[TEPaul]

"5.  Others may have been considering or even discussing some of these things by 1901 (in fact CBM was, as was HJ Whigham), and a few might have begun to tangibly head in this direction (CBM and HJW included,) but so far as I know no one else in the US had yet taken this "architectural approach" to designing and creating an entire "architectural" golf course from scratch.   Do you know of anyone else in the U.S. who had set out to accomplish this by 1901?  I don't.   Had anyone in the world at this point?"


Emmet may have been and Leeds may have been too even if it might be hard for us to know today because they chose not to be anywhere near as public or promoting about it as Macdonald was with his NGLA. We also need to appreciate that both were creating a golf course for a membership that already existed, unlike Macdonald with NGLA. I think we also know that both Leeds and Emmet were and had been international travelers particularly to GB &I. Leeds for instance was also an international yachtsman and Emmet apparently had an annuals connection with the American south and Ireland to do with hunting and particularly hunting dogs so both may've been very familiar with golf and architecture abroad in the latter part of the 19th century.

Frankly, this so-called "Leeds scrapbook" that was prominently mentioned and referred to in Myopia's 1975 centennial history may've been a comprehensive diary of what Leeds knew and felt and was doing with not just Myopia but what he had looked at or studied abroad. Unfortunately, it does not seem to have been seen since 1975 but we are still hunting for it.

As to anywhere in the world, Park Jr certainly may've been.

[TEPaul]

"Unfortunately, we seem to be heading in that direction here."



Oh really? Where or why does it seem we are heading in that direction on this thread other than the thoroughly unproductive few posts of Jim Kennedy, that he made before he thankfully remarked that he was done with this thread, and other than the remarks that immeditatelly preceded the quote just above?



To wit:

"7.  Probably because of the years and nastiness and caricature of CBM and his friends (SR, HJW, DE) on this discussion board, it seems people tend to simply assume that everything CBM wrote was inaccurate, loaded, and unfairly insulting to the rest of the world, even though the texts rarely if ever support such a conclusion.  So many lies, misrepresentations, and insulting descriptions have been written about the man that it is apparently impossible for many to actually consider his words with an open mind."

[DMoriarty]

Dónal or anyone who might care

Many tend to read from the end of threads, and since my posts tend to get buried pretty quickly by a barrage of posts (often by a single poster.)  Since my response to Donal is already four deep, I am taking the liberty of reposting it, it order to give it a fighting chance of reaching its intended recipients.  Here's hoping this one won't get buried as well.

So, did CBM equate the study of famous holes and replication of them as the birth of GCA? Is CBM belittling the efforts of those that were designing courses before him?

Dónal.

Dónal,

1. CBM didn't replicate any holes so far as I am aware.  He tried to replicate parts of a few holes but even on these holes he intentionally made significant changes which he thought to be improvements.

2. In the passage, was CBM "belittling" the efforts of those who were designing courses before him?  That seems much more of a subjective projection than an actual attempt to understand what he might have meant.

3.  In the main quote in question, CBM was writing about undertaking the tangible project in 1901 so we must consider the quote as applying to that time frame-- 1901 and before.

4.  In 1901 the course widely considered the best course in the US was Chicago Golf Club, designed by Macdonald himself.   Ontwensia was another top course, and again CBM had a hand in its creation as did his close friend H.J.Whigham.   Emmet, another good friend of CBM's, had been deeply involved in the newly created Garden City.   So if he was "belittling" anyone, he was including himself, his close friends, and the clubs with with he was most closely associated.  Further, he certainly wasn't "belittling" the designs of the great golf holes to which he looked for inspiration and ideas.   

5.  That being said, there is no doubt that CBM was highly critical of most of the golf courses in America at the time and rightfully so.   But he isn't really being critical this quote, I don' think.  I think that all he is doing in this quote is is pointing out that he was unaware of anyone else (in America at least) who was taking a such a decidedly comprehensive and architectural approach to the discipline:  the close and careful study of the great courses and golf holes; the distillation and determination of the fundamental concepts which made them great, and the wholesale application of these concepts to produce, from scratch, a golf course entirely based upon the basic principles of sound architecture.[/i]   

5.  Others may have been considering or even discussing some of these things by 1901 (in fact CBM was, as was HJ Whigham), and a few might have begun to tangibly head in this direction (CBM and HJW included,) but so far as I know no one else in the US had yet taken this "architectural approach" to designing and creating an entire "architectural" golf course from scratch.   Do you know of anyone else in the U.S. who had set out to accomplish this by 1901?  I don't.   Had anyone in the world at this point?   I don't know.

6.  Instead of assuming he was puffing or lying, why not take him at his word?   What if he was actually unaware of anyone else who had set out to plan and build an entire golf course where every hole was based on sound architectural principles and on fundamental concepts distilled from the great holes?  Would he then still be belittling those who came before?   If so how so? 

7.  Probably because of the years and nastiness and caricature of CBM and his friends (SR, HJW, DE) on this discussion board, it seems people tend to simply assume that everything CBM wrote was inaccurate, loaded, and unfairly insulting to the rest of the world, even though the texts rarely if ever support such a conclusion.  So many lies, misrepresentations, and insulting descriptions have been written about the man that it is apparently impossible for many to actually consider his words with an open mind.   Unfortunately, we seem to be heading in that direction here.

[Tom MacWood]

"I would take exception with his timeline (among other things) because I know Willie Park borrowed heavily from Musselburgh when he designed Huntercombe."

Tom MacWood:

Very interesting. I didn't know Park Jr borrowed heavily from Musselburgh when he designed Huntercombe. Can you point us to something that suggests that either before or while Park was doing Huntercombe? Thanks.

Also, do you suppose CBM was unaware that Park Jr had emulated pre-existing GB holes at Huntercombe approximately 7-8 years before NGLA? If so how do you suppose he could have been unaware of that? Perhaps he didn't know that much about what was going on architecturally in GB in 1900 as he had just moved from Chicago to NYC. Do you know how many times CBM went abroad between 1892 and 1902?  

This might have something to do with why CBM said many years later he felt that NGLA was the first example of golfing architecture of which he was aware.

TEP
I would recommend WP's biography The Park's of Musselburgh and the Huntercombe History. I believe they both include WP's account of the project. He was most interested in replicating the greens of Musselburgh - seeing that he grew up on that links do you find that to be a surprising revelation?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
That is not exactly what he said. He said he did not think the term 'golf architecture' can be found in the records prior to 1901 when he developed the idea of copying or emulating certain aspects of famous holes. He goes on to compare golf architecture to art and architecture, and says his idea of emulating well known examples (which is common other creative disciplines and the formalized studies of other creative disciplines) was the birth of golf architecture. He equates the study of famous holes and features of holes with the birth of golf architecture as discipline on par with the other well established creative disciplines.

I would take exception with his timeline (among other things) because I know Willie Park borrowed heavily from Musselburgh when he designed Huntercombe.

Tom:

So, did CBM equate the study of famous holes and replication of them as the birth of GCA? Is CBM belittling the efforts of those that were designing courses before him?

Dónal.

 

Donal
I don't think so. I believe CBM equated the birth of the discipline with the dedicated study of the art. Identifying what were the best holes and best feature of holes, understanding why they worked well and trying to emulate or replicate those ideas.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I would recommend WP's biography The Park's of Musselburgh and the Huntercombe History. I believe they both include WP's account of the project. He was most interested in replicating the greens of Musselburgh - seeing that he grew up on that links do you find that to be a surprising revelation?"


Tom MacWood:

Thanks for that info---and no that wouldn't surprise me at all. I wonder why CBM never took that into consideration with his remark that NGLA may've been the first to replicate GB holes and architecture somewhere else. What are your thoughts on that again? 

[TEPaul]

"So, did CBM equate the study of famous holes and replication of them as the birth of GCA? Is CBM belittling the efforts of those that were designing courses before him?


Donal
I don't think so. I believe CBM equated the birth of the discipline with the dedicated study of the art. Identifying what were the best holes and best feature of holes, understanding why they worked well and trying to emulate or replicate those ideas."



Tom MacWood:

Good response and I really mean that---truly.

Do you think you are able or capable of developing and exploring that subject on here?

If so, here's a first question----if you say that Park replicated some of the holes or the principles of holes from Musselburgh at Huntercombe in 1900/01 how do you think that differed from what CBM conceived of and tried to do from 1901 and on at NGLA as far as the first example of golfing architecture was conerned?

Do you think Macdonald was unaware of what Park Jr had done some years earlier at Huntercombe (1900/01) than NGLA (1908-1911)? If not do you think CBM may've felt that Park Jr was somehow not capable of understanding the discipline connected to a dedicated study of the art?

Take Note: I would be so pleasantly surprised if you would actually try to understand those questions and deal with them productively but experience tells me you probably won't. I hope I'm wrong about that and I think I may be---but only----and only if you would try to let yourself go and be far less deflecting and evasive on here.  We all know how much you are and have been so please prove me wrong---for once!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Park tried to replicate some of the greens at Musselburgh, and I have no idea if CBM was aware of it or not. Why do you ask? Is your bladder full?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You ask if my bladder is full? Hmmm, interesting. You know me---I just love humor and particularly odd humor but that sounds pretty much like a real nonsequitor to me.

I asked about Park and Huntercombe and your suspicion of him replicating holes at Huntercombe from Musselburgh 6-7 years before CBM replicated holes from abroad at NGLA because I'm wondering why CBM thought NGLA was the first example of golfing architecture if the replication of holes abroad was most of what golfing architecture was about to CBM, and if Park Jr had done it 6-7 years before him without him somehow being aware of it.

Do you have any thoughts on that other than some misplaced scatological thoughts such as full asking deflecting questions about full bladders?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I don't believe I said WPII replicated holes from Musselburgh. He was interested in replicating some of the greens, and did so throughout his career, in fact we have a few examples of Musselburgh greens in Ohio. 

You seem to have a hard-on for CBM. May I suggest, if you have an important point to make you should write an essay presenting your case in a straightforward way instead of playing all these never-ending games, where you try to poke and prod but never really present anything solid.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I have a 'hard-on' for CBM?  

Hmmmm, great phraesology there---that's quite thoughtful and perhaps even more intellectual.   That sounds like something from a real expert researcher/analyst/writer on golf course archtitectural history, for sure.   Honestly, don't you think even a complete charlatan like you could do better than that?

As far as presenting my case, I'd prefer to do it right here in this DG, unlike you. I recall how fascinated I was when you and I actually used to speak on the phone some years ago and you told me you are basically interested in a "what if" analysis and presentation of history. I told you I don't mind a "what if" presentation of history but only after a  "what actually happened" investigation and analysis of history before getting into various "what if" analyses and presentations of history which appears to be your one and only interest and focus.

To me that risks the temptation to seriously distort and/or revise the actual facts of true history----and that is precisely what I have always suspected you of and of having done.

However, there is nothing at all wrong with "what if" presentation of history; certainly plenty of historians have taken that approach but hopefully after a thorough investigation, presentation and analysis of what actually happened.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()