Andy,
NGLA was originally going to use the Shinnecock Inn instead of building a clubhouse right away. The Inn, which was near the current 10th tee, burned down in the spring of 1908 thus forcing them to build a clubhouse sooner than anticipated.
____________________________________________________________________________
Patrick wrote:
David Moriarty,
I did post without having the benefit of seeing your response.
I don't think CBM was the type of man who would delegate without reviewing the work.
His long term involvement would seem to insure that anything not done to his liking would have be rectified quickly.
I agree. But I don't know
when the look of the bunkers changed so dramatically, or even whether it was a slow progression or all at once. And I doubt the validity of the various explanations offered thus far. The photos above were NOT all from the first year after NGLA was build, as one blowhard claims. In fact they are not even all from NGLA! A few are from Mid Ocean, taken in the mid 20's, and the bunker work there looks nothing like what we associate with NGLA or Macdonald either. As for the NGLA photos the earliest is 1908 or 1909 and if I recall correctly the latest few were from over 10 years after the course was built.
As for why the change, I guess it could be that Raynor eventually converted CBM to his style, but this seems unlikely given that the Raynor aesthetic does not seem prevalent at Mid Ocean (which came much later.) Also, I keep thinking back to the comment CBM made in the Scotland's Gift, where he noted that after spending twenty years making careful and meticulous changes and improvements,
he was then mostly just trying to make the hazards look more natural. In the late 1920s it does not sound like CBM had gone over to Raynor's more manufactured look, but was rather focusing on a natural aesthetic.
Keep in mind that CBM's statement about trying to make the bunkers look more natural after 20 years of tinkering with the course should not be confused with the passage quoted above by TEPaul, who wrote "As for the bunkers of NGLA this is what Macdonald had to say on the subject:"
"All the other holes at the National are more or less composite, but some are absolutely original. The bunkering we have been doing in the past twenty years has been done after the most studious thought and painstaking care."TEPaul then concludes from this that we ought to ignore the bunker style for the first two decades of NGLA's existence and focus only on what they looked like twenty years in. He apparently thinks that CBM hadn't quite figured out his aesthetic style before then, but had been diligently refining his aesthetic sensibilities for the previous two decades!
Of course CBM had quite a bit more to say on the subject that that, but TEPaul won't let that get in the way because he has a point to make up. But the passage TEPaul quotes has little or nothing to do with aesthetics. Rather, CBM is describing the holes and noting that the bunker
placement is not based upon some inflexible plan or template, but on
careful study of years of play and adjusted bunkers accordingly. CBM returned to this point (studying play before finalizing fairway bunkers) again and again.
I am not suggesting that at this point CBM was not concerned with aesthetics. He obviously was as the first quote above demonstrates. But I've seen no indication that his aesthetic sensibilities were not set until this period or that they had even changed since the course was built. CBM wanted to emulate nature and the great links courses. Simple as that.
[By the way Patrick are you the one who convinced TEPaul to finally read Scotland's Gift? He's been dropping citations from it the last few months almost as often as he regales us with society gossip from days of yore. You'd think he'd have read it previously since he has been waxing on about CBM (usually in the form of society gossip mentioned above) for a decade, but better late than never, I guess. If so, can you convince him to read it again, and also read some of the other works he pretends he knows all about. If he did, he could answer every single one of his indignant questions to me above.]
Like everything in this world, 100 years has a way of altering physical properties, especially when those properties are influenced by Mother Nature, Man's journies over them and Man's attempt to maintain them with equipment and hard labor.
Interestingly enough, the 1938 aerial reveals a much more extensive bunkering of the property/ies than exists today.
One has to wonder how much influence WWII had on eliminating or changing bunkers.
Hopefully, the 1938 aerial will be posted for viewing.[/quote]
I'd love to see the aerial, and think it would answer many of my questions.
Do you think it possible that between age and the war that the look had changed significantly, and that when the went to put it back together they looked at other CBM/Raynor courses as a model? This could explain why the course has taken on Raynoresque looks. In other words, maybe they did the same thing we do by too closely associating the two?
It's quite remarkable and I wouldn't mind seeing a restoration effort from all three clubs, with the goal being the 1938 configuration.
Like I said, I'd like to see the aerial. I'll withhold any thoughts I might have on restoration, as I doubt they would be well taken by some around here.
______________________________________________
Anthony,
I understand what you are saying about the bunkers, but I don't think I'd go quite so far as to compare them to the bunker pictured. While NGLA's bunkers do have grass faces they are generally very deep and the faces are very steep. Plus the land generally slopes toward them so they play as if they cover a much larger area than the look. As for the bunker shown, I am not sure even I'd be afraid of that bunker and I am a tremendous slouch from the sand. The bunkers at NGLA were plenty scary to me, especially because their placement is incredible.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer a more natural looking bunker, but as function goes many of the NGLA bunkers are world class.
Here a bunker wrapping around the 18th. At first glance it looks a bit like the bunker photo you (or someone) posted, but notice how steep the face is, and how deep. Seems to be deeper than the flag is tall. And recall what awaits on the other side if one is a bit too aggressive.
And a photo of NGLA's road hole bunker containing a former basketball player. The photo was taken a number of years ago before age shrunk him down to miniature.
