Gib,
I am well aware of the question of this thread and that I asked you another question altogether. The reason I did so is that the Macdonald iteration at Shinnecock Hills while a vast improvement over the existing links, was not nearly as interesting or challenging as NGLA and certainly not as interesting as Flynn's iteration at SHGC. I can see why you would want to play the Macdonald iteration as you studied it for the book. I was simply wondering to what length you would go to play it.
As for the contentious relationship between Macdonald and SHGC (and elsewhere) this was not the case when Macdonald designed and built the golf course. As that is the relevant time period to my supposition that he would want to be in charge, his later relationship had no bearing on the design attribution.
I do have the Bahto book. I carefully studied the section on Shinnecock Hills and find it has a great many errors in it. Some due to information that was found after George did his work, other information that George was not aware of for whatever reason and other errors because the information at hand was not properly considered.
George states, "Six holes of their original work, including the seventh green, remain to this day." Do you believe this to be true? The reason it is not common knowledge is not how you speculate, "...has as much to do with the later evolution of Shinnecock's golf course as with the complex and mercurial relationship between Macdonald and the club he once called home." Rather, it is because there is essentially nothing left of the Macdonald design at Shinnecock Hills except for the 7th tee. If, as George says, Seth Raynor listed Shinnecock Hills as one of his credits in advertisements, it may be inaccurate. In any case, he died before Flynn commenced work at SHGC and if he wanted credit for the design of SH, he got it. Whether it is deserved or not at this point for the present course should be debated.
The GB drawing on pg. 184 was taken from a map in the Shinnecock Hills GC archives. There are one or two small errors (an added bunker on the 15th hole and a slight yardage mistake on the 3rd (245 yards versus 248 on the original)).
The GB drawing on pg. 186 has many differences as compared to a survey of the property made before Flynn started any work (May 1928). Maybe George has the original plans and is basing his drawing on those. If so, I wish he would open his "George Bahto Collection" for others to review. If not, it would seem the discrepancies on holes 1-4,7,10-13,15-18 may be in error. These discrepancies range from missing or misplaced tees, to bunkers, shapes of greens up to the slightly different location of two holes.
I challenge the notion that Macdonald was left out of the history of the present golf course because of the way he left the club. That certainly didn't help his legacy but in fact, the present golf club has greens on the site of Macdonald greens, but they are Flynn greens. Except for the general concept of the 3rd, 7th and 9th holes, there is nothing in common with the Macdonald iteration and the present course. Flynn moved the 3rd tee to the left side of 2 green and changed the green and the bunkering although both the green and some bunkers exist in the same location, none are the same. The 7th green was built above the Macdonald green, the bunkers completely changed and the tee moved. The 9th green was saddled into the hillside rather than raised as Macdonald designed. The bunkering is completely different as well.
The true matter clouding the redesign was that Flynn was mandated to keep 18 holes in play at all times. No longer did the club rely on its neighbor for hospitality; after all, they did steal the flag and their chef
So the redesign of all 18 holes was in stages. The collection of Flynn drawings showing the existing Macdonald course, Flynn's preliminary plans drawn over the Macdonald blueprint and subsequent final plans on linen as well as club records clearly indicate that all greens, tees and bunkers are Flynn. To say that 6 holes are Macdonald is a glaring error.
Further, Dick Wilson did not manage the construction at SHGC. It was William Gordon. Wilson worked under Gordon for Toomey and Flynn Contracting Engineers. The design work was Flynn's alone under the entity William S. Flynn, Golf Course Architect. The error was a result of Ross Goodner's mistake in believing Wilson saying he was the designer. This myth was perpetuated by George Peper who updated Goodner's book.
George states that Flynn retained Macdonald's holes on the current 1,2,3,7,8 and 9. The current first utilizes part of Macdonald's hole but the Flynn green is much further down the line of play. Macdonald's greenside bunkering make up some of the fairway bunkers today. As you stated, Flynn's second hole is the back end of Macdonald's par 5 12th. While the green is in the same location, the length of shot into the green is different, the green is completely different as is the bunkering. As stated previously, the current 3rd corresponds closely to the Macdonald 13th except the Flynn tee is 50 yards to the leftt of the Macdonald tee, the green was rebuilt on grade and while some of the bunkers are in the same location as the Flynn bunkers, they are different shapes and sizes and other bunkering is completely different from the Macdonald iteration. As stated earlier, the Macdonald 14th became Flynn's 7th. The bunkering, green and tee were all changed with the green in the same place but raised considerably and remodeled completely. Macdonald's green was below the tee, the Flynn green is clearly above it. As for the 8th hole, Flynn's green is on the site of Macondald's 17th green, not the 15th as George stated. This green was also changed as Macdonald's 17th was a Road Hole green approached from the east while Flynn's green is approached from the north and is completely different. Flynn's 9th hole follows the hole corridor of Macdonald's 18th (the clubhouse location was fixed) but is bunkered differently and has a completely different green.
George ask the question, "So, is Shinnecock Hills a Macdonald/Raynor course or a William S. Flynn course?" He concludes that it is a synthesis of several great artists rather than one visionary. I don't know how he attributes anything at all to Raynor but I do know that what is attributed to Macdonald (or Raynor) is not accurate.