[Thomas MacWood]

IMO there is big difference between the infleunce Macdonald & Leeds had upon golf architecture in America. Macdonald set out on a well publicized mission to design golf's ideal course; Leeds was a redesign specialist who perfected his course incrementally and with little fanfair. Macdonald was involved in laying out numerous courses and produced several proteges; Leeds was dedicated to one course. Macdonald was well connected to the best design authorities in the UK (Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, Colt, Darwin, etc); Leeds traveled overseas to study golf courses but there is no evidence he had the same connections. Macdonald was famous on both sides of the pond; Leeds was well-known in Boston, but not a household word beyond that. Macdonald was part of the American golf establishment; Leeds was not, preferring to exert his influence in house. Macdonald wrote extensively on the subject; Leeds wrote nothing on the subject. Macdonald was as famous or likely more famous than the NGLA; Myopia was better known than Leeds.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I find it ironic that with everything you just mentioned there...how Macdonald clearly stated his intentions to build the Ideal course and trumpeted that message to any and all who would listen (including the press), how he was well connected to the best design authorities...how he had connections on both sides of the Atlantic...how he was certainly the most famous amateur (re: Tournament) golfer in this country, how he was part of the American golf establishment, and then how he wrote extensively and architecture and other golf matters, and how he was such a larger than life figure that he even dwarfed the grand accomplishment of building NGLA (as well as other notable courses)....

I find it ironic that on many of these threads there is a case being made that Macdonald was somehow slighted in his own time, and that his true work was minimized or forgotten.

If you told me that Leeds designed some great course we weren't aware of i might believe it given that he wasn't a man seeking the glory or spotlight.   

However, given Macdonald was a Rock Star on the order of Tiger Woods in his day, to claim he had some great input into some great course design that was never property noted or recognized seems absurd on the face of it.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
I don't think its that ironic. Frank Lloyd Wright was bigger than any of his very significant designs, the same with Picasso and his art. Macdonald was huge personality, with a huge ego, and also extremely talented and on the cutting edge of his field, not unlike Wright and Picasso.

One of the primary reasons a person is influencial is due to their ability to generate publicity. If you are unknown its hard to influence anyone.

I don't believe Macdonald was slighted in his own time. I don't believe Macdonald's influence is being slighted today. I think there are a handful of zealots who would like to diminish his reputation for obvious reasons; that is what this debate is all about.

[Bradley Anderson]

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

Wow, that will be a very cool set of pictures. I have always suspected that the edging of those bunkers removed some of the design attributes. So if you actually put that series of photos together Wayne I might be able to use them for my power point on the evolution of bunkers and how maintenance edging among other factors changes the lines.

[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 ?

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.   

That's NOT TRUE.

George stated the following on page 68.

"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run.  An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."


A few points are worth noting.

     MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
     of American Golfers at the time
 
     George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
     different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
     to conduct a trial run.

     A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
     What was that ?  A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?

     The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
     You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
     The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
     play the course at one's leisure.  It was an Invitational Tournament for the
     best golfers in America at the time.

     A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
     I've already named some of the participants
     John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.

     You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.

[JMorgan]

A question -- as I  (with no horse in this race) am, nevertheless, a glutton for punishment:

Has anyone ever compared the ideal shots over 18 holes at Garden City (pre-1905), Myopia, Ekwanok, Wheaton, CC of Atlantic City, etc., with those of NGLA?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JMorgan,

The terrain at GCGC and especially AC is very flat.

It would be difficult to offer a comparison versus NGLA where the terrain is far more varied.

[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. 






“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.”




Jim Kennedy:

More open? About what, your opinion of what I think of Macdonald or my own opinion of Macdonald? If you want to know my opinion of Macdonald in any context you should probably just ask me specifically what it is and I’d be glad to tell you. But I don’t really want to get into some argument with you about your opinion of my opinion of Macdonald or whether you think I’m open about your opinion of my opinion of Macdonald.

[JMorgan]

Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.     

[TEPaul]

"Wow, that will be a very cool set of pictures. I have always suspected that the edging of those bunkers removed some of the design attributes. So if you actually put that series of photos together Wayne I might be able to use them for my power point on the evolution of bunkers and how maintenance edging among other factors changes the lines."


Bradley:

In our opinions, there is no question about it. Numerous sources seem to confirm that fact and probably the best and most reliable one being Merion's long time super, Richie Valentine, Joe's son (Merion's father and son combo of Joe and Richie lasted many, many decades one after the other. Flynn apparently trained Joe Valentine as Merion's super).

Flynn's basic bunker modus operandi may've had as much too to with the long term evolutionary development of interesting grass surrounds as any architect ever.

This kind of thing is right up your alley, I know!

[TEPaul]

"IMO there is big difference between the infleunce Macdonald & Leeds had upon golf architecture in America. Macdonald set out on a well publicized mission to design golf's ideal course; Leeds was a redesign specialist who perfected his course incrementally and with little fanfair. Macdonald was involved in laying out numerous courses and produced several proteges; Leeds was dedicated to one course. Macdonald was well connected to the best design authorities in the UK (Hutchinson, Low, Fowler, Colt, Darwin, etc); Leeds traveled overseas to study golf courses but there is no evidence he had the same connections. Macdonald was famous on both sides of the pond; Leeds was well-known in Boston, but not a household word beyond that. Macdonald was part of the American golf establishment; Leeds was not, preferring to exert his influence in house. Macdonald wrote extensively on the subject; Leeds wrote nothing on the subject. Macdonald was as famous or likely more famous than the NGLA; Myopia was better known than Leeds."


Mr. MacWood:

There is almost nothing in that statement of yours I'd disagree with or even try to expand on or subtract from (with the possible somewhat trivial point that Leeds was pretty well connected in the American golf establishment, administratively and otherwise and probably could've been much more so if he wanted to be). Essentially there was no one at all of any importance in the world of early American golf architecture and in and around the time Macdonald was creating NGLA who was not aware of Myopia and Leeds and what he'd done there!

The point I've been arguing for the last several pages of this thread is not who had more influence on American architecture and otherwise in golf, or who used it most effectively or anything like that.

My only point in the last several pages was to Peter Pallotta's post and point to David Moriarty that he (Peter Pallotta) felt that Macdonald was not the only one or even the first one in America before NGLA who really understood and applied some very fundamentally good golf architecture principles in America and consequently created what was considered then and probably still is considered now to be one of the first really good courses and really good architecture in America. And the next fascinating point is he did this almost a decade before Macdonald did it at NGLA. The complete confirmation of that fact seems to come from Macdonald himself!

That, I believe was Peter Pallotta's basic point or feeling and it was his response to David Moriarty apparently saying he felt Macdonald was the first one here to understand and apply really good and fundamental golf architectural principles in this country-----and I was agreeing with Peter Pallotta and in the process disagreeing with David Moriarty. It seems David Moriarty was saying that wasn't the case and the FIRST one who understood good golf architectural principles over here, and perhaps even first transported them over here and applied them well over here in the creation of an American golf course was C. B. Macdonald with his Myopia.

I wasn't arguing for who was the most influential, I was arguing for the fact that Macdonald was not the first to understand and apply good golf architectural principles in America and create an enduringly great golf course in America.

[Carl Rogers]

from a tongue in cheek cynical perspective, the logic would go about like this: 
   the site from time to time  takes on a soap opera melo-drama comparison, if you are going have heroes, then you must have villains.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Where can I find information about the 1909 tournament held at NGLA won by John Ward?   Nothing I've come across mentions it.

Thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

Carl,

You said, "the site from time to time  takes on a soap opera melo-drama comparison, if you are going have heroes, then you must have villains..."

We have a "Moriarity" so that must make Wayne & Tom Paul Holmes & Watson... But which is which? 

[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.   

That's NOT TRUE.

George stated the following on page 68.

"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run.  An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."


A few points are worth noting.

     MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
     of American Golfers at the time
 
     George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
     different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
     to conduct a trial run.

     A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
     What was that ?  A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?

     The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
     You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
     The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
     play the course at one's leisure.  It was an Invitational Tournament for the
     best golfers in America at the time.

     A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
     I've already named some of the participants
     John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.

     You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.

Patrick,

I just went back and looked again.

I believe you're mistaken.

The NGLA tournament you're talking about that John Ward medalled with a 74 took place in July 1910.

It's the same tournament discussed in George's book...the "trial run" I referred to earlier.

You can read the details at the following link, which is the story JMorgan referenced earlier;

There are some GREAT pictures there, as well. 

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag43d.pdf


I'm still waiting for someone to show me who "they" were who were playing the National prior to 1910?

[TEPaul]

Bill Brigthly:

I think your post #299 is an excellent one. Both paragraphs are probably worth a thread of their own. The first one is most important to me at this point because I think the appropriate answer to it can really focus the distinction I've been trying to make on this thread. That paragraph and an answer to it may seem to some to have to be redundant but I don't think so and I believe you will see why.

I'll give it a shot in a while.

[Peter Pallotta]

One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence.  I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site"  - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you're someone intimately familiar with Garden City and NGLA, and I think it would be instructive at some point to hear what you think each course offers over the other, both present day and c. 1911.     

JMorgan,

I know I'm old, but, I wasn't playing GCGC and NGLA in 1911.

While I might be able to speak to playing GCGC over the last 11 years and NGLA for considerably longer, I'm not qualified to speak to both courses circa 1911.

It would take me quite a while to relate my experiences on a feature by feature, hole by hole basis.

As I type this, I'm considering having a get together that might focus on both courses, with the possible inclusion of Atlantic City, if I can get Wayno to join me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Where can I find information about the 1909 tournament held at NGLA won by John Ward?   Nothing I've come across mentions it.

Thanks

Mike,

John Ward only won the qualifying medal.

The Tournament was played at Match Play, not unlike the current National Singles Tournament.

W.T. Tuckerman won all of his three matches and was the First Flight winner.
C.B. MacDonald won all of his three matches and was the Second Flight winner.

At the conclusion of the tournament MacDonald states, "From that time on we had enlightened criticism."

Accounts of the tournament in 1909 can be found in "Scotland's Gift"

[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 ?

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.   

That's NOT TRUE.

George stated the following on page 68.

"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was finally ready for a test run.  An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate."


A few points are worth noting.

     MacDonald hosted an invitational tournament in 1910 for the "Who's Who"
     of American Golfers at the time
 
     George stated that the course was READY for a trial run, which is quite
     different from MacDonald indicating that the purpose of the tournament was
     to conduct a trial run.

     A year earlier, in 1909, some 20 golfers competed in a tournament at NGLA
     What was that ?  A test run to see if the course was ready for a trial run ?

     The term, "Informal Invitational Tournament" is a contradiction of terms.
     You either have an informal get together, or a structured tournament.
     The event held was a structured tournament, not an informal gathering to
     play the course at one's leisure.  It was an Invitational Tournament for the
     best golfers in America at the time.

     A year earlier, in 1909 a competition was held on the golf course.
     I've already named some of the participants
     John Ward won the qualifying medal with a 74.

     You can't deny that NGLA was IN PLAY in 1909.

Patrick,

I just went back and looked again.

I believe you're mistaken.

I am NOT mistaken

The NGLA tournament you're talking about that John Ward medalled with a 74 took place in July 1910.

It's the same tournament discussed in George's book...the "trial run" I referred to earlier.

NO IT'S NOT.

Another tournament was held a year earlier.

Please get your facts right.

You can read the details at the following link, which is the story JMorgan referenced earlier;

There are some GREAT pictures there, as well. 

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag43d.pdf


Mike, you continue to refuse to recognize that there were TWO DIFFERENT events.  One held in 1909 and the other in 1910.

MacDonald himself recounts the 1909 tournament in 'Scotland's Gift"

Please stop denying that one tournament was held in 1909 and the other in 1910.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me who "they" were who were playing the National prior to 1910?

I SHOWED YOU WHO THEY WERE.

I named five of the participants.

Why do you continue to deny the existance of that tournament ?

A tournament that MacDonald himself recounts in "Scotland's Gift"

Someone is either feeding you false information or you aren't doing your homework.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm really confused now.

Are you telling me that John Ward medaled in the Invitational Tournament with 74's in both 1909 and 1910?

I'm simply trying to find an account that talks about some play in 1909...I see nothing in George Bahto's book, I can find nothing in American Golfer or other publications of the time.

Please educate me, because all accounts I've read refer to the July 1910 tournament as the first.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

I'm not sure why this is difficult. 

It shouldn't be difficult, but we have had many obstacles to overcome.  I am glad that at least now you are focusing on July 1910 date versus the September 1911 "formal opening," as you had been for months.    Baby steps. 

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.

The reason I have emphasized that some were playing the course in 1909 was to put an end to this unfounded speculation that the course was still in the throws of primary construction at that time.   It was not.   All the holes were there. 

As for who played, I am not sure whether Macdonald said all who played, nor do I think it matters.

____________________________________

Patrick, Mike:

I've always been confused about the July 1910 tournament, described in the August 1910 AG.    In his book, Macdonald described an  informal tournament which took place in 1909, not 1910.    I had always suspected that Macdonald simply had the date wrong, and that the informal tournament actually was in 1910 rather than in 1909.   I thought this  because Macdonald included the story of Ward going 2-2-4-2 on holes 1-4 (then 10-13.)

After looking at the source material again, I think a better explanation may be that there were two tournaments, a very informal one with approximately 20 friends (including Ward) in 1909, and the July 1910 tournament where Ward had such a great stretch.  The reason I am leaning this direction is because Macdonald runs through some of the brackets and the winner, but they do not at all match the July 1910 results.   

1909 Tournament:  Ward lost to Herreshoff who lost to Tuckerman in the final of the "First Eight." Macdonald beat Robert Watson (1 up) to win the SECOND eight. 

1910 Tournament:  Ward beat Behr, then Travis beat Ward, and Herreshoff beat Travis in the final.  Macdonald lost in the first round of the "First Eight" to Travis.  Neither W.T. Tuckerman or Robert Watson even played in  the 1910 tournament. 

Looks like two different tournaments.    Perhaps Macdonald mistake was to describe Ward's feat as having occurred a year earlier than it did.   

Mike, while I don't understand what it gets you, a few if the names from the 1909 tournament were Ward, Tuckerman, and Robert Watson.   

________________________________

One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence.  I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site"  - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).

Peter

I generally agree that this is what Macdonald meant by an ideal golf course, and my understanding is that this concept in and of itself was groundbreaking.    I would add that for Macdonald there were a couple of other specific requirements for an ideal course-- seaside linksland and no trees in play.   An inland course with trees in play could be an excellent classic course, but it could not be ideal.    For example, CBM considered NGLA and St. Andrews ideal, while he considered Yale classic.

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

The American Golfer article of August 1910 makes it clear that John Ward shot 74, not in any qualifying round, but in his 1st round of match play, beating the medallist, our own Maxie Behr!  Ward went out (in, today) in 42 and back (out, today) in 32!  He started the back nine with a 2 at today's 1st.  The article makes it clear that this was a new course record, so it seems very unlikely that he also shot a 74 at some gathering in 1909.

Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact.  Examples of this replete in the genre.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Might I suggest that maybe CB got his dates and names confused when he dictated "Scotland's Gift" many years after the fact.  Examples of this replete in the genre.

Rich:

You might indeed suggest such a thing, and it is probably extremely commonsensical. But if you are asking Patrick that question--no way in Hell will he concede a point like that---not because it might be true or commonsensical but because he thinks it might prove him wrong and I think we all know in his mind admitting such a thing or conceding such a thing as the possiblilty that he might be wrong is unimaginable!

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Peter Pallotta on Today at 08:37:58 pm
One potentially interesting sidebar to this is the influence that Macdonald's "ideal golf course" had. I think what he meant by the term has been hashed out in other threads - I think he meant a golf course with no weak holes and with all holes manifesting the principles of good architecture. That public raising of the bar must've had real impact/influence.  I wonder how it relates to the premium and value we now place on an architect's ability to route a golf course, i.e. on his talent to make "the most out of a site"  - and whether or not that was a talent that was as valued back then, say in the work of men like Ross and Colt (and even in their own understanding of how architect's can manifest good principles).

Peter



I generally agree that this is what Macdonald meant by an ideal golf course, and my understanding is that this concept in and of itself was groundbreaking.    I would add that for Macdonald there were a couple of other specific requirements for an ideal course-- seaside linksland and no trees in play.   An inland course with trees in play could be an excellent classic course, but it could not be ideal.    For example, CBM considered NGLA and St. Andrews ideal, while he considered Yale classic.'






Well, shit guys, that's amazing. From the foregoing it looks like you might be getting closer together. Good stuff!

Let's pick up on this tomorrow and discuss whether time has told since Macdonald made that "ideal vs "classic' proclamation if there was actually something different (inferior, better or middling) that the future brought that determined whether golf architecture could be better or worse or something in between if it was treeless and seaside (ideal) or somewhere in the trees (classic). 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()