[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks, Pat. That is a pretty good sampling, though one must be careful to know what one is playing/looking at.

Wayno,

I thought it was a nice sampling of courses.
I was disappointed when Marriott chose to disfigure the Pines course.
I thought it was a terrific layout.

I also would have liked to have played the holes across the road at Woodcrest that are shown in some of the plans.
I thought Woodcrest had some great holes.

As to knowing what I was playing/looking at, I wasn't searching for pedigrees when I was playing those courses, nor did I inquire as to whom did what, from inception up until the day I first played those golf courses.

The next time I get the chance to play any of them, I'll try to be more observant.

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

Probably not to any great detail.
I could ask you the same about NGLA.

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.

I never said that I played both courses.
I first played the South or Hotel course in the early 50's
C&W attribute the current hotel course to Flynn.

If it's not Flynn, whose course is it.

And, at what location was the South course ?

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?

Wayno, I used to play there in a tournament every year.
But, my focus was far removed from golf course architecture.
Friends of mine who were attending the Univ of Maryland on golf scholarships fixed me up with the Drum Majorette and other assorted coeds, and provided me with several bottles of white lightning.  Other than some titilating flashbacks, my recollection of those weekends remains a blur.

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.

My preference would be to play the courses absent any discussion.
We can discuss the architecture afterwards over a round or two.
If a Drum Majorette isn't there, my powers of observation and recall will remain intact.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno & TEPaul,

I have an aerial photo of The Creek and it appears that there are NO tennis courts to the left of # 5, unless they were covered by a white roof.

It was given to me by The Creek.

It differs from the photo on page 30 in The Creek's losely bound historical book which TEPaul assisted with.

I had thought that the photo was circa 1938, but, if the tennis courts were introduced in 1928 and the white structure isn't a roof for the tennis courts it would seem to be taken prior to 1928.

Again, the club is in possession of that photo.


I can see how Tom MacWood and/or David Moriarty would be reluctant to share their research efforts.

The air of hostility that's been created will certainly thwart any collaborative effort on anyone's part

It's unfortunate that you can't work together to unearth valuable discoveries, especially since you all appear willing and skilled in digging for source material.

I'd like to see the rift resolved, but it's up to you fellows to come to terms with each other.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I was hoping you would supply the drum majorettes, whatever they are.  If they aren't available, cheerleaders will do.  Don't come down without them 

The photo you have is from sometime between 1928 and late 1930s.  The white you see are the tennis courts being resurfaced.  Our good friend recently came across a photo prior to 1927, probably 1926. 

We're not asking Tom MacWood to provide us with any information, though the source of his photograph is as benign a request as you might think.  However, why he wouldn't assist the club that assisted him and granted him the privilege of making their course available to him for his inspection, well, there are simply no excuses at all.  The club historian is the man that granted access to MacWood.  And we see how MacWood chooses to repay the favor.  His character is revealed.

I withdraw my invitation for him to visit and my offer to show him everything.  Your wish for reconciliation cannot happen.  It is of his own making.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

Why do you think these clubs have removed or altered so much of Flynn's work ?


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.

[wsmorrison]

You know the answer to that, Pat as well as anyone.  It had nothing to do with the quality of design at Cherry Hills.  Boca Raton courses were taken over by the Navy in WWII and went fallow.  Kittansett is intact.  Atlantic City CC needed portions of the course raised.  This was not economically feasible at the time Flynn redesigned an existing course on site.  Seaview Pines added 9 holes and compromised the original 9-hole routing.  Tree proliferation did not help.  Woodcrest was a misguided attempt to improve the course designed as a public course which went private, similar to the process at Green Valley.  Lehigh is intact.  Columbia CC has most of Flynn's work intact.  Woodmont was taken over by the government and sits on the site of NIH.  TCC in Brookline is mostly intact though Cornish made some ill-advised changes, perhaps due to a committee head that wanted to leave a mark.  Creek Club, nature in the form of significant hurricanes likely washed away some of the Flynn components in the lower holes.  Overall, he didn't do that much work, but a good portion remains.  Why it all wasn't implemented, including 2 new holes has as much to do about an inability to acquire real estate as it has to do with keeping the Macdonald designs.  Glen Head, it is hard to say since we don't know what he did.  Westchester seems to have retained Flynn's changes.  Merion fortunately has retained all of Flynn's work.  In summary, very little was removed or altered of Flynn's portfolio of work.  Coincidentally, the courses you've seen had as much of it as anywhere.  You need to see more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

What's always surprised me is the lack of action when clubs find out that features and/or holes were previously altered/disfigured.

You would think that they would be in a hurry to correct the previous mistakes.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As to why some of Flynn's courses were changed the way they were I don't think one could find a general reason for that that has anything to do with Flynn's architecture. I think one could find that to be true of some of any golf architect's courses, although any of that would probably be impossible to generalize about as well. Each club seems to have it's own unique story that way.

What's more interesting is how much redesign work by all architects on other architects original courses has been removed in an attempt to go back to an original architect's design when feasible. With my own club, however, on that note, I sure am glad we decided not to take out anything Perry Maxwell redesigned of original Ross.



"What's always surprised me is the lack of action when clubs find out that features and/or holes were previously altered/disfigured.
You would think that they would be in a hurry to correct the previous mistakes."


Although you may not mean that the way it sounds to me----eg that sounds like a philosophy that anything that was ever changed from original is an act of disfiguring or some architectural detriment to the course. I don't believe anyone can generalize about that either. I think every situation has to be analyzed individually and very carefully.

There's no question any and every architect made mistakes at times or something that was originally done just didn't pass the all important "test of time" for some valid reason. If a club just rushes into restoration without even considering why something was altered in the first place they can run the risk of just restoring something that didn't work well in the first place for a valid reason.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

We seem to have recurring communication problems, in that we get bogged down on my discussion style, perceived slights and insults, and strange minutiae not really pertinent to the broader issues.  No doubt it is my failure, so I apologize for any perceived insults and slights, and will  do my best  to be a bit more clear and focused.   

1. The historical record does not support your contention that NGLA "became 'influential' following its opening, or your contention that NGLA "certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built.   The club's formal opening was inSeptember 1911, wasn't it?

I don't have all my source material with me, but here is a rough list of some of the indicators of NGLA's incredible impact in 1910 and before.

1905, newspapers all over the country began covering Macdonald's plan for for a national golf links modeled after the great holes overseas.
1907.  NGLA built and grassed.  Macdonald would continue to tinker with the course over the next 20+ years.
1908.  NGLA at least partially regrassed due to turf problems.
1909.  Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA. 
           Reports emerged praising the course, even though it was not yet formally opened.  For example,
             -- One major figure in American golf simply called it the finest.   
             -- A major mainstream magazine featured NGLA, explained many of its holes.
             -- Same article proclaimed that Macdonald's NGLA marked a new era in golf. 
1910.  Hutchinson played NGLA and he and CBM play number of other American courses.   NGLA head and shoulders above the rest.
           Macdonald held an informal tournament at NGLA featuring some of the most notable figures in American golf.   
           GA, GI, and mainstream newspapers covered the tournament and praised the course.  Travis and Behr both play.
           NGLA praised in mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
           Reportedly, as a result of Macdonald's success many clubs are sending their pros abroad to study the great courses.

2.  You ask me, "Name a SINGLE GOLF COURSE anywhere in America whose design was changed by what was happening at NGLA BEFORE IT OPENED FOR PLAY."

 Merion East.

3.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't "Hazard" report that the greens at Shawnee were built in 1910, and that the hazards were built that year as well?     See above for a general idea of NGLA's progress and reputation by 1910.

4.   You wrote that Tillie had "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.

      I don't doubt they disagreed about some things.   
      I am not familiar with the Tillinghast writings to which you refer.   If you would please point me to them, I'd like to take a look. 
      I've read the Tillie quotes you posted above and they do not move me.

5.   You ask, "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?"

In short, Macdonald was famous, was a force of nature, had access to resources, found a good site, and built a great course.  In addition the course as extremely well hyped and highly anticipated.  Most importantly, the fundamental concepts were largely absent in US courses, so this was all pretty new to most everyone. 

6.  You wrote:  EVERYONE would have been flocking to CB’s door and not the large numbers that sought out Tilly & Ross and others at this time.   

    It is my understanding that once NGLA became internationally renown (before it was "formally opened")  Macdonald was inundated with requests for help from all over the country.   Macdonald was an amateur with other interests and concerns.   He could not possibly have designed and built all the courses he was asked to build. 

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

    I did not claim he did not know what he believed.   I wrote that you do not know what all of his influences were.
    Not even he may have been totally cognizant of everything and everyone who shaped his work.   
    In my opinion, this is true of anyone in any medium that involves requires creative imput.

8.   You wrote "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…”"

    I insulted neither Tillinghast nor you.   AWT was trying to make a name for himself.  That is no insult. 
   As for you, my statement had nothing to do with you whatsoever.   

9.  As for about everything else, you completely misunderstood me.  No doubt my fault.  Addressing your comments would be would be entirely unproductive. 

[Mike_Cirba]

1. The historical record does not support your contention that NGLA "became 'influential' following its opening, or your contention that NGLA "certainly WASN’T influential while it was being built.   The club's formal opening was inSeptember 1911, wasn't it?

I don't have all my source material with me, but here is a rough list of some of the indicators of NGLA's incredible impact in 1910 and before.

1905, newspapers all over the country began covering Macdonald's plan for for a national golf links modeled after the great holes overseas.
1907.  NGLA built and grassed.  Macdonald would continue to tinker with the course over the next 20+ years.
1908.  NGLA at least partially regrassed due to turf problems.
1909.  Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA. 
           Reports emerged praising the course, even though it was not yet formally opened.  For example,
             -- One major figure in American golf simply called it the finest.   
             -- A major mainstream magazine featured NGLA, explained many of its holes.
             -- Same article proclaimed that Macdonald's NGLA marked a new era in golf. 
1910.  Hutchinson played NGLA and he and CBM play number of other American courses.   NGLA head and shoulders above the rest.
           Macdonald held an informal tournament at NGLA featuring some of the most notable figures in American golf.   
           GA, GI, and mainstream newspapers covered the tournament and praised the course.  Travis and Behr both play.
           NGLA praised in mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic.
           Reportedly, as a result of Macdonald's success many clubs are sending their pros abroad to study the great courses.

David,

I think this timeline is important, and I also think it's incorrect.

I'm not contending that NGLA wasn't hugely important and influential but I'm challenging when it became so.

Macdonald, by weight of his prominence and personality, did in fact trumpet his plan quite early and it did get some press.    However, your statement that NGLA was built and grassed completely by 1907 is very misleading, and what you called "tinkering" involved building greens, bunkers, and entire hole strategies.

And yes, Macdonald did quickly experience a complete agronomic failure that set him back at least 18 months.

You continue to state that by 1909, "Macdonald and friends began playing NGLA", and then claim that during that year, "Reports emerged", "One major figure in American golf", and "Same article proclaimed", but do not clue us in to who that was.   

I have no doubt that much like Mackenzie and Jones at ANGC, or virtually any architect at any course before or since, people "played" the course prior to opening, and hit shots to test distances, hole values, etc., but does that mean that we should now retroactively move back the opening date of every course on the planet 2 years, and claim that whatever influential value each course had they already had at that earlier stage??

However, to have widespread impact and influence, that means everyone had to know what it actually was, and what the strategies of the holes were/are.   If they were never there, or hadn't played it, or read about the holes, how would they know?

And yes, there was a very small cognescenti of the time who might be like the GCA of that time who were more aware of what Macdonald was doing, much like we might anticipate what a Tom Doak was building at Pacific Dunes, but I have to ask once again....WHO was playing the course in 1909??

Instead, from all reports I've seen, it wasn't until 1910 that Macdonald unveiled his course to a wider group than the original close-knit crew of himself, Travis (who got booted), Emmett, Whigham, and very few others.   He did this in the form of an Invitational Tournament, which JMorgan thankfully covered with news article and picture on this forum.   

After that tournament in early July 1910, we THEN see the articles by Travis, and Darwin, and other prominent writers extolling the virtues of the course and it was THEN that the impact of NGLA as well as it's influence began to become more widespread.   But, it also wasn't until 14 month later when the course finally opened to full membership play that more than just a small handful of top golfers had the opportunity to play there.    In that vein, I'm wondering aloud rhetorically if the Merion committee actually played the course in spring of 1911, or whether they simply walked it.   If I recall the wording of the meeting minutes precisely, I believe it's the latter.   

Before then, it was largely an exciting rumor, and given the length of time it was taking due to agronomic issues, I'm also sure the project had it's skeptics as time went by, as well.

Why is this important?

It's important if we are going to try to use NGLA as a direct link to the building of other historic courses in/near that same timeframe, and its important if we are to truly understand the relationship of many of these early designers to each other.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?

And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

As usual your posts on the timeframe NGLA was abuilding and growing in is on the money, based on supportable fact as well as based on commonsense.

It's a shame this entire subject of Macdonald and NGLA and Macdonald/Whigam and Merion East has come to this.

The truth is the actual historic facts and perceptions from that time surrounding NGLA do not need to be exaggerated to anywhere near the point some are exaggerating them now. And either does Macdonald and his legacy.

He was important to the history and evolution of American golf as was his NGLA but he was by no means the only one or even the first one as some are trying to make him out to be.

In my opinion, you get it, MikeC. A few others just don't.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,

What is really a shame is that you and Wayne cannot accept what the Darwin's and Hutchinson's of the time knew, that CBM was onto something as yet unseen on this side of the pond, and that he deserved the moniker 'Father of GCA in America' (wasn't it Darwin who hung that one on him).
Add in his other accomplishments in the world of golf and it's impossible to find someone 'on par' w/CB.

The writers of his day saw it pretty clearly.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I fail to grasp the point of this exercise.  A cynic might suggest that for you this is all about Merion East, and that you are trying to push back NGLA's influence simply because you will not acknowledge that NGLA and Macdonald were a major influence over the creation of Merion East.  But given the ample direct evidence of M&W's and NGLA's influence at Merion, that would be a monumental waste of time.

David,

I think this timeline is important, and I also think it's incorrect.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were errors in the time-line.  As I said, it was rough and mostly off the top of my head.  But as far as I can tell you have not pointed out any actual factual errors.What specifically is factually incorrect and what is your basis for suggesting the correction.

. . . your statement that NGLA was built and grassed completely by 1907 is very misleading . . .

Very misleading?    My understanding is that in 1907 all 18 holes were in place and the entire 18 holes were grassed, and then some of the course had to be regrassed in 1908.  Which holes, specifically, were not built and grassed in 1907?

Hole strategies?    I am aware that the Sahara hole was lengthened after this date, but what hole strategies were not in place at this time? As I have explained on numerous occasions, Macdonald believed that one should observe actual play before placing many of the fairway bunkers.

. . . to have widespread impact and influence, that means everyone had to know what it actually was, and what the strategies of the holes were/are.   If they were never there, or hadn't played it, or read about the holes, how would they know?

I think perhaps requiring "everyone" to have to have known about the course is a bit broad.   Could you please you narrow this group a bit?   When it came to influence, wouldn't a "very small cognoscenti" with power and influence matter most?

After that tournament in early July 1910, we THEN see the articles by Travis, and Darwin, and other prominent writers extolling the virtues of the course and it was THEN that the impact of NGLA as well as it's influence began to become more widespread.

I believe there was substantial and detailed coverage of the course well before this tournament.   Do you really deny this?

It's important if we are going to try to use NGLA as a direct link to the building of other historic courses in/near that same timeframe, and its important if we are to truly understand the relationship of many of these early designers to each other.

What courses are we talking about here, specifically?   

[Bill Brightly]

TE

I really like your phrase "Big World Theory." As much as I am a fan of MacRaynors, there are so many other styles that I also thoroughly enjoy.

While we can debate exactly how important Macdonald's work was, NO ONE questions that is was hugely important. In the spectrum of golf course styles, Macdonald holds a prominant place and his school is further bolstered by the work done by Raynor and Banks, who underscored the proposition that adherence to certain key principles of design will ensure great playing fields for golf that will stand the test of time.

Although I can't prove or quantify it, I also think that Macdonald had a huge indirect influence on the leading architects of the day. Once National was built, I just have to believe that it caused a stir among all the existing clubs in the U.S. I can easily envision the leaders of those clubs realizing that their crude 9 or 18 hole courses would have to be re-built or the clubs would die. And the leaders of these clubs, or newly forming clubs, would naturaly have a goal to build a course as good as NGLA. In the smoke filled rooms these guys would probably say "let's get Macdonald" or "let's get somenone as good or better than Macdonald."

I can envision Tilly and Ross and others going through an interview process where they were asked if they can build a course as good as NGLA. I bet they all got sick of hearing about National and Macdonald. I bet it helped spur Tilly on. I bet it helped focus him on doing something different, something that was "better" in Tilly's mind. I'm sure this hardened his position that the land should dictate the course. And it worked: he built fabulous courses in his own style.

So while the Macdonald school was expanding, the "anti-Macdonald" school grew even more. Competition and human nature led to vastly different styles and a great many wonderful courses. The "Big World Theory" was born.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,
What is really a shame is that you and Wayne cannot accept what the Darwin's and Hutchinson's of the time knew, that CBM was onto something as yet unseen on this side of the pond, and that he deserved the moniker 'Father of GCA in America' (wasn't it Darwin who hung that one on him).
Add in his other accomplishments in the world of golf and it's impossible to find someone 'on par' w/CB.
The writers of his day saw it pretty clearly."



Jim Kennedy:

That kind of post is what really bothers me. I should probably say it really pisses me off.

I've never said Macdonald and his NGLA was not a really important influence on American golf and architecture. I have never said that. Maybe Wayne did but I don't think so. And I've never said that Hutchinson and Darwin weren't very knowledgeable (It isn't very hard to tell from numerous sources that Macdonald might have considered Hutchinson to be his primary mentor in a number of things to do with architecture AND golf---including I&B and the Rules).

This is exactly why I just can't stand this compelelely exaggerated stuff that the likes of Moriarty and MacWood seem to be infecting this website with. They've been claiming for seemingly years now that we are totally denigrating and minmizing Macdonald, NGLA and Macd/Raynor architecture.

Neither one of us are doing that and never have.

What we are doing is seriously disagreeing with a guy like Moriarty that MacDonald was the total be-all and end-all over here in golf architecture before, during and for some time after NGLA----that he was the only positive or beneficial influence in golf archtiecture over here then---that he was the only one who understood the priniciples of golf course architecture before and during the creation of NGLA.

That is why I latched on to what Peter Pallotta said in this vein a few days ago on this thread.

That is just not the case---it is not an historic fact at all no matter how or how many times this basically know-nothing guy from California tries to claim it is. For starters he has no understanding at all about the significance of a Myopia and Leeds who did much of what he did before Macdonald began NGLA.

My point is that Macdonald was definitely not the only one who understood good architecture well over herebefore NGLA or could create really good architecture over here before NGLA. I'm not saying Macdonald WAS NOT perhaps the most influential over here because he certainly seemed to be for many reasons, just not that he was the only one or even he was the first one to do good architecture here.


As far as what Americans and some really good American golf writers thought of Hutchinson's opinions on American architecture and particularly on his opinions on Myopia and GCGC, I suggest you reread Bunker Hills article about that. Did you miss where he said he thought Hutchinson was being inconsistent in his opinions and how he pointed out how and why that was?

What I am particularly interested in is not what you or Moriarty or MacWood or Wayne's or my opinion of Macdonald or Hutchinson is, what I am really interested in is what the opinion of them was of others of their time and certainly over here in America amongst American architects and including a really good golf architecture writer of this time----in this case Bunker Hill.

That's the kind of thing we need to study if we are going to really understand that age and what was going on during it. 

We are not minimizing Macdonald or Huthinson, we are only trying to research and reflect how they were seen in their own time over here by our world of golf course architecture.

If you want to join those other two guys and try to claim Macdonald was the only one over here before and around NGLA then this is what you're going to run into from us. We believe we have history on our side and not only can prove it, we have proved it. Who really cares about a couple of guys who continue to totally deny that historical proof at all costs? 

[Thomas MacWood]

Who was Bunker Hill?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I can't imagine how my last could have pissed you off.

You and Wayne may believe you haven't been trying to knock CBM off his historical perch, but that's not how it appears to me, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief.

    

 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not sure why this is difficult. 

I'm clearly not an expert on NGLA but everything I have seen indicates that the course didn't open until a "soft" opening for Macdonald's friends and some expert golfers (the "Invitational Tournament" referred to as a "trial run" in George Bahto's book)  in July 1910 and then a formal opening in September 1911.

Over and over you've told us that NGLA was a hugely influential course and I agree but I'm questioning when that influence became manifest.

You've told us "they" were playing NGLA in 1909.    I'm just looking for some understanding of who "they" were, and that should tell us pretty clearly just exactly who might have been influenced by NGLA prior to 1910.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

BillB:

I really like what you said in that last post, particularly those last two paragraphs. I think historically they are right on the money.

Personally, I think Herbert Leeds's Myopia is as good or as interesting as NGLA, at least almost, and the fact is it was almost ten years earlier and that is the thing I think is so significant to American arhitecture. I don't think Leeds and Myopia had anywhere near the publicity and influence on American architecture because I don't think Leeds had any interest in that---eg he was just trying to build a much better golf course than what he found there. But Macdonald was very definitely trying to have as big an influence on American architecture as he possibly could have. He said that for years before building NGLA and he even was very vocal about why he thought he should do that, and that was to basically be the purpose for doing NGLA in the first place.

But what were and are the significant similarities but most particularly the significant differences between those two golf courses and their architecture and what can that tell us about some of the fundamental "principles" of golf course architecture back then and who knew them best or even if one knew them better than the other or thought of them differently somehow?

That is probably the ultimate question, and I think the best way to answer it is go through the holes and their architecture of both courses in some real detail and compare and constrast them to determine the answers to this question.

I'll try to do that on another post after a little while. I think you may find it interesting and edifying and perhaps historically telling.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Enjoy your belief, no matter how inaccurate.  It must comfort you not to be alone in that belief.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

How can you ignore Horace Hutchinson's earlier article ?

And, how can you ignore that a competition took place at NGLA in 1909 ?

Patrick,

According to George Bahto's book, the first Invitational Tournament (referred to as a "trial run") at NGLA took place in early July 1910.   JMorgan quoted a news article and provided a picture earlier on this thread.

Hutchinson's article was in 1910, as well, as was Travis's and Darwin's.

[Mike_Cirba]

Just because I came across this article this morning en route to other topics ...

American Golfer, August 1910

"Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.

"At the invitation of some of the founders, a number of players took part in a tournament which informally marked the opening of the course on July 2, 3 and 4, and some grand golf was witnessed.  At present the greens are a little on the rough side, as is naturally to be expected, seeing that they are only a little over two years old, but they are sufficiently advanced to compare favorably with many others which have been down for years, and in the course of another season or two will unquestionably approximate perfection.  With the exception of one or two holes the fair green is also good, and it is only a question of another season before these will be brought into prime shape and the whole course in first class condition."



Can you name the participants?

Patrick,

In case you missed JMorgan's article.    I bolded a few of the most important bits.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"You and Wayne may believe you haven't been trying to knock CBM off his historical perch, but that's not how it appears to me, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief."


Jim Kennedy:

Maybe that's how you feel about the way we see it but that is definitely not the way we see it or feel about the way we see it.

I know exactly how I feel about CBM and his architecture and I know how Ive felt about him and his architecture long before his website existed.

I definitely don't need MacWood or Moriarty or you to tell me how I feel about him but it's fine with me whatever you want to think----it's a great big world out there in golf and architecture and there's plenty of room in it for anyone, no matter what their opinions are or how bizarre they are.

It isn't productive for you three to spend pages constantly arguing with me over what my opinion of Macdonald and his architecture is, that's for sure.

[Bill Brightly]

TE

Let me say at the outset that I know very little about Myopia and Leeds.I honestly never heard about Myopia until I started hanging out here.  I take your word that what was on the ground was as good as "groundbreaking" as NGLA. But doesn't that further prove the point about Macdonald's influence? If Myopia was there for 10 years before NGLA, how significant could it have been in terms of the EFFECT it had on other gca's and the golfing world? Perhaps it took a boastful self-promoter such as Macdonald to get things really cooking in the US? Myopia may fascinate you from a research standpoint, but if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...

And I also wonder about the actual effect that Macdonald's work in agronomy had on other courses. Forget the design of holes for a moment. Bahto implies that NGLA may have had turf that far surpassed what everyone else was playing on.  If that is true, NGLA would have sparked a demand for similar conditions, and those expectations would have filtered down to every gca building courses, right?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It doesn't surprise me that Wayne would come back with a smart ass remark to an observation on my part, I thought you were more open. Your last post
to me shows that you aren't.



 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()