Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tom MacWood on September 08, 2010, 09:29:38 PM
-
"Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?"
~~Mike Cirba
-
Tom...I am sure you know better than I do, but I would imagine that the courses the US Open were played on would have to be considered first class. Here is a list of the courses the US Open was played on from 1895 to 1910.
Philadelphia Cricket Club
Englewood Golf Club
Myopia Hunt Club
Onwentsia Club
Glen View Club
Baltusrol Golf Club
Garden City Golf Club
Chicago Golf Club
Baltimore Country Club
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club
Newport Country Club
-
National Golf Links was open by 1910.
-
Yo, Macarther...you forgot Country Club of Buffalo on yo' list. 1912. 'course, it's not the same course anymore, although elements of the Open course still exist.
-
Mac:
You mentioned the US Open between 1895 and 1910. According to its history there is something of an interesting aspect with Myopia and the US Open in those years. Myopia held four US Opens between 1898 and 1908 but the amateur/sportsman member/architect of the course, Herbert C. Leeds, essentially declined to hold a US Amateur during that time believing that the club (not necessarily the course) was not ready for that tournament yet. His primary concern was that the accommodations and the locker-room were not yet suitable enough. It is no secret he was something of a self-admitted martinet.
How times have changed!
-
Well Tom P. that is very interesting. With that in mind, here is a list of the courses the Am was played on during that time frame.
1910 The Country Club William C. Fownes Jr. United States 4 & 3 Warren Wood
1909 Chicago Golf Club Robert A. Gardner United States 4 & 3 Chandler Egan
1908 Garden City Golf Club Jerome Travers United States 8 & 7 Max H. Behr
1907 Euclid Club Jerome Travers United States 6 & 5 Archibald Graham
1906 Englewood Golf Club Eben Byers United States 2 up George Lyon
1905 Chicago Golf Club Chandler Egan United States 6 & 5 Daniel Sawyer
1904 Baltusrol Golf Club Chandler Egan United States 8 & 6 Fred Herreshoff
1903 Nassau Country Club Walter Travis United States 5 & 4 Eben Byers
1902 Glen View Club Louis N. James United States 4 & 2 Eben Byers
1901 Atlantic City Country Club Walter Travis United States 5 & 4 Walter Egan
1900 Garden City Golf Club Walter Travis United States 2 up Findlay S. Douglas
1899 Onwentsia Club H. M. Harriman United States 3 & 2 Findlay S. Douglas
1898 Morris County Golf Club Findlay S. Douglas Scotland 5 & 3 Walter B. Smith
1897 Chicago Golf Club H. J. Whigham Scotland 8 & 6 W. Rossiter Betts
1896 Shinnecock Hills Golf Club H. J. Whigham Scotland 8 & 7 Joseph G. Thorp
1895 Newport Country Club Charles B. Macdonald United States 12 & 11 Charles Sands
I left the year and participants in the finals as I thought that was interesting as well.
-
Mac:
Some of those final matches look like blowouts but I should remind you I believe throughout those years the finals of the US Amateur were all over 36 holes.
Also, I'm not sure if the point of this thread was to indicate that the top courses in America by 1910 were not all designed by that amateur/sportsman contingent.
However, I think it was generally considered that before NGLA the top three courses in the USA were designed by those amateur/sportsmen. That would be Chicago GC, GCGC and Myopia. A lot of people seemed to say that back then including Charles B. Macdonald.
-
The US Amateur was just as important as the US Open, and the Western Am and Open were not far behind, as were the Metropolitan Am and Open. A couple of problems with just looking at courses that hosted those events from the 1890s to 1910, there were significant advancements in architecture around 1910, a course that hosted the event in the 1890s may not be of the same quality as one who hosted in 1910. The other problem a number of golf courses built circa 1910 hosted event in 1911, 1912, etc.
-
Tom M...
I find this comment extremely interesting...
"there were significant advancements in architecture around 1910, a course that hosted the event in the 1890s may not be of the same quality as one who hosted in 1910."
Perhaps you will dig into it on this thread, but my interest at this time in that comment is due to research I am doing regarding courses that were ranked highly in the past but have fallen in their ranking/regard over time.
You talk about advancements in archcitecture, I'd love to hear about that. I've also found "rennovations" seem to hurt courses from time to time. Tastes certainly change as artificial hazards were in vogue in the late 1800's (stone walls for instance), but they are not acceptable now.
Anyway, I am interested to see where you are going with this thread.
-
There were major architectural advancements in Britain from 1900 to 1910, and the US was about a decade behind. Their were a number of major designs and redesigns in the US from 1908 to 1910.
-
Pinehurst #2 should be considered here.
-
What I think is quite interesting is how many of the courses one considers great in 1910 still remain so today. And how many of these were either entirely redesigned or partly in a major way within the next 20 years and in ALMOST every case the work was done by a professional architect...
-
Yo, Macarther...you forgot Country Club of Buffalo on yo' list. 1912. 'course, it's not the same course anymore, although elements of the Open course still exist.
Thread asked for courses in 1910. 1912 came after 1910.
-
I believe Oakmont opened in 1903. I would add that to the list.
-
David Whitmer:
I think I would too. Some on here, however, don't think Oakmont was very good in the beginning or perhaps until the late teens or early 1920s. I'm not sure I would say that since the 1903 drawing of the course (apparently preconstruction) shows a remarkable similarity to the way the course still is without of course the present length and without the massive amounts of bunkers that we know were added gradually through the years by the Fownes family.
-
Does anyone know if Oakmont's grrens were ever redesigned/reconfigured or have they been similar since inception?
It does seem many were perhaps square early on from the schematic Joe recently found, but I'm talking more internal contours,
-
Pinehurst ? Dunno. Didn't Pinehurst, Pinehurst #2, have sand greens in 1910. If so, I think Pinehurst is out.
Tom, you have been active in the period of 1910-1911 quite a bit. Maybe you should be advanced to 2010.
Hence as Tom MacMetal or someone mentioned, seems like tournament courses in WGA rota should be put in the hopper for sorting.
-
WGA events were 'probably' at courses considered to be 'top.'
Western Amateur
1899 Glen View Club
1900 Onwentsia Golf Club
1901 Midlothian CC
1902 Chicago GC
1903 Euclid Club
1904 Exmoor CC
1905 Glen View Club
1906 Glen Echo CC
1907 Chicago GC
1908 Arsenal GC
1909 Homewood CC
1910 Minikahda Club
Western Open
1899 Glen View Club
1900 No tournament
1901 Midlothian Country Club
1902 Euclid Club
1903 Milwaukee Country Club
1904 Kent Country Club
1905 Cincinnati Golf Club
1906 Homewood Country Club
1907 Hinsdale Golf Club
1908 Normandie Golf Club
1909 Skokie Country Club
1910 Beverly Country Club
-
Chandler Egan was a real stud too, with victories in 1904 and 1905.
Here's some bio: http://www.oga.org/docs/HoganCup/Egan_Frame.htm
Apparently he grew up in Chicago, where he was a member of Exmoor Golf Club, and attended Harvard.
All of his course design work was done in Monterey and the Pacific Northwest. For whatever reason, this web page does not give him credit for any work at Pebble Beach. http://www.worldgolf.com/golf-architects/h-chandler-egan.html
He reached the semifinals of the 1929 U.S. Amateur at Pebble Beach, where Bobby Jones was knocked out in the first round.
-
I think both Oakmont and Pinehurst would be considered among the top courses in 1910.
-
Early on I think it is fair to say that the US Amateur was considered the much bigger event than the US Open. I am not sure exactly when this perception began to change. For the first three years the US Open was only 36 holes, and was played the day after the US Amateur finished, on the same course. I don't remember the exact source, but I recall reading one period paper which stated that the Western Amateur was second in importance only to the USOpen.
. . . here is a list of the courses the Am was played on during that time frame.
1910 The Country Club William C. Fownes Jr. (Oakmont) United States 4 & 3 Warren Wood (Homewood,
1909 Chicago Golf Club Robert A. Gardner United States 4 & 3 Chandler Egan
1908 Garden City Golf Club Jerome Travers United States 8 & 7 Max H. Behr
1907 Euclid Club Jerome Travers United States 6 & 5 Archibald Graham
1906 Englewood Golf Club Eben Byers United States 2 up George Lyon
1905 Chicago Golf Club Chandler Egan United States 6 & 5 Daniel Sawyer
1904 Baltusrol Golf Club Chandler Egan United States 8 & 6 Fred Herreshoff
1903 Nassau Country Club Walter Travis United States 5 & 4 Eben Byers
1902 Glen View Club Louis N. James United States 4 & 2 Eben Byers
1901 Atlantic City Country Club Walter Travis United States 5 & 4 Walter Egan
1900 Garden City Golf Club Walter Travis United States 2 up Findlay S. Douglas
1899 Onwentsia Club H. M. Harriman United States 3 & 2 Findlay S. Douglas
1898 Morris County Golf Club Findlay S. Douglas Scotland 5 & 3 Walter B. Smith
1897 Chicago Golf Club H. J. Whigham Scotland 8 & 6 W. Rossiter Betts
1896 Shinnecock Hills Golf Club H. J. Whigham Scotland 8 & 7 Joseph G. Thorp
1895 Newport Country Club Charles B. Macdonald United States 12 & 11 Charles Sands
. . . Now, I presume that by 1895, CBM played his golf out of Chicago Golf. And I know where the Egans played their golf (Exmoor) and I know that Whigham played at Onwentsia before moving back east. Obviously, Travis played out of Garden City and Behr played out of Lakeside. and Fownes is obvious, too. Findlay S. Douglas was a a big deal and a founding member of NGLA, but I have no idea where he played at the turn of the century when he appears to have been a stud. But that's pretty much all I know.
Who here can fill in the blanks. Who here knows where the rest of these guys played their golf ?
I was curious about Shivas' question so I looked it up their reported clubs for the time period in which they made the finals . . .
W. C. Fownes - Oakmont, Pittsburg, PA
Warren K. Wood - Homewood, IL
Robert A. Gardner - Hinsdale, IL
H. Chandler Egan - Exmoor, IL
Jerome Travers - Montclair, NJ
Max Behr - Morris County, NJ
Archibald Graham - New Jersey CC, NJ
Eben M. Byers - Allegheny CC, Pittsburg, PA
George Lyon - Lambton GC, Toronto, Canada
D.E. Sawyer - Wheaton GC, IL
Fred Herreshoff - Ekwonak, VT*
L.N. James - Glen View, IL
Walter Travis - Garden City, NY
Walter Egan - Exmoor, IL
Herbert Harriman - Meadow Brook, NY
Findlay Douglas - Fairfield, CT
W.B. Smith - Onwentsia, IL
H.J. Whigham - Onwentsia, IL
W. Rossiter Betts - Shinnecock Hills, NY
H. G. Thorp - Cambridge GC, MA
Macdonald - Chicago GC, IL
Charles Sands - St. Andrews GC, NY
*Herreshoff also played out of Garden City (and later NGLA) but was listed as playing out of Ekwonak at the 1904 Am.
[Both H.J. Whigham and Findlay Douglas were Scottish. CBM was born in Ontario, raised in Chicago, but learned the game in Scotland in his teens. Travis was Australian but learned the game in the US.]
So, in the first 16 US Amateurs through 1910, there were 22 winners and runners-up through 1910, nine (9) played out of the Chicago area, four (4) out out of New York, three (3) out of New Jersey, two (2) out of the Pittsburg area, and one (1) each out of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Toronto, Canada.
It may be overly generous, but if we credit Herreshoff to Garden City, and consider New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut all to me the New York City area, then it is Chicago and New York with nine (9) each, Pittsburg with two (2).
Not sure what it says about golf architecture, but the Chicago area courses were certainly producing more than their fair share of top Amateurs.
-
Re: Pinehurst during this time period...
Jim Kennedy turned me onto this awesome 1920 article by Walter Travis that speaks to his role in the 1906 "scientific bunkering" of Pinehurst #2.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Also,
A March 11th, 1911 Philadelphia Press article titled "30 Quakers Tramp Pinehurst Links - Philadelphians Help Swell Army of Golf Enthusiasts at Southern Resort to 800" was but a sample of the type of ongoing enthusiasm and consistent support for Pinehurst among golfers in Philadelphia, as well as nationwide.
From the article;
"The number of Philadelphians who come here yearly is increasing steadily as there is no place in the South which compares to Pinehurst when it comes to golf. At one of the hotels there are more than 400 golfers quartered and it is safe to say that oever the three courses more than 800 golfers may be found any bright day."
"The Spring tournament, which ended today, was responsible for the second largest entry list in the history of golf. The entries numbered 241 and this was beaten in only one tournament - the Transmississippi at Denver a few years ago. Here, 228 actually played, which is a new record. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the weather was down to freezing and a stiff gale blew across the course."
"There are three distinct, great eighteen-hole courses here, which is true of no other place in the world except the R&A Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland. A fourth has been staked out and will be in readiness next Spring. The most famous of these courses is the No. 2 course, laid out by Donald Ross and Walter J. Travis. They did not plan it together, but each coincided with the other's suggestions. The only change suggested by Travis and which was adopted was the omissions of cross bunkers. The ground is rolling and the grass on the fairway is Bermuda grass, the only kind that is possible in most golf resorts in the South."
"The putting greens are of clay foundation and covered with sand. The greens are flat and as there are no worm casts, perfect putting is always possible. The greens are watered for a radius of a few feet from the hole and men are employed to do nothing else but water the greens and drag a roll of carpet over them to remove all traces of heel marks."
While this article and architectural attributions are noteworthy to point out the popularity of Pinehurst during these early years, it doesnt speak necessarily to the architectural sophistication that was found there.
However, the following article from the May 1912 American Golfer does;
"After one of the most unprofitable—from a golfer's point of view—winter, Philadelphia extended a warm greeting to spring. It has been years since the links of the Quaker City have been so unplayable as the period from Christmas until the latter part of March. An occasional day was the only respite from weeks of the worst possible sort of weather."
"One thing will be noted by visitors from other cities whether they play over such excellent eighteen hole courses as Huntingdon Valley and the Philadelphia Cricket Clubs as representing the larger organizations or the two dozen or more courses of nine holes and that is the growing tendency to improve in a more scientific manner the courses around Philadelphia. "
"Time was when changes were made in a sort of a hit or miss manner. Today every trap or pit that is constructed means something definite and with it all has come the scientific construction of bunkers and hazards. Time was when the green committee built courses on a broad principle of the greatest good to the greatest number and as the greatest number in every golfing organization is the dub or indifferent player, the really good player suffered. As the chairman of the green committee of one of the largest courses recently expressed himself: "A few years ago we used to post the changes proposed. This met with so much opposition that we were forced to take a couple of days in the week when we were sure that the bulk of the players would not be on the course and then we started to construct a course that would help the good player and do no great injury to the poor player. Nowadays, fortunately, we are able to make changes without feeling that we would be subjected to the severest sort of criticism.""
"There is no doubt that the Southern courses have done wonders for golfing conditions around Philadelphia. It is not so many years ago that very few players took two weeks off in mid winter to play golf in the south. Where one player went South five years ago, twenty go now. Pinehurst, in particular has worked wonders. Hundreds of men who have always played a rather indifferent game have gone to Pinehurst and have been confronted with golf courses constructed on scientific principles where traps and pits have been placed in spots because good golf demanded their presence there."
"The result has been that the indifferent, careless player found that every shot he made demanded study and care and the golf there brought out the best in him. When he got back to the home heath he began to realize that one of the reasons he had not been playing better golf was because his own course was constructed on rather slip shod lines, on the one hand, or built on lines to suit him and scores of other players who insisted that the course should not be made any harder than it was. He realized for the first time that his wild shots were not penalized, that many of his approaches should have been punished but were not. The realizing sense finally came to him that he had not been playing golf but had simply used the paraphernalia of the game in a very bungling fashion."
"As a direct result scores of the indifferent players who have received their real golf education in the south have gone to the green committees and frankly and freely confessed that their theories were all wrong and asked them to stiffen the course. They now realize that it is impossible to play good golf over an inferior course and that a good course does not hamper their game but actually helps it."
"At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course." - "Far and Sure" - May 1912
-
This would be my top 25 courses circa 1910:
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
Tom,
Without getting into particulars of any of the others right now, any consideration of Woodlands in MA?
Most accounts I've read seem to indicate it was fairly well-regarded at that time.
-
Tom,
Another good source might be the reviews and criticisms of American courses that a number of visiting foreign golf luminaries during that period.
-
It was a coin flip between Woodland and Belmont Springs. "Bunker Hill's" opinion swayed me. In 1910, at a time when all the top Boston courses were trying to upgrade and modernize, he said Woodlands was more interested in satisfying their members than fighting for a first class links.
-
Tom,
Another good source might be the reviews and criticisms of American courses that a number of visiting foreign golf luminaries during that period.
I did: Hutchinson, Darwin, Leach, Reid, Vardon, Worthington, etc
-
Tom -
The Atlanta Athletic Club (East Lake) shouldn't be on your list. It might have been one of the better courses in the SE circa 1910, but that wasn't saying much. Dissatisfaction with it led to a total rebuild by Adair, with some help from Barker, MacDonald and Harry Atkinson in the spring and summer of 1913. That same summer Adair also designed and built Capital City (Brookhaven) and Druid Hills, again with some help from Barker. All three of Adair's courses were highly thought of at the time, but that time was post-1910.
The list of best ccourses in the SE circa 1910 probably starts with P'hurst No. 2 or Palmetto in Aiken.
Bob
-
Tom,
Thanks, and I agree that it's a good, representative sample of the best courses in the US at that time although I'm sure we'd have quibbles if I dug deeper but I don't think that's the point we want to discuss.
I think you'd agree that overall the bar was set pretty low at that point.
Also, it's tough to get a gauge on the architectural quality and sophistication of a number of courses that opened right around 1909/1910 in terms of how good they were at inception versus improvements that took place during the evolution over the next number of years.
A better question might be simply, how many US courses in the state they were in during 1910 approached the architectural level of the best courses abroad?
I think that's clearly where only Myopia, Garden City, NGLA, and perhaps one or two others (perhaps trying to name a "Top 5" might be a good exercise?) were generally referenced in the same breath as the class of the league, so to speak.
p.s. Regarding NGLA...still not sure how the opening date is determined to be 1909 when according to George Bahto and other accounts a "soft" Invitational Tournament opening took place in July 1910, with the club opening to members in 1911, but let's not fuss over that. The greater point is that even unopened it was clearly one of the very best in the US.
-
They held the golfing events for the 1904 Olympics at Glen Echo Golf Club in St. Louis, Missouri (does that mean is was good?) - the previously mentioned George Lyons from Lambton in Toronto won the gold medal.
And speaking of Canadian courses, Colt hadn't started work on either Toronto or Hamilton by 1910, but the club website says that Lambton's first course was ready to go in 1903 - designed by Lyons "with assistance" from Bendelow.
Peter
-
Tom Mac,
I'm having a hard time understanding your reasoning in not including 6 courses that hosted U.S. Opens between 1895-1910 in your Top 25 listing. Maybe 1 opr 2 would be reasonable, even 3, but 6 of them?
You leave out:
Philadelphia Cricket Club
Onwentsia Club
Glen View Club
Baltimore Country Club
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club
Newport Country Club
May I ask what you used as a measuring stick to decide? I recognize that it is simply your list and your opinion so this isn't a case of right and wrong, but rather one of understanding at how you arrived at your list and why you place some of the courses that you did over these others.
-
.
-
Tom -
The Atlanta Athletic Club (East Lake) shouldn't be on your list. It might have been one of the better courses in the SE circa 1910, but that wasn't saying much. Dissatisfaction with it led to a total rebuild by Adair, with some help from Barker, MacDonald and Harry Atkinson in the spring and summer of 1913. That same summer Adair also designed and built Capital City (Brookhaven) and Druid Hills, again with some help from Barker. All three of Adair's courses were highly thought of at the time, but that time was post-1910.
The list of best ccourses in the SE circa 1910 probably starts with P'hurst No. 2 or Palmetto in Aiken.
Bob
Bob
What good golf course during this period wasn't dissatisfied? If they weren't dissatisfied at some point they ain't on this list.
-
Tom,
Thanks, and I agree that it's a good, representative sample of the best courses in the US at that time although I'm sure we'd have quibbles if I dug deeper but I don't think that's the point we want to discuss.
I think you'd agree that overall the bar was set pretty low at that point.
Also, it's tough to get a gauge on the architectural quality and sophistication of a number of courses that opened right around 1909/1910 in terms of how good they were at inception versus improvements that took place during the evolution over the next number of years.
A better question might be simply, how many US courses in the state they were in during 1910 approached the architectural level of the best courses abroad?
I think that's clearly where only Myopia, Garden City, NGLA, and perhaps one or two others (perhaps trying to name a "Top 5" might be a good exercise?) were generally referenced in the same breath as the class of the league, so to speak.
p.s. Regarding NGLA...still not sure how the opening date is determined to be 1909 when according to George Bahto and other accounts a "soft" Invitational Tournament opening took place in July 1910, with the club opening to members in 1911, but let's not fuss over that. The greater point is that even unopened it was clearly one of the very best in the US.
Are you concerned about supporting previous claim?
-
Tom Mac,
I'm having a hard time understanding your reasoning in not including 6 courses that hosted U.S. Opens between 1895-1910 in your Top 25 listing. Maybe 1 opr 2 would be reasonable, even 3, but 6 of them?
You leave out:
Philadelphia Cricket Club
Onwentsia Club
Glen View Club
Baltimore Country Club
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club
Newport Country Club
May I ask what you used as a measuring stick to decide? I recognize that it is simply your list and your opinion so this isn't a case of right and wrong, but rather one of understanding at how you arrived at your list and why you place some of the courses that you did over these others.
Other than the fact the hosted the Open why should I consider any of those golf courses?
Years of research. If you don't like my list make your own.
-
Phil Young asks Tom MacWood, "May I ask what you used as a measuring stick to decide?"
To which he replies, "Years of research. If you don't like my list make your own."
Great discussion group, huh? ???
-
Tom,
I treated you and your list with respect. That you simply slough off an honest question is absurd. "Years of research" tells you that more than half of the clubs that hosted the first 15 years of US Opens weren't of sufficient quality to merit consideration as among the top 25 courses of 1910?
It's obvious that you gave them no consideration based upon your answer "Other than the fact the hosted the Open why should I consider any of those golf courses?" The fact that they HOSTED the Open means they do deserve strong consideration.
Still, one can hardly notice how 5 of your 25 courses has the name of HH Barker attached top them. You challenge Mike's assertion on another thread that the best courses in America were designed by amateur/sportsmen architects, yet on another thread you stated quite clearly that HH Barker was among the best golf course architects in America at the time. Couldn't one claim that you are merely padding your own claim? Yet that is NOT what I am doing. I am asking a simple question that does deserve an answer if you want your "list" to be considered as a serious one instead of somethiong you just cobbled together.
I am convinced that you honestly believe this list to be accurate and defensable, yet again, I'm not even asking you to defend a single one of the courses, but rather to explain how you came about your conclusions that these 25 stand above all others. Think about it. You ripped into Mike for claiming that he believed that Cobbs Creek was the best public course built before the Depression, yet you seem quite taken aback that you would make a quite similar type statement here, that these courses and no others were the best.
Lighten up a little... I asked an honest question. If you don't want to answer it, all well and good. Just say so and treat me with the respect that my question deserved... ;D
-
Phil-the-author
Other than the fact those courses hosted the Open why should I consider any of those golf courses? Are you familiar with their reputations circa 1910?
-
Tom,
Mot sure I even want to get into this, but perhaps it might be more beneficial if you tell us which of the other 22 courses on your list would you consider in the league in terms of architectural quality and sophistication with either Myopia, NGLA, and/or Garden City as they stood in 1910 and why?
Thanks.
-
Tom,
Mot sure I even want to get into this, but perhaps it might be more beneficial if you tell us which of the other 22 courses on your list would you consider in the league in terms of architectural quality and sophistication with either Myopia, NGLA, and/or Garden City as they stood in 1910 and why?
Thanks.
Pinehurst #2, Ekwanok, Chicago, Mayfield, Columbia, Oakmont, Baltusrol, Brookline, Apawamis, Sailsbury and Essex County.
-
The 'professional' architects are in bold.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
Wow Tom..do you really think so?
Do you give Travis credit for any of Pinehurst at that time and who would you say was mostly responsible for the course at Brookline by 1910?
-
I just gave Travis credit, and Windeler deserves major credit at Brookline. What do you think this exercise says about professional and amateur architects in 1910?
-
Tom the Mac,
You asked, "Other than the fact those courses hosted the Open why should I consider any of those golf courses?"
That is reason enough as I said previously. The real question, which I have asked, now for the third time, is why DON'T you think they deserve consideration and what do you base your decisions for the other courses on?
"Are you familiar with their reputations circa 1910?"
Yes.
-
Tom the Mac,
You asked, "Other than the fact those courses hosted the Open why should I consider any of those golf courses?"
That is reason enough as I said previously. The real question, which I have asked, now for the third time, is why DON'T you think they deserve consideration and what do you base your decisions for the other courses on?
"Are you familiar with their reputations circa 1910?"
Yes.
What did Darwin write about Onwentsia and Glen View? And what was the result of his critique?
-
Tom,
I'll be more than happy to answer your questions AFTER you answer mine. I am not on here to argue, but to discuss. If you don't want to discuss the aspect of the subject I raised than simply say so and I won't post again on it...
-
Because they were considered outdated, too short and too easy by people like Darwin.
-
I just gave Travis credit, and Windeler deserves major credit at Brookline. What do you think this exercise says about professional and amateur architects in 1910?
Tom,
I do appreciate your efforts to bring some of the early, largely unknown pros to our attention, and in the case of Barker, I'd agree that most weren't aware that he did some good work in this time period.
But, to answer your question, I'd clearly stick to my contention that not only were the best three courses of the time...NGLA, Myopia, and Garden City...designed by amateurs, but would also state that most of the second tier courses of the time...Pinehurst, Ekwanok, Brookline, and Oakmont were also largely the work of amateurs like Windber, Travis, and Fownes.
Didn't Travis also re-do much of Columbia shortly after 1910, as well?
-
Travis did redesign Columbia in preparation of the 1921 US Open. Travis was Barker's partner and mentor; Barker left the country in 1915. The routing remained the same.
Since you are unable to answer my question I'll tell you what I see regarding architecture circa 1910: professional architects and amateur architects with major experience dominated. Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910.
-
Tom,
"Because they were considered outdated, too short and too easy by people like Darwin."
Well, the USGA certainly disagreed with Mr. Darwin, at least in the case of the Philadelphia Cricket Club which hosted TWO U.S. Opens, in 1907 and in your pivotal year of 1910.
You also stated, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910."
Nonsense! A.W. Tillinghast was both inexperienced and untested and yet had designed Shawnee by late 1909 and was overseeing its construction throughout 1910 and had done neither before those years.
Again, you have no problem taking others to task for citing absolutes and yet expect that your own use of them is unimpeachable. I would agree that MOST of the better to great courses in the U.S. that opened between 1911-1920 were done by professional architects and that after 1920 it was very rare to find anything substantial done by an amateur architect.
-
Tom...
I find your last comment very interesting
..."Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910."
This seems to me to be a very important time for golf course architecture, and perhaps the sport as a whole. What do you think the important aspects of this age/era were?
Correct me if I am wrong, but this isn't what is often thought of as the "Golden Age" yet. But perhaps the inflow of professional and/or seasoned amateurs laid the foundation for the explosion of golf after Ouimet's victory and the ensuing "Golden Age" of architecture a bit later.
Any input you can offer would be appreciated...but I understand if you want this thread to go another way and, therefore, choose not to answer.
-
Tom,
"Because they were considered outdated, too short and too easy by people like Darwin."
Well, the USGA certainly disagreed with Mr. Darwin, at least in the case of the Philadelphia Cricket Club which hosted TWO U.S. Opens, in 1907 and in your pivotal year of 1910.
You also stated, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910."
Nonsense! A.W. Tillinghast was both inexperienced and untested and yet had designed Shawnee by late 1909 and was overseeing its construction throughout 1910 and had done neither before those years.
Again, you have no problem taking others to task for citing absolutes and yet expect that your own use of them is unimpeachable. I would agree that MOST of the better to great courses in the U.S. that opened between 1911-1920 were done by professional architects and that after 1920 it was very rare to find anything substantial done by an amateur architect.
Was Philadelphia Cricket considered the best course in Philadelphia in 1910?
-
Tom...
I find your last comment very interesting
..."Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910."
This seems to me to be a very important time for golf course architecture, and perhaps the sport as a whole. What do you think the important aspects of this age/era were?
Correct me if I am wrong, but this isn't what is often thought of as the "Golden Age" yet. But perhaps the inflow of professional and/or seasoned amateurs laid the foundation for the explosion of golf after Ouimet's victory and the ensuing "Golden Age" of architecture a bit later.
Any input you can offer would be appreciated...but I understand if you want this thread to go another way and, therefore, choose not to answer.
IMO the turning point in the US was the creation of NGLA, after that all hell broke loose.
-
"Early on I think it is fair to say that the US Amateur was considered the much bigger event than the US Open. I am not sure exactly when this perception began to change. For the first three years the US Open was only 36 holes, and was played the day after the US Amateur finished, on the same course. I don't remember the exact source, but I recall reading one period paper which stated that the Western Amateur was second in importance only to the USOpen."
I would defiinitely endorse the above. It may seem counter-intuitive to us today but I feel there are numerous reliable historic sources from those days to prove it to be true. Probably the best example would be the early tournament history of Myopia and the reasons they held what they did then!
-
TEP
Do you think it is likely Merion would choose an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman to design their new golf course?
-
Tom,
You asked, "Was Philadelphia Cricket considered the best course in Philadelphia in 1910?" It probably was and I think hosting the U.S. Open twice in 4 years including 1910 goes a very long way toward proving that.
So, based upon that, do you still maintain that Philadelphia Cricket was "outdated" and "too easy" in 1910?
Since you chose to ignore my disagreement with your contention that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." I'll ask you if you then considered A.W. Tillinghast who had just finished his design of Shawnee and was now overseeing its construction, both of which were firsts for him, was actually experienced and tested in 1910, and if so, what you could possibly base it on?
-
It probably was?
-
The list Tom MacWood constructed seems to be his opinion with very little historic support or confirmation (not that it isn't possible to provide---just that Tom MacWood doesn't provide it). And I would point this thread to Mac Plumart's question on that in Post #36 which Tom MacWood does not seem to have responded to or answered. What's new?! ;)
-
The list Tom MacWood constructed seems to be his opinion with very little historic support or confirmation (not that it isn't possible to provide---just that Tom MacWood doesn't provide it). And I would point this thread to Mac Plumart's question on that in Post #36 which Tom MacWood does not seem to have responded to or answered. What's new?! ;)
TEP
What courses did I miss?
-
Yes Tom, it PROBABLY was. I won't state it definitively because I wasn't there and I never played or personally saw the clourses in the Philly area in 1910.
So, still avoiding the other two questions I see:
So, based upon that, do you still maintain that Philadelphia Cricket was "outdated" and "too easy" in 1910?
Since you chose to ignore my disagreement with your contention that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." I'll ask you if you then considered A.W. Tillinghast who had just finished his design of Shawnee and was now overseeing its construction, both of which were firsts for him, was actually experienced and tested in 1910, and if so, what you could possibly base it on?
-
"TEP
Do you think it is likely Merion would choose an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman to design their new golf course?"
Tom MacWood:
You've asked that question before on this website and I've answered it before.
For some reason you are asking it of me again.
My answer has been and is again that it is not just likely it is a fact of Merion's history. Hugh Wilson and his four man member committee originally routed and designed and built Merion East and West with some help and advice from others on Merion East.
-
Yes Tom, it PROBABLY was. I won't state it definitively because I wasn't there and I never played or personally saw the clourses in the Philly area in 1910.
So, still avoiding the other two questions I see:
So, based upon that, do you still maintain that Philadelphia Cricket was "outdated" and "too easy" in 1910?
Since you chose to ignore my disagreement with your contention that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." I'll ask you if you then considered A.W. Tillinghast who had just finished his design of Shawnee and was now overseeing its construction, both of which were firsts for him, was actually experienced and tested in 1910, and if so, what you could possibly base it on?
I would have included Shawnee but it opened in 1911. Was Philadelphia Cricket considered better than Huntingdon Valley or Whitemarsh Valley in 1910?
-
Off to bed...
but trying to get my arms around what might have been to short or easy a golf course to have been considered great, which is in-line with Tom M's early comment.
Here is a table of US Open's with winning score included (FYI, US Amateur was match play and not as easy to get the actual scores):
1910 Alex Smith (2) Scotland Philadelphia Cricket Club, St. Martin's Course Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 298
1909 George Sargent England Englewood Golf Club Englewood, New Jersey 290
1908 Fred McLeod Scotland Myopia Hunt Club South Hamilton, Massachusetts 322
1907 Alec Ross Scotland Philadelphia Cricket Club, St. Martin's Course Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 302
1906 Alex Smith Scotland Onwentsia Club Lake Forest, Illinois 295
1905 Willie Anderson (4) Scotland Myopia Hunt Club South Hamilton, Massachusetts 314
1904 Willie Anderson (3) Scotland Glen View Club Golf, Illinois 303
1903 Willie Anderson (2) Scotland Baltusrol Golf Club Springfield, New Jersey 307
1902 Laurie Auchterlonie Scotland Garden City Golf Club Garden City, New York 307
1901 Willie Anderson Scotland Myopia Hunt Club South Hamilton, Massachusetts 331
1900 Harry Vardon Jersey Chicago Golf Club Wheaton, Illinois 313
1899 Willie Smith Scotland Baltimore Country Club, East Course Lutherville-Timonium, Maryland 315
1898 Fred Herd Scotland Myopia Hunt Club South Hamilton, Massachusetts 328
Of course technology will play a factor in scoring, as will weather, and perhaps some other variables. But it looks like Myopia was the ass kicker and maybe Ontwensia and Englewood were a bit easier. Certainly not a robust scientific approach, but at least it is something.
-
Sleep tight.
-
"TEP
What courses did I miss?"
Tom MacWood:
I really don't know and wouldn't want to venture an answer to that. I feel your list is only subjective and largely fruitless and irrelevent because of that.
Support it with some contemporaneous opinon poll and I might consider the question but I doubt there were any reliable opinion polls on that question in 1910! ;)
-
thanks.
-
"I would have included Shawnee but it opened in 1911."
Now how does that answer the question as to whether you believe that Tilly was both an experienced and tested architect in 1910 as you obviously must since you clearly stated that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..."?
There is nothing wrong with saying that you forgot about Tilly. If you do indeed believe that he was "experienced and tested" despite NEVER having designed a golf course or oversaw its construction before 1909 and that the course wouldn't even be completed before 1911 I think you're going to have to provide some serious proof of that.
Was Philadelphia Cricket considered better than Huntingdon Valley or Whitemarsh Valley in 1910?"
By some experts of the day, and in this I once again cite the USGA for their choice of the course for the 1910 Open when any Philly course asked would have hosted it, the answer is yes.
-
thanks.
-
Your welcome...
-
What was George Crump's design experience in 1910? Ab Smith's? J. Franklin Meehan's? George Tthomas? George Klauder? Ed ClareyV
Yet all of the amateurs were designing golf courses in and around Philadelphia in the next decade and beyond.
-
Ah, nothing like the old question and question format to spark a discussion!
TMac,
What I take from your extensive list is that the notion of just how gca was going to be performed was evolving, but evolving towards the professional way of doing things quite quickly. Even TePaul admits that the era of the amateur sportsman gca was quite limited in duration and scope, pretty much to the dozen or so courses he typically mentions. Certainly after WWI in the teens, very few am designs were done.
I liken it to the computer sales industry two decades ago. Back then, there were some mom and pop stores and a few chains opening up, not to mention Dell in mail order. Not many of those are around today and the whole process is a lot more streamlined and customers more savvy as it sorts out.
Just from the buyer perspective in 1910 it might have been daunting to choose a gca. You had the amateurs and any number of Scottish Pros, including Bendelow who Spalding would send out for a song, which had to be tempting.
Sorry to thread hijack, but this is pre-coffee, pre golf Saturday morning.......
-
George Crump had the sense to hire H.S. Colt, arguably the best architect in the world. George Thomas laid out his first design in 1904, and it was a rudimentary 9-holer on a farm. I'm certain the others have similar stories and backgrounds.
By in large by 1910, if you had any intelligence and you aspired for anything good, you hired a professional/architect or a seasoned amateur. Are you trying to make the case the people at Merion were idiots?
-
Ah, nothing like the old question and question format to spark a discussion!
TMac,
What I take from your extensive list is that the notion of just how gca was going to be performed was evolving, but evolving towards the professional way of doing things quite quickly. Even TePaul admits that the era of the amateur sportsman gca was quite limited in duration and scope, pretty much to the dozen or so courses he typically mentions. Certainly after WWI in the teens, very few am designs were done.
I liken it to the computer sales industry two decades ago. Back then, there were some mom and pop stores and a few chains opening up, not to mention Dell in mail order. Not many of those are around today and the whole process is a lot more streamlined and customers more savvy as it sorts out.
Just from the buyer perspective in 1910 it might have been daunting to choose a gca. You had the amateurs and any number of Scottish Pros, including Bendelow who Spalding would send out for a song, which had to be tempting.
Sorry to thread hijack, but this is pre-coffee, pre golf Saturday morning.......
Jeff
As usual your take on history (and TEP's) is completely twisted and inaccurate.
-
The 'professional' architects are in bold. One of things that strikes about this list there is only one golf course west of the Mississippi. I'm wondering if I missed something out west.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
Tom,
I don't understand the characterizations?
By your own very Barker-biased list the very top courses of the time in the US were all either totally or heavily designed by amateurs who usually belonged to the clubs involved.
We've already gone through the documentation about Crump, and a lot of his routing was done before Colt's arrival and much changed after his departure. Your continued mis-characterization of that situation belies true history.
Most of the courses in Philadelphia in 1910 or thereabouts had a strong amateur influence or design. Philly Cricket was mostly Samuel Heebner, Herman Strouse was already highly involved in Philmont, Tillinghast and Klaudner were building a new course for Aronimink, George Fowle had designed most of the Philly Country Club and soon had revisions by E.K. Bispham, Ab Smith at Huntingdon Valley, Heebner and Thomas at Whitemarsh and so on.
The very early Philly courses by pros were done mostly by John Reid, Willie Campbell, a very few by Findlay (he didn't live there yet), and Willie Tucker and they just were not very good and quickly proved inadequate Tom.
It is therefore no surprise at all that these amateur guys had the time, motive, and opportunity to design courses for themselves Tom and it's very well documented history. This continued through the teens and 20s as many local courses were designed by amateurs like Frank Meehan and Ed Clarey and Hugh Wilson and Herman Strouse and Ab Smith, with many as collaborative efforts, like Pine Valley and Cobb's Creek and later revisions to North Hills.
After watchiing competitive friends like Leeds and Travis and Emmet and Macdonald do the same thing for their clubs, there was no reason for these very successful men who loved the game to think they couldn't do the same thing for their own.
If it would help, I could show you the early design lineage of every prominent Philadelphia course during this time period. I would agree that beginning somewhere around 1910 til WWI or so some more pros were beginning to be brought in, primarily Donald Ross, but both amateur and pro design motifs co-existed well into the 20s in the region, with the major pros post-war being Flynn, and Ross, with surprisingly little Tilly, who was off making a name for himself in other cities.
I'm not sure why you want to deny this well-documented history Tom. You should really have read many of the articles Joe Bausch produced here over the past three years in this regard, Tom...it's been absolutely stellar stuff that makes it all very clear.
Whatever work early pros like Barker did near Philly for clubs like Springhaven and Atlantic City didn't last long, and was never much heralded locally.
-
Ah, nothing like the old question and question format to spark a discussion!
TMac,
What I take from your extensive list is that the notion of just how gca was going to be performed was evolving, but evolving towards the professional way of doing things quite quickly. Even TePaul admits that the era of the amateur sportsman gca was quite limited in duration and scope, pretty much to the dozen or so courses he typically mentions. Certainly after WWI in the teens, very few am designs were done.
I liken it to the computer sales industry two decades ago. Back then, there were some mom and pop stores and a few chains opening up, not to mention Dell in mail order. Not many of those are around today and the whole process is a lot more streamlined and customers more savvy as it sorts out.
Just from the buyer perspective in 1910 it might have been daunting to choose a gca. You had the amateurs and any number of Scottish Pros, including Bendelow who Spalding would send out for a song, which had to be tempting.
Sorry to thread hijack, but this is pre-coffee, pre golf Saturday morning.......
TEP usually lists a half a dozen well known courses and their amateur designers, but not all the courses he lists were solo amateur jobs - they often had help. And there were hell of lot more than a dozen amateurs operating around the country in those early years, right before and right after the turn of the century. And then you have the case of some amateurs morphing into professionals, like Bendelow, Watson, and Barker. Alex Findlay may fall into that category as well. I don't think it was that daunting in 1910, you had a lot more and a lot better designers to chose from. How daunting would it be if your choice was between an untested inexperienced insurance salesman and HH Barker or CB Macdonald?
-
Tom, that's simply a false choice and its really a shame you seem locked into a hamstrung stockade of your own prejudiced incredulity.
For whatever reasons, call it snobbery or whatever, but its very clear from the historical record that both NGLA and Merion purposefully eschewed the use of a professional for their golf courses and seemed quite proud of that fact.
Merion did in fact use Macdonald, and leveraged his advice and suggestions in selecting their site and also had him come down just before construction to Lconsider and advise on or (five) plans", in the words of Alan Wilson as clearly reflected in the MCC Minutes of April 1911.
-
Tom,
I don't understand the characterizations?
By your own very Barker-biased list the very top courses of the time in the US were all either totally or heavily designed by amateurs who usually belonged to the clubs involved.
Which Barker course or courses should I remove, and why? And what course or courses would you choose to replace them, and why?
We've already gone through the documentation about Crump, and a lot of his routing was done before Colt's arrival and much changed after his departure. Your continued mis-characterization of that situation belies true history.
You are referring to TEP's speculating...I don't buy it. It is a documented fact that Colt was hired, he produced a design, which was largely executed and he referred to the course as his design throughout his long career.
Most of the courses in Philadelphia in 1910 or thereabouts had a strong amateur influence or design. Philly Cricket was mostly Samuel Heebner, Herman Strouse was already highly involved in Philmont, Tillinghast and Klaudner were building a new course for Aronimink, George Fowle had designed most of the Philly Country Club and soon had revisions by E.K. Bispham, Ab Smith at Huntingdon Valley, Heebner and Thomas at Whitemarsh and so on.
In 1910 Philadelphians were doing some heavy soul searching due their consistent failures on the golf course. They concluded one of the reasons for the failures was a lack of good golf courses compared to cities like NY, Chicago and Boston....note there are no Philly courses on my list.
None of the courses you listed would be considered a top echelon design in 1910, with the possible exception of Whitemarsh Valley, and I'm still waiting for someone to document who actually designed that golf course. After 1910 you find a long line professional and seasoned amateurs working in Philadelphia.
The very early Philly courses by pros were done mostly by John Reid, Willie Campbell, a very few by Findlay (he didn't live there yet), and Willie Tucker and they just were not very good and quickly proved inadequate Tom.
It is therefore no surprise at all that these amateur guys had the time, motive, and opportunity to design courses for themselves Tom and it's very well documented history. This continued through the teens and 20s as many local courses were designed by amateurs like Frank Meehan and Ed Clarey and Hugh Wilson and Herman Strouse and Ab Smith, with many as collaborative efforts, like Pine Valley and Cobb's Creek and later revisions to North Hills.
Here is a link to Philadelphia 1922, which is somewhat misleading because it predates Flynn's work, but by far the most prolific and affective golf architect during this period was Donald Ross. Should we be impressed with the output of Meehan, Clearly, Smith, et al? Perhaps if you would document their design careers we would have a better sense.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35009.msg707604/
After watchiing competitive friends like Leeds and Travis and Emmet and Macdonald do the same thing for their clubs, there was no reason for these very successful men who loved the game to think they couldn't do the same thing for their own.
If it would help, I could show you the early design lineage of every prominent Philadelphia course during this time period. I would agree that beginning somewhere around 1910 til WWI or so some more pros were beginning to be brought in, primarily Donald Ross, but both amateur and pro design motifs co-existed well into the 20s in the region, with the major pros post-war being Flynn, and Ross, with surprisingly little Tilly, who was off making a name for himself in other cities.
I'm not sure why you want to deny this well-documented history Tom. You should really have read many of the articles Joe Bausch produced here over the past three years in this regard, Tom...it's been absolutely stellar stuff that makes it all very clear.
Whatever work early pros like Barker did near Philly for clubs like Springhaven and Atlantic City didn't last long, and was never much heralded locally.
Merion turned out pretty well.
-
Tom, again, that's simply a false choice and its really a shame you seem locked into a hamstrung stockade of your own prejudiced incredulity.
For whatever reasons, call it snobbery or whatever, but its very clear from the historical record that both NGLA and Merion purposefully eschewed the use of a professional for their golf courses and seemed quite proud of that fact.
Merion did in fact use Macdonald, and leveraged his advice and suggestions in selecting their site and also had him come down just before construction to Lconsider and advise on or (five) plans", in the words of Alan Wilson as clearly reflected in the MCC Minutes of April 1911.
The Minutes, after saying the Committee rearranged the course and created five different plans in March/April 1911, say Macdonald and Whigham came down and "spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself", determined that if Merion were to lay it out according to the plan they approved ("which is submitted herewith") they'd not only have a first class course but also have the finest seven finishing holes of any inland course in the world.
Of course, one has to wonder if these were indeed plans CBM had himself created supposedly six months or earlier on some topo map as David would have us believe why CBM would then have to "look over the various plans", or even come down to look at the plans again in context of "looking over the ground itself", or why he couldn't have made up his mind over the course of the previous nine months where he was supposedly diligently working on a routing for Merion via a topo map while trying to get NGLA in condition and the club opened, but that's some of the willing suspension of disbelief that's required to actually try to digest this stuff. ::)
Similarly, to believe your theory that Barker routed the course in December 1910, we'd have to throw out every other single piece of contemporaneous evidence or news account ever found, but what the hell, why not. :o ::)
But hey, I guess that's what revisionist history is for...to keep conspiracy theorists occupied with their tales of intrigue, conspiracy, and paranoia. ;D
As far as the history of Pine Valley, there is a thread that Joe Bausch put together that documents what was happening on that course in real time as it happened.
You should read it.
You should also be aware the Colt visited Merion and Seaview, and they were proud to have him.
It's no wonder that Alan Wilson lamented in the early 20s that the US simply did not have a professional architect as good as Harry Colt. THAT was the prevailing thinking in tow among these guys...they simply weren't impressed with much of the junk the pros on these shores had turned out, Tom.
-
Mike
Try to stay on topic. I'm not interested in starting a new Merion thread. Start a new thread if you are interested in re-discussing that tired subject.
-
Tom,
You're the one who consistently interjected Merion with your nonsense talk about "insurance man".
btw...it's another nice day. I'm going to upstate NY to play some golf.
Your biased unwillingness to accept reality and documented history in this case Tom, is not going to be correspondingly met by my unending attempt to convince you. Real life beckons.
Have a great weekend.
-
"By in large by 1910, if you had any intelligence and you aspired for anything good, you hired a professional/architect or a seasoned amateur. Are you trying to make the case the people at Merion were idiots?"
Tom MacWood:
No, I am certainly not trying to make the case that the people of Merion (MMC) back in 1910 and 1911 were idiots for appointing a committee of Hugh Wilson as chairman, and four other club members to design the East and West courses. I have never made that point or case or implied it. But it seems you are trying to make the case the people of Merion were idiots if in fact the history of the initial routing and design and creation of those courses as presented by that club is correct and factually accurate!
On your course and architect attribution list in Post #74, your architect attribution (evoutionarily and otherwise) on Myopia, The Country Club and GCGC are either incomplete or meaningfully inaccurate.
-
TomM,
Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont? Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all. Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.
-
David M...
I don't know if this will help but here is a link to some prior Oakmont discussion and how it transformed to greatness.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/)
-
David M...
I don't know if this will help but here is a link to some prior Oakmont discussion and how it transformed to greatness.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/)
I recall the thread but I don't recall anything in it suggesting that Oakmont was considered a first class course in 1910. I think Oakmont began to gain respect when they installed their "bunker system" and as they continued to make improvements, most of which were geared toward making the course more difficult. While they may have began installing their bunker system in 1909, the work seems to have started in earnest in 1910, and I don't think the project was completed for a number of years. And before the project, I don't even think those at Oakmont would have classified it as a "first-class" course. From American Golfer, Western PA Notes, Dec. 1909, quoting Merion's Board of Governors:
Much work has been done upon hazards at the Oakmont course during the last year, and after considerable discussion it has been decided that the proposed system shall be completed without delay. As stated by the Board of Governors, the course "has been brought to a very high standard of excellence as far as the turf and putting greens are concerned and to make Oakmont one of the classic golf courses of the country we only need the traps and hazards that are the completement of every first-class course."
While substantial work had been done in 1910, by February 1911 the bunker project had not yet been completed. From American Golfer, Pittsburg Notes:
Western Pennsylvanian clubs, in general, are prepared to complete, this year, improvements which have been in progress at their respective courses. Newly built courses will be brought to good shape and in other cases bunker systems of greater or less magnitude are to be completed. Most important of all will be the final touches on the new bunker system at Oakmont, which will give Western Pennsylvania a course in which golfers take pride and pleasure.
By February 1912, the work must have been largely completed, but was reportedly still not quite finished. It was around this time, though, that those in the Pittsburg area started viewing their course as comparable to the best courses in the land.
The club will complete its improvements to the grounds in the early spring, thus finishing the bunker system on which work has been carried along during the last two years. As a result of Oakmont's improvements, there has been much talk during the past two seasons of the probability of an effort to bring the amateur championship tournament of the United States Golf Association to the Oakmont course, the matter having been discussed freely by the Pittsburgh press and among the local golfers.
It has been chiefly on account of the possibility that the course might not be entirely in the shape desired that the club has not heretofore made an application for the amateur event. From present indications it is probable that the club will be one of those desiring the tournament of 1913, as was stated, about one year ago. The completion of the improvements on the course have made it the leading one in this vicinity, and, in the opinion of many who have played on it, one of the leading courses of the country.
Changes continued the next year. From February 1913 AG:
The 1913 National Championship Tournament will positively not take place in Pittsburgh according to the leading golfers of the local champion- ship courses. Both the Oakmont and the Allegheny Country Club courses are undergoing some improved changes, which, when finished, will make them compare favorably with any two golf courses in any other section of the country.
Positive proof has been given that Oakmont will ask for the National event in 1914. By that time the course will undoubtedly be one of the finest in the country, measuring well over 6,000 yards in length. Since the new bunker system was instituted last year, no complaint has been made that the course is too easy. On the other hand, it has been the opposite.
. . .
Not perfectly satisfied with some of the conditions of its course, the Oakmont Country Club will make a few changes during the present off-season.
At the present time the first green is under reconstruction. The hole lies at the end of a sloping fairway which in the winter time is always heavily coated with ice. The green is being elevated about 6 feet. A few minor changes will also be made on other putting greens which did not come up to expectations the past year.
The eighteenth fairway will also show a great change next year. The fairgreen will be bunkered and the ap- proach to the elevated green will also be surrounded with formidable mounds.
TomM have you seen any accounts which put Oakmont with the top courses by 1910? I don't think I have.
-
David...
that is why I posted that link. I recall, as you do, that the collective mindset here at GCA.com thought the course was not world class around 1910. Instead, it transformed to greatness for a variety of reasons.
And we discussed that process on that thread.
-
It's interesting that the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder', and yet I imagine that this was one of the least (or maybe least obvious) lessons/goals that CBM and NGLA had brought to the forefront of America's golfing consciousness.
Peter
-
It's interesting that the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder', and yet I imagine that this was one of the least (or maybe least obvious) lessons/goals that CBM and NGLA had brought to the forefront of America's golfing consciousness.
Peter
From what do you conclude that "the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder'?" From Oakmont? If so, I am not sure Oakmont is a representative sample.
NGLA was considered by many to be the hardest course in the country, at least before Pine Valley was finally finished. There weren't many criticisms of NGLA but those few were focused on the difficulty.
-
David...
Tom Macwood said this in his rebutal to Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane" piece:
This rather inconsequential remark is the first clue to what was really behind the Crane debate: British golf vs. American golf, and its architectural offshoot. It was a discussion that had been going on for several years in a number of different forums. The first major confrontation came in 1917 with AW Tillinghast and JH Taylor. Taylor warned that American courses were becoming too severe, to which Tilly took exception, arguing modern Americans course although more testing were also fair and enjoyable to all classes of golfer. That more severe trend can be traced to Harry Vardon and Bernard Darwin’s criticisms of American courses a few years earlier. In 1914 Vardon wrote his infamous article ‘What’s Wrong with American Golf?,’ in which he suggested American golf was not progressing because American golf courses were weak. Darwin wrote a series of critical articles while covering the Vardon/Ray tour of 1913. Those articles were syndicated by American papers and generated quite a controversy, particularly in Chicago where he was most unflattering. The result was a design and redesign spree in Chicago in the aftermath by the likes of Colt, Ross, Watson, and others. The Chicago Tribune (10/3/1916) observed: “I am of the belief, although none of the men concerned admits it, that Darwin’s critical rejection of Chicago’s claims in 1913 served to whip the executives of the most pretentious clubs into the activities that have resulted in providing the district with the most wonderful group of high test golf courses the world has today.
I underlined part of it to highlight the idea that American architecture seemed to be focused on making courses more difficult. Now there is no doubt this came after this 1910 timeframe we are discussing now, but perhaps it isn't totally unreasonable to consider that some people desired more challenging courses in America. Perhaps we can look to Tom MacWood's comments on this thread that some of the original US Open and US Amateur courses were too short and too easy to be considered great.
I was under the belief that the British vs. American golf debate was the focal point/reason for the "toughening" up of American golf courses. Again, I believe I got this from Tom MacWood.
-
"I underlined part of it to highlight the idea that American architecture seemed to be focused on making courses more difficult. Now there is no doubt this came after this 1910 timeframe we are discussing now, but perhaps it isn't totally unreasonable to consider that some people desired more challenging courses in America. Perhaps we can look to Tom MacWood's comments on this thread that some of the original US Open and US Amateur courses were too short and too easy to be considered great.
I was under the belief that the British vs. American golf debate was the focal point/reason for the "toughening" up of American golf courses. Again, I believe I got this from Tom MacWood."
Mac:
The idea of making American architecture and American courses more difficult via increased bunkering and different bunker arrangements certainly came before 1910. Walter Travis' ideas in writing and on the ground is one example and proof of that. Travis mentioned before the middle of the first decade of the 20th century that American courses needed more bunkers as the good courses abroad had. And there are other good examples of it before 1910 too; another one would be Herbert C. Leeds' well known liberal bunkering bent with Myopia Hunt Club (and the well known story that he would throw a white chip where he wanted another bunker to penalize a missed shot he observed that had gone unpenalized).
However, it would be something of a mistake and a misinterpretation to think that the debate between Joshua Crane and Behr and Mackenzie in the 1920s was only about the subject of making architecture more difficult or not via bunkering or rough etc. It was also about, and probably much more about, who the philosophy of increased difficulty or increased penalty for missed shots via increased bunkering or particular types of bunker arrangements and increase rough was directed at!
It has been suggested by some on this website that the new philosophy in the late 1920s of the likes of Behr and Mackenzie and apparently Bob Jones of less bunkering albeit more strategically placed bunkering with the lesser total number of bunkers was only about economics. That might've had something to do with it on some of their courses but their call for greater fairway area and less or no rough was clearly a vast philosophical departure in architecture from Crane's idea (or at least what Behr and Mackenzie claimed Crane's idea was) of proportionally penalizing missed shots which generally are more common among less good players. In a number of ways in his articles Behr spoke directly to these specific points and it is undeniable in his writing!
-
Thanks Tom P. Great stuff.
I agree that the Behr/Crane debates focused on much more than making difficult courses, but the reason I recalled Tom Macwood's rebutal to Bob Crosby's piece was that specific mention of British vs. American golf in the first part of the 1900's. That was the first time I had heard of that and, therefore, it left an impression on me.
-
"I agree that the Behr/Crane debates focused on much more than making difficult courses, but the reason I recalled Tom Macwood's rebutal to Bob Crosby's piece was that specific mention of British vs. American golf in the first part of the 1900's. That was the first time I had heard of that and, therefore, it left an impression on me."
Mac:
There were various debates and dynamics between British and American golf and golfers going all the way back to when golf really caught on in America. Those debates and dynamics involved which side had better golfers at various points in time and why, they involved debates and dynamics about the Rules of golf and also about golf courses and golf architecture and their comparative qualities or lack thereof. In a general sense it obviously all derived from a matter of national pride and in some instances became quite severe and heated in print and otherwise! Perhaps the best example was the Schnectedy Putter issue that went on for about six years and even involved the opinion of the President of the United States.
Those historic realities may've somewhat touched on and preceded some of the same issues of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates that began in the mid 1920s but they by no means rebut most of the specifics and realities of what the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates were about with architecture.
For Tom MacWood to try to make the point that they did refute or rebut the Behr/Mackenzie vs Crane debates or refuted and rebutted Bob Crosby's presentation of the specifics and issues involved in those debates shows, in my opinion, a significant misunderstanding and misinterpretation on Tom MacWood's part of the philosophical specifics and the philosophical importance of the Behr/MacKenzie vs Crane debates.
-
How can courses that either opened in 1910 or finished a redo in 1910 be considered great in 1910. Wouldn't it take at least a year of reflection to determine their greatness?
Is it possible we are looking at whether these 1910 courses were great in 1910 with the ability of hindsight and not from a contemporaneous perspective?
-
If the routing is what makes the golf course, as some have argued, then I'm not sure how Oakmont can be so easily dismissed, even without the later stringent bunkering...especially if the greens were anything like today's.
After all, Merion was pretty highly regarded right out of the gate, even with very little bunkering in its first three years of existence. In fact, it wasn't until it was awarded the 1916 US Amateur that significant changes including the addition of many bunkers were done to "toughen" it for that contest.
-
JC...
Great point. I would offer up that many think Old MacDonald is great. But I agree with your sentiment that time will tell.
To your point, that is why I am so interested in progression of each and every course mentioned. Particularly the ones that were considered great back in the day and are still considered great today. What do they have that makes them stand the test of time? What changes were made to keep them great? What things were NOT done that would have ruined them?
-
To your point, that is why I am so interested in progression of each and every course mentioned. Particularly the ones that were considered great back in the day and are still considered great today. What do they have that makes them stand the test of time? What changes were made to keep them great? What things were NOT done that would have ruined them?
We've already had this conversation, Mac, and the answer is:
Go out and figure it out for yourself and don't tell anyone what to think (and whatever you figure out, you better agree with me). ;D
In all seriousness, I agree that there must be something about them that is great and there must be some common thread to why they stood the test of time and others didn't. I asked that question once......
-
Tom MacWood:
No, I am certainly not trying to make the case that the people of Merion (MMC) back in 1910 and 1911 were idiots for appointing a committee of Hugh Wilson as chairman, and four other club members to design the East and West courses. I have never made that point or case or implied it. But it seems you are trying to make the case the people of Merion were idiots if in fact the history of the initial routing and design and creation of those courses as presented by that club is correct and factually accurate!
On your course and architect attribution list in Post #74, your architect attribution (evoutionarily and otherwise) on Myopia, The Country Club and GCGC are either incomplete or meaningfully inaccurate.
TEP
No I'm not trying to make the case the powers-to-be at Merion were idiots, I'm making the case that in 1910 if you aspired for anything good you hired a seasoned professional or amateur, which why they engaged Barker and CBM.
-
TomM,
Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont? Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all. Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.
I included Oakmont based on the early map Joe produced. It appears the course has changed very little since then. I can't explain why the course was not praised early on, perhaps being somewhat isolated, but that would certainly change shortly. The course was being seriously considered for the US Amateur in 1912, so some must have thought highly of it, but for whatever reason they took themselves out of the running. It was chosen in 1917, but the War cancelled that event.
-
How can courses that either opened in 1910 or finished a redo in 1910 be considered great in 1910. Wouldn't it take at least a year of reflection to determine their greatness?
Is it possible we are looking at whether these 1910 courses were great in 1910 with the ability of hindsight and not from a contemporaneous perspective?
Wasn't the NGLA considered great the moment it opened? Pine Valley? Sand Hills? In the case of well publicized special designs the reflection occurs before they open which is why there is so much anticipation.
-
Tom MacWood,
With all due respect, if that's the case you're trying to make I think you missed the.mark.
Seriously, what do you think were the driving reasons that the ethos of clubs like Merion and NGLA both seemed so proud to have designed their courses without using professionals?
-
Tom MacWood,
With all due respect, if that's the case you're trying to make I think you missed the.mark.
Seriously, what do you think were the driving reasons that the ethos of clubs like Merion and NGLA both seemed so proud to have designed their courses without using professionals?
Apples and oranges. CBM was a seasoned amateur when he took up the NGLA project, and he surrounded himself with other seasoned amateurs. CBM was one of the most famous and well respected men in golf, on both sides of the Atlantic. Wilson was an untested, inexperienced insurances salesman.
-
"TEP
No I'm not trying to make the case the powers-to-be at Merion were idiots, I'm making the case that in 1910 if you aspired for anything good you hired a seasoned professional or amateur, which why they engaged Barker and CBM."
I understand your point. However, the record (recently found 1910 and 1911 MCC committee and board records) make it crystal clear MCC never engaged Barker at all and they also make it remarkably clear what Macdonald/Whigam did for them and what Wilson and his committee did for them. Matter of fact, the MCC record of this time makes it crystal clear MCC never "hired" anyone at all (in the sense of paying anyone for design of the East and West courses)! It is my recent understanding that Merion plans to chronicle it all in detail soon.
Therefore, let's not continue this subject of Merion on this website as I think you're aware that Ran Morrissett has indicated by the locking of that Desmond Tolhurst thread of yours and his promise to lock any others like it in the future. Try not to turn this thread into another one of those, Tom MacWood.
Thank you.
-
TEP
The record shows the powers-that-be engaged both Barker and CBM. A very intelligent move I might add. You may want to pretend it never happened, as Wayne Morrison did when he wrote his history of Merion, but there is absolutely no disputing that fact.
-
It is indisputable that by 1910 ALL of the very best courses in the US were designed and developed by amateurs within the clubs themselves, as this thread clearly proves. That was also the model that Merion sought to emulate and why they sought out CBM for advice.
There is not a professionallyy designed course that has even had any discussion here to date on this thread, and probably more than a few raised eyebrows at some of the nomineess, but just like during those days, it obvious wthat the cream has risen to the top.
-
Was this thread started to discuss Merion again?
-
It is indisputable that by 1910 ALL of the very best courses in the US were designed and developed by amateurs within the clubs themselves, as this thread clearly proves. That was also the model that Merion sought to emulate and why they sought out CBM for advice.
There is not a professionallyy designed course that has even had any discussion here to date on this thread, and probably more than a few raised eyebrows at some of the nomineess, but just like during those days, it obvious wthat the cream has risen to the top.
I guess you don't like my list, because not all the courses on my list were designed and developed by amateurs.
-
"TEP
The record shows the powers-that-be engaged both Barker and CBM."
Since you've never been to Merion or MCC to see their 'record' from that time I'm quite sure noone could imagine how you would even be in a position to credibly make a statement like that about Barker. Regarding CBM I believe the same applies as to what you haven't seen and consequently don't know.
But I suppose there is no reason to expect that you will not carry on with your usual unsubstantiated opinions and statements about the likes of Merion, Myopia, Pine Valley, North Shore, Aronimink et al. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, so long as most competent golf course architecture historians and anaylsts realize it.
Carry on-----but a word of warning----eg stray too far back into the subject of Merion's history on this thread and Ran Morrissett may lock this one too!
I should add to anyone reading this thread to note who started IT!
-
"Was this thread started to discuss Merion again?"
Mac:
Good question. For the most accurate answer to your question you should direct your question to the one who actualy started this particular thread. But if you are interested in who first brought up the subject of Merion on this thread I would point you to Post #55!
-
Mac
They cannot help themselves...I would hope you realize that by now.
By the way I don't think Oakmont's lack of reputation was due to its difficult nature. It probably had more to do with its relative isolation, which resulted in lack of national publicity. I don't recall it being included on the tours of Vardon, Ray, Darwin, Leach, and some of the other high profile Brits.
-
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
The professional architect attribution (in bold) on GCGC and Myopia, at least, should be removed as it is largely irrelevant and therefore meaningfully inaccurate as to the architectural attribution and evolution of those two courses.
-
What do folks here think were the best 3 courses by a long shot in the states by 1910?
Hint...the initials are G, M, and N! ;)
-
It may not be very important what I think or Tom MacWood thinks or anyone else on here thinks the top courses were in 1910, but I can tell you that in 1904 C.B. Macdonald wrote that it was generally conceded that the best three in America were Myopia, Garden City GC and Chicago GC.
And on June 10, 1910 HH Barker wrote that he thought the best two were Myopia Hunt Club and Garden City GC but that there was approximately 100 acres in Ardmore Pennsylvania whose land was in every way adapted to the making of a first class golf course that would compare favorably to the two best in the country he mentioned! Of course, all of them were the work of "amateur/sportsmen" architects at that time and the members of the latter didn't ask Barker for his opinion of the land in the first place, a real estate developer did. And even though the club didn't let Barker do a course for them in Ardmore Pa and instead picked an inexperienced novice who was an insurance man to chair a committee of four other inexperienced members to design the course, its routing and architecture would be considered some of the best in the country and the world anyway, and it would end up hosting more USGA championships than any other.
Also, quite ironically, that "dumb-luck" insurance man/committee chairman and novice architect would actually write five years after beginning that if he and his other inexperienced committeemen knew in the beginning what they realized five years later they never would have begun it or done it in the first place.
-
Tom,
That's correct...here's what Mr. Barker said about Myopia and Garden City. At the time, June 1910, NGLA had not opened yet, and would have a soft opening with an Invitational Tournament for about a dozen players in July 1910, and open to the membership the following year. Still, even that early it was generally acknowledged as the top course produced by American golf.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2443/3602306390_3d87346472_b.jpg)
In a similar vein, here's what Max Behr thought...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4297244047_dbab7ce551_o.jpg)
Here's some mentions of Myopia and NGLA from Alex Findlay;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3421552865_a31dfb2322_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/4984561107_c37b448b00_o.jpg)
I find it also very interesting to consider the club ethos that would lead to Macdonald and NGLA almost bragging that no professional architectural advice would be sought for the course they were going to build as this December 1906 article makes clear;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/3569478625_b7f43fcb34_o.jpg)
That to me rings very closely to what Alan Wilson wrote about the origins of Merion, when he similarly said;
"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect."
As regards this whole silliness that by 1910 any serious club picked a pro to design their course, here's some articles from 1916...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4304253237_f6414fd30e_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4304253281_52967b5bc3_o.jpg)
-
Sorry Mike,
I have to disagree with your statement, "As regards this whole silliness that by 1910 any serious club picked a pro to design their course..."
As he was paid for his design and to oversee the course construction, A.W. Tillinghast was a professional the moment he was hired by C.C. Worthington to design and build Shawnee in 1909.
Did this signal the beginning of amateur players turning professional designers? It would take some research and it may very well be, but the point is that there were many serious courses being designed and buiilt by amateurs turned professionals and, more importantly, professionals turned professional architects prior to 1910. That the handful of the best courses were the product of amateur designers is more coincidence than proof of superiority, as professional or amateur, the golf course architecture design industry in America was in its extreme infancy in those years. In fact, I would think that the vast preponderance of BAD courses designed during these years were designed by amateurs and members. That is why so many courses were being redesigned, rerouted, expanded, extended and added to between 1911 & 1930.
Between 1910 and 1920 the monies that a good professional architect would charge and get increased by 20 or more fold as many were getting only $100 or so (if that) to stake out or lay out a course whereas Tilly & Ross were getting $2,000 & more for an 18-hole design by then.
-
Phil,
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with what I'm disagreeing with. ;)
Tom MacWood made a statement to the effect that by 1910 any serious club was looking to a professional to design or modify their course, speaking primarily about foreign professional golfers like Barker who also did course layouts to earn some extra money..
That statement is patently and provably untrue, as you know. MUCH work continued to be done at top-notch clubs by amateur designers up until WWI and even beyond as seen in the work of Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Smith, et.al. as these articles illustrate.
I would not disagree that at the point AW Tillinghast accepted a commission from Worthington to design Shawnee that he moved from amateur golfer to professional architect, but I'm not sure how that relates to Tom's contention? Did I miss something or simply not explain my point very well the first time?
-
The professional architect attribution (in bold) on GCGC and Myopia, at least, should be removed as it is largely irrelevant and therefore meaningfully inaccurate as to the architectural attribution and evolution of those two courses.
Do you think it over accentuates the professionals or the amateurs?
-
Mike,
You make the mistake in assuming that because I disagree with your contention that I agree with Tom Macwood; I don't because I disagree with you both. The reason I do is because you are BOTH demanding absolutes as the answer to this question when the real answer lies squarely in the middle.
First of all, you contend that ALL, and I believe you really mean MOST of the best courses by 1910 had or were being designed by amateur architects. While the 2 or 3 best were, there were also a very large number of very good courses that both had and were being designed by Professional Architects by 1910. Tilly's Shawnee is but one example.
It is also the clear example that I gave numerous times when I challenged Tom on his own absolute contention that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..."
Now Tom keeps ignoring this question and refusing to answer every time I ask, "if you then considered A.W. Tillinghast who had just finished his design of Shawnee and was now overseeing its construction, both of which were firsts for him, was actually experienced and tested in 1910, and if so, what you could possibly base it on?"
It has been such an obvious ignorance of both question and fact that even Mac Plumart called him to task on it, something that Mac never does.
Any list of the top 25 courses in America, even one where Barker is credited for participating in the design of 1/5 of them is bound to find a mixture of both professional and amateur architects...
-
"Do you think it over accentuates the professionals or the amateurs?"
Accentuation has nothing to do with it. The professional attribution in both is simply meaningfully inaccurate and irrelevant to the designs of both courses.
-
The professional architect attribution (in bold) on GCGC and Myopia, at least, should be removed as it is largely irrelevant and therefore meaningfully inaccurate as to the architectural attribution and evolution of those two courses.
TEP
Based on your research ability, or should I say inability, you would be the last person anyone would listen to regarding attributions.
-
"I would not disagree that at the point AW Tillinghast accepted a commission from Worthington to design Shawnee that he moved from amateur golfer to professional architect,"
I would. When Tillinghast accepted a commission to do Shawnee he was considered to be an amateur golfer of skill. At that point the USGA had not even specifically decided or legislated the amateur status question regarding accepting remuneration for architecture. That issue would be decided in the teens and into the later teens the whole issue became even more complex and controversial until the early 1920s when the USGA instituted the so-called "Architect Exception" to the USGA Rule on Amateur Status. With Shawnee and into the teens Tillinghast may've taken money for architecture but he did not consider himself to be a professional golfer. When he was informed his amateur status was in question, in his own defense he pointed out there had been no USGA Rule or regulation debarring an amateur golfer of skill from accepting remuneration for architecture. Technically he was correct but then the USGA wrote legislation making it possible to debar amateur golfers of skill for accepting remuneration for architecture thereby losing their amateur playing status. I have maintained that I believe it was C.B. Macdonald who actually wrote that legislation in the teens. Matter of fact, I believe Tillinghast played in the 1910 US Open in Philadelphia as an amateur and did very well.
-
Mike
I included Myopia and GCGC on my list...what is your point? Were there only two top courses in America in 1910? By the way I'm considering adding Barker to my GCGC attribution since he assisted Travis on the redesign.
-
"TEP
Based on your research ability, or should I say inability, you would be the last person anyone would listen to regarding attributions."
Tom MacWood:
You've said that on here for years but thankfully no one agrees with you other than perhaps Moriarty. I would put my analytical ability on the history of architecture up against yours any day and I don't think many have much doubt who is a lot better at it and it sure isn't you. That's probably why your only platform is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and it seems thankfully you've now begun to lose even that platform due to the kind of illogical and even defamatory remarks you made on that Desmond Tolhurst thread you started that was locked due to your unfortunate remarks. Your credibility on GCA is at an all time low and you have no one to blame for it other than yourself which is the way it should be on here.
-
"I would not disagree that at the point AW Tillinghast accepted a commission from Worthington to design Shawnee that he moved from amateur golfer to professional architect,"
I would. When Tillinghast accepted a commission to do Shawnee he was considered to be an amateur golfer of skill. At that point the USGA had not even specifically decided or legislated the amateur status question regarding accepting remuneration for architecture. That issue would be decided in the teens and into the later teens the whole issue became even more complex and controversial until the early 1920s when the USGA instituted the so-called "Architect Exception" to the USGA Rule on Amateur Status. With Shawnee and into the teens Tillinghast may've taken money for architecture but he did not consider himself to be a professional golfer. When he was informed his amateur status was in question, in his own defense he pointed out there had been no USGA Rule or regulation debarring an amateur golfer of skill from accepting remuneration for architecture. Technically he was correct but then the USGA wrote legislation making it possible to debar amateur golfers of skill for accepting remuneration for architecture thereby losing their amateur playing status. I have maintained that I believe it was C.B. Macdonald who actually wrote that legislation in the teens. Matter of fact, I believe Tillinghast played in the 1910 US Open in Philadelphia as an amateur and did very well.
TEP
There is a difference between an amateur golfer who never accepts a fee for anything golf related, and an amateur golfer whose profession is golf architecture. Tillinghast,Travis, Emmet, Langford, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Gannon would fall into the latter category.
-
"TEP
Based on your research ability, or should I say inability, you would be the last person anyone would listen to regarding attributions."
Tom MacWood:
You've said that on here for years but thankfully no one agrees with you other than perhaps Moriarty. I would put my analytical ability on the history of architecture up against yours any day and I don't think many have much doubt who is a lot better at it and it sure isn't you. That's probably why your only platform is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and it seems thankfully you've now begun to lose even that platform due to the kind of illogical and even defamatory remarks you made on that Desmond Tolhurst thread you started that was locked due to your unfortunate remarks. Your credibility on GCA is at an all time low and you have no one to blame for it other than yourself which is the way it should be on here.
At least I had credibility to lose. You've never been credible....you are the crazy uncle who amuses us all.
-
"By the way I'm considering adding Barker to my GCGC attribution since he assisted Travis on the redesign."
That doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully GCGC isn't and I very much doubt they ever would. Who amongst any golf clubs actually listens to what you think about architectural attribution, Tom MacWood? Can you name one who actually has? Please tell us who they are so some of us can check with them. ;)
Who listens to you? I certainly do know the likes of Merion, Myopia, Pine Valley and North Shore sure don't.
It doesn't look like you're that interested in historically accurate architectural attribution anyway; it rather looks like your schtick on here is to try to prove anyone and everyone wrong somehow and to date it appears you've been a pretty complete failure at that unfortunate game.
-
"TEP
There is a difference between an amateur golfer who never accepts a fee for anything golf related, and an amateur golfer whose profession is golf architecture. Tillinghast,Travis, Emmet, Langford, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Gannon would fall into the latter category."
Tom MacWood:
That question all depends on what particular era one is talking about. I'm quite sure you know and understand less about the history and technicalities of USGA amateur status standing and legislation than you do about architectural attribution. As usual with you what you think you understand and what you actually do understand is pretty much worlds apart.
-
"By the way I'm considering adding Barker to my GCGC attribution since he assisted Travis on the redesign."
That doesn't surprise me at all. Thankfully GCGC isn't and I very much doubt they ever would. Who amongst any golf clubs actually listens to what you think about architectural attribution, Tom MacWood? Can you name one who actually has? Please tell us who they are so some of us can check with them. ;)
Who listens to you? I certainly do know the likes of Merion, Myopia, Pine Valley and North Shore sure don't.
It doesn't look like you're that interested in historically accurate architectural attribution anyway; it rather looks like your schtick on here is to try to prove anyone and everyone wrong somehow and to date it appears you've been a pretty complete failure at that unfortunate game.
That ain't saying much. If you go by their most recent golf history book GCGC doesn't recognize Tilly, Colt, Emmet #2, or Doak's contributions either. The clubs are often the last to come along. Merion thought for decades Wilson traveled abroad before designing the course....Myopia had no idea the most important golf professional/architect of the era was their first professional...PVGC thought Crump died from a tooth ache...and we are still trying to figure out why NS thought Tilly designed their golf course.
-
And Tom Mac, I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to even acknowledge, no less attempt to answer my question.
Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses.
-
And Tom Mac, I'm still trying to figure out why you refuse to even acknowledge, no less attempt to answer my question.
Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses.
Phil-the-author
I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?
-
Tom the Mac,
I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:
You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine]
In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?
-
Phil,
My contention is that by 1910, the three courses that were clearly acknowledged as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA, which was just opening.
They were all designed by amateurs. Thus, ALL of the best courses by 1910 were indeed designed by amateurs and my saying so is a true statement.
I'm not including Shawnee because I don't believe it opened until 1911, correct?
Tom MacWood has tried to list a bunch of courses, primarily those designed by HH Barker, along side them on yet another "list", in some attempt to give courses like Waverly and Atlanta Athletic the same credentials when that is simply preposterous.
It doesn't fly to anyone who knows golf history and golf courses, but it might look like expert opinion to those with simply a passing interest.
Tom has started this thread by taking a statement I made on the Merion thread...that Myopia, GCGC, and NGLA were generally acknowledged as the three best courses in 1910, that they were all designed by amateurs, and that was the model Merion sought to emulate and did so, and attempted to refute it by seemingly creating a thread that is simply about generic golf courses by 1910, yet his motives are once again completely transparent, and every day he's tried to fit insults about "insurance salesmen" into the dialogue and then accuse others of using this as a Merion thread....it's quite comical, really.
In fact, the irony is that he's only proven my statement to be more true than most probably realized, by his continued biased refusal to acknowledge hard physical evidence such as what I produced in last night's post.
Thanks, and no offense was meant to Tillinghast's early contributions here.
-
Mike,
Technically, as NGLA was not OFFICIALLY opened until 1911 then it shouldn't be counted either. My point with Tilly and Shawnee is that in 1910, even though the course wasn't open yet, he was a PRACTICING professional architect and that he had been hired for a very significant commission.
I do understand and agree with the rest of your comment.
-
Tom the Mac,
I thought about it for a minute, and whether you answer my question or not is of no significance because there really is no way you can defend your statement in light of what Tilly was doing at Shawnee.
What I feel I must comment on is your insulting and sarcastic statement, "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
NONSENSE!
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #31 as you did in #35?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my question in post #37 as you did in #38?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #44 as you did in #45?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my answer in post #46 as you did in #47?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my new comment in post #50 as you did in #52?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU answer my comment which ONCE AGAIN contained the question you were ignoring in post #56 as you did in #57 while ignoring the question once again?
If that was true, on this thread why would YOU respond to my reply to your #57 with an answer in #60, where I AGAIN asked the question, with a response in #62 where you once again ignored the question?
I responded in #67 and once AGAIN asked the question to which you SARCASTICALLY responded in #68 with "Thanks."
Who do you think you are kidding with "Phil-the-author, I'm sorry...I rarely read your posts....what is your question?"
-
Phil,
I agree, as well, with the only caveat that Tillinghast wasn't a professional golfer who dabbled in architecture for extra money like the Barkers and Campbells and Dunns who preceded him.
He was instead a well-established amateur golfer who became a full-time professional architect, which is quite a distinction from the historically inaccurate, tragically biased point Tom MacWood is trying to make.
I say "tragically" because Tom is simply a great researcher, yet seemingly has self-imposed blind spots cause him to miss or deny meaningful events, or misinterpret them altogether.
-
TomM,
Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont? Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all. Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.
I included Oakmont based on the early map Joe produced. It appears the course has changed very little since then. I can't explain why the course was not praised early on, perhaps being somewhat isolated, but that would certainly change shortly. The course was being seriously considered for the US Amateur in 1912, so some must have thought highly of it, but for whatever reason they took themselves out of the running. It was chosen in 1917, but the War cancelled that event.
I think Joe's map was 1915. My understanding is that the changes at Oakmont were coming on very rapidly between about 1909 and 1915, and that these included not only new bunkers but also a substantial lengthening and the rebuilding of at least some greens. I guess it is a judgment call as to whether the course was far enough along by 1910 to be one of the best.
But it is interesting how little acclaim the course got before 1910. I am not sure I agree that it was that it was isolated. Pittsburgh was economically powerful, and was much more convenient from the east than most other "Western" courses. The Fownes family was very well traveled and a constant fixture at annual tournaments from Lakewood to Pinehurst. I get the impression that before 1910 the course was considered to be a bit of a pushover and perhaps not all that good. One early reference to a top Oakmont golfer suggested he was handicapped by the lack of competition in his area and also by the course on which he regularly played.
Don't get me wrong. Obviously at some point the course began to be considered one of the best. The question for me is when.
-
Tom the Mac,
I don't know how true that may be as you directly responded to PARTS of posts of mine wherein the question was raised, but one more time:
You stated that, "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." [bold, italics, underline mine]
In 1910 Tilly was overseeing the construction of his just finished design at Shawnee. How can you possibly say then that he was NOT inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910?
His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience.
-
David
You're right the map was from 1915, but most of the reports I've read have Fownes installing his new bunkering scheme in 1909-1910. From a golfing perspective I do think it was isolated. It was not really in the East (Boston, NY, Phila) and it was not in the West (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) - it was in no man's land. But none the less it still did get a fair amount of positive press. In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.
-
Shivas
I would post the articles but for whatever reason the site has removed that option. I'll see if I can scan them and email them to you.
-
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.
Tom,
Great to see this exercise is finally leading to your concurrence that the very best American golf courses by 1910, by a long, long shot, actually, were all designed by amateur golfers doing it for their own clubs.
These were the only courses ever mentioned as approaching anything like the best courses abroad, although Chicago is a stretch that had more to do with Macdonald's personality and ego than the architecture of the golf course on the ground at that time.
NGLA, on the other hand...
-
Tom,
"His associate at Shawnee, Mr. Worthington, had a great deal of experience."
Sorry Tom, but you know NOTHING about the design and construction of Shawnee.
You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.
The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.
Worthington had NOTHING to do with the design of the course. He was involved in many, many business projects and turned it all over to Tilly. And by the way, he did NOT have "a great deal of experience" in golf course design and/or construction as you so boldly stated. His was minimal and his work was terrible, which is the main reason he put faith in Tilly and hired him to do it.
Finally, even if I accept that nonsense about Worthington, you simply said that to AVOID ADMITTING you were wrong in reagrd to your statement that "Golf architecture advanced to the point where there were no inexperienced, untested architects operating in 1910..." because Tilly most certainly WAS inexperienced and untested and yet was designing and building the golf course at Shawnee. Unless you now want to call him a LIAR and call every other majopr golf writer at the time who praised Tilly for his design at Shawnee, and who didn't mention Worthington as doing anything in that regard.
You lose all credibility by making these unfounded and completely incorrect statements.
There is nothing demeaning about saying, "Phil, you're right. Tilly was the exception to what I wrote about experienced and tested architects at work in 1910." But you simply can't bring yourself to do it. That is so sad...
-
Tom Macwood...
To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?
Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.
Thanks in advance.
-
I think the list, much like Tom's list of public courses, speaks for itself.
There are good reasons for the courses you've never heard of, and most of the rest are a combination of name-dropped architects people might be familiar with and a generous dollop of courses like Baltusrol that were pretty awful then but in the next decades were completely redesigned into what people know them as today.
Tom likes to pretend that he knows something the rest of the folks here don't know by including them, but that veneer is paper thin once you scratch the surface.
If Tom Paul is the "Crazy Uncle" of this website, then Tom MacWood is the guy who corners you for a half-hour at a cocktail party trying to tell you all the reasons that the brilliant creations of "Homewood", "Nassau" and "Waverly" were actually the tipping point in US architectural history. ;) ;D
-
Mac,
I agree with Mike on this.
-
Phil-the-author
Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience? If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays.
By the way Worthington also designed the Inn.
-
In 1911 "Bunker Hill" the of American Golfer mentioned Oakmont in the same breath as Garden City, Myopia and Chicago.
Tom,
Great to see this exercise is finally leading to your concurrence that the very best American golf courses by 1910, by a long, long shot, actually, were all designed by amateur golfers doing it for their own clubs.
These were the only courses ever mentioned as approaching anything like the best courses abroad, although Chicago is a stretch that had more to do with Macdonald's personality and ego than the architecture of the golf course on the ground at that time.
NGLA, on the other hand...
By 1910, if you had aspiration for anything good, you hired an experience professional or amateur golf architect. Fownes had been evolving Oakmont for seven years by 1910. Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell in 1894, and Leeds began perfecting the course in 1899 or eleven years prior. James Foulis was involved in the original design of Chicago in 1895, and his brother David overhauled the course in 1910. Travis had design experience when he began remodeling GCGC in 1906 (and by 1910 he had a wealth of experience), and he was assisted by Barker.
-
Tom Macwood...
To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?
Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.
Thanks in advance.
I couldn't tell you; I haven't followed that project. What can't you get your arms around?
-
I think the list, much like Tom's list of public courses, speaks for itself.
There are good reasons for the courses you've never heard of, and most of the rest are a combination of name-dropped architects people might be familiar with and a generous dollop of courses like Baltusrol that were pretty awful then but in the next decades were completely redesigned into what people know them as today.
Tom likes to pretend that he knows something the rest of the folks here don't know by including them, but that veneer is paper thin once you scratch the surface.
If Tom Paul is the "Crazy Uncle" of this website, then Tom MacWood is the guy who corners you for a half-hour at a cocktail party trying to tell you all the reasons that the brilliant creations of "Homewood", "Nassau" and "Waverly" were actually the tipping point in US architectural history. ;) ;D
Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?
-
Tom Macwood...
To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?
Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.
Thanks in advance.
I couldn't tell you; I haven't followed that project. What can't you get your arms around?
Tom M...
In terms of what I can't get my arms around, here is my best shot at explaining that.
In doing your research and reaching conclusions, would you consider someone as deserving a credit in the context of architectural attribution if they advised on only one (or just a few) aspect(s) of the course?
For instance, if Architect X routed the course, placed bunkers, shaped greens and then Architect Y came out to see the course and said the bunker on hole 16 should be deeper and move to the left 10 yards. Would you consider Architect Y as deserving credit for being an architect on the course?
The reason I chose Old MacDonald is you have Doak and Urbina listed as architects, but Bahto and Klein were also involved.
-
Tom the Mac,
Why can't you simply admit that Tilly was "inexperienced and untested" in 1910? He WAS! How can we say that for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY? Because his FIRST course wasn't even finished being built! yet he had design and construction control over the ENTIRE project!
You are being a fool in not admitting you are incorrect in this and with statements such as the one you also just made, "By 1910, if you had aspiration for anything good, you hired an experience professional or amateur golf architect..." you are compounding that.
You wrote:
"Phil-the-author, Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience?"
Yes I am. A "WEALTH" of experience in designing golf courses. On what do you base that?
"If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays."
If you believe he was then I know that I can't buy it from her because you already did!
Tom, why do you think I keep pointing out that YOU have NEVER SEEN any of the orignial documents, correspondence, contracts, design drawings, etc... for anything to do with Worthington, the properties and businesses that he owned, the creation and building of the Shawnee Inn and its golf courses. NONE OF IT!
Yet I sit here at home with some of the ORIGINALS and BOXES of COPIES of the rest, each and every one of which I PERSONALLY made. I can't repeat this loudly enough... I've been shown EVERYTHING about all of the owners of the Inn, everything to do with the golf course since Worthington first spoke to Tilly about it until today. Worthington had nothing to do with the design other than walking on the Island with Tilly and talkinng about TILLY'S PLANS with him. He TRUSTED Tilly and recognized that he himself was incapable of designing a true championship course which is why he hired an UNTESTED and INEXPERIENCED Rubber Goods Salesman to design and oversee its construction...
"By the way Worthington also designed the Inn." Once again you show that you have absolutely NO IDEA as to what you are talking about. Have you seen the original plans and drawings for the Inn? Where on the drawings do you see the name C.C. Worthington as "Architect" or "Design Engineer" or anything else?
Write what you want about Worthington, Tilly and Shawnee. Unless you admit you've been wrong you but compound your ignorance...
-
Shivas, you certainly understand. :D
-
OOPS! I made a mistake and posted it twice!
-
Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?
It might seem harsh to call the 1910 version of Baltusrol “awful”, Tom, but compared with both the top courses abroad as well as US architectural forerunners like Garden City and Myopia, Baltusrol surely was in a transition state somewhere between the awful, cross-bunkered, primitive courses of yore beginning to achieve mediocrity through some newer application of strategic principles and scientific bunkering, as the following 1910 article makes very clear.
Other courses on your list of top nominees are mentioned here as well, and not in a great light.
It was against this clearly documented history of very mediocre to awful courses “designed” by golf pros from abroad versus those developed “inhouse” by top amateurs of those clubs (i.e. Myopia, Garden City, NGLA) who put in the time and study and work that top clubs in 1910 considered what a prudent course of action was.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/4989895927_71169c6ef1_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4989896107_0ee89ec095_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4990502530_2926b8738b_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/4989896281_0360c8fe57_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/4989896389_2c35cca89f_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/4989896539_07aa2fe39d_o.jpg)
-
Phil, If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it? What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why? So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?
Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point? Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris? He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?
_______________________
Mike Cirba,
Has Ran appointed you Master of Lists, and assigned you with the task of telling others how to format theirs?
If not, then why don't you let Tom MacWood determine how many courses he wants to include on his list? There is nothing wrong with moving a bit past the obvious few, is there?
Also, Mike, if you were truly interested in only including courses which could be mentioned in the same breath with the best in the world, then there was only one course in the US in 1910 that met that description.
-
David,
You stated, "Phil, If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it? What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why?"
The answer to both questions is that I HAVE. I've said over and over that the records CLEARLY show that Tilly was the SOLE designer of Shawnee. That Worthington and his family lived in Manawalamink, that Buckwood Park was not what Tom thinks it is, etc... I have CLEARLY stated why I know this... That I have seen, and have copies of, all of the records and that I am currently working on a 100-year anniversary book about the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee CC and the golf course and that I was hired to do so by the same people who gave me access to all of the records... the owners.
Now, how about asking Tom Macwood to do EXACTLY what you asked me to do? To come out and say what he is simply alluding to and to do so with PROOF that backs up his claims?
"So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?" I HAVE done so. I've CLEARLY stated that they state that Tilly and Tilly ALONE designed the golf course and the subsequent redesign and rerouting of it in 1912-13 and that he did more "tinkering" with it through the years. I've said it on this thread and on the North Shore thread when Tom attempted to challenge it there saying that Robert White was hired to redesign Shawnee (he wasn't).
"Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point? Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris? He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"
David, would it be fair to say that my more than 10 years of dedicated study of the life and work of A.W. Tillinghast qualifies me as being just as experienced and tested as an architect as Tom is claiming that Tilly was when Worthington engaged him in 1909 to design Shawnee? After all, Tilly had not designed a course or even overseen a construction of any or even lifted dirt by shovel to help build one, yet Tom claims that he was both "experienced and tested" as an architect.
Come on David, this is so ludicrously simple that to argue it is foolish. I find it highly ironical that it is ME who is arguing that Tilly was untested and inexperienced when he designed Shawnee and that anyone, knowing that he hadn't designed a course or built one before this, would say that he was.
-
David,
Tom (or anyone else) can add as many courses to their lists as they want.
It's only when he tries to convince us that any of those courses were close or at the architectural quality level of the acknowledged three best at that time...Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA...all designed inhouse by amateurs...that I choke on my coffee and feel obliged to respond.
After all, Tom started this thread quoting me in some transparent effort to once again propagandize that Hugh Wilson could not have designed Merion, so if he wants to portray a wholly inaccurate representation of history in yet another attempt to do that, I certainly think some of us should have the right to question him and/or set the record straight.
It is, after all, a Discussion Group, last I checked.
-
Thank you Shivas. What makes it worse is that I am sitting here in my home with COPIES of all of the actual documents for my work on the book. I personally made these copies after going through all the documents at Shawnee as well. I've visited the Monroe County Historical Society where the Worthington Businesses archives from the Shawnee area are located and personally gone through every page of them as well as the property records for the lands involved in Fort Depuy, Buckwood Park, what is now Worthington State Park and of course, for Shawnee.
Though he hasn't said it yet, I am certain that David wants to put the onus of proof on me rather than where it actually should be, on Tom Macwood for challenging a very well-known, well-recorded and understood history of the Inn, the area and the golf course's creation.
I also believe that he will ask me to POST the documents I have access to. I will not. They were given to me in confidence with the expectation that I would use them judiciously in the writing of the history book, and that is what I intend to do. The Kirkwood's, an amazing family and the longest owners of Shawnee Inn and golf course in its 100 year history, have no problem with my STATING what is in them, but they have not given me permission to publish them in any way other than what will be in the book.
So this really boils down to a matter of trust. If Tom and David don't trust my honesty and ethics in this, well so be it...
Remember, this all started because Tom stated that there wasn't any "untested and inexperienced" person hired to design an important golf course by 1910. That simply is not the case. He blew it with Tilly and just will not admit it. I would really rather this all end here as it is silly to continue...
-
Dave, I'm just askin', but are you really looking for some sort of ancient, frayed-at-the-corners negative-proving document that says:
"I, Mr. Worthington, being of sound mind and body, do hereby decree that I had nothing to do with designing Shawnee"?
Are you really looking for that sort of proof of this negative? C'mon, man, I know you better than that.... :)
Shivas, there is a big gap between "I, Mr. Worthington, being of sound mind and body, do hereby decree that I had nothing to do with designing Shawnee" and Phil's unsupported conclusions. In short, Phil is claiming authority and expertise in lieu of directly supporting his claims. I prefer to understand things for myself so I am curious as to his reasoning behind the conclusion.
If a man tells me that he's plowed through every doggone document at a club and there's no mention of a guy named Worthington having anything to do with designing or building a golf course, I'm prone to believe him - unless I have in my hot little hand something pretty doggone reliable to the contrary. Do you have something like that? If so, let's see it!
The problem is that Worthington is not just some bystander or outsider. It was his course! I am asking Phil to at least explain his conclusion that Worthington was not involved. And by explain I mean tell us the reasons, not lecture us on his research. .
_____________________________________________
Phil, You didn't answer my questions. Is it really too much to ask you to actually explain how you are so sure Worthington was not involved? I mean other than generally referring to how much research you've done.
Regarding Tillinghast's other experiences, I thought my questions were pretty simple and straighforward, and a good chance for you to teach us something about Tillinghast. Yet all you do is again lecture your the extent of your own research and expertise. Here again are these questions.
"Regarding Tillinghast's design career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point? Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris? He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"
Do you mind answering them? What's your purpose here, Phil? Are you actually here to share and discuss actual information, or are you state your conclusions and pump your books?
_____________________________
Mike Cirba,
Yes it is a discussion group. Not a propaganda campaign. So quit injecting your tired propaganda into every thread. We don't need you to tell us what to think of Tom's list.
If, as you claim, his list speaks for itself, then then let it.
-
David,
I answered your questions directly and completely. Sorry you don't like the answers. It is quite obvious that your sole purpose here is to argue. Go ahead, it will be one-sided...
-
David,
Rather than try to censor me, why don't you just continue in your earlier vein of trying to question and refine the list, as per your Oakmont questions, which were very good and informational?
I have many of the same questions regarding the early years of that course and think its perhaps an area we can all explore further.
In that light though, while I agree with your questions about Oakmont, I'm not sure why you aren't questioning other more dubious choices like Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury, among many others, all of which seem much less devwloped and/or much more deeply flawed in 1910 than Oakmont.
In any case, I think its a really good topic and I look forward to your posts that are both inquisitive and informational.
-
Mike,
You are right. This thread has the potential to be a great one.
I love seeing how courses are formed, change, morph, adapt over time.
I hope we can keep this train on the tracks.
-
Phil,
If you think that repeatedly putting the word "CLEARLY" in bolds - as in "the records CLEARLY show" - is explaining the reasons for your conclusions, then we really don't have anything to talk about.
And thanks again for not answering my questions about AWT's other, earlier experiences. You are a real gent.
_______________________
Mike, I'm not censoring you, but I am asking you to quit wasting our time with your petty propaganda. Like Ran said, it is largely a matter of self-censorship.
-
David,
Agreed.
The next one to mention Mxxxxxx or insurance salesman is a rotten egg. ;)
There's plenty of room to mine a wealth of early course info without us all falling back into old habits.
I have a few other very interesting articles I hope to post tomorrow that talk abour this very critical time when US courses were transitioning from wery rote, mindless exercises into something much more interesting.
Let's not screw it up. ;). JD
-
sg1009891#msg1009891 date=1284472024]
Tom Macwood...
To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?
Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.
Thanks in advance.
Its all subjective, but my view is if someone makes a significant contribution they deserve mention as a contributor.
-
Tom M...
Your last post was a bit garbled, but I think you answer was the following...
Its all subjective, but my view is if someone makes a significant contribution they deserve mention.
I think that is fair.
I can see how the golf clubs themselves wouldn't want to list every contributor as the de facto designer as it might be too voluminous and not as clean. But nevertheless, I think it is neat to see who may have had a hand in the pie.
But what I think is even more neat is to see how these golf guru's of the era we are discussing moved in so many of the same circles and cross pollenated ideas.
-
Phil,
My contention is that by 1910, the three courses that were clearly acknowledged as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA, which was just opening.
They were all designed by amateurs. Thus, ALL of the best courses by 1910 were indeed designed by amateurs and my saying so is a true statement.
I'm not including Shawnee because I don't believe it opened until 1911, correct?
Tom MacWood has tried to list a bunch of courses, primarily those designed by HH Barker, along side them on yet another "list", in some attempt to give courses like Waverly and Atlanta Athletic the same credentials when that is simply preposterous.
It doesn't fly to anyone who knows golf history and golf courses, but it might look like expert opinion to those with simply a passing interest.
Tom has started this thread by taking a statement I made on the Merion thread...that Myopia, GCGC, and NGLA were generally acknowledged as the three best courses in 1910, that they were all designed by amateurs, and that was the model Merion sought to emulate and did so, and attempted to refute it by seemingly creating a thread that is simply about generic golf courses by 1910, yet his motives are once again completely transparent, and every day he's tried to fit insults about "insurance salesmen" into the dialogue and then accuse others of using this as a Merion thread....it's quite comical, really.
In fact, the irony is that he's only proven my statement to be more true than most probably realized, by his continued biased refusal to acknowledge hard physical evidence such as what I produced in last night's post.
Thanks, and no offense was meant to Tillinghast's early contributions here.
No Chicago? Mayfield? Ekwanok? Columbia? Oakmont? Pinehurst? Brookline? Baltusrol? I think you are projecting the opinions from the early 1900s to 1910. What do you know of East Lake and Waverly?
-
Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?
It might seem harsh to call the 1910 version of Baltusrol “awful”, Tom, but compared with both the top courses abroad as well as US architectural forerunners like Garden City and Myopia, Baltusrol surely was in a transition state somewhere between the awful, cross-bunkered, primitive courses of yore beginning to achieve mediocrity through some newer application of strategic principles and scientific bunkering, as the following 1910 article makes very clear.
Other courses on your list of top nominees are mentioned here as well, and not in a great light.
It was against this clearly documented history of very mediocre to awful courses “designed” by golf pros from abroad versus those developed “inhouse” by top amateurs of those clubs (i.e. Myopia, Garden City, NGLA) who put in the time and study and work that top clubs in 1910 considered what a prudent course of action was.
Mike
You called the course awful...the article posted presents completely different picture. Do you just throw crap against the wall hoping no one will call you on it? Baltusrol was one of the top courses in the country in 1910.
-
David,
You stated, "Phil, If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it? What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why?"
The answer to both questions is that I HAVE. I've said over and over that the records CLEARLY show that Tilly was the SOLE designer of Shawnee. That Worthington and his family lived in Manawalamink, that Buckwood Park was not what Tom thinks it is, etc... I have CLEARLY stated why I know this... That I have seen, and have copies of, all of the records and that I am currently working on a 100-year anniversary book about the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee CC and the golf course and that I was hired to do so by the same people who gave me access to all of the records... the owners.
Now, how about asking Tom Macwood to do EXACTLY what you asked me to do? To come out and say what he is simply alluding to and to do so with PROOF that backs up his claims?
"So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?" I HAVE done so. I've CLEARLY stated that they state that Tilly and Tilly ALONE designed the golf course and the subsequent redesign and rerouting of it in 1912-13 and that he did more "tinkering" with it through the years. I've said it on this thread and on the North Shore thread when Tom attempted to challenge it there saying that Robert White was hired to redesign Shawnee (he wasn't).
"Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point? Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris? He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"
David, would it be fair to say that my more than 10 years of dedicated study of the life and work of A.W. Tillinghast qualifies me as being just as experienced and tested as an architect as Tom is claiming that Tilly was when Worthington engaged him in 1909 to design Shawnee? After all, Tilly had not designed a course or even overseen a construction of any or even lifted dirt by shovel to help build one, yet Tom claims that he was both "experienced and tested" as an architect.
Come on David, this is so ludicrously simple that to argue it is foolish. I find it highly ironical that it is ME who is arguing that Tilly was untested and inexperienced when he designed Shawnee and that anyone, knowing that he hadn't designed a course or built one before this, would say that he was.
Was Tilly engaged to design Shawnee or oversee construction? What was his fee?
-
David,
Rather than try to censor me, why don't you just continue in your earlier vein of trying to question and refine the list, as per your Oakmont questions, which were very good and informational?
I have many of the same questions regarding the early years of that course and think its perhaps an area we can all explore further.
In that light though, while I agree with your questions about Oakmont, I'm not sure why you aren't questioning other more dubious choices like Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury, among many others, all of which seem much less devwloped and/or much more deeply flawed in 1910 than Oakmont.
In any case, I think its a really good topic and I look forward to your posts that are both inquisitive and informational.
Weren't you the same person who said Baltusrol was awful earlier today? Now you want us take your word that Fox Hills, Nassau and Salisbury were deeply flawed? What makes you believe they were flawed?
-
Tom MacWood,
Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;
In that regard, I'd offer the following, based on their 1910 architectural sophistication and reputation;
NGLA - 9
Garden City - 8
Myopia Hunt - 8
Ekwanok - 5
Pinehurst #2 - 5
Oakmont - 5
Brookline - 5
Columbia - 5
Baltusrol - 4
Chiicago - 4
Mayfield - 4
Atlanta Athletic - 3
Apawamis - 3
Fox Hills - 3
Nassau - 3
98% of the courses built by 1910 - 0 to 3
p.s. Tom...just saw your last question.
I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.
Good question!
-
Tom MacWood,
Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;
In that regard, I'd offer the following, based on their 1910 architectural sophistication and reputation;
NGLA - 9
Garden City - 8
Myopia Hunt - 8
Ekwanok - 5
Pinehurst #2 - 5
Oakmont - 5
Brookline - 5
Columbia - 5
Baltusrol - 4
Chiicago - 4
Mayfield - 4
Atlanta Athletic - 3
Apawamis - 3
Fox Hills - 3
Nassau - 3
98% of the courses built by 1910 - 0 to 3
p.s. Tom...just saw your last question.
I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.
Good question!
That is quite a drop off from Myopia to Ekwanok. What do you base your opinion upon? Vardon? Darwin? Hutchinson? Travis? Worthington? Macdonald? Leach?
What was Vardon's opinion of the best courses in America? Which courses did Darwin like most? How about Hutchinson?
-
"Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses."
Phil:
I think you are misunderstanding what happened in the teens with Tillinghast and his amateur status and certainly the way the USGA looked at it and probably Tillinghast as well.
-
Tillinghast and Travis were the two most mentioned when the rule was extending the definition to architects was put into force in early 1917. Travis is easy to understand, but Tillinghast a bit less so, because he wasn't as famous as a golfer, so it is harder to see how he was using his fame as a golfer for money. But I guess he was famous enough as a golfer for writers to speculate that he would lose his amateur status.
-
Tom Macwood,
You asked two questions:
"Was Tilly engaged to design Shawnee or oversee construction?"
Yes to both.
"What was his fee?"
You can read about that when the book comes out next May. I will only say that it was not very large. The information is in the files of Shawnee that I am not allowed to make public by my agreement with the owners. I know you're not going to like that answer but I will not break my agreements with them.
Tom Paul, I disagree with you, I believe that you are misunderstanding the Amateur status controversy of the teens. Tilly, who was still playing in a few AMATEUR golf competitions when the the ruling came out, was declared to be a professional golfer for two reasons, the primary one being that he designed golf courses for which he was paid money. The second had to do with his accepting money to write about golf. That aspect of the USGA's ruling is always overlooked and forgotten about. It is also the reason that Chick Evans asked for and got written permission for the writings that he did from the USGA and was able to protect his own amateur standing.
I
-
While I don't pretend to know the nuances of the exact ruling that made men like Travis and Tillinghast "professionals" in 1916/17, the following article speaks to the ramifications in the Philadelphia area. The article makes reference to an affected "Philadelphian", who is A.W. Tillinghast.
As an aside, I also find it very interesting to note how at least in Philadelphia at that time, there seemed to be no differentiation between "architecture" and "construction", and the terms are used almost interchangeably, which is not surprising considering that both Wilson and Crump committees charged with design and building the golf course were called at their inception, "Construction Committees".
The one exception seems to be the writer's disdain for those who view the whole matter of construction as simply doiing a one-day "paper job" on a blueprint (which at that time was the modus operandi of most "professionals"), and then charging the club for what the writer seems to view as an inadequate job.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4304253237_f6414fd30e_o.jpg)
-
You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.
The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.
I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee.
By the way I was reading what you wrote about Shawnee in your Tilly book and the part about alpinization is in error. People were not arguing who were the first to introduce it in America, as just suggested. A club in Richmond, Va never claimed to be the first, as you suggested. You completely misread what Tilly wrote about alpinization. When he referred to Richmond he is referring to Royal Mid-Surrey in England, also known as Richmond or the Old Deer Park at Richmond. Anyone who knows anything about golf architecture history, and in particular the history of that era, knows Mid-Surrey was famous for its aplinization. I can hardly wait for the book in May - I'm sure it will be both fascinating and enlightening.
-
Mike
If you want to discuss the Amateur issue take it to another thread...this thread is about the top courses circa 1910.
-
Tom,
So you now base your conclusions on "feelings?" "I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee..."
I have already suggested once earlier in this thread who you should contact at Shawnee to see if I have been there researching, have been given complete and unfettered access to any and all records, been contracted to write the book and for YOU to ask for permission to do the same research if you would like.
Sorry that you can't simply admit you were wrong and that Tilly was inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910.
And by the way, if you had ANYTHING AT ALL that even began to prove that it was the "experienced" Worthington who designed Shawnee you'd have posted it with the greatest of glee. You don't because there is none. So now that you have clearly shown yourself as one who doesn't want to "discuss" you also may have a nice one-sided conversation...
-
Mike
If you want to discuss the Amateur issue take it to another thread...this thread is about the top courses circa 1910.
Tom,
Actually, you're the one who introduced the whole idea of who did what by 1910 in terms of amateurs vs professionals.
It's the whole basis for your thread, isn't it, with the bolded attempt to puff-up the architectural contributions by golf pros by that time?
I'm merely continuing down the path you've cleared, Tom.
Hopefully later today I'll get back here and can provide much more info on the state of Nassau, Apawamis, Salisbury, and Fox Hills in 1910, although I'm not sure you'll like that info all that much, either. ;)
-
"Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;"
Mike Cirba:
On the other hand, perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings on 1910 courses are not in order here! Or at least not unless the real interest of people like you and Tom MacWood is to just go on arguing with one another endlessly! ;)
-
"Unless you now want to call him a LIAR and call every other majopr golf writer at the time who praised Tilly for his design at Shawnee, and who didn't mention Worthington as doing anything in that regard."
Phil-the-author
I had a feeling you were bluffing. First of all because you pulled this trick before on the North Shore thread. At the time you were trying to make the case Tilly could have designed NS even though he never listed it on his master list. You produced your own list of eight or ten courses you claimed he designed, but never listed. When you were asked to support your list you said you couldn't because of an impending book. I then proceded to go down you list course by course showing why your list was bogus. The second reason I thought you were bluffing is your continued boasting you have internal documents, so therefore I guess we are supposed to believe these documents make your case. But when you were trying to prove Shawnee was a solo job instead of saying I have internal documents to prove it, you said old articles say Tilly designed Shawnee on his own, and anyone who doubts those articles is calling Tilly and every major golf writer a liar. By the way I don't believe every major golf writer wrote that Shawnee was a Tilly solo job.
Where did I write that Tilly was not inexperienced and untested? I don't recall writing that. Didn't Tilly lay out a golf course in 1899, which is about a decade prior to Shawnee?
-
Tom MacWood,
When I was about 15 years old, a bunch of us kids brought our clubs up in the woods, and through clearings, etc., and in a big grassy field I laid out a makeshift 6 hole golf course that we used to go around 3 times. It even had a water hazard with a retaining pond that was built for a nearby development.
Would you consider me to be inexperienced and untested? I sure would.
Yet on the basis of contentions you've made here repeatedly, you would say I had golf course design experience developing a real estate course! ;) ;D
I find it funny how you insist on giving design "experience" to people like Worthington who basically did the same thing I did on their own plots of land, and your most recent reference to Tilly's "Tomato Can Links" at Frankford in 1899 as reason to think he had design experience when he was hired at Shawnee a decade later. ::) ;D
Tom Paul,
Who's arguing?
Honestly, I'm finding this one of the most enlightening, illuminating, and educational threads ever on GCA.
If we do it right, it's about the point in architecture where things moved from the rote, formulaic, boring, cross-bunkered courses done by hacks to thoughtful, strategic and "scientific" design.
It's also about who the primary movers were in that revolution...the pros or the amateurs.
I think there's a lot to explore, frankly.
-
"Where did I write that Tilly was not inexperienced and untested?"
What a hilarious question! It seems Tom MacWood's virtual double negative logic and reasoning has totally confused even himself. I doubt this man could analyze his way out of a clear plastic bag! The best this guy can do, at this point, is just declare himself right and everyone else wrong about anything and everything. ;)
-
"Tom Paul,
Who's arguing?
Honestly, I'm finding this one of the most enlightening, illuminating, and educational threads ever on GCA.
If we do it right, it's about the point in architecture where things moved from the rote, formulaic, boring, cross-bunkered courses done by hacks to thoughtful, strategic and "scientific" design.
It's also about who the primary movers were in that revolution...the pros or the amateurs.
I think there's a lot to explore, frankly."
Mike Cirba;
Who's arguing? Well, it seems Tom MacWood is unless you missed his #175. But if you did I can certainly understand why. However, I suppose one could accurately say that MacWood may not actually be arguing as much as just continually missing the point anyone and everyone might make. The best example of that on here is when Phil Young mentioned that when Tillinghast did Shawnee he was an inexperienced architect. Tom MacWood's response to that was to disagree and claim that CC Worthington was experienced. Phil Young wasn't even talking about Worthington, he was talking about Tillinghast but somehow Tom MacWood seemed to miss that point! ??? ::) :o ;)
"Who's on first?"
"No, who's on second."
I know who's on second but I didn't ask that, I asked who's on first."
-
Tom Paul,
Yes, I saw post 175 but if Tom MacWood wants to dispute it perhaps he should simply provide his own Doak Scale numbers for any of the courses in question.
If he thinks that any of the Homewoods and AAC's, and Fox Hills that he put on his list compared favorably with either the three best courses in America at the time, or better yet, against the best courses abroad, then he can certainly give us some estimate numbers to stand by his claim just like I did.
-
Mike Cirba.
There you go again. They don't have to be as good as the top 3. That isn't what he is trying to determine. Just stop.
-
Mike Cirba.
There you go again. They don't have to be as good as the top 3. That isn't what he is trying to determine. Just stop.
David,
When he quotes me from the Tolhurst thread in the first post as the basis of his "exercise", and then seeks to disprove my statement, then yes, that is indeed what he's trying to determine. I know you're not that naive and obtuse, David.
My statement was that in 1910, ALL of the best courses in America, and the only ones that were compared with good courses overseas, were designed by amateurs working within their own clubs.
His putting together a big list where Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA are intermingled with Homewood, Fox Hills, and every course HH Barker built at that time is meant to give the impression that they were indeed of the same architectural quality as Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA and is simply a transparent attempt to elevate the work of the professionals to the uninitiated, or casually interested.
Otherwise, he should stratify his list, or give each course a Doak Scale rating in an attempt to determine relative quality as I did, because the fact is that by 1910, ALL of the very best American courses were indeed designed by amateurs working for their own clubs and his list is merely designed to try to obscure that historical fact.
-
So much for your statement, from yesterday, about how you would try to make this thread productive. And so much for your statement that Tom could determine the number of courses to be included on HIS list.
When are you going to learn it isn't all about you? When are you going to take Ran's suggestions to heart?
-
David,
I really do hope we can have a productive discussion here because the fact that it was personalized to try and dispute my statement, it really is a great topic and time period to explore that I don't think we've done here well collectively over the years here on gca.
But please try to be fair and equitable in your criticsms. I really don't think you could fairly characterize any of Tom's overnite broadsides at Phil as some attempt to enlighten or elevate the discussion, so perhaps we can all try this again.
Thanks
-
I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.
Good question!
Deeply flawed?
-
Tom MacWood,
Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;
In that regard, I'd offer the following, based on their 1910 architectural sophistication and reputation;
NGLA - 9
Garden City - 8
Myopia Hunt - 8
Ekwanok - 5
Pinehurst #2 - 5
Oakmont - 5
Brookline - 5
Columbia - 5
Baltusrol - 4
Chiicago - 4
Mayfield - 4
Atlanta Athletic - 3
Apawamis - 3
Fox Hills - 3
Nassau - 3
98% of the courses built by 1910 - 0 to 3
p.s. Tom...just saw your last question.
I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.
Good question!
That is quite a drop off from Myopia to Ekwanok. What do you base your opinion upon? Vardon? Darwin? Hutchinson? Travis? Worthington? Macdonald? Leach?
What was Vardon's opinion of the best courses in America? Which courses did Darwin like most? How about Hutchinson?
-
Tom...here is something you informed us that Vardon said...
"As editor of American Golf Illustrated Max Behr wrote this blunt commentary in July 1914:
“Vardon in a recent article in Everybody's Magazine places his finger upon the weak spot. After expressing the opinion that he noticed little improvement in American golf during the interim of fourteen years which separated his first visit to America from that of last year, he says:
‘This is not the fault of your golfers. They have not had the chance. It is the fault of those who are responsible for your courses. Because the American golfer is seldom put to a real test, he has not improved his game to any great extent. You have some good players over here, but they are not trained to play the right way. In other words, America is not getting as much out of its golf as it should. Your golfer can not play a proper game, because his course is not right.’"
It would be great if you would tell us/me what Vardon, Darwin, Hutchinson said about American golf course circa 1910. I'd love to hear it.
-
Mac
If Mike spits the bit I'll dig up what I have.
-
Mac -
I assumed you knew about this site but maybe you don't. It's the archive of the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles. They have the American Golfer and Golf Illustrated magazines from about 1908-1930s. Go to the link below, and click on the magazines you want, type the Author (e.g. Darwin or Behr or Vardon) and/or type in subject (e.g. NGLA, bunkers, Vardon) and/or type in the year (e.g. 1914) and tons of wonderful articles will come up.
Peter (PS - the link is so long that on this page it breaks it up into two lines, but if you can put the whole thing in your browser it should bring you there - I just tested it. And now I tested it shorter and it works too).
http://search.la84foundation.org/search?
-
LA84 is much more useable to me than USGA.
USGA runs slowly no matter what machine I use.
Now back to regularly scheduled discourse.
-
I was wrong about Vardon & Ray and Oakmont, they did play there on their 1913 tour. They defeated W.C. Fownes and Eben Byers. To my knowledge Vardon never highlighted the course so you may have a point. On the other hand it was considered the favorite to host the 1914 US Amateur before bowing out.
-
Tom,
I'll try to get to your questions by the weekend. In the meantime, here's some comments by foreign visitors about Myopia;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3724808295_71c8e0299f_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3449754649_47400e23a3_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3446539750_4dd548e5cc_o.jpg)
-
I was wrong about Vardon & Ray and Oakmont, they did play there on their 1913 tour. They defeated W.C. Fownes and Eben Byers. To my knowledge Vardon never highlighted the course so you may have a point. On the other hand it was considered the favorite to host the 1914 US Amateur before bowing out.
The other courses being considered along with Oakmont in 1914 were CC of Detroit, Mayfield and Ekwanok. Ekwanok was eventually chosen. Mike gives Ekwanok circa 1910 a 5 on the Cirba scale. Doak gives it a 6 or 7, and the course has changed very little over the years. Mike has a tendency to fly off the handle, making bold claims that have no historical support.
-
Tom,
I'll try to get to your questions by the weekend. In the meantime, here's some comments by foreign visitors about Myopia;
Thanks, but has anyone claimed Myopia was not one of the best courses in 1910? It is interesting to note their admiration for Willie Campbell. For some reason the club today does not acknowledge he worked there.
-
"For some reason the club today does not acknowledge he worked there."
Tom MacWood:
How would you know that since you've never been to Myopia and you apparently know noone there? I doubt you even have any idea who all at that club is involved with its history.
Actually, the club does acknowledge that Campbell worked there for a year or so in the early years presumably as a golf teacher, greenkeeper and the club's playing professional and they have a few local newspaper articles about some work he may've done there in 1894. It appears he may've bracketed or over-lapped at Myopia with another favorite of yours, Robert White, who was also the pro/greenkeeper at Myopia for a year or so before longtime pro/greenkeeper John Jones.
The fact that Campbell is not mentioned in the 1975 Myopia history book by Edward Weeks does not mean the club does not acknowledge Campbell worked there even if it might be understandable a researcher/analyst with your limited ability and purview on Myopia might conclude something like that.
It's probably not much different with your limited ability and purview on Pine Valley and Merion that you would conclude Colt's contribution was minimized at the former and that HH Barker must have designed the latter.
-
Tom,
I seem to be the only one providing evidence here, and I do agree with you that Ekwanock was in the top second tier of courses by 1910 and it should be a 6 or perhaps even 7 by then. How much of that would you attribute to Travis' changes?
I'd ask you Tom to show us examples of courses on your list othr than the Big Three that were compared favorably with the best courses abroad, as I shared in the Myopia clippings?
-
Tom,
I seem to be the only one providing evidence here, and I do agree with you that Ekwanock was in the top second tier of courses by 1910 and it should be a 6 or perhaps even 7 by then. How much of that would you attribute to Travis' changes?
I'd ask you Tom to show us examples of courses on your list othr than the Big Three that were compared favorably with the best courses abroad, as I shared in the Myopia clippings?
Providing evidence of what? That Myopia was one of the top courses in the country? No one is disputing that fact.
-
Hey Tom M...
It would be great if you would tell us/me what Vardon, Darwin, Hutchinson said about American golf course circa 1910.
I don't want to pester you, but it would be cool to read some of this stuff.
Thanks,
Mac
-
Mac
Before coming to America Vardon was told the two best courses in America were the National and Myopia. After touring the country he felt CC of Detroit, Mayfield and Toronto were the best in that order. He did not play the NGLA; he thought Myopia was very good placing it right behind the other three. After that he singled out Baltusrol - holes of great character; Brookline, good but not of real championship character (sour grapes?); Ravisloe & Chicago. In the west he felt the best two were Waverly and Seattle. Waverly because it was a very good golf course; Seattle more for its potential.
-
Thanks Tom.
-
Find Vardon's words here, Mac. Tom's summary is correct.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1915/ag136e.pdf
-
Awesome...thanks Peter!
-
You're welcome, Mac. (And in case you missed it, here's the link that I posted yesterday to thousands of such articles:
http://search.la84foundation.org/search?)
What I found most interesting is that Toronto at the point was only 2 or 3 years old. Vardon doesn't get into any details or even mention that Colt designed it (he doesn't seem to mention any architects) but I wonder if he wasn't a bit pre-disposed to liking it so much because it was by Colt. Not to say it didn't deserve it - in fact, I lived in Toronto my whole life and, while I never tried to get on any of the private courses, for years Toronto was the one I most wanted to see.
Peter
-
Peter...I did see the link and have used it before. But there is so much to search and find that I get bogged down from time to time. That is why I appreciate your find on Vardon.
I find his comments wildly interesting and again leads me to consider that "great" courses are a test of golf and that players who play on these types of courses will become better players. I've mentioned this previously, but I don't recall many people agreeing with me. Nevertheless, Mr. Vardon did say the following about American Golf Courses...
"great alterations and improvements need to be made at most of them if they are to be reckoned as first-class and if they are to improve the quality of the players."
"the best of all of them to my mind, and an easy first it is too, is the one at Detroit. It is extremely well laid out, is very well bunkered, and any shot that is half a bad one has to suffer. The greens are well tucked in with bunkers, and it is in every way a first-class test of golf."
"Some of the courses that I saw when in Canada also impressed me greatly, especially the new one of the Toronto Club. There are
two holes that need altering, but with these exceptions the course is almost perfect, and is one of the finest that any player, however good and exacting he may be, need ever wish to play upon."
Certainly food for thought.
-
It is certainly well worth noting and considering what the GB contingent thought and said about some of the early American courses but it is probably just as much worth considering and noting what some of the best of the American contingent of architects and architectural writers of America thought about and wrote about what the GB contingent thought and wrote, particularly Travis and Tillinghast! ;)
There surely was a pretty strong national competitive dynamic going on at that time.
-
Vardon wrote two or three critiques of American golf, his general conclusion was American golf courses were not challenging enough (with a few exceptions), and as a result American golfers were not up to par with their British counterparts. He believed there was an attitude among American green committees that making golf courses difficult would not be viewed favorably by the membership.
In a couple of the articles he noted one exception - Ravisloe. Vardon wrote there was one man at Ravisloe who wanted to the strengthen the course, which resulted in split of the membership. The long handicap men opposed him and threatened to resign; so did others who feared the loss of membership. The man eventually got the support of the green committee, the work went ahead, and everyone was pleased with the results. The club gave this man a silver cup the day Vardon & Ray played their exhibition at Ravisloe.
-
This list is based on a combination of American and British perspectives - prominent golfers from both sides of the Atlantic.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
Quote from Hutchinson's "Badminton Guide to Golf', 1911 edition:
"But of all places of interest, the most entrancing is far away on the other side of the Atlantic, whee the Quebec Golf Club plays beside the Plains of Abraham. Here the delving niblick may disinter a musket ball, heavy with history; th devious deriver may find a grave in the St. Lawrence, far below him; he who is both fa and sure may carry at drive, as by a forlorn hope, the "od Forts"..... Montreal is less grand, but on its lesser scale it is even better, the putting greens a real joy, and the turf of a quality which one rarely finds out of England.
This matter of the turf is the great trouble with all the very many golf greens lately laid out in the USA. The subject of American golf is an immense one. In a former edition of this book the Shnnecock Hills links were alluded to incidentally. To-day it would be n impertinence to allude only incidentally to American golf, and equally an impertinence to attempt to tackle the subject adequately without giving it far more space than is left at our command...."
Seems like the Brits thought the North American courses were a poor cousin to what they had themselves. I'm also very interested in the "quality of turf" note.
-
Seems like the Brits thought the North American courses were a poor cousin to what they had themselves. I'm also very interested in the "quality of turf" note.
Dan
What in Hutchinson's excerpt would make you say that?
-
Tom - This quote: "This matter of the turf is the great trouble with all the very many golf greens lately laid out in the USA. "
To me, "Great Trouble" is quite a knock.
-
Tom,
What does Harry Vardon's 1915 comments, mostly criticizing the course at Brookline where he lost the championship to Ouimet, have to do with the state of US golf courses in 1910?
From what I read he thinks Myopia would be better if they placed the pins in the middle of the greens instead of behind bunkers, compliments Detroit which is outside the scope of discussion, compliments Mayfield although he says they need to add more bunkers, says US courses need much more fairway bunkering to punish drives that aren't straight, and then goes on to say that even "as American courses go", Brookline is not one of the best.
Faint praise, indeed.
-
Dan
He is discussing the difficulty of establishing turf with some of the newer courses, the NGLA being the most famous example. A course HGH absolutely loved. IMO it is impertinent to draw that conclusion based on the fact HGH did not go into any detail discussing American golf in his little blurb.
-
Tom,
What does Harry Vardon's 1915 comments, mostly criticizing the course at Brookline where he lost the championship to Ouimet, have to do with the state of US golf courses in 1910?
From what I read he thinks Myopia would be better if they placed the pins in the middle of the greens instead of behind bunkers, compliments Detroit which is outside the scope of discussion, compliments Mayfield although he says they need to add more bunkers, says US courses need much more fairway bunkering to punish drives that aren't straight, and then goes on to say that even "as American courses go", Brookline is not one of the best.
Faint praise, indeed.
Vardon visited America in 1913, not whole lot changed with the courses in question between in 1910 and 1913.
-
Tom,
Now you're really stretching it.
The basic question of your thread is this; what would a club looking to build a new course in early 1910 have out there as models of excellence in US golf? Right??
Your list includes a ton of either start-ups, or major revisions that happened in 1910, and as they were brand-new certainly wouldn't have been considered by any club in question. Furthermore, when Vardon saw them, they had another 3 years of development, which in these fledgling years, may as well been a lifetime.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
For instance, would you argue that Garden City in 1905 was the same as Garden City in 1908? Merion in 1912 the same as Merion in 1915?? And so on...
Later today I'll post some articles that will show that many of the course you mentioned were in transition from cross-bunkered, "Cop" bunkered affairs that were very rote and mindless to some degree of "scientific bunkering", which was at various stages of implementation by 1910.
The bottom line is still that in early 1910, the very best US courses were all designed by amateurs for their own clubs, and the second tier of Ekwanok, Pinehurst, and others all had heavy amateur influence and architecture in the form of Walter Travis.
Most of the rest were far below this, or so new as to be outside anything anyone would have considered as they made their architectural choices in 1910.
-
Speaking of which Tom, why are we even discussing Mayfield in this context?
It didn't open until 1911, and even then it was just being developed and raw as many members were still playing the Euclid course at that time.
Also, shouldn't former Euclid pro Bertie Way get some design credit there?
I thought there was something off....
Do the rest of your dates reflect the year the course was designed and/or revisions were made, or when they were actually in play and viewable by others and therefore germane to your larger question?
-
Mike,
I took another look at the TMac list of best courses in 1910. Most of the courses are basically attributed to one designer for new creation and one for the major remodel by 1910. So why is it that only MCC, Shawnee, Myopia and Garden City have fuzzy histories and the need to attribute to multiple designers? I don't know for sure, but I think we have to consider the possibility that he wants to argue with anything TePaul, you, and now Phil Young have to say, and that colors his views on attribution in a few select cases.
I am also interested in his addition of Travis to Pinehurst. I recall some site visits by Travis to Pinehurst, but don't recall them being enough to be called more than a courtesy call. If I am wrong on that one, I would readily admit it, but again, it seems if the course is legendary, the attribution needs some tweaking in the mind of TMac. For lesser courses, he seems fine with the traditional credit to the contracted and professional designer.
-
I think Mike makes a great point and one in which I think we all need to consider if, indeed, we want to get to the bottom of things. And that is the article from Vardon was published in 1915 and most likely centered on his 1913 tour. But we are talking golf courses in 1910.
Tom Macwood says not much changed from 1910 to 1913. Tom, what makes you say that? I'd love to see how all the pieces of information lead you to that conclusion. Not that I am questioning you, rather I am interested in learning about this stuff. I find that given that I have so much to learn about this topic when someone posts information designed to educate on topic X, I also learn things about topics Y and Z. Perhaps my previous point illustrates that.
Anyway, if you could post some items and/or educate us on how you conclude that not much changed from 1910 to 1913 I think that would be great.
-
I've contended that any number of courses on Tom's list were either still markedly flawed by 1910 as a result of having originally been conceived in the form of cross-bunkered, "copped", turn of the century designs that were still in the early process of evolving to something better, or those that were just opening around 1910 and still raw and developing.
Exhibit 1 is a 1910 list of courses in Long Island. At the time, NGLA is not yet open, and amateur Dev Emmet's Salisbury seems according to Travis who wrote the article as a few years away from being really good, despite obvious potential.
More to come...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/4998739906_b64b09fbc8_b.jpg)
-
First we have Fox Hills, on Long Island, as reviewed in 1909. Others to follow over the weekend;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/4998777262_1782efe57e_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/4998171271_315fabab87_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4998171299_f4b24d8639_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/4998777374_5890477b91_b.jpg)
-
In May of 1911, Walter Travis reported;
"The Columbia course will not be in any condition to hold a tournament until a year from this spring, as it is an entirely new course. There are many good holes, and the general contour of the land is much better than the old course."
Which begs the question...
Which courses designed by HH Barker were actually open for play and viewable as proof of his work in the spring of 1910? I know Rumson didn't open til later....Arcola perhaps?
How about revisions by Barker?
I'm not sure what Barker did at Waverly, but according to the club there was a course on the present site since back in the 1890s. AAC? Atlantic City?? When were those changes actually accomplished on the ground by the clubs?
-
Nope...Not Arcola, which apparently didn't open for play until sometime after this March 1912 photo;
I'd ask again, what major architectural works of HH Barker's were actually in the ground and open for play by spring 1910 that could be considered by clubs looking at a course of action for their own clubs at that time?
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/4998931854_0a0cbe27b7_b.jpg)
-
Rumson doesn't seem to have been opened by spring 1910, either.
In September 1911, six months after Barker became the pro at Rumson, the following report of the Eastern Pro Golfers tournament held at Rumson was recorded for American Golfer;
championship won at the end of the
third round, but a very indifferent 46
going out in the concluding round destroyed
his chances. The event was
played at the Rumson Country Club
course, which is a new one and, unfortunately,
was not in good condition,
the greens especially being very poor
indeed. With age, however, the
course promises to be a very good one.
-
Tom,
Now you're really stretching it.
The basic question of your thread is this; what would a club looking to build a new course in early 1910 have out there as models of excellence in US golf? Right??
Your list includes a ton of either start-ups, or major revisions that happened in 1910, and as they were brand-new certainly wouldn't have been considered by any club in question. Furthermore, when Vardon saw them, they had another 3 years of development, which in these fledgling years, may as well been a lifetime.
Which of the courses changed significantly between 1910 and 1913? And if they did change who carried out the changes?
For instance, would you argue that Garden City in 1905 was the same as Garden City in 1908? Merion in 1912 the same as Merion in 1915?? And so on...
Did Vardon write anything about GCGC, and is there any dispute GCGC was one of the top courses in 1910?
Later today I'll post some articles that will show that many of the course you mentioned were in transition from cross-bunkered, "Cop" bunkered affairs that were very rote and mindless to some degree of "scientific bunkering", which was at various stages of implementation by 1910.
The bottom line is still that in early 1910, the very best US courses were all designed by amateurs for their own clubs, and the second tier of Ekwanok, Pinehurst, and others all had heavy amateur influence and architecture in the form of Walter Travis.
This list runs contrary to your opinion. First of there were more than 2 or 3 premier golf courses in America in 1910. Second the two or three courses you do cite also had professionals involved. Mayfield, Ekwanok, Chicago, Brookline, Baltusrol, Oakmont, etc were not second tier golf courses then, or now. They all hosted major championships.
Most of the rest were far below this, or so new as to be outside anything anyone would have considered as they made their architectural choices in 1910.
-
Speaking of which Tom, why are we even discussing Mayfield in this context?
It didn't open until 1911, and even then it was just being developed and raw as many members were still playing the Euclid course at that time.
Also, shouldn't former Euclid pro Bertie Way get some design credit there?
I thought there was something off....
Do the rest of your dates reflect the year the course was designed and/or revisions were made, or when they were actually in play and viewable by others and therefore germane to your larger question?
Mayfield was designed in 1909, seeded in the spring of 1910, and ready playable in late 1910, although I don't believe it was formerly opened in 1911. Some of the members of Euclid formed Mayfield but they were separate clubs. Some of the Euclid members formed another club too, I believe it was Oakwood. The lease on the land at Euclid expired at the end of 1910.
I probably should give Way credit since he built the golf course. He is also a good example of an experienced professional.
-
In May of 1911, Walter Travis reported;
"The Columbia course will not be in any condition to hold a tournament until a year from this spring, as it is an entirely new course. There are many good holes, and the general contour of the land is much better than the old course."
The last tournament at the old Columbia was played in late September 1910 after which they moved immediately over to the new course. The new Columbia was designed in 1909.
Which begs the question...
Which courses designed by HH Barker were actually open for play and viewable as proof of his work in the spring of 1910? I know Rumson didn't open til later....Arcola perhaps?
How about revisions by Barker?
I'm not sure what Barker did at Waverly, but according to the club there was a course on the present site since back in the 1890s. AAC? Atlantic City?? When were those changes actually accomplished on the ground by the clubs?
Weren't you mocking Waverly earlier in the thread? I believe it was brand new course. The new course was opened in October 1910. Barker redesigned Atlantic City in 1908, and those changes were implemented over the next couple years. Barker redesigned AAC in 1910, and after he submitted his plan to Merion. I don't believe those plans were all completed until 1911.
-
I'd ask again, what major architectural works of HH Barker's were actually in the ground and open for play by spring 1910 that could be considered by clubs looking at a course of action for their own clubs at that time?
Why are you so hard on poor Barker? I'm not sure in matters how many courses were in play in spring 1910, since there is no disputing the powers-that-be at Merion engaged him in the spring of 1910, but I'd guess about a dozen designs and redesigns by the end of 1910. I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other. I don't see a prospective club traveling across country to visit one of his courses before hiring him. I believe his connection to Travis and word of mouth were his biggest friends.
But this exercise is not about Barker it is about the state of golf architecture in 1910. In 1910 if aspired for anything good you hired experience professional or amateur, you do not hire an inexperience, untested, insurance salesman.
-
I've contended that any number of courses on Tom's list were either still markedly flawed by 1910 as a result of having originally been conceived in the form of cross-bunkered, "copped", turn of the century designs that were still in the early process of evolving to something better, or those that were just opening around 1910 and still raw and developing.
Exhibit 1 is a 1910 list of courses in Long Island. At the time, NGLA is not yet open, and amateur Dev Emmet's Salisbury seems according to Travis who wrote the article as a few years away from being really good, despite obvious potential.
More to come...
Nice try. This was written in March 1910 so it was based on 1909. Travis was very high on Salisbury, which was reflected in these comments and other articles he wrote about the golf course. They were playing golf at the NGLA in 1910, so that is non starter as well. And you forgot to mention the comments regarding your 'deeply flawed' Nassau. I guess it wasn't deeply flawed after all.
-
Mike Cirba,
Don't you think it is about time you and others stopped writing that the golf course at NGLA wasn't open for play in 1910? It is extremely disingenuous and misleading, and suggests that you are more in rhetoric than fact. I've posted photos of golfing at NGLA from 1909. They played a tournament there in July of 1910, and the course was reported as open for play in 1910.
From the June 26, 1910 NY Sun:
On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, July 2, 3, and 4, the Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course, which has been in preparation for three years. This is not an invitational tournament. The national golf links is not to be formally opened until June, 1911. In the meantime the course is open for play, and in order that the committee may have the opinion of all of the members this first informal meeting is called and a few prizes will be played for. Among those who will take part . . . (emphasis added)
How many times have you been made aware of this? Why do you continue to misrepresent it?
-
Tom M...
You say..."But this exercise is not about Barker it is about the state of golf architecture in 1910. In 1910 if aspired for anything good you hired experience professional or amateur, you do not hire an inexperience, untested, insurance salesman."
How do you know that for a fact?
Also, I posted this a bit earlier...
I think Mike makes a great point and one in which I think we all need to consider if, indeed, we want to get to the bottom of things. And that is the article from Vardon was published in 1915 and most likely centered on his 1913 tour. But we are talking golf courses in 1910.
Tom Macwood says not much changed from 1910 to 1913. Tom, what makes you say that? I'd love to see how all the pieces of information lead you to that conclusion. Not that I am questioning you, rather I am interested in learning about this stuff. I find that given that I have so much to learn about this topic when someone posts information designed to educate on topic X, I also learn things about topics Y and Z. Perhaps my previous point illustrates that.
Anyway, if you could post some items and/or educate us on how you conclude that not much changed from 1910 to 1913 I think that would be great.
Mike C...Great articles; thanks for sharing were you got some of your ideas from.
-
If we are to deem the 1910 courses good, don't we first need to deem the commentators and their commentary goodl?
Yes, most every commentator used by us to confirm/deny that the course(s) were good were first-hand witnesses and experts in their day. But they, like us, must've had their biases and preferences.
That doesn't disqualify them or their views, but I wonder if -- especially in those fluid times of quick change and new ideas - the commentators themselves found their own preferences and biases changing, even over just a few years. (Would the features they thought praiseworthy and desirable in 1910 be the same ones they thought praiseworthy 5 years later?)
The alternative to assuming this to be the case/likely is, it seems to me, that those commentators and those courses which they deemed good/great manifested some kind of perennial philosophy of good golf course architecture.
In other words, that there are timeless and objective standards of quality.
I'm not denying such standards (or at least the possibility of such)....but the idea does seem to run counter to the modern-day thoughts of many on this board.
Peter
-
Peter, I think you make excellent points. These biases you mentioned are precisely why I like the Top 100 lists that are a collection of a variety of opinions. But we didn't have these lists (as far as I am aware) in 1910. Which opens up the need for discussion and discovery. Open, honest and flowing communication could probably piece together a really nice list.
-
"Why are you so hard on poor Barker? I'm not sure in matters how many courses were in play in spring 1910, since there is no disputing the powers-that-be at Merion engaged him in the spring of 1910,"
Personally, I've always felt it is most interesting and probably quite indicative of the mentality of MCC (Merion) and the direction they were planning to go in architecturally (the "amateur/sportsman" route and not the professional architect route) that the 1910 MCC Search Committee thought to SPECIFICALLY put in their July 29, 1910 report to the MCC Board of Governors that they DID NOT hire or engage HH Barker to look at the land in Ardmore or do an architectural sketch for them. They specifically wrote that HH Barker's visit was 'on the account of' (paid for by) HDC representative, Edward Connell, the Main Line residential real estate developer who had nothing to do with MCC. Within a week or so they brought in their own advisers on the project, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, and it is also interesting and probably quite indicative to consider how they described them in that same report to the Board of Governors.
-
In 1913 Bernard Darwin spent a month in the US reporting on Vardon and Ray. The courses he saw were GCGC, NGLA, Brookline, Myopia, Onwentsia, Glen View, Chicago, Homewood and Old Elm. In his opinion the NGLA was the best American golf course, and one of the two or three best in the world. He thought Myopia was as good as any inland course he had ever seen; on par with the best in England. He was very high on Brookline; not as good as Myopia but comparable with some of the top Surrey courses. I did not care for GCGC. He thought it was difficult, but not particularly thrilling or interesting. In Chicago he thought Wheaton and Homewood were the best, and expected Old Elm, which was yet to be completed, to be their equal. He thought Glen View was pretty, but way too easy. And of all the courses he saw he was most critical of Onwentsia, and by the end of 1913 it was reported due to his criticism the club had hired William Watson to overhaul the course. In that same report we discover the club's professional had toured some of the leading eastern and mid-western courses, the CC of Detroit and Mayfield were singled out. What is interesting about the timing of the tour, it was before Vardon's famous article listing those two plus Toronto as the best.
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/4998777262_1782efe57e_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4130/4998171271_315fabab87_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4998171299_f4b24d8639_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/4998777374_5890477b91_b.jpg)
Mike
So based on this rather positive report in 1909 you concluded Fox Hills was 'deeply flawed'? Flawed, yes, deeply flawed, I don't think so. The author believes with a few changes, namely making the course more difficult, it could be the second best in the Metropolitan district. And evidently the club took the criticism to heart because in 1910 it was reported they had added 30+ bunkers. Those changes were likely carried out by the club's professional Isaac Mackie, who was infamous as a golf architect whose courses were heavily bunkered.
-
Ok...I need to re-set things just a little bit as I am getting lost.
This thread is designed to determine the best American golf courses in 1910, right?
I think we have a consensus that the top 3 were NGLA, Myopia, and Garden City...in that order. It appears NGLA is undisputed at #1. Myopia seems to be well-liked, but Garden City was called a bit boring by Darwin...hence its #3 ranking.
Does anyone disagree? If so, what changes should be made.
Assuming no major quibbles are brought up, what would be courses 4-6?
-
So, if I have this right, the number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in the spring of 1910 that were;
1) Solely designed by a golf professional
2) Already open for play and therefore viiewable as to achieved results
3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis
and
4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...
the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)???
Hmmmmmm...quite objectively, I'd have to say that I'm pretty sure that's not a very strong showing. :-[ :-\
I posted an article about Baltusrol's state in 1910 some pages back and more recently about Fox Hills.
Any interest from anyone in me posting similar articles about Apawamis and Nassau?
-
Mike Cirba,
Don't you think it is about time you and others stopped writing that the golf course at NGLA wasn't open for play in 1910? It is extremely disingenuous and misleading, and suggests that you are more in rhetoric than fact. I've posted photos of golfing at NGLA from 1909. They played a tournament there in July of 1910, and the course was reported as open for play in 1910.
From the June 26, 1910 NY Sun:
On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, July 2, 3, and 4, the Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course, which has been in preparation for three years. This is not an invitational tournament. The national golf links is not to be formally opened until June, 1911. In the meantime the course is open for play, and in order that the committee may have the opinion of all of the members this first informal meeting is called and a few prizes will be played for. Among those who will take part . . . (emphasis added)
How many times have you been made aware of this? Why do you continue to misrepresent it?
David,
I agree with you. The course opened informally for a small invitational tournament to get feedback from better players in July of 1910, and then to the club members in 1911.
The contemporaneous article I posted that said the course wasn't open yet was from the spring of 1910, a few months before soft opening.
One thing I don't understand is when I see some folks attribute the opening to 1909...it clearly wasn't open then.
On the other hand, that tells us that CBM was very, very, very busy in the latter half of 1910 and spring of 1911, especially as reports from that opening tourney mentioned that the course conditioning at that time was quite raw and needing further maturity.
-
Your not finding much using an end date of 1910 because golf was still at its very beginnings in this country. The teens was the big growth decade for golfers and the 20s seems to be the biggest growth decade for golf courses, especially after some sophistication about play and then design came along. I think the biggest concern in golf, circa 1910, was just having a place to hit balls. I wonder how many people there were in this country that were worried about a golf courses quality?
I think it was very appropriate you added emphasis to that line in the last post. I bet it is VERY indicative of the overall view of the game in that time.
Also not sure how you can compare golf courses that no longer exist. And who on this site has knowledge of what was there.
-
Ralph,
I think your post is very insightful.
I'd simply add that one very overlooked factor in how the quality of golf courses was viewed circa 1910 was the ability to grow reasonable turfgrass for the playing of the game, which at that time was hardly a given.
-kll try to post some articles this weekend that speak to that important issue.
-
Mike,
Your ability to misinterpret even the simplest things is truly astounding.
-- You wrote that this was a "small invitational tournament." In fact, this was not an invitational tournament. That is why the article said: "This is not an invitational tournament."
-- You wrote that this was just for better players. In fact, the gathering was for the entire membership -- the Founders and Associates. That is why the article said: The Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course."
-- You wrote that the course would not be opened for member play until 1911. In fact, the course was open for play at the time the article was written. That is why the article said, "In the meantime the course is open for play."
You say that the course "clearly" wasn't open for play in 1909. Yet we know they were golfing there in 1909 because there were photographs. I don't know whether NGLA was open to the entire membership in 1909, but you seem to think it "clearly" was not. Any facts to support this. ?
As for your conjecture that "CBM was very, very, very busy in the latter half of 1910 and spring of 1911," nice try. By the way, how much busier is very, very, very busy than very, very busy or very busy or even busy? What do you suppose CBM was "very, very, very busy" doing that winter and spring? Watching the grass grow? Anyway, if he was as busy at NGLA as you think, then any time he took away from the course must have been to attend to matters he felt were of the upmost importance.
____________________________________________
Ralph, I agree that it is difficult to know the quality of courses that no longer exist. I think we tend to favor courses that we consider good now, even if at the time they may not have been considered much good. The best we can do is look at course that were considered to be good then and I think this is what TM has tried to do.
I am not sure I agree about whether or not clubs were worried about their golf course's quality at this time. Looking at the old literature, it seems that with NGLA the quality of golf courses not only became a very important, but also the understanding of what a good course began to change. And the methodology of creating golf courses around this time also radically changed. So right around 1910 or a bit before was the beginning of a different era in American golf course design.
But 1910 may be a bit early to when it comes to looking at the impact of this era. There were quite a few courses started in the late aughts that may not have been fully on line in 1910.
-
David,
Sorry, but you really need to take this up with George Bahto (sorry George...God bless you, my friend!).
From George's book, page 68, titled, "The First Invitational", George and Gib write, in a chapter titled "The First Invitational";
"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was FINALLY ready for a test run (emphasis mine)."
An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate.
A qualifying round was played the first day, followed by two days of match play. The course was still rough with temporary tee boxes, and a few bare spots on fairways and greens. (emphasis still mine, with more to come) MACDONALD WAS STILL ALTERING AND REFINING THE COURSE. IN FACT, A NEW 9TH GREEN (current 18th) WAS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE COURSE EVER OPENED."
....
(Even more emphasis added)Besides the 9th (Current 18th), soon expanded by 60 yards, Macdonald CHANGED HIS MIND AND STRETCHED THE SAHARA HOLE (current 2nd) FROM A SHORT 215 yards to 261 yards uphill over an extended sandy waste area."
IT WAS NOTED THE TOURNAMENT SERVED THE PURPOSE OF REVEALING ANY DESIGN SHORTCOMING THAT NEEDED CORRECTING. All holes received high praised, except the Road Hole, "WHICH DID NOT PLAY AS ANTICIPATED (emphasis yet mine again). Apparently, the corner hazard in the driving area was not what it would later become."
In the book 16 players are photographed, entitled "A Who's Who of American golfers at the time participated in a 1910 tournament to see how good the course really was.
Among those in attendance included Fred Herreshoff, Max Behr, Walter Travis, CB Mac, Dev Emmet, Joseph Knapp, John Ward, and frankly David...if you try to call this out as being anything but an Invitational Tournament for the purposes I described exactly, then I'm really not sure what the heck you're talking about.
And, furthermore David...if you think CBM was just sitting around in the second half of 1910 and 1911 watching grass grow, then "CONJECTURE" my rear-end.
By trying to hold onto the timelines about Macdonald, NGLA, and his activities you originally envisioned, against ALL available physical evidence and contemporaneous reporting, you really just end up putting CBM on the same failed level as the half-hearted, paper-job, 18-stakes-on-a-Sunday-afternoon hacks who came before him, and I think such faulty and foolish characterizations serve his memory egregiously poorly and extremely erroneously.
-
I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.
We're still waiting.
-
So, if I have this right, the number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in the spring of 1910 that were;
1) Solely designed by a golf professional
2) Already open for play and therefore viiewable as to achieved results
3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis
and
4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...
the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)???
Hmmmmmm...quite objectively, I'd have to say that I'm pretty sure that's not a very strong showing. :-[ :-\
I posted an article about Baltusrol's state in 1910 some pages back and more recently about Fox Hills.
Any interest from anyone in me posting similar articles about Apawamis and Nassau?
No, you don't have it right. It is fairly simple, what I have said continually, if a club aspired for anything good in 1910, they hired an experienced amateur or a professional, and in 1910 there were quite a few to choose from. And you might as well post my entire list because it is an illustration of that trend.
You did post an article on Baltusrol from early 1910 in which the author said: when all the ongoing work was completed, in Baltusrol, Fox Hills, Apawamis, Nassau and GCGC, the Metropolitan district will have as a high class golfing variety as to satisfy everybody.
And you did post an article from 1909 on Fox Hills, in which the author said: FH will stand out among our best American golf courses if changes are made to make it more difficult. Which is precisely what they did in 1910.
These courses hosted the Metropolitan Amateur:
1911 Garden City
1912 Baltusrol
1913 Fox Hills
1914 Englewood
1915 Apawamis
1916 Nassau
These course hosted the Metropolitan Open:
1911 Englewood
1912 Apawamis
1913 Salisbury
1914 Scarsdale
1915 Fox Hills
1916 Garden City
There were no Metropolitan championships held in 1917 or 1918.
Englewood hosted the 1909 US Open; Baltusrol hosted the 1915 Open. Englewood the 1906 US Amateur, Apawamis hosted the 1911 Am and GCGC the 1913 Am.
-
Just want to make a note on the attribution for Baltusrol.
The first nine holes was laid out by an Englishman named George Hunter who club founder Louis Keller employed for this task.
Gourley was the greenkeeper for a short stint, but most of the evolution of the Old Course has been attributed to George Low who was hired in 1903.
We believe the first island green in America, the old tenth hole, was attributed to Low and was put in play before the 1904 US Amateur, but was not used for the tournament as it was deemed too difficult.
The course would never achieve any "Finality in Perfection." It received some deserved criticism after the 04 Amateur and over the next 10 to 12 years was constantly improved in search of perfection. Although considered one of the best courses in the land by the time the 1915 US open rolled in, shortly thereafter the course achieved a different form of "Finality in Perfection" when Tillinghast put it to the plough in 1919.
-
Your not finding much using an end date of 1910 because golf was still at its very beginnings in this country. The teens was the big growth decade for golfers and the 20s seems to be the biggest growth decade for golf courses, especially after some sophistication about play and then design came along. I think the biggest concern in golf, circa 1910, was just having a place to hit balls. I wonder how many people there were in this country that were worried about a golf courses quality?
I think it was very appropriate you added emphasis to that line in the last post. I bet it is VERY indicative of the overall view of the game in that time.
Also not sure how you can compare golf courses that no longer exist. And who on this site has knowledge of what was there.
Ralph
You must have picked up this thread late. No one is claiming 1910 was the peak of golf architect. This thread was started in order to test this claim from Mike Cirba:
"Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?"
The list is based on expert opinions circa 1910, when obviously all the golf courses in question existed. Experts like Vardon, Darwin, Evans, Hutchinson, Travis, Reid, Kirby, Calkins, Leach, etc.
-
Tom,
You continue to just make one histoically unsubstantiated claim after another, including staerting with the ridiculously faulty notion that in early 1910 courses like fox hills, homewood, aac, and most of the rest deserved to even be mentioned on the same planet with ngla, myopia, and garden city...its totally laughable Tom.
You compound your error with the completely unsubstantiated claim that by 1910 anyone wanting a first class course looked to a golf pro or experienced amateur...please provide the basis for the misstatement Tom. as for the next several years, almosat every prominent club in phully did it themselves!
Perhaps u guys in the midwest needed eastern expertise to get off the ground but please don't translate that into some universal truth because you are simply wrong and perpetuating a myth.
-
And Tom...just like with your list of public courses...if you need to include a bunch of courses not even open by early 1910, or cite wholesale changes and improvements that took place after the timeframe in question, that simply speaks volumes about your own lack of confidence that real historical fact supports your fallacious arguments.
The track record of the pros bu spring 1910 was an abysmal failure, as your list ironically proves.
All of the best courses in the states in the spring of 1910 were designed by amateurs doing it for their own clubs.
-
Just want to make a note on the attribution for Baltusrol.
The first nine holes was laid out by an Englishman named George Hunter who club founder Louis Keller employed for this task.
Gourley was the greenkeeper for a short stint, but most of the evolution of the Old Course has been attributed to George Low who was hired in 1903.
We believe the first island green in America, the old tenth hole, was attributed to Low and was put in play before the 1904 US Amateur, but was not used for the tournament as it was deemed too difficult.
The course would never achieve any "Finality in Perfection." It received some deserved criticism after the 04 Amateur and over the next 10 to 12 years was constantly improved in search of perfection. Although considered one of the best courses in the land by the time the 1915 US open rolled in, shortly thereafter the course achieved a different form of "Finality in Perfection" when Tillinghast put it to the plough in 1919.
Rick
That is the first I've heard of George Hunter being associated with Baltusrol, but it doesn't surprise me. He was one of the original "Apple Tree Gang" at St. Andrews. He also founded the Richmond County GC on Staten Island. I believe he was a Scot, not English.
Gourlay was more than just a greenkeeper; he was the first professional at Baltusrol, hired in 1895. The course was expanded to 18-holes during his stint in 1896. It is my impression too that Low was largely responsible for the 'modern' golf course prior to Tilly, and I have no doubt it was one of the top courses in the country in 1910.
-
Tom,
You continue to just make one histoically unsubstantiated claim after another, including staerting with the ridiculously faulty notion that in early 1910 courses like fox hills, homewood, aac, and most of the rest deserved to even be mentioned on the same planet with ngla, myopia, and garden city...its totally laughable Tom.
You compound your error with the completely unsubstantiated claim that by 1910 anyone wanting a first class course looked to a golf pro or experienced amateur...please provide the basis for the misstatement Tom. as for the next several years, almosat every prominent club in phully did it themselves!
Perhaps u guys in the midwest needed eastern expertise to get off the ground but please don't translate that into some universal truth because you are simply wrong and perpetuating a myth.
Mike
On one hand you want us to believe NGLA was not in play in 1910, and then on the other hand you want us to believe these other courses were not mentioned in the same breath in 1910. You cannot have it both ways. Obviously they were mentioned in the same breath because we have seen several examples when they were. This was your claim:
"Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?"
There were than two or three courses deemed to be top-quality, as this exercise has proven. Not only that but one of the two courses you site as being the creme of crop was originally laid out by a professional.
-
And speaking of unsubstantiated claims, here are some of the claims you've made on this thread:
* Baltusrol was awful
* Atlantic City was not heralded locally
* Nassau, Fox Hills and Salisbury were deeply flawed
* Mocked without any reason Homewood and Waverly
* 98% of the golf course in 1910 were 0 to 3 on the Doak/Cirba scale
* Ekwanok, Pinehurst, Columbia and Brookline were 5s on the Cirba scale
* Chicago and Mayfield were 4s
Mike
I'm curious do your emotions get the best of you when you throw this crap against the wall or is there some actual forethought given before you make these claims? Are you hoping that if you throw enough crap against the wall something will eventually stick?
-
I am back for a minute. I will check back tonight to see where this has gone, so sorry in advance for the hit-and-run.
It seems like you need to attempt to define what a high quality course was to the players of that day.
In what I have seen posted It feels like you are imposing a modern perspective on where they were at with architecture.
How many years old is the field of golf course architecture at this point? ..approximately..
Weren't most all courses "layed-out" by club professionals - who are still overwhelmingly scots as I recall - so how many years of experience playing do you think the average good club player had been playing and how qualified were they to make a determination of quality?
I believe you are just getting your first Americans with enough experience to take over club pro- duties.
You are still dealing with the change from gutty to rubber ball. Things didn't change over in just a single season like they do today.
I assume the USGA bulletins have been heavily studied by all involved.
There are a number of other things to be considered that I think are being by-passed.
later.
-
Tom,
Deflect and change topic all you like but compared to the top 3 and the best courses abroad all my statements are undeniably true.
-
Quote from Tom MacWood:
"We're still waiting."
Just like some of us are waiting to see your deep digging over on the Shawnee thread.........
I actually have no doubt that TMac is basically right on this one - the profession was becoming pretty well established, although the best was yet to come, and probably most courses engaged professional gca's even by 1910. Even CBM, that bastion of amateur design, was already starting to set up Seth Raynor in business to make their services readily available, no? Ross had started his practice, too, as did others TMac lists.
That said, there were still some courses, including some very good ones, that were designed by amateur committees, albeit apparently with some more experienced help in spots. Someone should probably go out and list the really, really terrible designs those ams did, although there are so many early courses being rebuilt a decade later, that it is apparent that those seemed to be rush jobs, and were later rebuilt by people who showed some flare for it.
It happened the way it happened, and the real crux of the argument is, well the arguers. Is the list good for spring or fall of 1910? How much did the courses improve each year? Enough to make 1913 a whole different bag of candles? There is no real black and white since it was evolving and the arguments come from the all or nothing nature of the proposition.
-
Jeff,
I'm still waiting too.
I'm still waiting forsomeone to name the top professionally designed courses in the states that were open for play and first class in the spring of 1910. ;)
I'm certain I'll be waiting forever. ;D
-
Ralph...again, great points.
I think to get to the ultimate list of America's Top Courses in 1910, we need to understand what was happening in the country/world/and field of architecture at that time. The gutty to rubber ball had to be unbelievably huge.
One thing that is weird is that I thought this thread was about discovering/discussing what America's Top Courses were in 1910. I guess I don't understand why, if that is the goal, we need to fight over who designed the course and if that person was a pro or an amateur.
-
Mac,
If three magazines and 1500 posters can't agree on an ulitmate list of the current best courses, how in the heck would anyone be able to develop an ultimate list based on courses that no longer exist, no longer exist as they did, and no longer exist in the mindset of those who played them?
I don't disagree with TMac's basic premise of using the comments of a few well known golfers who chose to write about them. But, how can we decided if he thought Fox Hills was "flawed" or "tragically flawed" based on some negative comments in an article?
We can't. I tend to think this thread was started mostly to provoke the Philly boys, who took the bait.
-
Jeff...
to your point, this thread was started mostly to provoke, there is very little doubt about that. That can be seen pretty readily. But gosh darn it I am interested in hearing about the Top Courses from 1910!!
I think the historical progression of not only golf in general, but these top tier courses specifically is quite interesting. Therefore, I'd like to persevere through the games, gamesmanship, and non-sense to pull out a few nuggets of knowledge. And I have.
To your comment, If three magazines and 1500 posters can't agree on an ulitmate list of the current best courses, how in the heck would anyone be able to develop an ultimate list based on courses that no longer exist, no longer exist as they did, and no longer exist in the mindset of those who played them?
I disagree that we haven't identified our current top courses. I know what they are in general. Are there a few hidden gems and/or over marketed over rated courses? Yes. But I think we've got a real good handle on things currently. The problem is people get hung up on non-sense and argue about meaningless b.s. Pebble shouldn't be rated 7th best, it should be 12th. That is so meaningless to me as that is simply personal opinion. The bottom line is that is in one of the world's best courses. The bigger issue is what courses are being overlooked. Why is Rich Harvest ranked top 100 and your Quarry Course at Giants Ridge or Mike D's Kingsley not rated unanimous Top 100? That is a bigger issue to me and worthy of discussion.
Regardless, I don't care about the actual list. I want people to discuss what courses should be considered and WHY. Mike C has done a damn good job of this, but everyone is getting hung up on who designed course X, Y, and Z and are they an amateur. Obviously, a carry over fight from another thread that probably has its roots in that same old topic that has been dragging down everyone for literally years.
But if we get discussion going on the Top courses from 1910 with reasoning and rationale we can all learn something. What the ultimate list is doesn't matter to me...it is the discussion that will result in learning.
Anyway, that is how I see it.
-
Quote from Tom MacWood:
"We're still waiting."
Just like some of us are waiting to see your deep digging over on the Shawnee thread.........
I actually have no doubt that TMac is basically right on this one - the profession was becoming pretty well established, although the best was yet to come, and probably most courses engaged professional gca's even by 1910. Even CBM, that bastion of amateur design, was already starting to set up Seth Raynor in business to make their services readily available, no? Ross had started his practice, too, as did others TMac lists.
That said, there were still some courses, including some very good ones, that were designed by amateur committees, albeit apparently with some more experienced help in spots. Someone should probably go out and list the really, really terrible designs those ams did, although there are so many early courses being rebuilt a decade later, that it is apparent that those seemed to be rush jobs, and were later rebuilt by people who showed some flare for it.
It happened the way it happened, and the real crux of the argument is, well the arguers. Is the list good for spring or fall of 1910? How much did the courses improve each year? Enough to make 1913 a whole different bag of candles? There is no real black and white since it was evolving and the arguments come from the all or nothing nature of the proposition.
Has Ian posted the article I sent him? You've always had an interesting perspective on history and on current affairs. Current affairs being what transpires on this website. In both cases for whatever reason the facts often get twisted in your mind.
Seth Raynor was not a consideration since his design career came later. The list is through the end of 1910. I never considered cutting it off in the spring of 1910. How much did which course improve in what year? IMO it really doesn't matter which course or courses improved after 1910 because I'm confident that improvement will add further support to the idea that in 1910 (and after) if you had any interest in creating something good you would engage an experienced amateur or professional.
-
Could anyone explain to me why I should have cut this list off in the spring of 1910? Merion? If anything Merion proves why you wouldn't cut it off in the spring of 1910. In June 1910 Merion chose to engage an experienced professional and amateur, arguably the top amateur and professional architects in the country.
-
I am back for a minute. I will check back tonight to see where this has gone, so sorry in advance for the hit-and-run.
It seems like you need to attempt to define what a high quality course was to the players of that day.
In what I have seen posted It feels like you are imposing a modern perspective on where they were at with architecture.
How many years old is the field of golf course architecture at this point? ..approximately.. 30 years give or take
Weren't most all courses "layed-out" by club professionals - who are still overwhelmingly scots as I recall - Yes and No. What year? so how many years of experience playing do you think the average good club player had been playing and how qualified were they to make a determination of quality? I don't understand the question. I don't think the average good club player was involved in golf architecture.
I believe you are just getting your first Americans with enough experience to take over club pro- duties.
You are still dealing with the change from gutty to rubber ball. Things didn't change over in just a single season like they do today.
I assume the USGA bulletins have been heavily studied by all involved.
There are a number of other things to be considered that I think are being by-passed.
later.
-
TMac,
I agree there is no reason to cut off the list at Spring 1910. You may as well cut it off at fall '09 if that is the case, given its the NE and snow falls ending the season for the most part.
As to the list, well, we are waiting and I don't think he is posting it. Given how you treat everyone else here, accusing them of witholding info and being unethical, I think its fair to suggest your lack of evidence on your thread clearly designed to embarass Mike C and others is kosher. If its not up, we must presume you are hiding something, just like you presume everyone else is, no?
Raynor did not come later. According to George Bahto, the contract for Piping Rock was signed in 1909, and Raynor was retained to build it and Sleepy Hollow in 1910. I was making the point that CBM was already trying to provide gca services in his own unique way at the time of your list, which is true. You even treat people who agree with you like babies treat diapers. Have you read "How to win friends and influence people?"
So, you can stop telling everyone at every opportunity that I don't know shit from shinola and always get history wrong. You are clearly the most twisted sucker on this whole website. Thanks in advance.
-
Mac Plumart,
If you simply want to discuss courses of 1910, then there is no need to rank them, unless you are Mike C and want to establish that the top whatever were done by am archies (somewhat true but not black and white as others will argue correctly that CBM helped at Merion, etc.). David, TMac and others have brought forth valuble and interesting documents in that regard and I find them fascinating, too.
I think they are better presented and left for all of us to determine what they mean. I think we ALL get a little insulted when one or another phrases suggesting we need them to interpret things for us. And, I am just as guilty as the next guy. There is a fine line in presenting an informed opinion and....well, shoving it down someone's throat.
-
Mike Cirba,
I see you edited your insulting, profanity laden post to me over five hours after you originally posted it. You are pure class.
As for the events at NGLA in the summer of 1910, I've told you what the NYSun said about it them, and it was not the only article. Plus, in early May the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported that play would begin the next week, with the opening in June. I have no idea why you are so indignant about me going to sources from that time.
The Sun followed up on July 3, 1910 under the headline "National Golf Links Now Open."
It is not to be the scene of a real cut and dried tournament until next June, when golfers of fame abroad are to lend distinction to the play, for the present gathering is only a picnic of the founders and members to get an idea of what has been done toward obtaining the ideal links. Allowing twenty percent off for incompleteness . . . the course is now a grander test of golf than any in this country. In variety and types of holes . . . there is nothing on this side of the Atlantic equal to the new links. The only point on which Myopia, Baltusrol, Garden City, and Ekwanok and some other noted American courses now lead is in texture and wealth of turf.
Note that Baltusrol and Ekwanok are being thrown right in there with Myopia and Garden City as the best of the rest.
The Sun article then went on to describe the course, and from what I can read from a a very bad copy, the course seems to be complete except for the "temporary" eighth green, with the real green growing in and scheduled to be open in the fall. It is very difficult to read but I believe the article closes with:
[NGLA] is a tribute as it stands to the energy of American golfers and may some day be a Mecca for pilgrims from links of other lands.
Why you continue to misrepresent the July 1910 tournament as a "soft opening" for only a limited group of invited top players. According to the press at the time, the course was open for play for the membership.
Given the state of Philadelphia golf at the time, I can understand why you might be overwhelmed by the quality of golfers at this tournament, but so far as I can tell this was a member's gathering. That is what it was billed as, and all of the top golfers - the "First Eight"- were members. While Travis was eventually dropped from the list, he considered himself a Founder at this point. Max Behr, Devereux Emmet, and Joseph Knapp were founders, as were H. J. Whigham, C.B. Macdonald, M.J. O'Brien, C.F. Watson, F. H. Thomas, and J. B. Harriman. Ward and Herreshoff weren't Founders, but they were members, as was Louis Livingston. I don't have the list of associate members to check on the rest.
_______________________________________________
Mac, I'd like to explore it as well, but it is tough to understand what was going on right then. Everything was changing. What was considered to be state of the art in the middle of the first decade was outdated five years later. So very likely some of the courses that were the considered the best in the late aughts might have been considered antiquated shortly thereafter. So even courses that had been considered good went through significant changes either in the latter part of the first decade or in the beginning of the second.
As to your broader question as to the evolution of the discipline, I think what you have is NGLA which despite its rough conditions was considered above and beyond all the others in terms of quality design, and then two groups of golf courses somewhere below this:
1) The old established courses that may have started out to be very much in the dark ages, but that were making changes to try and keep with the evolving expectations for the courses; and,
2) The new courses, which were being built from scratch. These were generally based upon what most could consider to be closer to better, more enduring principles of quality design, but were generally young and immature and works-in-project in their own way.
Over time some of the old established courses did adapt through significant modifications, while others had to start over from scratch. And of course many of the new courses eventually matured and were considered quite good. By in 1910 this next wave had begun, but it is perhaps a bit early to see the full impact.
As for the amateur/professional argument it comes down to a bit of a word game. To my mind the most important distinction wasn't between professional golfer or amateur clubman. Rather, during this time period, the most important distinction became the level of expertise of the designer. Fairly suddenly, designing courses became much more complicated and time consuming, and the amount of knowledge and expertise needed to do it well increased. Neither the typical club pro nor the typical club amateur were equipped to deal with this, thus they were both on their way to becoming obsolete.
Here is some of how Devereux Emmett described the transition in 1916.
It was supposed to be as simple a matter to lay out a golf course as it is to lay out a tennis course. Holes were made rectangular--a certain width and height--bunkers with high banks which were as identical in height and shape as pickets in a fence were run across at angles to the line of play--that is all there was to it. . . . It was all very simple before "Alps Holes" and "Redan Holes" came along to upset people's minds and set them thinking. Nowadays a golf architect is expected to create a minature Switzerland on a piece of real estate as flat as Sheepshead Bay Race Course --with the Finance Committee hailing from Missouri. Nothing is considered impossible anymore on a golf course. People expect new and original holes that call for the exercise of judgement as well as playing skill. The standard of excellence in putting greens and tees and fairways and bunkers has been immeasurably raised. There must be nothing artificial looking about bunkers, greens or undulations.
This meant that, to be successful, designers had to focus on designing pretty much full time, which meant they either had to be rich or get paid. And while a few true amateur designers had produced successful courses (namely Leeds and Macdonald) they were very much the exception to the rule.
Charles B. Macdonald is an exception. There is only one C.B. Macdonald. As a creator of great and original golf courses he is in a class by himself. As a generous sportsman he is in a class by himself. His services to the game in this country are very great. They never could be adequately compensated. He has shown American golfers what a real course is like. But with all of his generosity and sporting spirit of helpfulness I doubt if he could accomplish what he has done if he had not been a man of large means. Mr. Whigham says he has to work for a living, and no doubt he works hard, but I know very few men who do that who could have done a fraction of what Macdonald has accomplished. He has been a prophet--a leader of a crusade. People like that are different--not found every day. Mr. Herbert Leeds, who has devoted years of time and unlimited and unselfish effort to create his beloved links at Myopia is in the same category.
. . . It would be interesting to know how many times Macdonald visited the National Links during its construction, and I doubt if any book would hold the written and spoken direction he has given about it. . . .
What Emmett didn't mention is that CBM learned to golf in St. Andrews in the 1870's, tried to introduce golf to chicago in 1875, spent long periods of time in Scotland playing golf between 1878 in 1892 (using Hoylake as his base,) was a pioneer of early US golf and early US golf course architecture in the mid 1890's, designed a few courses in Chicago including Chicago Golf Club (with the assistance of a professional,) took three separate trips overseas to study the golf courses in preparation for NGLA, had survey maps of some of the holes created, did thirty or forty drawings himself, consulted with perhaps the most renown experts in the world, including Hutchinson, Darwin, and Low, had another expert, H.J. Whigham, there to help him, consulted with the foremost turf experts at the Department of Agriculture, was versed in the landscape gardeners of centuries past, and perhaps most importantly, he had the services of Seth Raynor who, unlike Macdonald, got paid. Plus he was rich, had a lot of rich friends, and could take his time and do it right.
So while he was an amateur, he was by no means your average clubman or even your average club pro. Travis wasn't either. (In fact Travis was a professional designer. I'm not sure when he first got paid.) Leeds was unusal as well, in that his work was done over decades, and he too studied the craft overseas. And then there were designers like Emmett and Tillinghast, who were amateur golfers, but pursued golf course design as an occupation, pretty much full time.On the professional side you similarly had people like Ross who were developing the craft and taking it to a higher level.
In short, while the old club pros and perhaps a few clubmen had produced some very good courses for their time, the bar had been raised, and the discipline becoming more advanced. In the face all of that the debate about club pros and clubmen rather seems to miss the point.
-
Mac,
David M has just provided an excellent example of what I am talking about. Great post, David. Plus, I agree. The profession was evolving very fast then, it appears to me. Thus, trying to pin it to a year very well might miss something. But more to the point, trying to say definitively that pros vs ams was better is pretty hard to do. I could conclude that by this time, pro designers were consistently better, but then there are those few sterling examples of amateur design out there which are strong enough to sort of define the 1910 era.
What happened, happened.
-
In 1915 Oswald Kirby ranked the following courses as the best in the East.
National
Baltusrol
Garden City
Brookline
Myopia
Oakmont
Ekwanok
Huntingdon Valley
Merion
Pinehurst #2
Pinehurst #3
Piping Rock
Kirby said Huntingdon Valley, Englewood (did not make his list), Oakmont, Oakland (did not make it) and Atlantic City (did not make it) were all very good, but not quite up to some of the others. His top 6 in order were NGLA, Myopia, Brookline, Baltusrol, Ekwanok, and Garden City. He'd obviously not seen the Cirba scale rating.
That same year Chick Evans came out with his best courses in the West.
CC of Buffalo
CC of Detroit
Mayfield
Kent
Chicago
Old Elm
Homewood
St. Louis
Atlanta AC
Denver
Victoria
Del Monte
Evans said he had played all of these courses with the exception of Del Monte and Mayfield. He was embarrassed about not playing Mayfield based on Vardon's assessment. He thought Atlanta AC was the best course in the South. Other courses he noted were Ravisloe and Westmoreland in Chicago and Sequoyah in Oakland.
-
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - G.Hunter (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901), I.Mackie (1910)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker/B.Way (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
TMac,
Good morning. Please excuse my irritation last night and my ignorance this morning....but who is Oswald Kirby? Of course, I know Chick Evans (hey, I met Chick Evans in 1977!)
I appreciate your post 274 as it contains information I didn't know. As I said last night, I am not hung up on 1910 particularly so I think its relevant because while you picked the date 1910 for reasons of your own, it would be a coincidence to find enough documents in that exact time frame. (My first thought last night when I saw the spring/fall and 1910-1911 arguments was "ten-ish anyone?")
Those two lists (and yours, which is slightly different) have about 25 courses out of the approximate 1000+ built at that time and would be a fair sampling of the best. I think it would be ridiculous to narrow it to top 3, even if today's top 100 lists cover about 1/10the the % of courses now built that this 0.04% covers. Then, as now, I am sure there were debates about the lists.
In short, I think you have made your point that by 1910 (or so) most courses hired a gca. That a few courses bucked that trend with great success and talented and hard working committees who were highly motivated doesn't change the fact that it was the trend to hire a gca even at that early stage in the profession. The fact that so many early courses (presumably homemade) were being remodeled by 1910 to keep up is another factor suggesting that things were evolving fast and course quality was perhaps being thought of as important, compared to getting them open in earlier efforts.
-
Guys,
I don't care if we pick spring or fall of 1910, but we're still talking about Tom Mac's list having a considerable number of courses that weren't even OPEN in 1910, or with massive changes that might have been planned in 1910, but implemented over the next few years.
If this thread is trying to to make any point at all, it can't be a moving target.
Tom Mac picked 1910...guess why....because that's the year Merion started planning their new course.
If this thread is to have any relevance to that decision-making process, it can't be vapor-ware.
If Columbia opened in 1912, then it shouldn't be on the list.
If Mayfield opened in 1911, it shouldn't be here, and so on.
Otherwise, once again, here we are with Tmac having no confidence to actually stick to a date that is the point of his argument, and it's a big waste of time.
-
The number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in 1910 that were;
1) Solely designed by a golf professional
2) Already open for play and therefore viewable as to achieved results
3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis
and
4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...
the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of over a decade of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)???
Interestingly, with few exceptions, and despite their supposed excellence in 1910, almost every one of these courses was completely re-designed from scratch or went NLE within a decade or two.
I'd also say that if this is the great architectural legacy of HH Barker, thank God Merion never used him as Real Estate Developer Joseph Connell had apparently suggested to them. Thankfully, they were intent on following other clubs who stayed true to the amateur model of developing the course themselves, as all the best courses in America at that time had done.. Even his arguably best work at Columbia was soon revamped by Travis.
In fact, is there a course today where Barker's work can still be viewed? Has anything at all of his supposed brilliance survived without being redesigned??
We'll look more at Apawamis later today.
-
Mike,
I see your point vis a vis any implication for that club we shouldn't get started on again. If some of those courses weren't opened it might be hard for that club to have considered them.
But, as I have always said, they did consider what could arguably be the best in CBM to assist them, and NGLA was in fact about 80% complete when they visited it, based on the opening/soft opening in June 1910 you and David are debating. Either NGLA was clearly considered the it course (little doubt of that, actually) or they were more perceptive than the average club. Either way, given those facts, and a meager but expanding portfolio by Barker or any gca, it was not such a reach that TMac has portrayed to do it themselves with a big assist from CBM.
On that Kirby list, the club we don't mention is suprisingly high, given it would have been undergoing its bunker additions and rerouting right at that time to be ready for the 1916 AM, no? I have the impression that its reputation continued to grow after those changes and having hosted a national event. As we know, the lists in this thread were started by listing those courses that held tournaments. Some things never change, do they?
-
David,
Was Macdonald's First Invitational Tournament that was not an Invitational Tournament the same deal as the first US Amateur that was Not a US Amateur?
By the way, my supposed profanity-laden post said, 'Conjecture, my a*s', and said the timelines around NGLA you try to propagate are a lot of horsesh*t. If you prefer I don't edit, I won't.
Both statements are still demonstrably true. ;)
-
Jeff,
David is correct that NGLA was a one-off, and because CBM had been designing and developing it for over four years by 1910, and because of his lofty goals and ebullient personality, there wasn't a person in the country interested in golf who hadn't heard of it and as we know, the guys at Merion certainly did as well.
Yes, they sought his advice and counsel, and tried to emulate his model of an amateur committee and did very well after working at it for many years just as he had.
To be frank about these lists, I think courses that had good playable turf grass and good greens almost de-facto made these lists, and I think that was at least partially responsible for the ratings of Merion and Baltusrol at that time, based on Kirkby's list.
-
Mike,
I read a lot about the turf being an issue in those posted documents as well. Then as now, maintenance may have had an effect on perception of gca, maybe even more so. This discussion, including the mentions of Old Elm having the first irrigation system (in the ahead of their time thread) makes me wonder what the earliest well maintained courses were?
BTW, I also largely agree with your take that the NGLA play in 1910 was a soft opening. But, the rest of DM's post was informative. In the end, its not worth arguing about whether it was a soft or hard opening. It happened that year and caught the eye of the club we won't mention, almost certainly leading them in that direction for assistance with their gca efforts.
-
Oswald Kirby was one of the better amateur golfers in the US. He won the Metroplitan Am three times, among other events.
-
Ralph Liviingston III and Mac Plumart:
You've made good points on this thread.
I too see this thread as not particularly helpful or educational in explaining what was really going on with architecture in America in the beginning and why some of it was done by a various type of person----eg the amateur architect or a committee of amateurs rather than a professional architecture or a particular type of professional architect.
There was a lot of dymanics in this time that has to be included in this analysis if this subject is ever going to be fully understood by some of us, as it should be.
However, perhaps you are right that the question should just be what the best was in the beginning and not who did it.
My own interest in this kind of subject has always been what should be or could be considered the FIRST really good golf architecture in America and once that is determined I feel a carefully analysis should be done on who did it and where he (they) actually figured out how to do it that early in American golf with essentially nothing around in this country to go on as a good model or reference point.
-
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)???
Interestingly, with few exceptions, and despite their supposed excellence in 1910, almost every one of these courses was completely re-designed from scratch or went NLE within a decade or two.
Mike
What does completely re-designed from scratch mean? Which of these courses were completely re-designed from scratch? Wasn't Merion redesigned?
-
Tom,
Start with AC and Baltusrol being completely redesigned from scratch and Fox Hills and Englewood as NLE.
Is there any work by Barker we can see today? Arcola perhaps?
-
Tom,
Again, what does a 1915 list have to do with the state of things in 1910?
There was a ton of activity between those years.
-
Mike and TMac,
Would redesigned from scratch be a total re-routing (or nearly so) but using the existing property? I am sure there are more blends back then than in a trendy coffee house now, such as Shinney (redesigned by Flynn) which kept a few holes but was essentially a whole new routing.
There were a lot of those. From my experience, Ross rebuilt Northland in Duluth and moved it across the street. Nothing was left of the original homemade course. There are lots of those, and some where renovations were a lot less, like adding bunkering, I suppose.
Mike,
If we move away from a club we won't mention bias, it is just sort of interesting to note all that happened in those pre WWI years, isn't it? I doubt we will find a list from 1910, although it is possible. As with everything, the record is fragmented. Since the club we won't mention did pick the CBM model I don't think TMac can make much of an argument based on this or any other list, can he? What I find ironic is that they picked the CBM amateur model just as he (CBM) was starting to accept other commissions on a much more involved basis than what he undertook at the club we won't mention.
-
Tom,
Start with AC and Baltusrol being completely redesigned from scratch and Fox Hills and Englewood as NLE.
Is there any work by Barker we can see today? Arcola perhaps?
Arcola? I'm not sure why you insist on making this about Barker....try to stay focused.
What does completely re-designed from scratch mean?
-
Tom,
Again, what does a 1915 list have to do with the state of things in 1910?
There was a ton of activity between those years.
If I limited myself to reports written only in 1910 the information would be pretty slim. So I included information gathered from cirica 1910, some from before, some after (have you limited yourself to reports written in 1910?). It is actually pretty remarkable how many reports and rankings there are from this period. IMO the list I created is very representative of the top courses circa 1910.
I'm sure some of these courses were altered between 1910 and 1915, but the majority were not changed significantly. And I'm confident if you dug deeper into those changes post-1910 you would find they were carried out by experienced amateurs and/or professionals, further strenthening my premise.
-
David,
Was Macdonald's First Invitational Tournament that was not an Invitational Tournament the same deal as the first US Amateur that was Not a US Amateur?
You stick with your petty sarcasm, I'll stick with the facts.
By the way, my supposed profanity-laden post said, 'Conjecture, my a*s', and said the timelines around NGLA you try to propagate are a lot of horsesh*t. If you prefer I don't edit, I won't.
I'd prefer it if you stopped acting like a child, but you've proven you cannot.
-
David,
So Macdonald decided to have a three day "picnic", with the first picnic being medal play, and the following two days of picnicking being match play, the former won by John Ward as the best medal picnicker and the latter by Fred Herreshoff as the best match-picnicker? ;)
Funny how tournaments CBM didn't win suddenly became not only unofficial events, but now not even tournaments...I wonder who brought the potato salad? ;D
We're arguing over nonsense here, David...the course soft-opened in 1910 with the picnic, and opened officially in 1911. Ok?
p.s....most of the rest of your post once you got past the requisite insults was very good and I agree with 95% of it.
All,
Here's the first and last page of the Apawamis review...the mid pages include more of the same recommending improvements to most every hole...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5007995333_95a8279807_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5007995349_51aae35681_b.jpg)
Here's the link to the rest for those so inclined;
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1909/ag17r.pdf
-
Tom MacWood,
Totally redesigned means exactly that. I know you're going to try and tweak Phil with some nonsense about Tilly not COMPLETELY redesigning Baltusrol, and using some work that was done before then by Low and others simply because some hole corridors are the same, but that's a bunch of hooey, as the Baltusrol 100 year anniversary book illustrates. Do you have it?
-
Tom,
Your list is shrinking.
Belmont Springs was not open in 1908...not in 1909 either...and in 1910 had a nine-hole course designed by the land owner Willard Robinson, not Donald Ross. Do I have to cross check all of your work??
Therefore, The number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in 1910 that were;
1) Solely designed by a golf professional
2) Already open for play and therefore viewable as to achieved results
3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis
and
4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...
the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of over a decade of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)???
-
Tom...interesting list...thank you for punctuating my point.
In 1915 Oswald Kirby ranked the following courses as the best in the East.
National - Designed by a committee of amateurs members
Baltusrol - Designed by Louis Keller and George Low, pro
Garden City - Designed by Emmet and Travis, amateur members
Brookline - Largely redesigned by Herbert Windeler, a member of the club
Myopia - Designed by HC Leeds, an amateur member of the club
Oakmont - Designed by Mr. Fownes, an amateur member of the club
Ekwanok - Laid out first by John Duncan Dunn, pro, with ongoing changes by amateur Walter Travis for the club.
Huntingdon Valley - Early John Reid (pro) layout vastly changed for years by Ab Smith, amateur for the club
Merion - Designed by a committee of amateur members, with advice from amateurs CBM and HJ Whigham
Pinehurst #2 - Designed by pro Donald Ross with amateur Walter Travis, who claimed credit for the rebunkering strategy
Pinehurst #3 - Designed by pro Donald Ross
Piping Rock - Designed by Amateur CB Macdonald
-
Ralph Livingston and Mac Plumart:
If I were you I would create another thread that concentrates on what Ralph said in his posts #247 and 260 and what Mac said in his posts #264. I would also suggest you include in that new thread post # 272 on this one from David Moriarty. I believe the latter has a most interesting quotation in it from Devereux Emmet who is likely one of the best opinion sources on this subject from that time.
I don't know where those 1916 remarks from Emmet come from but they are most certainly worth our close consideration in all that he says.
I also note that he mentions not just Macdonald but Herbert Leeds who I happen to think was very likely the FIRST to create really good architecture in America with Myopia and the benefit of studying Myopia and its entire architectural history is it happens to be the course that has been the least changed from perhaps as early as 1900 until today that we can find in America of a course that old in America.
Leeds was obviously a man who was essentially the opposite of Macdonald in that it seems Leeds refused to go on record in newspapers and magazines with anything he was thinking and doing during his approximately 25 years of involvement with that golf course and a few others that were the clubs of his friends.
Macdonald was most definitely not publicity shy but it appears Leeds definitely was. Matter of fact, one of the top players from abroad mentioned in an article in the first decade of the 20th century that he felt Myopia was one of the best courses in the world and that when he played it he spent time on it with a man who he said seemed to know more about the details of holes and courses abroad than even he did.
He did not mention the man's name but obviously it was Herbert Leeds. It seems Leeds may not have even told him who he was which was apparently not unusual for Leeds who was a self-proclaimed and self-admitted martinet who definitely had remarkably strong feelings about the social and cultural differences between professsionals and gentlemen amateurs. Throughout his entire career at Myopia Leed refused to let a professional come near the clubhouse!
Nevertheless, Leeds found the resource to do what he did at Myopia somewhere and that is what interests me most since he seems to have been the first to create really good architecture in America. Myopia was essentially the way it is now (with perhaps quite a bit less bunkering) in 1900 and as we know this was before Macdonald made even the first of his own three architectural study trips abroad and six to seven years before Macdonald started with NGLA.
-
Tom MacWood,
Under what basis is Englewood included here?
Calkins in 1910 said that the course didn't have a hazard worthy of its name, and was in dire need of soft sand and scientific trapping.
Are you that desperate for reasonably decent courses designed by pro golfers through 1910 to have to include Englewood? ;) ;D
What did Barker do at Waverly and when did those changes get done?
-
We're arguing over nonsense here, David...the course soft-opened in 1910 with the picnic, and opened officially in 1911. Ok?
You are arguing over nonsense. I am writing what multiple reports said about NGLA in the summer of 1910.
You credit AB Smith with the changes at Huntingdon Valley. Tillinghast reported that it was professional Jim Laing who was responsible for the work completed in 1909, and that it greatly improved the course. Laing also designed the nine hole course at Old York Road.
Just to keep a perspective on what was passing for good architecture in Philadelphia at this early period, here a few photos of the work at Huntingdon Valley, 1909:
A feature added short of the 14th green, described as sand covered by sod on the sides:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC14th.jpg?t=1247263112)
A sand trap added to the front of the 17th green:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC17th.jpg?t=1247263503)
As far as Myopia goes, I think Leeds is an interesting example, but hardly comparable to Macdonald. Myopia most definitely falls into the category of a course originally laid out in the dark ages but which was steadily improved over the years, thanks to Leeds hard work. If I am not mistaken, Leeds inherited an already existing course at Myopia - at least the front nine - and worked very hard to improve it over the next few decades. TEPaul mentioned that Myopia did not consider itself suitable for a National Amateur event through the first decade of last century. It wasn't until 1910 that Myopia proudly announced that the construction of the course was finally complete, and that they would make no more changes.
Apparently they spoke a bit too soon, for after Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia immediately began making substantial changes to rid the course of some of the blind spots, including removing 1500 truckloads of dirt from the 10th hole.
-
"As far as Myopia goes, I think Leeds is an interesting example, but hardly comparable to Macdonald. Myopia most definitely falls into the category of a course originally laid out in the dark ages but which was steadily improved over the years, thanks to Leeds hard work. If I am not mistaken, Leeds inherited an already existing course at Myopia - at least the front nine - and worked very hard to improve it over the next few decades. TEPaul mentioned that Myopia did not consider itself suitable for a National Amateur event through the first decade of last century. It wasn't until 1910 that Myopia proudly announced that the construction of the course was finally complete, and that they would make no more changes.
Apparently they spoke a bit too soon, for after Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia immediately began making substantial changes to rid the course of some of the blind spots, including removing 1500 truckloads of dirt from the 10th hole."
I am not comparing Leeds to Macdonald as anyone familiar with both of them certainly knows they were very different men in the way they approached what they were going to do, what they were doing and what they had done in and with golf course architecture. Macdonald was without question a first rate self-promoter of what he was doing and thinking regarding golf and golf course architecture but Herbert Leeds was perhaps the polar opposite----seemingly refusing to go public about anything he did and thought.
Herbert Leeds' seemingly lost "Leeds Scrapebook" just may be one of the most valuable and important assets still missing in the history and evolution of American architecture. I think it may've been over a twenty year diary of all that he saw and thought and did with golf architecture but it was never published and was seemingly a private diary.
To me the most interesting thing about Herbert Leeds is he was the one who seems to have created the first good golf architecture in America which is still very much there for us to see and analyze today and he did it some years before Macdonald even began NGLA or even went abroad on the first of his three study trips. The other one that is still available for us to study from just about the same year (1900) is GCGC but that was changed more than Myopia ever was when Travis became involved with it after 1901, seemingly improving it considerably.
Leeds did inherit a nine hole course from 1894 when he began working on Myopia in 1896 but of those original nine holes only six of them are known to even be in the same places as today and of that they may've been quite different from the hole of Leeds' "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played and then the full eighteen holes that were completed in 1900 and ready for play for the 1901 US Open.
Even though Myopia may've been laid out by Leeds in what you call the Dark Ages, Leeds' architecture was definitely not of the Dark Age variety.
I was not aware that Myopia or Leeds proudly announced in 1910 that the course was complete and no more changes would be made. I believe Leeds continued to add bunkers on the course at will until he finally stepped down from his position as the course's architect in 1918.
Leeds did not refuse to hold the US Amateur because the course was not ready for the US Amateur. That had nothing to do with it. Leeds' reason for not holding the US Amateur was for another reason that had nothing to do with the architecture or quality of the golf course. The reason was only about the locker-room and the fact that he felt the accommodations were not suitable for the competitors of a US Amateur.
Leeds was interested in the opinions of many good golfers who played Myopia but the alterations to the course following Hutchinson's visit and remarks are not verifiably connected to Hutchinson or his remarks.
Matter of fact, one does need to question Hutchinson's remarks about the number of blind shots at Myopia being too many since it had no more in 1910 than NGLA had.
But then one would actually have to have some pretty good familiarity with both golf courses to know and understand something like that.
-
"In June 1910 Merion chose to engage an experienced professional and amateur, arguably the top amateur and professional architects in the country."
One more time, Tom MacWood. Merion did not engage a professional architect in 1910 or 1911, not anyone and certainly not HH Barker. Matter of fact, it is most interesting that both the committee and board meeting minutes of June/July 1910 SPECIFICALLY record that THEY did not engage (and pay for) HH Barker in 1910; they specifically recorded that HDC developer Joseph Connell who had nothing to do with MCC as a member engaged him and paid him.
But you wouldn't know that would you because you've never done any research at Merion GC or MCC?! And even though we have provided the information in those documents word for word, as usual, you either ignore them or just rationalize away what they specifically say.
Those MCC contomporaneous meeting minutes documents can and do trump any day any inaccurate newspaper report or train schedules that are the sole sources of your meaningfully inaccurate analysis of the architectural history of Merion East.
It is pretty shocking what an amazingly poor analyst you really are of the golf and architectural history of this time even after having the facts, the documents and the truth explained to you by others who really have done the necessary in-depth research.
It doesn't look to me like you have any credibilty left on this website. Who supports what you've said about Merion on here or elsewhere? It looks like even Moriarty is beginning to disassociate himself from you which would seem appropriate after what you said to Merion attempting to disassociate yourself from any involvement with his highly panned essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion."
-
You credit AB Smith with the changes at Huntingdon Valley. Tillinghast reported that it was professional Jim Laing who was responsible for the work completed in 1909, and that it greatly improved the course. Laing also designed the nine hole course at Old York Road.
Just to keep a perspective on what was passing for good architecture in Philadelphia at this early period, here a few photos of the work at Huntingdon Valley, 1909:
A feature added short of the 14th green, described as sand covered by sod on the sides:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC14th.jpg?t=1247263112)
A sand trap added to the front of the 17th green:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC17th.jpg?t=1247263503)
Ahhh yes...Long Jimmy Laing....Alas, I know him well.
In fact, I've been fortunate enough to see his "work", or what's left of it at Olde York Road CC, now known as The Abington Club...it's classic, I can assure you.
Sorry to disappoint you, but indeed you're viewing the combined efforts of golf professionals John Reid and Jimmy Laing in those pics.
Ab Smith started his work shortly thereafter, and from the looks of it, had his work cut out for him.
The fact that by 1915 Oswald Kirkby listed it among the company of Garden City, NGLA, et.al. proves indeed the quality of the architectural work of one of the co-designers of Cobb's Creek, Mr. A.H. (AB) Smith, IN THE HOUSE!!! ;D
In fact, here's the Great Man himself, sitting next to George Thomas who unfortunately already seems to be making a bit of a west-coast fashion statement. ;)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2716/4290658039_7dc0fe7f7b_o.jpg)
Ab Smith, indeed...First Philadelphia Amateur champion in 1897, and winner again in 1911, Smith also coined the term "Birdie" playing golf with Crump, his brother William, and Tillinghast at Atlantic City CC.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give PROPS up HIGH to another of the great Philadelphia amateur designers. ;D
-
Michael:
That's very funny. Moriarty posts some photos of some really bad looking architecture thinking you said it was by amateur Smith when it apparently turns out to be the work of some no-count professional by the name of Laing. But you should check Laing out with MacWood and you might just find he was the third best architect in America in 1909 right behind Macdonald and HH Barker.
I also heard Macdonald had a "super-soft" opening of NGLA in 1909 and what is now referred to as the "Charmin Soft" opening in 1908. I think the soft opening he had in 1907 was so soft no one actually felt it. But the softest opening he ever had was actually at his Hen House at Ballyshear overlooking NGLA. I'm not sure what year that one was though, even though it is believed he asked a bunch of NY showgirls to come over late one night and look over his plasticine relief models that he had specially made by Seth.
-
Tom Paul,
NOBODY f's with Ab Smith on my watch!
As the Father of Philly public golf, the man is a virtual demi-god for crying out loud!!
My lord...the man designed freaking Karakung!!!
I just hope Bausch isn't reading this or he's probably already boarding a plane to kick some revisionist lala-land butt! ;). ;D
-
Here's the first and last page of the Apawamis review...the mid pages include more of the same recommending improvements to most every hole...
Mike
Have your heard the phrase, with friends like you who needs enemies? In this case the opposite is true. This 1909 article begins: "Apawamis easily ranks today as the fourth best Metropolitan course..." And this before the course was readied for the 1911 US Amateur. In 1910 the Metropolitan district was the pinnacle of golf architecture in America.
-
Tom MacWood,
Totally redesigned means exactly that. I know you're going to try and tweak Phil with some nonsense about Tilly not COMPLETELY redesigning Baltusrol, and using some work that was done before then by Low and others simply because some hole corridors are the same, but that's a bunch of hooey, as the Baltusrol 100 year anniversary book illustrates. Do you have it?
I know what totally redesigned means, but completely re-designed from scratch was new to me. I don't have the Baltusrol book, but I am familiar with the project incorporating the old course into the new 36-hole course and total redesign is not accurate. Further more it is a complete distortion to assert the original course was not among the best courses in the country at the time because it was redesigned, there were good reasons why they had to redesign the course to create 36-holes. This is the kind BS that reflects very poorly on you.
-
Mike & TEP
There is a photograph of Huntingdon Valley in Geo Thomas's book on page 155. It looks quite a bit better than your photo. The credit for the hole is given to Green Committee, Smith chairman; with advice from Low and Colt. My guess is Low is George Low who was partnered with Tillinghast at the time, and Colt is HS Colt.
Do you guys actually believe the stuff that you spew forth on this site or is this some kind of game you like to play?
-
Mike
Have your heard the phrase, with friends like you who needs enemies? In this case the opposite is true. This 1909 article begins: "Apawamis easily ranks today as the fourth best Metropolitan course..." And this before the course was readied for the 1911 US Amateur. In 1910 the Metropolitan district was the pinnacle of golf architecture in America.
Tom,
Have you heard the phrase, "in the land of blind men, the one-eyed man is king."?
Yes, probably if one were to name the best 25 courses in the US in 1910 then Apawamis would be among them. So what? There were so few courses of any quality at all that a course that would be a Doak Scale 3 today would probably make that list!
That's the point I think you're not getting here, Tom. The record of the foreign professionals in the US up to 1910 is one of dreck and sludge. Of the over 1000 courses already in the ground most ranged from horrid to putrid to simply crude.
Compared to the very best courses in the US at the time...Myopia, Garden City, NGLA...as well as compared to most good courses abroad, courses like Baltusrol and Apawamis and Fox Hills paled in comparison.
THAT is why courses like Garden City and NGLA made such a splash when they were being developed and opened.
As this thread indicates, there was a second tier of courses that probably included Ekwanok, Pinehurst #2, and Oakmont, and possibly one or two others that all were probably equivalent to Doak 4 to 6 at the time, but after that things fell precipitously.
David Moriarty, who seems to be much more realistic than you as regards the work of the old professionals, made an excellent point on a recent post when he described the different states of evolution various courses of the time were in. He wrote, quite perceptively and historically accurately;
"I'd like to explore it as well, but it is tough to understand what was going on right then. Everything was changing. What was considered to be state of the art in the middle of the first decade was outdated five years later. So very likely some of the courses that were the considered the best in the late aughts might have been considered antiquated shortly thereafter. So even courses that had been considered good went through significant changes either in the latter part of the first decade or in the beginning of the second."
As to your broader question as to the evolution of the discipline, I think what you have is NGLA which despite its rough conditions was considered above and beyond all the others in terms of quality design, and then two groups of golf courses somewhere below this:
1) The old established courses that may have started out to be very much in the dark ages, but that were making changes to try and keep with the evolving expectations for the courses; and,
2) The new courses, which were being built from scratch. These were generally based upon what most could consider to be closer to better, more enduring principles of quality design, but were generally young and immature and works-in-project in their own way.
"Over time some of the old established courses did adapt through significant modifications, while others had to start over from scratch. And of course many of the new courses eventually matured and were considered quite good. By in 1910 this next wave had begun, but it is perhaps a bit early to see the full impact."
The Fox Hills, Baltusrol, and Apawamis courses all can be seen in this light as they "started out...in the dark ages, but were making changes to try and keep with the evolving expectations." Over time, the Fox Hills course and early Baltusrol course perished, and Apawamis continued to make any number of changes over time, and today is still a bit of a relic.
I'm looking at a map right now of the 1910 Baltusrol course and one can see exactly the point, which is also described quite well in the article on Baltusrol I posted earlier. The course is a mix of old and new, with most holes still containing cross-bunkers, and most holes run stick-straight with no turning, no use of angles or diagnonals, but yet a smattering of more sophisticated bunkering is also in evidence.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you contend that some of this course made it to the present Baltusrol because that is clearly not true. Perhaps the corridor of the first and second hole is the same, but after that the course veers along and across today's courses, and bears not a scant resemblance to what Tilly built.
I do hope this makes my point a bit clearer, Tom.
I'm not saying that some of those courses you listed weren't among the best courses in the US at the time. It's just that 1) compared to the Top three in the US, all designed by amateurs for their own clubs, they fell far short of that standard, and 2) compared to the best courses abroad, they were similarly lacking.
-
Mike & TEP
There is a photograph of Huntingdon Valley in Geo Thomas's book on page 155. It looks quite a bit better than your photo. The credit for the hole is given to Green Committee, Smith chairman; with advice from Low and Colt. My guess is Low is George Low who was partnered with Tillinghast at the time, and Colt is HS Colt.
Do you guys actually believe the stuff that you spew forth on this site or is this some kind of game you like to play?
Tom,
That's very interesting. The photos I re-posted were those David posted of HVGC as it existed after professionals John Reid and Jim Laing got through with it.
Ab Smith began his work there as head of Green Chairman after 1910, and the fact that 1) The course was obviously horrid before his work, and 2) by 1915 it was considered by Oswald Kirkby to be among the best courses in the country says an enormous amount about the quality of Smith's work there.
You do recognize that Thomas wrote his book over a decade later, in the late 20s, right?
By that time evidently the firm of Colt and Alison had evidently done something at HVGC, because Daniel Wexler gives credit to the course at Baederwood to them, although it's difficult for me to tell exactly what they did, as we discussed on a previous thread. For instance, the routing seems identical to what it was in Smith's time, and much of the bunkering in evidence seems to have preceded the time Alison was documented to have been there.
But no matter...even Thomas's late 1920s caption for the course shows the sure architectural hand of Ab Smith was still firmly at the helm of Huntingdon Valley at that time, and gives due credit, evidently.
By 1915, however, I can post a slew of articles by Tillinghast and others that shows indeed that amateur Ab Smith was the man responsible for all of the wonderful positive changes that happened to the course during that time, such that it elevated it to a position along side other eastern courses like Garden City and NGLA as the best in the east according to Mr. Kirkby.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4336401890_8354e8b156_o.jpg)
-
Belmont Springs was not open in 1908...not in 1909 either...and in 1910 had a nine-hole course designed by the land owner Willard Robinson, not Donald Ross. Do I have to cross check all of your work??
Belmont Springs was laid out in 1908 by Donald Ross. The first nine was ready in the fall of 1909, and the second in the fall of 1910. Williard Robinson did not design the golf course. Fred Pickering built it.
"Donald J. Ross, the Oakley professional, his brother Alex, and Alex Findlay have all gone thoroughly over the 212 acres embraced in the property and have expressed their admiration for the natural lay of the land for an ideal golf course and the immense possibilities with small change. To the first named has been awarded the commission of laying out the holes and this week will begin active work towards locating and staking out a 6000-yard links."
~~Boston Globe 7/12/1908
Donald Ross listed Belmont Springs as a golf course he designed on his master list.
-
Tom,
You may be correct, although the pictures associated with this 7 page article from April 1909 show undeveloped land still.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1909/ag16n.pdf
Beyond that, however, I'm still not sure the course was all that highly-regarded, even at that time. Certainly, even when it held the Massachusetts State Open a few years after opening the praise for the course seemed rather faint.
Here's what the club's website says about their history;
"An 1853 map of the Town of Belmont shows a dwelling on BCC’s site owned by an E. Green. The property was purchased by George H. Cotton about 1872 and named Cotton Place. After Mr. Cotton’s death, Willard E. Robinson purchased the almost 90-acre site and old Colonial house in 1908. The following year he proceeded to layout a nine-hole golf course. Next, Mr. Robinson bought land across Winter Street giving him a total of 211 acres, with enough area to enlarge the course to 18 holes, which was designed by Donald Ross (1872-1948), a new course designer from Dornoch, Scotland and renamed The Belmont Springs Country Club."
-
Tom...interesting list...thank you for punctuating my point.
In 1915 Oswald Kirby ranked the following courses as the best in the East.
National - Designed by a committee of experienced amateurs members in 1907.
Baltusrol - Redesigned George Low, pro in 1910
Garden City - Designed by Emmet and Travis in 1899, amateur members; redesigned by experienced amateur Travis in 1906-10 (assisted by Barker)
Brookline - Largely redesigned by experienced amateur Herbert Windeler in 1910
Myopia - Designed by pro Willie Campbell in 1894; HC Leeds, an amateur member of the club in 1899; he continued to tweek the course over the next decade
Oakmont - Designed by Mr. Fownes in 1903, an amateur member of the club. He continued to tweek the golf course over the years
Ekwanok - Laid out first by John Duncan Dunn, pro, with minor changes by experienced amateur Walter Travis in 1905
Pinehurst #2 - Designed by pro Donald Ross in 1907 with amateur Walter Travis, who claimed credit for the rebunkering strategy
Pinehurst #3 - Designed by pro Donald Ross in 1908
Piping Rock - Designed by experienced Amateur CB Macdonald
In 1910 if you desired anything good you either hired an experienced amateur or a professional.
-
Tom,
Out of arrows, huh? ;)
Just keep repeating that historically disproven notion and perhaps you may even come to believe it yourself, ;D
-
"Do you guys actually believe the stuff that you spew forth on this site or is this some kind of game you like to play?"
What is it exactly, MacWood, that you think I am spewing forth?
Are you back ten years ago with your ridiculous claim that Pine Valley or Philadelphia or whatever was out to minimize or disrespect the likes of Harry Colt?
What a ridiculous and meaningfully inaccurate suggestion that was on your part!! ;)
For your information, in the minds of apparently Hugh Wilson and definitely Alan Wilson (and I can document this) as late as the early 1920s Alan Wilson still felt that there probably wasn't an architect in America as good as Harry Colt and the correspondence is pretty plentiful with what the Wilson brothers felt about Hugh Alison too.
Your remarks on here surely are laughable because it appears you can't even competently read or understand contemporaneous material and you also admit you don't even read some of the posts of others on here. I really do wonder what even you thinks your purpose on here is or should be with all that!
In my opinion, you're nothing more than a myopic, fixated, pontificator with little to no crediblity left. Thankfully it seems most everyone else on this website realizes that now.
-
Yes, probably if one were to name the best 25 courses in the US in 1910 then Apawamis would be among them. So what? There were so few courses of any quality at all that a course that would be a Doak Scale 3 today would probably make that list!
Quality is a relative term. You cannot judge the golf courses of 1910 against the standard of 1925, 1970 or 2005. The purpose of this exercise is to better understand the state of golf architecture in 1910, and the attitude of those in charge of developing new and existing golf courses. Clearly, as shown by this list of the top 25 courses in 1910, the attitude was, if you desired a qualify golf course, to engage an experienced amateur or professional. This exercise also shows that there was a different attitude in the late 1890s and early 1900s. During that period it was not unusual for a realtively inexprienced amateur to take charge of a design.
-
I have highlighted the experienced amateurs to better illustrate my point.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - G.Hunter (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901), I.Mackie (1910)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker/B.Way (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
That list above is so riddled with meaningful inaccuracies, factual mistakes and omissions as to be virtually worthless for any point of reference, comparatively or otherwise. Unfortunately, it is also worthless to continue pointing them all out to Tom MacWood as he seems completely incapable of acknowledging or even understanding any of them.
An example of that is Brookline. The first to lay out holes there was not just Windelar but also Hunnewell and Robert Bacon.
Another excellent example of MacWood's incredibly poor analysis is his take on A.P. Appleton being involved in laying out the orginal nine at Myopia in the early spring of 1894. MacWood found out that Appleton was the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia Hunt Club and concluded that it is ridiculous to suggest the Master of the Fox Hounds could understand how to lay out golf holes. But MacWood did not realize and will now not admit that Appleton actually laid out up to six holes on his nearby 1,000 acre farm nearby (Appleton Farm) the year before in 1893! ;)
It was one of the first few golf courses in Massachusetts.
Today there is something very historic in America about Appleton Farm.
-
Regarding Myopia, it seems a bit much to suggest that changes to do away with blindness were not related to Hutchinson's criticisms. In the beginning of 1910 Myopia thought their course was finally finished, but shortly after Hutchinson's visit they were changing the course to rid it of some of the blindness. "Bunker Hill," whose unabashed enthusiasm about (and defense of) the course against all criticism might make Mike Cirba blush, noted that Myopia corrected what Hutchinson had complained about. And while Bunker Hill and others complained profusely about the unfairness of Hutchinson's comments, the changes were nonetheless made.
Regarding Leeds, isn't it strange how all the really good information is always lost in a fire or flood or some such thing? For a long time we heard about how all of the records of Merion had apparently been lost in a flood . . . maybe the Leeds' scrapbook was with them?
I don't base my arguments on documents which may or may not exist, so I'll focus my comments on the available facts. Same goes for speculation about how Leeds was "apparently" too shy to go on record about anything related to golf design. How on earth would we determine whether he was too shy, or whether it never occurred to him to go on record, or whether he just didn't think he had anything to say? Whatever the circumstance, I won't speculate about what someone who didn't say anything might have said.
No doubt Myopia was a highly respected course, but it was also a work in progress, and ultimately the product of a couple of decades of hard work by Leeds and others. As far as the "Leeds architecture" that is left, given that changes were taking place well into the teens, we can hardly call it circa 1900.
______________________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
This is a thread about courses circa 1910. Laing did his work at Huntington Valley in 1909. I don't know why you are so hard on the guy. AWT sure approved of the work. Are you saying AWT didn't know good architecture when he saw it?
-
From AG, here is what Ted Ray reportedly said about American courses in 1913 while at Oakmont:
I have seen quite a number of golf courses in this country since I have been here and if you ask which I think the best in America I would place the one at Detroit first, Cleveland, second (meaning Mayfield), Myopia third, and Brookline fourth. The links here (meaning Oakmont) are very interesting, keen and fast.
-
David,
Your misinformed attempt to ridicule the architecture of Ab Smith at Huntingdon Valley failed on a grand scale. YOU are the one who picked the wrong guy and the wrong date. Tom MacWood is the guy who listed Kirkby's listing from 1915 that included HVGC, not me.
Get over it. Grow some and have the cuyones to just admit when you're wrong.
By the way...if we are to pick Vardon and Ray as our golf course raters, perhaps today we should just rate courses based on Nicklaus and Palmer's assessments?
Mayfield wasn't open until 1911, Detroit after that...what's your point? Had they played NGLA and/or Garden City on that visit? What does any of THAT have to do with courses in 1910??
-
I offered some of the first responses to this thread with lists of courses played for US Opens and US Amateurs. I am thinking I was in error. I am re-reading Golf Architecture by MacKenzie and he says the following:
"...many of the very best clubs do not offer up their courses for competitions."
Take it for what it is worth.
-
Mike Cirba,
Only you could read what I wrote as misinformed or an attempt to discredit AB Smith. here is what wrote: "You credit AB Smith with the changes at Huntingdon Valley. Tillinghast reported that it was professional Jim Laing who was responsible for the work completed in 1909, and that it greatly improved the course. Laing also designed the nine hole course at Old York Road."
As for the Ray quote, I merely put it out there to pass on information. Unlike you, not everything I post is in service of some overriding agenda.
You should really take it down a notch.
___________________________________________
Mac Plumart, That is a good point, especially with early instances of the US Open which wasn't all that prestigious. (At one point there was a debate about actually doing away with it.) For instance, while Myopia was certainly a top course, I am not sure that holding the US Open tells us much about the quality. In 1898 Myopia was the only applicant for the tournament.
The one thing that the tournaments did accomplish is that the course got some press coverage, so we now can get some idea, however faint, of what the course was like. But given that there reportedly were 1400 courses in the United States at 1910, we are surely overlooking some.
-
David,
Your misinformed attempt to ridicule the architecture of Ab Smith at Huntingdon Valley failed on a grand scale. YOU are the one who picked the wrong guy and the wrong date. Tom MacWood is the guy who listed Kirkby's listing from 1915 that included HVGC, not me.
Get over it. Grow some and have the cuyones to just admit when you're wrong.
By the way...if we are to pick Vardon and Ray as our golf course raters, perhaps today we should just rate courses based on Nicklaus and Palmer's assessments?
Mayfield wasn't open until 1911, Detroit after that...what's your point? Had they played NGLA and/or Garden City on that visit? What does any of THAT have to do with courses in 1910??
What about Vardon & Ray's assessment don't you like and would make you attempt to discredit?
They were playing golf at Mayfield in the fall of 1910 (though it officially opened in 1911). It was laid out in 1909, so my basic premise holds true. Had V & R played NGLA & GCGC no doubt they would have placed them somewhere near the top of their lists (although Darwin & Kirby were not great fans of GCGC) and both courses are on my list as well, what is your point?
-
David Moriarty:
The FACT is you are in no position to say much of anything about Leeds or the architectural history of Myopia. You've never seen the golf course and you are in no position to critique it at any time. Like a number of others you've never been there, and you have seen nothing of their records. Either has Tom MacWood. Like Merion some random newspaper article is of little value to their history but their contemporaneous meeting minutes (Run Book) most certainly is and it explains who laid out and did everything they had for golf courses.
You can ramble on with your uninformed speculations but they are of no value to anyone.
-
Tommy Mac
Is the Detroit course Vardon praises as the best of his second tour (1913) of the US, the same as his first tour (1900) - CC of Detroit?
Ciao
-
TEPaul, instead of extending your it is not what you know it is WHO you knowrhetoric to yet another thread, why dont you educate us about Myopia. With all your access you must have something you can teach us. But with FACTS instead of romantic notions about the ever-shy Mr. Leeds and his lost secret diary.
Tom MacWood. I can't find the article right now, but I think Columbia was opened in fall of 1910, but then had agronomy problems, but if we are going by the quality of design, it most likely belongs on the list.
It is impossible to determine too much about these places so long after, but Ekwanok looks like it had great movement in the land, and a terrific scale. But then Ekwanok was another of those courses, like Garden City and Myopia, that seems to have been constantly evolving, so it is tough to put a finger on when it was at it's best?
Does anyone know when Travis first took money for designing or consulting services?
-
Tommy Mac
Is the Detroit course Vardon praises as the best of his second tour (1913) of the US, the same as his first tour (1900) - CC of Detroit?
Ciao
It was the Colt course designed in 1911.
-
TEPaul, instead of extending your it is not what you know it is WHO you knowrhetoric to yet another thread, why dont you educate us about Myopia. With all your access you must have something you can teach us. But with FACTS instead of romantic notions about the ever-shy Mr. Leeds and his lost secret diary.
Tom MacWood. I can't find the article right now, but I think Columbia was opened in fall of 1910, but then had agronomy problems, but if we are going by the quality of design, it most likely belongs on the list.
It is impossible to determine too much about these places so long after, but Ekwanok looks like it had great movement in the land, and a terrific scale. But then Ekwanok was another of those courses, like Garden City and Myopia, that seems to have been constantly evolving, so it is tough to put a finger on when it was at it's best?
Does anyone know when Travis first took money for designing or consulting services?
I don't think Ekwanok has changed all that much over the years. The changes Travis made in 1905 were relatively minor. I believe Cornish made some more drastic changes in the 70s. He may created a new hole or two.
I don't know when Travis first excepted a fee, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were early on. He got into trouble in the 1900s for getting free room and board at a resort in Florida. I get the impression he collected a lot of extras over the years.
-
Tommy Mac
Is the Detroit course Vardon praises as the best of his second tour (1913) of the US, the same as his first tour (1900) - CC of Detroit?
Ciao
It was the Colt course designed in 1911.
Tommy Mac
Bizarre. So both the courses Vardon praised were NLE not all that long after he visted each! Do you have any clue why CC of Detroit didn't hire Khan for their current house?
Ciao
-
"TEPaul, instead of extending your it is not what you know it is WHO you knowrhetoric to yet another thread, why dont you educate us about Myopia. With all your access you must have something you can teach us. But with FACTS instead of romantic notions about the ever-shy Mr. Leeds and his lost secret diary."
David Moriarty:
I have educated this site about Myopia but it appears both you and MacWood didn't pay attention. I suppose that's understandable when both of you admit you don't even read certain posts. ;)
And it seems the ones you do try to read you don't understand very well. I didn't say Leeds was shy; I said he was publicity shy. There is a difference even if some stumphead like you doesn't understand the difference. You are virtually uneducateable apparently. The Leeds Scrapbook is obviously a very valuable asset but sometimes these kinds of things get lost or miss-placed even if you don't seem to understand that either. There has been a search on for it in the last year by both the club and me. Just like the Merion contour survey map that the Wilson Committee used to route and design Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 I am hopeful that the Leeds Scrapbook will turn up.
I see absolutely no reason at all to discuss Myopia with you in the future until you become familiar with the golf course and the club's material that deals with its architectural history and on that I'm sure not going to hole my breath as you will need to go to the club for that as you should have done with Merion before launching into that fallacious IMO essay of yours.
I also had lunch today at GMGC with Merion's historian John Capers, the man MacWood defamed on here as "the poster boy of unethical archivists" to which you concured on here with MacWood, thereby inspiring Ran Morrissett to lock that thread. It was a most beneficial lunch and a number of interesting reports on the club's history will be in the works shortly.
Would you like to offer to collaborate with your opinions this time, Moriarty, or do you want to continue playing your petty agenda driven adverserial role on the Internet?
-
Tommy Mac
Is the Detroit course Vardon praises as the best of his second tour (1913) of the US, the same as his first tour (1900) - CC of Detroit?
Ciao
It was the Colt course designed in 1911.
Tommy Mac
Bizarre. So both the courses Vardon praised were NLE not all that long after he visted each! Do you have any clue why CC of Detroit didn't hire Khan for their current house?
Ciao
Sean
What is the other course he praised that is NLE? I don't know why they didn't hire Kahn, but I do like the current clubhouse. They may not have liked his 1920's 'modern' style.
-
"TEPaul, instead of extending your it is not what you know it is WHO you knowrhetoric to yet another thread, why dont you educate us about Myopia. With all your access you must have something you can teach us. But with FACTS instead of romantic notions about the ever-shy Mr. Leeds and his lost secret diary."
David Moriarty:
I have educated this site about Myopia but it appears both you and MacWood didn't pay attention. I suppose that's understandable when both of you admit you don't even read certain posts. ;)
And it seems the ones you do try to read you don't understand very well. I didn't say Leeds was shy; I said he was publicity shy. There is a difference even if some stumphead like you doesn't understand the difference. You are virtually uneducateable apparently. The Leeds Scrapbook is obviously a very valuable asset but sometimes these kinds of things get lost or miss-placed even if you don't seem to understand that either. There has been a search on for it in the last year by both the club and me. Just like the Merion contour survey map that the Wilson Committee used to route and design Merion East in the winter and spring of 1911 I am hopeful that the Leeds Scrapbook will turn up.
I see absolutely no reason at all to discuss Myopia with you in the future until you become familiar with the golf course and the club's material that deals with its architectural history and on that I'm sure not going to hole my breath as you will need to go to the club for that as you should have done with Merion before launching into that fallacious IMO essay of yours.
I also had lunch today at GMGC with Merion's historian John Capers, the man MacWood defamed on here as "the poster boy of unethical archivists" to which you concured on here with MacWood, thereby inspiring Ran Morrissett to lock that thread. It was a most beneficial lunch and a number of interesting reports on the club's history will be in the works shortly.
Would you like to offer to collaborate with your opinions this time, Moriarty, or do you want to continue playing your petty agenda driven adverserial role on the Internet?
TEP
You haven't educated me because I don't believe know what the hell your talking about regarding Myopia. You rely exclusively on the club history. From what I understand the lost book you speak of (and that you've never seen) was a scrap book. I have a fairly thick file of articles dating from 1893 to Leeds death and beyond. I've re-created my own scrap book.
-
Tommy Mac
Is the Detroit course Vardon praises as the best of his second tour (1913) of the US, the same as his first tour (1900) - CC of Detroit?
Ciao
It was the Colt course designed in 1911.
Tommy Mac
Bizarre. So both the courses Vardon praised were NLE not all that long after he visted each! Do you have any clue why CC of Detroit didn't hire Khan for their current house?
Ciao
Sean
What is the other course he praised that is NLE? I don't know why they didn't hire Kahn, but I do like the current clubhouse. They may not have liked his 1920's 'modern' style.
Tommy Mac
Vardon praised the original course at CC of Detroit as one of the best on his Tour of 1900. Of course, that course and the magnificent Khan clubhouse were abandoned to make way for the 1913 (when it opened - I always prefer to use opening dates) Colt course.
Is there another club in existence who abandoned a Colt course (presumablly a very good one at that) only to have Alison come in to build another course? the members of CC of Detroit had muy largo cahones.
Ciao
-
Tom MacWood:
You don't seem to believe what anyone is talking about on here in this odd and ongoing mission of yours to prove the architectural attribution of significant golf courses wrong. You can collect all the files of newspaper articles you want but the fact is that kind of thing is never as accurate as contemporaneous administrative records of these clubs which you've never researched because you've never been to any of them. Unfortunately when they are explained to you on here you invariably claim they are all works of fiction and fantasy and that the ones explaining them to you are altering original documents. Not to mention the fact when you demand these archives be sent to you and the club's archivist/historian explains to you one must visit the club to do research you label him on this website 'the poster boy of unethical archivists.' ::)
You have a very novel way of approaching golf architecture history, that's for sure! That is why you no longer have any credibllity among fellow researchers and historians.
-
Sean
I didn't know Vardon praised (or played) the original course. He was bad luck....apparently they kept away from the third. I can't imatgine there have been too many Colt courses abandoned, much less ones that hosted a major championship.
-
Sean
I didn't know Vardon praised (or played) the original course. He was bad luck....apparently they kept away from the third. I can't imatgine there have been too many Colt courses abandoned, much less ones that hosted a major championship.
Its a curious list Vardon praised in 1900:
Atlantic City
Newport & Apawamis not far behind AC
Shinnecock, Chicago, Midlothian,Dyker Meadow, Detroit (CCofDetroit) and Scarsdale up there as well.
Ciao
-
That looks about right, he must not have gone to Boston.
-
If there is any truth to the book and movie about Ouimet, Vardon did go to Boston since it depicts Ouimet watching him and virtually idolizing him as a little boy. However, that book and movie could be complete fantasy and fiction like the Merion and Myopia history books, particularly if Tom MacWood has yet not found references to Vardon in Boston in some newspaper accounts. ;)
-
Dear Bizarro World Architectural Revisionist Historians;
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, what were the Top Courses in America in 1910?
A. Courses like Mayfield that opened in 1911, Columbia that opened in 1912, and Detroit, that opened in 1913, along with a slew of others that had major revisions planned in 1910 that weren't done until 1911 and beyond. :P
As regards Vardon's list, perhaps he was partial to courses designed by Englishmen? Perhaps with his accuracy, he liked courses that punished the wayward sufficiently? Perhaps he had a lassie in Detroit?...Lord knows all those weeks and months on the road with Big Ted Ray could not have been a picnic.
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, how is CC Worthington an "experienced designer", yet Dr H.Toulmin who co-designed Belmont in 1897 or Rodman Griscom who is given credit in 1905 for having golf course construction experience (presumably as a Junior's Farm apprentice on Daddy's farm at the original Merion course), or Hugh Wilson, who was on the Princeton Green Committee in 1901 as they were building a Willie Dunn courses all rank inexperienced neophytes by 1910?
A. I don't know...in the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History we make this stuff up as we go along. What are your facts??
Q.In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, why did Macdonald take many months and even years to route and design NGLA yet was able to do the same work at Merion in a single day visit to the property?
A. Ah....uninitiated one.....you are not understanding the value and benefits of Practice or you wouldn't even ask such an irrelevant question!
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, if HH Barker took a Midnight Train to Georgia to play in a tournament in December 1910, how many golf courses did he design along the way? Where did he leave his clubs and luggage while he was off designing?
A. As many as I can credit him with. I have a tattered receipt that I believe shows he paid the porter a 5 spot to watch his stuff.
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, if a man "laid out" a course on a Monday, then came back and "laid off" the course on Tuesday, what actually would be the result?
A. Isn't it obvious?? Whatever the club's history book says is undeniably wrong, so let's start there. Was it a foreign professional golfer? If you can provide more information such as letting me know WHO it was I'll tell you if they actually designed the course by then or simply put sticks on the ground in accordance with someone else's plans. If they were given plaudits for their job of "laying out" the course in contemporaneous news articles and special dinners for their work, it's much more likely they were simply mind-numbingly placing the sticks where they were told, usually by a bright, good-looking, snappy dressing English professional.
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, I am in possession of a to-scale, professionally drawn Land Plan that contains a triangle that measures 100 yards by 310 yards. That can't be right, can it? What does this REALLY mean?
A. That would be indisputable evidence that the area in question actually measures 130 yards by 190 yards.
Q. In the Bizarro World of Architectural Revisionist History, if by 1910 all the Big Clubs were either hiring pro golfers or previously experienced amateurs to design or change their courses, why did Merion have Hugh Wilson design the West Course and then change their East course for the 1916 Amateur, or use him again to make more changes in 1924? Why did Huntingdon Valley use Ab Smith, or Whitemarsh Valley use George Thomas, or Shawnee use Tillinghast, or North Hills and LuLu use Meehan, or Pine Valley use Crump and Friends, or Philly Cricket use Sam Heebner, or Philly Country use EK Bispham, or Moorestown Field use Samuel Allen..or.. or....
A. That's all the time we have for today folks. Stay tuned for much more Bizarro World Architectural Revisionist History coming soon to a course near you!.... ;D
-
Mike Cirba:
Are you actually trying to tell us that 1911 and 1912 and 1913 came AFTER 1910?
What a stupid idea and suggestion, and I think Moriarty and MacWood have every good right and reason to call that fantasy and fiction too. If you're going to suggest something stupid like that then you're going to start screwing up Moriarty's brilliant discovery that Richard Francis fixed a triangle in 1910 at Merion before he was appointed to do anything in 1911.
And you call yourself a researcher/historian??
-
Tom,
Don't shoot me...I'm just the interpreter on this planet! ;D
(http://impactednurse.com/pics2/bizarroworld.jpg)
-
When it comes to these contensious historical issues/debates its very impressive how Philadelphians always take the high road and never allow these threads to devolve.
-
I also had lunch today at GMGC with Merion's historian John Capers, the man MacWood defamed on here as "the poster boy of unethical archivists" to which you concured on here with MacWood, thereby inspiring Ran Morrissett to lock that thread. It was a most beneficial lunch and a number of interesting reports on the club's history will be in the works shortly.
Would you like to offer to collaborate with your opinions this time, Moriarty, or do you want to continue playing your petty agenda driven adverserial role on the Internet?
Tom Paul,
1. Regarding Mr. Capers, please stop misrepresenting what I wrote.
2. Please stop injecting Mr. Capers and Merion into these threads. If Mr. Capers (or any actual representative of Merion) wants to participate in these threads then he should contact Ran and set up a log-on and participate. You are not doing him any favors by dragging him into this and by repeatedly misrepresenting his involvement in all of this.
3. Ran locked the thread because you went crying to him and demanded that he do so. Ironically, you are the one who smeared Mr. Capers by repeatedly indicating that he has been involved with you and Wayne and your unscrupulous treatment of Merion's history and documents.
4. So far as I am concerned and SO FAR AS MERION GOLF CLUB IS CONCERNED, you are not a member of Merion Golf Club and you certainly do not represent Merion Golf Club or their viewpoint. Perhaps you should quit embarrassing yourself and MGC by pretending to speak for them?
5. It is no concern of yours whether or not Mr. Capers or anyone at Merion is interested in my opinions. So quit pretending it is your concern.
Understood?
-
"Understood?"
Yes, Moriarty, your post #342 is well understood, as you are, by me, Merion Golf Club, Wayne Morrison, John Capers and everyone here who knows Merion and who Merion knows.
You are completely beyond the pale with that post. Most of these people including Capers have been friends of mine for over thirty years and yes we have all worked together with the history of Merion so don't you dare try to dictate a God-damned thing about any of it to anyone here including me or Merion.
Who in the HELL do you think you are Moriarty? Talk about someone embarrassing himself---YOU pretty much take the cake on that with what you've said on here even though MacWood has probably topped you when he called long time Merion historian, John Capers, "the poster boy of unethical archivists" on that thread that Ran Morrissett locked because of that shocking remark! And I remind you and everyone else who views this website that you concured on that and I ought to go find both your posts and make it the subject of a thread! I am going to copy those posts from that thread and yours above and take it to Merion for sure!
Is there no limit to the hatred you foist and spew on Merion, its members and friends and Philadelphians and their golf clubs, courses and history? It would seem there isn't. What exactly is your problem Moriarty?? It sure has to be a whole lot more than the fact that ridiculous essay of yours was criticized and corrected!
You and MacWood are pathetic and you really should be banned from this website for your incredible arrogance and rudeness towards one of America's most significant courses and clubs, its members and friends, as well as others on this website.
I wouldn't even ask you to apologize, at this point, as I have no doubt at all it would just fall on deaf ears. Obviously you and MacWood don't seem to understand it but Merion is actually unbelievably democratic and generous with providing access to their history and archives if one just follows their requested process which the two of you have failed to do if you want information on their history. I don't see them making any exceptions to that but in your case it may be getting pretty close with the shocking disrespect you have shown to that club and its members and friends on this website.
-
"Understood?"
Yes, Moriarty, your post #342 is well understood, as you are, by me, Merion Golf Club, Wayne Morrison, John Capers and everyone here who knows Merion and who Merion knows.
You are completely beyond the pale with that post. Most of these people including Capers have been friends of mine for over thirty years and yes we have all worked together with the history of Merion so don't you dare try to dictate a God-damned thing about any of it to anyone here including me or Merion.
Who in the HELL do you think you are Moriarty? Talk about someone embarrassing himself---YOU pretty much take the cake on that with what you've said on here even though MacWood has probably topped you when he called long time Merion historian, John Capers, "the poster boy of unethical archivists" on that thread that Ran Morrissett locked because of that shocking remark! And I remind you and everyone else who views this website that you concured on that and I ought to go find both your posts and make it the subject of a thread! I am going to copy those posts from that thread and yours above and take it to Merion for sure!
Is there no limit to the hatred you foist and spew on Merion, its members and friends and Philadelphians and their golf clubs, courses and history? It would seem there isn't. What exactly is your problem Moriarty?? It sure has to be a whole lot more than the fact that ridiculous essay of yours was criticized and corrected!
You and MacWood are pathetic and you really should be banned from this website for your incredible arrogance and rudeness towards one of America's most significant courses and clubs, its members and friends, as well as others on this website.
I wouldn't even ask you to apologize, at this point, as I have no doubt at all it would just fall on deaf ears. Obviously you and MacWood don't seem to understand it but Merion is actually unbelievably democratic and generous with providing access to their history and archives if one just follows their requested process which the two of you have failed to do if you want information on their history. I don't see them making any exceptions to that but in your case it may be getting pretty close with the shocking disrespect you have shown to that club and its members and friends on this website.
TEPaul, Once again you seem to be suffering from the delusion that you are Merion and/or are here representing Merion.
I have great respect for Merion and have always had great respect for the club. Don't confuse my opinion of you with my opinion of the Merion, the bulk of its membership, or with Merion's fine history.
-
"When it comes to these contensious historical issues/debates its very impressive how Philadelphians always take the high road and never allow these threads to devolve."
Spoken by the man who on this website called Merion's long time historian, who he has never even met, the "poster boy of unethical archivists." ::) :o
So please don't blame anyone else on here for these threads devolving! ;)
-
"TEPaul, Once again you seem to be suffering from the delusion that you are Merion and/or are here representing Merion.
I have great respect for Merion and have always had great respect for the club. Don't confuse my opinion of you with my opinion of the Merion, the bulk of its membership, or with Merion's fine history."
No, David Moriarty, I am not suffering from any delusions about Merion or my relationship with Merion. Just out of interest, have you ever actually bothered to speak with anyone at Merion about my involvement on this website regarding the architectural history of Merion?
NO, I DIDN'T THINK SO! ;)
As far as what you call your 'great respect' for Merion, you surely have a very odd way of showing it on here in the opinion of Merion and everyone who actually knows Merion Golf Club.
-
I knew I was right in post 105...
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45822.105/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45822.105/)
:) ;) >:( :( :-[ :-\ :'(
So, 1910...great courses...
NGLA
Myopia
Garden City
Shouldn't Chicago Golf Club be a lock for one of the top courses?
-
Mac,
Regarding Chicago, it's tough to imagine based on the schematics of the course that it was great in 1910. The routing was very basic, the holes stick-straight, and the rote cross-bunkering could have been mistaken for any paper job done by any $25 a day pro during those times.
I think it benefited from 1) Macdonald's very exuberant and ebullient personality, and 2) The course it later evolved into over time, largely under Raynor's supervision, and 3) the fact it was the first 18 hole course in the country..
It was certainly mentioned, but not in the same way as those you've cited, and I suspect its reputation was largely based on those factors I mentioned. I'm thinking that if I were a traveling golfer in 1910, I'd also want to visit Ekwanok, Oakmont, Pinehurst #2, and perhaps even Atlantic City prior.
-
Got it, Mike...thanks.
Raynor's work transformed the course around when...do you know? I can look it up, if you don't have it off the top of your head.
-
"Why do you see that as unusual, considering that in 1910, ALL OF THE courses in the United States that were deemed to be of top-quality were done by club amateurs themselves?"
~~Mike Cirba
-
Mac
Please review Mike Cirba ridiculous and insulting "Bizarro" rant above and take that into consideration before trusting his objectivity. Chicago ought to be included in any list of top US courses circa 1910.
As I said above, many of these courses were in a nearly constant state of change to keep up with evolving expectations and improving quality of play, and Chicago was most certainly one of these courses. It did have a number of rudimentary elements and cross bunkering, but so did just about every other quality course which had existed for more than a year or two. Chicago hosted the US Amateur in 1905, 1909, and 1912. It was roundly criticized after the 1909 Amateur as having not kept up with the times, but it made substantial changes between 1909 and 1910, and was again chosen for 1912. NGLA was most certainly considered to be much better, and Myopia was largely considered better, but beyond that it was debatable.
-
No, David Moriarty, I am not suffering from any delusions about Merion or my relationship with Merion. Just out of interest, have you ever actually bothered to speak with anyone at Merion about my involvement on this website regarding the architectural history of Merion?
NO, I DIDN'T THINK SO! ;)
Actually I have and it was very enlightening. But I don't discuss my private conversations on a public website.
As far as what you call your 'great respect' for Merion, you surely have a very odd way of showing it on here in the opinion of Merion and everyone who actually knows Merion Golf Club.
."In the opinion of Merion?" There you go again.
In the opinion of Merion you aren't a member of Merion and certainly don't speak for Merion. So knock it off. It is embarrassing.
-
"In the opinion of Merion you aren't a member of Merion and certainly don't speak for Merion. So knock it off. It is embarrassing."
David Moriarty:
Did someone at Merion tell you that a member of Merion must speak for the club on this website? Did Merion or John Capers or anyone else at Merion explain my relationship with Merion to you! Answer that Moriarty but think carefully about how you answer it because if you aren't careful your answer will probably end up being very embarrassing to you as it logically should be!! With Merion and its membership and the friends of Merion and its membership you surely have no remote idea at all how it all works but then again why in the world would you? ;)
-
"In the opinion of Merion you aren't a member of Merion and certainly don't speak for Merion. So knock it off. It is embarrassing."
David Moriarty:
Did someone at Merion tell you that a member of Merion must speak for the club on this website? Did Merion or John Capers or anyone else at Merion explain my relationship with Merion to you! Answer that Moriarty but think carefully about how you answer it because if you aren't careful your answer will probably end up being very embarrassing to you as it logically should be!! With Merion and its membership and the friends of Merion and its membership you surely have no remote idea at all how it all works but then again why in the world would you? ;)
I don't discuss my private conversations in a public forum. And I certainly don't discuss them with you in any forum.
-
"Actually I have and it was very enlightening. But I don't discuss my private conversations on a public website."
Well, Moriarty, we are definitely talking about speaking to the same person here. Would you like me to call him and get his OK to put on here what you said to him and what he said to you (not that I have to) or would you just prefer to either delete or retract what you just said? ;)
And, by the way, I am under no encumbrance at all to discuss on here what he and I talked about even if you seem to think you are as you refer to it as a "private" conversation. Did he request that you consider it a "private" conversation or is that just your own construct since you know perfectly well you cannot confirm with the person you talked to anything remotely like what you just implied!
Essentially I just can't imagine why in the world you would ever expect some confidence from Merion or anyone from it with you. There is no way they would offer something like that to someone like you and you know it, and you know they know it, and you know I know it! ;)
-
"I don't discuss my private conversations in a public forum."
Moriarty:
Did Merion tell you your conversations with them were private or is that just something you ASSUMED? If so who told you that? Or are you just ASSUMING that Merion and its members should in some way be encumbered from speaking about things they hear about people to people who are friends of theirs who may not be members or their club? ;)
-
"Actually I have and it was very enlightening. But I don't discuss my private conversations on a public website."
Well, Moriarty, we are definitely talking about speaking to the same person here. Would you like me to call him and get his OK to put on here what you said to him and what he said to you (not that I have to) or would you just prefer to either delete or retract what you just said? ;)
And, by the way, I am under no encumbrance at all to discuss on here what he and I talked about even if you seem to think you are as you refer to it as a "private" conversation. Did he request that you consider it a "private" conversation or is that just your own construct since you know perfectly well you cannot confirm with the person you talked to anything remotely like what you just implied!
Essentially I just can't imagine why in the world you would ever expect some confidence from Merion or anyone from it with you. There is no way they would offer something like that to someone like you and you know it, and you know they know it, and you know I know it! ;)
"I don't discuss my private conversations in a public forum."
Moriarty:
Did Merion tell you your conversations with them were private or is that just something you ASSUMED? If so who told you that? Or are you just ASSUMING that Merion and its members should in some way be encumbered from speaking about things they hear about people to people who are friends of theirs who may not be members or their club? ;)
-
Moriarty:
Tomorrow I am going to post a thread on here that will show what it will take for you to have complete access to Merion's historical information. It will be most interesting for sure to see how you will respond. Are you ready for that? ;)
It will be really interesting to see how you will react to who you will have to deal with? Somehow I have a funny feeling you won't be able to handle it. Poor you---poor little Moriarty----Oh My everyone is out to GET ME---OH POOR ME, everyone is against me! BOO-HOO-BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!!!! ;)
-
Moriarty:
Tomorrow I am going to post a thread on here that will show what it will take for you to have complete access to Merion's historical information. It will be most interesting for sure to see how you will respond. Are you ready for that? ;)
It will be really interesting to see how you will react to who you will have to deal with? Somehow I have a funny feeling you won't be able to handle it. Poor you---poor little Moriarty----Oh My everyone is out to GET ME---OH POOR ME, everyone is against me! BOO-HOO-BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!!!! ;)
-
I knew I was right in post 105...
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45822.105/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45822.105/)
:) ;) >:( :( :-[ :-\ :'(
So, 1910...great courses...
NGLA
Myopia
Garden City
Shouldn't Chicago Golf Club be a lock for one of the top courses?
Mac
Here is the entire list...you tell me which of these courses were not among the top courses in America, and why.
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - G.Hunter (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901), I.Mackie (1910)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker/B.Way (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
It is indisputable that the best courses in the US in 1910 were all designed by amateur club members themselves.
Head and shoulders above the rest of the courses included;
NGLA
Garden City
Myopia Hunt
These were the only courses mentioned seriously in the same breath as the best courses abroad, which top American amateurs were attempting to aspire to at the time.
Dropping off at least a point or three, the next level of courses also included a very high level of Amateur input.
They included;
Ekwanoik (which was refined by Travis and others for years as a summer getaway)
Pinehurst (Travis claimed credit for convincing both Ross and Tufts of the need to make #2 a championship course with scientific bunkering and news accounts of the time credit Travis and Ross at this winter getaway)
Brookline (modified into a championship course for years by amateur member GH. Windeler)
Oakmont (developed by amateur club member Mr. Fownes)
Salisbury (designed by amateur Dev Emmet)
Beyond that, the list of other courses the Tom MacWood provided is VERY thin in terms of quality. In some odd way, they could indeed be listed perhaps as some of America's best, but that says much more about the dismal quality of courses in the US at that time generally than about any actual architectural merit of the courses he listed...even those where the courses were actually even open or the mass changes applied on the ground by 1910.
For instance, to compare a Fox Hills or a Homewood against a Garden City or NGLA at that time in terms of architectural sophistication, as well as against the best courses abroad is simply a joke.
I asked Tom MacWood earlier to tell us what architecture that was built by HH Barker was viewable and playable on the ground by 1910 since he is mentioned five or six times on this list. It seems to me that in virtually every case the course in question was not open yet, or the changes that Barker suggested were actually implemented over the course of the next few years. I'm not sure what his influence or reputation would have been to someone in 1910, although Travis liked him and did seem to help him get some jobs. I'm not sure what happened because Barker moved from Garden City to little-known Rumson around 1911, but his activity did seem to peak around 1910...it's just that very little was open or implemented yet.
I also asked Tom to show us examples we can look at today to see the quality of Barker's architecture, and whether anything he ever built survived. I'm curious to know, but didn't get an answer.
It seems to me that most of the great architecture of that period had at least a bit of permanence...certainly one could go back to NGLA, Myopia, and Garden City and find course layouts very consistent with what's there today, especially in terms of routing. Ditto to Oakmont, Ekwanok, Brookline and even Pinehurst (albeit with Sand greens).
Most of the rest of the course on Tom's list were either completely revamped from scratch soon after (ala Baltusrol and Atlantic City), or are NLE.
-
Here's a great article by G. Herbert Windeler of The Country Club, which gets into some of the mind-set of top club amateurs of the time and what they aspired to do for their clubs in terms of building golf courses to emulate the best abroad, but also seeking to better understand and adapt to their inland limitations and challenges;
Windeler would go on to make additional significant changes to the course for the 1913 US Open, and throughout his life continued to refine the course.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag33n.pdf
-
Mike
What changes did Travis make at Ekwanok?
-
There is value to this thread, in that pre-coffee, I took a look at Ekwanok on Bing. So, I know a bit more about the course than I would have otherwise, despite not knowing what Travis did. I feel bad because last year I passed near there and thought about stopping, but decided to keep driving and catch an earlier flight. Shoulda smelled the roses.
-
Jeff:
Regarding Ekwanok and Travis I think there is some information in Bob Labbance's Travis biography. Do you have that book? If not I will see what's in it and quote it on here later today or tomorrow. I think I recall a thread about Ekwanok and Travis some time ago and I think Tom MacWood questioned the accuracy of what Labbance wrote about Ekwanok and Travis. I'm not sure what thread it was but it's in the back pages somewhere.
-
TePaul,
I do have that book and will re-read it. I have all the books, I think.
TMac questioned some other author/historians/club design credit on a gca.com thread? Have you ever heard of such a thing? ;D
-
It is indisputable that the best courses in the US in 1910 were all designed by amateur club members themselves.
Head and shoulders above the rest of the courses included;
NGLA
Garden City
Myopia Hunt
These were the only courses mentioned seriously in the same breath as the best courses abroad, which top American amateurs were attempting to aspire to at the time.
Dropping off at least a point or three, the next level of courses also included a very high level of Amateur input.
They included;
Ekwanoik (which was refined by Travis and others for years as a summer getaway)
Pinehurst (Travis claimed credit for convincing both Ross and Tufts of the need to make #2 a championship course with scientific bunkering and news accounts of the time credit Travis and Ross at this winter getaway)
Brookline (modified into a championship course for years by amateur member GH. Windeler)
Oakmont (developed by amateur club member Mr. Fownes)
Salisbury (designed by amateur Dev Emmet)
Beyond that, the list of other courses the Tom MacWood provided is VERY thin in terms of quality. In some odd way, they could indeed be listed perhaps as some of America's best, but that says much more about the dismal quality of courses in the US at that time generally than about any actual architectural merit of the courses he listed...even those where the courses were actually even open or the mass changes applied on the ground by 1910.
For instance, to compare a Fox Hills or a Homewood against a Garden City or NGLA at that time in terms of architectural sophistication, as well as against the best courses abroad is simply a joke.
I asked Tom MacWood earlier to tell us what architecture that was built by HH Barker was viewable and playable on the ground by 1910 since he is mentioned five or six times on this list. It seems to me that in virtually every case the course in question was not open yet, or the changes that Barker suggested were actually implemented over the course of the next few years. I'm not sure what his influence or reputation would have been to someone in 1910, although Travis liked him and did seem to help him get some jobs. I'm not sure what happened because Barker moved from Garden City to little-known Rumson around 1911, but his activity did seem to peak around 1910...it's just that very little was open or implemented yet.
I also asked Tom to show us examples we can look at today to see the quality of Barker's architecture, and whether anything he ever built survived. I'm curious to know, but didn't get an answer.
It seems to me that most of the great architecture of that period had at least a bit of permanence...certainly one could go back to NGLA, Myopia, and Garden City and find course layouts very consistent with what's there today, especially in terms of routing. Ditto to Oakmont, Ekwanok, Brookline and even Pinehurst (albeit with Sand greens).
Most of the rest of the course on Tom's list were either completely revamped from scratch soon after (ala Baltusrol and Atlantic City), or are NLE.
Mike
It is disputable those were three top courses in America in 1910. Three of the most prominent observers of the time were not fans of Garden City: Hutchinson, Darwin and Kirby. I'm not sure CBM was great fan in 1910 either. There were other courses mentioned in the same breath as NGLA and Myopia, although there is no doubt those two were the cream of the crop (by the way Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell, a professional). I think it is ridiculous to think in 1910 America we should limit our study of architectural trends to two golf courses. There were plenty of other courses that were respected and hosted major championships.
The lesson drawn from this exercise: In 1910 experience was the key, it was not an amateur vs professional situation, it was situation where experience was obviously prized. These 25 top golf courses show (and certainly no one is claiming they were all equal, some were better than others, just like the top 25 today) that in circa 1910, if you were interested in producing a good golf course you sought out experience. There is not a single exception to the rule. And that is exactly what Merion did.
-
Tom,
Not sure how you just made the leap from the shawneed threqd with a complete novice tilly designing the one in 1909 to the absurdly wrong blanket statement you just made but keep telling yourself that.
Of course, that statement is in conflict with virtually all of the philly golf course history between 1910-1916 as I showed in the bizarro thread but believe whatever you like Tom.
-
Tom,
Not sure how you just made the leap from the shawneed threqd with a complete novice tilly designing the one in 1909 to the absurdly wrong blanket statement you just made but keep telling yourself that.
Of course, that statement is in conflict with virtually all of the philly golf course history between 1910-1916 as I showed in the bizarro thread but believe whatever you like Tom.
Why don't you start a thread and prove it?
-
"There were other courses mentioned in the same breath as NGLA and Myopia, although there is no doubt those two were the cream of the crop (by the way Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell, a professional)."
The original 1894 nine hole course at Myopia was originally routed and designed by three "amateur/sportsmen" Myopia Hunt Club members; R.M. (Bud) Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P Gardner. That original nine was reworked by Herbert C. Leeds and the Golf Committee in 1896-97 and became known as the "Long Nine" over which the 1898 US Open was played. In 1899 and 1900 Leeds increased the course to eighteen holes and by 1908 three more US Opens had been played on it. The Myopia course today is remarkably similar to that latter eighteen hole course of the first decade of the 20th century.
Recently, Gil Hanse has done some limited restoration work on it (restoring some obsoleted old bunkers and expanding fairways etc). I'm going to be in the vicinity in about ten days for the 105th Lesley Cup Matches which will be held at The Country Club (Brookline) and either before it or probably just after it I plan to play a round at Myopia with my Herbert C. Leeds tournament partner, Dan Bacon, whose great grandfather, Robert Bacon, was one of the three "amateur/sportsmen" members of Brookline who laid out the original course at The Country Club, Brookline with Herbert Windelar.
-
Mike
It is disputable those were three top courses in America in 1910. Three of the most prominent observers of the time were not fans of Garden City: Hutchinson, Darwin and Kirby. I'm not sure CBM was great fan in 1910 either. There were other courses mentioned in the same breath as NGLA and Myopia, although there is no doubt those two were the cream of the crop (by the way Myopia was originally laid out by Willie Campbell, a professional). I think it is ridiculous to think in 1910 America we should limit our study of architectural trends to two golf courses. There were plenty of other courses that were respected and hosted major championships.
The lesson drawn from this exercise: In 1910 experience was the key, it was not an amateur vs professional situation, it was situation where experience was obviously prized. These 25 top golf courses show (and certainly no one is claiming they were all equal, some were better than others, just like the top 25 today) that in circa 1910, if you were interested in producing a good golf course you sought out experience. There is not a single exception to the rule. And that is exactly what Merion did.
TomM I largely agree but would have put it a bit differently. I think what mattered was real knowledge and expertise in the discipline, and obviously the best way to get that expertise was through experience. It is conceivable though that a few might have developed expertise otherwise, such as through careful study. It is also conceivable that some might had had lots of experience but never developed true expertise in the discipline.
-
The original 1894 nine hole course at Myopia was originally routed and designed by three "amateur/sportsmen" Myopia Hunt Club members; R.M. (Bud) Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P Gardner. That original nine was reworked by Herbert C. Leeds and the Golf Committee in 1896-97 and became known as the "Long Nine" over which the 1898 US Open was played. In 1899 and 1900 Leeds increased the course to eighteen holes and by 1908 three more US Opens had been played on it. The Myopia course today is remarkably similar to that latter eighteen hole course of the first decade of the 20th century.
TEP
You have been saying that for some time now, but you've yet to present any supporting evidence. Do you have any supporting evidence that Squire & Co laid out the course? On the other hand there have been at least three separate contemporaneous reports presented on GCA saying Campbell laid out the course.
-
Yes, I do. The evidence is in club's records from that time. It's board meeting minutes even though they have an unusual name obviously because the club was a Hunt and polo club before they had a golf course. They are the club's administrative records and they trump any inaccurate newspaper articles any day.
If you want to read them call Myopia yourself and see if they will let you read them which frankly I would doubt at this point. You need to do your own research and stop trying to get others to provide it to you with no effort on your part. There is nothing Myopia needs to prove to you and either do I, that's for sure.
Your wild goose chases with Merion, Pine Valley, Myopia, Glen Ridge, Shawnee and others in your pathetic attempts to prove someone wrong about something has run its course on here. In the process you've lost any crediblity you ever had which wasn't much anyway. I doubt there is a club in the country who would be willing to have anything to do with you when they find out what you do on here. You've given this website a bad name too. So long, MacWood, the self proclaimed "expert researcher." You're a total joke!
-
Yes, I do. The evidence is in club's records from that time. It's board meeting minutes even though they have an unusual name obviously because the club was a Hunt and polo club before they had a golf course. They are the club's administrative records and they trump any inaccurate newspaper articles any day.
If you want to read them call Myopia yourself and see if they will let you read them which frankly I would doubt at this point. You need to do your own research and stop trying to get others to provide it to you with no effort on your part. There is nothing Myopia needs to prove to you and either do I, that's for sure.
Your wild goose chases with Merion, Pine Valley, Myopia, Glen Ridge, Shawnee and others in your pathetic attempts to prove someone wrong about something has run its course on here. In the process you've lost any crediblity you ever had which wasn't much anyway. I doubt there is a club in the country who would be willing to have anything to do with you when they find out what you do on here. You've given this website a bad name too. So long, MacWood, the self proclaimed "expert researcher." You're a total joke!
TEP
So the answer is no you don't have any supporting documentation. Are those the same club meeting minutes that have no record of Willie Campbell working at the club?
-
Tom,
Not sure how you just made the leap from the shawneed threqd with a complete novice tilly designing the one in 1909 to the absurdly wrong blanket statement you just made but keep telling yourself that.
Of course, that statement is in conflict with virtually all of the philly golf course history between 1910-1916 as I showed in the bizarro thread but believe whatever you like Tom.
Mike
I'm very serious about you starting your own thread about Philadelphia golf between 1910-1916 (who did what)...I think it could potentially be very enlightening. Maybe Philadelphia was the exception to the rule. You and your brethren spend the majority of your time and effort defending against/attacking the theories and findings presented by 'outsiders' it would be interesting for a change for you to actual present your own theories and findings in a coherent method.
-
"TEP
You have been saying that for some time now,"
Yes I have because that is the accurate and factual history of the creation of the original 1894 nine at Myopia. There is no reason to engage in alternative "theories" which is all you seem to do. Myopia's history was well recorded contemporaneously and those facts are just the facts. You may conclude that intelligent men who make up the board of directors of these significant clubs just sat there at board meetings and lied to one another and just made up a bunch of lies about what they were doing and attempting to do but I do not subscribe to that kind of nonsense, even though I do recognize people like you and Moriarty do on here.
"TEP
So the answer is no you don't have any supporting documentation."
That's correct. The supporting documentation from that early time of the original nine----AKA the Run Book, is at Myopia. That is where I read it. It's not much different from Merion or MCC and most clubs of that age and ilk; one needs to actually go there to read and analyze historic material. Something, I might add, AGAIN, you are no good at; a dismal failure at would probably be a more accurate and appropriate description. And you actually try to call yourself "an expert researcher/historian" on here?
AMAZING!!
All you seem to be able to do with the histories of these clubs is find some old newspaper article and then misread it and/or misunderstand it in its context and then launch into another campaign claiming another club's history or history book is all wrong or some work of fantasy or fiction.
-
This had the potential to be an interesting thread, but between Cirba's hyperbole and trips to his own Bizarro World and TEPaul's endless insults, attacks, threats, and unsupported and unsupportable claims, it has become a monumental waste of our time.
Out of curiosity I went back and read TEPaul's last ten posts. Read them yourselves and see what you learn about golf course architecture.
____________________________________________
Mike Cirba:
Are you actually trying to tell us that 1911 and 1912 and 1913 came AFTER 1910?
What a stupid idea and suggestion, and I think Moriarty and MacWood have every good right and reason to call that fantasy and fiction too. If you're going to suggest something stupid like that then you're going to start screwing up Moriarty's brilliant discovery that Richard Francis fixed a triangle in 1910 at Merion before he was appointed to do anything in 1911.
And you call yourself a researcher/historian??
__________________________________________
Spoken by the man who on this website called Merion's long time historian, who he has never even met, the "poster boy of unethical archivists."
So please don't blame anyone else on here for these threads devolving!
_____________________________________________
No, David Moriarty, I am not suffering from any delusions about Merion or my relationship with Merion. Just out of interest, have you ever actually bothered to speak with anyone at Merion about my involvement on this website regarding the architectural history of Merion?
NO, I DIDN'T THINK SO!
As far as what you call your 'great respect' for Merion, you surely have a very odd way of showing it on here in the opinion of Merion and everyone who actually knows Merion Golf Club.
______________________________________________
Did someone at Merion tell you that a member of Merion must speak for the club on this website? Did Merion or John Capers or anyone else at Merion explain my relationship with Merion to you! Answer that Moriarty but think carefully about how you answer it because if you aren't careful your answer will probably end up being very embarrassing to you as it logically should be!! With Merion and its membership and the friends of Merion and its membership you surely have no remote idea at all how it all works but then again why in the world would you?
_______________________________________________
Well, Moriarty, we are definitely talking about speaking to the same person here. Would you like me to call him and get his OK to put on here what you said to him and what he said to you (not that I have to) or would you just prefer to either delete or retract what you just said?
And, by the way, I am under no encumbrance at all to discuss on here what he and I talked about even if you seem to think you are as you refer to it as a "private" conversation. Did he request that you consider it a "private" conversation or is that just your own construct since you know perfectly well you cannot confirm with the person you talked to anything remotely like what you just implied!
Essentially I just can't imagine why in the world you would ever expect some confidence from Merion or anyone from it with you. There is no way they would offer something like that to someone like you and you know it, and you know they know it, and you know I know it!
________________________________________
Moriarty:
Tomorrow I am going to post a thread on here that will show what it will take for you to have complete access to Merion's historical information. It will be most interesting for sure to see how you will respond. Are you ready for that?
It will be really interesting to see how you will react to who you will have to deal with? Somehow I have a funny feeling you won't be able to handle it. Poor you---poor little Moriarty----Oh My everyone is out to GET ME---OH POOR ME, everyone is against me! BOO-HOO-BOO-HOO-HOO-HOO!!!!
_______________________________________
Regarding Ekwanok and Travis I think there is some information in Bob Labbance's Travis biography. Do you have that book? If not I will see what's in it and quote it on here later today or tomorrow. I think I recall a thread about Ekwanok and Travis some time ago and I think Tom MacWood questioned the accuracy of what Labbance wrote about Ekwanok and Travis. I'm not sure what thread it was but it's in the back pages somewhere.
________________________________________
The original 1894 nine hole course at Myopia was originally routed and designed by three "amateur/sportsmen" Myopia Hunt Club members; R.M. (Bud) Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P Gardner. That original nine was reworked by Herbert C. Leeds and the Golf Committee in 1896-97 and became known as the "Long Nine" over which the 1898 US Open was played. In 1899 and 1900 Leeds increased the course to eighteen holes and by 1908 three more US Opens had been played on it. The Myopia course today is remarkably similar to that latter eighteen hole course of the first decade of the 20th century.
Recently, Gil Hanse has done some limited restoration work on it (restoring some obsoleted old bunkers and expanding fairways etc). I'm going to be in the vicinity in about ten days for the 105th Lesley Cup Matches which will be held at The Country Club (Brookline) and either before it or probably just after it I plan to play a round at Myopia with my Herbert C. Leeds tournament partner, Dan Bacon, whose great grandfather, Robert Bacon, was one of the three "amateur/sportsmen" members of Brookline who laid out the original course at The Country Club, Brookline with Herbert Windelar.
_____________________________
Yes, I do. The evidence is in club's records from that time. It's board meeting minutes even though they have an unusual name obviously because the club was a Hunt and polo club before they had a golf course. They are the club's administrative records and they trump any inaccurate newspaper articles any day.
If you want to read them call Myopia yourself and see if they will let you read them which frankly I would doubt at this point. You need to do your own research and stop trying to get others to provide it to you with no effort on your part. There is nothing Myopia needs to prove to you and either do I, that's for sure.
Your wild goose chases with Merion, Pine Valley, Myopia, Glen Ridge, Shawnee and others in your pathetic attempts to prove someone wrong about something has run its course on here. In the process you've lost any crediblity you ever had which wasn't much anyway. I doubt there is a club in the country who would be willing to have anything to do with you when they find out what you do on here. You've given this website a bad name too. So long, MacWood, the self proclaimed "expert researcher." You're a total joke!
________________________________________
Yes I have because that is the accurate and factual history of the creation of the original 1894 nine at Myopia. There is no reason to engage in alternative "theories" which is all you seem to do. Myopia's history was well recorded contemporaneously and those facts are just the facts. You may conclude that intelligent men who make up the board of directors of these significant clubs just sat there at board meetings and lied to one another and just made up a bunch of lies about what they were doing and attempting to do but I do not subscribe to that kind of nonsense, even though I do recognize people like you and Moriarty do on here.
That's correct. The supporting documentation from that early time of the original nine----AKA the Run Book, is at Myopia. That is where I read it. It's not much different from Merion or MCC and most clubs of that age and ilk; one needs to actually go there to read and analyze historic material. Something, I might add, AGAIN, you are no good at; a dismal failure at would probably be a more accurate and appropriate description. And you actually try to call yourself "an expert researcher/historian" on here?
AMAZING!!
All you seem to be able to do with the histories of these clubs is find some old newspaper article and then misread it and/or misunderstand it in its context and then launch into another campaign claiming another club's history or history book is all wrong or some work of fantasy or fiction.
________________________________________
-
David...you have a valid point. This thread had potential to be epic, but it fell apart. Despite that, some knowledge was passed along. But to blame all the woes of this thread on Tom Paul and Mike Cirba isn't right or fair. All particpants are to blame. It is simply the general nasty attitudes and lack of espirt de corp that keeps these threads from accelerating to their full potential. If we can't work together, accept valid criticism, and work towards being more open and honest with each other these threads will always devolve into petty bickering and personal attacks.
-
Mac, While none of us are perfect, the blame for of every problem cannot be divvied equally to all. To pretend otherwise doesn't help matters.
-
I never said equally.
-
David,
Who has presented actual evidence here and who has provided nonsensical blanket statements of personal opinion without presenting a smidgen of evidence?
Its like listening to Sean Hannity go on mindlessly about the greatness of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin so huge is the disconnect between you and MacWood GUSHING over Barker and CBM, trying desperately to extend their respective spheres of influence to silly and unsupported extremes.
TMac asked me to start a thread to prove my points but I really won't waste any more time on this as Im very confident that to any objective, fair-minded observer here that I've already done so.
To you and Tom MacWood, no proof will ever be enough and that's ok too...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research, but in the long run, there really is nothing left to prove, and recent threads like the one on Shawnee must even have you feeling uncomfortable as it getting somewhere between embarrassment and parody, and overall very cringe-worthy so bizarre and twisted are the interpretations of the historical record...to what ultimate or useful purpose, most of us here will never know..
-
"...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research,"
Mike Cirba:
That is a very smart remark; I've heard it before and concurred and now that you mention it again I concur again. Actually, that idea is about the only thing Ran Morrissett uses to defend or support putting Moriarty's ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" on this website.
There's no question that all those threads on Merion really did lead a few of us to do more research---eg the Merion historians and others did go back to MCC to look for documents that had been reposited there for over a century and were never transfered over to Merion GC when it was formed in 1942. And there has been an awful lot more found recently by people around here and particularly on subjects like Horatio Gates Lloyd and the fact that he just may've been the greatest "angel" any golf club and membership ever had!
I had a meeting with Merion's historian the other day and there will be a number of detailed research essays produced on specific subjects not covered that comprehensively in the club's history books.
With the US Open on the horizon Merion does need to tell its own historical stories with all the detail available to them or at least to have the research information available to the press. It will be necessary anyway when that USGA press tent is up and running in 2013 and there are 500-800 press people in it from all over the world looking for story lines and background informatoin. I spent a week at the USGA's press tent at Pebble this year and it's pretty impressive and it is necessary for a US Open host club and the USGA to be ready with credible and factually supportable historic information.
The last thing a club like that wants to see happen is for some press people to tap into GOOGLE and just have GOLFCLUBATLAS.com come up with a ridiculous, speculative and factually unsupportable essay like Moriarty's ("The Missing Faces of Merion" ;) ) come up or some of the deceptive and historically inaccurate posts by those two come up.
Merion will be ready with their own historical accounts backed up by their own contemporaneous records. And who will write them? Well, all I can tell you is it sure won't be GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and people like David Moriarty and Tom MacWood! ;)
-
I stumbled across this old thread. I am somewhat confused by a 1923 Golf Digest Top 100 list. Is this of any value to our discussion or am I simply too tired to understand the gist of the posts?
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7178.0/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7178.0/)
-
Mac:
I don't remember who Brian Gracely was but I would take his initial post you put on here and put it to some close chronological scrutiny.
I wouldn't stake my life on it but I think GOLF DIGEST was founded by William Davis in 1950 and so I really do wonder what Brian Gracely was talking about in that post when he mentioned Macdonald and Golf Digest in 1923.
Frankly, a number of contributors (researchers/analysts/historians) on here don't have the vaguest idea what a timeline is all about or even basic chronology for that matter. ;)
Talk about initial posts! Check out the initial posts on the threads "Who desigined Shawnee" AND "Top courses in 1910." Both threads were started by TOM MACWOOD and the initial threads on both are indicative of him and his MO on here. His initial post on the "Top Courses in 1910" doesn't even make sense which is also indicative of Tom MacWood.
-
TEPaul,
I see now you are pretending to speak for Ran in addition to pretending to speak for Merion.
Your version of Ran's take on my essay is much different than what he posted about the essay on the website.
You really should quit pretending to speak for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. It is embarrassing.
_______________________________________________
Mac,
I think Brian took a modern (2003) list and separated it out by the year the course was built. As for the comments about the supposed 1923 list, I think Brian was being sarcastic but I have no idea about what. Probably has something to do with the fact that both Chicago and WFW were listed as 1923 but WFW was listed higher.
-
"TEPaul,
I see now you are pretending to speak for Ran in addition to pretending to speak for Merion."
David Moriarty:
Not at all. I would never pretend to speak for Ran Morrissett and certainly not on his own website. I have only mentioned what Ran Morrissett and I have spoken about.
"Your version of Ran's take on my essay is much different than what he posted about the essay on the website."
Again, I can only tell you what Ran Morrissett and I talked about regarding your essay and it was definitely AFTER he put it on this website.
"You really should quit pretending to speak for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. It is embarrassing."
I have no reason at all to speak FOR people but there is also no reason not to speak on here or otherwise about what they speak to me about regarding various subjects and issues discussed on here, such as your essay on Merion and your posts (and MacWood's) on here about Merion unless they ask me not to which neither Merion Golf Club nor Ran Morrissett ever has asked me not to speak about on here.
And as far as embarrassemnt goes, it's certainly not hard to tell it is very embarrassing to you that your essay was received the way it was by so many. That's just good old fashioned peer review, and it's too bad you didn't learn from it as well as learning something about the factual history of Merion which you said in that essay itself was your intention to do. It doesn't appear you were willing to learn anything; it only appears you became more and more adverserial as time went on towards those who actually taught you something about the history of Merion from club records you never had and apparently never even knew existed.
-
TEPaul
You are a petty gossip and a liar.
I ought to tell the whole world the kind of things your "friends" say about you but I have more class than that.
-
"TEPaul
You are a petty gossip and a liar.
I ought to tell the whole world the kind of things your "friends" say about you but I have more class than that."
That's quite the remark on a world-wide INTERNET website, David Moriarty!
Don't hedge or beat around the proverbial bush----go right ahead and TELL the WHOLE WORLD the kind of things my "friends" say about me. At the very least it should be entertaining, and entertainment is part of my business. What's yours? ;)
-
"...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research,"
Mike Cirba:
That is a very smart remark; I've heard it before and concurred and now that you mention it again I concur again. Actually, that idea is about the only thing Ran Morrissett uses to defend or support putting Moriarty's ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" on this website.
. . .
Here is what Ran posted about my Essay when he put it on the website. It hardly sounds consistent with the version TEPaul is gossiping about . . . .
Here is a synopsis of David Moriarty's carefully researched and heavily footnoted 13,000 word plus paper on the subject of the beginnings of the East Course at Merion.
HH Barker did an initial routing in 1910.
Fresh off their stunning success at NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham were called in to consult in 1910.
Member Hugh Wilson was asked to oversee the Construction Committee for the purpose of 'constructing' the course.
The course was built in 1911 and seeded in September of that year, according to Wilson.
In May of 1912, Wilson returned from Scotland according to a ship's registry that David Moriarty found.
In the years that followed, holes were modified and bunkers were added until the course became the flawless design gem that it is today. Wilson, who learned quite a bit from his study of the great courses overseas, played a crucial role in the development of the design of the East Course from 1912 until his death in 1925.
However, David suggests that the concept that he went to the UK and then routed/designed Merion is chronologically flawed. Wilson's initial role was to construct the course, as opposed to design it. In 1911, his primary exposure to classic architecture was the time he and his construction team spent at NGLA with Macdonald and Whigham. Indeed, Wilson's own writings pay homage to the help that Macdonald provided.
David's research suggests that Barker, Macdonald and Whigham deserve design credit for the holes that were laid out and seeded in 1911. Wilson deserves the credit for the excellent construction of the holes and for translating Macdonald's ideals so well into the ground. The end of Part One concludes in 1912, so the knowledge that Wilson picked up in the UK in April/May of 1912 had not yet made its way into the design. As David says, that is for another day.
Why people get upset with the notion that Macdonald provided design thoughts and ideas at Merion based on the best holes in the UK is beyond my ability to comprehend. After all, if you wanted to build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just done so? ??? The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me.
Congratulations to David for all his well spent time and effort in coming up with this document, which is both compelling and original. Ben and I cannot express our deepest appreciation to David for selecting GolfClubAtlas.com to house it.
Have a read and see if you don't agree with David's own conclusions - I know I do.
Cheers,
As anyone can see, Ran not only provides his summary of the essay (mine would have been a bit different) he also offered his own opinion on the essay as well as his opinion on the legend of Merion . . .
Why people get upset with the notion that Macdonald provided design thoughts and ideas at Merion based on the best holes in the UK is beyond my ability to comprehend. After all, if you wanted to build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just done so? ??? The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me.
It is beyond my ability to comprehend as well, especially because there is no doubt CBM not only offered design thoughts and ideas from the beginning of the process to the end of the design stage, he also CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT! Yet some still like to pretend he wasn't an important factor.
And apparently because they cannot handle the message, they have taken to attacking the messenger as a full time vocation, now even sullying Ran's good name in the process. To quote Ran again, it is beyond my ability to comprehend.
-
Ran Morrissett did say those things about your essay in 2008 over two years and more ago. Since then he has learned a whole lot about the history of Merion he never knew and he has learned a whole lot about WHY that essay of yours has almost no basis in fact and no value or use on here. As I mentioned above, in his own defense, the best he offered, after the fact, for putting that essay on here was that it really did get some of us from Philadelphia to do the in-depth research you never did and were incapable of doing. As Cirba said above, in a masochistic way that was probably a good thing. And it was a good thing as now Merion does plan to have a number of factually supportable research papers done on the subjects that have been discussed on here from time to time.
You should have collaboarted with us back then instead of treating this entire thing in such an adverserial manner. But that was your choice and not Merion's and not ours. And now you have no value. In the places it really matters you have no value, no support and no interest. In the places it matters most such as Merion you're of no value. But yes, you did inspire us to do the necessary searching and research and credible analysis and we all surely give you THAT!
For the rest, don't blame us, you did it to yourself and you continue to do it to yourself.
So as not to embarrass or minimize yourself further, for Goodness Sake, why don't you just stop this years long campaign now? ;)
-
"It is beyond my ability to comprehend as well, especially because there is no doubt CBM not only offered design thoughts and ideas from the beginning of the process to the end of the design stage, he also CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT! Yet some still like to pretend he wasn't an important factor."
What an ironic statement!
It was Wayne Morrison, and NOT you, who made the effort to go to MCC and find the April 19th 1911 board meeting minutes that mentioned that Macdonald CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT! You had ZERO idea about THAT when you wrote your essay, Moriarty, since all you had was the Sayer's Scrapbook from not Merion or MCC but from the Pennsylvania Historical Society and NOT from Merion or MCC. Wayne Morrison found the all imporatant MCC Wilson report and those all important meeting minutes, and NOT you! You weren't even aware of them when you wrote your essay, you overarching PHONY!
-
Ran Morrissett did say those things about your essay in 2008 over two years and more ago. Since then he has learned a whole lot about the history of Merion he never knew and he has learned a whole lot about WHY that essay of yours has almost no basis in fact and no value or use on here. As I mentioned above, in his own defense, the best he offered, after the fact, for putting that essay on here was that it really did get some of us from Philadelphia to do the in-depth research you never did and were incapable of doing. As Cirba said above, in a masochistic way that was probably a good thing. And it was a good thing as now Merion does plan to have a number of factually supportable research papers done on the subjects that have been discussed on here from time to time.
You have no value, David Moriarty, none at all. In the places it really matters you have no value, no support and no interest. In the places it matters most such as Merion you are a joke.
Don't blame us, you did it to yourself and you continue to do it to yourself.
So as not to embarrass yourself further, for Goodness Sake, why don't you just stop this years long charade now? ;)
TEPaul,
You cannot even keep your own lies straight! That is what happens when you lie about what other people supposedly said. It sometimes contrasts with what the person has actually said.
-
This is a little different view of the top 25 in America circa 1910. I've highlighted in color all the design and redesign activity post 1907. The blue are those architects - both amateur and professional - who were experienced. The green is the lone inexperienced example - Aleck Bauer. And calling Bauer inexperienced may not be totally accurate because he had been studying golf architecture for years, which culminated in his landmark book 'Hazards.'
Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)
Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)
Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)
Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)
Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)
Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)
The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)
Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)
Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)
Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)
Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)
Baltusrol - G.Hunter (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)
Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)
Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)
Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901), I.Mackie (1910)
Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)
National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)
Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)
Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)
Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)
Mayfield - H.Barker/B.Way (1909)
Waverly - H.Barker (1910)
Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)
Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)
Columbia - H.Barker (1910)
-
Tom MacWood:
It may be a fine idea for you to just completely ditch the whole idea of calling any of those men back then "inexperienced" because the actual historical fact is YOU really have no idea about that----eg it is all complete speculation on your part. You may not be as far advanced in that way YET as Moriarty is though. He seems to tell us that something is an actual and "verifiable fact" merely because he THINKS it is!
And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong!
-
Tom MacWood:
It may be a fine idea for you to just completely ditch the whole idea of calling any of those men back then "inexperienced" because the actual historical fact is YOU really have no idea about that----eg it is all complete speculation on your part. You may not be as far advanced in that way YET as Moriarty is though. He seems to tell us that something is an actual and "verifiable fact" merely because he THINKS it is! ??? ::) :o ;)
And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong! ;)
TEP
With all due respect I can guarantee you I know whole lot more about the attributions of those courses than you do. You need to put down Cornish & Whitten actually begin to do some research. Don't get me wrong its a valuable book, but it was published in 1981...we've made of few discoveries since then.
-
Tom MacWood:
With all due respect to you, compared to me you know virtually nothing of the history of courses such as Myopia, Merion, GCGC, NGLA etc, etc. And why would you since you've never been to most of them and know noone there. Just saying you do sure doesn't make it true and your remark about C&W is something you've been saying for years obviously just to be insulting.
I've probably forgotten more about many of the details of the architectural histories and general histories of some of these courses and clubs than you WILL EVER know, not to even mention that I have tens of thousands of the historical "assets" of many of these clubs on my computer.
And I also make a habit of not trying to involve myself in the historic discussions on here of courses I do not know and have never been to. One of those is Shawnee. You said I mentioned on here that is was definitely a solo Tillinghast design. I never said anything like that and you should not have said I said that.
But that's what you do on here---eg you just make things up by making something out of nothing, and Moriarty is the same. You two are the only ones on this website who do this.
That HH Barker train ride design of Merion East was the best example of you just making something up or making something out of nothing. Anyone who is aware you said that on here and then continued to defend it will never again view you as a credible golf archtiecture historical analyst.
And that is as it should be because you definitely are not a credible golf architectural historian or analyst.
-
And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong! ;)
TEP
How should those attributions read?
-
Okay...I am not as concerned about the architectual attributions as you guys are, but I am interested in what the Top courses were in 1910. It seems there is little argument concerning Tom M's list on that front. Do y'all agree?
-
Okay...I am not as concerned about the architectual attributions as you guys are, but I am interested in what the Top courses were in 1910. It seems there is little argument concerning Tom M's list on that front. Do y'all agree?
Mac
Which courses do you disagree with, and why?
-
Tom M...
I don't disagree with any of them. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion.
My interest for this list is in regards to another research project I am doing. I've got data on this project from the 30's forward regarding great courses and I am working my way backwards. If this list is solid, which I think it is, then I've got another piece to the puzzle.
-
I misunderstood.
-
Just came across this Advertisement yesterday for Ekwanok.
Interesting to get the perspective of HJ Whigham from 1909 on what the top courses in the US were at that time.
I never knew we had so much in common. ;)
In 1901, Mr. Walter J. Travis, in his book "Practical Golf," had this to say:
"The eighteen-hole course of the Ekwanok Country Club, of Manchester, Vermont,
laid out last season, also has promise of being a really good one in time."
In the May issue of Scribner's Magazine, 1909, Mr. H. J. Whigham has this to say
" There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia,
but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor and the winter course at Aiken.
" There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden
City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these, one has
included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality
the best courses abroad."
The USGA Bulletin reported about Whigham's article in Scribners this way;
The season at Manchester, Vt., of
the Ekwanok Country Club, opens as
usual July 4, with the Independence
cup tournament. The reputation of
this course is thoroughly well established.
Mr. H. |. Whigham, in an
article in Scribner's Magazine, ranked
Ekwanok with Myopia and Garden
City as the only three which approached
in interest and quality the
best courses abroad.
btw...just looked at the list again on prior pages...since when was Walter Travis a professional??
-
The article and this particular passage have been referenced many times in various discussions, probably even on this thread. I am surprised it is news to you.
While the article does describe the general state of golf in America, it is primarily about NGLA and, given the author, is absolutely essential for any comprehensive survey or understanding of early NGLA. Tom MacWood told you a few times that you really needed to include it on your supposed survey of the early literature on NGLA, along with a few others articles you neglected to post. You ignored him and stuck mostly to your newspaper articles. But then I guess that thread was never really about NGLA, was it?
Anyway, it is really a terrific article, and goes into great detail about the underlying strategic principles incorporated into many of the holes. It has been posted in its entirety here before.
As for the quote in question, the advertisement was a bit misleading. Whoever wrote the add would fit in well around here, because the person just cherry picked what they liked and ignored the rest. The quote is cut off in mid-sentence. (Another good example of why one must always follow up when relying on second hand sources.)
There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia, but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor and the winter course at Aiken. "There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these, one has included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long ways short of that perfection. Is it not strange that with all the vast sums of money expended on golf links in America, so few course should be nearly good?
Later, after praising the climate and soil at Garden City, as well as the recent changes by Travis, Whigham adds, ". . . even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out."
So Whigham was praising these courses, but faintly. And he is nearly damning them in the next breath. They are by far the best we have, but still they "fall a long ways short" of the interest and quality of the best courses abroad. They aren't quite good courses, they are "nearly good."
"Nearly good" seems a very good way of describing the best of this early architecture.
-
David,
I have the Whigham article on paper...didn't see the need to scan it for the NGLA thread since it had already appeared here previously and it's a pain in the butt. I had forgotten that the Whigham article spoke about Leeds and Ekwanok and I think the important point to note that you seem to have missed or else purposefully ignored is that he agrees with my assessment that the few really good courses in 1910 in the US were all either designed or greatly enhanced by amateur architects, which if you go back to the first post on this thread you'll see that my statement evidently caused Tom to start this thread quoting me, evidently to then try and somehow prove my statement wrong.
I'm glad Mr. Whigham concurred with me.
And yes, although he still said they were far from perfect, it was in the spirit of fluffing up NGLA, which of course was the best of them right out of the gate. Still, as I mentioned previously Garden City, Myopia, and perhaps Ekwanok and Chicago were head and shoulders above everything else in the US in 1910, which makes it stranger still that Tom would try to create a Top 25 here and then pretend there was some equanimity between them. There certainly was not.
And for what it's worth, I also welcomed others, including Tom, to post any articles on the NGLA thread they felt added to the story. He could have just emailed me as he did with the Brookline routings and I would have put them up here for him.
-
If you were familiar with the Whigham article, then I am disappointed that you would post the quotes from those advertisements as if Whigham really did think those courses were equal to those overseas.
I don't understand your methodology or purposes when posting articles. Again and again post those repetitious and extremely misleading newspaper articles parroting the 1904 CBM letter, yet it is overly burdensome to post a timely article written by one of the those who was actually there and involved? And you didn't bother to post even the Outing article by CBM, or any of the comprehensive accounts of what happened there. As I said above, that thread was unfortunately not about NGLA at all.
As for your point, I did miss it and still miss it. Given that at least three courses (and maybe all four) all had significant involvement from paid architects, I don't take your point at all. And it wasn't just the Scottish Pros. Travis was not an amateur architect. He designed courses for a living. Before the rule change, he was considered an amateur golfer but even this was often questioned as a consequences of his paid travels, his associations with resort courses, and his alleged equipment dealings. When the USGA decided that professional architects were considered professionals under the rules, they might as well have named it the Travis Rule.
But it is no use rehashing this debate. We each know where the other stands.
Your dismissal of Whigham's comments as merely "fluffing" NGLA are questionable, and might speak as much to your objectivity as his. It wasn't a stretch to say NGLA was well above the rest even before it officially opened, and it wasn't just CBM and HJW who thought so. In May 1909 Travis mentioned a few new fine American courses (Salisbury Links and Pinehurst) but called NGLA "the finest of all" [American courses,] and said that the terrain and contours at NGLA were the nearest thing approaching the great links abroad. (Before you claim this too was fluffing, consider that Travis designed and was quite proud of Salisbury Links and he seemed to think he designed Pinehurst as well.) Also, some of the most notable and knowledgeable golfers and writers in the World (Hutchinson, Darwin, Ben Sayers, Leech, John Anderson, Lees, etc.) put NGLA as far and away the best, and some of these even compared it favorably to the best in the world.
As just one reminder, here is what the famous Ben Sayers of North Berwick had to say about Merion (where his son was the professional and) and NGLA in the August 1914 Golf Illustrated:
I spent five weeks in your country, and, I must say, I enjoyed my stay immensely. I was made welcome wherever I went, and am only sorry my visit was so short, although I hope to return soon again. My son George is in America, to whom I paid a visit at the Merion Golf Club He likes his position very much, and is quite at home there. I was very much impressed with the two courses which they have made at Merion. They are very well constructed and the golf is very good indeed.
I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be. I was very much surprised to see such good turf.
The Redan hole of the National is a wonderful copy of the North Berwick Redan. It gives one the same feeling when standing on the tee to play the tee-shot. I think also the Eden hole at St. Andrews is reproduced to a nicety, Straths bunker being very well placed. The last hole is a very good one, and puts me in mind of the first hole at North Berwick, called Point Garry, only the last hole at the National is a little longer. The National course is the last word in golf courses.
Was Mr. Sayers fluffing? One might wonder whether Mr. Sayers comments about Merion were influenced by his son's position there. I tend to think not. From the rest of the article (where he was critical of American courses) he seems like he was a straight shooter, and Merion was very good and well constructed. And surely you don't think he was fluffing NGLA up, do you? To what purpose?
-
David,
I think you just like to argue.
I agreed with you that NGLA was the best course in the US at the time it opened, no question, and thought I said that.
My reference to fluffing meant simply that any negative comments about the other best courses in the US at the time need to be viewed in context of him being directly involved at NGLA and hardly making an unbiased comparison, even if he was correct.
Also, I would say that Sayers was correct...the 1915 version of Merion was not in the same class as the 1915 version of National, nor in the same class as the Merion of 1916, 1924, or 1930 either.
-
And David...your fingers aren't broken, are they?
If there are articles related to NGLA that you believe bring important facts about the creation of NGLA to light, please feel free to add them to that thread as I asked everyone to do.
Thanks.
-
I understand why you made that "fluffing" comment but I think it is inaccurate and misleading. Whigham's comment reflected an honest, commonly held, and seemingly accurate belief that American courses were generally inferior to the better courses abroad, and that NGLA would close that quality gap.
As for the other thread, your motives were apparent from before you even started it, and I didn't want to waste my time muddying up your agenda-driven thread with actual relevant information.