet those criteria ?
Isn't the combination of challenge and fun the real barometer of greatness ?
I submit that the products of CBM-SR-CB present that combination to the golfer.
-
Isn't that the ULTIMATE test of architectural merit ?
The desire, when walking off the 18th green to go straight back to the 1st tee, to play another round ?
If that, and the test of time are the ultimate determiners of architectural worthiness, then don't CBM's-SR's & CB's courses meet those criteria ?
Isn't the combination of challenge and fun the real barometer of greatness ?
I submit that the products of CBM-SR-CB present that combination to the golfer.
Pat, you'll just have to accept the fact that it isn't the case for every golfer. No golf architect, let alone two that are so narrowly defined, can have universal acceptance. For me, none of the Raynor or Banks course that I've played to date pass the relatively low threshold of the Mucci Test. Of the Macdonald courses I've played, I've only felt that way about NGLA and Creek Club. Sorry, it has nothing to do with Flynn. That's how I feel. I haven't played or seen Fisher's Island so I remain open minded that there may be one that I'll feel that way about.
-
Pat, you'll just have to accept the fact that it isn't the case for every golfer. No golf architect, let alone two that are so narrowly defined, can have universal acceptance. For me, none of the Raynor or Banks course that I've played to date pass the relatively low threshold of the Mucci Test. Of the Macdonald courses I've played, I've only felt that way about NGLA and Creek Club. Sorry, it has nothing to do with Flynn. That's how I feel. I haven't played or seen Fisher's Island so I remain open minded that there may be one that I'll feel that way about.
What do you mean by "narrowly defined?" And who is doing the defining? Most architects had a relatively narrow range when it came to the bones of their golf courses and holes. Some of Macdonald's and Raynor's favorites just happened to be striking and named.
Most designers cannot even make it through nine or eighteen before they start repeating their ideas. Do you agree that with Macdonald you at least get 18 holes that are unique relative to each other?
-
Patrick,
When Chicago Golf Club was built, where do you think it stood among the greatest courses in the world? Perhaps the 397th best course in the British Isles?
Comparing it against the greatest courses in the US is hardly a measurement as it's agreed that there were no golf courses in the US at that time worth a snot's worth of spit.
Mike
I think you are having difficulty keeping things in perspective, your desire to degrade Macdonald is getting the best of you. You can not compare a golf course of the 1890s with the golf courses of the 20s or later. Despite its demerits Chicago GC hosted the 1897 US Open, the 1897 US Am and the 1900 US Open, thats not bad for an abysmal design. Evidently it was one of the best of the worst.
Relatively speaking Chicago GC was considered one of the better courses in the US, lets give Macdonald some credit, not only for producing CGC in the mid-90s, one of the best courses in America at the time, but also stimulating the development of golf architecture in the decades that followed.
By the way Myopia hosted the 1898, 1901, 1905 and 1908 US Opens. The 1898 was played over the original nine-hole course designed by Willie Campbell. Chicago GC hosted the 1905, 1909 and 1912 US Am and the 1911 US Open. With all due respect to Myopia, Chicago was well thought of too.
-
Patrick,
When Chicago Golf Club was built, where do you think it stood among the greatest courses in the world? Perhaps the 397th best course in the British Isles?
Comparing it against the greatest courses in the US is hardly a measurement as it's agreed that there were no golf courses in the US at that time worth a snot's worth of spit.
Mike
I think you are having difficulty keeping things in perspective, your desire to degrade Macdonald is getting the best of you. You can not compare a golf course of the 1890s with the golf courses of the 20s or later. Despite its demerits Chicago GC hosted the 1897 US Open, the 1897 US Am and the 1900 US Open, thats not bad for an abysmal design. Evidently it was one of the best of the worst.
Relatively speaking Chicago GC was considered one of the better courses in the US, lets give Macdonald some credit, not only for producing CGC in the mid-90s, one of the best courses in America at the time, but also stimulating the development of golf architecture in the decades that followed.
By the way Myopia hosted the 1898, 1901, 1905 and 1908 US Opens. The 1898 was played over the original nine-hole course designed by Willie Campbell. Chicago GC hosted the 1905, 1909 and 1912 US Am and the 1911 US Open. With all due respect to Myopia, Chicago was well thought of too.
Tommy Mac
Jeepers, talk about mincing words. It was pointed out that being the best of a bad lot isn't necessarily a compliment. From what I remember, even CBM was disappointed with Chicago. What does it matter if Chicago were the best course in the US in 1895 or whatever? The pickings were slim and I think you know this to be the case - so knock off the nonsense - its well past its sell by date.
Furthermore, you continually go on about Mike C attempting to downgrade CBM. Why? What is the point of this when all have admitted that CBM was a huge figure in the game and worthy of praise? I fear this all about sideways carping about Merion. So you lot disagree over who CBM's contribution to Merion. So what, let it go, it doesn't matter much especially considering Merion changed dramatically in later years.
Pat M
The ultimate test of greatness for you may be the desire to wlal back to the 1st tee after a game, but it ain't for me.
Ciao
-
Patrick,
When Chicago Golf Club was built, where do you think it stood among the greatest courses in the world? Perhaps the 397th best course in the British Isles?
Which course, the original which was merely a concession to a request, on a poor piece of property, or the course in Wheaton ?
Secondly, If Chicago was # 397, it was probably the highest ranking American course in the world at the time.
The issue has nothing to do with World ranking.
The issue is solely in the context of American courses and American rankings.
You continue to conveniently ignore the evolutionary history of The CGC. The initial design was done as a favor on land ill suited for a golf course, hence one must view the Chicago Golf Club in the context of its Wheaton location, not the original Downer's Grove location.
Comparing it against the greatest courses in the US is hardly a measurement as it's agreed that there were no golf courses in the US at that time worth a snot's worth of spit.
Of course it's a valid measurement of the golf course's merit.
You compare it to its peers.
You cite Myopia and GCGC as leap frogging Chicago in 1905.
Does that mean that they ranked 395 and 396 on your world scale ?
The Chicago Golf Club in 1895 was probably the finest golf course in the U.S. despite your misguided assessment.
And, the man who designed it was .......MacDonald, who was evidently far ahead of Leeds and Emmet, the two men responsible for Myopia and GCGC.
-
Isn't that the ULTIMATE test of architectural merit ?
The desire, when walking off the 18th green to go straight back to the 1st tee, to play another round ?
If that, and the test of time are the ultimate determiners of architectural worthiness, then don't CBM's-SR's & CB's courses meet those criteria ?
Isn't the combination of challenge and fun the real barometer of greatness ?
I submit that the products of CBM-SR-CB present that combination to the golfer.
Pat, you'll just have to accept the fact that it isn't the case for every golfer.
Then, WHAT IS ?
No golf architect, let alone two that are so narrowly defined, can have universal acceptance.
Why not ?
For me, none of the Raynor or Banks course that I've played to date pass the relatively low threshold of the Mucci Test.
"Relatively low threshold" ?
When the challenge and the fun of playing the golf course are combined to the degree that the golfer wants to immediately replay the golf course, that's the ultimate test.
That's where the rubber meets the road.
You can analyze the routing, each hole and every individual feature and formulate your opinion, but, the ultimate opinion lies within the golfer's desire to immediately replay the golf course because of the combination of the challenge and the fun, and not through an intellectual exercise.
What's your ultimate test for determining the merits of a golf course ?
Of the Macdonald courses I've played, I've only felt that way about NGLA and Creek Club.
I find it interesting that you didn't feel that way about Yale.
On the other hand, some find Yale a difficult walk due to the terrain.
And, Yale when you played it was probably quite different from Yale when CBM designed it.
The 2nd and 3rd holes are radically different, # 5 diluted, with the overall quality of the Bunkers compromised and conditions poor for many years, I can't say that I'm surprised.
When I first played Yale I felt that it could be a world class golf course IF the resources were committed to maintain and restore the golf course.
We're all aware of Geoff Child's efforts in that regard.
But, if you understand the site and what it took to build the golf course, your appreciation for its merits should grow.
I can't comment on St Louis because I've never played it.
Sorry, it has nothing to do with Flynn. That's how I feel. I haven't played or seen Fisher's Island so I remain open minded that there may be one that I'll feel that way about.
You just told me that you felt that way about NGLA and The Creek, and now you contradict yourself and say that there "may be one that I'll feel that way about." Which is it ? ;D
-
The ultimate test of greatness for you may be the desire to wlal back to the 1st tee after a game, but it ain't for me.
Then, what's the ultimate test of greatness for you ?
-
Tommy Mac
Jeepers, talk about mincing words. It was pointed out that being the best of a bad lot isn't necessarily a compliment. From what I remember, even CBM was disappointed with Chicago. What does it matter if Chicago were the best course in the US in 1895 or whatever? The pickings were slim and I think you know this to be the case - so knock off the nonsense - its well past its sell by date.
Furthermore, you continually go on about Mike C attempting to downgrade CBM. Why? What is the point of this when all have admitted that CBM was a huge figure in the game and worthy of praise? I fear this all about sideways carping about Merion. So you lot disagree over who CBM's contribution to Merion. So what, let it go, it doesn't matter much especially considering Merion changed dramatically in later years.
Sean
When did Macdonald say he was disapointed with Chicago?
Everything is relative. As Hutchinson wrote you should not criticize a man for not being ahead of his time. And acctually in this case I think you can make the case he was ahead of his time despite the blemishes relative to our current standard.
Chicago was one of the first courses built in this country. It was also one of the three or four best courses in the country in the ensuing years. To claim Leeds was ten years ahead of Macdonald is historically inaccurate (on several fronts). It appears they would prefer to ignore or write Chicago out of the history books. Chicago hosted seven major championships from 1895 to 1912 (nine if you count the Western Am). And I count eight of the holes from that early course being largely intact today - thats pretty good. Lets give credit where credit is due, realtive to the period in question.
Have you been following Mike's CBM & HH Barker campaign? Thats very good question about why...it doesn't make any sense to me either. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that by denigrating one man (or two men in this case) you can elevate another.
-
Pat, you'll just have to accept the fact that it isn't the case for every golfer.
Then, WHAT IS ?
I mean that every golfer does not think that Raynor and Banks are among the very greatest architects and that their courses are not considered among the most innovative and foremost courses.
No golf architect, let alone two that are so narrowly defined, can have universal acceptance.
Why not ?
Though is should be apparent, I guess I'll have to explain it. Because they use many of the same hole concepts on each course, if one doesn't appreciate that fact, it would be difficult for the remainder of the course to overcome that perceived flaw. If one doesn't like geometric forms on the greens, in the fairway lines and in the bunker shapes, by definition, there wouldn't be universal acceptance.
For me, none of the Raynor or Banks course that I've played to date pass the relatively low threshold of the Mucci Test.
"Relatively low threshold" ?
When the challenge and the fun of playing the golf course are combined to the degree that the golfer wants to immediately replay the golf course, that's the ultimate test.
I shouldn't have said low threshold, it is rather more a simple test, easily understood. As you said,
You can analyze the routing, each hole and every individual feature and formulate your opinion, but, the ultimate opinion lies within the golfer's desire to immediately replay the golf course because of the combination of the challenge and the fun, and not through an intellectual exercise.
It is a simple and effective way to consider how one feels about a golf course. It is not how I feel about any Raynor and Banks courses I've played to date. I have only felt that way on two Macdonald courses, NGLA and Creek Club.
That's where the rubber meets the road.
I thought that was Goodyear.
Of the Macdonald courses I've played, I've only felt that way about NGLA and Creek Club.
I find it interesting that you didn't feel that way about Yale.
On the other hand, some find Yale a difficult walk due to the terrain.
And, Yale when you played it was probably quite different from Yale when CBM designed it.
The 2nd and 3rd holes are radically different, # 5 diluted, with the overall quality of the Bunkers compromised and conditions poor for many years, I can't say that I'm surprised.
When I first played Yale I felt that it could be a world class golf course IF the resources were committed to maintain and restore the golf course.
We're all aware of Geoff Child's efforts in that regard.
You and I differ on our opinions of Yale. I played it two years ago. I can look at a golf course and see past the conditions and consider the architecture. I can also determine what is Rulewich, especially when I am lucky enough to be out there with Geoff.
But, if you understand the site and what it took to build the golf course, your appreciation for its merits should grow.
Oh, but I can and did. Especially after my study with Flynn. If one can understand the design, engineering and construction of courses like Cascades and Indian Creek, both feats more difficult than Yale in their own differing ways, I think it is easy enough to imagine the same sort of work that went into the design and building of Yale. I take it into account and it is but one reason why I consider Yale a notch below NGLA and Creek Club in my eyes and well ahead of all the others.
Sorry, it has nothing to do with Flynn. That's how I feel. I haven't played or seen Fisher's Island so I remain open minded that there may be one that I'll feel that way about.
You just told me that you felt that way about NGLA and The Creek, and now you contradict yourself and say that there "may be one that I'll feel that way about." Which is it ?
Come on, Pat. What is the matter with you? This should be easy. NGLA and Creek Club are Macdonald designs. Fisher's Island is a Raynor design. If I ever get to FI and regard it the way it is almost universally regarded, then that will be the ONE Raynor course that for me would pass the Mucci Test.
-
Tom,
Philadelphia Cricket Club hosted US Opens in 1907 and 1910 and truth be told, it wasn't a very good golf course, even by Philadelphia standards of the time, much less world standards.
Hosting had more to do with connections at the highest levels of the USGA than quality of golf course.
I have to chuckle that you think I'm running a "campaign". Actually, I'd say it's an "anti-campaign", which is simply a reaction to your attempts to elevate Macdonald and WHigham as the only two people who knew anything about golf course design by 1910, and having failed to prove that, your subsequent attempts to elevate first Barker, then Campbell, and then Pickering, and then anyone else but anyone from Philadelphia, especially as regards Merion.
Calling you out on the facts and questioning your interpretation of them is hardly a campaign. For instance, in the case of Barker, I really wish that you had produced something...anything...to bolster your claim (communicated by David) that he was probably the 2nd finest (of course, nobody could top Macdonald!) golf course architect in the world by June 1910.
Of course, I'm still waiting to see which course(s) of his actually was built on the ground and opened for play in 1910. THere weren't any.
In the case of Macdonald, you guys were so sure you had the ace card with the Macdonald letter to Merion, which almost certainly had to contain some secret routing filled with his unique genius heretofore unknown to the ages.
When the letter turned out to be Farmers Almanac tips of agronomic advice and an Idiot's Guide to Architecture 101 on how to lay out a hypothetical 6000 yard sporty course, you guys had to move onto alternative scenarios...
Anything...anything...to avoid giving due credit to Hugh Wilson and the Committee. ::) Can you tell us why you're running such a campaign to discredit Wilson, Tom?
-
There seems to be a prevailing attitude that by denigrating one man (or two men in this case) you can elevate another.
You are a fool, Tom MacWood. You initiated this prevailing attitude, so please don't condemn it in others, even though that is not really what they are doing. You simply perceive it that way.
The denigration of one man or committee in order to elevate another is precisely the method used to promote the missing faces of Macdonald and Whigham in the Merion essay by your protege with your assistance. By trying to use the probable but not proven fact that Wilson did not go overseas until after course construction and other "evidence" you conducted a process to portray Wilson and his Committee as rank amateurs incapable of doing what they did, completely dismissing their talents, the prior experience of other gentleman architects (Fownes, Leeds and Macdonald). You both ignored, despite my protestations, the considerable help of Fred Pickering, one of the most experienced golf course construction men in the world at that time. All this to prove that only the great and powerful Macdonald and Whigham routed, designed and were the driving forces behind the new Ardmore course for Merion Cricket Club. This isn't to say that Macdonald and Whigham didn't provide valuable assistance. They did and were credited with exactly that by the participants. That wasn't good enough for you, you thought the club minimized their contributions. Well, they got it right and you got it wrong. Where are your endorsers now? Is Ran still standing behind that "excellent" essay? Is Pat Mucci? You and your protege are left standing unprotected against a very strong wind.
-
The ultimate test of greatness for you may be the desire to wlal back to the 1st tee after a game, but it ain't for me.
Then, what's the ultimate test of greatness for you ?
Pat
I don't have an ultimate test for greatness. Even if I tried to come up with one, I would likely have to alter it. Lets put it this way, I know greatness when I see. That may take me one look or dozen, but if a course is great, I will see it sooner or later. Part of the problem with going back to the first tee for me is that many great courses aren't the sort I really want to play very often. I can readily concede a course is great, but that I don't have any great affection for it. My ideas of what make up my favourite courses don't necessarily make them great ones.
Ciao
-
Mike
Everything is relative. I'm sure at the time Philadelphia CC was considered one of the best courses in Philly, but I'm not sure what PCC has to do with Chicago. Wheaton was mentioned in the same breath with Myopia, GCGC and few others as being one of handful of the best courses in America. Philadelphia was not. No one is claiming Wheaton was better than Myopia, even Macdonald would admit that, but lets give credit where credit is due. Chicago was one of the best golf courses in the country.
Be honest, ever since Macdonald & Whigham and Barker were introduced prominantly into the Merion picture you have been on a campaign to bring them down. For whatever reason you see them as a threat to the Wilson legend. You've tried to make the case Macdonald couldn't have had an influence because he had not done anything, and Barker was nothing more than 18-stakes on a Sunday afternoon.
Who is arguing that M&W were the only two people that knew anything about golf architecture? We are simply trying to defend them against your historcially inaccurate attacks. Anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity would conpliment Merion for engaging them, and the same with Barker.
And as far as Barker is concerned I was signing his praises long before it became known he was involved at Merion. My appreciation for his work comes honestly. Go back and search and you will find several threads on the good fellow. I've presented what I believe is an impressive list of his accomplishments in relatively short period, your only response has been to try to question his involvement in these courses (unsuccessfully I might add) and to claim he was nothing more than slam-bam-thank-you-mam specialist (without any evidence I might add). Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills, Arcola, Raritan Valley, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and the redesign of GCGC with Travis is a pretty good resume. Who had a better resume between 1908 and 1914? Based upon the quality of the designs would a reasonable person conclude they were laid out in a single afternoon?
Your slash and burn style is getting old. Not only is it getting old, it is intellectually dishonest and lazy.
-
There seems to be a prevailing attitude that by denigrating one man (or two men in this case) you can elevate another.
You are a fool, Tom MacWood. You initiated this prevailing attitude, so please don't condemn it in others, even though that is not really what they are doing. You simply perceive it that way.
The denigration of one man or committee in order to elevate another is precisely the method used to promote the missing faces of Macdonald and Whigham in the Merion essay by your protege with your assistance. By trying to use the probable but not proven fact that Wilson did not go overseas until after course construction and other "evidence" you conducted a process to portray Wilson and his Committee as rank amateurs incapable of doing what they did, completely dismissing their talents, the prior experience of other gentleman architects (Fownes, Leeds and Macdonald). You both ignored, despite my protestations, the considerable help of Fred Pickering, one of the most experienced golf course construction men in the world at that time. All this to prove that only the great and powerful Macdonald and Whigham routed, designed and were the driving forces behind the new Ardmore course for Merion Cricket Club.
Wayne
You are as guilty as Mike when it comes to the slash and burn style of history writing and preserving your local legends. I know I've been subjected to it personally, and now we are seeing it again for old Pickering. It is unfortunate.
-
Tom MacWood,
Which courses of Barker's were built, open, and on the ground in June 1910 so that I can commend Mr. Connell (who brought Barker to his real estate in an attempt to sweeten the deal; Merion did not engage Barker) on the wisdom of his choice?
How long did he spend at Merion?
Did he create a rough routing?
What evidence do you have that he spent longer than that at any course in the world where he wasn't employed as the club professional?
As far as Macdonald & Whigham..I have complimented Merion on the choice of bringing in the biggest name in golf to comment on the land they proposed buying and to help them pick the best of their five routings.
I think in a recent post I said that Macdonald was an awesome, tremendous, fantastic, prescient, great, god-like architect....I love the courses of Macdonald's I've played, as well as most of Raynor's and Banks.
I'm bettting I've played as much of them if not more than you have, Tom, and I've stated repeatedly that NGLA is sublime and I couldn't pick a better spot to die than Mid Ocean.
All of that being said, I'm going to continue to defend against your hedgemonistic attempts to give him credit for work he didn't do, as well as your odd, ongoing attempts to make those of us in Philadelphia look inaccurate in our history.
If calling you out on these things, or asking for specifics is "slash and burn", then I'm really not sure what to call your attempts to rewrite history?
Perhaps poke and hope??
-
Poor Fred Pickering. :-\ Poor Tom MacWood :'(
Fred Pickering was not a good man. His family is far more knowledgeable and understands it better than you. Since when are you taking the position of protecting legends and not disclosing everything? I didn't disclose everything I know. But I'll tell you one thing, the Pickering descendent I've spoken to and the relatives of his that are coming down to see Merion (something you've never done) are unconcerned about protecting his image. They lived with the consequences of his actions. If they don't have a problem with it, why don't you get off your high horse before you fall.
Now again we have you reiterating your trite and incorrect conclusion about us protecting local legends. The way I see it and the way everyone on this site must sees it by now, we are protecting the truth against your unsubstantiated revisions and house of cards theories that are easily debunked by historical documents.
You are attempting to revise now with Wilson and previously with Crump. As for Leeds and Myopia, I don't know. I never studied their history. As for Creek Club, I do have knowledge there, much of it courtesy of the club historian who you ask favors of but do not return when you come up with info. You say you have a 1923/24 aerial showing sandy waste areas between 9 and 12 and around 13 and 14. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. In any case, the sandy waste areas and some of the bunkering in the lower holes today are by Flynn. They were not there when he came onto the job and we have his payment records and the board minutes (a source you never research because you don't work with the clubs). These features were in place when Flynn finished. I asked Pat if he liked those features and he replied in the affirmative. I then told him they were by Flynn and you claim they are not, that they were there in 1923/24. Well, they weren't there in 1926. So whatever is there today is by Flynn. Macdonald left the club and Raynor had passed away. Who else did it? Willie Campbell? HH Barker? Fred Pickering?
-
Tom MacWood,
Which courses of Barker's were built, open, and on the ground in June 1910 so that I can commend Mr. Connell (who brought Barker to his real estate in an attempt to sweeten the deal; Merion did not engage Barker) on the wisdom of his choice?
How long did he spend at Merion?
Did he create a rough routing?
What evidence do you have that he spent longer than that at any course in the world where he wasn't employed as the club professional?
As far as Macdonald & Whigham..I have complimented Merion on the choice of bringing in the biggest name in golf to comment on the land they proposed buying and to help them pick the best of their five routings.
I think in a recent post I said that Macdonald was an awesome, tremendous, fantastic, prescient, great, god-like architect....I love the courses of Macdonald's I've played, as well as most of Raynor's and Banks.
I'm bettting I've played as much of them if not more than you have, Tom, and I've stated repeatedly that NGLA is sublime and I couldn't pick a better spot to die than Mid Ocean.
All of that being said, I'm going to continue to defend against your hedgemonistic attempts to give him credit for work he didn't do, as well as your odd, ongoing attempts to make those of us in Philadelphia look inaccurate in our history.
If calling you out on these things, or asking for specifics is "slash and burn", then I'm really not sure what to call your attempts to rewrite history?
Perhaps poke and hope??
Please don't ignore my questions before launching into a barrage of your own questions.
Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills, Arcola, Raritan Valley, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and the redesign of GCGC with Travis is a pretty good resume. Who had a better resume between 1908 and 1914? Based upon the quality of the designs would a reasonable person conclude they were laid out in a single afternoon?
-
Poor Fred Pickering. :-\ Poor Tom MacWood :'(
Fred Pickering was not a good man. His family is far more knowledgeable and understands it better than you. Since when are you taking the position of protecting legends and not disclosing everything? I didn't disclose everything I know. But I'll tell you one thing, the Pickering descendent I've spoken to and the relatives of his that are coming down to see Merion (something you've never done) are unconcerned about protecting his image. They lived with the consequences of his actions. If they don't have a problem with it, why don't you get off your high horse before you fall.
Now again we have you reiterating your trite and incorrect conclusion about us protecting local legends. The way I see it and the way everyone on this site must sees it by now, we are protecting the truth against your unsubstantiated revisions and house of cards theories that are easily debunked by historical documents.
You are attempting to revise now with Wilson and previously with Crump. As for Leeds and Myopia, I don't know. I never studied their history. As for Creek Club, I do have knowledge there, much of it courtesy of the club historian who you ask favors of but do not return when you come up with info. You say you have a 1923/24 aerial showing sandy waste areas between 9 and 12 and around 13 and 14. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. In any case, the sandy waste areas and some of the bunkering in the lower holes today are by Flynn. They were not there when he came onto the job and we have his payment records and the board minutes (a source you never research because you don't work with the clubs). These features were in place when Flynn finished. I asked Pat if he liked those features and he replied in the affirmative. I then told him they were by Flynn and you claim they are not, that they were there in 1923/24. Well, they weren't there in 1926. So whatever is there today is by Flynn. Macdonald left the club and Raynor had passed away. Who else did it? Willie Campbell? HH Barker? Fred Pickering?
Wayne
You and you comrades have automatically shifted into attack mode whenever new information is uncovered and your legendary story is about to be re-written. I think that goes to your objectivity.
-
Tom MacWood,
I think you have outstanding resources available to you and you do the difficult job of amassing raw material as well and perhaps better than any other person I know. However the problem many of us have, particularly in the areas we have expertise in, is the way you analyze and interpret that raw data. You make far too many mistakes and you back far too many revisions that don't bear up under scrutiny, sometimes even the most superficial due diligence. The problem as I see it is that you spread yourself too thin. You try to be an expert in far too broad a range of architects, courses and eras. I can see that clearly since my concentration is Philadelphia golf and Flynn. It is hard to gain an expertise on even these two subjects. You try to do too much and therefore fail at times, sometimes spectacularly. Dilettantes do not make the best historians. You have the capacity to be a far better historian if you honed your analytical skills and stuck to fewer subjects.
You are right about some things but remain wrong about some significant matters dealing with the history of Merion, Pine Valley and Creek Club. You may feel like you are being attacked and that we are simply trying to defend our legends. That is not true. If you narrowed your focus more and knew the subject matter better, amazingly your perspective would increase. for those subjects and you would not view our actions as anything more devious than protecting truth.
-
One of the problems with concentrating on one man and having very little knowledge beyond that man is that its nearly impossible to see the entire story. History is a series of relationships and connections, and if you don't have a broad knowledge of all the players you are going to miss many of those connections. As example you completely ignored Barker because you had knowledge of him (and now as a result you would rather attack his reputation rather than acknowledge you may have missed something). The same is true with Peters and Toomey, you try to downplay their involvement and influence because you have very little knowledge of them. The reason you have been unable to track down the real reason Flynn went from Boston to Philadelphia is because you don't know where to look. That is also why you got the Heartwellville story wrong. No doubt you are very good at logically analyzing information (especially when your emotions are left at the door) but when you don't have the facts at your disposal its very difficult to piece the story together...in fact its impossible.
-
" You have the capacity to be a far better historian if you honed your analytical skills"
Mr. MacWood:
Wayne Morrison is right about that and here's why with your participation on the subject of Merion and Myopia.
It would be one thing if you or anyone produced this information of Barker and Merion and Campbell and Myopia if there was a complete dirth of information to the contrary----eg if, for instance, there was nothing at all to the contrary from the CONTEMPORANEOUS working record of those clubs about who actually designed their courses.
But there is no dirth of information from the contemporaneous working records of Myopia and Merion about who designed their courses. There is a lot of contemporneous working records (board meeting minutes) about who designed those courses and it was not Campbell at Myopia or Barker at Merion, it was others from the clubs themselves.
Obviously, you've never seen these records from either club and you certainly appear unwilling to take anyone else's word for it.
So, your suggestion are remarks that you made on here that Myopia should just throw out their own contemporaneous records and start from scratch. It is just amazing that anyone who calls himself an historian would say something like that or just deny that Merion's own contemporaneous records are relevent.
Wayne is absolutely right, this essentially proves that you have very bad analytical skills.
You can continue to say on here that Campbell designed the original nine at Myopia without ever producing anything at all as to why you say that but the fact is nobody really cares about this the way you're going about it, and certainly not the club. If you actually produced something, then at least it may be used to analyse things in light of what the club's records say to the contrary but no one can do that at this point because you have produced nothing.
Produce something and it's likely it may be considered, but not until that happens. I suspect even you understand that.
-
I feel like I was in a bar called the Merion Thread.
I left that bar because a brawl broke out.
I went to another bar called Easy on Macdonald and Raynor...
but the brawl followed me...
-
One of the problems with concentrating on one man and having very little knowledge beyond that man is that its nearly impossible to see the entire story. History is a series of relationships and connections, and if you don't have a broad knowledge of all the players you are going to miss many of those connections. As example you completely ignored Barker because you had knowledge of him (and now as a result you would rather attack his reputation rather than acknowledge you may have missed something). The same is true with Peters and Toomey, you try to downplay their involvement and influence because you have very little knowledge of them. The reason you have been unable to track down the real reason Flynn went from Boston to Philadelphia is because you don't know where to look. That is also why you got the Heartwellville story wrong. No doubt you are very good at logically analyzing information (especially when your emotions are left at the door) but when you don't have the facts at your disposal its very difficult to piece the story together...in fact its impossible.
You are confused. You make specific revisions to histories that you have little knowledge of. That is failure by design. I may be making a primary study of Flynn and Philadelphia golf, but I do not neglect the big picture. The specific comments I make are not about the peripheral studies but the specific studies I spend years at work on. You think you have identified influences and see connections. They are based on incomplete data and speculations. You see solid lines where only faint dotted lines exist. You do not know the real reasons for Flynn coming to Philadelphia any more than you have an idea about what Flynn did on the lower holes at Creek Club. You masquerade as a broad expert when you are a dillettente that drops a lot of names, dates and connections that 99% of the readers don't bother checking out. They think because you write long winded posts with lots of names and dates that you must know what you're talking about. You fool a lot of people. You fooled Ran and Pat Mucci. But the fact is, you do not fool everyone and your methods and conclusions are fair game. They are what they are. Some are quite good but where analysis is required, they often mislead and misrepresent.
I hereby admit that not everything in the Flynn book may be correct. But we sure as heck made certain that we present fact as fact and suppositions as just that. If we are wrong about some of the contents, it is inherent in documenting histories. It isn't by systematic error. We work with as many sources as possible including families and the clubs themselves. Not every detail from every source needs to be fact checked. If so, histories would never be published. Tom MacWood has spent a lot of time and energy trying to discredit many of us in Philadelphia in general and our Flynn book in particular. He is only succeeding in marginalizing himself. If he exposes a few minor errors, so be it. Who is made better off by this? Who really cares?
Bill,
If you don't like it, don't read it. Feel free to ignore. You'll feel better and we won't have these admonishments to further clutter these threads.
-
Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills, Arcola, Raritan Valley, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and the redesign of GCGC with Travis is a pretty good resume. Who had a better resume between 1908 and 1914? Based upon the quality of the designs would a reasonable person conclude they were laid out in a single afternoon?
Tom,
That's a fair resume of courses that opened between 1910 and 1914.
You know very well that I'm challenging the supposition that by June 1910 Barker had accomplished much and you and David's contention in the Merion essay that he was the 2nd best architect in America at the time Mr. Connell had him come for an afternoon and submit a routing as part of his real estate deal is flat out erroneous and misleading.
Which of these courses you listed above was OPEN by June 1910? None of them, Tom.
Also, if he only spent one day at land being proposed for sale to the Merion Cricket Club, which was made up of some of the biggest national and international movers-and-shakers in golf and industry, then pray tell why he would have spent longer at Arcola, Rumson or any other course where he wasn't hired as the golf professional?
The truth is Tom...the quality of most any of those courses is due to work that took place after Barker's one day on site. I'm not saying that Mayfield is not a good course, and I've heard some very good things about Columbia, but please show me where in the historical record that Barker spent a great deal of time at either, or was there through construction, grow-in, etc.
-
Wayne,
I did not "admonish" anyone. But thank you for pointing out that I do not have to read all the entries, I had not realized that. Most helpful advice.
-
Kelly, I did see your resonse where you said you felt others are better suited to build a Redan. Thanks. Did you see my follow up question?
-
Got it Kelly. I don't drink Martinis, I missed your post while I was bobbing and weaving out of the way of MorWood-TeWayne tagteam match...
I know using "dogleg" is not a great analogy. I guess I am just such a fan of Redan greens that I was wondering if they might be one feature that can rise above a mere "template" if you know what I mean. In otherwords, can Redans be so well received that architects are not accused of "copying" or "pandering" when they build one?
Not to "sell" them, but although today's aerial game may have made the kick mound somewhat obsolete, the other features of the green complexes are just so good. It looks like a hook shot is best, but the green actually receives a fade better. Many have a spine the bisects the green and hitting the proper side is critical. I think they are the hardest green to select the proper club. It is a very unsettling visual off the tee. Miss the green and every approach is an adventure. Forget the Redan bunker, maybe that is an area that can be altered.
I guess I'm asking if Redans have to be left to MacRayonr school architects or not.
-
Mayfield, Columbia, Druid Hills, Arcola, Raritan Valley, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and the redesign of GCGC with Travis is a pretty good resume. Who had a better resume between 1908 and 1914? Based upon the quality of the designs would a reasonable person conclude they were laid out in a single afternoon?
Tom,
That's a fair resume of courses that opened between 1910 and 1914.
If that is fair resume why do you continue to tear him down?
You know very well that I'm challenging the supposition that by June 1910 Barker had accomplished much and you and David's contention in the Merion essay that he was the 2nd best architect in America at the time Mr. Connell had him come for an afternoon and submit a routing as part of his real estate deal is flat out erroneous and misleading.
In June in 1910 he was working at or had worked at Columbia, Mayfield, Spokane, Waverly, Rumson, Skokie, Newport, CC of Virginia and Springhaven...not to mention the redesign of GCGC. How had a better resume...again you seem to have difficulty addressing this question?
Which of these courses you listed above was OPEN by June 1910? None of them, Tom.
See above
Also, if he only spent one day at land being proposed for sale to the Merion Cricket Club, which was made up of some of the biggest national and international movers-and-shakers in golf and industry, then pray tell why he would have spent longer at Arcola, Rumson or any other course where he wasn't hired as the golf professional?
How do you know how much time he spent at Merion? Did Merion pay him for his services?
The truth is Tom...the quality of most any of those courses is due to work that took place after Barker's one day on site. I'm not saying that Mayfield is not a good course, and I've heard some very good things about Columbia, but please show me where in the historical record that Barker spent a great deal of time at either, or was there through construction, grow-in, etc.
Interesting speculation....Barker must have been some kind of phenom to be able to produce those kind of consistant results in one day. If you are right, that did all of this one day, there has never been an architect in history who has done more with less time.
-
There seems to be a prevailing attitude that by denigrating one man (or two men in this case) you can elevate another.
You are a fool, Tom MacWood. You initiated this prevailing attitude, so please don't condemn it in others, even though that is not really what they are doing. You simply perceive it that way.
The denigration of one man or committee in order to elevate another is precisely the method used to promote the missing faces of Macdonald and Whigham in the Merion essay by your protege with your assistance. By trying to use the probable but not proven fact that Wilson did not go overseas until after course construction and other "evidence" you conducted a process to portray Wilson and his Committee as rank amateurs incapable of doing what they did, completely dismissing their talents, the prior experience of other gentleman architects (Fownes, Leeds and Macdonald). You both ignored, despite my protestations, the considerable help of Fred Pickering, one of the most experienced golf course construction men in the world at that time. All this to prove that only the great and powerful Macdonald and Whigham routed, designed and were the driving forces behind the new Ardmore course for Merion Cricket Club. This isn't to say that Macdonald and Whigham didn't provide valuable assistance. They did and were credited with exactly that by the participants. That wasn't good enough for you, you thought the club minimized their contributions. Well, they got it right and you got it wrong. Where are your endorsers now? Is Ran still standing behind that "excellent" essay? Is Pat Mucci? You and your protege are left standing unprotected against a very strong wind.
Wayne,
Not sure what posts like this accomplish, other than to heighten tensions.
I did not try to slight Wilson, nor do I think I did. I quoted Findlay's comments on Pickering's work at Merion. My essay was based on the information available at the time of the essay. I would be glad to incorporate any new information into my essay, but I would prefer to see it first. No one ever claimed that club minimized their contributions at the time they made those contributions. But over time the early reports were misinterpreted and confused until everyone who wrote about about Merion's history minimized their contributions, and this include the club. No big deal, but let's not pretend that the story has not substantially changed.
I don't understand why you insist on maligning me while still hiding historical record. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? Isn't that what you assured everyone you would do when my essay came out? I doubt Merion has anything to hide, so I cannot figure out who you think you are protecting by creating this huge cloud of doubt around Merion's early history.
Anyway, unless you are now ready to have a an open, frank, and discussion and examination of the source material, I see no point in posts like yours above. Are you now ready for such a conversation? If you are not, then is Merion?
_______________________________________
Mike Cirba,
Are you really writing about Barker again? Why? It has been covered and recovered? He had designed a bunch of important courses by 1910, whether or not they opened.
Why do you go on and on about what courses had opened before 1910? Surely you can look up that info if you really want to know. I have a feeling your point is again just part of your Merion agenda . . . but I don't understand the point you are trying to make even in this light.
Let's pretend he never had a course open before 1911 (he did, but let's pretend.) The evidence of his reputation is the fact that he got all these jobs in the first place! Are you saying that while he was good enough for Columbia, Mayfied, Arcola, Druid Hills, Raritan Valley Grove Park Inn, Westhamption, Rumson and GCGC (with Travis) but not good enough for MCC? Why not?
Are you saying that Merion never would have used a routing from someone without a proven track record of opened courses? That would be an odd argument given that the person who you think designed Merion described himself as having no experience beyond that of any other member.
But this is not a thread about Barker. I have an idea, let's move all this Barker business to the Cobb's Creek thread. Since you are the one that keeps hijacking threads with this Barker nonsense, I think that would be fitting.
What do you think? Good idea?
-
Tom + David
Barker had exactly Zero original courses open in June 1910.
His rep was due to the fact that he was pro at Garden City, friends with Travis + had worked to implement Travis,s renovation plans there.
It was still a time when most thought all one needed to design a course was to be a golf pro from overseas.
-
In case it isn't obvios I should mention that GCGC was known at the time as the best course in the country and Travis the top amateur player
That Barker was able to leverage those connections into a little side money is no surprise at all.
-
Tom + David
Barker had exactly Zero original courses open in June 1910.
His rep was due to the fact that he was pro at Garden City, friends with Travis + had worked to implement Travis,s renovation plans there.
It was still a time when most thought all one needed to design a course was to be a golf pro from overseas.
Mike
At least you given up trying to paint Barker as a no talent, who specialized in rudimentary 18 stake one day designs.
You're right, initially his reputation was based largely on his involvement with GCGC. Is being associated with one the highest profile architectural events of that time a bad thing? Reputation will only take you so far if you don't produce. CC of Viriginia was laid out in 1908. Waverly, Columbia, Mayfield, and Rumson were laid out in 1909. They were playing golf on at least half of those courses in 1910. That was followed in 1910 by Arcola, Spokane, Springhaven, Merion, Newport and Skokie. Barker definitely had momentum would you not agree? I don't believe all these clubs were idiots, do you? Many of them are still enjoying the fruits of his labors...I'd say they got their monies worth.
Have you come up with the architects who had a better resumes?
Are you still trying to make the point that Merion was misguided in approaching Barker and Macdonald & Whigham in 1910? How do you rationalize trying to tear down these guys when Hugh Wilson had absolutely nothing to hang his hat on in June 1910?
-
Tom,
Why do you insist on saying that Merion approached Barker? Wasn't that Joe Connell?
None of the courses you mentioned were opened by June 1910, with the possible exception of CC of Virginia, where the historical record seems very, very unclear. (EDIT - After digging for a bit, it seems that Barker laid out CC of Virginia in 1908, and it opened sometime in 1910, month unknown. It's the present day "Westhampton course", but other accounts claim that it was then completely redesigned by Donald Ross in 1921 and then revised by Fred Findlay in 1931. I did also find a credit for Barker going down to DC to presumably design Columbia in 1909, which opened in 1911).
He did nothing at Merion, and I'm all ears to hear what he did at Newport and Skokie, because whatever it was, it seems to have escaped their internal historical record-keeping as well.
You remind me of one of those clubs who out of the blue just claim that they are Donald Ross courses.
Or perhaps more like Rees Jones who turns the bunkers at a classic course into his usual soft cone swirls and then claims it's a Rees Jones design!
Now we have Barker designing Merion, Newport, Skokie, Garden City, and Columbia!! ::) :o :o :o
Are we sure he didn't design NGLA, Myopia, and Pine Valley as well? ;)
-
"That was followed in 1910 by Arcola, Spokane, Springhaven, Merion, Newport and Skokie."
This guy is still claiming Barker designed Merion East after we've proven MCC never even mentioned some stick routing again a developer trying to sell MCC land asked for??
Really unbelievable!! ::)
-
Tom MacWood,
What's the story with Columbia?
I did find a news article that said Barker was going down to DC to design a course (presumably Columbia) in 1909, but I can find nothing in the news accounts of the time in the Washington Post to confirm that.
Instead, by about 1911/12, after the course opened, I see a lot about Travis there, with his buddy Walter Harban who was a member of Columbia.
This was also the second course for Columbia, as they previously played at a different site.
The club's site lists the following history;
http://www.columbiacc.org/default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=232168&ssid=83542&vnf=1&ns=true
Could it be that Barker was going down there at the request of Travis to lay out Columbia according to Travis's plans??
What do you have beyond what is generally known?
-
Mike
You've gone from exactly zero to maybe CC of Virginia....we seem to be making incremental progress.
CC of Viriginia, Rumson and Waverly all opened for play in 1910 - I'm not sure about Columbia or Mayfield.
I think it is about time you throw Joe Connell under the bus.
What original courses had Ross designed in May 1910?
Barker was asked to produce a routing for Merion in 1910. Was it used? No one knows. Barker designed Columbia. Barker redesigned Newport and Skokie. Barker was involved with Travis in the redesign of GCGC as you acknowledged in your post above as the springboard to his architectural career.
I appreciate your interest and I thank you for bringing well deserved attention to Barker....better late than never.
-
Mike
You've gone from exactly zero to maybe CC of Virginia. At least we're making incremental progress.
CC of Viriginia, Rumson and Waverly all opened for play in 1910 - I'm not sure about Columbia or Mayfield.
I think it is about time you throw Joe Connell under the bus...what was wrong with him?
What original courses had Ross designed in May 1910?
Barker was asked to produce a routing for Merion in 1910. Was it used? No one knows. Barker designed Columbia. Barker redesigned Newport and Skokie. Barker was involved with Travis in the redesign of GCGC as you acknowledged in your post above as the springboard to his architectural career.
I appreciate your interest and I thank you for bringing well deserved attention to Barker....better late than never.
-
Tom MacWood,
What's the story with Columbia?
I did find a news article that said Barker was going down to DC to design a course (presumably Columbia) in 1909, but I can find nothing in the news accounts of the time in the Washington Post to confirm that.
Instead, by about 1911/12, after the course opened, I see a lot about Travis there, with his buddy Walter Harban who was a member of Columbia.
This was also the second course for Columbia, as they previously played at a different site.
The club's site lists the following history;
http://www.columbiacc.org/default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=232168&ssid=83542&vnf=1&ns=true
Could it be that Barker was going down there at the request of Travis to lay out Columbia according to Travis's plans??
What do you have beyond what is generally known?
The Washington Post reported 8/8/1909 that the course had been planned by HH Barker, a professional golfer who declared it will be one of the finest in the US.
-
Mike
You've gone from exactly zero to maybe CC of Virginia. At least we're making incremental progress.
CC of Viriginia, Rumson and Waverly all opened for play in 1910 - I'm not sure about Columbia or Mayfield.
I think it is about time you throw Joe Connell under the bus...what was wrong with him?
What original courses had Ross designed in May 1910?
Barker was asked to produce a routing for Merion in 1910. Was it used? No one knows. Barker designed Columbia. Barker redesigned Newport and Skokie. Barker was involved with Travis in the redesign of GCGC as you acknowledged in your post above as the springboard to his architectural career.
I appreciate your interest and I thank you for bringing well deserved attention to Barker....better late than never.
-
Tom,
Columbia opened early 1911.
Why do you think they attribute their course to Travis?
Rumson is a strange one. I spent some time walking around there a few weeks back and it's a pretty decent course on some really flat land. It did open sometime in 1910, but by 1911 HH Barker was the full time professional. It is truly one of the courses where he spent a good deal of time, apparently. I'm not sure what happened to his Garden City gig but he moved on around that time.
I'm not sure it's helpful to our understanding to just state "Barker designed Columbia" and redesigned Newport and Skokie, although it's possible. I just don't see any evidence in anything I've come across, Tom.
-
The Washington Post reported 8/8/1909 that the course had been planned by HH Barker, a professional golfer who declared it will be one of the finest in the US.
Thanks Tom...that's helpful...I'll look it up.
-
Travis redesigned Columbia prior to the 1921 US Open...we discussed that a couple of days ago.
You can't find any evidence? Do you have access the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or Boston Globe? At least you have accepted Barker routed Merion.
What original courses had Ross designed in June 1910? Are there any other architects you would like to stack up against Barker? What were Hugh Wilson's qualifications in June 1910? Why not put Wilson under a similar microscope?
-
Tom,
I have access to both the Post and Tribune...it's very odd, though because my search can't find 8/8/1908, yet I see it available under Ancestry.com.
I'm reticent to join another news archive site when I've already joined two.
In either case, I'll agree with you that Barker designed Columbia originally in 1909, opening early 1911.
So, in comparing Barker's career against other archies, I think we really have to look at when their courses opened, so let's say the period was 1910-15.
I'll stack Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, Cobb's Creek, and a re-do of Philmont and North Hills up against Barker's courses any day of the week. ;)
Tom...Barker's routing of Merion was never used or even seriously considered, although he did draw a rough sketch of one for Joseph Connell, the head of the Haverford Development Company.
-
So, in comparing Barker's career against other archies, I think we really have to look at when their courses opened, so let's say the period was 1910-15.
I'll stack Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, Cobb's Creek, and a re-do of Philmont and North Hills up against Barker's courses any day of the week. ;)
Who designed those courses?
-
Ok Tom...I guess whatever productive discussion we were having has reached it's limits for the evening as we've come too close to your personal Kryptonite...the fact that non-professionals and others without direct ties to Scotland and England like Hugh Wilson quickly learned the art of design and practiced it on their own, which you still fail to acknowledge.
Thanks.
-
Wilson
Merion East
Merion West
Seaview
Cobb's Creek
Philmont - R
North Hills - R
Barker
Garden City - R
Merion East
Mayfield
Columbia
Rumson
Waverly
CC of Virginia
Springhaven - R
Detroit - R
East Lake -R
CC of Ashville
Youngstown
Skokie - R
Newport - R
Raritan Valley
Arcola
Brookhaven - R
Druid Hills
Roebuck
Idle Hour
Palm Beach
Westhampton
Spokane
I'm just wondering why you don't judge Wilson by the same standard you subject Barker. I'm pretty sure your Wilson list came after June 1910.
-
Tom,
Once again, we have a choice of quality over quantity.
How many of the purported Barker courses have you actually seen to judge the quality?
I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state, Brookhaven is below the top 50 in the Philadelphia region, and it seems to me your list is stacked with some real dubious, or at least unknown work at some top clubs like Newport, Skokie, East Lake, and Detroit that was either completely built over or never was much to begin with.
Columbia is sure a fine course, although I don't know what is Barker's versus Travis and others, and I hear Mayfield is pretty good. I think we already agreed that the changes at Garden City were Barker working to Travis's plans, so yes...I'll take Wilson's courses and twice on Sunday.
-
Mike
Quality over quanity? Columbia hosted the 1921 US Open. Skokie hosted the 1922 US Open. Mayfield hosted the 1915 and 1923 Western Am and the 1919 Western Open. Detroit hosted the 1911 Western Am after a major redesign, as well as the 1919 Women's Western. Youngstown hosted the 1925 Western Open. Winnetka hosted the 1918 Western Women's. Waverly hosted the 1970 US Am. East Lake hosted the 1910 and 1915 Southern Am, and the 1919 and 1920 Southern Open. The redesigned GCGC hosted too many events to mention, and the same is true with Merion-East. Newport, Druid Hills, CC of Virginia, Grove Park Inn, Westhampton, Rumson and Arcola aren't too bad either. I see a lot of quality.
-
I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state,
There are fifty courses in NJ better than Arcola and Rumson?
-
"That was followed in 1910 by Arcola, Spokane, Springhaven, Merion, Newport and Skokie."
This guy is still claiming Barker designed Merion East after we've proven MCC never even mentioned some stick routing again a developer trying to sell MCC land asked for??
Really unbelievable!! ::)
Tom Paul,
With all due respect, you have "proven" no such thing. Proof requires an offer of evidence, and you have made no such offer. All we have is your unsupported claim, but in the past similar claims have "proven" to be overblown and unsupportable. For one example, remember when you claimed that Wayne had proven that Merion purchased the land for the golf course in Summer of 1909? And like in this situation you refused to back up your claim? It turned out that the transaction did not even involve MCC or any part of the golf course.
Your claims of proof are inappropriate and/or premature unless you are ready and willing to present your evidence for proper vetting. Of what are you afraid?
And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?
___________________________________________________________
What's the story with Columbia?
The clipping to which Tom MacWood refers:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/c9d8bbfb.jpg?t=1220671783)
Note that the article makes a clear distinction between planning the links (done by Barker) and "laying out the new links."
Wouldn't you agree that in this article, "laying out" is not synonymous with planning?
A while back either you or Joe or both represented that you were compiling a database of articles mentioning laying out a course (and similar phrases) to figure out what they meant. What did you guys find out? I've done my own research and would love to know if it is consistent with yours.
I believe that Columbia had a debacle or two when trying to build and grass the course, and this causes some delays. According to Harban, they did not get it constructed and properly grown in until he took over.
With a glance at Columbia one can see how design attributions might have gotten messed up during this early period when the idea of a modern course architect was still developing. According to early reports, Barker planned the course. And while the course was reportedly "laid out" according to his plans, Barker may not have even involved in laying out the course. Someone at the club, ultimately Harban was put in charge of building it. (Harban was the green committee chairman, but sometimes a golf professional was put in charge.)
It seems the focus of attention often fell on the clubman in charge, after all he was the most visible figure during the process, the one actually there, the one actually in charge of building the course. But he may not have planned it. IMO, Barker was somewhat lucky at Columbia in that he actually sometimes gets credit. It just as easily could have been Harban who was called the designer.
By the way, I believe that Ross also tried for this job, but the reports I have seen indicate that they ultimately went with Barker's plan. Travis reportedly visited the site a few months after Barker planned it, and expressed his approval for the plan.
__________________________________
As for your comparison between who was better, Wilson or Barker, isn't this totally beside the point? Surely you agree that Barker was designing some pretty good courses in 1910, and Wilson was not.
Besides, weren't a number of others involved at Cobb's? Wasn't Seaview widely criticized when it opened, and didn't they bring in someone else to do the bunkering? I'll stay away from Merion East, but your attribution is very suspect at this point without an offering of verifiable proof. (Don't bother repeating what you think the MCC docs mean. That is not an offering of proof.)
-
There isn't a shred of proof that Barker's rough sketch (made on a single day) on a portion of the property that would eventually be Merion East was used in the ultimate routing of the golf course. Likewise, there is no proof that anything of the rough sketch was not ultimately utilized in some way. It is important to keep in mind that Barker provided that sketch, not for Merion, but for a development company prior to the purchase of the land by the club. A short while after Barker's routing, Macdonald and Whigham were asked to come down by a Board Member to offer advice on the ground they were contemplating buying.
This is an excellent example where one group of isolated internet historians with one round of golf at Merion between them have, without any proof at all, included Merion East in a list of courses designed by Barker. This is completely misleading and without merit. And by the way, that list isn't at all definitive and should be open to discussion, lots of it. Another group of collaborative historians with connections to the clubs and families of participants as well as knowing the courses through 1000 rounds of golf and nearly daily study, admit that they do not have sufficient information on hand to say anything more than Barker provided a rough sketch to a development group having nothing at all to do with the Club.
You decide which group is disingenuous.
-
There isn't a shred of proof that Barker's rough sketch (made on a single day) on a portion of the property that would eventually be Merion East was used in the ultimate routing of the golf course. Likewise, there is no proof that anything of the rough sketch was ultimately utilized. It is important to keep in mind that Barker provided that sketch, not for Merion, but for a development company prior to the purchase of the land by the club. A short while after Barker's routing, Macdonald and Whigham were asked to come down by a Board Member to offer advice on the ground they were contemplating buying.
This is an excellent example where one group of isolated internet historians with one round of golf at Merion, have without any proof at all, included Merion East in a list of courses designed by Barker. This is completely misleading and without merit. And by the way, that list isn't all definitive and open to discussion. Another group of collaborative historians with connections to the clubs and families of participants as well as knowing the courses through 1000 rounds of golf and nearly daily study, admit that they do not have sufficient information on hand to say anything more than Barker provided a rough sketch to a development group having nothing at all to do with the Club.
You decide which group is disingenuous.
This is coming from a guy who completely ignored the evidence Barker initially did a routing, a guy who tried to bury Barker's name so deep no one would ever find it. If the evidence you discover doesn't fit your theory, you bury it.
There isn't a shred of proof Barker's routing wasn't used. In fact no one has seen Barker's routing. No one has seen the supposed five routings that came after it. No one knows which or any of those routings were ultimately chosen.
My guess is one of those five routings was Barkers, and the other four routings were all largely based on his routing with minor differences. Barker was a fabulous router; that is a given. I don't believe any of the members on the committee had ever routed a course in their lives; correct me if that is not true. It would have been human nature to use the Barker routing as a template, especially on such a narrow and cramped site.
-
Now we see you as you really are, someone that guesses history rather than documents it. Your guesses are based upon your overblown sense of being all-knowing.
Well guess what, we agree that no one knows what the Barker routing was or how much, if any, was ultimately used in the final plan. However, because you think Barker was a master router of golf courses (and I don't believe you have any claim on truly understanding routing alternatives on a given site) in 1910, there is little proof of that, you now guess that one of the five routings at the end of the Merion design process was by Barker and the result of that guess is you list Merion as one of the courses Barker designed. You go on to say that the other four routings were largely based on Barker's routing with minor differences. How do you know that if you've never seen the Barker routing or the 5 proposed routings? You've never even seen the raw data that discusses the 5 routings so you have no clue as to how much detail is known.
You are exposed for the utter nonsense your spew! And you call yourself an expert researcher. You are nothing more than a poor guesser. How can you not stand by a conservative statement such as Barker provided a rough sketch after a short time on site to the head of a development company that was interested in a community development with an adjacent golf course? That is the truth as we know it (unless Fantasy Faces of Merion Part Deux has some revelations). What you claim is a joke if it wasn't on the Internet and might be interpreted as fact. It is FICTION and you ought to withdraw your wild claims.
I found the Barker reference years before your protege. I was wrong in dismissing it completely, though in hindsight it wasn't a significant oversight. He made a rough sketch in one day, not for the Club but for a development company. Within a short time, a Board member asked Macdonald and Whigham to visit to offer advise. It turns out most of that advice was agronomic as well as a general outline for a 6000 yard course, about 500 yards shorter than the limits of a course they wanted. You are on a quest to minimize gentlemen amateur architects because in your head, that model cannot work. Well guess what, it did and has stood the test of time. Wilson had a talent that was just beginning to be mined, he had an outstanding committee of talented minds and probably the best construction guy in the world working for them. Add their dedication and passion for creating THEIR course and you have a recipe for success. Your journeyman professional model is unsupported and a stretch of your imagination. Your supposition of Macdonald and Whigham as the driving forces of the design of the East Course is also unsupported fantasy. By the way, which is it? Barker as designer of the East Course as you now claim. Or Macdonald and Whigham as the only men in America capable of doing what was done, certainly not the rank amateurs at Merion. Ignoring the same model at Oakmont, Pine Valley and Myopia Hunt. You now have vacillated between your number one and number two designers in America as the designer of Merion East. It seems like you cannot decide, except that it couldn't have been anyone at Merion.
-
Wayne
Save your lectures for someone who buys your BS. You are the man who claimed it was a fact that William Flynn designed a golf course at age 19, three years before the course was even concieved. At least there is evidence of Barker was involved at Merion and produced a routing. There is no evidence Flynn was involved at Heartwellville, much less designed the course.
This is a discusion group. We discuss topics like who routed Merion. You would have everyone believe this is an open and shut case. The truth is no one knows who routed Merion, which leads those interested in the subject to speculate based on the facts that are known. If you are uncomfortable with that move on. At least we have the propriety to acknowledge ours is an educated guess unlike your Heartwellville BS.
-
You are wrong. We know who routed and designed Merion. It wasn't Barker, Macdonald or Whigham. You may not know who designed it, but you are out there promoting Barker as the router, when you aren't promoting Macdonald and Whigham as the routers. The fact is, you don't have a clue. I am far more comfortable presenting the information as we know it, not the wild guesses you come up with. Your speculations are presented as fact when you list the courses designed by Barker and include Merion. You know too little to produce that list. I doubt you've studied the remaining courses with enough dedication to know those attributions as well. You invent your own realities off of the internet that have little to no connection to the real world.
You choose to keep referencing the obsolete manuscript of ours that you have. Keep up with the diversion tactics. Better yet, send it back to me. You don't deserve it considering how outdated it is and the manner in which you use it contrasted to the spirit in which it was sent to you.
-
Look...this is complete and utter nonsense. In fact, it is stupidity and total bullsh*t.
Had one of the five "plans" had been Barker's or some slight revision of Barker's the gentlemen on that committee would have clearly said so.
These were gentlemen who clearly would have given Barker his due.
This is not only stupid, it's absolutely an insult to Hugh Wilson and his committee and every single "in the know" member of Merion at the time.
-
There are fifty courses in NJ better than Arcola and Rumson?
Calling Matt Ward...
Yes, Tom....
You should come out here some time.
-
Tom Paul,
Your claims of proof are inappropriate and/or premature unless you are ready and willing to present your evidence for proper vetting. Of what are you afraid?
And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?
David,
I guess you must have unlimited time and focus to argue this the rest of your life.
At some point about 2 years back these threads began to lose all value.
If you know that someone other than the Merion Committee "planned" Merion, then let's just put it out there and stop wasting everyone's valuable time.
You know what the Merion Committee minutes say. Please don't act dumb as one of your best friends has seen them and all of us have told you essentially what they say.
Is arguing about the attribution of a golf course on the other side of the country every day on the Internet really what you want as your life's work?
If you and MacWood have more, then it's time to put up or shut up.
also...
I've been advised by concerned friends (not TePaul and Wayne) NOT to send you the Cobb's Creek book as they are concerned that you will then spend the next 3 years parsing every word, twisting every fact, and turning it into another personal mission that we have neither time nor focus for.
These people are concerned that you have absolutely no concern for the truth here, but instead would even actually enjoy sinking a worthwhile project, or at least casting enough confusion around it to be a total distraction.
I have to tell you that I can understand where they are coming from.
So, in good faith I'll offer a trade....
You come forward today with how you "Know" that Merion was designed by someone other than Wilson and Committee and I'll send you the research book we created on Cobb's Creek.
and finally, David...
What are we to make of this?
"And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?"
Is this a game?
You claim that this isn't a personal vendetta to make Tom and Wayne look foolish, but then you claim you KNOW that Wilson and Committee didn't design Merion but unless Tom throws his cards first, you won't tell everyone else here??
Is it no fun unless you can prove someone else wrong??
Do you have any respect or consideration for anyone here??
-
Mike, Wayne, Tom -
this has probably been mentioned before, but it strikes me that the difference of opinion here may have much to do with comparing apples and oranges. That is, I think you are talking from different perspectives or viewing the question through different lenses. "Historically" speaking, there can be honest debate about, say, whether or to what extent Campbell was involved with Myopia or Barker with Merion. But "architecturally" speaking, can there be that same debate? What I mean is, say we were ranking for a major golf magazine the great golf courses of America and creating a one-sheet for each course - e.g. year established, type of grass, length, etc. When it came to listing the "Architect", would anyone list Campbell or Barker as the architects of Myopia or Merion? Would anyone give them a "co-designed" credit?
I'm trying to understand what people really mean when they speak of someone "designing" a golf course. For me, if "architecturally" speaking I was asked to list the architects of the great courses for a major magazine, I wouldn't list Campbell or Barker -- for one, because it wouldn't seem in keeping with what has for the last few decades been understood by that term.
Peter
-
" When it came to listing the "Architect", would anyone list Campbell or Barker as the architects of Myopia or Merion? Would anyone give them a "co-designed" credit?"
Peter:
Of course not. No one would do that with the lack of evidence of it. There is not any lack of evidence that Wilson and his committee designed Merion East. It's not something that someone just reported either, it's from the administrative meeting records of the club when they were in the process of doing it.
And there is no lack of evidence that Appleton, Gardner and Merrill deigning and laid out the original nine holes of Myopia. It is from the same kind of administrative records of the club when it was doing it.
I suppose these two guys are from some new school of history that maintains if someone repeats something enough or long enough people might believe it no matter how unsupportable it is.
One of these guys is even maintaining on here that this cannot be attributed unless and until he's allowed to vet this information. That too is preposterous. He must think that almost one hundred years of close observers from the club and others are all idiots or all lying. We can probably add the other guy to that thought as well. Their approach seems to be if they can't see this information it should be completely ignored or dismissed. As Wayne said earlier, that shows some very bad analytical skills.
Furthermore, with the way those two carry on with the histories of a number of these types of clubs (perhaps the ones who have famous architects such as Leeds and Wilson) I have little doubt if and when they ever do see this material they will probably somehow try to say it doesn't really say what it obviously does say. ;) ;)
It's my feeling that serious historians and histories really don't and shouldn't have time for people like that.
And the proof of it is that there is no question at all from Merion or us that the discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 was a very good one and appreciated by all. But that is all to date that's been offered of any consequence whatsoever from those two in over five years.
-
Look...this is complete and utter nonsense. In fact, it is stupidity and total bullsh*t.
Had one of the five "plans" had been Barker's or some slight revision of Barker's the gentlemen on that committee would have clearly said so.
These were gentlemen who clearly would have given Barker his due.
This is not only stupid, it's absolutely an insult to Hugh Wilson and his committee and every single "in the know" member of Merion at the time.
I agree totally with what you are saying here Mike.
-
Peter, one of the problems with lists is that MacWood lists Merion East on a list of Wilson's courses and on a list of Barker's courses. Would he put Merion East on a list of Macdonald courses? Of Whigham? How does he regard Flynn and Merion East? We already know his protege doesn't consider anything to do with Merion's design or redesign with Flynn. That is not true and the proof exists.
So lists are not all that helpful unless the process and definitions are clear and consistent. They are not with MacWood and his protege.
It is far better to say that Barker provided a rough sketch of holes to a developer not associated with the Club on a limited portion of the larger property that would eventually be Merion East. And further, that we don't know the nature of the routing and if any was incorporated in the final plans. That is the truth. It has little resemblance to what MacWood would have us believe.
-
Mike Cirba:
Regarding your post #472 to DM, have you ever heard of the expression, "hoisting oneself on his own petard"?
In the opinions of everyone I'm aware of here and elsewhere who cares about Merion's architectural history he's already done that and quite some time ago.
Another irony is these two guys continue to cast those who argue with their take on Merion's architectural history and the reputation of Wilson as something that is driven by defensiveness and the concern about preserving a "legend." I can guarantee you that months ago all the people around here and from this club who read that essay and these discussion see it as comedy, nothing more.
If that's the way these two want to see their credibility and reputations go, well, far be it from me to disabuse them.
-
" The truth is no one knows who routed Merion, which leads those interested in the subject to speculate based on the facts that are known."
Mr. MacWood:
Really? It seems to me the men who were on the board and on the committees of MCC who were in the process of routing and designing and CREATING their new golf course, Merion East, in Ardmore knew perfectly well who was doing it.
Are you, a man who has never even been to this club or seen these board and committee meeting records, really trying to tell us that you believe they were ALL mistaken???
Why is that exactly, Mr. MacWood? ??? ::)
I find it really comical that you could do such a thing as that on here and expect almost anyone to ever take you seriously again about anything to do with your architectural research and analysis----at least of a somewhat logical and intellegent kind. Even if I've never met you there have been times in the past I certainly have worried for your mental health. Unfortunately, that time is here again.
-
I routed Merion.
-
I routed Merion.
I feel a Spartacus moment coming on. ;D
-
Way to go KyleH and JimK:
It has been my feeling for a few years now that on threads, and particularly these Merion threads on which these two self-proclaimed "independent, expert" researchers participate, that humor is a most necessary element.
Thank you,
-
There I go, taking myself out of context again.
I meant to say: "I routed myself through the town of Merion one October day."
-
That's close enough Kyle. Under the logic of the new architecture attribution analysis school practiced by these two "independent, expert" researchers that should get you too co-design attribution for Merion East.
-
David,
I guess you must have unlimited time and focus to argue this the rest of your life.
. . .
Is arguing about the attribution of a golf course on the other side of the country every day on the Internet really what you want as your life's work?
I write one response to a days worth of nonsense, and you lecture me on my time management? Give me a break! You posted over a dozen times yesterday on this issue alone!
You know what the Merion Committee minutes say. Please don't act dumb as one of your best friends has seen them and all of us have told you essentially what they say.
I have a good idea of what they say based on what you and TEPaul and Wayne have leaked (and what you haven't leaked) but I haven't discussed them with any friends who have seen the information. Apparently my friends and I have a different sense of honor and ethics than yours. Not keeping your word appears to be commonplace in your neck of the woods, but not in mine.
Speaking of which . . .
You know my feelings on a Cobb's Creek restoration, I've expressed them publicly and privately. But by all means don't let your word to me get in the way of your unnamed friends' paranoia.
So, in good faith I'll offer a trade....
Good faith? Good faith isn't a deal, a trade, or a guarantee. It is upright behavior without assurances. That is the "faith" part. For example, good faith was providing you with the Wash Post article on Barker, and the synopsis of Columbia's early history including that Ross had reportedly gone after the job. Good faith was providing you with a photo of Ward playing NGLA in 1909, and explaining my interpretation of the confusion over the two tournaments. That was my Good Faith for the last few days. Longer term, my good faith was posting my essay here and opening up my research for a complete vetting, despite your irrational (and continued) paranoia and insults about my intentions. My good faith was providing Wayne with my research, my interpretations, and my explanations. My good faith trusting his word that he would provide me with his. My good faith was trusting his word that he would offer me a detailed critique of my work, with support.
I've given you all that in good faith, and more. in fact, dealing with you at all is a major leap of faith after the garbage you've sent my way. As far as I can tell, you have been acting in bad faith with me from the beginning. Others started later when acting ethically began no longer matched their various agendas.
You come forward today with how you "Know" that Merion was designed by someone other than Wilson and Committee and I'll send you the research book we created on Cobb's Creek.
I think you need to get a hold of yourself, and look a little more closely at what I wrote above, and to what I was responding.
"And, by the way, I know you are mistaken and can prove it, but why bother when you won't offer any support whatsoever?"
If I were you, I'd make of it, that I know TEPaul is mistaken and if he'd like to get to the bottom of it, then I'd be glad to discuss all the facts with him, but won't discuss all the facts without seeing all the facts.
Is this a game?
I don't know. Is it? You are the one offering up information, then refusing to provide it. You are the one who keeps demanding we answer your questions and provide you with our research, but I don't recall you answering mine or producing anything. You are one of those making claims without offering any support. So you tell me, Mike, is this a game? And if so what are the rules and to whom do they apply.
You claim that this isn't a personal vendetta to make Tom and Wayne look foolish, but then you claim you KNOW that Wilson and Committee didn't design Merion but unless Tom throws his cards first, you won't tell everyone else here??
First Mike, you, Wayne Morrison, Tom Paul, and Joe Bausch are the ones making unsupported claims and withholding information, not me.
Second, as usual you did not understand my post or my point, have it all garbled in your mind. You seem to have failed to realize that it was TEPaul who withheld information, not me. When he comes forward with that information, then his mistake will be evident.
Third, this agenda stuff is a bunch of crap. I am not the one who broke of the exchange of ideas and cooperation. I tried to cooperate in GOOD FAITH, but have been shown only BAD FAITH. It is quite clear to anyone paying attention who has the agenda. What could be more agenda driven than running a PR campaign about Merion's early history while refusing to produce the support.
It is ridiculous that you expect me to offer evidence to disprove a claim that hasn't even been supported (and cannot be) supported.
Is it no fun unless you can prove someone else wrong??
I have no desire to prove anyone wrong, I just want to get to the truth. The truth is being masked and hidden in instead we have this masquerade of claims of "proof" when no such "proof" has been forthcoming. I'll be glad to have an open and frank discussion of the source material, but I'll be damned if I am going to continue to act in good faith when you guys are so obviously acting in bad faith.
Do you have any respect or consideration for anyone here??
I have respect and consideration for some, but have lost or am losing most of the respect and consideration I had for others.
But why is my "respect" contingent upon me coming forward with everything immediately, yet yours is not? and Waynes and TEPaul's are not? And Joe's is not? Why is it that for Tom and I we have to produce everything immediately or be condemned and criticized for being disrespectful and playing games, but you guys do this song and dance daily? That is game playing Mike, and it is your game, not mine.
Have you no respect or consideration for anyone here? How about Wayne and TomP. If they had any respect and consideration, then why would they be playing these games?
Why won't you answer my quesitions about the Columbia clipping or the "laying out" issue. It seems pretty important in all these docussions, including your Cobb's discussion.
-
What was Dr. Walter Harban's role in the design and construction of Columbia CC?
-
David,
We're covering old ground on this issue of "laid out" versus "constructed", versus "planned", etc.
This is from the original thread Ran started when he posted your White Paper.
"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring. There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."
"This last-named club (Philmont) for years was noted as a course where there was not a single artificial hazard. The club feels that new greens are badly needed and that artificial hazards are essntial. One of the leading members (Ellis Gimbel) had a great deal to do with the municipal course in Cobb's Creek Park, which was laid out by A.H. Smith, George Crump, Hugh Wilson, and others, and he was greatly impressed with what these experts did. "
“The fact that there is a golf course at Cobb's Creek is due entirely to the hard efforts of the Philadelphia Golf Association. It took five years to convince the Fairmount Park Commissioners that there was an actual demand for a public links. And after the plans were decided upon Hugh Wilson, the man who laid out the two Merion courses, spent six months laying out the new public course. A.H. Smith, for years one of the most prominent members of the Huntingdon Valley Country Club, gave up his Sundays for as many months to the work of getting the course in shape.”
David...this is all old news.
Many of these terms were used synonymously...laid out, constructed, planned, built, responsible for, etc.
One also has to look at the context, as is so very obvious in each of the quotes above.
As they are in your Columbia snippet...Barker designed the course, no question, and others "laid it out", or in our parlance, constructed or built it.
But, as these quotes and a million others I've come across clearly show, writers of the time also used "laid out" to define architecting, or planning the course.
-
Tom,
Once again, we have a choice of quality over quantity.
How many of the purported Barker courses have you actually seen to judge the quality?
I can tell you that in terms of NJ course, Arcola, Rumson, and Raritan Valley are below the Top 50 in that state,
Mike Cirba,
Which version of Arcola ?
Before the Parkway seized several holes vis a vis eminent domain and before Arcola sold off other holes to Buitoni Macaroni, Arcola was a fabulous golf course.
Or, are you talking about Arcola after the Parkway and subsequently, after Buitoni Macaroni ?
-
What was Dr. Walter Harban's role in the design and construction of Columbia CC?
Dr. Harban described his role in the construction of Columbia in Piper and Oakley's book. According to what I have read, he constructed the course, or perhaps "laid it out"and constructed it" in the language used at the time. But, according to what I have read it looks as if Barker planned the course.
____________________________________
Mike,
I am glad you finally agree that the phrase "lay out" was not always synonymous with "plan" or "design" and that sometimes the "laying out" was done by someone who did not design the course.
In my opinion, the person who planned the course is the designer. Do you agree?
-
The ultimate test of greatness for you may be the desire to wlal back to the 1st tee after a game, but it ain't for me.
Then, what's the ultimate test of greatness for you ?
Pat
I don't have an ultimate test for greatness.
Even if I tried to come up with one, I would likely have to alter it.
There's nothing wrong with adjusting your criteria.
But, if you don't have any identifiable criteria, how do you relate the merits of a course to others ?
Lets put it this way, I know greatness when I see.
That may take me one look or dozen, but if a course is great, I will see it sooner or later.
That's a contradiction.
First you state that you know greatness when you see it.
Then you state that you may not see it after one look, a dozen looks or perhaps after fifty looks, but, that eventually, you'll see it.
That doesn't inspire confidence, nor does it speak to your observatory powers and ability to analyze.
One would think that a great course would reveal itself to you after a few plays.
How great could the course be if it took you a dozen or so visits to discern its greatness ?
Part of the problem with going back to the first tee for me is that many great courses aren't the sort I really want to play very often.
Could you identify 10 of them for me ?
I can readily concede a course is great, but that I don't have any great affection for it.
Could you provide 10 examples of courses that fall into that category ?
My ideas of what make up my favourite courses don't necessarily make them great ones.
How do your ideas of what comprises your favorite courses differ from your ideas of what comprises great courses ?
-
Mike,
I am glad you finally agree that the phrase "lay out" was not always synonymous with "plan" or "design" and that sometimes the "laying out" was done by someone who did not design the course.
In my opinion, the person who planned the course is the designer. Do you agree?
David,
In the examples I've seen from the time, "laying out" was not always synonymous with designing or planning but in most cases it was as seen above in the examples I provided.
I would answer your question about "the designer" as follows.
I sort of stick to the Cornish & Whitten methodology to describe what I mean. In their book they sometimes say something like;
Linday Ervin (routing)
David Postelwaite
Because sometimes what happens is the example of a course near here called Talamore (not the one with the llamas) that was routed for a previous owner by Geoffrey Cornish, but then taken over by another company and the owner, a Bob Levy Jr., used Cornish's routing but built complete new hole internals and strategies based on his own "design".
Another local example I've played recently is Jack Frost National in the Poconos. My understanding is that Rees Jones did a routing for previous owners but the project never took off. A few years back new owners took over and used the Rees routing (which I believe had passed the first set of governmental approvals) and then built the course using Florida architect Terry LaGree to create the internals of the holes.
Perhaps a better example is the Old Course at Stonewall. Is it a Tom Doak course or a Tom Fazio course?? After all, with some minor changes, Fazio did the original routing.
I also hear a similar thing took place at Twisted Dune, but perhaps Archie can weigh in on that one if he wishes.
For my own record-keeping, I grant the person(s) who actually built the internals of the holes and created the hole strategies, contours, and features with greater credit, so for instance, my recorded attribution for Stonewall reads;
Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Tom Fazio/Jay Sigel
Would you change that order?
-
In the examples I've seen from the time, "laying out" was not always synonymous with designing or planning but in most cases it was as seen above in the examples I provided.
Most cases? Not in my experience. I am not even sure it is synonymous in the examples above.
Because sometimes what happens is the example of a course near here called Talamore (not the one with the llamas) that was routed for a previous owner by Geoffrey Cornish, but then taken over by another company and the owner, a Bob Levy Jr., used Cornish's routing but built complete new hole internals and strategies based on his own "design".
Another local example I've played recently is Jack Frost National in the Poconos. My understanding is that Rees Jones did a routing for previous owners but the project never took off. A few years back new owners took over and used the Rees routing (which I believe had passed the first set of governmental approvals) and then built the course using Florida architect Terry LaGree to create the internals of the holes.
Perhaps a better example is the Old Course at Stonewall. Is it a Tom Doak course or a Tom Fazio course?? After all, with some minor changes, Fazio did the original routing.
I also hear a similar thing took place at Twisted Dune, but perhaps Archie can weigh in on that one if he wishes.
For my own record-keeping, I grant the person(s) who actually built the internals of the holes and created the hole strategies, contours, and features with greater credit, so for instance, my recorded attribution for Stonewall reads;
Tom Doak/Gil Hanse/Tom Fazio/Jay Sigel
Would you change that order?
I don't know who did what at these places. These are examples where one group replaced another and where they weren't necessarily on the same page with what should be done. Also, plans often encompass more than just a routing. So I don't think your examples are applicable.
You assume that the one who built the hole internals is the one who created the strategies, contours, and features, but what if the strategies, contours, and features were planned by someone else?
In the past, hasn't the routing largely dictated the possibilities for the rest of the plan?
-
"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring. There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."
David,
Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?
At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.
As far as your question, routing dictates the framework and in some ways the possibilities and limitations, but the internal plans determine the proof of the pudding.
As Tom Doak often says, the difference between a good course and great course is often in the last 10% details.
-
"I have no desire to prove anyone wrong, I just want to get to the truth. The truth is being masked and hidden in instead we have this masquerade of claims of "proof" when no such "proof" has been forthcoming. I'll be glad to have an open and frank discussion of the source material, but I'll be damned if I am going to continue to act in good faith when you guys are so obviously acting in bad faith.”
Is that right, you have no desire to prove anyone wrong and you just want to get to the truth?
I hardly think anyone who read some of these Merion threads in the years before your essay, then read your essay, and then read these threads in the ensuing five or so months since your essay would ever believe you don’t have a strong desire to prove a lot of people wrong and that the same goes for Mr. MacWood.
You know, this fixation on his part, and apparently yours, that these "legends" like Wilson are all about glorification on the club's part, on Philadelphian's part, and are historically unsupportable! ;) That approach wore out pretty fast a long, long time ago with almost everyone even if you two will probably never take anyone's word and opinion that it did!
Unless you think everyone on here, including members of the club who know their course's architectural history, and for obvious reasons, a whole lot better than you two know it, are total idiots and can’t understand what they read from you two it’s pretty clear to see that your desire (and MacWood’s ) was to prove Merion’s entire almost one hundred year history of who designed their course wrong.
Back then we were all hopeful that there could be a frank and open discussion on this subject with you two but long ago the both of you have proven that was not possible and probably never will be particularly with the way you ignored, dismissed and totally tried to rationalize away someone like Alan Wilson and what he said in his 1926 report about the early architectural history of Merion.
All of us here, including the club, have always said we stand behind that report as to who was responsible for the design of Merion East (and West) and nothing has been forthcoming since you and Mr. MacWood to convince anyone of anything to the contrary.
All this continuous caterwailing on your part about good faith on your part and bad faith on everyone else’s part is unimportant and a deflection. The fact is, at this point, I doubt anyone has any desire at all to even attempt to have a frank and open discussion with you or Mr. MacWood about Merion and probably about a number of other clubs, certainly including Myopia.
The only important thing to do is simply for us to tell you your inferences, premises and conclusions have been wrong and they still are. I doubt anyone would be interested in hearing you say you have new information or even a different interpretation. We’ve all been down that road before with you two and it’s a road which has about zero credibility on your part and on the part of Tom MacWood.
The fact is as golf architectural historians the two of you are pretty much interpretative and analytical disasters.
However, this is, once again, not to say that your discovery of Wilson's 1912 trip abroad is not important to Merion, because I believe it is to some extent and they will or do understand that as a point of their historical trivia.
It just doesn't happen to make the kind of difference you've inferred it must have because even if Wilson did not go abroad before 1912 the fact is he was still in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West course from their very beginnings.
He and his committee routed and designed the course and he and his committee was the creative force behind it, not Macdonald and Whigam; they only advised and made suggestions to MCC over a period of not more than approximately 4-5 days over the period of about a year, for which the club amply thanked them, and not a single thing either of you have ever produced or explained in any way at all credibly indicates otherwise, and as I think most everyone familiar with this subject now understands ever will indicate otherwise.
If the two of you continue to claim what you have claimed with the lack of evidence you're both guilty of and responsible for yourselves, we will continue to deny your claims in the interest of the truth of the architectural history of Merion East.
If you want cooperation with the club on their own material, as far as I'm concerned you two can just earn it on your own, as some of us here have over the years.
-
"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring. There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."
David,
Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?
At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.
I don't know enough about the details of the courses to say. But my understanding is that Wilson did not do the bunkers at Seaview, so I guess you don't give him much credit for the design?
As far as your question, routing dictates the framework and in some ways the possibilities and limitations, but the internal plans determine the proof of the pudding.
Shouldn't this at least depend upon the extent of the plan done by the planner, and the amount of work necessary to the internal, and how much creative input is necessary?
As Tom Doak often says, the difference between a good course and great course is often in the last 10% details.
Does Tom Doak think that one can make a horrible routing into a great course simply by where one places the bunkers? Or do the site and routing define the range of possibilities for the course?
Wouldn't the routing be even more important where one was relying on natural slopes and features for much of the strategic interest?
Take 2-9 at Merion East. Does the routing make these holes special, or is it just a bunker here and there?
__________________________________________
Tom Paul,
If you recall, I tried to cooperate with Wayne Morrison, but then you guys thought you had something to prove me wrong (or as you put it "to make a fool" of me) and you refused to cooperate at all. So who is it again that has to prove someone wrong?? Your words have spoken loudly on this issue. If you would like I can show them to you again.
Unfortunately you seem to be falling into your habit of speaking for Merion again. Did you join the club in the past few months? Have you been officially designated as their spokesperson? Given that your past representations on behalf of Merion and he USGA have been far less than reliable, perhaps you should let Merion speak for itself.
-
"Tom Paul,
If you recall, I tried to cooperate with Wayne Morrison, but then you guys thought you had something to prove me wrong (or as you put it "to make a fool" of me) and you refused to cooperate at all. So who is it again that has to prove someone wrong?? Your words have spoken loudly on this issue. If you would like I can show them to you again.
Unfortunately you seem to be falling into your habit of speaking for Merion again. Did you join the club in the past few months? Have you been officially designated as their spokesperson? Given that your past representations on behalf of Merion and he USGA have been far less than reliable, perhaps you should let Merion speak for itself."
Mr. Moriarty:
Those kinds of posts leave me no real alternative but to tell you that you have no earthly idea about this area or my relationship with Merion or people there and there's no reason at all to go into it with you on here or try to. Believe me, I doubt there is any way at all you would ever understand even if you actually tried.
The point is numerous people and members from Merion read this site and if they had some problem with what we say to you on this website they sure do know us, our phone numbers and where we live, and I doubt they would hesistate to let us know if we were saying something or presenting the club and the architectural history of their courses in some way they didn't appreciate or agree with historically.
You and MacWood don't seem to pick up on subtlety so let me just tell you straight---everything you and MacWood have said about Merion for about the last few years they take as a joke---basically medium to high comedy. That's the way you two and your inferences, premises and conclusions about Wilson, Macdonald/Whigam and certainly Barker have gone over there and in this town and hopefully elsewhere.
And there's very good reason for that which is your agenda to attack "legends" the way you two have with the complete lack of support or hilariously illogical presentations you've made, of which the best example is that essay of yours and your adverserialness and complete lack of logic and familiarity with the administrative records of these clubs.
Newspaper articles will never trump a club like MCC's contemporaneous administrative records of meetings to do with something like a course when it's being planned and created but that crystal clear fact doesn't seem to occur to you two "expert" researchers ;) or you just conveniently dismiss it because the thought of being wrong is so repugnant to you both.
Are you ever going to see MCC's 1910-1911 administrative records? Probably not because at this point no one can understand why either of you deserve to see them. You've proven beyond a scintilla of a doubt it is not possible for you two to analyze anything objectively or to have a frank and open discussion about any of these prominent courses.
The nature of your participation on here with Merion is marginalizing the both of you and probably this website too. It has nothing to do with us, it has to do with the two of you. Hopefully for your own reputations you'll realize that at some point and stop this charade with Merion and Wilson and Macdonald. The accurate history of who designed that course was recorded just about a century ago and we have it. If you want it you'll need to do a whole lot better vis-a-vis the club and us than you have in the past.
What you need to do is go back to square one and begin to study is entire era again including the lives of those so-called "Amateur/sportsmen" designers I've mentioned before as so interesting and those people that the wooden-headed Mr. MacWood referred to as "My Schtick". ;)
I offered to help you and collaborate with you on that subject a number of times but you always refused. That offer will no longer be on the table again, and for you, that's too bad.
-
"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring. There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."
David,
Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?
At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.
I don't know enough about the details of the courses to say. But my understanding is that Wilson did not do the bunkers at Seaview, so I guess you don't give him much credit for the design?
David,
Wilson did do the bunkering at Seaview, and the routing he built exists today in its entirety as the Seaview Bay course.
If you read the thread I started about Hugh Wilson a few months back with any real historical curiousity or actual search for truth you would have understood the real story behind the reasons Donald Ross was brought in to toughen the course instead of Wilson.
But of course, that whole answer is simply another smokescreen.
The rest of your answer here is simultaneously transparent and reflective of your true purpose here;
The answer you provided tells me that you have absolutely no real interest in discussing these issues in any type of reasonable, interested, interesting, or intellectual way, so one is left to assume you are either mentally challenged or totally disengenous.
Since I know it's not the former, I now know it's the latter.
As far as I'm concerned, we have nothing further to discuss.
-
Mike Cirba:
Have you ever really analyzed the Ross hole drawings in the halls of the Seaview club?
As to that man from California and his participation or contribution to the discussion of Seaview, he's a compelete waste of time and energy as he basically has been on any and every thread subject he's been part of on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Have you noticed how he claims almost no one understands his points or what he's trying to say? Isn't that interesting?!? ;)
The guy desperately needs to get out on a construction site so he can gain some modicum of understanding of what golf course architecture is all about, but he doesn't seem able to understand that concept. Either does the gentleman from Ivory Tower, Ohio.
-
Mike Cirba:
Have you ever really analyzed the Ross hole drawings in the halls of the Seaview club?
Yes, I have Tom...they are some lovely drawings and the work Ross did was certainly helpful to toughen the course a bit.
But...a number of articles that Joe Bausch uncovered that described each hole as Hugh Wilson built it show clearly that much of today's bunkering and strategies were already in place day one.
Like most courses that Wilson built however, some of the bunkering was left to be done after one saw how the course actually played, rather than go the rote and repetitive and somewhat forced placement method of trying to copy template holes from overseas.
Also, it was clearly pointed out in the early articles that the course was NOT meant to be another Pine Valley, or Merion East, or even another Atlantic City, but instead a fun, pleasurable place to play, much like Merion West. However, the prevailing tide of thinking at the time was all about creating championship courses for Philadelphia golfers, as evidenced by Cobb's Creek, PV, et.al...
By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.
Despite having a full time job running a maritime insurance business, after the incredible and immediate success of Merion East, as well as word of his studies abroad, he was now viewed across the power brokers of Philly golf as THE MAN, who had studied golf course architecture and construction (as no one before, in the words of Max Behr) and was in high demand.
In short order starting in late 1910/early 1911, he designed and built Merion East, he designed and built Merion West, he designed and built Seaview for Clarence Geist, he revised and added complete new holes to Philmont for Ellis Gimbel, and he helped his friend Franklin Meehan revamp North Hills.
His work on golf courses was anything but a high-level managerial role. In the accounts of Cobb's Creek, he spent six months on that course alone.
At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family. There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.
He was an AMATEUR SPORTSMAN, a point that neither David nor Tom MacWood apparently will ever understand. He had a DAY JOB.
With the advent of professionals like Donald Ross coming to fore by the mid teens, golf architecture was about to change into a specialized profession.
THAT is why Donald Ross came to Seaview instead of Hugh Wilson.
Instead of recognizing Hugh Wilson's unbelievable achievements, David would like to insultingly tear down a legend for his own purposes, but instead only shows his true motivations.
-
TEPaul
I skimmed your answer above, and it seems you did not answer my question. Are you acting in an official capacity as a spokesman for Merion or not? You are not a member there, are you?
Me neither. So we have something in common.
David,
Wilson did do the bunkering at Seaview, and the routing he built exists today in its entirety as the Seaview Bay course.
Really? I thought I read something to the contrary, at least for the fairway bunkers. I'll have to double check.
As for the rest of your answer, it is pure poppycock. That you misunderstood my answer has become the norm. No doubt my fault.
Anyway, I'd be glad not to NOT discuss these things with you, but I will go on discussing topics that interest me. Don't feel compelled to participate if you don't want.
As for whatever thread you started, I mean no offense, but I rarely read the threads you start. I find I don't get much out of them, so I generally skim the threads looking to see if Joe found any good articles and then turn back to what I feel is more productive. Again, no offense, but I don't have the time to read everything.
But you think it worthwhile reading, why don't you send it to me with the Cobb's research you offered to send.
-
"TEPaul
I skimmed your answer above,"
Mr. Moriarty:
Why don't you do yourself and the rest of us a favor and not skim anyone's answer to your posts and perhaps you may find someday that you'll be able to understand what goes on with the facts involved in these discussions.
Believe me, you definitely don't need any of us on here to denigrate your reputation as you constantly do a very adequate job of that on your own.
When it comes to our relationships with Merion GC, believe me, you and I have absolutely zero in common and I would expect your comprehension of that would never be much better than one of your usual "skim jobs" with most of these posts. ;)
-
When it comes to our relationships with Merion GC, believe me, you and I have absolutely zero in common and I would expect your comprehension of that would never be much better than one of your usual "skim jobs" with most of these posts. ;)
Really, because I have heard that 1) Neither one of us are members; and 2) Substantial portions of the membership thinks us complete assholes.
-
You are wrong. We know who routed and designed Merion. It wasn't Barker, Macdonald or Whigham.
You know who routed and designed Merion? If you know what routed and designed Merion why have you, TE and Mike been working so hard to discredit Barker and Macdonald the last few weeks?
-
Your analysis continues to be substandard.
:P
-
Mr. Moriarty:
As you've done far more than enough useless and inaccurate speculating about the history of Merion GC over the last few years, I very much doubt Merion GC or this website will care to see your useless speculation on what you and I have in common when it comes to Merion GC or MCC.
Perhaps the only thing you need to understand and appreciate when it comes to the two of us and Merion is you're the one seemingly claiming entitlement to and virtually demanding access to the club records of Merion Golf and MCC, not me! ;)
Mr. MacWood:
I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.
That constant line of reasoning on your part has never worked on here. You should know that. When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?
-
Mike Cirba:
It occured to me last night the way Tom MacWood tends to give a guy like Barker design credit for Merion East, he should also give Fazio design credit for C&C's Friar's Head and Doak's original Stonewall and an acquaitance of mine should be given design credit for C&C's Easthampton GC and perhaps I should be given design credit for Mr. Moriarty's home course, Rustic Canyon. ::)
-
Mike Cirba:
It occured to me last night the way Tom MacWood tends to give a guy like Barker design credit for Merion East, he should also give Fazio design credit for C&C's Friar's Head and Doak's original Stonewall and an acquaitance of mine should be given design credit for C&C's Easthampton GC and perhaps I should be given design credit for Mr. Moriarty's home course, Rustic Canyon. ::)
Tom,
Please see my response at the top of this page re: Stonewall and others.
You're absolutely correct, except in the cases I've cited, these folks actually DID do an initial routing that was used, as opposed to Barker, Macdonald, and Whigham, oh my! ;D
-
MikeC:
If we weren't all so caught up in this years long saga of Merion, Macdonald, Whigam, Barker and Myopia and Campbell, it would be so much more obvious to see how completely silly this kind of approach by Tom MacWood really is. As a truly bad historical golf architecture analyst he is pretty much off-the-charts. I still haven't been able to figure out why anyone would try to broach, promote and then continue to defend against all evidence to the contrary this kind of silliness.
-
Wayne
Come on. If you are so confident about who routed Merion, why continue the Barker & Macdonald onslaught? There is only one reasonable explanation. It is pattern you three have followed for a few years now - protect the local legend by denigrating anyone or anybody you see as a potential threat to the legend. This strategy also includes disregarding evidence that may alter the story.
Here is a good example of how it works. You begin with a legend: William Flynn's first design was Heartwellville in 1909 at the age of 19.
The research phase begins:
You become aware of Flynn's NY Times obituary in 1945. The obit claims Flynn built his first golf course at the age of 19 at Heartwellville. It also says he designed Seaview CC in Boca Raton, Fla; Philadelphia CC; Merion GC and Tarrytown CC. You may or may not have noticed the distinction between built and designed, but you certainly noticed there were issues the courses listed. Seaview is in NJ. Saying Flynn designed Merion may be an overreach and there was no Tarrytown CC, no doubt they were referring to Pocantico Hills the private course for Rockefeller. Conclusion the person who came up with the info for the obit did not have all the details right, but you can live with that.
You then interview Flynn's daughter. She tells you Flynn married in August 1909 and they moved to Heartwellville where he laid out the new private course for textile mogul WB Plunkett. Flynn was 19 in 1909. Her story seems to match the obit, which matches the legend. All is well. The only real issue at this point is why Plunkett would chose a 19 year old with absolutely no experience. You speculate Flynn had competed with Plunkett's son in amateur events. Even if they had competed why chose a complete novice. And Flynn was competing in high school events in Boston during this time, and Plunkett's son was seven years older and based in western Mass. Evidently you chose not confirm the date of the mariage. It actually took place October 1910.
You then discover a local newspaper article from May 1913 that states construction on the course began in 1912 and that work was being pushed in hopes to complete the course soon. The article stated Fred Pickering, Flynn's brother-in-law and an experienced builder, was in charge of construction. There is no mention of Flynn. You conclude 59 year old Pickering oversaw the construction of the ninteen year old's design...actually he is 22 in 1912. You also make note that Flynn followed Pickering to Merion around this time, although at Merion is appears Flynn is subordinate to the older man.
You also find in the American Golf Guide from that period that Heartwellville was founded in 1912, which is consistant with contemporaneous newspaper report.
You discover a newspaper article from 1917 that there will be an invitational tournament at Heartwellville. The article states Alex Findlay is organizing the tournament for Plunkett. Its unclear if you missed Findlay's name or chose to ignore it, because you also have information that Pickering and Findlay had collaborated often. You discovered this in your Merion research. If you had followed up the Findlay connection you would have learned AF designed Plunkett's home course North Adams CC and had been a guest at Plunkett's home on more than one occasion. Either you couldn't figure this out or you chose to bury it.
The analytical stage begins:
You've gathered the information, time to anlayze it and make some reasonable conclusions. The one fact that it is clear: Heartwellville was founded in 1912 and not 1909. This is confirmed by your contemporaneous article and your findings in the American Golf Guide. The only Flynn connection to Hearwellville you've been able to independently discover is the obit 33 years after the project, confirmed by Flynn's daughter eighty plus years after the fact. You know Pickering was involved. You know Findlay and Pickering worked together. You have not been able to discover a Flynn-Plunkett connection. You have not been able to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why a totally inexperienced 19-year old (or 22-year old) would be chosen. Your conclusion is found in article you published last summer.
"At the last minute Flynn declined the offer [a college scholarship]. Instead he decided to marrry Lillian Gardner, a member of an august Boston family, on August 3, 1909 and the two newlyweds moved to the small town of Heartwellville, Vermont. It was here at the age of nineteen that Flynn was asked to design his first golf course, the Kilkare Golf Club, for Mr. William Plunkett, the owner of the nearby Berkshire Cotton Mills. After his work was complete at Kilkare, Flynn accepted a position to work with his brother-in-law on the construction crew at the nw course being built for the Merion Cricket Club in Ardmore , PA."
You completely ignored the evidence you had gathered that the course was built in 1912-13 and all the other evidence (or lack of evidence) that created significant doubt and chose to go with the legend. It is obvious your intent was to preserve the legend at all costs, and in the process distorted the Merion history by having Flynn arrive on the scene a year or two early.
-
:P
-
Mr. MacWood:
I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.
You, Wayne and Mike tried to cast doubt on his involvement at Mayfield, Columbia, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake etc. You buried the information on Barker's early routing at Merion. You wrote off the Verdant Green's article as a typical inaccurate newspaper report. There was an attempt to discredit Barker with the Springhaven photos (unsuccessful I may add). And he is referred to as an 18 stakes on sunday afternoon architect.
That constant line of reasoning on your part has never worked on here. You should know that. When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?
-
Tom
Barker had nothing built on the ground in June 1910,
The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.
I've simply pointed out the reality.
-
Stop exaggerating, Tom MacWood. You do that in your analysis and your recounting of events. Where did I discount Barker's involvement at Mayfield, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake, etc.? I asked a simple question about Harban's work at Columbia. There are reports that he did more than you attribute to him. I'd say the extent of his work is subject to some question. Forgive us all for not taking everything you say as the gospel truth. You may think you merit blind followers, I assure you, you do not.
A 1927 article:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2836653832_43d53f474e_o.jpg)
So, what did Barker do at Columbia? What did Harban do? What did Travis alter?
Speaking of 1927, how many courses did Flynn have open that year?
As for the posting photographs of Springhaven, how does that discredit Barker? You are off your rocker. It shows a lot more clearly the nature of his work than your nominal posting declaring him the second best architect in America at that time. The photos weren't doctored. I think we know Barker's work, while popular for a time, did not meet the test of time in some regards. As to what I was successful or unsuccessful at in posting those photographs, it is not for you to say, it is for the members of this site to decide for themselves. They can believe your words or their eyes.
-
:P
Wayne
That is an appropriate emoticon. You've been sticking your tongue out at the truth and those who prefer truth over mythology for a while now. From burying Barker's involvement at Merion to trying to portrait Barker as some kind of hack at Springhaven to browbeating the poor guy in Merchantville to ignoring all the evidence at Heartwellville to personally attacking and mocking David to ignoring CB Macdonald's involvement at Merion to desecrating his grave. Keep up the good work.
-
Tom
Barker had nothing built on the ground in June 1910,
The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.
I've simply pointed out the reality.
You sound like a broken record. You know what projects he was involved with between 1908 and 1910. You know what new designs and redesigns were completed in 1910. You know he was engaged at Merion to produce a layout. Based upon all the projects, either completed or in process, and the stature of those projects (like GCGC, Columbia and Mayfield), are you still convinced those who engaged him at Merion were a bunch of dumbasses? I don't believe the Merion group were dumbasses, I believe they were wise to engage both Barker and Macdonald & Whigham, but you are entitled to your opinion.
-
Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club. As to everything else,
:P
-
Perhaps the only thing you need to understand and appreciate when it comes to the two of us and Merion is you're the one seemingly claiming entitlement to and virtually demanding access to the club records of Merion Golf and MCC, not me! ;)
I've never claimed entitlement to their club records. If they want to play along while you guys make a mockery of Merion's impressive history, that is certainly their prerogative. Personally, I'd like to put this all behind us, but you guys seem intent on dragging this out indefinitely. I hope we are not still having this discussion in 2013.
I've never discredited Barker for anything and certainly not Macdonald. Merely explaining they did not route or design Merion East because others did is not discrediting either of them. And explaining that Willie Campbell did not design the original nine at Myopia because others did is not discrediting Campbell either.
In fact, you have no idea whether any of Barker's routing was used by Merion. And you have no idea whether Campbell did any design work for Myopia, Merion, or anywhere else. Why do you state in absolutes things which you only hope are true?
When some factually explain someone was not much involved with a club, for you to constantly respond by claiming they're being defensive and discrediting the subject is a bit suspect and perhaps immature, don't you think?
You have not "factually" responded. You have offered your opinion but refuse to back it up with facts. Your obfuscation of the facts provides a pretty good indication that even you know that your opinion is worthless.
__________________________________
Mike Cirba,
Yesterday I asked a simple question about Seaview, and you not only rebuked my question, you flipped out and resurrected your rant about my intentions.
Naturally, this made me a bit curious about why you were so sensitive about Seaview. I spent a few minutes looking at the issue tonight, and it seems to be the consensus that at least the fairway bunkering was not done by Wilson. So why did you flip out at my suggestion that this was the case? One might think you had an agenda or that you weren't interested in the truth.
Also, there were criticism levied at the course, much more than usually appear in reviews of the early course.
Also, Ross (and possibly another) were brought in to bunker the course within a couple months after the course officially opened (they had unoffiically been golfing on the course before.) Their professional may have been involved with these early changes as well.
You have repeatedly claimed that Wilson was not further involved because he was tired and he did not want to be involved. Do you have any direct support for this or are you speculating?
Here is some of what you wrote most recently:
By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.
On what basis are you saying this?
At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family. There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.
"No doubt that . . . he turned down other work?" Really? What other jobs was he offered? When? Or is this just wishful thinking?
And wasn't he still involved with the Green Committee beyond 1914?
...................................
The way you + David portayed him in David's paper was knowingly misleading and disengenuous.
I've simply pointed out the reality.
Mike, You continue to throw around these insults and accusations way to lightly and without any basis in reality.
You are wrong. The description of Barker in my IMO attaches no particular significance on the 1910 date, nor do I make any claims about Barker's accomplishment's or reputation by this date. I have no idea where you come up with this stuff, but I will again ask you to at least get your facts straight before you question my character.
And to think that your friends fear that I am the one who is trying to manipulate the record!
_____________________________________________
involvement at Mayfield, Skokie, Newport, Arcola, East Lake, etc.? I asked a simple question about Harban's work at Columbia. There are reports that he did more than you attribute to him. I'd say the extent of his work is subject to some question. . . .
A 1927 article:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2836653832_43d53f474e_o.jpg)
So what did Barker do at Columbia? What did Harban do? . . .
According to a number of sources, Barker planned Columbia. According to Harban, after some miscues, Harban took charge of the laying it out and constructing the course. But it had already been planned. He wrote about his involvement and never mentioned anything I am aware of about planning the course.
Again, as was the norm for the era, "to lay out" is not necessarily the same thing as "to plan." The former must only be done on the ground, while the latter can be done on the ground or on paper. Barker planned Columbia, then Harban took those plans and laid out and built the course.
............................
Forgive us all for not taking everything you say as the gospel truth. You may think you merit blind followers, I assure you, you do not.
Isn't this exactly what you ask us to do with much of what you say? You may have a few blind followers, but I have faith that even they will eventually see the light.
.............................
As for Springhaven, you think the photos depict inferior design, and try to diminish Barker by claiming that the photos depicted his design work. But the photos may not depict his work at all.
1) Barker staked bunker locations but did not build the bunkers;
2) The photos were taken something like 16 years after Barker staked locations for the bunkers, and multiple designers/professionals changed the course during that time.
So you have little or no basis for assuming that the photos even depict Barker's work, yet you are still claiming that they do.
How is this not a blatant attempt to diminish his work??
..........................................
Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club.
This was covered in my essay, but I think you misunderstand the significance of this. It does not mean what you think it means. After all, it is not as if Merion was not aware of Barker's routing.
-
Merion Cricket Club did not engage Barker. He was never hired by the Club. As to everything else,
:P
Wayne
How many times are you going to bring this up? Everything that was done in 1910 at that site relating to golf was done for the benefit of the Merion Cricket Club. They weren't doing it for the Philadelphia Cricket C or the Philadelphia CC or some other entity. And by the way Merion Cricket didn't hire Macdonald & Whigham either.
I've already anwered many of your questions about Columbia and Harban. Harban was appointed chairman of the green committee at Columbia in 1912. He was credited for dramatically improving the condition of the course shortly after that. In 1917, prior to the 1921 US Open, Travis was hired to redesign the course. He lengthened the course by 300 yards, a new bunkering scheme was employed, the greens were resurfaced, and the short par-4 4th hole was converted into a long par-3, and the par-5 5th was lengthened by about 100 yards. The work was carried out over a 3 or 4 year period and was supervised by Harban. I've seen where Harban was given credit for the massive bunker complex at #5 as well. During this period Harban and Travis also collaborated on East Potomac, the reversible public golf course.
Why the continued attempts to discredit Barker? I thought the legend was secure.
-
How many times are you going to bring this up?
As often as you demonstrate your ignorance in continuing to put Merion East on a list of Barker courses. Show us Barker's routing or desist. Your uneducated guesswork leaves a lot to be desired as do the resulting essays.
Again, we are not trying to discredit Barker, Macdonald or Whigham. We simply will not let you get away with your faulty conclusions and revisionist histories where there is clear evidence that contradicts you.
-
“I've never claimed entitlement to their club records. If they want to play along while you guys make a mockery of Merion's impressive history, that is certainly their prerogative.
In fact, you have no idea whether any of Barker's routing was used by Merion. And you have no idea whether Campbell did any design work for Myopia, Merion, or anywhere else. Why do you state in absolutes things which you only hope are true?”
Mr. Moriarty:
When the reports of the committees of golf clubs in the process of creating a golf course for their club are formally entered into the Board meetings of the club, as is the case with both Myopia in 1894 and MCC in 1911, and those reports explain in some detail who it was who is in the process of designing and then who it was who designed those courses, I take that as an indication of fact.
Perhaps both you and Mr. MacWood, neither of whom have ever seen this material, think that kind of thing is some fabrication of the truth or a lie on the part of those clubs but I don’t. I’ve been on a number of boards and it’s perfect lunacy, in my opinion, for someone such as yourselves to suggest these kinds of people sit there at these administrative BOARD meetings and blatantly lie to one another about what they are all trying to do and have done for their clubs when they are all in the process of creating a golf course for their club. Why in the world do either of you two think they would all blatantly lie to one another in situations such as these? What in the world would be the point of seemingly honorable men doing something like that when they are all sitting there together most all of them being aware of what the facts of these matters are? These kinds of board meeting minutes are the attempt of these clubs to accurately record for the future what they are doing and did do.
Mr. MacWood has stated on here the board meetings that explain how and whom designed Myopia’s original nine should be thrown away and the club should start from scratch today recording their architectural history of that time, and you essentially are apparently indicating the same thing in the case of Merion!
When the two of you who call yourselves golf architectural analysts or historians do and say something like that, apparently in some continuous attempt to support your unsupportable notions of some architectural involvement of a Barker at Merion or a Campbell at Myopia, I rather think it is the two of you who are trying to make a mockery of the architectural histories of these important golf clubs and of the goings-on of the men involved with them at that time long ago.
I will never cease to point this out to you whether it is today or in 2013 and beyond!
-
Mr. MacWood:
When it came to MCC's involvement with H.H. Barker, the Search Committee's report to the board of MCC in June/July 1910 made it very clear that it was not MCC's Search Committee or MCC that solicited an opinion from Barker for his 'rough drawing' of a course or hired him or paid his fee (Barker did charge a fee since he was a professional and of course neither Macdonald nor Whigam ever charged a fee for anything they did in their entire career regarding golf architecture).
Furthermore, Joseph Connell had nothing to do with the creation of a golf course for MCC nor did he have any connection to MCC. Connell was a real estate developer whose business was selling land---in this case to MCC.
The MCC Search Committee's report specifically states that Barker was engaged by Connell and that Barker's fee was on Connell's account and not MCC's.
It's too bad you apparenly neither read nor understood that and what it means. It is not what we said on here, it was what that MCC committee wrote in their report to the board in 1910.
Barker's name was never again mentioned by MCC in any context following that MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board of directors in June/July 1910.
Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to someone like you but it certainly does to us and Merion G.C. and particularly when the club's own administrative records in the following year state very clearly who it was who designed Merion East. If it had anything at all to do with Barker or the "rough drawing' he produced for someone else not connected to MCC, we feel there is little question MCC's administrative record would have reflected that, as it did the "advice" Macdonald/Whigam provided the MCC Search Committee in 1910 and Wilson's Committee in 1911.
We just cannot understand why you and the other fellow continue to try to make something important out of virtually nothing with Barker and Merion. One of the two of you said on here the other day: "Well, but isn't it POSSIBLE that Barker had something to do with Merion East's design?"
Well, yes, I suppose it is possible somehow. It's also possible somehow that the Duke of Windsor had somethng to do with Merion East's design somehow but we are quite sure he didn't as we are quite sure Barker didn't either. It's all pretty much as simple as that! ;)
This is not denigrating Barker in any way, as you constantly suggest on here. It's just that it's highly unlikely that his 'rough drawing' was ever considered again (we don't even believe it was much considered in 1910 or one wonders why MCC immediately turned to Macdonald/Whgam instead of Barker) given that Wilson and his committee did so many of them on their own as the club's administrative records from that time point out.
As long as you continue to contend on here or anywhere else that H.H. Barker should be credited with the design of Merion East we will continue to contend that is not the case, and that it is historically inaccurate. For my part, I will continue to do the same thing if you continue to contend that Willie Campbell designed the original nine of Myopia unless and until you actually produce something to that effect.
-
To the esteemed Mr. Paul,
If its possible, please refresh our memories as to if there is any chance that MCC will allow you to post the relevant sections of those meetings, or at least paraphrase them here, so this argument can peacefully end in advance of 2013. If its possible, wouldn't that sort of end the argument once and for all? (........or would it? ;))
Even with the documents available now, I think its pretty clear that Barker did a routing on slightly different land. At best, MCC could have used some similar holes, since they had to have it available to them, so some of Barkers ideas might have worked their way into the final routing. Even if they did, it would be a stretch to say that Barker routed Merion. As pointed out, what project doesn't have some early routings by other people? They don't get credit, and neither should Barker.
A lot of people were involved somehow, and MCC is entitled to credit Mickey Mouse with their routing if they want to. DM and TMac can't change that. At the same time, it would be fascinating to know if Barker found the same holes on portions of the property that were in his routing that were eventually used by MCC. Let's give Tom and David the credit for just wanting to know that (and other) little tidbits out of a love for gca history, and move on.
Is it possible to find the Barker routing, just out of curiosity? While MCC doesn't have it, I wonder if anyone has checked any other sources, like descendants (personal or corporate) of the Haverford Land Company, Barker, or McConnell, etc.?
Yours truly,
Jeffrey D. Brauer, conceptualizer of (but not implementor of....) the turd drop hazard.
-
Mike Cirba,
Yesterday I asked a simple question about Seaview, and you not only rebuked my question, you flipped out and resurrected your rant about my intentions.
Naturally, this made me a bit curious about why you were so sensitive about Seaview. I spent a few minutes looking at the issue tonight, and it seems to be the consensus that at least the fairway bunkering was not done by Wilson. So why did you flip out at my suggestion that this was the case? One might think you had an agenda or that you weren't interested in the truth.
Also, there were criticism levied at the course, much more than usually appear in reviews of the early course.
Also, Ross (and possibly another) were brought in to bunker the course within a couple months after the course officially opened (they had unoffiically been golfing on the course before.) Their professional may have been involved with these early changes as well.
You have repeatedly claimed that Wilson was not further involved because he was tired and he did not want to be involved. Do you have any direct support for this or are you speculating?
Here is some of what you wrote most recently:
By the end of 1914, Wilson was exhausted.
On what basis are you saying this?
At the end of 1914, he resigned as chairman of the Green Committee at Merion to devote more time to business and family. There is no doubt that at that point he turned down other work, until Robert Lesley a year later put him on a committee to design Cobb's Creek, and then in the following year he made significant changes to Merion East for the 1916 amateur.
"No doubt that . . . he turned down other work?" Really? What other jobs was he offered? When? Or is this just wishful thinking?
And wasn't he still involved with the Green Committee beyond 1914?
David,
In your messianic zeal to destroy the "legend" of Hugh Wilson, you aren't even recognizing your own total hypocrisy and inconsistencies.
The irony of all of this is that the course Hugh Wilson designed at Seaview sounds very much like a course you constantly defend here against criticisms by better players that it is too "easy"...Rustic Canyon.
Listen to this description of the course and tell me if it sounds familiar?
October 1914 – Philadelphia Inquirer
“Mr. Geist is a great believer in the future of Atlantic City, as shown by his investment of fixed capital there, and he has long seen the need for a club catering to non-residents, who spend more or less time at the resort every year either as cottagers or guests of leading citizens. The Seaview, as one of the three most important golf projects undertaken in America, occupies a niche quite its own. It was not intended to be like the National Links, the most severe test ever offered in this country, nor was it designed to cater almost entirely to the closest students of the sport, like Pine Valley. Seaview occpies a middle ground, being planned for thinking players of both sexes with plenty of hazards, which call for the placing of exact shots without undue penalization. It is doubtful if a course has yet been built on this side with such a variety of surface on the putting greens. Those who received a jolt when hammocks were introduced on several greens at Garden City would be speechless over the variety of boundary humps that render every one of the Absecon greens distinctive.”
The article then goes on to describe each hole. As examples;
“HOLE FIVE, 300 yards, par 4 – Following the tee shot a high mashie pitch to the punchbowl green is the proper caper. The green is guarded in front by sand traps and by mounds at the back to penalize overplay.”
“HOLE ELEVEN, 195 yards, par 3 – It is a full shot to the green on the side hill, with deep sand traps at each corner and mounds at the rear to punish overplay.”
“HOLE THIRTEEN, 110 yards, par 3 – It is a mashie pitch to the fine undulating green encircled by sand pits and troublesome mounds designed for the overstrong.”
“HOLE SIXTEEN, 500 yards, par 5 – A long tee shot is imperative if the sand traps are to be carried on the second. The third is a short pitch. Banking should be noted on the green at the left. “
It’s interesting that the writer indicates both greenside and fairway bunkering being in place, and it’s clear he has already seen the course based on his descriptions of the greens.
In the short time since he was appointed head of the Design Committee at Merion in early 1911, "amateur architect" Hugh Wilson has designed and opened Merion East, followed in short order with another full course at Merion West which opened May 1914, followed in short order with another full course at Seaview which opened in the fall of 1914, along with doing extensive changes as well as new holes at Philmont with Herman Strouse, as well as working on Robert Lesley's committee charged with finding a site for a public course in Philadelphia.
It is reported in October 1913, 9 months before Merion West opened for play;
"Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee of the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist's right-hand man and has laid out the Seaview course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed, visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course (Seaview) have warmly commented on its construction. The new clubhouse and course will be opened on May 30."
By December of 1914, it is reported;
"Hugh I. WIlson, for a number of years the chairman of the Green Committee has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first one was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. He also laid out the new course at Seaview. Pressure of business compels him to give up the chairmanship."
Despite that, at the January 1915 GAP meeting President Robert Lesley names Hugh Wilson to the committee charged with designing and building the first public course in Philadelphia. Reports indicate the Hugh Wilson spent six months on the project.
In that same month, Seaview has an "opening tournament" with Chick Evans and other top amateurs playing.
Tillinghast writes the following account;
January 1915 – American Golfer – AW Tillinghast
“Now the visitor had not only an eye for the beautiful, but the critical, analytical eye of the golfer too, and as he joined the gallery at the first teeing ground, he prepared himself not only to observe the mid-winter form of some of America’s leading amateurs, but the new course as well. Like a sensible gentleman, he knew that the course was much too young to analyze too closely, for it is not bunkered as yet and he resolved to reserve his opinion until the future had developed the links to completion. The greens were surprisingly good, not only in quality, but in contours, although it must be admitted that Mr. Stymie, resorting to the privilege of personal opinion, made several exceptions – notably the punch bowl green of Number 5, where it seemed to him that not a great deal was demanded of the mashie pitch into the bowl.”
By April of 1915, with Hugh Wilson resigned from the head of the Merion Green Committee, but now working on the brand new course at Cobb's Creek, Tillinghast reports the following in American Golfer.
April 1915 – American Golfer – AW Tillinghast
“Seaview has called in Donald Ross to build traps, and his ideas, together with those of Wilfrid Reid, (who had just been hired as pro in March) should stiffen the Absecon course considerably.”
“So might be mentioned the conditions everywhere, - genuine progress and improvement of courses generally. A gradual approach to perfection seems to be the one thought.”
“Work has started on the new public course by Cobb’s Creek, and another course will be constructed at Torresdale.”
Another irony is Tom MacWood's account of Barker's work at Columbia above. While trying to hoist Barker undeservedly into the pantheon of great architects, you fault Wilson for being too busy to continue work at Seaview yet don't raise an eyebrow when Walter Travis is brought in to make wholesale changes, rebunkering, and redoing of greens at Columbia just a few years after opening.
The other irony is that if Tom Fazio were brought into Rustic Canyon to "toughen it" after opening, in reaction to the comments of better players, you'd be the first one screaming bloody murder.
{EDIT} It's interesting to note the inconsistencies between the hole by hole descriptions in the Oct 1914 account and Tillinghast description of the tournament a few months later where he claims that "it is not bunkered as yet". The descriptions of the bunker on the holes are very much the same today, such as the diagonal hells half acre cross bunker on the sixteenth, or the deep fronting bunkers on the 5th, or the short par three encircled by bunkers. These all exist today.
So, either these were there and Tillnghast was simply pointing out that more bunkering was going to be done, or perhaps Ross simply built to Wilson's planned bunkering scheme.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Absecon&state=NJ#a/maps/l:::Absecon:NJ::US:39.428299:-74.496101:city:Atlantic+County/m:hyb:11:39.445868:-74.47:0::/io:0:::::f:EN:M:/e
-
How many times are you going to bring this up?
As often as you demonstrate your ignorance in continuing to put Merion East on a list of Barker courses. Show us Barker's routing or desist. Your uneducated guesswork leaves a lot to be desired as do the resulting essays.
Again, we are not trying to discredit Barker, Macdonald or Whigham. We simply will not let you get away with your faulty conclusions and revisionist histories where there is clear evidence that contradicts you.
Wayne
Unfortunatey the Barker routing of Merion has been lost (unless of course you are sitting on it, and the your track record...). Unfortunately the other eledged routings have been lost as well. So no one has seen any of the routings which leads us to speculate who did what.
Back to Columbia and its routing. I am fascinated by Barkers use of the deep hollow at #16 and #17. He was able to incorporate this natural feature as the major design element of two holes. Three holes if you count the 18th. The tee shot at 18 plays over the edge of the depression.
It is interesting to compare Barker's use of this natural depression with the way the quarry is utilized at Merion. The approach at the par-4 16th plays directly over the quarry. Although considerably shorter, the par-4 17th at Columbia is played directly over the depression if you chose to drive the green (about 230-240 yard carry) or down and up if you choose to lay up. It is also worth noting originally the 16th at Merion was considerably shorter according to Francis, that is before securing additional land which allowed them to lengthen 15 and 16.
Another similarity the 17th at Merion plays from the edge of the precipice down to the green. The par-3 16th at Columbua plays from the edge of precipice down to the green.
At both courses the 18th holes are long par-4s with the tee shot being played over the edge of the previous depression.
-
My Dear Mr. Jeffrey Brauer:
May I say, in preface, that you look awfully smart in that Donald Ross tartan blazer in that little photo on your posts.
Yes, wouldn't we all like to see what Barker described himself as a 'rough drawing' of a layout for MCC on land that we are not even sure is the same land that MCC used for the East course? We do know that Barker's available land was less acreage (100 acres).
But his "rough drawing" has never been found again, perhaps even after the month of June, 1910 and the details of it were not even mentioned in MCC's Search Committee's report of July 1, 1910 to the MCC board. What Macdonald/Whigam had to say about the land was mentioned in that report, however, including about half or more of it on the subject of agronomy, not architecture. I would therefore assume that since it was never put into the MCC record as Macdonald/Whigam's thoughts were that Barker's "rough drawing" was never considered after June 1910.
The actual drawing that was approved by the Board in May of 1911 has not been found either but that board meeting did record that a plan was approved and it was then immediately taken into construction as we do know, so that fact that it must be the one that became the course is pretty obvious since no other plan was ever mentioned by the Board or the club after that May, 1911 board meeting. We also know that the MCC board minutes record that the plan that was approved was attached to the Wilson committee report that was made part of MCC's board records, and which we now have, when the report was submitted in that particular MCC board meeting in May 1911.
What the MCC board meeting minutes say via the Wilson Committee report and other minutes of the meeting about who designed the course, the number of plans generated by Wilson and his committee, the visit to NGLA and then the honing down to five plans and the approval of the one taken to construction has been paraphrased on this website a number of time, and it's a pretty exact paraphrasing too, but apparently that is not good enough for these two fellows who are attempting to massively revise the actual events of 1910 and 1911 at Merion in Ardmore, Pennsylvania.
Perhaps the paraphrasing is good enough for you, though, my esteemed Mr. Jeffrey Brauer who looks so smart in his Donald Ross ASGCA red tartan jacket----and I sincerely hope that is the case. So, I hope those two revisionistic birds can find a way to accept the paraphrasing of the MCC meeting minutes, as you, who is such an esteemed gentleman, have, because the fact is that's all their gonna get!! If they whaaaaanna see the actual documents I'd say they are just flat outta friggin' luck unless they want to come to Philadelphia and take the time and effort to deal with Merion G.C. and MCC as we do and have been doing now for, oh, nigh on to the maximum life span of a Shetland pony who possesses the best genes the "World-Wide Association of Shetland Ponies" has ever heard of.
If they did that, at this point, however, what might happen might be something of a Kerfuffle! If you would like me to elaborate on that I would be sincerely happy to do so, My Esteemed Mr. Jeffrey Brauer who looks so smart in his red tartan......Oh never mind about that again, I've already been through that, have I not?
Savy?
-
Mr. MacWood:
When it came to MCC's involvement with H.H. Barker, the Search Committee's report to the board of MCC in June/July 1910 made it very clear that it was not MCC's Search Committee or MCC that solicited an opinion from Barker for his 'rough drawing' of a course or hired him or paid his fee (Barker did charge a fee since he was a professional and of course neither Macdonald nor Whigam ever charged a fee for anything they did in their entire career regarding golf architecture).
Furthermore, Joseph Connell had nothing to do with the creation of a golf course for MCC nor did he have any connection to MCC. Connell was a real estate developer whose business was selling land---in this case to MCC.
The MCC Search Committee's report specifically states that Barker was engaged by Connell and that Barker's fee was on Connell's account and not MCC's.
It's too bad you apparenly neither read nor understood that and what it means. It is not what we said on here, it was what that MCC committee wrote in their report to the board in 1910.
Barker's name was never again mentioned by MCC in any context following that MCC Search Committee report to the MCC board of directors in June/July 1910.
Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to someone like you but it certainly does to us and Merion G.C. and particularly when the club's own administrative records in the following year state very clearly who it was who designed Merion East. If it had anything at all to do with Barker or the "rough drawing' he produced for someone else not connected to MCC, we feel there is little question MCC's administrative record would have reflected that, as it did the "advice" Macdonald/Whigam provided the MCC Search Committee in 1910 and Wilson's Committee in 1911.
We just cannot understand why you and the other fellow continue to try to make something important out of virtually nothing with Barker and Merion. One of the two of you said on here the other day: "Well, but isn't it POSSIBLE that Barker had something to do with Merion East's design?"
Well, yes, I suppose it is possible somehow. It's also possible somehow that the Duke of Windsor had somethng to do with Merion East's design somehow but we are quite sure he didn't as we are quite sure Barker didn't either. It's all pretty much as simple as that! ;)
This is not denigrating Barker in any way, as you constantly suggest on here. It's just that it's highly unlikely that his 'rough drawing' was ever considered again (we don't even believe it was much considered in 1910 or one wonders why MCC immediately turned to Macdonald/Whgam instead of Barker) given that Wilson and his committee did so many of them on their own as the club's administrative records from that time point out.
As long as you continue to contend on here or anywhere else that H.H. Barker should be credited with the design of Merion East we will continue to contend that is not the case, and that it is historically inaccurate. For my part, I will continue to do the same thing if you continue to contend that Willie Campbell designed the original nine of Myopia unless and until you actually produce something to that effect.
TE
When it was announced in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Merion Cricket C had purchased their current property the article said that Horatio Lloyd had Barker (and M&W) examine the site.
"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."
-
That's some mighty fascinating stuff there in your post #523 about Barker and Columbia, Mr. MacWood.
Perhaps you should write another "independent" and "expert" five part article on how all golf holes that play through a depression must have been massively influenced by H.H. Barker.
Never mind about all the holes like that which came before Barker----I see no reason at all we all can't just get together with you and with your preposterous speculations and just act like that didn't happen and that they didn't exist before the remarkable Mr. Barker.
-
To the esteemed Mr. Paul,
Many apologies for missing one of the thousands of posts on the "five routings." I saw one reference and asked about it, but only got one private response. I generally stopped reading the Merion threads, and will stop reading this one now that it has degenrated into the "Merion War 13 (or so)
It simply occurred to me that you have the info, having seen the archives, and yet some simply don't believe it and haven't seen it. I can somewhat understand their frustration in that regard. Seeing is, after all, believing, providing you aren't blinded by some bright red jacket........
I simply thought it might clear something up. However, I did allow that it might not!
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D Brauer
PS - you are only the second person I have ever seen use the word "Kerfuffle." The other was a crazy Canadian. I didn't know it was in the Philly jargon.
-
"TE
When it was announced in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Merion Cricket C had purchased their current property the article said that Horatio Lloyd had Barker (and M&W) examine the site.
"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."
Mr. MacWood:
Thank you so much for bringing that to our attention. That is one of the best examples to date that newspaper articles do not always get the facts reported accurately. What and who do you think is a better reflection of the accurate facts of what a club committee is doing----that committee's report to its club board by the men on that committee or some newspaper reporter and his report? Who was actually there and participating through all this, the committee or the reporter?
An honest and realistic answer to that question may be able to help you some with your logic and analytical skills both of which are in truth very seriously lacking! Unfortunately, an honest and realistic answer from you to questions put to you on here are also seriously lacking and always have been. ;)
-
My Dear Jeffrey:
If you would like me to prepare for you a really nice paraphrase of these incredibly important events I would be sincerely deeeeelighted to do it. But I would prefer to do it off this discussion board as these two revisionists have become so rude and arrogant and illogical I should do nothing in the future to help them in any of their campaigns to slay the "LEGENDS" of golf course architecture.
Don't forget, I am a dues-paying member in good standing of this "Philadelphia Syndrome" Mr. MacWood has coigned and believes infects this town which is dedicated to glorifying our own and minimizing and denigrating architects from outside the City of Brotherly Envy....I mean Love.
-
And, now, next in line, My Dear Jeffrey Brauer, we should expect the usual daily post from the revisionist from the west of this country telling us that he is acting in good faith and we are acting in bad faith. :)
-
TEPaul & Tom MacWood,
I think one of the problems with researching is the quality/accuracy of newspaper accounts.
I think we can extend that problem to almost every written account, including autobiographies, which can be self serving.
Unfortunately, we sometimes have to rely on them in the face of an absence of information.
So, do we selectively accept and dismiss the written word ?
I think it's a dilema.
As to Board minutes, I've seen them sanitized and edited as well.
They don't always reflect what actually happened, but again, absent information to the contrary, we're left with them being the sole record of an event.
A course that I'm intimately familiar with that has been altered over the years, didn't leave a paper trail detailing each change.
Some, in fact many changes are undocumented.
Part of me thinks that identifying who did what is important.
And, part of me thinks that identifying what was done is more important.
Do I want to know what existed prior to an alteration ? YES
Do I want to know what existed after the alteration ? YES
Do I want to know who was responsible for that alteration ? YES
However, I know that sometimes, even in these modern times, it's impossible to find any documentation of a change.
In the final analysis, it may be that pre and post aerials are THE most important document, with attribution a secondary, but important concern.
-
Jeff Brauer,
TEPaul's offer to provide you with a synopsis of the documents offline provides you with the answer to your question about whether or not there is any real reason these documents are being withheld. There is obviously no legitimate privacy concern with these documents. They can share them with whoever they want. That entire privacy nonsense was just an excuse not to share the documents, so they could cherry pick what they liked and ignore what they did not.
In fact, these two have been trying to advance a one-on-one P.R. campaign, showing a variety of people selected or sanitized portions or versions of the minutes, trying and convince them to agree with them before the information is completely vetted.
Remember when Wayne repeatedly cautioned us not to reach any conclusions until my essay had been completely vetted? Yet they are going coast to coast to selectively cajole people into accepting their story on a limited record that has not been vetted at all.
I provided my sources in their entirety. Until they do the same there story is nothing but propaganda.
____________________________________________________________
How many times are you going to bring this up?
We simply will not let you get away with your faulty conclusions and revisionist histories where there is clear evidence that contradicts you.
Except that you have presented no "clear evidence" that establishes that Merion ignored Barker's routing. You seem to think that if Merion did not pay him, then they must not have used his routing, but that just doesn't follow.
__________________________________________
In your messianic zeal to destroy the "legend" of Hugh Wilson, you aren't even recognizing your own total hypocrisy and inconsistencies.
Perhaps you should spend less time with the thesaurus, and more time dealing with the issues before you.
1. Seaview was criticized. (You indirectly acknowledge this by your strange Rustic Canyon comparison.) While the printed criticism was not harsh, it was more pronounced than the kind of treatment these courses usually received in the press of the time.
2. You cannot pin these criticisms on me, as I have not criticized the course at all. I've never played it. I am just trying to get the facts straight, and the facts are that the course was criticized and then quickly changed.
3. Multiple reports indicated that the bunkering was unfinished at Seaview. (You claimed that above that Wilson did the bunkering but you know that this isn't really the case.)
4. Ross and possibly another were brought to implement their own bunkering scheme within a few months after the opening.
As far as I know, all of the above is factual. No hypocrisies. No inconsistencies.
The same cannot be said of your denial of these facts. It seems you just made up the bit about Wilson being exhausted.
I've considered the articles you site, as well as others you don't site. None of them contradict any of the facts I listed above. Most of them contradict your representations about the course having been finished by Wilson (but then you contradict this as well.)
In the 10-18-14 article briefly describing the holes, I believe most of the bunkers described were greenside, with a few notable exceptions. Because Wilson was a disciple of Macdonald, it does not surprise me that he included many greenside bunkers initially. That was Macdonald's approach, as recommended by C.F. Whigham. Nor does it surprise me that he built a few of the bunkers from the beginning.
Another irony is Tom MacWood's account of Barker's work at Columbia above. While trying to hoist Barker undeservedly into the pantheon of great architects, you fault Wilson for being too busy to continue work at Seaview yet don't raise an eyebrow when Walter Travis is brought in to make wholesale changes, rebunkering, and redoing of greens at Columbia just a few years after opening.
You may not realize this, but like Macdonald and Raynor, Tom MacWood and I are two different people (of course I am Macdonald to his Raynor.) You are combining something I said and critiquing it with something he said, and misrepresenting both of us in the process.
1. I don't fault Wilson for being "too busy." You've offered little support for your "too busy" theory. What happened to your "exhausted?" theory. I don't buy it. After all it is not as if he would have been out there digging the bunkers himself!
2. Ross was brought in within two months after Seaview opened.
3. I don't know what Travis did at Columbia. DO YOU? You still describe the changes at Columbia as "wholesale changes." When were the changes made? Within a few months after the course opened, or a decade later? What exactly was changed? Were the changes inline with Barker's original design (which Travis had seen and very much liked?) or a complete departure?
It's interesting to note the inconsistencies between the hole by hole descriptions in the Oct 1914 account and Tillinghast description of the tournament a few months later where he claims that "it is not bunkered as yet". The descriptions of the bunker on the holes are very much the same today, such as the diagonal hells half acre cross bunker on the sixteenth, or the deep fronting bunkers on the 5th, or the short par three encircled by bunkers. These all exist today.
Very interesting. But I doubt for the reasons you think.
________________________________________________
TEPaul,
Tom your story about what the MCC documents establish is very much a moving target. You keep changing what "facts" can be derived from these documents. This is indication that about everything you are calling "fact" is really just speculation, opinion, and/or wishful thinking on your part.
So we know what is not fact, but looking at how the story has changed, and how it differs from what Wayne and Mike have each claimed. So the only remaining question is what facts are in these documents. It must be pretty damning for your argument, otherwise we'd have seen it by now.
I know you guys think you are protecting Merion, but if I was at all involved with Merion I'd be pissed. You guys are painting them as your accomplices, and this will put them in a rather awkward position when the truth finally comes out in full.
I have a hard time believing that your propaganda campaign is in their best interests.
-
:P
-
David
Please cite for us the volley of criticisms of Seaview with actual quotes + attributions as I have provided?
Also, the routing that Wilson did still exist today, exactly as he laid it out; under the new Macwood/Moriarty Method, isn't this ALL that matters?
Afterall you're willing to give either Barker or M+W credit for the design of Merion based on that alone.
Oh...btw...did you note how the term laid out was used in those articles, over and over?
Another one bites the dustbin of history.
-
David
Please cite for us the volley of criticisms of Seaview with actual quotes + attributions as I have provided?
Also, the routing that Wilson did still exist today, exactly as he laid it out; under the new Macwood/Moriarty Method, isn't this ALL that matters?
Afterall you're willing to give either Barker or M+W credit for the design of Merion based on that alone.
Oh...btw...did you note how the term laid out was used in those articles, over and over?
Another one bites the dustbin of history.
Mike,
You are confused. I never claimed that Wilson did not design Seaview. I think it is obvious that he did. As for the criticisms, I will email them to you as soon as I receive the documents you offered to send me.
I never said anything about giving Barker or Macdonald design credit for Merion. I just want to figure out who did what.
-
Mr. Paul,
Thanks for your kind offer earlier, but I would be embarrassed to have you spend one iota of your time clearing up matters for little old me.......
I think I have a pretty good idea of what went on at Merion, but as always, I could be wrong. It was interesting to read for a while, but I have long since lost interest in the inner workings of that club 100 or so years ago.
All the best to all the participants in the ongoing threads. Some wondered if it would be resolved by 2013.....I am going to Vegas to bet on 3013. :D
-
I never said anything about giving Barker or Macdonald design credit for Merion. I just want to figure out who did what.
David,
Then you no longer agree with yourself on the following?
"While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course. Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East."
-
Speaking of attribution, I am having the vapours after being ignored regarding the history of the word "kerfuffle" on GCA.com. As the following search shows, I was the first to use this word on this site over 6 years ago, when Tom Paul didn't even know the difference between "fast and firm" and "fast and loose" and HH Barker was just a gleam in Tom MaWood's eye.....
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=search2
Rich
-
"I never said anything about giving Barker or Macdonald design credit for Merion. I just want to figure out who did what."
MikeC and Wayne:
Can you believe this guy actually just said that???
What gives here anyway? We've been through almost five years of this nonsense and now he says that!?!?
Mr. Moriarty:
As has been our constant suggestion for about five years if you want to know who did what with Merion East and West read Alan Wilson's report carefully. We believe, and Merion believes, and has for many many decades now believed it's an accurate reflection of who did what architecturally on Merion East and West and it's the basis of their history books.
If you want to know in more detail that Alan Wilson's report explains who did what and where you never will know and either will we or Merion at this point. The reason is, as far as the club has ever known and as far as we've ever known specfic details of who did what and where on both courses simply was never recorded in greater detail than in Alan Wilson's report and now everyone directly connected to those times is dead. The only specific explanation we have of someone doing something specific is apparently Francis' story about the 15th green and 16th tee and how he resolved it with Lloyd.
Providing that you now actually believe what you just said above I believe we can now end all these threads on the history of the architecture of Merion!
Thank God! It's about time. ;)
-
Richard the Magnificent:
If you are the expert on "Kerfuffle" then why don't you explain to this website precisely what it means in the context of either Mr. Moriarty or Mr. MacWood coming here and demanding entitlement of and access to Merion or MCC's private records. You may also need to explain the policies and expected actions of the so-called "Philadelphia Syndrome" when a couple of revisionist clowns from some other states show up here and try to play fast and loose with the history of our local golf architecture "Legends." 8)
If these two don't shitcan their nonsense one of these days we should ask them to come here under the guise we will show them the ultra inner sanctum/sanctorum of these private club archives. Once they are in the door and it's locked we will transport them through the underground tunnel to the massive metal compactor over there and snuff out these two troublemakers once and for all.
-
Just to make sure that nobody gets the erroneous idea about the quality work Hugh Wilson did at Seaview, which is once again being unfairly diminished here, perhaps this snippet shows just how upset Mega-Financier Clarence Geist was with Hugh Wilson and his efforts at Seaview at the time he brought in Donald Ross.
From May 1915, "American Golfer";
"National champion Francis Ouimet spent several days in Philadelphia last month. He played at Whitemarsh first but he failed to break 80. However, this performance must not be taken seriously for the ability of his fellows was very mediocre and the day could be regarded only as a skylark."
"However, on the next day he played at Seaview, where his play was more nearly like that which is expected of a national champion. There, he scored a 73, partnered in a four-ball match by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson and opposed by Mr. Clarence H. Geist and Wilfrid Reid, the recently arrived pro, formerly of Banstead, England."
-
"David,
Then you no longer agree with yourself on the following?"
Mike Cirba:
Either that or perhaps Mr. Moriarty has misunderstood what David Moriarty has been saying all along, or even vice versa. It may even include vice versa of the vice versa or even versa vice the vice versa.
-
Never mind about all the holes like that which came before Barker----I see no reason at all we all can't just get together with you and with your preposterous speculations and just act like that didn't happen and that they didn't exist before the remarkable Mr. Barker.
TE
Do you have any similar examples pre-1910?
-
"TE
When it was announced in the Philadelphia Inquirer that Merion Cricket C had purchased their current property the article said that Horatio Lloyd had Barker (and M&W) examine the site.
"Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel & Company, a governor of the club, has been the prime factor in bringing about this transaction in behalf of the club. Before the purchase of the ground, Mr. Lloyd had it examined by Charles B. Macdonald, HJ Whigham and HH Barker, the well-known golf players, all of whom have pronounced that the ground can be transformed into a golf course the equal of Myopia, Boston or Garden City, Long Island."
Mr. MacWood:
Thank you so much for bringing that to our attention. That is one of the best examples to date that newspaper articles do not always get the facts reported accurately. What and who do you think is a better reflection of the accurate facts of what a club committee is doing----that committee's report to its club board by the men on that committee or some newspaper reporter and his report? Who was actually there and participating through all this, the committee or the reporter?
I would think both would be potentially enlightening, and not necessarily conflicting. It is clear Barker was contacted by Connell. Connell's syndicate owned the land. It is also clear, as the article states, that Horatio Gates was the prime factor in bringing about the transaction. To my knowledge Connell did not play golf; Gates had broad golfing connections. Before purchasing the site it had to be deternined if the site was suitable, and as a non-golfer Connell would have no idea who to turn to. It would have been logical for Gates to recommend or pick the expert. As far as the syndicate was concerned their venture's success or failure was tied completely to Merion building the golf course, obviously they would do owhatever possible to satisify Gates and the club.
-
I would think both would be potentially enlightening, and not necessarily conflicting. It is clear Barker was contacted by Connell. Connell's syndicate owned the land. It is also clear, as the article states, that Horatio Gates was the prime factor in bringing about the transaction. To my knowledge Connell did not play golf; Gates had broad golfing connections. Before purchasing the site it had to be deternined if the site was suitable, and as a non-golfer Connell would have no idea who to turn to. It would have been logical for Gates to recommend or pick the expert.
"Logical" for the seller to ask to potential buyer to find an "expert" to weigh in on the value of the goods in the transaction?
...would have been the first, and last, time it occurred.
Would you trust my appraisal of your house if you were actively trying to sell it to me?
-
JES,
I don't think your logic is right there. Connell did hire Barker, but he had a stake in the process - he got the land that was left over for housing. He hired Barker to protect his interests, I think, and MCC brought in CBM to protect theirs, at least on the initial blush when the deal was being put together.
-
Jeff,
You think it's logical for Connell to ask Gates (on behalf of MCC) to recommend an expert that might advise Connell on the suitability of the land he hoped to sell to Gates/MCC?
-
Yes it is logical for the buyer to demand their own expert. If you are buying home do you have the seller choose the house inspector?
As the article in question stated when the syndicate learned Merion was seeking a new site they gambled and secured an additional two hundred acres (giving them 338 acres in total). The success of their venture was based upon attracting Merion and Merion building their golf course. As they explained that is why they sold the land to Merion for half its value.
If you only have one potential buyer and that buyer will make or brake you, yes, you are going to do everything in your power to convince them, including (and especially) allowing the buyer to dictate the expert.
-
Jeff,
You think it's logical for Connell to ask Gates (on behalf of MCC) to recommend an expert that might advise Connell on the suitability of the land he hoped to sell to Gates/MCC?
Its more likely Gates told Connell he needed an expert to assess the property. Who paid for the expert was likely negoiated between Gates and Connell.
-
It is most likely, to me, that Connell found Barker on his own, with no input from the buyers, in an effort to maximize the value of the property. A corrolary to the home inspection analogy...the sellers disclosure is what Connell provided Gates/MCC.
My gut on this is based on CBM being on-site so soon afterward, and very clearly at the wishes of MCC.
Why would Gates recommend Barker to Connell if he had CBM lined up?
Tom M,
How can you speculate that Gates would have paid a dime for Barker?
-
It is most likely, to me, that Connell found Barker on his own, with no input from the buyers, in an effort to maximize the value of the property. A corrolary to the home inspection analogy...the sellers disclosure is what Connell provided Gates/MCC.
My gut on this is based on CBM being on-site so soon afterward, and very clearly at the wishes of MCC.
Why would Gates recommend Barker to Connell if he had CBM lined up?
Tom M,
How can you speculate that Gates would have paid a dime for Barker?
I didn't speculate Gates paid for Barker. Connell paid for Barker. I said I believe the article was accurate when it said Gates had the property inspected by Barker and M&W before purchasing it.
-
I never said anything about giving Barker or Macdonald design credit for Merion. I just want to figure out who did what.
David,
Then you no longer agree with yourself on the following?
"While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course. Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East."
As usual Mike, you don't understand. My fault no doubt.
While the above paragraph is a summary and not meant to take the place of the substance of the IMO, I agree with most everything in it. I might tweak the order of events somewhat, and would refine the analysis a bit, but the major points are still valid. That being said, I remain willing to consider any contrary evidence, so long as it is evidence and not just propaganda.
Design credit is not my issue. Getting the facts right is my issue. You guys are so paranoid about design credit that you are afraid for the facts to come forward. Strange.
___________________________________
As has been our constant suggestion for about five years if you want to know who did what with Merion East and West read Alan Wilson's report carefully. We believe, and Merion believes, and has for many many decades now believed it's an accurate reflection of who did what architecturally on Merion East and West and it's the basis of their history books.
I've read the report, and understand it. Your version of what happened is inconsistent even with this report.
If you want to know in more detail that Alan Wilson's report explains who did what and where you never will know and either will we or Merion at this point. The reason is, as far as the club has ever known and as far as we've ever known specfic details of who did what and where on both courses simply was never recorded in greater detail than in Alan Wilson's report and now everyone directly connected to those times is dead.
Yet another inconsistency in your ever-evolving story. You have gone from claiming that the documents tell everything about who did what and when, to admitting that you know no more than you did decades ago. My guess is there is plenty of information to figure out what happened and when, but guys haven't figured it out. Or you don't want to.
Providing that you now actually believe what you just said above I believe we can now end all these threads on the history of the architecture of Merion!
Thank God! It's about time. ;)
Not even close. There is plenty to do once we finish off this introductory stuff, but you guys seem intent on dragging this stuff out indefinitely. That is alright, the truth will come out eventually. One way or another.
__________________________
JES,
What I don't get is how you guys have abandoned your long held theory that Gates had been in cahoots with HDC for years. Not long ago Gates supposedly owned everything and called all the shots. Now you insist that there is no way he might have been involved in choosing Barker? It looks like you guys are bending the fact try to fit them to your argument.
The fact is I do not know if Gates choose Barker, if Connell and Gates chose Barker together, or if Connell chose Barker on his own. But we do know that Barker did a rough routing and enclosed it with a letter that was forwarded to Merion, and that month's later, Merion's thought this important enough to tell the general membership about Barker's inspection and routing.
Was the Barker routing used at least in part? It is very possible, but I don't know for certain.
But these complete dismissals (see TEPaul's posts and Wayne's) of the possibility are absolute nonsense.
-
Who paid for the expert was likely negoiated between Gates and Connell.
Tom M,
How can you speculate that Gates would have paid a dime for Barker?
I didn't speculate Gates paid for Barker. Connell paid for Barker. I said I believe the article was accurate when it said Gates had the property inspected by Barker and M&W before purchasing it.
???
Dave,
I think/hope you realize I am not one and the same with any others in this conversation for a few reasons...not the least of which is that I do not, and will not, do any real research on this. I tune in every few pages to see if anything is happening. When I make a comment, it is my own.
From my memory of all the different sides of this (probably flawed), I thought Gates bought HDC after this all transpired...meaning the land purchase for the golf course. I thought it was agreed that Connell headed HDC and personally hired Barker to inspect the site for suitability. At the time, Gates was simply on the site committee for MCC, no?
-
JES
Getting two opinions would be the prudent thing to do would it not; two assessments are better than one. The two hottest architectural minds in 1910 were Macdonald and Travis. Macdonald & Whigham were actively involved in design. Travis was not, but his collaborator at GCGC Barker was actively involved and quite a hot commodity. You bring them both in and you've covered all your bases.
The Philadlephia Inquirer article was clearly not written by a lightweight. Its packed with facts and figures, and some inside info as well. I suspect Connell or Lloyd or both contributed information to it. It appears to be completely accurate, and based on that I see no reason to question the statement that Lloyd had Barker, Macdonald & Whigham inspect the ground before the purchase.
I think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of the syndicate.
-
"I think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of the syndicate."
Mr. MacWood:
Part of what syndicate? Or more specifically which syndicate?
-
Part of the land company.
Perhaps you should write another "independent" and "expert" five part article on how all golf holes that play through a depression must have been massively influenced by H.H. Barker.
Never mind about all the holes like that which came before Barker----I see no reason at all we all can't just get together with you and with your preposterous speculations and just act like that didn't happen and that they didn't exist before the remarkable Mr. Barker.
Can you cite any similar examples pre-1910?
-
"Part of the land company."
Mr. MacWood:
What does 'part of the land company' mean?
Are you saying you think there was a syndicate that was part of HDC, the real estate holding and development company?
-
HDC = syndicate = land company
-
“I think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of the syndicate.
HDC = syndicate = land company”
Mr. MacWood:
SO, you think there is evidence out there that suggests Lloyd was part of HDC?? ;)
Where have you been for the last four months or so? No shit he was part of HDC and we have that evidence. What we do not really know is when he began to assume control of HDC but we do know WHEN he had assumed control of it and we know why.
I thought you considered yourself to be an “independent”, “expert” researcher. If so, where have you been all this time on this issue of Merion's move of its course from Haverford to Ardmore? Are you even aware of the residential community to the west of Merion East and the timing and significance of its development and relationship to Merion G.C. and some of its membership back then?
Apparently not! ::)
That might be just another good reason why someone interested in the details of a golf course and its creation pretty much needs to at least go there before claiming to understand much about it and its history. You really do need to get out of your Ivory Tower in Ohio, Skeebo, and get around to some of these clubs and courses you question the histories of as you've been doing for the last 5-6 years. We live here and we know these things. Obviously you don't. Will you ever? ???
-
Tom M,
I think it would be an insult to Barker for the same person/group to invite him in to review a site "for suitability" and immediately, as though they didn't trust him, have Macdonald in to do the same thing.
-
JES II,
In the field of medicine, especially surgery, it's done daily and is recommended by/for prudent individuals.
It's called "second opinions" I hope neither you or your family ever need one, but, it's highly recommended because medicine, like GCA is an art based on science and the more highly skilled sets of eyes you get to review your case, the better equiped you are to make a prudent decision.
-
TE
If you knew he was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker?
I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18.
JES
Golf history is replete with examples of two, three or four architects being consulted on projects. Some would take being considered on par with CBM as a major compliment. From what I understand the two were on site nearly simultaneously. It is illogical to think one was brought in after the other because of some disastisifaction. There is no evidence of that, in fact five months later Barker's comments are found in the Inquirer article.
-
Patrick:
That's true, "second opinions" are most worthwhile but if something is done one generally carries on with one and not both. This very much seems to be the case with MCC, and it would seem to explain why MCC never mentioned Barker again after June 1910.
Mr. Moriarty, in his essay, claims (completely erroneously, I might add) that Macdonald/Whigam offered Merion a routing in 1910 and that future Wilson committee members Francis and Lloyd helped "tweak" ;) Macdonald's routing before mid-November 1910 even before their 'novice' committee chairman, Hugh Wilson became involved in the project!!! ::) (JEEESUS, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE US A BREAK WITH THIS KIND OF PREPOSTEROUS LOGIC??).
Is Mr. Moriarty and his MacWoodenheaded "independent", "expert" research mentor and editor trying to infer that Macdonald/Whigam coopted Barker's "rough drawing" and made it there own and gave it to MCC within a week or so in June 1910?? ;)
I think these two clowns should be actively and loudly laughed off this website for their completely scatter-brained opinions, logic and analyses by hopefully about 1498 registered participants of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!
-
"I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18."
I'm sorry, Mr. MacWood, but despite your outlandish claims to the contrary, I don't see much similarity between Merion's #16, #17 and #18 and Columbia's #16, #17 and #18. These preposterous generalizations are something you seem prone to which I feel I picked up on bigtime in your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf." ;)
-
"I'm still waiting for your similar examples to Merion and Columbia 16, 17 and 18."
I'm sorry, Mr. MacWood, but despite your outlandish claims to the contrary, I don't see much similarity between Merion's #16, #17 and #18 and Columbia's #16, #17 and #18. These preposterous generalizations are something you seem prone to which I feel I picked up on bigtime in your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf." ;)
TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims.
-
"From what I understand the two were on site nearly simultaneously. It is illogical to think one was brought in after the other because of some disastisifaction. There is no evidence of that, in fact five months later Barker's comments are found in the Inquirer article."
Mr. MacWood:
I don't see that MCC necessarily had any dissatisfaction with Barker. I think the reason they never mentioned him again in their administrative records and never used him is simply that they did not want to go with a professional architect, and that they preferred to go with the model evidenced by Macdonald in what he was in the midst of doing at NGLA at that time----eg the design and creation of a golf course using only "amateur/sportsmen" designers (and a committee) as he and Whigam (and Emmet and Travis and the others at NGLA were) but perhaps with a professional engineer as Raynor was and as Merion member Richard Francis was.
This would all seem to be confirmed and underscored by Alan Wilson's significant words in his important report on the history of the creation of East and West courses:
"It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect."
What do you suppose Alan Wilson meant by "architect" in that particular context Mr. MacWoodenhead?? ;)
Oh, sure, go right ahead and just dismiss, ignore or rationalize that away---AGAIN. You're very good at that in your effectively dwindling attempts to maintain your highly illogical opinions.
Some "expert" researcher you are. Goodness, gracious, spare us all, please! ;)
-
Ah, I've been away from the site for a bit, and here I've gone and missed more discussion on the history of Merion, neatly hidden in a Macdonald/Raynor thread ! Excellent.
As has been said many times on this and other threads, the reality is that the Barker routing has the magic of possibility, but unless a copy of it is found, all of the sound and fury regarding it doesn't signify a darn thing. It's enticing to entertain all kinds of possible renderings of history, but there's a difference between postulation and knowledge.
The routing of Merion as it currently exists may be the work of H. H. Barker, despite any evidence to the contrary, but that's a case that has yet to be made. Am I missing something?
One question, that has probably also already been asked and answered, and I just missed it. What are the earliest photographs of Merion, particularly aerial photos?
That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?
-
"TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims."
Mr. MacWood:
The time has unfortunately come again when you very much deserve to be insulted for your participation on here with this garbage of yours.
If you'd like to see some holes on a course that go through depressions and play up to high and raised greens perhaps you should take the time to visit MYOPIA for the first fucking time in your life! :P
I think we are back to that point with you where some of us will need to follow you everywhere you go on this website and explain how wrong your opinions really are. I feel the integrity of the history of golf architecture essentially demands that we do that.
-
TE
I never mentioned MCC. There is no evidence HDC (Connell, Lloyd, Hutson, Atterbury, Filton, etc) were disatisfied with Barker. They brought in Barker and Macdonald because they were the cream of the crop.
Richard Francis is pretty clear on what his contribution was...and when there became an issue relating to HDC who did he immediately call?
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.
If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?
-
"TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims."
Mr. MacWood:
The time has unfortunately come again when you very much deserve to be insulted for your participation on here with this garbage of yours.
If you'd like to see some holes on a course that go through depressions and play up to high and raised greens perhaps you should take the time to visit MYOPIA for the first fucking time in your life! :P
I think we are back to that point with you where some of us will need to follow you everywhere you go on this website and explain how wrong your opinions really are. I feel the integrity of the history of golf architecture essentially demands that we do that.
TE
May I suggest you take long deserved break, get away from this subject, recharge your battery and come back with a fresh, more positive perspective.
-
Ah, I've been away from the site for a bit, and here I've gone and missed more discussion on the history of Merion, neatly hidden in a Macdonald/Raynor thread ! Excellent.
As has been said many times on this and other threads, the reality is that the Barker routing has the magic of possibility, but unless a copy of it is found, all of the sound and fury regarding it doesn't signify a darn thing. It's enticing to entertain all kinds of possible renderings of history, but there's a difference between postulation and knowledge.
The routing of Merion as it currently exists may be the work of H. H. Barker, despite any evidence to the contrary, but that's a case that has yet to be made. Am I missing something?
One question, that has probably also already been asked and answered, and I just missed it. What are the earliest photographs of Merion, particularly aerial photos?
That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?
Kirk
Unless you know something I don't know there is no copy of any routing by anybody, and there is only one person I'm aware of for certain who produced a routing, the rest is all conjecture. Perhaps you are privy to information I have not seen.
-
Suggest anything you like Mr. MacWood but I doubt I will ever take a suggestion of yours. There is too much for me to do hopefully counteracting the damage you do to the history of golf course architecture. I will be there counteracting your garbage every step of the way in the future. Count on it.
I wish I had a worthy opponent in this with you but I don't. Your approach on here is laughable to date.
I think it's a damn shame you either just don't have the guts or the wherewithal to both explain and discuss what is really on your mind with golf course architecture and probably has been on your mind for years.
Personally, I think it's a most valuable general subject.
I would never say such a thing about Mr. Moriarty. To me he is a total negative on here and his only contribution to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is his self-centered penchant to argue any point with no possible hope of accomplishing a single thing that is edifying, educational or positive.
-
TE
If you were to analyze your contribution to this thread over the last few pages you would find plenty of personal insults and condescending comments, but absolutely nothing in the way of substance. Instead of trying tell everyone how they should think and attempting to disparage others why don't you try to add something new and substansive to the topic. As I suggested a break might be just what the doctor ordered. Get away form all this and come back with a fresh perspective.
-
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.
Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?
And Tom, I certainly have no knowledge of any routings that you wouldn't be aware of. My point is that the mere fact that Barker produced a routing doesn't necessarily mean that it was used, and while it may have been of central importance to the creation of the course, how do we go about determining that beyond indulging in conjecture?
-
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.
Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?
And Tom, I certainly have no knowledge of any routings that you wouldn't be aware of. My point is that the mere fact that Barker produced a routing doesn't necessarily mean that it was used, and while it may have been of central importance to the creation of the course, how do we go about determining that beyond indulging in conjecture?
Kirk
Until someone finds the routing or routings we are left to speculate. Hopefully it is educated speculation.
I think you may be on to something. Alan Wilson was fairly active with the Green Section in the 20s and the Green Section "letters" indicate Macdonald had become alienated and uncooperative at that time. That being said I don't think Wilson was insulting Macdonald & Whigham, he was from the old school and made a distinction between amateur sportsmen designers and professional golf architects who were providing essentially the same service.
-
"Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact."
Mr. MacWood:
When Alan Wilson mentioned that MCC did not use an "architect" but instead turned to Macdonald/Whigam, I think it's pretty clear to tell that what he meant is MCC did not use a professional! That is underscored by the way Alan Wilson described Macdonald/Whigam in his report ;)
Why do you suppose William Philler who had been the secretary or treasurer of MCC for 35 years (not exactly a position of someone who did not understand what was going on within the club) would ask Alan Wilson to write a report of the history of the golf courses if he was not involved in what went on with the club all those years? Let me point out to you that Francis, Lloyd, Gates and Toulmin who were on Wilson's committee were ALL still very much alive in 1926 when Philler asked Alan Wilson for a report on the history of the golf courses? Why do you suppose Philler didn't ask any or all of them for a report on the history of the courses instead of Alan Wilson? ;)
I'm quite sure, also, you have no real idea who Alan Wilson was and what-all he did and was connected to in golf.
What you should do now is get back to the subject of Lloyd and HDC and MCC and not simply dismiss or ignore another subject when you suspect your previous statements and opinions are about to be checkmated.
It's OK to be wrong if one is coming from a place like you are with no participation with the clubs of the courses you are studying.
I know it's probably easy for you to find interesting material in Michael Hurzdan's impressive collection but when you do, please, in the future, go to the clubs its about and let those who know them so much better than you do help you understand what your material means.
Would you please consider that in the future? I think both you and the rest of us will be better for it on here.
-
"I think you may be on to something. Alan Wilson was fairly active with the Green Section in the 20s and the Green Section "letters" indicate Macdonald had become alienated and uncooperative at that time. That being said I don't think Wilson was insulting Macdonald & Whigham, he was from the old school and made a distinction between amateur sportsmen designers and professional golf architects who were providing essentially the same service."
Mr. MacWood:
What the hell is up with you anyway??
I've been explaining that very concept to you on here for a few years now. The best you could do is call it "My Schtick". ;) ;)
I think you need to talk some turkey with either me or Ben Dewar or Ran Morrissett, as something seems to be going on with you. A normal person on here doesn't exactly write and spell like you do which seems to be getting worse. "eleged" for Alleged?? Are you kidding me? If you have a problem I don't know about, please, God, just say so and I will back off completely if that's the case. You may think I'm cruel but I'm not at all. Honestly, this is just a golf architecture discussion group. What can we be expected to know about one another, particualarly if no one on here has seen someone else as seems to be eerily the case with you.
If you're not OK please tell me so, offline, online or however you choose.
-
That quote of Alan Wilson's seems pretty clear. What reason would he have for saying such a thing, if the work of an already-established architect was used to create the course? Or, because of his own inherent bias, would that inevitably be additional evidence that in fact a professional architect was used?
. . .
Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?
Kirk,
You really lose me here about the Alan Wilson letter. It seems clear to me as well, but it is almost as if you have a different letter.
I do not seeing the letter as disparaging Macdonald's work at all. In fact the letter leaves little doubt that M&W were very involved in the initial design of Merion. If I recall correctly, AW essentially says that except for what M&W contributed, Hugh was the designer. I don't view this is disparaging at all, but rather as confirmation that M&W contributed. Keep in mind that the letter wasn't just about the formation of Merion East, but about the formation and evolution of both courses.
As for Barker, Alan Wilson may not have even known he existed. I have seen no evidence that Alan Wilson was involved in what was going on in 1910 with the course. Plus, by 1926 Barker's name hadn't come up in conjunction with Merion in years. So it doesnt make sense to me that Alan Wilson would have been disavowing Barker's contribution in this letter. Whether he contributed or not, Barker had long ago been cut out of the process.
But there was a professional architect whose name had become closely associated with Merion by 1926. If Alan Wilson was worried that any professional architect would receive credit rightfully due his brother, that professional architect would most likely have been William Flynn.
Indeed, something appeared in a golf magazine in 1926 that might have given any brother pause. A rendering of Merion East was published and displayed prominently on that rendering were the words:
PLAN BY
WILLIAM S. FLYNN
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT
ARDMORE, PA
Now surely William Flynn could not have meant that he planned Merion, but must have meant that he drew up that particular plan. But still, the wording suggests otherwise. As Flynn was well known by then a little protectionism by Hugh's brother would not have been in the least bit surprising.
By the way, the same logic applies equally to Tillinghast's comments in 1934. There is no reason to think that Tillinghast thought CBM and HJW were stealing Hugh's thunder. I don't recall a mention of them in association with Merion until back in 1914.
If anyone was being credited with more than he deserved at Merion in 1926 or 1934, it was William S. Flynn. Who else could it have been?
-
Tom MacWood & David Moriarty,
Aliens from the planet Moonbeam designed Merion but they weren't professional architects.
Alan Wilson didn't mention them because they had stolen his brain by 1926, and besides, he was jealous and wrote his account while the entire rest of the committee and Macdonald and Whigham were still alive.
HH Barker was one of those aliens.
Can your story get any more preposterous than this one? ::)
-
If the Committee already had Barker's routing, and considered it useful, why would they then go ahead and develop multiple routings on their own, including five final routings, of which Macdonald helped them select the best one?
I would like a serious answer...not more smokescreen and completely over the top conjecture.
We know Barker's routing was on 100 acres, and considered additional land not even part of the final purchase.
Why we're even having this stupid conversation is just stultifying and mind-blowing.
-
"Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact."
Mr. MacWood:
When Alan Wilson mentioned that MCC did not use an "architect" but instead turned to Macdonald/Whigam, I think it's pretty clear to tell that what he meant is MCC did not use a professional! That is underscored by the way Alan Wilson described Macdonald/Whigam in his report ;)
Why do you suppose William Philler who had been the secretary or treasurer of MCC for 35 years (not exactly a position of someone who did not understand what was going on within the club) would ask Alan Wilson to write a report of the history of the golf courses if he was not involved in what went on with the club all those years? Let me point out to you that Francis, Lloyd, Gates and Toulmin who were on Wilson's committee were ALL still very much alive in 1926 when Philler asked Alan Wilson for a report on the history of the golf courses? Why do you suppose Philler didn't ask any or all of them for a report on the history of the courses instead of Alan Wilson? ;)
I'm quite sure, also, you have no real idea who Alan Wilson was and what-all he did and was connected to in golf.
What you should do now is get back to the subject of Lloyd and HDC and MCC and not simply dismiss or ignore another subject when you suspect your previous statements and opinions are about to be checkmated.
It's OK to be wrong if one is coming from a place like you are with no participation with the clubs of the courses you are studying.
I know it's probably easy for you to find interesting material in Michael Hurzdan's impressive collection but when you do, please, in the future, go to the clubs its about and let those who know them so much better than you do help you understand what your material means.
Would you please consider that in the future? I think both you and the rest of us will be better for it on here.
TE
I think Alan Wilson was aksed to write about the history of the course for a few reasons, first out of respect for Hugh who had just recently passed, also because Hugh had been involved with the course longer than anyone, and lastly and most importantly he had completely reshaped the course over the last few years. In fact his obituary in the Green Section Buletin makes it clear what was his greatest architectural accomplishment: remodeling Merion in 1923-24. It is the only architectural accomplishment mentioned. Alan Wilson was closely associated with the Green Section.
Alan Wilson's report is clearly second hand, especially regarding the early years. To put too much weight on this report would be a mistake.
-
If the Committee already had Barker's routing, and considered it useful, why would they then go ahead and develop multiple routings on their own, including five final routings, of which Macdonald helped them select the best one?
I would like a serious answer...not more smokescreen and completely over the top conjecture.
We know Barker's routing was on 100 acres, and considered additional land not even part of the final purchase.
Why we're even having this stupid conversation is just stultifying and mind-blowing.
Mike
I don't believe anyone has stated that Barker's routing was immediately considered the one, end of story. It was likely one of the five. I also believe it is likely the other four were closely related to his original concept, based on the members of the committee inexperience. The bottom line is no one knows whose routing was eventually chosen.
Would you mention to TE there is no place for personal insults on this site?
-
Ran, please stop the madness! Your site has been dragged down beneath the mud because there is no fact checking done on this site. If you wish to raise the profile of this site by allowing daily train wrecks, and car fires, then this site needs to be reevaluated and changed.
Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have enough information to be dangerous because it appears they know what they're talking about and in some corners, they are believed. They fooled you and they fooled Pat Mucci. Mostly they fool themselves. Let's hope they don't fool too many in the outside world. If this site were self-contained and their false and foolish revisionist histories were in a closed loop, who would care at all? But it is not closed. This site comes up very readily on Internet search engines so information presented here is readily disseminated. I don't see that the site can be self-regulated. There is too much garbage being masqueraded as fact. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Missing Faces essay that you, unfortunately endorsed with rare enthusiasm. I know you're going up to Yale pretty soon. I suggest very strongly that you stop by Philadelphia on your way and have a talk with some of us. We will show you our raw evidence and the soon to be completed essay on the history of Merion East. I would like you to consider taking down the essay or issuing a retraction if the evidence presented compels you to do so.
You have to decide what this site is meant to be. If this site is to be taken seriously as a resource of valuable information, such as provided by Neil Crafter, Paul Turner and many more I do not name, then you must have FACT CHECKING. Even though articles are in the IN MY OPINION section, that is not enough of a cover. This site needs to stop publishing agenda laden essays replete with errors, bad analysis and biased reporting. It isn't about protecting local legends. It is about the truth. That is what this site should promote. If the truth be boring, so be it. I don't feel like spending much more time defending the truth on this site from the likes of Moriarty and MacWood when you do nothing at all to minimize the mistakes, both deliberate and unintentional. Something has got to change, and I believe it must be in the structure of how this website operates.
Start with the Missing Faces of Merion essay. Do your homework and then make a decision. You were far too premature in endorsing that essay. Not once did you talk to Tom Paul, myself, John Capers or anyone that might help you understand the problems with the essay and the implications of publishing it. You need to do a better job or let everyone know that this site is about banter and free expression, not about serious history. It is time for you and Ben to restructure or redefine. You can no longer pretend this site is about serious study when you allow so many untruths to be passed off as fact.
One suggestion to consider is that you charge all 1500 members $10 per year above the voluntary payments and pay someone $15,000 a year as a part time consultant to fact check essays submitted for publication here. There can be no more hiding behind it being an opinion section. It does not come across that way in internet searches. We need better. In one way or another, we must have it.
-
I'll second that motion, Wayne.
This website could be a great place for historical research and facts, yet this constant speculation and self-serving "analysis" in the constant effort of some to make names for themselves as serious researchers has turned this into a bad version of "National Enquirer", quickly approaching "News of the World".
Written reports of club's histories are requested to be tossed into the dumper, contemporaneous meeting minutes are pooh-poohed, facts are twisted, we deal with less than 1% possibilities and exceptions, and spend more time on looking at who was Herbert Leeds boyfriend in a month than our current VP candidate has spent on world history her entire life.
Some of us would like to just drop the matter...now and forever...yet this ongoing constant revisionism and failure to even acknowledge the most basic of facts has made dialogue impossible. Yet, we feel entirely frustrated because we also know that these guys do come off as having enough facts to spread complete misinformation and outright lies furthering their own erroneous and biased agendas.
They claim to want the truth.
Nothing, Nothing...could be further from the truth.
-
Wayne
Get off your soap box. This is an open forum. If you disagree with anything that is said you can respond. If something is said that is wrong you can correct it. No one is forcing you to participate on this thread or site.
The more important issue IMO is the personal insults coming from your friend. Why don't you do something about that.
-
I'll second that motion, Wayne.
This website could be a great place for historical research and facts, yet this constant speculation and self-serving "analysis" in the constant effort of some to make names for themselves as serious researchers has turned this into a bad version of "National Enquirer", quickly approaching "News of the World".
Written reports of club's histories are requested to be tossed into the dumper, contemporaneous meeting minutes are pooh-poohed, facts are twisted, we deal with less than 1% possibilities and exceptions, and spend more time on looking at who was Herbert Leeds boyfriend in a month than our current VP candidate has spent on world history her entire life.
Some of us would like to just drop the matter...now and forever...yet this ongoing constant revisionism and failure to even acknowledge the most basic of facts has made dialogue impossible. Yet, we feel entirely frustrated because we also know that these guys do come off as having enough facts to spread complete misinformation and outright lies furthering their own erroneous and biased agendas.
They claim to want the truth.
Nothing, Nothing...could be further from the truth.
Mike
You are beginning to sound more and more like TE...meeting minutes and constant revisionism. You don't think these explorations have been fruitful? Off the top of my head some of the things we have learned (I'm sure I'm forgetting some):
1. Wilson's overseas trip was in 1912 not 1910
2. Barker was involved in the early stages and produced a routing
3. Barker claimed to have laid out nearly 20 course in 1910
4. In CB Macdonald's early assessment he suggested they purchase more land near the proposed clubhouse
5. In 1910 HG Lloyd was both on the seach committee and part of the development company
6. CBM was much more heavily involved in the process than was originally thought
7. That CBM was given the final selection of five routings
8. That Johnson contractors constructed the course
Try finding that in your Merion history book. Speeking of revision, it appears the entire early history of Merion has been revised and corrected.
What we still don't know
1. Who routed Merion (Barker, M&W or the Committee)
2. Was the original design of the holes heavily influenced by M&W
-
Anyone out there who thinks this is just a difference of academic position and understanding, please ask yourselves the following question...
Why are the only courses that Mr. MacWood and his protege challenge the history of on this open forum those that Tom Paul and/or Wayne Morrison have a vested interest in, either as club historians or as part of their involvement in documenting the history for the new USGA architectural archives??
Why do you think these fellows seem to be spending every waking hour of their lives researching for any tidbit of information that will prove some minor fact wrong, or cast some obscure reference in doubt, or otherwise make these guys look inaccurate or careless? Why is this only about Myopia and Merion?
They will tell you that they care so much about history and truth that they cannot in good conscience let the world believe that William FLynn may have been involved with creating Kilcare in 1912 instead of 1909 as Wayne so foolishly believes.
But, it isn't that, and by this point their personal agendas should be completely transparent.
Rather than participating in this important new inititiative from the USGA, they'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw rocks.
Rather than see either Tom or Wayne get one scintilla of credit for their ongoing and determined efforts, they'd rather try to tear down their reputations in a public forum.
-
I think personal insults should be avoided. My very good friend is not the only one engaged in that sort of activity. You do it regularly. Moriarty does it even more regularly and then whines about it when it is returned to him, granted usually in an escalated manner. I do it as well.
Are incomplete research, poor analysis and false conclusions a reason to act the way we do? Perhaps not. But those causes should be avoided at all cost. They are not.
I don't care if you think I'm on a soap box or not. I think there is something structurally wrong with this site and I said so. If this is an open forum, why are you telling me to get off my soap box? If I can disagree with you and respond with corrections, why do you have a problem with me doing so towards Ran. Is he exempt? According to your own post, you should shut up and let me have my say.
You and Moriarty are dangerous researchers and you harm this site. I still believe you are not doing so deliberately, though you strain my credulity at times. You and Moriarty have printed things on this site that make no sense, that have no underpinnings in fact and make conclusions that are historically inaccurate.
I object to this site allowing this to happen in any case. I suggest to Ran that he comes to Philadelphia on his way north and sits down with whomever cares to show up to have a roundtable discussion on ways to improve this site. Fine, MacWood. You like this site just how it is. You are a fool. All it has become is a platform for you to spout your revisionist BS. Most on here around the world have no idea whether you are right or not. You shovel so many names, dates and seemingly connected facts that most acquiesce and believe you. Well, when you start to issue garbage in areas of golf architecture history that I have studied, know better than you and can present evidence that upends your crap, you better believe I feel an obligation, even though it is extremely time consuming, to counter your nonsense.
Moriarty keeps asking us to present our evidence. We will do so on our timetable, not his. We will present first to the clubs. We will then ask them for permission to present the archival material. If they allow us to do so, we will. If not, we won't. You should try giving clubs such consideration, you may be better accepted. Tom Paul was taken to task for offering to show Jeff a paraphrase of the proof we have that demonstrates the errors of your and Moriarty's ways. Moriarty went on the offensive as if Tom was showing him the raw data. I showed Tom Naccarato the files, I showed them to Mike Cirba, to Peter Pallotta and members of MCC and MGC. We are not hiding anything or protecting any legends. We are going about our business. You are excluded now and forever more. If the clubs want to share the information with you or Mike Hurdzan does, that's fine with me. I'll never give it to either one of you directly.
Unless this site improves, we will not present it here either, even if given permission by MCC and MGC. Ran and Ben must take steps to ensure this does not happen again.
So shut up and let me have my say. You have harmed this site and harmed your reputation. You may not mind, but since I've seen evidence that my reputation is harmed by association with you through this site, I do care.
I want change. I want this site to be better. I want you to change and be better at what you so obviously are passionate about.
-
JES II,
In the field of medicine, especially surgery, it's done daily and is recommended by/for prudent individuals.
It's called "second opinions" I hope neither you or your family ever need one, but, it's highly recommended because medicine, like GCA is an art based on science and the more highly skilled sets of eyes you get to review your case, the better equiped you are to make a prudent decision.
Pat,
Point taken.
It has always seemed odd to me that the message seemed loud and clear that it was Connell that hired Barker and nothing more is known of his effort.
-
Another thing we have learned, if Flynn's first construction experience was at Heartwellville in 1912-13, which seems to be the case, then he was not involved in the initial construction of Merion-East. Which is why Wayne & TE chose to ignore the evidence and had Flynn's involvement at Heartwellville in 1909. Obviously they wanted to keep the myth alive.
-
Jes,
I think I can understand why the Barker routing may have been destroyed forever. I annually clean out my old files and the first drawings to go are ones I did prelims on but didn't get the final job, and the course was built a different way. It frankly never occurred to me that someone 100 years from now would be interested in what didn't happen outside of my mind. ;)
Barker may have had space problems in his office, too!
Wayne, and Tepaul,
My apologies for doing anything that has you "taken to task". I come here for fun and education and suspect others do, too. I don't like the idea that any of my posts cause any consternation or diminish any fun. I don't know the exact mission statement of this site, but am sure being miserable was never Ran's intention.
PS - love the "train wrecks and car fires" comment!
-
Tom
Sadly, you continue to prove my point.
-
Jeff,
That is certainly more palatable then what TM and DM would have us believe.
-
"Alan Wilson's report is clearly second hand, especially regarding the early years. To put too much weight on this report would be a mistake."
Mr. MacWood:
To not put a good deal of weight on Alan Wilson's report is what would be a real mistake for any researcher interested in the history of Merion. You've always appeared to underestimate his close connection with Hugh Wilson and to Merion East and West. Alan, with Hugh, was an original director of the MCC Golf Association. He was also the chairman of the USGA's Green committee, a committee Hugh probably would've been far more participatory on had it not been for Alan's participation. When Alan offered the USGA his resignation as the chairman of the USGA's green committee following Hugh's sudden death, both Piper and Oakley were fairly devastated by that and we have the letters that prove that. Both brothers believed it not a good idea to overload any committee with two brothers and that was probably the reason Alan did not serve on the Merion committee with Hugh. But that does not mean he did not know everything that was going on with the design and construction of the courses at any time.
You should also note in his report he mentions the opinions of each of the four other men who did serve on Wilson's committee, and he mentioned what they said about Hugh Wilson regarding the architecture of both courses. If a researher does not take that information seriously or tries to ignore it or rationalize it away, any reader should seriously suspect what that researcher is trying to do. That would definitely be the case with both you and Mr. Moriarty.
Lastly, I am sorry if you think I insulted you. I'm merely concerned about you due to your truly bizarre logic on here and the fact that you spell on your posts something like a second grader. I didn't know what else to do except just ask you if you're OK, because if you aren't then I will know to back off on these threads with you. No offense intended, I was just concerned. But if you choose not to respond to my concern then I suppose you think you're still hunky-dory. Cool. ;)
Carry on!
-
Tom MacWood,
Let me spend some more time defending the truth from your efforts to undermine it. I have always stated that Flynn was not involved in the early construction of Merion East and came either late in the process or when Merion West began. You should check your facts before you misrepresent them. Stop the madness.
In any case, by the time Pickering was fired during construction of the West Course, Flynn was already in high enough regard that he took Pickering's place. Now you may find it odd that a 23 year old was placed in charge in a position formerly held by one of the world's leading construction men, but it seems clear Merion recognized talent. They recognized it in Wilson and they recognized it in Flynn. I'd say they did very well for themselves.
-
Mr. MacWood:
You seem to think there is some interesting information out there regarding Lloyd and HDC. Why not discuss that on here? Is there something about that subject you are worried about?
-
Mr Jeffrey Brauer:
No apologies necessary from your esteemedness. Your logic is like the bright sun of a glorious new day and you still look as smart today in your Donald Ross red tartan blazer as you did yesterday and the day before that, and......
-
Mr. Paul,
Why thank you very much for those nice comments......To be fair, the reason I look as good today in that jacket as I do previously is that its a photograph, and an old one at that! Frankly, I wouldn't look as good in the jacket if a new photo was taken today. I am older and somehow, the jacket seems to have shrunk a bit.......
A small point, perhaps, but I wonder if you really think Mr. MacWood's logic is bizarre? In my on again, off again reading of these threads, I believe that that you believe that his starting point is in error. However, I also believe that his logic follows quite nicely, but if his - or anyone's - starting point happens to be wrong, all the logic in the world goes for naught.
Sincerely,
The Tartan One.
-
Mr. MacWood:
There is still more checking to do regarding Flynn and Heartwellville. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a friend of John Ott's who lives up that way has information from a lady who owns the building that was originally the clubhouse of the course and she told this man she believes she had plans from Flynn on Heartwellville. If she never did one wonders why or even how she dreamed that up. ;)
We will check that out in good time but first I am on a hunt for Raynor's lost routing of CPC the location of which I might be honing in on. ::)
Furthermore, according to Hugh Wilson's letters it appears Frederick Pickering, construction man par excellence, was the original foreman on the building of the West course but also according to H. Wilson, the "Pick's" wagon hit a couple of cases of scotch that were parked behind the second green of the West course and Freddie fell off his wagon and biffed and banged his own self up pretty bad and Wilson was forced to replace him in his foremanship capacity with Flynn while Mr. Pickering was put on the injured reserve list for a time. Wilson listed Pick's injuries as a severely sprained ankle and a serious foggy head most every day for a time. Mr. Wilson also noted whenever Mr. Pickering was around the West course smelled something like a Scotch whiskey brewery.
Those were the days, Boy! Is it any wonder they created such wonderful and imaginative architecture?
-
Wayne--
It seems to me that in the World of Agronomy, there are a lot of young, hungry, go getting guys that gain high profile positions at a very young age. So I think what Flynn did at age 23 was indeed possible.
-
"A small point, perhaps, but I wonder if you really think Mr. MacWood's logic is bizarre? In my on again, off again reading of these threads, I believe that that you believe that his starting point is in error. However, I also believe that his logic follows quite nicely, but if his - or anyone's - starting point happens to be wrong, all the logic in the world goes for naught."
My Dear Mr. Jeffrey:
It may be a small point of yours there but it certainly is an excellent point.
I do indeed believe that you believe that I believe that Mr. MacWood's "starting point" is in error, and that from that ERRoneous starting point only garbageous opinion and information flows!
And so, what, in fact, is Mr. MacWood's starting point on this subject of Merion? Well, neither of us need to speculate on that point because we very much have it from Mr. MacWood himself in the form of a few threads that reside in the back pages of this very website. He started those threads himself. One of them is entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion" and the other's subject is the question of "Legends" and how some clubs unfactually and irresponsibly promote their local architects to the status of a "legend."
Apparently, with little or no information on the subject this was clearly Mr. MacWoods "starting point" with Merion architect Hugh Wilson and this unsupportable campaign of Mr. MacWood has been carried on by him and then Mr. Moriarty for over five years now with not a thing to show for it other than the fact that Mr. Wilson really did go abroad in 1912 and almost went down on the Titanic which heretofore Merion and its history thought was only what they called a "romantic story."
I should amend that somewhat. Between the first edition of the Tolhurst Merion history book in 1988 and the second edition in 2004, Merion did apparently realize that if Mr. Wilson really did go abroad in 1910 in preparation to design and build the East course in 1911 and he also almost went down on the Titanic, there was something seriously wrong with that picture since the Titanic did not sink until April, 1912, nearly a year and a half after he returned. Let me amend my amendment. That's why they referred to the "Titanic Story" as "romantic".
Merion now refers to that previous evaluation as their "Humpty Dumpty" timeline approach! ;)
-
Anyone out there who thinks this is just a difference of academic position and understanding, please ask yourselves the following question...
Why are the only courses that Mr. MacWood and his protege challenge the history of on this open forum those that Tom Paul and/or Wayne Morrison have a vested interest in, either as club historians or as part of their involvement in documenting the history for the new USGA architectural archives??
Why do you think these fellows seem to be spending every waking hour of their lives researching for any tidbit of information that will prove some minor fact wrong, or cast some obscure reference in doubt, or otherwise make these guys look inaccurate or careless? Why is this only about Myopia and Merion?
They will tell you that they care so much about history and truth that they cannot in good conscience let the world believe that William FLynn may have been involved with creating Kilcare in 1912 instead of 1909 as Wayne so foolishly believes.
But, it isn't that, and by this point their personal agendas should be completely transparent.
Rather than participating in this important new inititiative from the USGA, they'd rather sit on the sidelines and throw rocks.
Rather than see either Tom or Wayne get one scintilla of credit for their ongoing and determined efforts, they'd rather try to tear down their reputations in a public forum.
Mike
You are sounding a bit paranoid. If you paid a little more attention you would see I have questioned and/or corrected the architectural attribution of scores of courses: Bethpage, Myopia, San Francisco, GCGC, NGLA, St. Andrews-Old, St. Andrews-New, Columbus CC, Addington-Old, Olympia Fields-South, Rye, Quaker Ridge, Muirfield, Dornoch, Brora, Lahinch, Cruden Bay, County Down, Worlington, etc.
The better question would be why the irrational reaction in the cases of Merion and PVGC.
-
I think personal insults should be avoided. My very good friend is not the only one engaged in that sort of activity. You do it regularly. Moriarty does it even more regularly and then whines about it when it is returned to him, granted usually in an escalated manner. I do it as well.
Are incomplete research, poor analysis and false conclusions a reason to act the way we do? Perhaps not. But those causes should be avoided at all cost. They are not.
I don't care if you think I'm on a soap box or not. I think there is something structurally wrong with this site and I said so. If this is an open forum, why are you telling me to get off my soap box? If I can disagree with you and respond with corrections, why do you have a problem with me doing so towards Ran. Is he exempt? According to your own post, you should shut up and let me have my say.
You and Moriarty are dangerous researchers and you harm this site. I still believe you are not doing so deliberately, though you strain my credulity at times. You and Moriarty have printed things on this site that make no sense, that have no underpinnings in fact and make conclusions that are historically inaccurate.
I object to this site allowing this to happen in any case. I suggest to Ran that he comes to Philadelphia on his way north and sits down with whomever cares to show up to have a roundtable discussion on ways to improve this site. Fine, MacWood. You like this site just how it is. You are a fool. All it has become is a platform for you to spout your revisionist BS. Most on here around the world have no idea whether you are right or not. You shovel so many names, dates and seemingly connected facts that most acquiesce and believe you. Well, when you start to issue garbage in areas of golf architecture history that I have studied, know better than you and can present evidence that upends your crap, you better believe I feel an obligation, even though it is extremely time consuming, to counter your nonsense.
Moriarty keeps asking us to present our evidence. We will do so on our timetable, not his. We will present first to the clubs. We will then ask them for permission to present the archival material. If they allow us to do so, we will. If not, we won't. You should try giving clubs such consideration, you may be better accepted. Tom Paul was taken to task for offering to show Jeff a paraphrase of the proof we have that demonstrates the errors of your and Moriarty's ways. Moriarty went on the offensive as if Tom was showing him the raw data. I showed Tom Naccarato the files, I showed them to Mike Cirba, to Peter Pallotta and members of MCC and MGC. We are not hiding anything or protecting any legends. We are going about our business. You are excluded now and forever more. If the clubs want to share the information with you or Mike Hurdzan does, that's fine with me. I'll never give it to either one of you directly.
Unless this site improves, we will not present it here either, even if given permission by MCC and MGC. Ran and Ben must take steps to ensure this does not happen again.
So shut up and let me have my say. You have harmed this site and harmed your reputation. You may not mind, but since I've seen evidence that my reputation is harmed by association with you through this site, I do care.
I want change. I want this site to be better. I want you to change and be better at what you so obviously are passionate about.
Wayne
You are free to make your own case, no need to stiffle these free excanges....these free exchanges have resulted in wealth of new information.
-
"The better question would be why the irrational reaction in the cases of Merion and PVGC."
Mr. MacWood:
I've never discussed a number of those courses whose architectural attribution you've questioned because I really don't know them. The ones I have focused on with your architectural attribution opinions on here are the ones I do know and very well for years, primarily PVGC, Merion and Myopia. It has never been lost on me that you've never even seen those three and I feel that is and always will be very limiting to your understanding of them.
My reaction to your questioning of the architectural attribution on those three courses is in no way irrational. I've always only pointed out that your opinions are quite wrong and factually unsupportable.
-
Tom MacWood,
Let me spend some more time defending the truth from your efforts to undermine it. I have always stated that Flynn was not involved in the early construction of Merion East and came either late in the process or when Merion West began. You should check your facts before you misrepresent them. Stop the madness.
In the Wilson letter regarding the history of Merion Golf it is evident that the time from the formation of the comittee to actual construction was relatively short given Wilson's trip to Europe. He says that a committee was formed in early 1911 to construct a new golf course on the 125 acres of land that was just purchased. It goes on to say that they had a great start by visiting Macdonald for 2 days at his bungalow at NGLA where they absorbed ideas on golf course construction and prinicipals of holes in the famous courses abroad that stood the test of time. They went over the NGLA studying the holes. Then it appears that Wilson went off to Europe to study the courses discussed and recommended by Macdonald. However, it later states that after collecting information from all the local (Philly) committees and greenkeepers they begun the course construction in the Spring of 1911 and opened the course on September 14, 1912, just a year after the September 1911 seeding.
It seems that if the committee met on Jan 1, 1911 there were only a few months between then and the start of construction. In fact, seeding would have taken place a mere 9 months later. Maybe the dates are off. Perhaps the railroad magnates that funded the new course were accustomed to have their engineers and construction crews work on an expeditious schedule and this certainly appears to be the case. It must have been a marvelous crew and the engineering efforts of Howard Toomey and the skills of Pickering and Flynn must have been a great help to Wilson. I am certain that many others had advisory roles, such as Macdonald, but any such role must be carefully researched before we can conclude that there was a design contribution. Certainly there is no visual evidence (of the original 1912 course, not the subsequent revisions) of a style remotely akin to Macdonald and Raynor. It is remarkable that the efforts of Macdonald and Raynor are so consistant and identifiable throughout all their works. The only Merion style is the work of Wilson at Cobb's Creek and of Flynn's body of work. This should be of no surprise, Wilson and Flynn were very close friends and colleagues that were often together. Wilson accompanied Flynn to look at the Kittansett site for 2 days and I'm sure there was a spirited interplay of ideas. It seems as though Wilson had some role at the Seaview 9 that Flynn is credited with. Wilson, according to his aide Fred Kortebein tried out Pickering in the construction of work at Seaview (although his drinking was more pronounced). I wouldn't be surprised to find Wilson at other sites that Flynn worked on, particularly around Philadelphia and some of the early 20s redesigns that Flynn did in the DC area as Wilson travelled there often to meet with Piper and Oakley.
I remain open-minded about any influence on Wilson and Flynn by Macdonald and especially those by Thomas, Tillinghast, Crump, and Fownes. However, until real evidence is found I think that today we must look at Macdonald and Whigham as advisors in a general way. As to any specifics at Merion, their role would seem to be minimal. But the search for more information continues.
Here is TE dream scenerio:
Tom MacWood regarding the mystery of the routing of Merion East;
“….there appears to be other facts he chose not to cover in his report for whatever reason: The routing process is not discussed (as far as I can tell),”
Luckily, I’ve just found this chronicle in the back of a frame in Merion’s archives. It’s Hugh Wilson’s chronicle of the day he and his Merion Committee with Fred Pickering, William Flynn and Howard Toomey in tow routed the world famous Merion East golf course.
The Laying out of the routing of Merion East
By
Hugh Irvine Wilson
Feb, 3, 1911
On a rather warm early February Saturday morning 1911 my committee and I along with William Flynn, Fred Pickering and Howard Toomey collected in front of the clubhouse to route the golf course. The committee consisted of Rodman Griscom, Henry Toulmin, Richard Francis and Horatio Gates.
The winter turf was somewhat soft and spongy and I thanked my lucky stars I’d bought those wonderful Abercrombie & Fitch rubber slip-ons to place over my Peal walking shoes. As we prepared to set out I notice Pickering smelled like a gin mill. I set the stage for this historic moment by announcing “Alright, boys, what do we do now?” Roddy Griscom said; “How the Hell do we know Hugh, years from now some pawky researcher from Ohio might call us rank novices which we probably are and that’s why we sent you to Europe for seven months to study this subject, my boy. Don’t you know what we’re supposed to do now?” Henry Toulmin chimed in; “Hugh, I’m scared, do you think we should go to your office and try that new machine and ask Charlie Macdonald what we should do now?”
Young Bill Flynn said; “ I don’t think that will be necessary Mr Wilson, I think we should start with a tee right here in front of the clubhouse and take a hole over to the corner of Ardmore Ave and the road over there the driveway comes in from.” I told the little mick from Massachussets that despite the fact that he says he’d designed a golf course in Vermont that was a pretty dodgy idea since we were standing right in the middle of the parking circle of the club’s driveway. But young Bill said: “Mr Wilson, why don’t we bring the driveway in from Ardmore avenue and make a parking lot behind the barn behind us because this will make a most cozy and dramatic starting tee just next to the clubhouse?” I told this over-reaching William that we were not in the business of road-planning, we were here to lay out the routing of a golf course. He did have a good point that a hole over to the elbow of Ardmore Ave and the clubhouse road did look like a reasonable place for a hole, so we walked around to the side of the clubhouse and looked at that angle for a tee from there and it looked just jake to me. And so we proceeded with the first. For some reason Dick Francis had broken away from us and was heading down to the far end at the top of L of the property on the clubhouse side of the road and to allow him to catch up to us again we all walked slightly to the right. I notice young William was sketching our progress and consequently the first hole became a dogleg left.
With Pickering leading the way we proceeded across Ardmore Ave. Pickering stumbled and was nearly killed by a passing car but luckily Hor Gates caught the poor stinking wretch. From the other side of Ardmore Ave we observed the land before us down Ardmore Ave from the promontory above the creek and proceeded that way to a point I thought made a demanding par 5. Bill Flynn said it would make a finer par 5 if we went a bit farther to the end. I told the young man that would make a hole of nearly 575 yards and if we kept that kind of stretching up our course would be criticized for the rest of time as being and overly long slog with far too much total yardage on the card! Bill said we should consider the deleterious effects in the future of this new “Bounding Billie” golf ball and that someday Merion may need to be 8,000 yards because of it. We continued along with the property line on the right to the end to what seemed a long par 4. We turned back from there as there was no more to go in that direction and followed the property line on the right again to a rise that appeared to make a fine high green for a short hole.
At that point Pickering said he felt he was going to be ill so I told him to step across the boundary fence to the right which he did and as we waited for him Roddy said he was sorry but he had to go #2. I told Roddy that if we were going to be architects and spend long periods of time on the land we should all act like architects and remember to do our business at home in the morning. Roddy trotted into the valley and up the hillside on the other side behind a tree and did his business. Pickering returned with a little more color in his checks and Roddy yelled to us to report that from his vantage squatting behind a tree on the hillside on the other side of the valley that it looked like a fine route ahead of him for another long hole and so the wonderfully long second par 5 with a green just over the creek nearly 600 yards away came into being.
(Unfortunately I found only two pages of what appears to have been about a 15 page report of the routing of Merion East but I will continue to look for the rest).
-
Mr. MacWood:
There is still more checking to do regarding Flynn and Heartwellville. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a friend of John Ott's who lives up that way has information from a lady who owns the building that was originally the clubhouse of the course and she told this man she believes she had plans from Flynn on Heartwellville. If she never did one wonders why or even how she dreamed that up. ;)
We will check that out in good time but first I am on a hunt for Raynor's lost routing of CPC the location of which I might be honing in on. ::)
Furthermore, according to Hugh Wilson's letters it appears Frederick Pickering, construction man par excellence, was the original foreman on the building of the West course but also according to H. Wilson, the "Pick's" wagon hit a couple of cases of scotch that were parked behind the second green of the West course and Freddie fell off his wagon and biffed and banged his own self up pretty bad and Wilson was forced to replace him in his foremanship capacity with Flynn while Mr. Pickering was put on the injured reserve list for a time. Wilson listed Pick's injuries as a severely sprained ankle and a serious foggy head most every day for a time. Mr. Wilson also noted whenever Mr. Pickering was around the West course smelled something like a Scotch whiskey brewery.
Those were the days, Boy! Is it any wonder they created such wonderful and imaginative architecture?
TE
I'm glad to see you are still checking and looking for additional info....but I'm still wondering why you ignored the information you had already collected in favor of a clearly inaccurate myth.
-
Tom MacWood,
You've saved quotes of Wayne's and Tom's from over 5 years ago??
Cue the "Psycho" music!!
Glad this isn't a personal vendetta... ::)
-
Mike
Are you familiar with the search engine? You can find past posts rather easily. As an example if you entered Marrucci and Merion and Fazio what do you think you would find...my have times changed.
-
"TE
As usual you are good at personal insults not so good at backing up your claims."
Mr. MacWood:
The time has unfortunately come again when you very much deserve to be insulted for your participation on here with this garbage of yours.
If you'd like to see some holes on a course that go through depressions and play up to high and raised greens perhaps you should take the time to visit MYOPIA for the first fucking time in your life! :P
I think we are back to that point with you where some of us will need to follow you everywhere you go on this website and explain how wrong your opinions really are. I feel the integrity of the history of golf architecture essentially demands that we do that.
Mike
Speaking of personal vendettas....what do you make of this?
-
I think it's the frustration that many of us feel with this endless misleading speculation, the constant pointless arguments and refusal to grant even the most basic facts as reality.
Yesterday I posted the most basic, declarative post related to Cobb's Creek stating how the term "Laid Out" referred to design of the course because the same sentence stated that work would begin in the spring.
Your compadre refused to even make that simple, basic, admission.
Your continued insistence that some fragment of a Barker routing MUST have gone forward despite no evidence of that whatsoever and much evidence to the contrary is similarly just bafflingly irrational and seemingly agenda-driven and obstinately contentious.
The fact that you would implicity contend that Hugh WIlson and his Committee and the rest of the in the know Merion members at the time completely STOLE Barker's routing is an insult to the entire club. The fact that you implicity contend that they also didn't appropriately credit Macdonald & Whigham for their "design" work is a similar insult. The fact that you basically accuse ALan Wilson of lying is insulting on every level.
I can see why people get pissed because I share their frustration trying to actually have dialogue with you guys.
-
Mr. MacWood:
That post of mine you quoted is not a personal vendetta at all, it is accepting a very important responsibility towards the integrity of the history of golf course architecture and particularly the integrity of the history of a few very important American courses and clubs and of the impressive men from those clubs that had to do with them.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Thank you for that quotation in your post #605 from four years or so ago. I can't imagine why I haven't won more literary awards and kudos than I already have for my glorious satire. Things like that are definitely inspired by the ridiculous impression and opinion you and your protege have of Hugh Wilson and the rest of the Merion people from back then and what they WERE NOT capable of accomplishing. Frankly, I've always suspected iconoclasts of the type and degree that you two are. I think the most interesting thing to do is to figure out why it is that you two have such massive chips on your shoulder, as well as what those massive chips are! ;)
-
TE
In a perverted way your attempts to stiffle discovery and criticize have actually led to some of the most dramatic discoveries. So I would have to agree with you, you serve a very important role and your involvement has been a great benefit.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Thank you, THANK YOU, thank you very much. It's really quite amazing the important things I've discovered during my time and deep research into the world of golf course architecture, isn't it? But the important and noble mission of snuffing out revisionism in the history of golf architecture is never really done, particularly when you two backward Indians are still around.
-
"The fact that you would implicity contend that Hugh WIlson and his Committee and the rest of the in the know Merion members at the time completely STOLE Barker's routing is an insult to the entire club. The fact that you implicity contend that they also didn't appropriately credit Macdonald & Whigham for their "design" work is a similar insult. The fact that you basically accuse ALan Wilson of lying is insulting on every level.
I can see why people get pissed because I share their frustration trying to actually have dialogue with you guys."
MikeC:
That is the absolute essence of this on-going Merion thing. I think you should run the above on here every day until the entire INTERNET world of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com gets that picture, as it's the truth and it's what this whole thing is about. We had hope but this website took a real turn for the worse when those two came back on here with that ludicrous Merion Essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion". ::)
-
Mr. MacWood:
What happened to your supposition that there is some evidence out there that Lloyd had a part in that "syndicate"? Have you suddenly gotten cold feet about something or do you figure your lack of understanding of it will be embarrassing to you and your opinion of yourself that you are some "expert researcher? ;)
-
"The fact that you would implicity contend that Hugh WIlson and his Committee and the rest of the in the know Merion members at the time completely STOLE Barker's routing is an insult to the entire club. The fact that you implicity contend that they also didn't appropriately credit Macdonald & Whigham for their "design" work is a similar insult. The fact that you basically accuse ALan Wilson of lying is insulting on every level.
I can see why people get pissed because I share their frustration trying to actually have dialogue with you guys."
MikeC:
That is the absolute essence of this on-going Merion thing. I think you should run the above on here every day until the entire INTERNET world of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com gets that picture, as it's the truth and it's what this whole thing is about. We had hope but this website took a real turn for the worse when those two came back on here with that ludicrous Merion Essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion". ::)
Tom,
It really is, isn't it?
That and their complete refusal to even acknowledge the most basic facts when they don't suit their "theories".
This is the Philadelphia Inquirer report from early 1915 that I quoted the other day;
"Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses, George Klauder, one of the constructors of the Aronimink course, and Ab Smith, who had done a lot for the Huntingdon Valley course, have laid out the course in Cobb's Creek park and work begins in early spring. There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."
Mike Cirba:
David,
Would you agree that in the case above "laid out" clearly means "planned", "Designed", and "architected"?
At the point this was written, not a single stone was overturned in terms of constructing the course.
David Moriarty:
I don't know enough about the details of the courses to say.
I do still believe that David could pass a 3rd grade reading comprehension test, which is about the level of the sentence above, so I have to believe he's simply being....
-
Tom MacWood. Don't you get it? It is not a personal vendetta, it is a very important personal vendetta.
_________________________________
Mike Cirba. For the life of me I cannot figure out what you are talking about. I do not know what "laid out" meant in that quote, and you do not know for a fact either. Had they staked out hole locations? Had they a written plan? I have no idea, nor am I going to speculate based on your opinion. If I did have an idea it would not be an "admission" but an "opinion" based on limited information.
If you ask me whether I think Hugh Wilson was involved in the planning at this point, I'd say yes. But again I do not know the history of the course too well. If you ask me whether the term "laid out" sometimes included a planning component, I'd say yes.
But do I know whether the term meant to design, to plan, to architect in that quote? No I don't.
If you are frustrated by this, I cannot help you. Perhaps if you asked questions that do not require "admissions" of your speculation you might be more satisfied with the answer.
-
Mike
You are sounding a bit paranoid. If you paid a little more attention you would see I have questioned and/or corrected the architectural attribution of scores of courses: Bethpage, Myopia, San Francisco, GCGC, NGLA, St. Andrews-Old, St. Andrews-New, Columbus CC, Addington-Old, Olympia Fields-South, Rye, Quaker Ridge, Muirfield, Dornoch, Brora, Lahinch, Cruden Bay, County Down, Worlington, etc.
Tom
If you take out the "and/or corrected" out of the above statement, it would be far closer to the truth. ;)
Rich
-
Richard the Magnificent:
That is priceless, and of course very true.
-
David,
You're the person who claimed in your essay that all of the early accounts of Hugh Wilson having "laid out" Merion meant that he had simply CONSTRUCTED it to someone else's plans. You know quite well the distinction I'm drawing here just as you know quite well that the author meant planned as well.
I know you're a smart guy but I also know you're a disengenuous one when you deny the obvious.
-
David,
You're the person who claimed in your essay that all of the early accounts of Hugh Wilson having "laid out" Merion meant that he had simply CONSTRUCTED it to someone else's plans. You know quite well the distinction I'm drawing here just as you know quite well that the author meant planned as well.
I know you're a smart guy but I also know you're a disengenuous one when you deny the obvious.
Mike, I tried to understand the terminology as best I could. As I have said, "lay out" is tricky and is somewhere between plan and construct, and is often used inconsistently and with some confusion.
As for your continued accusations about my intentions and whether or not I am being genuine, this says much more about you than me.
-
Mike, I tried to understand the terminology as best I could. As I have said, "lay out" is tricky and is somewhere between plan and construct, and is often used inconsistently and with some confusion.
As for your continued accusations about my intentions and whether or not I am being genuine, this says much more about you than me.
David,
If construction hadn't started yet (the article states it will start in early spring), then wouldn't "have laid out" in the past tense HAVE to refer to prior planning or architecting?
As to the tone of your posts, I can't tell you with 100% certainty or absolute proof that I'm alive and breathing but at some point I have to just act on obvious common sense.
-
It could have referred to the planning, but it also could have referred to staking out the course and its features either with or without a written plan. I cannot say definitively what he meant. You demand I see it your way for rhetorical purposes, yet you attack my intentions?
My "tone" is to answer honestly as best I can. But I am growing quite tired of doing so only to have you flip out about my intentions every few posts. Good grief.
-
It could have referred to the planning, but it also could have referred to staking out the course and its features either with or without a written plan. I cannot say definitively what he meant. You demand I see it your way for rhetorical purposes, yet you attack my intentions?
David,
I didn't ask you to parse or differentiate between the architectural/design/planning activities of "staking out the course", "planning", and/or "with or without a written plan".
I asked you to define how "laid out" is used in the quote;
It's either a planning (architectural) activity or a construction activity.
Either or.
Black or White.
Yes or No.
There is no safe, murky, squishy middle ground.
Why is this a difficult or complex question??
-
MikeC:
The way MCC and the Wilson Committee used the term "laid out" in their 1911 planning for the Merion East course there is no way at all it could mean construction. It had to mean designing by staking and such on the ground or on a paper plan or both for completely obvious timeline reasons.
Some of those guys could be sort of quaint with the terms they used because the president of MCC from time to time tended to refer to the laying out of the course as the "laying off" of the course. ;)
It certainly would be very cool if we could find the plan of the Wilson Committee that was approved and built (the maddening thing is the report submitted to the board mentions that plan was attached to it and it even seems like you can see where it was but it's gone now). But what would really be cool is to also be able to find and analyze all the other plans the Wilson Committee did for Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911. What if one or some of them seemed even better? ;)
Actually I did find one of them and it had some of the most amazing and challenging holes you ever saw but unfortunately on the bottom of it was a note that said:
"Ooops, sorry, even though I think I have found the most interesting and challenging holes and layout on the property, when I counted them up I see there are only sixteen of them. A regulation golf course is eighteen holes, right? If none of you fellows know the answer to that would one of you mind calling up Charlie and asking him if he knows?"
Hugh "The Novice" Wilson
-
Kirk Gill
Full Member
Offline
Posts: 980
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #574 on: Yesterday at 10:47:35 pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Tom MacWood on Yesterday at 10:20:35 pm
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.
"Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?"
Kirk:
I feel pretty strongly that all Alan Wilson meant in his report by the fact that Merion did not use an "architect" and that their courses were "home-made", only had to do with the fact that Merion did not hire or use a professional in the design of their courses in 1911-1913 (East and West courses).
If you'd like to know why I think they didn't I'd be happy to tell you but one thing you should know is MCC felt the club and its membership was probably the best representation of the concept and ethos of the true "amateur" or "amateur/sportsman" in the nation. They felt very strongly that was their essence and theme.
We can prove that to you by putting on here a speech given in 1915 by Edward Sayers, the long time secretary and then president of the club on the fiftieth anniversary of the club. A part of it speaks directly to this very issue. Apparently the club thought so much of his speech they asked him to publish it and we have it.
I think it says most everything we need to know about why they turned to Macdonald and Whigam, a couple of "amateurs" and "amateur/sportsmen" of the highest order who were just like them.
-
"TE
I never mentioned MCC. There is no evidence HDC (Connell, Lloyd, Hutson, Atterbury, Filton, etc) were disatisfied with Barker. They brought in Barker and Macdonald because they were the cream of the crop.
Richard Francis is pretty clear on what his contribution was...and when there became an issue relating to HDC who did he immediately call?
Obviously Alan Wilson did not consider M&W architects, although I reckon they themselves would have disagreed with him. Alan Wilson was not involved in the project. His report is second hand and came years after the fact.
If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?"
Mr. MacWood:
Would you like to discuss these items and questions of yours or would you rather ignore them? You did say you thought there was some evidence out there that Lloyd was part of the syndicate. Do you want to tell me what you know or think about that and hear what I know and think about it?
Oh how about you, Mr. Moriarty? Would you like to discuss those items in a calm and logical manner or would you rather ignore them?
-
It could have referred to the planning, but it also could have referred to staking out the course and its features either with or without a written plan. I cannot say definitively what he meant. You demand I see it your way for rhetorical purposes, yet you attack my intentions?
David,
I didn't ask you to parse or differentiate between the architectural/design/planning activities of "staking out the course", "planning", and/or "with or without a written plan".
I asked you to define how "laid out" is used in the quote;
It's either a planning (architectural) activity or a construction activity.
Either or.
Black or White.
Yes or No.
There is no safe, murky, squishy middle ground.
Why is this a difficult or complex question??
There you go again. Not only demanding an answer, but making the question multiple choice with the correct one missing.
I don't know what the author meant. It is far from black and white. Here is how I explained it to Peter a week or so ago . . .
Peter,
First, I am not equating "laying out" a golf course with "constructing" a golf course. There are three overlapping but sometimes distinct concepts: Planning, laying out, and constructing. It is a bit confusing, I am not sure I totally understand it, and am pretty sure that often-times those recording these things were still figuring out how to use the terminology. Nonetheless, here is a quick and dirty, over-generalized, and oversimplified explanation, looking at the evolution historically:
Once upon a time, golf links were just "laid out." Some shepherd walked around the dunes, found some good grass, and put a hole in the ground, walked for a while, found another good chunk of grass, put another hole, etc. He simply laid the course out on the ground. Any "planning" that took place was part of the laying out. Same goes for the "constructing," which might not have amounted to anything other than digging holes.
With the advent of man-made hazards and artificially leveled and/or contoured greens, the need for constructing arose. With the game spreading around the globe to those without much experience with the game, the need for planning a golf course arose. Somewhere in between was the concept of "laying the course out on the ground." Sometimes part of planning, sometimes part of constructing, sometimes neither.
Early on in this transition, before the planners were doing detailed plans or putting much of anything on paper, it seems like their contribution was easy to minimize or totally ignore. The people getting their hands dirty are not mentioned much either. It seems like the person in the middle, the one taking the planners advice and telling the builders what to build are the ones who got the most credit, usually for laying out the course.
I am sure it will not satisfy you, but it is the best I can do based on what I have read.
-
David,
Thank you for that thoughtful answer.
I understand the distinctions you are drawing, but would add something to that.
From my perspective, the person who does the "planning" is the architect, whether in your example that person is the original primitive linksman who walked around the dunes without any plan and just "laid out" holes, or someone sitting at a drafting board or CAD program with a topographical map or whatever, even if like Donald Ross at times they are simply mailing it in remotely.
Yet, as you alluded, there are really two parts to the architectural process, aren't there? There is the routing of the holes along the land and then there is the planning and creation of any man-made features, whether they be bunkers, mounds, ponds, or other earth-moving tasks that are intended to make the routed holes more interesting and/or challenging.
Technically, as in the examples like Stonewall I provided the other day, I believe that it's possible for one person to plan the routing and one person to plan the interior hole features; in fact, I'm betting it happens a lot more than we realize.
In that example, I'd provide co-credit to both, although again using Stonewall as an example, I'd claim it's a Tom Doak course primarily because he created the features, the green designs, the strategies, and altered the routing where feasible and desirable to achieve a better course. I think he'd agree and I also think he'd be honest enough to say that Fazio deserved more credit for creating the initial routing if he really believed that.
The lines get blurrier beyond that, especially with the example of a team like Doaks where guys like Jim Urbina and others have latitude in the field to try different things. Yet, even in that example, I'd still credit the principal architect, because ultimately they are the ones signing off on the design and on the construction. Thus, even though I'd bet that Fred Pickering added some touches and creative flourishes based in his years in construction, I still wouldn't credit him as some type of co-architect of Merion.
Instead, I think due credit there should be given to 1) whoever created the routing, and 2) whoever was responsible for designing the internal hole features.
I know we strongly disagree on who that first person(s) was in the case of Merion, and we also probably disagree on the second.
In either case, just so we can get on the same page and possibly a better understanding, I wanted to make sure that your thoughtful answer received one in kind.
I guess to summarize, I would still break it out simply between design and construction, even recognizing the various permutations and venues I've just outlined.
To
-
MikeC:
Nice to see things have gotten kind and considerate again but on this subject of "laying out" or whatever, I hope the essayist isn't still trying to convince you that in the case of Merion East the term "laying out" only meant constructing because that very clearly was not the case.
When the term "laying out" was used by various people it just meant what they meant---it was definitely not some standardized agreed upon terminology back then.
And I should remind you that the essayist did say in his essay that Wilson and committee did not design Merion East, they only constructed the course to someone else's plan. I can quote that from the essay but the fact is that seminal conclusion in the essay isn't even close to the truth.
-
Tom,
I understand what you're saying and I haven't deviated from my understanding but it does appear to me that that David has deviated from his when he says that he now believes that Hugh Wilson was involved in the "planning" of the course, which we all know is much different than simply "constructing".
-
Mike Cirba,
You can't equate the highly structured process that exists today with how things were done at the begining of the 1900's.
There simply wasn't the clearly defined, compartmentalized, divisions of labor.
The involvement of interested parties in the process of creating a golf course was more akin to the "jack of all trades" concept.
-
"I understand what you're saying and I haven't deviated from my understanding but it does appear to me that that David has deviated from his when he says that he now believes that Hugh Wilson was involved in the "planning" of the course, which we all know is much different than simply "constructing"."
Really?
I haven't followed the recent discussion between you two--I guess just the tail end of it. But if he's deviating from his essay on that point then that's a good thing. I'm afraid he will need to do that on numerous points to do with Merion if he ever really wants to get to the truth of what happened there in 1910 and 1911 and eventually understand it. But for him to get to that point I'm sure it will be a long and argumentative road ahead if we can judge from the past. I hope I'm wrong about that.
-
Get out of here, Patrick, we are about six steps ahead and totally around the corner from you on that now!
The ironic thing is all these points were made over and over again in years past on these subjects, and they are all in the back pages. The problem was the other side just constantly ignored, dismissed or rationalized them away back then. Maybe this time they won't. But the funniest thing of all is I expect them next to actually say they thought of them in the first place.
This goes to the heart of what a great teacher is all about and it represents our own relationship on golf course architecture. I've been such a good teacher you actually think you thought of these things yourself. It's sort of like being a great psychoanalyst. I don't get any credit, but that's OK, in the end it's actually quite gratifying to see all my little chickens think the right and the good thoughts on GCA.
-
What about it Mr. MacWood, do you want to talk about Lloyd and his relationship with HDC? You're the one who brought it up.
-
If you ask me whether I think Hugh Wilson was involved in the planning at this point, I'd say yes. But again I do not know the history of the course too well. If you ask me whether the term "laid out" sometimes included a planning component, I'd say yes.
But do I know whether the term meant to design, to plan, to architect in that quote? No I don't.
If you are frustrated by this, I cannot help you. Perhaps if you asked questions that do not require "admissions" of your speculation you might be more satisfied with the answer.
Oopps....
Tom Paul,
I went back to find where I had read that and realized that I'm wrong.
I think David has modified his view that Hugh Wilson was probably involved in the "planning" of Cobb's Creek, not Merion.
Mea Culpa.
Oh well..maybe someday.
-
"Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?"
Kirk:
I feel pretty strongly that all Alan Wilson meant in his report by the fact that Merion did not use an "architect" and that their courses were "home-made", only had to do with the fact that Merion did not hire or use a professional in the design of their courses in 1911-1913 (East and West courses).
Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?
I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from.
-
"Mea Culpa.
Oh well..maybe someday."
Maybe so, MikeyC. Don't worry about it. Everytime he comes on here and maintains these insulting and preposterous things about Merion I will be here to deny them. His revisionist history of Merion will never see the light of day on its own as our factual denials will always be right behind it. ;)
Maybe the essayist and Mr. MacWood can eventually concentrate on being the world's best revisionist experts on H.H. Barker. I don't really care about that!
-
Tom,
Based on the MCC Meeting Minutes, I thought I should re-post this Tillinghast article Joe Bausch found some months back.
Similar to Alan Wilson's letter, it refers to the "plans". Please notice the last paragraph.
I have to wonder if Tillinghast was there as well, as they went over the final options drafted by the Committee, and as they selected the best one? Certainly, I can't imagine any other reason he'd use the plural and not simply say that he's seen the (singular) plan for the new course otherwise.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2407852194_87a6338e63_o.jpg)
-
"Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?
I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from."
Kirk:
I believe I completely understand your question as I think you're asking it and mean it.
IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion than history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ?
In my opinion, of course he would have Kirk. The reason I say that is I don't believe either Hugh or Alan Wilson were using that term "architect" to mean that Macdonald did not understand architecture or did not have architectural talent. I think all Alan Wilson meant by his statement that MCC did not use an architect was that they did not use a PROFESSIONAL who they had to pay. To me all Alan Wilson meant by "architect" was a professional who charged for his architectural services. And that's probably exactly why the MCC Search Commitee report to the MCC board actually mentioned that Barker was on Connell's (a real estate developer who had nothing to do with their club) ACCOUNT and was not paid for by them.
But he most certainly did follow that statement up with the remark that Merion East and West were "homemade". By that, in my opinion, he didn't mean to say that the "amateur/sportsmen" architects (nonprofessionals) Macdonald/Whigam actually routed and designed Merion East, he meant they did those course's routings and designs themselves with Wilson and his committee. That's what the MCC minutes were talking about with all their "plans".
All the rest that he and Hugh said about Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions to MCC for which they roundly thanked them, was basically only about a day at Ardmore in June 1910, a day and a half at NGLA during which Macdonald/Whigam basically showed them all the NGLA plans from abroad and the next day how to do it themselves by showing them what they'd done at NGLA. Would they've been grateful for just that as they said they were in their reports? Damn right they would have been!
Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.
If one is looking at the word "architect" the way we think of it today would Alan Wilson have called Macdonald an architect? Of course he would have but Alan Wilson did not live today, he lived back then, and what he meant by "architect" was a professional and Macdonald/Whigam were not professionals, that's for damn sure.
Did MCC think Macdonald had more architectural talent than Barker? They probably did or else why would they turn to Macdonald for his advice instead of Barker? Does anyone really think it had something to do with saving money? Are you kidding? These people were some of the most powerful and well-heeled people in America.
At that time people like that who were really interested in doing really good course did not see anything out there by a professional who was much good so they turned to Charlie who they knew was doing something HIMSELF (and with a committee) at NGLA and they decided to do it themselves like he was.
The problem with people like Moriarty and MacWood is they've never spent even 2-4 days on a site being trained in the principles of architecture by someone who really understands architecture and its fundamental principles.
Well, I have and I can clearly understand exactly what Wilson and his committee did over those four or so days over near a year's span from June 1910 to April 1911 with Macdonald/Whigam during three visits over about four days. Then they did it themselves just like the history of the course has always explained. Could Macdonald have done all that over app four days that the Wilson committee did over a perios of months? I doubt that . Would they have even tried to do something like that in that short time? I doubt that too. The point is MCC didn't ask them to do that and they didn't and didn't offer.
And why would Charlie? He had plenty to worry about at that time trying to figure out the agronomy of his course and get it open for general play about a year or two late.
-
"Mea Culpa.
Oh well..maybe someday."
Maybe so, MikeyC. Don't worry about it. Everytime he comes on here and maintains these insulting and preposterous things about Merion I will be here to deny them. His revisionist history of Merion will never see the light of day on its own as our factual denials will always be right behind it. ;)
Maybe the essayist and Mr. MacWood can eventually concentrate on being the world's best revisionist experts on H.H. Barker. I don't really care about that!
TE
Instead of the personal snipes why don't you add something of substance to this thread. David has not insulted Merion, and I'm sure they can take care of themselves, and I doubt they would approve of your personal insults.
Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?
-
"Is it that Mr. Wilson didn't consider M&W to be architects, or that he didn't consider that the nature of their contribution was such that they were "used" in the way he meant? Just a possibility. What possible reason would Mr. Wilson have to diminish the accompishments of Macdonald? Was there an animosity there?"
Kirk:
I feel pretty strongly that all Alan Wilson meant in his report by the fact that Merion did not use an "architect" and that their courses were "home-made", only had to do with the fact that Merion did not hire or use a professional in the design of their courses in 1911-1913 (East and West courses).
Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?
I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from.
Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?
-
"Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?"
Mr. MacWood:
I'll try to ignore your first paragraph but I do know Merion, you don't and either does your self possessed protege, and I do know what they think of you two and it ain't that pretty.
NOW, do you want to have a legitimate discussion about Lloyd and HDC?
I did not say that Lloyd's connection to HDC was common knowledge. But I believe I've learned a whole lot more about what he was doing and particularly WHEN and WHY.
Would you like to explain it to me so both I and this website can see what you know since you constantly try to come across as some "expert" researcher or am I going to have to teach you something else significant about Merion's early history---AGAIN?
To your second question, I object to that article because Lloyd did not have the property inspected by Barker--Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC did. The MCC Search Committee's report to the MCC board makes that crystal clear. Perhaps you should try reading it sometime and even you might figure out what it says and means. ;)
Is there anything else you'd like to learn about Lloyd's relationship with HDC and WHEN and WHY because it's very clear you've never known or understood much about it, what it meant to MCC and its relevence to the design of Merion East and particularly who did it?
-
"Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?"
Kirk:
Go for an answer to that question if you want to--if not speak with me about it. As to what Alan Wilson said about the original creation of the East course in 1911 and the West course in 1913 Mr MacWood's question about William Flynn who was their foreman and greenskeeper probably beginning around 1913 is remarkably stupid, as usual. Perhaps, the expert reseacher from Ohio thinks Wilson and his committee manned shovels, constructed the course and planted the grass on it and maintained their golf courses all by themselves! Nothing these two say on here surprises me anymore!
-
"Tom, I guess what I'm trying to glean from Wilson's quote is, IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion that history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ? Basically, did Wilson consider Macdonald to be an architect? Or would he have considered M&W to be members of the amateur sportsman category? The quote seems to specifically discount Barker's involvement, but what about M&W ?
I'm not trying to make any case for anything in particular, I'm just trying to understand Wilson, and where he was coming from."
Kirk:
I believe I completely understand your question as I think you're asking it and mean it.
IF Macdonald had a significantly larger role in the design of Merion than history has previously ascribed to him, and if Wilson knew it and acknowledged it, would he still have said "It is important to state that MCC did not use an architect" ?
In my opinion, of course he would have Kirk. The reason I say that is I don't believe either Hugh or Alan Wilson were using that term "architect" to mean that Macdonald did not understand architecture or did not have architectural talent. I think all Alan Wilson meant by his statement that MCC did not use an architect was that they did not use a PROFESSIONAL who they had to pay. To me all Alan Wilson meant by "architect" was a professional who charged for his architectural services. And that's probably exactly why the MCC Search Commitee report to the MCC board actually mentioned that Barker was on Connell's (a real estate developer who had nothing to do with their club) ACCOUNT and was not paid for by them.
The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed.
But he most certainly did follow that statement up with the remark that Merion East and West were "homemade". By that, in my opinion, he didn't mean to say that the "amateur/sportsmen" architects (nonprofessionals) Macdonald/Whigam actually routed and designed Merion East, he meant they did those course's routings and designs themselves with Wilson and his committee. That's what the MCC minutes were talking about with all their "plans".
Allan Wilson's account is very vague. He does not get into routing or any other architectural details. Its also clear he did not have first hand information. Trying pick apart and analyze his every word is a waste of time.
All the rest that he and Hugh said about Macdonald/Whigam's advice and suggestions to MCC for which they roundly thanked them, was basically only about a day at Ardmore in June 1910, a day and a half at NGLA during which Macdonald/Whigam basically showed them all the NGLA plans from abroad and the next day how to do it themselves by showing them what they'd done at NGLA. Would they've been grateful for just that as they said they were in their reports? Damn right they would have been!
Interesting speculation.
Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.
What about Wilson's visit or visits to Southampton?
If one is looking at the word "architect" the way we think of it today would Alan Wilson have called Macdonald an architect? Of course he would have but Alan Wilson did not live today, he lived back then, and what he meant by "architect" was a professional and Macdonald/Whigam were not professionals, that's for damn sure.
Did MCC think Macdonald had more architectural talent than Barker? They probably did or else why would they turn to Macdonald for his advice instead of Barker? Does anyone really think it had something to do with saving money? Are you kidding? These people were some of the most powerful and well-heeled people in America.
I would agree Macdonald was the more prominent architect...though thats no slight on Barker. Since the project was closely related to a real estate venture and the membership was being asked to fork over some serious cash to move, do you think there was there any consideration given to having a big name architect associated with the project?
At that time people like that who were really interested in doing really good course did not see anything out there by a professional who was much good so they turned to Charlie who they knew was doing something HIMSELF (and with a committee) at NGLA and they decided to do it themselves like he was.
With that being said do you think they would have been easy selling those involved that Wilson was the right man for the job? How would you sell the membership on Wilson?
The problem with people like Moriarty and MacWood is they've never spent even 2-4 days on a site being trained in the principles of architecture by someone who really understands architecture and its fundamental principles.
Are you certain of the that?
Well, I have and I can clearly understand exactly what Wilson and his committee did over those four or so days over near a year's span from June 1910 to April 1911 with Macdonald/Whigam during three visits over about four days. Then they did it themselves just like the history of the course has always explained. Could Macdonald have done all that over app four days that the Wilson committee did over a perios of months? I doubt that . Would they have even tried to do something like that in that short time? I doubt that too. The point is MCC didn't ask them to do that and they didn't and didn't offer.
Wow...you have a vivid imagination.
And why would Charlie? He had plenty to worry about at that time trying to figure out the agronomy of his course and get it open for general play about a year or two late.
How many trips did Macdonald and/or Whigham make to Philadelphia between 1910 and 1912?
-
"The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed."
That's right Mr. MacWood, and that was fifteen years after the period and events Alan Wilson was talking about and Kirk Gill is asking me about! Isn't this exactly why so many of us have to worry about how dense you are and how incapable you are of having an intelligent discussion on here?
Jeesus Christ, Man, get with it, get with us in these discussions or go get yourself some mental help.
-
"Didn't you say Lloyd's connection was common knowledge? If you knew Lloyd was part of HDC in 1910 why did you object to the Inquirer article which stated he had the property inspected by Barker & CBM?"
Mr. MacWood:
I'll try to ignore your first paragraph but I do know Merion, you don't and either does your self possessed protege, and I do know what they think of you two and it ain't that pretty.
NOW, do you want to have a legitimate discussion about Lloyd and HDC?
I did not say that Lloyd's connection to HDC was common knowledge. But I believe I've learned a whole lot more about what he was doing and particularly WHEN and WHY.
Would you like to explain it to me so both I and this website can see what you know since you constantly try to come across as some "expert" researcher or am I going to have to teach you something else significant about Merion's early history---AGAIN?
To your second question, I object to that article because Lloyd did not have the property inspected by Barker--Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC did. The MCC Search Committee's report to the MCC board makes that crystal clear. Perhaps you should try reading it sometime and even you might figure out what it says and means. ;)
Is there anything else you'd like to learn about Lloyd's relationship with HDC and WHEN and WHY because it's very clear you've never known or understood much about it, what it meant to MCC and its relevence to the design of Merion East and particularly who did it?
TE
If Connell and Lloyd are both associated with HDC, and Connell has no golfing knowledge, why do you doubt the article stating Lloyd had the property inspected by Baker & Macdonald. The article appears to be completely accurate on every other fact.
I'm sure you know more about HDC that I do. Does that make you feel better?
-
"Kirk
What do you make of Allan Wilson's explanation of where his information came from? Does Allan Wilson's account discount William Flynn's involvement?"
Kirk:
Go for an answer to that question if you want to--if not speak with me about it. As to what Alan Wilson said about the original creation of the East course in 1911 and the West course in 1913 Mr MacWood's question about William Flynn who was their foreman and greenskeeper probably beginning around 1913 is remarkably stupid, as usual. Perhaps, the expert reseacher from Ohio thinks Wilson and his committee manned shovels, constructed the course and planted the grass on it and maintained their golf courses all by themselves! Nothing these two say on here surprises me anymore!
I'm sorry I was still thinking about yours and Wayne's earlier posts. Doesn't A.Wilson discuss the West and also mention Hugh Alison?
-
"The Merion of 1926 was much different than the Merion of 1911. Wilson and Flynn had made significant changes to the course. The prototypical Macdonald features had been removed."
That's right Mr. MacWood, and that was fifteen years after the period and events Alan Wilson was talking about and Kirk Gill is asking me about! Isn't this exactly why so many of us have to worry about how dense you are and how incapable you are of having an intelligent discussion on here? The rest of your red responses aren't even worth a consideration much less a response.
But I do want to see you talk to me about Lloyd and HDC. I want this website to actually see how little you know about a club and course you are questioning the history of.
Talk to me about what you know about Lloyd and HDC. Do you have the guts to do that Mr. MacWood? I'm betting you don't. I'm betting you'll weasel out of it by ignoring it or asking some more wholly irrelevent questions to deflect the subject, as you usually do on here. ;)
-
"I'm sure you know more about HDC that I do. Does that make you feel better?"
Not at all, and that's not the point. THE POINT IS If YOU are going to question us and then criticize us constantly for what we say in response you better fucking well get with the program and figure out as much or more than we have years ago or just give it up, Skeebo.
This is the essence of your problem and your total lack of contribution to these Merion threads and consequently to this website. This is precisely why people like you and Moriarty are not only a complete waste of everyone's time on these Merion threads but you are a real net negative to these golf courses', like Merion's histories.
-
Mike Cirba,
1. I don't think one can cleanly split the process into two parts. It all depended upon the circumstance. While questions of attribution are generally secondary to me, the same goes there. And while you may want to break it out into design and construction, what matters is how they "broke it out" at the time, and they did not simply break it out into design and construction.
2. I did not switch my position on Hugh Wilson's involvement at Cobb's Creek. It seems like he was probably involved in the design process. I don't recall ever writing otherwise. I think perhaps you read way to much into my words.
3. Likewise, I don't have to switch my position on Wilson at Merion. While accepted lore has Wilson visiting NGLA for travel advice, my essay has him "working out the particulars of the plan" with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. " Working out the particulars of the plan' sounds like involvement to me, and sounds pretty accurate based on the information I had and have.
4. The last paragraph in the article you just posted is quoted verbatim in my essay. I find it strange that you keep introducing these articles into the discussion as if they shed some new light on the subject.
____________________________________
Kirk,
As I said in my post above (that has been buried under a couple pages already), I cannot imagine that Alan Wilson was thinking of Barker when he wrote what he did in 1926. Barker had not been mentioned for a very long time. Plus, I have seen no evidence that Alan Wilson was at all involved with the early planning, so he may not even have known who Barker was.
If anyone, Alan Wilson was most likely concerned with Flynn. Flynn was around in 1926, and as I said, at least one detailed Merion drawing was published in 1926 that said "Plan by William S. Flynn, Golf Course Architect."
Same logic applies to Tillinghast's article 8 years later.
_____________________________________
Tom Paul,
Your latest round of insults directed at Tom Macwood are completely out of line. They would be in any situation, but are especially so here because you are the one who seems a bit confused, not MacWood.
While we may now be getting a better idea of when Flynn first started at Merion, it was very much confused until very recently (and still may be.) I recall reading somewhere that Wayne credited Flynn as codesigner of Merion West. Also, according to Merion's history, Flynn supervised the construction and had been a groundskeeper with the Cricket Club and the first groundskeeper at Merion East.
So it is not Tom MacWood who is confused about Flynn. It was Merion itself, and you and Wayne. Given that Merion Lore has him there since before the course started, and given that even you guys had him co-designing the West, it is would have been entirely reasonable for Alan Wilson to worry that Flynn would take spotlight that was rightfully Hugh's.
In fact it looks to me as if Alan Wilson was pretty prophetic and had reason to be concerned, at least over the long hall. I havent read the Flynn manuscript, but isn't this exactly what you and Wayne have done at Merion? Shift the spotlight from Hugh to Flynn?
No wonder Alan Wilson and later Tillinghast where coming to Hugh Wilson's defense!
_________________
Lastly, Tom, before you get too far aflutter with your attacks on MacWood regarding HDC, you may want to recall some of the positions you took on over the past few months. Also, you might want to recall where you first learned much of what you now are trying to use to support your personal shots at Tom MacWood.
-
Mr. Moriarty:
Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.
Mr. MacWood:
Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?
-
Mr. Moriarty:
Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.
Insults? I did not intend any. As for statement that you are not interested in insults day in and day out, your posts tell a different story.
Mr. MacWood:
Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?
Are you really planning to try and one-up Tom MacWood using information and analysis that you and Wayne first learned from me?
-
Mr. Moriarty:
Your post isn't worth a response and I doubt many, if any, will be in the future unless someone is interested in the subject of insults day in and day out. I sure do know I'm not. Essentially, you've marginalized yourself with most everyone and certainly with me. Just keep prattling on---maybe you can just entertain yourself all by yourself with your stupid posts. Why don't you just write them and respond to yourself? My suggestion would be that everyone just ignore you. God knows Merion has.
Mr. MacWood:
Do you want to get into an educational discussion about Lloyd and HDC and WHEN he took control of it and WHY and what it all meant to the creation of Merion East and who did it and when or don't you?
TE
You are bizarre. What is up with prefacing all your posts with would you like to discuss, are you ready to discuss, would you like to learn something... This is a discusion group, we discuss and we give information. If you have something to discuss or share, do it. No need to play games. I've already said I'm sure you know more about the subject than I do.
-
Mike Cirba,
1. I don't think one can cleanly split the process into two parts. It all depended upon the circumstance. While questions of attribution are generally secondary to me, the same goes there. And while you may want to break it out into design and construction, what matters is how they "broke it out" at the time, and they did not simply break it out into design and construction.
2. I did not switch my position on Hugh Wilson's involvement at Cobb's Creek. It seems like he was probably involved in the design process. I don't recall ever writing otherwise. I think perhaps you read way to much into my words.
3. Likewise, I don't have to switch my position on Wilson at Merion. While accepted lore has Wilson visiting NGLA for travel advice, my essay has him "working out the particulars of the plan" with Macdonald and Whigham at NGLA. " Working out the particulars of the plan' sounds like involvement to me, and sounds pretty accurate based on the information I had and have.
Tom,
Just a couple of things in response.
1) I was asking about the winter 1915 news quote where it referred to Wilson and others having "have laid out" Cobb's Creek and "work begins in early spring". The project got kicked off in January of that year. Surely without a spade of dirt overturned at that point you'd concede that the writer was using "have laid out" to refer to a planning activity, whether that was on a map, or just staking the land?
2) That was my mistake in reading what you wrote the other day. I saw where you said, "If you asked me if Hugh WIlson was involved in planning activity, I'd have to say yes>", and inferred that you were talking about Merion, not Cobb's Creek.
It's good to see that you now would at least acknowledge that he was involved in planning both courses.
3) Agreed. The MCC minutes discuss more specifically what the Committee did at NGLA but based on everything you knew, that's a valid assessment.
Thanks.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Get on with it then and tell us what you know about Lloyd and HDC that we don't. You said on this thread there is evidence out there somewhere about his part in the syndicate. What is that evidence and how does it pertain to what MCC did with their golf course and the move to Ardmore? You're right this is a discussion group, so discuss Lloyd and his part in the syndicate that you're aware of instead of just mentioning he had some part in the syndicate. Did you think that was a new discovery? We've known that for years.
-
TE
My mistake, as I said I'm sure you know more about HDC than I do.
It pertains to the question I have asked you four times now, which you have ignored. If you knew Lloyd was a part of HDC, why then did you object to the newspaper article that stated Lloyd had the site inspected by Barker and Macdonald? The article appears to be completed accurate with all its facts and figures, and it also contains inside information that could have had only come from one of the principals, like Barker's description/assessment of the site and the precise date HDC got wind Merion had to find a new home, and the details about HDC's immediate reaction to that news, which was securing more land at Haverford.
Did Connell play golf in Philadelphia? As a non-golfer how would he know where to get expert architectural advice.
-
Did the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys get going over the architectural attribution of some course in W Virginia? ;) I don't know my history well enough to know if Wayne-TePaul is the Hatfields, and DM and TMac are the McCoy's or is it the other way around?
I doubt it matters....in the next century (when this feud will still be going, I presume) American history will replace those guys with the famous golf club atlas feud of 1999-3XXX. ;D
Is there anyway the 4 main participants can figure to agree to disagree, not mention Merion here, stop asking questions that are either obvious or already been answered (we need a judge in here - in fact, why not take this to Judge Judy?) and generally tweaking the other party?
Maybe we could simply number the responses.....1 if you mean to say "You're a pompous ass" 2 if you mean "I disagree", 3 if you mean.....etc.
At least the posts would be shortened to something like:
Dear Mr. MacWood,
In response to post 9,394, I say to thee the following:
7,3,11,4, 25 and finally - a big whopping 69!
Sincerely,
TEPaul.
Just a thought over morning coffee........
-
Jeff,
1 + 2
Thanks
Mike. ;)
-
Did the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys get going over the architectural attribution of some course in W Virginia? ;) I don't know my history well enough to know if Wayne-TePaul is the Hatfields, and DM and TMac are the McCoy's or is it the other way around?
Jeff,
It is hard for outsiders to really understand Philly. I mentioned the 1844 Nativism Riots on the other thread but let me fast forward to 2008.
My brother-in-law is from upstate Pennsylvania, went to Villanova and married my sister roughly 25 years ago. By all accounts he is a great guy.
We were playing Hidden Creek last month (you know that course built by Roger Hansen with help from two bozos from Texas ;) ), and he was kidding how he was still hoping to some day be considered a "Philadelphian" but due to the insular nature of the beast he was not betting on it. In summary he stated, "Philadelphia is like West Virginia but with better teeth!"
Hey if Mike Golden is allowed to do Uncle Leo jokes from Seinfeld, then I am allowed to make a few Philly cracks on GCA. :)
NO, NO, NO, Moriarity and MacWood are neither Hatfield's nor McCoy's, they are Outsiders.
-
Mike
I'm an outsider too.
I wouldn't care if M+M were from Ardmore, insularity has nothing to do with this disagreement.
They're just wrong. :;)
-
Mike C,
Priceless.
Mike S,
Thanks for that explanation. Texas is kind of like that. It took me years to get work in the state when I moved here in 1984. Luckily for me, but not for native Texans, a lot more damn Yankees like me started moving here and I got more mainstream.
Back on topic, it does strike me that the only reason the argument goes on is because of the nature of the participants. The closest thing we have had here as an attribution fight is the whole Bethpage-Burbeck thing. While argument was passionate, it died away in slightly longer than the average thread and only resurfaced occaisionally.
This Merion thread reminds me of the end of Blazing Saddles when the movie starts crashing into other sets in the studio! (And you thought I was going to mention the fart scene!!)
Both sides are to blame. DM seems to be trying to be civil. TMac is passive agressive - never actually flipping his lid but always jabbing just under the surface. Wayne is civil, with a few outbursts. TePaul is steadfast in not allowing any mention of Merion going by without response.
The real question is, does any of this matter? As an innocent bystander (and outsider) the facts keep getting churned, and most of what happened is actually not in dispute, but its simply a matter of opinion. Its not that CBM didn't do anything for Merion, its simply a debate about whether he did enough to get more than a slap on the back.
Until someone devises an industry wide system for attribution, and everyone agrees to it, Merion gets the final call on that, although, DM has every right to keep digging, whether an outsider or not. It is a free country.
History is messy business!
-
"If you knew Lloyd was a part of HDC, why then did you object to the newspaper article that stated Lloyd had the site inspected by Barker and Macdonald?"
First, because I do not know if Lloyd had any part in HDC in June 1910 or if he did what the extent of it was at that point. Do you? Lloyd may've spoken to Connell at that point about land for MCC's course but if he had little idea in June 1910 if MCC was interested in that land I wonder why he'd be a part of HDC then. On the other hand, perhaps Lloyd was interested in HDC simply to develop the real estate they held there as a residential development. That may be possible as it seems Lloyd bought the first 25 acres at some point in 1910 of what would be his Allsgate which was accross Coopertown Rd from what was or would be HDC land.
Second, the MCC Search Committee report of June 1910 to the MCC Board mentions H.H. Barker was gotten on the account of Connell, not MCC. If Lloyd had gotten Barker the report probably would have said so as the same report mentions Griscom got Macdonald.
The newspaper article that was written later apparently got this fact wrong and stated Lloyd got Barker when the MCC report says Connell did.
And I have no idea if Connell played golf. If he was a competent real estate developer and he wanted to promote some of his land as a golf course, I'm quite sure he was capable of finding a golf architect. If not he wouldn't be much of a real estate developer, would he? ;) Barker may've even been around Philly at that time as the US Open was shortly to be played in Philadelphia in June 1910.
-
Mike Sweeney:
To show you how some Philadelphians used to be toward outsiders, here is a famous exchange between a great aunt of mine, the indomitable Julia Biddle Henry who was said to be the best dressed woman in the world back then (and who my father used to call Uncle Julia to her constant annoyance).
Aunt Julia had just been introduced by her beautiful daughter Isabel to her new beau (and outsider).
Aunt Julia Henry:
"Where do you come from young man?"
Beau:
"I'm from Syracuse, Mrs. Henry."
Aunt Julia Henry:
"Syracuse? Really? I didn't know anyone actually lived there."
-
Mike Cirba,
I am not sure I have time to elaborate on my response but by your definition, the one who does the planning and draws the hole features is the architect.
If I follow that definition, I would get credit for at least four other golf courses that I routed, preliminarily designed and defined for clients who eventually took those plans, hired someone else, used my plans and put some other architects name on the final product.
This may be a little off your point, but it happens in this business every day.
Any practicing professional golf course architect that has accomplished anything has had this happen to them.
Lester
-
Lester,
By my definition or any reasonable definition I can think of, you clearly SHOULD get design attribution or at least co-design attribution for those courses if they used your plans to build the course.
No question about it!
-
Mike,
I agree I should, but in every one of those cases, I have never even sought collaborative credit because once a client does that, I no longer want to add credibility of my name to the final outcome.
Not trying to sound arrogant, but that is the position I have to take. Maybe I failed to convince the client why I was the right choice, but most of the cases I mentioned were clients who thought they needed a "bigger" name than mine.
In one case, that "bigger" name did not even care enough about his work to do the drawings. The client contracted me to "ghost" design because Mr. Big Name had no time or interest. Sad but true. I took the job knowing I would never get credit, but I know Mr. Big Name always regretted it because the course was very popular with the patrons, raters and media and he knew he didn't deserve the accolades.
Lester
-
Lester,
I won't ask you to name the course, but if you really, really want to tell me (via IM), I won't refuse to read it. ;)
I do understand you wanting to disavow once you have no control of the result or oversight of the particulars, certainly.
-
How about you Mr. Moriarty, are you willing to have a discussion about the details of HDC and Lloyd's part in it at any particular time or are you worried about something to do with the subject as apparently Mr. MacWood is?
-
"If you knew Lloyd was a part of HDC, why then did you object to the newspaper article that stated Lloyd had the site inspected by Barker and Macdonald?"
First, because I do not know if Lloyd had any part in HDC in June 1910 or if he did what the extent of it was at that point. Do you? Lloyd may've spoken to Connell at that point about land for MCC's course but if he had little idea in June 1910 if MCC was interested in that land I wonder why he'd be a part of HDC then. On the other hand, perhaps Lloyd was interested in HDC simply to develop the real estate they held there as a residential development. That may be possible as it seems Lloyd bought the first 25 acres at some point in 1910 of what would be his Allsgate which was accross Coopertown Rd from what was or would be HDC land.
Second, the MCC Search Committee report of June 1910 to the MCC Board mentions H.H. Barker was gotten on the account of Connell, not MCC. If Lloyd had gotten Barker the report probably would have said so as the same report mentions Griscom got Macdonald.
The newspaper article that was written later apparently got this fact wrong and stated Lloyd got Barker when the MCC report says Connell did.
And I have no idea if Connell played golf. If he was a competent real estate developer and he wanted to promote some of his land as a golf course, I'm quite sure he was capable of finding a golf architect. If not he wouldn't be much of a real estate developer, would he? ;) Barker may've even been around Philly at that time as the US Open was shortly to be played in Philadelphia in June 1910.
According to the newspaper report the syndicate learned that Merion was going to move around July 1909, and proceded to secure another 200 acres. That is a pretty bold speculation. It sounds to me like the syndicate had some inside info.
I suspect those inside sources also helped connect the non-golfing Connell with Barker. Regarding Connell's golfing knowledge based on being a competitent real estate developer, how many golfing/real estate developments were there in Philadelphia in 1909?
Macdonald addressed his June letter to Lloyd, and Barker's letter addressed to Connell found its way immediately to the Committee and was attached to Lloyd's November letter to the membership of MCC. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the newspaper report.
-
"According to the newspaper report the syndicate learned that Merion was going to move around July 1909, and proceded to secure another 200 acres. That is a pretty bold speculation. It sounds to me like the syndicate had some inside info."
Mr. MacWood:
That indeed would be a bold speculation on the part of the real estate developers if they proceded to procure another 200 acres if they had no idea of MCC's intention to move to Ardmore or perhaps Lloyd's intentions to act the part of the angel for the move of his club's course and perhaps as an angel with a contiguous residential real estate development that might interest MCC members and enhance the future course or have the future course enhance a potential residential real estate devolopment immediately to its west.
What we do not know and may never know is if Lloyd may've been in some way behind or the motivator of that July 1909 land contract that brought HDC into basically it's 1910 form real estate holding-wise. (Isn't it interesting how Mr. Moriarty thinks we were so wrong for assuming Lloyd was behind that 1909 contract for MCC ,which we have?).
"I suspect those inside sources also helped connect the non-golfing Connell with Barker. Regarding Connell's golfing knowledge based on being a competitent real estate developer, how many golfing/real estate developments were there in Philadelphia in 1909?"
It is not that much of a stretch to deduce that if a golf course might enhance the residual real estate of a land developer in 1910 he could find a golf course architect on his own. Do you think, Mr. MacWood, that residential real estate developers in 1910 had the mentality of cavemen? Apparently, you have that impression of another time like that and it would probably explain why you and Moriarty think a Wilson or a Leeds at that to be such novices in golf architecture back then that somehow they had to find someone else to do it for them like a Barker or Campbell. ;)
"Macdonald addressed his June letter to Lloyd, and Barker's letter addressed to Connell found its way immediately to the Committee and was attached to Lloyd's November letter to the membership of MCC. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the newspaper report."
Yes, Macdonald certainly did address his letter to Lloyd and not to Griscom that the MCC Search Committee mentioned contacted Macdonald in the first place or to Robert Lesley who was the chairman of the MCC Search committee.
What that means is very hard to say at this point. Does it mean Lloyd was basically in control of both sides of the fence as an over-all angel and did not want to appear to be at that time or does it mean something else? It's hard to say but the MCC Search Committee report does say what it says about Barker being engaged and paid by Connell and we certainly do need to carefully consider that.
But the point is, MCC was pretty comprehensive about recording what was taking place with the club in the Ardmore project, and come 1911 when Wilson and his committee really got down to work routing and designing a number of plans for the future East Course Barker's name was never mentioned again. If Wilson and committee took the time in the winter and spring doing "multiple courses" one wonders why they spent all that time and effort doing that if they were basically using Barker's self-admitted "rough drawing" as the routing they took to the board and had approved. :)
Maybe you think that's not of much consequence but I do.
-
TE
Do you think the Barker plan was attached to his letter that was attached to the report? I'm curious why the Barker letter was attached to the report to the membership but not the Macdonald letter.
I'm sure MCC was pretty comprehensive about recording things too. Its ashame none of the routings survived.
-
What that means is very hard to say at this point. Does it mean Lloyd was basically in control of both sides of the fence as an over-all angel and did not want to appear to be at that time or does it mean something else?
If that was the case...would that be crossing the line of ethical or legal behavior?
-
"TE
Do you think the Barker plan was attached to his letter that was attached to the report? I'm curious why the Barker letter was attached to the report to the membership but not the Macdonald letter."
Mr. MacWood:
I'm quite sure Barker's plan was included with Barker's letter to Connell and it seems like Barker's letter and "rough drawing" plan was sent by Connell to the MCC Search Committee that mentioned and recorded Barker's letter in its June 29 report to the MCC board .
I am not aware that Barker's letter was included in MCC's letter to its membership, though, which was sent out approximately five months later in November 1910.
-
"If that was the case...would that be crossing the line of ethical or legal behavior? "
Well, Mr. MacWood, that's an interesting question, isn't it?
We do have all the numbers, I believe---eg we do basically know what HDC paid for the 338 acres it bought as real estate developers. We know that HDC agreed to sell MCC a part of their holdings which was basically the Johnson Farm for about half the average cost to HDC of their total 338 acre holding. We know that Lloyd recapitalized HDC to the tune of $300,000 by a stock offering for what he called roads and development cost. We know he offered his membership through HDC about 200 acres of land to the west of the proposed course for residential devlopment for $2,500 an acre in stock or cash. I doubt the real estate developer, Joseph Connell and his original four HDC partners would agree to that deal without making a profit on their investment on the 338 acres. Does it sound to you like Lloyd did something unethical or illegal or even tried to make a financial profit himself?
Don't forget, Horatio Gates Lloyd had bought 25 acres in 1910 of an estate for himself that he would expand into a famous 75 acre estate (Allsgate) just across Cooperstown Road from this HDC land. It seems like what he got was what we in real estate call "quiet enjoyment" in the area surrounding his estate and not a financial gain upfront. And in the process he created a profit for an independent real estate developer as well as a great golf course for his MCC membership at a helluva good purchase price for the land.
-
"If that was the case...would that be crossing the line of ethical or legal behavior? "
Well, Mr. MacWood, that's an interesting question, isn't it?
We do have all the numbers---eg we do basically know what HDC paid for the 338 acres it bought as real estate developers. We know that HDC agreed to sell MCC a part of their holdings which was basically the Johnson Farm for about half the average cost to HDC of their total 338 acre holding. We know that Lloyd recapitalized HDC to the tune of $300,000 by a stock offering for what he called roads and infastructure. We know he offered his membership through HDC about 200 acres of land to the west of the proposed course for residential devlopment for $2,500 an acre in stock or cash. I doubt the real estate developer, Joseph Connell and his original HDC would agree to that deal without making a profit on their investment in the 338 acres. Does it sound to you like Lloyd did something unethical or illegal or even tried to make a financial profit himself?
The success of the real estate venture was heavily dependent on Merion building a golf course. Lloyd was on the search committee that recommended the site, and as a result he and HDC obviously made a very nice profit. That is ethical?
-
"The success of the real estate venture was heavily dependent on Merion building a golf course. Lloyd was on the search committee that recommended the site, and as a result he and HDC obviously made a very nice profit. That is ethical?"
Mr. MacWood:
Reread my post above (I expanded it and added to it) as many times as you feel you might need to understand it and what Lloyd very likely did for Connell and his original HDC partners as well as for MCC and its membership. You might also try reading Lloyd's HDC solicitation letter to the MCC memberhip and what he said about his initial MCC members' investment in HDC or HDC land about trying to make a profit at the expense of solicited MCC purchasers of HDC stock or land. ;)
-
Ahem...
I don't have time to look it up this morning, but I believe I postulated this Lloyd playing both sides of the fence with the idea of creating his own little slice of heaven, a profit, and his club all next door to each other way back when in one of the threads.
I even included a nice little aerial of his crib. ;)
At the time, I think everyone pooh-poohed this idea a little bit, but nice to see everyone coming around. ;D
Does anyone know where Lloyd's papers are archived, or Robert Lesley's??
I'm beginning to think those might be invaluable if ever located.
-
TE
HDC would have built the infrastructure one way or the other, based on what you're saying it appears Lloyd found a very clever way of financing it through a stock offering. Wasn't a major landscaping effort included with this project, and I believe it involved MCC and their land as well.
From what I understand Merion bought their 100+ acres for $726/acre or half the going value. After the course was built you said Lloyd offered to sell the remaining 200 acres to the membership for $2500/acre, presumably for the members individual home sites. (The newspaper article said HDC was subdividing the remaining 200+ acres into 10 acre and less tracts). I believe Hugh Wilson built home. The members must not have bought all the land because within a year or two HDC was selling land for $6000/acre. Based on your angel scenerio it would appear Lloyd and his HDC associates profitted very handsomely from the search committee's decision. No?
Perhaps it was a different era and business was conducted in a different way. Today I would think Lloyd, and any other search committee member involved with HDC, would have had to disclose their connection to the real estate venture, and quite possibly step down because of a conflict of interest.
-
Wasn't Lloyd the only member of the search committee who was also on the construction committee?
-
Wasn't Lloyd the only member of the search committee who was also on the construction committee?
Tom,
Yes, without going back and looking I do believe he was.
And let's not forget that these transactions took place at a time far, far before much of the government regulations and other oversight committees.
You're correct that it was a much different time back then in terms of business practices and what was deemed ethical.
Laissez-Faire...caveat emptor....all of these ring a bell. ;)
-
Both Rodman Griscom and Horatio Gates Lloyd were on the MCC Search Committee and Hugh Wilson's committee that designed and built Merion East and West.
-
TE
The two letters from the search committee to the membership were signed by the search committee members and Griscom was not one of the names.
-
Sorry, Rodman Griscom was not on the MCC Search Committee For Golf Grounds. Rodman Griscom was the MCC member who got Macdonald and Whigam to come to Ardmore in 1910 to meet with the MCC Search Committee. Griscom was on the Wilson committee that designed and constructed Merion East and West. Nine holes of MCC's original course in Haverford was on Clement Griscom's estate, Dolobran. Clement Griscom was Rodman Griscom's father. Interestingly, Rodman Griscom became the first president of Merion G.C. when the MCC Golf Association finally split off from MCC in 1942. The vote was taken in a meeting on Dec. 7, 1941 (a date that will live in infamy). Apparently, when the committee emerged from their meeting they were informed of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
-
Horatio Gates Lloyd was on the MCC Search Committee For New Golf Grounds. Robert Lesley was the chairman of that committee. Around Nov, 1910, that committee was tranformed into what became the Special Committee on Golf Grounds, and Lloyd became the chairman of that committee. The special Committee on Golf Grounds incorporated the MCC Golf Association into an entity that owned the golf course and leased it back to MCC.
Lloyd was also on Wilson's committee that designed and constructed the East and West courses.