Myopia and NGLA---Leeds and Macdonald?

[TEPaul]

There've been some good threads recently comparing and contrasting the architecture of Myopia and GCGC, two of the best courses in America in the really early days. Then there was another one comparing Myopia and Fowler's Eastward Ho! on the Cape, built in the early 1920s.

I was talking with Peter Pallotta yesterday about Myopia's Leeds and the subject came up about how much of a private, perhaps publicity shy man Leeds may've been and with what he was doing with Myopia, arguably, at least in my opinion, the FIRST really good golf architecture in America.

Of course this sort of begs the question of who and which course had the greatest influence on American architecture and its future----eg Myopia and Leeds or NGLA and Macdonald?

I don't see that there is any question at all the NGLA and Macdonald did but the reason just might be that Macdonald massively promoted NGLA and consequently himself with NGLA even some years before he began it. Macdonald was completely unabashed about creating a model of architectural excellence in America that would put American architecture on the map. And Macdonald's model, at least in architectural principle was unquestionably derivative of the best holes from the other side.

With Myopia, Leeds was handed the responsibility to create something better out of a 1894 member laid out nine hole course and Leeds took that responsibility on with alacrity and in perhaps less than five years created what many felt was the first really good architecture and course in America and this over half a decade before Macdonald even got going with NGLA.

NGLA will probably always be considered the most influential to American architecture but I feel for the truly dedicated to golf architecture Myopia may be even more fascinating simply because it really is an American original and seemingly not necessarily derivative of anything really. Leeds did travel abroad a number of times (he was a well known America Cup sailor) but if he got his inspiration for what he did at Myopia from abroad apparently he never said so (even though I just hate the thought that his famous "Scrapbook" which really was his diary about Myopia and golf and architecture may be gone now forever).

To me, at this point, Leeds is the most interesting because he was so early, perhaps the earliest in America with what was considered to be real quality. Where did he get his inspiration? Where did he get his architectural ideas? Wherever he got them he was damn quiet about it as far as I can tell.

In the next post I will put the only quotation from Leeds I'm aware of that comes right out of his so-called "Scrapbook"---his years long diary about his many years with the creation of the Myopia golf course. It's a little bit general but it isn't hard to tell where he was basically coming from and like Oakmont's W.C. Fownes and Pine Valley's George Crump it was pretty much based on difficulty! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Macdonald had more influence globaly, largely because he was an extravert and welcomed the attention and as a result the NGLA recieved a ton of worldwide attention.  The question I have is what influence did they have on one another, and did one man have more influence over the other?

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul,

With four US Opens held at Myopia between 1898 and 1908, the golf course would have been played and seen by nearly all of the early American golfers and golf writers of influence. It certainly got plenty of ink; as much as any other golf course in those days did.

Maybe that explains the mystery of why it wasn't copied more - it was perceived as being too difficult for daily membership play. I believe Myopia still holds the record for the highest winning score in a US Open.

This begs a question that I can't recall ever seeing up on this board: most clubs where formed around a charter membership, and to make that kind of a tenuous arrangement successful, wouldn't you want to build something interesting and enjoyable, that is not too hard? I mean if you're building a membership from scratch, many of whom have just taken up the game, you might not want to be digging 3 foot deep coffin bunkers around the greens or you'll scare everyone off!

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
Which was the more prestigious event, the US Open or the US Am? I'm pretty sure the US Am was the more prestigious. Where would one find articles on Myopia between 1898 and 1908?

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

yes, so many differences.  As Tom M mentions, Macdonald seemed the classic extravert, and Leeds the classic introvert: one aiming for a national membership and national and international recognition for his course, the other seemingly content to above all please himself and the members of his own (small and exclusive) club; one promoting for years and very publicly his philosophy/ideals about great golf course architecture and attempting to build consensus among the experts of the day in this regard, the other basically silent on the issue and confident enough to keep his own counsel and be steered by his own lights; one a strong personality who nonetheless wanted/needed the approval of men he respected and to be thought of as a leader, the other also a strong personality but a profound loner, not so much caring at all who approved of him and who he led (or didn't).  All of which is to say, a man like Macdonald and a course like NGLA would pretty clearly be the more influential of the two.

But on the other hand, it is striking how early and often Myopia was praised, and clear that Mr. Macdonald knew the course, and knew it well. Here's an interesting snippet from a long July, 1905 article that is mostly about Mr. Macdonald's dream to build the ideal course -- I think at the time the tentative name was the Monte Cristo Club, and the article gets into what Macdonald thought ideal, and the (differing) views of men like Taylor and Low on the subject, and the results of the 1901 survey into the great British golf holes, and Macdonald's plans for a national membership and a Long Island site etc.  All very interesting, but in the context of this thread I found these couple of paragraphs pretty relevant:

"There are many good holes on American links, in Mr. Macdonald's opinion, but to reproduce them would gain nothing of the sentiment that clings about the particular holes of the British links, which are most famous in the stories, songs and records of golf....

Mr. Macdonald believes Wheaton to be the best of our golf courses, while he admits that certain holes at Myopia and Garden City are ideal....It is interesting here to note the opinions of some of our leading professionals on the best testing holes in this country. 'All the holes I like best are at Myopia' is the opinion of Will Anderson, the open champion. 'It is the best golf course in the country, if not in the world...'"

I found this interesting because it makes something clear, i.e.  Macdonald was aware of Myopia and of its fine qualities, but he had much bigger fish to fry than Leeds seemed to -- he wanted to not only create the ideal golf course and one that manifested the fundamental principles of good architecture, but one that also brought the Spirit of the Game (literally the "sentiment" of British golf) to America.

I don't know how much such two very different personalities with such different goals in mind could have influenced eachother; I'm guessing not too much.  They probably shared the same "source" for their educations i.e. the British links and the oldtimers who knew those links courses so well. It would be great to learn who exactly Leeds talked to and met with over there, but he doesn't seem to be telling....   

Peter   

[TEPaul]

"This begs a question that I can't recall ever seeing up on this board: most clubs where formed around a charter membership, and to make that kind of a tenuous arrangement successful, wouldn't you want to build something interesting and enjoyable, that is not too hard? I mean if you're building a membership from scratch, many of whom have just taken up the game, you might not want to be digging 3 foot deep coffin bunkers around the greens or you'll scare everyone off!"


Bradley;

This is of course a good point but I think it's really obvious that some of those "amateur/sportsmen" designers such as Leeds, H.C. and W.C. Fownes and George Crump wanted really hard courses and they clearly set out to do that no matter what their memberships thought.

As far as other architects and coures copying Myopia, that is something that was not much done anyway except for the idea promoted by Macdonald to essentially duplicate the principles of a handful of holes from abroad. Don't forget, Macdonald was promoting that idea before he even bought or broke ground at NGLA and those template holes were not necessarily his favorites but derived from a few very public magazine and newspaper contests of experts abroad.

It is not that other designers and architects never tried to copy some of the holes or ideas at Myopia. It is well recorded from one Crump diarist that Crump wanted to essentially copy the basic concept of Myopia's 16th hole on his 12th hole at Pine Valley.

[TEPaul]

In Leeds's so-called "Scrapbook" (apparently his virtual "unpublished" diary of his years working on the Myopia course) is the following entry:


"The one thought of this new school seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score. They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as Sir Alexander Kinlock so well expressed it, 'that this is not golf, and please God never will it be golf. Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent!' To eliminate chance from the game is to spoil it."


This would seem to be the basic philosophy of what difficulty is built on in golf and architecture, and that is clearly what Leeds produced over time at Myopia and wanted to produce. Almost all of those who knew him and wrote about him explained that he took something of sadistic pleasure in this philosophy and golf and architectural application.

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

That's a really good and edifying post of yours.

It's so hard to say now who and what influenced Leeds or even if anyone really did on his outlook on golf and architecture borne out in what he did at Myopia. I have the sad feeling there may've been more of that than some realize in that "Scrapbook" (diary) of his that was around in 1975 but is missing now.

I guess it's possible that a lot of what he did with the Myopia course just came out of his own mind and imagination of what golf and architecture should be. There were definitely a lot of those so-called "renaissance" men and minds around at that time and many of them really were "originals" as Myopia itself seems to be. (By the way one of the ones around Leeds and Myopia in that first or second decade of the 20th century (he was from nearby Dedham G.C.) was the inimitable Joshua Crane---certainly an "original" thinker on golf and architecture if there ever was one ).

On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that one of Leeds's constant modus operandi was to both watch and pick the brains of some of the really good golfers and golf experts who came through and played his Myopia. He would occassionally just adjust his course after the fact to some of their suggestions. (What he did in response to Horace Hutchinson's criticism in 1910 is well known to the club and is in its history book).

There is also the famous Myopia story that he was in the habit of walking around the course and throwing down little white chips or pegs where he wanted a bunker or whatever because he figured a good player got away with something he shouldn't have.

[Melvyn Morrow]

In the Times article dated the 13th Sept 1913, it describes a visit to the NGLA and that 4 holes No. 3, 4, 7 & 13 are copies (with minor variations) of the original based upon the following from Scotland. As per the article I, like others thought all the 18 had been based upon other holes, but apparently not.

The Alps from Preston
Redan from N Berwick
11 & 17th from St Andrews.

I have no knowledge of the NGLA apart from what I have read on this site and a few articles from newspapers. The writer certainly enjoyed his experience and considered it a great course

I attach the article for your information
 

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom M

I once read that the US Amateur was drew significantly larger gallaries and attention.

And I have noticed that while OUTING and THE AMERICAN GOLFER magazines covered events at Myopia, I must conceed that after making a cursory check that there may not have been much written about the actual architecture of Myopia.

However wouldn't you agree that there had to have been an awareness of what was there among the really influential people in the golf community?

Tom P

I'm sure I am becoming a big bore over this issue of why we don't see more of the kind of features that Leeds built.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

The Myopia history covers the reasons well that Leeds (who basically controlled tournaments) did not want to have the US Amateur in those early years and only agreed to the US Opens with the USGA (four US Opens between 1898 and 1908).

At first one might think it had something to do with the course itself but it didn't. Was the US Amateur considered to be a bigger and more prestigious event back then? Yes, there was no question about it and one reason was the field was generally a lot bigger than the early US Opens.

But Leeds's reasons for not wanting to hold US Amateurs in those early years were not the course but the club and clubhouse itself, particularly the lack of a proper lockerroom. Leeds looked at the US Amateur as an event where the club could farm out the competitors to member families and such in the area but the club would not do that with pros in the US Open---eg they had to stay in an inn.

But the real problem with holding the US Amateur in those early years with Myopia is that the club did not have a decent or large enough LOCKERROOM for the amateurs. Leeds did not have a problem with that with the pros in the Open because Leeds refused to allow pros in the clubhouse or a club's lockerroom anyway. For them he simply put up a tent near the clubhouse and that is where they ate and changed. He would not think of doing something like that for the amateurs and a US Amateur.

And essentially that is the reason the club's history gives for Leeds not agreeing to host a US Amateur in those early years.

An interesting bit of info or trivia surrounding the resolution of that lockerroom problem---eg Leeds or Parker or some of the prominent Myopia members actually got summer member Henry Clay Frick (US STEEL CORP) to agree to spring for the funds to build the commodious lockerroom building the club erected back then and still has today. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
I'm sure I am becoming a big bore over this issue of why we don't see more of the kind of features that Leeds built."


Bradley:

That's a good question and clearly a very fundamental one in the context of both the playing of golf and golf course architecture.

I don't think there's any question that there was a gradual move (or call it an evolution) to sort of get away from some of the basic philosophies on golf and architecture that a guy like Leeds held that are well reflected in that one quote from him I posted above this morning.

We know that golf slowly started sliding away from his philosophy of a very liberal amount and degree of penality in golf and architecture (luck, inherent unfairness or whatever one wants to call it) and into a mentality and philosophy of "fairness" and architecture began to reflect that. That was just not Leeds's way and his architecture, certainly many of his bunkers, outrageous rough, the fastest and slopiest greens around reflected that.

Even having said that, though, I firmly believe we are into a renaissance in architecture now, at least with a partial but very dedicated element and group of people and I think more and more that type of architecture that is Myopia is going to get noticed again and redone in various ways in some new construction in the future.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

We have talked a lot about Myopia on here recently and what it was with and under Leeds. But he died in 1930 and what we have not talked about at all with Myopia is how the course evolved from there and up until today.

That is a pretty remarkable story in and of itself and one not told on here. I hope the club doesn't mind me putting some of that on here. Maybe I should just ask them.

In a very real way what happened to Myopia after Leeds is not much different than what happened to NGLA after Macdonald. But the good news is there were one or a few at both clubs who had the good sense and committment to bring both courses back out of their "middle years" doldrums and architectural devolution and obsolescence. Those guys at both clubs began to get into this kind of restoration mentality with both the architecture and maintenance just about 20 years ago now.

[Bradley Anderson]

In Leeds's so-called "Scrapbook" (apparently his virtual "unpublished" diary of his years working on the Myopia course) is the following entry:


"The one thought of this new school seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score. They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as Sir Alexander Kinlock so well expressed it, 'that this is not golf, and please God never will it be golf. Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent!' To eliminate chance from the game is to spoil it."


This would seem to be the basic philosophy of what difficulty is built on in golf and architecture, and that is clearly what Leeds produced over time at Myopia and wanted to produce. Almost all of those who knew him and wrote about him explained that he took something of sadistic pleasure in this philosophy and golf and architectural application.

Tom Paul,

Could you not also parse from that quote that these were the principles of a man who sees golf more as a match play game then say a medal play game? And possibly in his mind competition golf was the only kind of golf? The way you describe him, he sounds like someone who didn't essentially see the game as an activity for men of leisure, but rather a battle.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

I think it would be hard to say that Leeds was just into a match play mentality. He did play a lot of stroke play golf too apparently, good examples being that he was the low amateur in the 1898 US Open at Myopia, and he won the first two stroke play events at Myopia's original member laid out nine in June and July, 1894.