Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[TEPaul]

"Please be my guest, I'd love to see you produce the appropriate citations."

Patrick:

I'd be happy to. It's all there in the back pages. 

However, it's not really your misunderstandings about NGLA and Macdonald I'm really after, it's David Moriarty's, because they're so outrageous and historically revionist. You don't suffer from those same ridiculous misunderstandings because at least you understand the history of NGLA and probably Macdonald too.

However, I think you are still attempting to defend some of Moriarty's points about Macdonald and Merion and even Macdonald and his singular importance to the development of great architecture and architectural principles in America because you got conned on this whole Merion thing by Moriarty and you are unwilling to admit it and you you probably always will be unwilling to admit it. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

Have you ever been to Myopia?

The reason I ask is if you never have you can appreciate the point I'm making to Patrick.

How many times on here has he maintained that one should not critique a golf course or its architecture if they've never even been there?

Patrick has never been there even though I offered the other day to take him there when our time permits. Those others, MacWood and Moriarty, I doubt have ever been there either and so the very same caveat applies to them as Patrick Mucci has always maintained. None of them can have it both ways, that's for sure. 

Tom,

Unfortunately, I've never been there and can only judge Myopia by the pictures I've seen, the early accounts I've read, and the fact that before 1910, it was considered the best golf course in the United States (with the only direct competition coming from Garden City).

Someday I very much hope to rectify that omission.

From what I've seen, it's absolutely terrrific and utilizes the property extremely well.   It also has almost wholly original hole ideas, which may make it even more impressive than some of the great courses that came a decade later.

I'm also biased in favor of Myopia because I read an essay by John Updike several years ago that described the joys of the course that was simply brilliant.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

The important thing to realize about Myopia is the way it was then (when we are talking about Macdonald and Hutchinson's opinion of it) and the way it is now (after a certain amount of historic restoration) is the same. It's pretty amazing that way.

And the point is, the way it was then and the way it basically is now PRECEDED NGLA. So we really do have an apples to apples comparison of architecture in America before and at the time we are discussing here.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

The important thing to realize about Myopia is the way it was then (when we are talking about Macdonald and Hutchinson's opinion of it) and the way it is now (after a certain amount of historic restoration) is the same. It's pretty amazing that way.

And the point is, the way it was then and the way it basically is now PRECEDED NGLA. So we really do have an apples to apples comparison of architecture in America before and at the time we are discussing here.

Tom,

One of the most amazing things about Merion is how similiar it is today to what existed in 1930, and even earlier to 1916 (except for a few holes).

From the tone of your response about Myopia, I'm sensing that it might be even more unchanged, and back to an even earlier date.

Would that be a correct assessment?

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a good thread, Mike C - especially for what it's trying to grapple with. And to me, what it's really trying to grapple with is the definition of great (and lasting) architecture and the nature of architecture's strategic (and fundamental) principles.

David - First off, I know I can fall into rhetorical flourishes now and again, but geez, your post to me was an education in that regard. Second, I am trying (if very slowly and un-systematically) to read the historical record, and when something strikes me or I've reached a tentative conclusion, I come on here and think out loud, on the page.

Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees, or you are, or we both are. At the very least, we may have very different ideas about what the term "strategic principles of good architecture" means in this context. I think Sean and Philip and TE have all captured some of what I'm trying to get at.

Was Macdonald hugely INFLUENTIAL? Yes, for many reasons and in many ways. If I've not understood or agreed to that before now, I've been wrong. But note: what got me to comment on this thread in the first place was something you wrote early on, i.e. that Macdonald was "importing the strategic principles of design" to America.  Now, those are not necessarily the same thing, are they? That the forms of and rigour with which those principles manifested themselves at NLGA were (justifiably) the talk of the town does not mean that the principles themselves were not understood by many an expert, or that without a Macdonald they would never have been expressed. Does it?     

What ARE those strategic principles? (That's a genuine question). Didn't Old Tom Morris near the end of his days have some idea of those principles? Didn't he transit those ideas? Weren't the array of experts who responded to that Macdonald "survey" on great/ideals holes aware of the principles that underpinned those golf holes? Didn't Ross, Fowler, Colt etc  know about them? Does the fact that Macdonald was the one who tried to hit a home run with an ideal golf course -- and that he had the clout and the ambition and talent to pull it off -- mean that more modest or less high profile attempts (constrained/limited by a variety of factors) disregarded those principles? 

If you are arguing that Macdonald was the father of American golf course architecture, I'd say that was a handy and serviceable theory. I spent some time writing television biographies -- I tried first to get the subject's life history correct, and then to create a compelling narrative around the subject's significance by developing a serviceable theory, i.e. one that I believed in and that could be reasonably argued and maintained...but one that, years later, I sometimes found lacked nuance, or that diminished the lives and works of the subject's contemporaries. That's all I'm saying, David - i.e. that assigning Macdonald a preeminent role in the history of golf course architecture is a serviceable theory, but that -- even just intuitively -- it strikes me as one that lacks nuance...

Peter 

[Thomas MacWood]

Its a good thing no one reads these threads or takes them seriously.

[TEPaul]

"Would that be a correct assessment?"

MikeC:

Definitetly!

From what I understand of its evolution, Myopia from 1910 is today even more unchanged than Merion from 1930.

The more I consider it, the more I realize that these few people on here recently who are trying to comment on Macdonald, NGLA, and Myopia's signficance and history (or lack or it back then ) and the way the course was then and is today really can't have much of an informed opinion on the course because they've never even been there.

Have you noticed, as I have, that whenever I ask them if they've ever been there they are strangely silent?     

The thing that really occurs to me, though, is how a guy like MacWood thinks he knows something about those people and that culture back then and what they were and weren't capable of regarding architecture----eg--ex--R.M. Appleton!

Believe me, Mr. MacWood hasn't a clue. You cannot understand the history of that place, that time and those people without at least going there and taking it all in and by just trying to read about it from some uninformed perch in Ohio.

This guy is fixated on being perceived as an "expert" reseacher. He may develop into that someday if he can figure out that he just has to go about it very differently than he heretofore has, and that certainly includes at least setting foot on these courses he tries to critique or analyze in detail.

As for this man, David Moriarty, I very much doubt there will ever be any hope for him as far as understanding this world and time and the architecture of it, unless and until he changes his approach to it. He too is far too inexperienced---he has also tried to understand these clubs and courses from afar which noone can do effectively, and he seems to also be incapable of admitting it or understanding the importance of that simple fact of golf architecture analysis.

[TEPaul]

"Its a good thing no one reads these threads or takes them seriously. "

Mr. MacWood:

My mission with you on here is to continue to insure that almost noone takes you and your bizarre and unsupported statements and implications seriously. Believe me, people who who care about these clubs and courses do read these threads as I do hear from them, thankfully. The most important of those people are the ones from the clubs who are being discussed. With clubs such as Merion and Myopia, you and your cohort are total jokes and are becoming more so as these threads on these subjects continue. Keep it up, as it most certainly helps my case! 

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

All you need to do is go right back to your post #102 and defend it. It is historically accurate, that's for sure. Expand on it if you want to but what you said in post #102 is historically accurate and completely defensible factually.

[DMoriarty]

Peter,

Except for one guy (Ross, sort of) you had to jump an Ocean to try and make your point.  But given that we are talking about golf course achitecture in the U.S. you help make my point instead. 

If you please.   Hop back over to this side of the Atlantic and explain to me, in 1906-09 in the US, who exactly were these experts who not only understood these fundamental principles, who were not only teaching them to others, who not only had the where-with-all, the connections, and the resources, but who also applied them in the ground?

Who were all these others who you mysteriously refer to in all you posts?   You cannot just claim that surely others must have been importing these ideas and must have been influential, but refuse to offer up anyone.    Let me help.   There was one guy with the initials of HJW who seemed to have a pretty good grasp of what was going on, and was trying to explain to others.  But then that doesn't help you much does it?    Who else?   I am all ears.

These ideas were not self-evident.   While you may find it unbelievable that most in America did not inherently grasp simple fundamental strategic principles of quality design, they did not.   Then Macdonald and Whigham explained it to them and SHOWED THEM and then many others explained it to them and showed them.   And most still did not get it.      Why do you think that Macdonald had a series of magazine articles explaining the fundamental concepts behind some of his holes?   Was he preaching to the choir?   

Look some of our so-called experts today only see one option in the Redan and completely miss the subtle strategic beauty of the balance between a flanking move around the bunker versus a direct attack.    Yet you think the golfing world in America before 1910 not only grasped this rather sophisticated concept, but understood it enough to apply it and teach it to others?   

Hell, you've been in this discussion for what, a thousand posts or so?  Yet you still claim that you don't know what these fundamental concepts were???  If they were so self-evident and commonly understood then they must be moreso now.   So why don't you just grab them out of the thin air and explain them to us?   Maybe build a  world class course or two?  No big deal.  These were common ideas, lots of people must have grasped them.    No need for Macdonald to have taught us.   

[TEPaul]

"I'm also biased in favor of Myopia because I read an essay by John Updike several years ago that described the joys of the course that was simply brilliant."


MikeC:

Is that right? I wish you'd make me aware of what that essay is, I'd love to read it. As I guess you might suspect, Myopia seems to be Updike's club, or at least that's what I've been led to believe. With that in mind, last year I was very much hoping to meet him at a tournament up there but he wasn't around. This year, I went to the parking lot to get my car and I swung back around to pick up my partner who was sitting on the steps talking to Updike. I did have a chat with him about the course, it's architecture, the fact that it was one of the earliest examples of great golf architecture in America, the USGA's new architecture archive and its interest in the course and Leeds as a pioneer in American architecture. I said I hoped he would contribute some of his feeling in that vein and he said he'd be glad to consider that. Clearly, he loves the place and the course and obviously has some great observations on the essence of it.

CharlesF:

I wouldn't call this a great debate, simply a production of information back and forth. One of the things this discussion shows me is that people who have never even seen a course or courses and the work of the early architects who did them really don't have much basis to intelligently comment on a point like Peter Pallotta is trying to make.

How is someone like David Moriarty going to be able to offer an intelligent evaluation of whether or not Myopia was and is an example of great golf architecture before NGLA's existence if he's never even seen the place? I would say the same is true of GCGC or even Oakmont. The other day we found a picture of a 1903 stick routing of Oakmont that is remarkably similar to the way the course is today. Think what that means. There is nothing personal here. I don't view it as his fault that he doesn't understand these things. How would he if he's never even seen them? In my opinion, it's really only a matter of the fact that he needs to understand that he can't really form an intelligent opinion on this kind of issue unless and until he actually gets to know the subject courses we're talking about here.

This extremely fundamental fact just keeps getting dismissed and ignored on here by the other side of this discussion. It just can't be dismissed or ignored if there's ever going to be an intelligent opinion and discussion from the other side.

For starters, would you agree with that---eg if you've never even seen a course how can you really intelligently comment on it in detail? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

If you are arguing that Macdonald was the father of American golf course architecture, I'd say that was a handy and serviceable theory. I spent some time writing television biographies -- I tried first to get the subject's life history correct, and then to create a compelling narrative around the subject's significance by developing a serviceable theory, i.e. one that I believed in and that could be reasonably argued and maintained...but one that, years later, I sometimes found lacked nuance, or that diminished the lives and works of the subject's contemporaries. That's all I'm saying, David - i.e. that assigning Macdonald a preeminent role in the history of golf course architecture is a serviceable theory, but that -- even just intuitively -- it strikes me as one that lacks nuance... -Peter Palotta

Underlying all arguments about CBM is that sentiment, i.e., the place he has been given in the history of GCA  is overblown and it diminishes the work of others. I don't think another million words would resolve that dispute, there are too many competing views and too many personal agendas for that to happen.

I'm no historian, biographer, or manifesto scribbler. From my perch CBM looks like the man who took the physical steps to bring forth the idea that the architecture of a golf course could be made perfect, and his quest showed others (not just the architects of his day) that the goal was attainable.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I sure do hear what you're trying to say but I just don't think this time and its accurate history is anywhere near as complicated to understand as some on here are trying to make it.

There is no question at all that CBM was a huge promoter of excellence in architecture in America. In that particular way, from the positions he held and due to his visibility and prominence due to his over-all position including the way he went about promoting NGLA there's no question he was the most influential of all at that time, and certainly to that type of client or club or project like an MCC who wanted to go about it the way he did (without a professional lead architect).

But this is not what Peter Pallotta was saying or talking about. His point was that as some on here are trying to make it seem that CBM (and perhaps Whigam) were the only ones in America would really understood the principles behind creating great golf course architecture in America.

That is just not the case at all and the evidence of that fact was more than visible at that time and for us now. Myopia and a few others were there before NGLA to prove that Macdonald was not the only one in America before NGLA to understand and apply these things.

Macdonald himself said as much when he talked about the quality of a couple of courses before he did NGLA.

A couple of people on here are trying to deny that. They can't deny it factually because they would be denying what Macdonald himself said while trying to exaggeratedly promote him. None of us on the other side of the discussion are minimizing Macdonald's roll (as this guy on here keeps claiming we are)---we're only putting it in the perspective it was really in back then.

Frankly, Peter Pallotta's point really isn't even about Macdonald, it's about people like Leeds who preceded NGLA with his Myopia Hunt Club course. Someone like David Moriarty just can't overlook someone like that and the importance in America architecture of what he did there before NGLA. Apparently the real reason he's doing that is because he just doesn't understand much about it and how in the hell could he if he's never even seen it? Nobody can have a really informed and intelligent opinion about something they've never even seen! This is just a fact that will always be inescapable in discussions like these ones.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The fact is, Patrick, you are the guy who has always harped on everyone else on here that one can't really understand a golf course unless they've seen it, played it, and probably numerous times in various condtions. That's what you've always said and maintained on here, right? Do you deny that now? .

That's correct.
Of course you argued with me on that point until I informed you that those weren't my original words, they were MacDonald's and could be found on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift"

I've never critiqued Myopia.

Could you cite any post of mine where I commented on the playability of the golf course ?

Absent that citation would you please edit your posts 

And the fact is neither you, MacWood or Moriarty have ever been to Myopia or played it in various conditions.[/b][/color=green]

I've NEVER critiqued the golf course at Myopia.
You must have me confused with someone else.[/b]

Therefore, there's not a lot any of you can say about it and its significance back then or today unless you all want to show yourelves to be real hypocrites.

You're confusing/mixing apples with oranges, or, straight jackets with evening jackets.

One doesn't have to play a golf course to understand its historical significance.

One doesn't have to have been at Pearl Harbor to understand the impact of December 7, 1941, and its historical significance.

Shirley, you understand the difference now that I've pointed it out to you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is Peter's post # 102.

I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.

TEPaul, we know that this statement is inaccurate because some of the holes at NGLA are ABSOLUTE ORIGINALS, not imported in principle or kind from anywhere.

Thus, if the underlying assumptions are incorrect, the conclusions or inferences are probably incorrect.

Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles. 

You would have us believe, and TEPaul would support your premise, that these priciples were widely known and accepted as tenets by the golfing universe.

Could it be that CBM was the first to "collectivize" them ?
The first to apply them in the ultimate architectural package ?

So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s.

"Foremost promoter" ?
Who else was promoting those principles in 1906-1911 ?

Who else conceived of the idea of collectivizing these principles by creating a golf course that contained nearly all of them ?

But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.

That's your opinion.
Could you cite the others who knew and cared about these principles.
It certainly wasn't Wilson or anyone else who hadn't traveled abroad.

Who had the vision to assemble these principles, find the land where they might thrive, and combine them with great original holes to be placed on the same land ?

Perhaps the easiest way to examine and refine your premise is to eliminate any and all architects who hadn't traveled to the UK to examine golf courses prior to 1906.

Which of those individuals that you referenced as having identified and understood those principles visited the UK prior to 1906 ?

I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.


Please present the supporting documentation that names those individuals in America who identified and understood and discussed those principles prior to 1906.  And, could you also provide the supporting documentation evidencing their ability to identify and understand those principles?

I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them.

AHA, finally, you've hit on a critical point.
"for all with the eyes to see them."

It takes more than eyes to see and UNDERSTAND the principles.
It takes intellect and a talent to observe and perceive them.

You seem to think that anyone with decent vision can see the golf courses, holes and features and understand the underlying principles behind them.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Unless of course, you think that anyone in America could go overseas, come home and then produce the same quality work that Tom Doak has.

There's far more to architectural theory and practice than eyeing golf holes.
       

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Why did Wilson and his committee visit NGLA instead of Myopia and GCGC ?

Or, better yet, why DIDN'T they visit Myopia if it represented the defining effort in American architecture ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Those are good questions, even though we've dealt with the answers before on here. I'm going over to hit some balls but I will answer them tonight.

[wsmorrison]

Here's a question for you, Pat.  While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him.  Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work. 

You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA.  I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically.  Or perhaps you think his work perfect    In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings.  All architects had/have them.  Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).

For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

I used these thoughts on another thread, but they may be applicable here. I think “judgment” has long-been a fundamental part of the game (e.g. judging distances, judging risks and rewards etc).  I think we can extrapolate from that to say that golf holes designed to test and challenge a golfer’s judgment have also long-been a fundamental part of the game.

Bernard Darwin quotes a golf professional in the 1920s saying that he’d rather play TOC than anywhere else because “you may play a damned good shot and get into a damned bad place”, and then adding, “I think that is the real game of golf."  Darwin relates this idea to Old Tom Morris' line about golf as a game that’s "aye fechtin' against ye" -- a game that demands at once a dour and daring spirit in the playing.  In the later words of John Low, golf is a “contest of risks”.
 
And again, I think we can extrapolate from this and say that the golf holes/courses that best ‘frame’ and best allow for these risks and that risk-testing are what underpin the real  game of golf and thus good golf course architecture. That idea, in short, is a principle of good golf course architcture.

I imagine that as far back as Old Tom (at least) there was this awareness of the principles of golf architecture, even if they were not always manifested across all 18 holes of a golf course or uniformly so. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

Peter 

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's a question for you, Pat.  While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him. 

Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work. 

In the context of 1909, I don't see any flaws in his design work.

Other than forced crossovers, what flaws do you see in Flynn's work ?

You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA.  I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically. 

I guess it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback 100 years after the fact.
But, when you evaluate work "in the moment", contemporaneously, it's
a far more daunting task.

If you examine the the first or early by-pass procedures in the context of today's medical/surgical practices, I'm sure you could be critical, but, at the time, those procedures were "cutting edge", and so was MacDonald in 1906-1911.

Or perhaps you think his work perfect   


I find NGLA close to perfection.

In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings.  All architects had/have them.  Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).

For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.

OK, tell us of his shortcomings.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

You stated:

Of the Raynor and Banks courses I've played, not one has passed the Mucci test, that is a desire to go straight from the 18th green to the 1st tee."

So that I can better context your posts and position, could you list for me the Raynor and Banks courses you've played. 

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

I used these thoughts on another thread, but they may be applicable here. I think “judgment” has long-been a fundamental part of the game (e.g. judging distances, judging risks and rewards etc).  I think we can extrapolate from that to say that golf holes designed to test and challenge a golfer’s judgment have also long-been a fundamental part of the game.

I'd go a step beyond that and state that judgement was a prerequisite to playing the game well in the early years.  You have to remember, there were no yardage markers, no 150 posts, no lasers and GPS systems.  It was all about the "visual" and "feel".

Bernard Darwin quotes a golf professional in the 1920s saying that he’d rather play TOC than anywhere else because “you may play a damned good shot and get into a damned bad place”, and then adding, “I think that is the real game of golf."  Darwin relates this idea to Old Tom Morris' line about golf as a game that’s "aye fechtin' against ye" -- a game that demands at once a dour and daring spirit in the playing.  In the later words of John Low, golf is a “contest of risks”.

More likely, he was refering to the vagaries of golf, not the architectural principles found in golf.
 
And again, I think we can extrapolate from this and say that the golf holes/courses that best ‘frame’ and best allow for these risks and that risk-testing are what underpin the real  game of golf and thus good golf course architecture.

I don't think that you can extrapolate that from Darwin's remarks.
I think it requires a quantum leap on your part to go from Darwin's remarks to your conclusion, a leap that I don't think you can complete.

That idea, in short, is a principle of good golf course architcture.
I think that's a real stretch, or perhaps I haven't understood you correctly.

I imagine that as far back as Old Tom (at least) there was this awareness of the principles of golf architecture, even if they were not always manifested across all 18 holes of a golf course or uniformly so.

Do you think I'm wrong about that?

Yes and No.

I think some principles were self evident, others more subtle and others difficult to ascertain.

Remember, "Links" golf had a fairly well defined and limited field of play. One that didn't have great elevation changes.
Certainly, we can state this without fear of contradiction at TOC.

When golf moved inland from the Links, perhaps some principles had to be adjusted and perhaps new principles discovered.

The land considered for NGLA was not an ideal site in 1906.
It was filled with bogs and swamps and had substantive elevation changes.

If, as you state, these principles were universally acknowledged, why didn't someone put them into practice before MacDonald ?

Or, could it be that MacDonald, studied and understood the great principles, developed some of his own and using his acquired knowledge of architecture and his skill as a golfer, combined the best of both worlds, theory and playability, to form the finest golf course in the world in 1906-1911 ?

[wsmorrison]

Here's a question for you, Pat.  While we can agree that Macdonald was a significant influence in American golf and that all his holes were not in whole or in part conceptual remakes of UK holes, we do differ in our overall opinions of him. 

Before I discuss my opinions where he falls short of across the board greatness, please tell me what flaws, if any, you see in Macdonald's work. 

In the context of 1909, I don't see any flaws in his design work.

Other than forced crossovers, what flaws do you see in Flynn's work ?

You may just be the most ardent admirer of Macdonald and of NGLA.  I'd like to know where you feel he could have improved or done things differently in general or specifically. 

I guess it's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback 100 years after the fact.
But, when you evaluate work "in the moment", contemporaneously, it's
a far more daunting task.

If you examine the the first or early by-pass procedures in the context of today's medical/surgical practices, I'm sure you could be critical, but, at the time, those procedures were "cutting edge", and so was MacDonald in 1906-1911.

Or perhaps you think his work perfect   


I find NGLA close to perfection.

In fact, for all those Macdonald promoters out there, please consider his shortcomings.  All architects had/have them.  Yes, of the old dead guys, even Colt and Flynn, my two favorite architects (in that order).

For now, let's avoid a discussion of the proteges, Raynor and Banks, and concentrate solely on Macdonald.

OK, tell us of his shortcomings.

I didn't realize that Macdonald was designing NGLA for 1909.  Besides Pat, Macdonald was tinkering with the course well past 1909.  In any case, I thought that designers had the future in mind.  In fact, this is where I think Macdonald has a major flaw.  I'm not playing Monday morning quarterback, I am analyzing how his courses work over time.  This significant flaw is revealed over time.  Perhaps you think Macdonald was only thinking about his own time and so he shouldn't be criticized.  Well, I agree he was thinking about his own time (interestingly the impact of the Haskell ball was front and center at the time he planned NGLA, so there was no excuse) and that is the rub.

He did not seem to care about or gave much thought to the future.  Maybe he didn't care much for championship golf outside of NGLA.  He recommended a sporty course length for Merion when they wanted a championship design.  His designs of St. Louis CC, Creek Club and Piping Rock for example do not pass the test of time.  Bunkers are out of play, hazards obsoleted and the designs become outmoded for the best players.  While all remain wonderful courses from the good club player to higher handicaps, they simply offer far less of a challenge than courses from other designers of that era which are also unchanged.

Macdonald did not use enough offset fairways and greens.  His fairway lines are not interesting nor do they fit the topography very well.  He used too much artificiality for the sake of template or concepts desired.  The 18th at St. Louis CC for instance.  His use of a punchbowl green concept on a blind approach negates the proper use of the feature.  His routing of 16 green to 17 tee at SLCC is one of the worst routing features I've ever seen (especially in 105 degree heat carrying your own bag   )

What do you think of the use of sandy waste areas (not formal fairway or greenside bunkers) in the lower holes at Creek Club?  

I disagree with you.  Crossovers are not necessarily flaws and in fact can be strokes of genius.  You constantly bring this up, but don't understand it at all.  The crossovers at Merion are not forced.  It is a very cramp piece of property.  Macdonald recommended an even smaller one and a shorter course.  I wonder what that would have been like?  Anyway, the crossover from 2 green to 3 tee (crossing 6 tee) creates the outstanding flow of the course.  It doesn't have to crossover.  In fact, for a time, the 6th hole was played as the 3rd and there was an uphill walk from 3 green to 8 tee (behind 4 tee and 7 green).  Consider the routing progression and tell me the way it is today, with a benign crossover is ill-conceived.  Maybe you dislike the walk from 13 green to 14 tee, passing the clubhouse, its bar and one's friends at ease around the clubhouse.  Is the crossover in front of 1 tee that onerous?  Now consider the crossover at Lehigh from 1 green to 2 tee (passing 18 tee and 17 green).  It is brilliant and allows the outside/inside routing that gives you a constantly shifting wind direction and a flow of holes that works.  If it was up to you, I guess the advantages achieved would have been forgone because you don't like routings...forced or otherwise.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba and Peter Pallota,

Tom Paul would like you to quit offering your opinion on the quality of Myopia's golf course unless you have played it.   

I have never played it either, but I have no doubt it is very good.   But who cares about my opinion of the quality?  Certainly not me. Rather, I am curious about the influence Myopia had on golf course design in America.   My opinion, your opinions, and Tom Paul's opinion about quality of Myopia's golf course have nothing do to with whether or not other designers and builders at the time were significantly influenced by the design, and whether or not this influence (if any) had a positive or negative impact on gca in the United States. 

________________________________


Tom Paul,  as I said immediately above, your opinion or mine as to the quality of Myopia's course is irrelevant.   

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.   

Funny isn't it?   Hutchinson and Macdonald visit Myopia, and as a result of their single visit Myopia immediately began making changes to to the course based on Hutchinson's criticisms.   Sounds to me like Leeds was the one being influenced by Hutchinson and his like-minded traveling companion, not the other way around. 

[Bradley Anderson]

David,

I wonder if Myopia had a significant influence on American golf course architecture, because you don't see those kinds of bunkers anywhere else.

Although I have wondered if Robert White carried some of those principles with him in his career as an architect. Perhaps those kinds of features were built elsewhere and subsequnetly erased or built over because they were too penal?