[Tommy_Naccarato]

This thread has been been pissing me off.

Tom, You really got me confused where you call other people revisionists, then state Max Behr as if your words are his quotes, especially as cerebral as Max Behr was.

You then passed up my previous quote from C.B. MacDonald about Lido the site, so I guess his words aren't good enough, are they?

Well, here is another one that was more then likely written by Behr, because when reading it it sounds like Behr when writing for Golf Illustrated as their EDITOR, and he was the one that usually wrote these lead-ins to the story written by the author who was contributing at the time. Feel free to pass this one up too--furthering your crusade of knowing Behr on your terms--not just how others might interpret it and then coming to the best and reasonable deduction.

LAST year the site of the new Lido Golf Links
near Long Beach was a flat sea meadow partly
under water. This unpromising territory was
chosen for the making of an ideal golf course partly
because of its climate and proximity to New York
but partly also because it left the hand of the golf
architect perfectly free to build his course from the
bottom up. It was Mr. C. B. Macdonald who conceived
the simple though expensive plan of pouring
out a golf course just as Mr. Edison pours out concrete
houses. The sea meadow was first filled in
where the water covered it, and then all the hills and
undulations of an ideal course were constructed by
pumping sand out of the lagoon on to the level surface
of the meadow. This part of the work is practically
finished and by the fall the course will be ready for
seeding. Play of some sort will be possible over the
course next June if weather conditions are normal,
though it will be fall next year before good golf can
be expected. Every hole on the course has been
molded so as to make it as perfect as nature has
made some of the holes on the classic courses abroad,
and every hole will have a distinct character of its
own. Mr. C. B. Macdonald the architect of this
colossal enterprise has kindly written out a short
description of the course for readers of GOLF ILLUSTRATED.

[TEPaul]

TommyN;

Thank you for those remarks by Max Behr (that is supposing they are Behr's). From those remarks it doesn't appear to me Behr had a problem with what Macdonald created at Lido. I'd requote these remarks of his as evidence;

"The sea meadow was first filled in
where the water covered it, and then all the hills and
undulations of an ideal course were constructed by
pumping sand out of the lagoon on to the level surface
of the meadow.......Every hole on the course has been
molded so as to make it as perfect as nature has
made some of the holes on the classic courses abroad,
and every hole will have a distinct character of its
own."

This is exactly what I've been trying to say to DavidM but he continues to maintain that Lido was symbolic of some repression or sell-out of Golden Age values. DavidM brought Behr into the discussion of his premise on this thread and I said I don't believe Behr would've supported DavidM's premise any more than I do and I said I don't believe Max Behr's architectural philosophy from his essays supports DavidM's permise about Lido and I gave a whole explanation of why I thought neither Behr nor his philosophy would support DavidM's premise that Lido represented something he called "jumping the shark".

Again, the remarks you supplied from Behr on Lido seem like very clear evidence that he would not have supported DavidM's premise on Lido.

Therefore, I feel that attempting to create the impression, as DavidM has, that the Lido in some architectural sense was "jumping the shark" by symbolically selling out Golden Age values is an attempt at revisionist history.

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, I think the thread has gotten somewhat of-track to what David's point was, whether one finds it valid or not.

The history of the course is everywhere. You just have to go find it, live with it and hopefully learn from it. Certainly it is a tragedy more then just another GREAT golf course gone by the wayside.

[TEPaul]

TommyN;

Maybe this thread has gotten off track with some but definitely not David Moriarty and me. The point or premise is this from David Moriarty;

"Moreover, the course represents Man's ultimate arrogance: That given  enough money and the proper technology, man can impose his will on nature and not only duplicate it, but better it.  
I know that chronologically, great courses were built after the Lido, but symbolically, the Lido seems to represent values which would undermine the Golden Age, or at least repress it for a very long time."

That is DavidM's premise and he then asks contributors to answer these questions;

"Do you agree or disagree?  Did "Golden Age Architecture" jump the shark with the Lido?
Other than representing another example of great MacDonald/Raynor strategy, is there anything positive about the legacy of the Lido?"

David Moriarty and I have been discussing that very same premise and the accuracy of it. DavidM brought Behr and his philosophy into the discussion of this thread's premise and that's also what we've been discussing.

By the way, how do you feel about the premise of this thread and the questions asked? Do you think Lido represents Man's ultimate arrogance? Do you think Lido represents values that would come to undermine the Golden Age of golf architecture or at least repress it for a very long time?

DavidM obviously believes that Lido did represent man's ultimate arrogance in golf architcture and he obviously believes that arrogance exhibited in the Lido repressed the Golden Age of architecture for a very long time. I do not agree with David's premise or with David on this and I've written numerous posts as to why and also answered his questions of me as to why I don't agree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It seems quite clear that Macdonald felt he found very little to nothing of natural interest at Lido preconstruction.

I sure hope you're not trying to say Macdonald felt the same about the pre-construction site of NGLA.

TE, you're going to have to start actually reading my posts, not skimming them or surmising what I wrote based on the erroneous conclusions of others.  Please, read them carefully, comprehend them, see the ball, be, be the ball.

DMoriarty classified the Lido site as Hostile.
MacDonald described the NGLA site in similar fashion, and I quoted what he had to say about it, that it was said to be unsuitable for ANY type of development.

The same could not remotely be said about the preconstruction Lido site. Regarding natural land formations useable for golf there's no similarity between Lido's natural site and NGLA's.

Would you cite for me where I ever said that the land formations were similar ?

I said that both sites had been described as hostile, and not fit for development.  That's a far cry from saying the land sites were identical or even similar.

Please, read with care in the future.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
If you review the whole of this thread you will see that every one of DM's suppositons have been discounted by facts, many from those intimately connected with the subject. He has even discounted one of his own suppositions in the same sentence that he proposed it !
There gets to be a point in time where you gotta ask yourself, why continue unless there is a hidden agenda? It's already been shown without doubt that:

-Macdonald followed sound principles of golf when building Lido.
-He followed sound principles thereafter in his later work.
-Lido had no negative impact on GA architecture as no one followed suit and it really wasn't until Shadow Creek that we saw anything similar.

I'd like to know what DMoriarty's true agenda is in berating Macdonald for constructing Lido. We haven't seen that yet and he should let us know what it is. Hopefully he will not  just offer up a rehash of his prior postings.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't really care what you or David Moriarty mean on this thread by HOSTILE. What I care about in this discussion is whether or not Lido was similar to NGLA in offering Macdonald natural landforms to use for golf holes. It seems he found nothing at all useful in the sense of natural landforms at Lido and pretty much had to make the entire course. That was simply not the case at NGLA's preconstruction site. It doesn't mean a thing in the context of natural landforms useful for golf holes to say they were considered hostile or ill suited to development by other people because they were covered in brambles. All that matters is what Macdonald felt was under those brambles and whether or not the natural landforms under those brambles were useful for golf holes. And he said in no uncertain terms that he FOUND the ALPS, EDEN, CAPE HOLE and a NATURAL REDAN hiding under those brambles! He found no such things that he ever admitted to at LIDO!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I don't really care what you or David Moriarty mean on this thread by HOSTILE. What I care about in this discussion is whether or not Lido was similar to NGLA in offering Macdonald natural landforms to use for golf holes.

That's an entirely new topic and a departure from the original and evolving discussion

 It seems he found nothing at all useful in the sense of natural landforms at Lido and pretty much had to make the entire course. That was simply not the case at NGLA's preconstruction site. It doesn't mean a thing in the context of natural landforms useful for golf holes to say they were considered hostile or ill suited to development by other people because they were covered in brambles.

You're forgetting the swamps, bogs and tidal areas

All that matters is what Macdonald felt was under those brambles and whether or not the natural landforms under those brambles were useful for golf holes. And he said in no uncertain terms that he FOUND the ALPS, EDEN, CAPE HOLE and a NATURAL REDAN hiding under those brambles! He found no such things that he ever admitted to at LIDO!!!!

If he found them, why are they so blantantly constructed ?
So clearly manufactured ?

I don't think he found THEM as much as he found locations or sites where he could insert THEM   There is a big difference.

[TEPaul]

"If he found them, why are they so blantantly constructed ?
So clearly manufactured?"

They aren't, you just keep claiming they are. You and I spent a good deal of time looking at the green-end of the Redan, for instance, and you thought Macdonald might have created a good deal of that ridge it sits on. I don't believe that. I think all he had to do there is form the green by basically leveling the grade on it and he probably simply used the fill to do that from the cut of the front and back bunkers.

One a hole like the Redan, Macdonald said:

"Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutely natural."


So, I'm sorry Pat, Macdonald built the course, not you, and I'm taking his word for it. On a hole like that just going out there and picking up on where natural grade clearly starts makes what Macdonald said seem obvious to me. He manufactured a lot there, for sure, but he also found some really useful natural landform that he f....ing USED just about as they were. You can try to torture or mince words all you want about that if you want to but he found natural useful landforms he used at NGLA and that was just NOT TRUE at LIDO!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"If he found them, why are they so blantantly constructed ?
So clearly manufactured?"

They aren't, you just keep claiming they are. You and I spent a good deal of time looking at the green-end of the Redan, for instance, and you thought Macdonald might have created a good deal of that ridge it sits on.

That's absolutely untrue.  
Your memory has shorted out.
We agreed that the ridge, ascending to form the 5th tee area and descending into the the base of the 4th green was there, but, that substantial construction took place to form that green, especially as you moved to the northeast from the 5th tee area.   We stood behind the green and you indicated that you saw the massive construction required to supplement the natural ridge at the green site.  Those were your words, not mine.

I don't believe that. I think all he had to do there is form the green by basically leveling the grade on it and he probably simply used the fill to do that from the cut of the front and back bunkers.

Your memory is faulty, and your field eye defective,
we stood behind that green and agreed that it had been built, at a very minimum of 8 feet above the grade, increasing in height as the green moved to the northeast, where the construction was most pronounced.

We also viewed the fronting bunker and agreed that the entire center to left side of that green was highly constructed.

Do you really believe that those sharp, deep falloffs in the front and rear of the green are natural

One a hole like the Redan, Macdonald said:

"Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and find a perfect Redan which was absolutely natural."

So, I'm sorry Pat, Macdonald built the course, not you, and I'm taking his word for it. On a hole like that just going out there and picking up on where natural grade clearly starts makes what Macdonald said seem obvious to me. He manufactured a lot there, for sure, but he also found some really useful natural landform that he f....ing USED just about as they were.

If you think the 4th green was found as is, then you've done a 180 from the time you spent on site with me, where you admitted that the green was heavily constructed as it headed northeast from the area of # 5 tee

You can try to torture or mince words all you want about that if you want to but he found natural useful landforms he used at NGLA and that was just NOT TRUE at LIDO!

I never said it was TRUE at Lido.  
Where did you come up with the wild assertion that I did ?
Would you provide just one citation that supports your assertion ?

That he found the landforms to use as his setting, doesn't mean he didn't manufacture the hole and the green site.
You know from examining those greens that they are heavily manufactured, and that includes # 4.

In the future, I would suggest that you keep copious notes or record you words to prevent flip flopping on issues as time distance you from the time you spent on site.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Somehow, I don't think you're too clear on visualing what construction of a golf green was all about at NGLA on something like the redan. I believe that ridge was there as it is now--it was natural and all Macdonald/Raynor did there was built the green right on that ridge. Obviously they had to create the green surface and to do that I believe they used the fill they cut from the front and back bunkering. That's not a lot of manufacturing.

You can say I can't remember anything if you want to but I doubt anyone's going to believe that. And you can also say when Macdonald wrote in "Scotland's Gift Golf" that the Redan was "absolutely natural" that he was telling a bold-faced lie or that you know #4 was heavily manufacturing vs 'absolutely natural' better than he does on a course he designed and built but why would anyone believe you?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's simply a matter of what you want to believe.

When you were on site, you examined the green with your own eyes, and declared that the green was built up and clearly constructed in comparison with the surrounding area, to a good degree, with sharp, deep slopes front and back.
You even declared that it was built up at a minimum of 8 feet.  

Nowwhere in that area are there anything but gentle, rolling slopes.  The geometric trapazoidial shape of the green and the steep slopes are contrary to any natural landform.

I submit that the rolling ridge was absolutely natural, but the green constructed upon it, with it's sharp, steep and deep slopes entirely manufactured.

Perhaps your limit on recollection is 30 days or less.

Which am I to believe, your eyewitness account when you were on site, or your contrary opinion based on your interpretation of what you read in a book.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

God, I really don't know where you come up with some of this stuff you say.

What I said about the Redan green when we spent 10-15 minutes out there is if one goes to either end of that green one can probably find what was preconstruction original grade. On the low end one doesn't need to go much more than probably a few feet to find what once was original grade on that ridge. On that low end anyone can see that green basically flows into that original natural grade. On the high end (the right-side) it's perhaps a bit harder to find or imagine what was original grade but it really wouldn't suprise me if Macdonald probably just created some very low profile contour on that end of the natural ridge--the end the redan shot comes into the green on. That contour was probably less than a foot in height.

I assume that right to left sloping ridge was probably somewhat convex on top orginally. What Macdonald needed to do with that green then is basically level it enough for a putting surface--although the right to left slope may have been level enough for that. What he likely did though was create a gentle concave putting surface on a funneling diagonal instead of the original concvex surface that the top of that ridge originally was.

What did he use to create the green surface and the funneling diagonal concave sides of the green that were originally the convex top of the ridge? I believe all the fill he needed to do that came from the cut of the front and back bunkers around that green.

You might call that "heavily manufactured" but I sure don't and apparently Macdonald didn't either! It was nice for Macdonald the green was that easy to create and it would be nice for anyone else if greens were that easy to make on conducive natural landforms. That's basically what's called building a green on an 'absolutely natural' landform, just like Macdonald said about the Redan in "Scotland's Gift Golf" on p. 188!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Then why does the green rise sharply and substantially from the surrounding land form, radically departing from the surrounding terrain, especially in the front and rear of the green

Those are unnatural rises, and substantial in elevation change.

[TEPaul]

"Then why does the green rise sharply and substantially from the surrounding land form, radically departing from the surrounding terrain, especially in the front and rear of the green?

Pat:

The obvious answer to me is because that's the way the land originally was. The obvious answer also includes because the things you just asked simply aren't true. The green does not rise in the rear of the green, it just flows right on down that natural right to left ridge.

There's no question in my mind if a preconstruction topo map ever existed and could be found it would prove the things you're trying to say here wrong in a heart beat. One only needs to look at the topography of that realitively narrow swath of land on the north coast of Long Island that extends probably down to and past Frair's Head to understand it's unique and interesting topogrpaphy.

I'd say much of the radical topogrpaphy of holes #1,2,3,4,5,14,15,16,first part of 17 and the second half of #18 including the high dune to the right of the second half as well as the entire enormous promontory the clubhouse sits on is original and natural topography.

If you'd seen the original topography of the dunes holes of Friar's Head you'd know exactly what I mean. It was, and to a large degree still is, radically unusual topography, to say the least. Much of NGLA wasn't that much different, in my opinion--and that includes the ridge the Redan sits on.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick Mucci

I remember you describing the raw Pine Valley site as "hostile" in an old thread.  Do you think that natural sandy site at PV to be more "hostile" than Lido's?

[TEPaul]

What Pat Mucci needs to do and what he so far seems to be refusing to do is make an apples and oranges distinction on here.

The fact is NGLA offered Macdonald a good amount of NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY to use and work with to build golf holes and LIDO didn't offer him that NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.

There's a huge difference between clearing away brambles and exposing naturally useful topography for golf (and clearing 22,000 trees at PVGC and exposing naturally useful topography for golf) and having to completely create all the useable topography for golf out of a swampland such as Lido once was.

Pat keeps referring to all these swamps and bogs that NGLA once was but refuses to answer where he thinks they might have been on the property that is now NGLA.

Frankly, if one reads the remarks of Macdonald and his reference to 'swamps and bogs' and perhaps land that others felt was ill suited for development it appears he was talking about the entire 450 acres he and Whigam were analyzing on ponies. Macdonald mentioned they selected 205 acres of that 450 acre parcel because that 205 acres offered them land of natural interest for a variety of holes.

Perhaps the vast majority of "swamps and bogs" and the really ill-suited land for development was on the 245 acres that they didn't select and purchase--not the 205 acres they did select!

Pat:

We drove into and around the periphery of the land next door to NGLA (known as Bayberry). It sure looked to me on the western side of that Bayberry property there could have been and perhaps still is a good deal of what might be described as "swamps and bogs". Was that the remainder of the 450 acres that Macdonald and Whigam were surveying on ponies? I'll bet it is. That's probably the other 245 acres they didn't select!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, the thing I want to know is WHAT areas of NGLA were filled-in. Is Pat maintaining that NGLA required a huge amount of fill or movement of earth that we are unaware of? and that this effort for the last 97 years has gone unnoticed or has been lost? If so, were would one find this information?

[TEPaul]

"Tom, the thing I want to know is WHAT areas of NGLA were filled-in. Is Pat maintaining that NGLA required a huge amount of fill or movement of earth that we are unaware of?"

TommyN:

Pat may be maintaining that but you know Pat--he's wrong 98% of the time so you know about what to make of a claim like that.

"and that this effort for the last 97 years has gone unnoticed or has been lost? If so, were would one find this information?"

I'll tell you where Pat's finding this information. He's getting it from Macdonald's book when he says the 450 acres he and Whigam surveyed on ponies "abounded in bogs and swamps and was covered with an entanglement of bayberry, huckleberry, blackberry, and other bushes and was infested with insects."

But what if the 205 acres out of that 450 acres wasn't abounding in bogs and swamps? It would certainly appear that the 205 acres they selected had some excellent topography for golf as Macdonald goes on to say they found an "alps" "redan", "cape" and "sahara" hole there. And nowhere in Macdonald's book does he say they chose to buy the bogs and swamps instead of the more potential land for golf.

But as Wayne Morrison mentioned on another post, at this point it's only speculation what the ground at NGLA looked like preconstruction. I don't think it's all that hard to do a guesstimate by carefully analyzing the course now in an attempt to pick up on natural grade but clearly Pat has things like bogs and swamps all over the property on his mind!

The only way we can be sure in detail now exactly what the original togopraphy at NLGA looked like and what was created would be if a preconstruction topo turned up of the property. Macdonald does mention he got Raynor to do a survey but he didn't say if it was preconstruction or not. One would assume so but where that survey map is no one knows at this point.







 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, All valid questions and answers. But of course coming up with a topo of the property would be close to imposible to prove many of the key questions answered here. Or is Pat that knowledgeable? I say this not as a criticism, but is there something here he isn't telling us or explaining to us fully--in Pat's words, FACTS.

In my study of golf architecture, there is just so much that can be loosely interpreted and well as mis-interpreted. So much that I have to read the books, articles and other vast sources mroe then once. So much to the point that it becomes like C.B.'s quote on courses--you have to see them more then once--study them--and gauge your own response. This is the ultimate goal of our discussions, the ideal of how we interpret these readings and share them from the perspective of a common interest. (hopefully)

Tom, It's like the day we were out there with those two guys from the club How much did we learn by looking at that model then going out there to see it in person. How much more could we learn from doingthat over and over and over and over again and again? At any given point do we actually tink we would KNOW the National, or would we call ourselves students of the National?

[George_Bahto]

For elevations see my new thread

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Thanks Uncle George. We can always rely on you!

[Len Itnes]

Tom Paul and Tommy Naccarato,

Didn't I read that MacDonald said that it took 10,000 truck truck loads of dirt to build National ?

If an average truck load was 10 or 20 cubic yards wouldn't that be a lot of dirt in those days ?

[TEPaul]

TommyN said:

"Tom, All valid questions and answers. But of course coming up with a topo of the property would be close to imposible to prove many of the key questions answered here."

Tommy, no it wouldn't. If a preconstruction topo existed (and a good one with discernible contour lines (elevation lines)--all that would have to be done to answer all this--which is what was original grade and what was created would be to shoot the contour lines of the existing golf course and then basically most everything becomes known by comparison to the preconstruction contour map!

Believe me, Pat Mucci does not have anything at all that he's withholding. Pat's speculation that the preconstruction NLGA site was numerous bogs and swamps that had to be filled in is total speculation on his part and he's wrong.

There is one area that shows up on George's blueprint that's interesting, though. That's the area that's to the right of present #15 fairway. It looks like water or real wetland eats much farther into the property in there than it does now (but that might have something to do with the elevation of the road!?). However that's not considering that #14 green and approach was moved to the left when the road to the clubhouse was put in obviously moving the first 3/4 or so of #15 farther to the left than it appears on that blueprint. On the blueprint it looks like #15 tee shot plays over a considerable amount of wetland. Of couse now #15 tee is way to the left of where it was on that blueprint and so is present #15 fairway and all.

PS:

Tommy:

Again, don't listen to Pat Mucci about this. When he came up with this outrageous idea that Macdonald manufactured almost that entire course I was out there with him. It was a very cold and windy day and I think Pat's brain froze. I'm too nice a guy to have told him that at the time. All I wanted to do that day was get him out of that cold and into my warm car so his brain would warm up and he'd start to make at least a modicum of sense again!

[TEPaul]

Len itnes:

When you say 10,000 truck loads of dirt to "build" NGLA that's probably misleading.

Back in that early era those truckloads of dirt were basically used to top the fairways and greens and such as a growing medium.

To actually BUILD a course of that age on that kind of site and topography basically almost all the architecture was the green and green-end (tees were far more minimal to build). Those guys back in 1907 at NGLA didn't really get into shaping the mid-bodies of holes like they do today. Sure they dug bunkering and such through the mid-bodies of holes and probably used the fill from them in near proiximity for whatever.

But it's the greens and green-ends that are the most interesting on a course like NGLA to try to figure out what exactly was the man-made architecture and where natural grade starts. A green like the "Road" hole is completely obvious because its out on a flat area and the green is built up off that flat natural grade a few feet. But the entire green footprint is entirely obvious as to where it stops and starts.  

The fill to make all those greens basically comes from the "cuts" of the bunkering surrounding the greens or in near proximity. #8 green is a really big cut and fill operation and you can see the old cuts that were made. There's an enormous "cut" (depression) to the right and short of that green that looks like it might have been an enormous bunker once but I doubt it. It was probably only a "cut" operation for the massive amount of fill to create that green which is basically pretty high and manufactured up. The fall-off to the right of the green appears to be an old cut too.

As one proceeds around the course looking for how natural grade ties into the man-made architecture you can basically find where the fill for the construction was cut from. It's pretty interesting to see how the "cut and fills" from hole to hole (again basically the green-ends) pretty much seem to match in volume.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()