News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #250 on: September 01, 2008, 12:41:28 PM »
Mr. MacWood:

You've never seen Myopia either, have you? Consequently, do you believe you are capable of really discussing the nature and detail of those changes to Myopia following Hutchinson's 1910 visit? If you've never seen the course, please tell me why and how you feel you're capable of understanding or contributing productively to such a discussion?

TE
Its never stopped before. I studied the evolution of Hollywood, Engineers, Quaker Ridge, GCGC and Bethpage all before ever stepping foot on the property. I'm capable of discussing the evolution of Myopia from the beginning through 1918 when Leeds stepped down....just not with you.

Playing the course doesn't give you any special historical insight as you have proven often.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #251 on: September 01, 2008, 01:03:56 PM »
"Tom, why the digression?   We are discussing the changes made to the course.   Here is what you wrote:
The changes to which I referred were made after Macdonald and Hutchinson visited the course in 1910, and reportedly as a result of their criticisms."



Mr. Moriarty:

No digression intended at all.

Then let's discuss the nature and detail of those changes apparently made following Hutchinson's 1910 visit to Myopia.

Do you feel you are sufficiently familiar with the details of what those changes were since you've never been to Myopia, have never observed any of its holes, have never stood on any of its holes to comment on the meaning of what was described by Bunker Hill in his article?

Furthermore, how do you feel about "Bunker Hills'" comments on the nature of Hutchinson's architectural critiques of Myopia and GCGC?

How do you feel about Hutchinson saying Myopia had too many blind shots when the fact is it never had as many as NGLA did and does now? Do you think perhaps Macdonald misunderstood Hutchinson and thought he said perhaps Myopia and NGLA did not have ENOUGH blind shots?   ;)

Nevertheless, Bunker Hill's article most certainly does give us a most important contemporaneous glimpse of what American golf architectural analysts thought of the crtiques of some one from the other side such as Horace Hutchinson.

Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that American architects also began to criticize some of the things about Macdonald's architecture and to perhaps even attempt to marginalize Macdonald himself in the directions a number of them decided to go.

I, for one, believe and have always believed Macdonald to be a most important contributor to the history and evolution of American golf course architecture. What I'm getting really tired of, though, is your unsupportable attempts to exaggerate him and his legacy into something that everyone over here paid everlasting homage to in everything he said and did in architecture over here.

Bunker Hills article in American Golfer is excellent testimony to precisely what I mean by that. Perhaps you should read it again a few more times and begin to appreciate better what it really says and what it really means regarding this important era!  ;)

So let me get this straight . . . .  You wrongly ridicule and mock me, declare unequivocally that I am wrong, say my errors are indicative of larger flaws in my approach to the material, throw in MacWood for good measure, take a few more baseless shots at my essay . . .   When you finally realize that it was you who were wrong all along, you simply just adjust your scorn a bit, and go on baselessly criticizing me, MacWood, and now Jim Kennedy?

The problem here, Tom, is that you just that assume to be true what you want to be true, or draw your conclusions based on misleading or incomplete information.   Same thing Wayne did with his repeated assertions that Hutchinson was critical of Macdonald's changes at Shinnecock. 

As for Myopia, as you know I haven't played there.   I have read about the course though, including a number of articles that were written before and after Hutchinson's visit.   


« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 01:07:25 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #252 on: September 01, 2008, 01:04:51 PM »
"TE
Its never stopped before. I studied the evolution of Hollywood, Engineers, Quaker Ridge, GCGC and Bethpage all before ever stepping foot on the property. I'm capable of discussing the evolution of Myopia from the beginning through 1918 when Leeds stepped down....just not with you.
Playing the course doesn't give you any special historical insight as you have proven often."





Not just playing the course gives me an historical insight into the course in combination with understanding in detail both when and how it was created and evolved but it also gives me a visual indication and understanding of what a writer's description of the changes was and whether some of those descriptions were right or wrong. This is something you cannot possibly visualize or understand  if you've never been on that ground and studied it at considerable length. If Myopia is anything it is most definitely not a flat site or course. To even remotely understand and appreciate what all its vertical dimensions mean to its architecture it's a must to visit and study that course on-ground.

Apparently, you just think you can say anything at all dont' you, Mr. MacWood, and that anyone or everyone should just believe it? This kind of dialogue really is proving your lack of credibility on here. I think it's necessary to finally prove that about you (and that other fellow) and I will not be pulling any punches in that vein from here on out, that's for sure.

If you don't want to discuss anything with me regarding Myopia, then what in the world have you been doing and are doing now?  ???  Don't discuss it with me henceforth, then, but who are you going to discuss the evolution of this golf course with on here who's familiar with it? Are you going to discuss it with Mr. Moriarty who, like you, has never seen it either?  ;)

That would be a most productive discussion, don't you think, Mr. MacWood----a couple of guys trying to act like they understand what these things look like on the ground without ever having been on its ground?

You two really are a couple of beauties, no question about it!  ;)

How low are you and Mr. Moriarty really willing to see your crediblity sink on here?

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #253 on: September 01, 2008, 01:19:11 PM »
Mr. Moriarty:

Vis-a-vis your last post, then try to explain THE DETAILS of this remark of yours about Myopia in detail:


"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910.   After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed  the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works."


Furthermore, both you and Tom MacWood and perhaps even Jim Kennedy might want to try another analysis of what "Bunker Hill" really said about the nature and consistency and apparently the value of Hutchinson's 1910 architectural critiques of GCGC and Myopia in 1910.

It may help your understanding, and certainly Mr. MacWood's of this important era as well for you both to consider again what Bunker Hill said about those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (He referred to them as those men who just did it for the love of it) and their importance to this time and its best architecture.

Mr. MacWood has referred to that particular subject on here a few times as "My Schtick".   ;) ??? ::)   

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #254 on: September 01, 2008, 01:33:01 PM »
Mr. Moriarty:

Vis-a-vis your last post, then try to explain THE DETAILS of this remark of yours about Myopia in detail:


"Plus, the course you know is different from the course as it existed in 1910.   After Macdonald and Hutchinson visited in 1910, Myopia changed  the 10th hole and to a few other holes and more changes were in the works."


Furthermore, both you and Tom MacWood and perhaps even Jim Kennedy might want to try another analysis of what "Bunker Hill" really said about the nature and consistency and apparently the value of Hutchinson's 1910 architectural critiques of GCGC and Myopia in 1910.

It may help your understanding, and certainly Mr. MacWood's of this important era as well for you both to consider again what Bunker Hill said about those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (He referred to them as those men who just did it for the love of it) and their importance to this time and its best architecture.

Mr. MacWood has referred to that particular subject on here a few times as "My Schtick".   ;) ??? ::)   

The "DETAILS" of the changes to the 10th at Myopia made after Macdonald's and Hutchinson's visit, but it is all covered either in the article Jim posted, or in other writings from around the same time.   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #255 on: September 01, 2008, 02:07:43 PM »
Yes, the details of the change made to #10 is discussed in that article seemingly in detail. Since I believe I've read everything from all American Golfers and Golf Illustrated on the courses I'm interested in beginning a number of years ago, I do admit when I first ran across that description of the shot into #10 a few years ago I thought it must have been talking about the old original "Alps" hole at Myopia.

Then, I realized a few years ago since the original Alps hole at Myopia went out of existence before 1900 when Leeds designed and created this eighteen hole course that it was all about the approach shot to the present 10th green. A bunch of us were out there last year discussing and trying to imagine what that must have been like and what it must have played like.

None of us around today will ever be able to imagine that (or I can't since I've never seen and on-ground photo of it back then), but certainly some of us who know the course can comment intelligently about what it looks like and plays like now. Would you like to comment on that in detail, Mr. Moriarty?

Is it important to be able to comment on these things in detail now? Sure it is, in my opinion, and for a number of reasons.

First, that's what we do on here---eg comment on all kinds of details on architecture, past, present and future.

Second, it is very important to an overall understanding of that time what some of the contemporary commentators thought about architecture and also what they thought about the architectural opinions of others.

Third, we are getting through this article of Bunker Hills' what he thought about the opinions and critques of various golf courses over here from Hutchinson, an Englishman, and how inconsistent he thought his opinions were.

Fourth, I think this is most important to know----eg an important American architectural analyst's (Bunker Hill) opinion of a guy like Hutchinson, and particularly considering that we seem to have a few on this website who are trying to make it look like a man like Hutchinson and his opinions were roundly admired by all over there and over here.

This article makes it pretty clear that was not exactly the case over here then.

Lastly, I personally wish the approach to present #10 (The Alps) never had been changed. I think the present nuances of the approach today are excellent (again would you like to describe it in detail, Mr. Moriarty? ;) ) and I realize it may not have been quite as dramatic as the totally blind second shot to the wonderful #3 (The Alps) at NGLA but at least it would've been closer to that than it is today.

Of course this does beg the question of why Hutchinson never said anything critical about the totally blind approach shot to NGLA's "Alps" but he did about Myopia's!     ???

Bunker Hill was exactly right----not very consistent in his architectural analysis that England's Horace Hutchinson!
 

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #256 on: September 01, 2008, 02:10:42 PM »
How about the other "slight" changes that were apparently made after Hutchinson? Why don't you try to discuss those in detail Messers Moriarty and MacWood? Can you give us any intelligent opinion on either of them and what they may've meant?

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #257 on: September 01, 2008, 02:21:15 PM »
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.


LET EVERYONE ON THIS SITE KNOW THAT TOM MACWOOD WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO CREEK CLUB BASED UPON A HINT OF INFORMATION HE REFERENCED ON THIS SITE.  HE REFUSED TO SHARE WHAT HE CLAIMS IS SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION OF CREEK CLUB; EVEN WITH THE CLUB ITSELF, NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF TOM PAUL.  HE WON'T EVEN INDICATE THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE CLUB SO IT MIGHT OBTAIN THE INFORMATION ON THEIR OWN. 

AND THIS POSITION IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLUB'S HISTORIAN ARRANGING THE PRIVILEGE OF MACWOOD TO VISIT THE CLUB AND WALK THE COURSE.  HE DOES NOT DESERVE FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.  I'D KEEP HIM OUTSIDE THE GATES LOOKING IN FROM NOW ON.  HE SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED FROM PRIVATE CLUBS FOR HIS ARROGANCE AND DISDAIN FOR THOSE THAT HELP HIM.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 02:33:24 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #258 on: September 01, 2008, 02:23:39 PM »
Sherlock (aka TEPaul)

If you and your arch-enemy Moriarty want to dust it up be my guest, but I asked you a civil question about apparent discrepancies in what you said about the time frame of changes that occurred after HH visited Myopia and what was reported in the link I posted.

I don't really think I need to see Myopia to ask that simple question, do I?

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #259 on: September 01, 2008, 02:30:31 PM »
I don't mean to be a pest about this, but how's come no one on this site ever picks on Flynn's fixation with saucers?

Bradley,

A very fair question.  In researching Flynn's courses, he certainly did have some simple bunker outlines.  However, his bunker style was as broad as any architect and the range of his bunkers would astound most people.   In general, the saucer look was an evolved look dictated by maintenance practices and not by design.  I'll put together a set of architectural drawings and construction era photographs to show you what I mean.  It may take me a few days to get to it, but if you remind me, I would be delighted to show you.

Flynn's range of bunkerings included simple bunker shapes (strategically situated) to complicated natural looking bunker edges to undulating sandy waste areas.  I'll try to put together a representative sampling to illustrate this position.
WSM
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 02:32:49 PM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #260 on: September 01, 2008, 03:06:56 PM »
“I don't really think I need to see Myopia to ask that simple question, do I?”

JimK:

Of course not, but if you wanted to discuss in detail what those changes mean it would certainly be necessary to see Myopia, in my opinion,

You said:

"How do you explain this article, which says many of those changes happened in the time frame that David speaks of, I think:"



What I was trying to explain, JimK, is the article did not say there were many changes made as a result of Hutchinson’s opinions, it says one important one was made and two other “slight” ones.

To be honest with you I can hardly imagine what Bunker Hill is talking about regarding #5. If anyone could see that hole they’d likely understand what I mean by that.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #261 on: September 01, 2008, 03:15:06 PM »
Tom Paul, the point you were trying to make was that the changes had occurred earlier, but you were wrong about this. 

The articles leave no doubt that the changes were made consequent to Macdonald and Hutchinson's visit.    Same at Essex and The Country Club.

Not sure what you think lording your access to these places adds to the discussion, other than to give insight into you.   If anything our access has been a hindrance to your understanding of these clubs' histories.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 03:18:11 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #262 on: September 01, 2008, 03:15:59 PM »
David,

As usual you make a number of statements and complaints and yet will not give consideration that the very thing you are complaining about is what you yourself are doing. You make statements and put words in peoples mouths that are untrue, as you have with me on this thread, and when then take umbrage when they are challenged and denied?

And then you cry out in frustration “It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here…” when it is incumbent upon you as much as all others to create the conversation yet immediately you state it isn’t your fault but the other person’s. And how do you do this? By INSULTING that other person.

“No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position…” Sorry David, my position isn’t absurd. It’s Factually correct, historically accurate and it is YOU who is being absurd and not giving an inch, although I reserve that you have the right not to, UNLIKE yourself who by that very statement demands that others do.

So once again I must defend what I stated to you not in the nature of the conversation that you claim you are seeking but by having to DENY your claims of what I said.

You first begin by stating “I agree that Tillinghast turned out to be a terrific designer and was a major force in gca in America.  As you say, within a few years after Shawnee he was a design muckity-muck.   But he wasnt in 1906-1907… He wasn’t in 1909… He wasnt in in 1911…”

I agree completely with that and always have… That doesn’t mean that 1911 and Shawnee wasn’t seminal and that it can’t be pointed to as part of the major changing of golf in America. THAT IS WHAT I STATED. And I didn’t stop there, I STATED that it was in this time period which, by the way I DIDN’T define but believe is from the mid-1900’s to early teens, that golf architecture and course designing in America to a giant leap forward. This doesn’t denigrate Macdonald and NGLA, rather it celebrates them as a major part of it.

“Shawnee and NGLA were not designed and built "at the same time."  NGLA was designed and built first, and they were golfing on NGLA before AWT started building Shawnee.”  

Sorry David, but NGLA & Shawnee were both designed and built in the same time period as I have consistently spoken about. Secondly, Shawnee, as I showed in an earlier post, was most definitely being designed and worked on in 1908 BEFORE ANY PLAY was being conducted on NGLA! That sure sounds pretty contemporaneous to me.

“Surely in 1909 and 1910 Tillie was considering more than just the contours of the ground around Shawnee.   He of all people was not living in a design vacuum.”

Of course he wasn’t, and part of not living in that design vacuum was his own discussions with his friend Charley during this very time about design philosophy and his disagreement with CB’s, and it is Tilly himself who wrote that he spoke to him and disagreed with him during those days. Of course, I guess Tilly’s own words aren’t good enough for you.

“It is imprecise and inaccurate just to expand the dates to your liking then say they were all equally responsible for the change in direction of golf in the US.  There was a chronology, and you are mis-using the "formal" opening date of NGLA to blur that chronology and make it appear that Tillie and Macdonald were doing their thing at the exact same time…”

Sorry David, but I NEVER “expanded the dates to my liking” as you claim. The dates are there for all to see and so are the works of a number of architects who arose to prominence at this same time. It is imprecise and inaccurate of you to deny this. THAT is the reason I mentioned  BOTH OAKMONT and PINEHURST #2 which were designed and built just BEFORE NGLA. BOTH were written about as major works BEFORE NGLA was. And yes, once more, the design of Shawnee was DEFINITELY NOT IN ANY WAY INFLUENCED BY NGLA & CBM. For you to even imply such, and you have done far more than that, shows that you have little to no knowledge of Tilly at this time and later on and certainly none as to the creation of Shawnee.

“I asked you twice when NGLA became influential in golf design.   You did not answer but instead asked me questions about Oakmont.” Yes, you did ask me. Unlike the rest of your response I most certainly DID answer you. Just as with Tilly’s work at Shawnee and Ross’s work at Pinehurst and others, it became “influential” following its opening. It certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built.

Now of course you’re thinking I am probably blaspheming here by that statement, so let me ask you this. Name a SINGLE GOLF COURSE anywhere in America whose design was changed by what was happening at NGLA BEFORE IT OPENED FOR PLAY.

You can’t because there wasn’t any.

Which architect had more major courses designed and built by 1920? As I mentioned earlier Tilly had so many more that the comparison isn’t even a reasonable one. Yet it then begs the question that if Macdonald and NGLA was this SINGULSR seminal all-changing moment in golf course architecture in America, WHY WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN SO?

EVERYONE would have been flocking to CB’s door and not the large numbers that sought out Tilly & Ross and others at this time.
 
I admitted not knowing when Tilly first played NGLA or, for that matter, if he EVER played it. I assume that he did at some point. You make a big deal out of this and yet YOU yourself, despite all of your demands that I name this date, NEVER produce it yourself. WHY is that? Possibly because you don’t know and by the focus on my stating as such it somehow reinforces your belief?

I answered you, now you answer me… When DID Tilly play NGLA for the first time. Believe it or not this is a genuine question as I would really like to know the answer.

You follow this by the comment about me that, “You state ‘I DO KNOW that whenever [AWT] first played it there was no impact upon his design philosophies in the least…’”

You follow this with one of the most ridiculous statements that I have seen on GCA in a long time. “Such a thing would be impossible for you to ‘KNOW’ unless you were Tillie, and maybe even impossible then…”

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for TILLY to know what TILLY believed?  You strain all credibility with that.

You go on with “You are not Tillinghast. You don't know.” You are correct, I am not Tillinghast. You are wrong when you state that I don’t know (and this is in reference to Tilly’s differences of opinion about design philosophy and course construction with CBM as well as whether or not CBM & NGLA influenced the design and building of Shawnee). I most definitely DO! I have produced Tilly’s own words on the subject in general and SPECIFIC and yet you ignore them completely.  

You then blatantly and arrogantly insult me and Tilly himself. “As I should realize more around this nut-house, oftentimes we are more influenced by our adversaries than our allies.  This is especially true when like Tillie one is trying to create an independent name for himself…”

David, you began these particular comments of yours by stating, “It is impossible to have any sort of conversation here… No one will give an inch, no matter how absurd their position…”  

David, look in the mirror for a change. When a child has continuous problems getting along with all of his classmates it almost always really is that child’s fault.

You now close with two statements. The first is every bit the type of the MOST ABSURD POSITION that you accuse others on here of creating when you state, “But whether he knew it or not Tillie owed CBM bigtime. They all did…” Absurd… totally absurd. Tilly never received a single commission because of CBM. He never designed in the manner or philosophy of CBM he did so many more courses and more recognized great courses than CBM; yet you state that HE owed CBM “big-time?” Beyond ludicrous!

The other statement, “And if you think that Tillie and CBM were really that far apart in their views in this very early period, then I suggest you don't understand CBM as well as you apparently think you do…”

No David, I readily admit that I don’t know as much about CBM as many others do and have much to learn. Unfortunately, I DO KNOW FAR MORE about Tilly as both a man and a designer than anything that you can consider. I don’t have to suggest, I can unequivocally state that you don’t know Tilly or understand him as well as apparently you think you do…
Finally, agree or disagree with me, even doing so strongly is not just fine but proper and as it should be. The uncalled-for insults are not. You who have complained about others treating you in this manner are so quick to behave that way yourself.

It is YOU who can’t have a conversation when you do this…

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #263 on: September 01, 2008, 03:20:11 PM »
Wayne:

I wouldn't worry too much about Mr. MacWood not wanting to help anyone associated with me including The Creek Club and Gil Hanse.

The primary reason I say that, at this point, is because since his return to this website some months ago, I can't see he's provided any information of even passing importance to anyone or any club or course, despite Mr. Moriarty's cheering his contributions on from the "cheap seats" of architectural analysis. Mr. MacWood's contention of Willie Campbell and Myopia is hardly important given what the club has to the contrary and this magazine article with a 1923-24 aerial of The Creek probably isn't very important either regarding sand on those lower holes. Frankly, Mr. MacWood doesn't even have any idea what the ramifications may be involving that.

I say that while having in mind one important exception----eg that article from an English magazine reporting Wilson abroad in 1912 that he produced a few months ago. I consider that to be of importance, even if it was not the thing that at first proved Wilson was abroad in the spring of 1912.

I consider the indication or even proof of that to be the ship passenger listing Mr. Moriarty discovered which I consider some proof insofar as to whatever extent a listing like that is reliable. Frankly, that particular contribution by Mr. Moriarty which I also consider very important but only in and of itself, certainly not important as to who designed Merion East, is probably the only thing he's produced of any importance to any club or golf course since he first came onto this website some years ago. The additional proof of that 1912 Wilson trip abroad is that letter from Richard Francis to Russell Oakley in the spring of 1912 that I went to the USGA this May to look through the files for something of that nature, even if I wasn't expecting that exactly---I was just trying to do a 1911 timeline on Wilson's whereabouts particularly in Philadelphia. That, in my opinion proved Wilson was over there then or clearly Francis would not have written that letter. Mr. MacWood's later discovery of that English magazine article merely reconfirmed what had already basically been proven but still, I consider that to be very a very important discovery.

Other than that important item that Mr. MacWood provided, I'm not sure any of these clubs need to consider Mr. MacWood's help or information regarding what he says he has.

But you are right in that his attitude to others isn't very cooperative or impressive, is it?  ;)
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 03:41:24 PM by TEPaul »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #264 on: September 01, 2008, 03:21:47 PM »
I have no desire to help you or anyone associated with you.


LET EVERYONE ON THIS SITE KNOW THAT TOM MACWOOD WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO CREEK CLUB BASED UPON A HINT OF INFORMATION HE REFERENCED ON THIS SITE.  HE REFUSED TO SHARE WHAT HE CLAIMS IS SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION OF CREEK CLUB; EVEN WITH THE CLUB ITSELF, NOT AN ASSOCIATE OF TOM PAUL.  HE WON'T EVEN INDICATE THE SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE CLUB SO IT MIGHT OBTAIN THE INFORMATION ON THEIR OWN. 

AND THIS POSITION IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLUB'S HISTORIAN ARRANGING THE PRIVILEGE OF MACWOOD TO VISIT THE CLUB AND WALK THE COURSE.  HE DOES NOT DESERVE FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.  I'D KEEP HIM OUTSIDE THE GATES LOOKING IN FROM NOW ON.  HE SHOULD BE MARGINALIZED FROM PRIVATE CLUBS FOR HIS ARROGANCE AND DISDAIN FOR THOSE THAT HELP HIM.

LET IT BE KNOWN, UNLIKE SOME, GAINING ACCESS HAS NEVER BEEN MY MOTIVATION FOR STUDYING GOLF ARCHITECTURE HISTORY. THE CREEK IS IN GOOD HANDS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND TE IS WORKING WITH THE CLUB RIGHT NOW AND HAS WORKED WITH THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN HE WROTE THEIR ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION.

LET IT ALSO BE KNOWN I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HELP TE OR ANYONE OR ANY BODY ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. CAN WE STOP YELLING NOW?

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #265 on: September 01, 2008, 03:48:39 PM »
"Tom Paul, the point you were trying to make was that the changes had occurred earlier, but you were wrong about this."


No, Mr. Moriarty, even if you may think you know what the point was I was trying to make better than I do ;)---the point I was trying to make is that the golf course is really pretty much the same today as it was in 1900. I thought you were trying to say that the eighteen hole course we know today did not occur until after 1910. When you said it was 'very different' then that's what I thought you were referring to. That is not the case.

On the other hand, Herbert Leeds did have a most interesting method of collecting information and ideas as to how to improve the course and a pretty interesting way of going about it. Ironically, it wasn't too much different from the way W.C. Fownes went about improving and evolving Oakmont over the years; and that would not be unusual at all since all these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers from that time who were so important to the early development of American architecture, and who fascinate me so much, knew one another pretty well. It was a small and very tight fraternity back then for a lot of interesting historical reasons!

And I think the salient point to understand and take from this interesting time and those interesting group of "amateur/sportsmen" architects is that they never turned  to the likes of the immigrant Scot professionals such as Willie Campbell and H.H. Barker.

They turned basically to one another and perhaps the primary reason, as Bunker Hill (obviously a pretty important and savy observer of that early time) mentioned in this article posted on here, WAS THAT they felt the work of those early Scottish immigrants and perhaps what they knew (or didn't really know as Bunker Hill mentioned) just wasn't any good and consequently they weren't worth turning to for conceptual architecture and design ideas. Macdonald, himself, essentially said as much and I think just about all those other "amateur/sportsmen" designers of his ilk felt the same way back then.

I also believe that began to change into the teens and particularly after WW1, also for a number of interesting and important historical reasons, and that would seem to be the reason why none of them or any others like them really started another long-term project after that like Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley, all of which are still considered today some of the greatest and most important golf course architecure ever done!  ;) 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 04:11:01 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #266 on: September 01, 2008, 04:19:25 PM »

As to the work of Flynn I've seen, I've played 10 of his courses, that's more than the combined total of the Raynor and Banks courses that you've played, hence I feel at least equally qualified.

Which 10, Pat?


Cherry Hills
Boca Raton
Kittansett
Atlantic City (pre & post Doak)
Seaview      (pre & post Marriott)
Springdale
Woodcrest
Shinnecock Hills
Green Valley
Lehigh

Remodels

Columbia
Woodmont
TCC
PV
The Creek
Glen Head
Westchester
Merion




TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #267 on: September 01, 2008, 04:21:56 PM »
"LET IT ALSO BE KNOWN I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HELP TE OR ANYONE OR ANY BODY ASSOCIATED WITH HIM. CAN WE STOP YELLING NOW?"


Of course we can stop yelling now, Mr. MacWood. On that note, I will personally ask Wayne if he would mind not using all capital letters on here. It was Wayne who was the only one yelling and the reason for that is he really does have such a wonderful stentorian voice when he allows it to air out in full throat. As for me, I've been using small letters with the occassional capital in the beginning of sentences (If I didn't do that I fear my first grade English teacher at Seabreeze Private School in Daytona Beach, Florida, the incomparable and awesome Miss Dull, might come back and haunt me). I tend to speak rather sotto voce all the time---the only exception being when my wife tries to tell me I'm wrong about something.

Again, it really doesn't matter to me and us on here and others with me who are involved in these projects. The important research for these projects has never been done on this website anyway (other than perhaps an occasional question and such which has never amounted to more than perhaps 1% of research input).

You don't do these kinds of projects apparently either because you don't know how or you just don't want to or both, so don't worry about not helping me or anyone I'm associated with including the likes of Gil Hanse. I'm quite sure all of understand we've done just fine without your help and will continue to do fine without it in the future.   :-*
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 04:34:56 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #268 on: September 01, 2008, 04:42:21 PM »
[quoe]“Surely the state of the clubhouse is irrelevant, isn't it?”

I agree with that, so I HAVE to ask why don’t you? After all it was YOU who stated in response to my quoting CBM and his writing on when the Links opened for play that, “NGLA "formally" opened when the clubhouse opened.   Kind of hard to have a national club in the boonies without at clubhouse, don't you think?” If you think the state of the clubhouse is IRRELEVENT, WHY did you just state the opposite in your earlier response?
[/quote]
[color-green]

The date the clubhouse officially opened is irrelevant because they lacked sufficient funds to consider building a club house and intended to use the Shinnecock Inn as the initial clubhouse since it was located so close to the current 10th tee and 9th green.

Mike Cirba,

MacDonald reported that a competition was held in 1909 amongst some  20 of his friends.  He mentions John M Ward, Fred Herreshoff, W. T Tuckerman and Robert Watson, along with himself.   I would imagine that it was an impressive group.

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #269 on: September 01, 2008, 04:52:02 PM »
"Not sure what you think lording your access to these places adds to the discussion, other than to give insight into you.   If anything our access has been a hindrance to your understanding of these clubs' histories."


I believe I've explained that a number of times Mr. Moriarty. I think a real familiarity with a golf course itself including the ethos of its membership and administration historically and otherwise lends a most important element to truly understanding a course and its architecture. When one, at any time or era, writes about the architecture of a course and particularly changes to it, I'm sure even you may be able to understand how important it is to someone reading and trying to understand that writing being totally familiar with a golf course on-site to be able to visualize and understand just what those things mean and most importantly look like in comparison.

But that's OK if people like you and Tom MacWood don't or can't understand that concept. I can understand if you two decided to research someone and write about him in detail that it doesn't seem important to you that you should meet him and get to know him, at some point. I'm sure it's probably much easier to write revisionist history that way.

wsmorrison

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #270 on: September 01, 2008, 04:54:47 PM »
Thanks, Pat. That is a pretty good sampling, though one must be careful to know what one is playing/looking at.

Cherry Hills:   There is quite a lot that isn't Flynn.  Do you know what is and is not Flynn?

Boca Raton:   You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn.  They went NLE in WW II.  The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses.

Kittansett:  Wonderful Flynn with input by Wilson and Hood.

Atlantic City CC:  Doak improved an already solid course.  If some of the original sandy waste areas were able to be restored, it would be even better.  

Seaview Pines:  Do you know what is Flynn and what is Gordon?

Woodcrest:  Significantly altered over the years, now no longer a good example of Flynn's original work

Shinnecock Hills:  Flynn's crowning achievement and my favorite American course.   By the way,  is completely Flynn except for the tee box on the 7th hole.  Heck of a tee box though  ;)

Green Valley:  Designed and owned by Flynn as a public course, significantly altered over time and now not a good example of Flynn's original work.

Lehigh:  If it wasn't for the crossover, this would be a fine course  ;)  Actually, the crossover creates a very good routing, without it the course would have a poorer routing progression.

Columbia CC:  We are still trying to determine the extent of Flynn's work there.  Do you know what is Flynn?

Woodmont:  Flynn designed the Town and Country Club, later renamed Woodmont.  Did you play it prior to 1948?  After 1948 it was run as a public course by the name of Glenbrook.  Woodmont was designed in 1950 by Tull and Will.  Perhaps that is the course you played.

TCC in Brookline:  Flynn did quite a bit of work there, some of it erased by Cornish.  Do you know what is and what is not Flynn?  It is a hard one to figure out.

Creek Club:  Not much Flynn left.  What is left may soon disappear.  Do you know what he did?

Glen Head:  Formerly Women's National.  Flynn got paid a fair amount of money for work there.  Unfortunately, we don't know what he did.  Do you?

Westchester:  Flynn built the course for Travis.  He did some redesign work there, but we can only make educated guesses as to what it was.  Do you know?

Merion:  My second favorite course in America.  I hope you'll come back soon to get reacquainted.  I look forward to discussing the architectural evolution of the East Course with you.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 04:58:54 PM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #271 on: September 01, 2008, 05:04:33 PM »
"Boca Raton:   You could not have played the Boca Raton North and South courses by Flynn.  They went NLE in WW II.  The current North and South courses do not occupy the same land as the Flynn courses."


Look, Wayno, don't you start getting into totally messing up events and their dates like these two totally remarkable "independent, expert" researchers, Messers MacWood and Moriarty.

Pat Mucci played golf in that impressive 20 man field Macdonald invited to play NGLA in 1909, a year before Horace Hutchinson taught Macdonald how to design interesting undulations into NGLA's greens.

For some reason Mr. Moriarty has not yet figured out WHY that meant the course was not yet finished and ready to be opened for play! I guess Mr, Moriarty thinks when Tillie, Crump and a couple of other friends first played Pine Valley with only five holes done that also meant Pine Valley was finished!   ::) 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #272 on: September 01, 2008, 05:16:45 PM »
David,

Who was golfing at NGLA in 1909?   Macdonald?   Whigham??  Emmett??

I answered this question previously, about some 20 of his friend played a competition in 1909.


Please specify WHO was playing at NGLA.   Please cite specifics.


W.T. Tuckerman, Fred Herreshoff, John Ward, Robert Watson, MacDonald and others.


Didn't we go over this repeatedly ad nauseum prior?

Why did Macdonald have a dry-run opening tournament with about a dozen friends in July 1910 to get their feedback on the course and then not have a formal opening of the course til 14 months later??

Your statement above is false.
MacDonald held an invitational tournament in July of 1910, about a year after the get together in 1909.

He did NOT create that invitational tournament for the purpose of obtaining feedback from the participants as you ERRONEOUSLY stated.

That the tournament served the purpose of revealing any shortcomings that might need correcting is a materially different understanding of the event.


Why did men like Travis write their reviews of the course upon opening in 1911 instead of when it was supposedly open in 1909??

I can't speak to the timing of Travis's article, but, in 1910 Horace Hutchinson wrote a glowing account of the golf course.

Hutchinson also referenced other articles that had been previously written about the golf course.

He stated, "My own opinion of the qualities of this course is so high that I am almost afraid of stating it too strongly"



Are you saying that George Bahto's book is wrong??

No, what's wrong is your convoluted, self serving interpretation of what George wrote ;D


« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 05:56:10 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #273 on: September 01, 2008, 05:24:37 PM »
Patrick:

It's getting a little too hard to tell with the way you construct some of your posts which of the words in them are yours and which are the words of others.

I need to know which words are yours so I can quote the right things you've said when it's necessary for me to insult you which is around 98.2% of the time.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?
« Reply #274 on: September 01, 2008, 05:30:20 PM »
David

JMorgan's quoting of the article is consistent with George's book and what I wrote when he mentions the soft opening tournament in July 1910.

All of the major reviews...Travis, Darwin, Hutchinson, etal came 1910 or later.

What is it about the article that supports your position of the course being open for play in 1909?


Mike Cirba,

MacDonald's OWN account of play in 1909 would seem to be a reliable source, don't you think.

I already provided the names of about 5 of the 20 some participants in the event.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back