[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

What do the following two comments have in common:

"I fear engaging you further will throw a good thread way off the track, but I'll ask you anyway since you made the statement. What exactly have I said about White's role at Ravisloe, and what about what I've said reads too much into Bauer's comments? Could you please point to a specific post I made?"

"Phil, I see my fear that you would try to sidetrack this thread was well founded. In your previous post you were discussing Ravisloe and how I misread Bauer's comments. I've highlighted the one excerpt I've mine that you have quoted. I said White had been involved with the redesign of Ravisloe. How is that misreading what Bauer wrote?"

The answer is that you complain about sidetracking the thread yet you ask questions of me anyway and then BLAME ME for sidetracking the discussion! Sorry tom, but that is disingenuine at the very least. You are very quick to ask questions and then complain when no one answers them even when they have no true bearing on the discussion. Here's an example:

"I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?"

You asked it several times and then complained when no one answered it, yet it has absolutely no bearing on the question posed as to who is the architect of North Shore. How can I say it, let me quote the same answer I've now posted several times, including the question that YOU have not answered despite having been asked several times:

"George Bahto can answer that better than I. But let me ask you, WHY DOES THAT QUESTION MATTER? According to the records of the club that Steve has produced, Seth Raynor was hired on November 5th 1914 to advise on course design issues. On January 26 1915 the club "approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course." So whether this would be his 1st, 5th or 101st golf course design doesn't matter because the INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that RAYNOR was hired by North Shore for the express job of golf course architect. So again, in case you missed it, based on that set of facts, what possible relevance does the question "What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915" have?"

If I wanted to sidetrack this thread I might mention how on the Merion threads you took Tom Paul to task even going to the extreme of stating that he had PURPOSEFULLY ALTERRED club minutes because he had not quoted from them properly. Do you think that YOU should also be held to this standard? You said, "That is not exactly true. The quote above (that you ignored) said Raynor laid out the course with the active cooperation of White, and their plan was hanging on the wall."

THEIR PLAN? Let's look at what the minutes ACTUALLY state:

"On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club."

Again, where does it use the phrase "THEIR PLAN?" When did "the diagram" change to THEIR PLAN?"

Am I accusing you of what you accused Tom Paul? NO. I am accusing you of being convenient in how you choose to quote from the minutes so as to use an interpretation rather than what was written.

So Tom, There are a number of questions that I've asked you in the last page or two that you haven't answered as well as points made in direct contradiction to statements you've made on this thread that you conveniently don't comment on and keep steering away from. I am quite content to let them sit and accept your non-answers in response. Just don't accuse me of sidetracking the thread as I didn't raise the original points that I commented on... you did.

[Phil_the_Author]

Dave,

"You'd have to read the actual minutes to draw any intelligent, novel conclusions of your own."

That is exactly what the transcribed notes posted by Steve Shaffer are. The NY Historical Societry does not allow any photocopying or photographing of tehse documents and so Steve spent a great deal of time like an ancient scribe, copying them down word-for-word...

It is that act which takes this from being a great job of research on his part to being a SUPERIOR one!

[TEPaul]

Phil and DaveS:


I believe your recent posts (#300-#304) are very important and very necessary to have on this particular thread (I might also want to copy and paste them onto another concurrent thread about why North Shore GC may be the most successful investigation this website has ever had). I might even refer to them in the context of a really close analysis of this subject as some "necessary house-keeping," as it were!

I realize most on here may not read them or read them as carefully as they deserve to be read and considered and another such as Tom MacWood may look at them as side-tracking this thread.

Not at all, in my opinion; they are both necessary and important for the ongoing record which this very thread may become part of at some point.

Good Show.

[Mark Hissey]

Nine pages now.

Mark/George, I don't think you should assume that 9 & 10 were not both Raynor holes.  Even though he never built back to back 3's anywhere else, the property lines at North Shore combined with the clubhouse location pretty much insist on this routing.  I've tried for a month to figure out a better way and came up with nothing.

But, I would not be surprised at all if someone found that #10 (with Tom MacWood's picture) and #11 were already there, and Raynor just turned #10 into an Eden hole by changing the bunkering.

Excellent point Tom. Ultimately, without a fantastic new find, I don't know how we'll ever know.

[Mark Hissey]

Tom Doak:

I have no problem with #10 the Eden - it couldn’t have been placed better and fir the mold perfectly - a nice iron across the ravine.

The Redan:

The original tee, as far as I could tell was at 45 degree to the line of play - I think it shows on that oldest aerial I sent. Now, the 45 put the tee along the fence line, not the more straight-in shot as it plays now.

Also, that left bunker, I believe was all the down to the natural grade, not part way up as it is today. That would make it one of the deepest Redan bunkers I have seen.

Given that depth of bunker, the angle of play from the fence line, and the narrowness of the green, the darn hole would have been not playable.

I can handle most of it Tom and Mark but the narrowness of the green is terrible (compared to the norm).

Who built it?  I don’t know

I hit a lot of ball to that green from that angle - it is a beast of a tee-ball from there...... itz 45 feet wide!

If you look at the 1924 aerial there is an open spot just to the left of 8-green that has grown in over the years and it looks as if that was the intended tee.

Does that look like a tee where the letters "p"  and "r" are from "present"? If so it would sort of remind me of the Redan at Southampton Golf Club.

[Mark Hissey]

TEPaul:

I think your last statement there is spot on. That is exactly how we are looking at things.

A few more points to add:

It has been mentioned at various points that two, three and five holes from the Emmet course remain. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I have also seen it mentioned that it may have been both a nine hole track (hence the need for an immediate reconstruction of a 2-3 year old course) and an eighteen hole track. I think that eighteen holes would have been impossible on the abbreviated property even if it was only 5000 yards long. But more importantly, on December 23rd, 1914 the head of the Greens Committee, J. Clarence Davies reports that the woods on the easterly side of the property will probably be used for the new golf course. The fact thta there are back-to-back par 3's and par 5's may indicate that two of these four holes are part of Emmet's routing.

Given that Emmet's routing was one for a very short course at best, and probably for a 9-holer, and given that between 2-5 holes remain, I don't think it is accurate to say that this was not an original Raynor design. In my mind it was. He barely used any of Emmet's work if at all.

Mark
I know you have your heart set on a Raynor course, but you've got to get your facts right. It was reported five holes of the original course were incorporated into North Shore. And its difficult to say what parts of other holes were also used, for example greens, fairway corridors or tees. To say North Shore should be considered an original Raynor design is ridiculous. It was a redesign, perhaps a major redesign, but redesign none the less. The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards, and it was 18 holes, not 9.

Tom:

The facts are contradictory. I have read that there were 2,3 and 5 holes remaining from Emmet's course. The varied lengths of Emmet's course are well recorded also.

What isn't beyond doubt is the bound minutes of North Shore's meetings which states Raynor and White's involvements. I have seen the minutes myself and I have the photographs of them.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

From some of my experiences with aerials that area you describe does have many of the visual characteristics of obsoleted tees (that I know from other investigative methods were once in a particular places) in aerials. Obviously one cannot pick up something like the vertical dimension on an aerial very well but there are other indicators such as various discolorations in defined areas. Probably the easiest thing to pick up on aerials is old obsoleted bunkers that are easier to pick up on aerials than actually on the ground if they were graded out. Its just a matter of the fact that that amount of sand (subsurface) just does not go away or at least not for a very long time.

[Mark Hissey]

By the way, Phillip's account is accurate. I had a number of conversations with him through this process and he was incredibly helpful including the catalogue numbers of the Harmonie Club records.

My main issue was establishing Tillinghast's invovlement and Phillip was wonderful in that process. i dug and dug for his name and couldn't find a thing. I spoke to Bill Quirn about his notes for his accreditation in the MGA histroy. He couldn't find anything. I also asked Ron Whitten the same thing regarding his book. He couldn't find anything either. I had a lovely conversation with Geoffrey Cornish and the grand old man took three days to look through his records and once again found nothing. He recommended that I check with Phillip and of course I already had.

It seemed to be a full circle with no hard facts.    

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding the whole "original design" vs. "redesign" thread ... a large number of great courses are actually complete re-do's of crude golf courses which came before.  Crystal Downs, for example, had a small nine-hole course for 2-3 years before MacKenzie and Maxwell showed up ... they used part of one green in their plan.  Likewise, less than half of Royal Melbourne (West) were new MacKenzie holes; the rest were adapted from existing holes, in many cases using the same fairway areas but relocating greens or tees, and of course rebunkering the whole thing.

Usually these courses are listed as new designs, and the architect of the previous, written-over course is not listed in attributions.  But it's very inconsistently presented; sometimes those early architects DO get credit, even though there is little left from their original designs.  Part of the argument here seems to be over whether Dev Emmet's previous layout at North Shore should "count" for anything, or not; but we will never agree as long as we see that whole matter differently.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

As usual, that last post is framed in such a logical and realistic way. Clearly you have a ton of credibility in this business, on this website and etc., and it would be much appreciated to hear you give your own personal opinion on the way clubs and researchers and analysts should look at that particular issue in presenting the architectural histories and architect attribution of courses.

Don't be shy; I think we all know you've definitely earned the right to state your opinion on something like this and I think we all could and would learn from it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I have stated my opinion on the subject before, but here's the short version:

I think the attribution for any course should go to the architect who contributed the most to it.  That of course is a judgment call, but it's usually not a difficult judgment except for people with their own agendas.  For example, at North Shore, even if the maximum number of five holes is attributed to Emmet, and you could prove that those five have not been significantly modified, who would say that was enough for Emmet to be given the PRIMARY credit for the course?  I don't even think Tom MacWood would make that contention.

My standard is as simple as possible because obviously that is the only way the magazines are going to present the information in their lists ... there is no room to list six architects for every course.  I also think it's an important distinction because it would prevent architects from seeking to make small changes at great courses so they can associate their name with it.  Even prominent architects like Martin Hawtree and Rees Jones present their work on championship courses, on their web sites, as if they designed the whole course.  It's shocking to see that -- even more so than a young architect crediting himself with work at a club when all he's done is move a cart path.  Everyone's got to eat.

The truth of the matter is that the cool features of a course usually result from the contributions of many individuals, and that a lot of those people's stories (from shapers to owners to interns) are left out of the story by necessity, and by convention.  [i.e., We can't really identify what shaper or foreman or visiting dignitary really suggested the shape of the bunker on the tenth at North Shore, and his name is lost to history ... so why should we give the guy who does the same thing at Castle Stuart any credit?] 

But when the guy in question has a plaid jacket, or a previous "design" resume, then in most people's eyes he gets to take credit for everywhere he ever set foot, even in places where he filed a report and never built ANYTHING AT ALL.  (If Mark Fine was still around here, he might flinch at that one. )

Design credit is always a slippery slope.  It's great that people want to dig into this and find out more.  But at the end of the day, nearly all the stories generated are too long for print, and often the story is even more misleading than the original single design credit.  I guess that is the nature of the news business today, though; there are many competing story lines and no one has the guts or the authority to ever draw a reasonable conculsion.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Being an anal "completist", much like Tom MacWood, I have to ask if there's any record of who designed the first courses at Crystal Downs and Royal Melbourne?

I agree that for public attribution purposes in the general press, it's best to just boil it down to the one or very few major influences on the present course.

But, for those of us who really love to get "the rest of the story", in Paul Harveyan terms, we can deal with a little more complexity and details. 

Thanks

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Your whole last post (#313) is magnificent and I believe just SO necessary to hear from someone like you for the contributors and viewers of this website which is arguably a lot more broad reaching than even its greatest optimists know. (Believe me some of us hear this and become aware of it the hard way!   ).

Just your first paragraph alone is both comprehensive and clear enough to have made my day. No, maybe my month; or perhaps even my year!  

It is more than worthy for the lead-in to a really good and educational thread on here!

Good Show and thanks----

[Tom MacWood]

I understand this thread is very long and sometimes difficult follow, so for those confused about the length and number of holes of the original course I'll re-post these articles (in chronological order):

[Tom MacWood]

Here is an article from the NY Time (1/30/1916) reporting the number of holes incorporated into the new layout, its hard to say how many other greens, fairway corridors or tees were utilized.

[Mark Hissey]

And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?

This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I'm not sure why you are avoiding my question, but I'll ask for the third time, how is saying 'White was involved in the redesign of Ravisloe' a misreading of Bauer's comments?

[Tom MacWood]

In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?

[Tom MacWood]

And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?

This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.

Mark
Why do you care? You've already concluded NS should be considered an original Raynor design.

[Mark Hissey]

And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?

This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.

Mark
Why do you care? You've already concluded NS should be considered an original Raynor design.

I have no interest in getting into a disagreement with you and nor will I.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

The articles you post, including the ones on Posts #316, #317 are most appreciated and most helpful but for us really dedicated historical analysts it would be so helpful if you could also post the names of the newspapers and periodicals as well as the precise dates they were published if you are aware of them and if they do not show up on the post copies on here.

[Phil_the_Author]

Dave,

I believe you owe me a nights worth of drinks... You said:

"Philip, I will bet you a night's worth of drinks that what he typed that Stephen will tell you differently.  It's NOT verbatim from the minutes.  What he typed is his impressions and conclusions, having read the minutes.  For one thing, minutes are simply not written in that style, so I knew that just from what he wrote.  Second, and most importantly, he said so!" 

What you are not privy to is the sentence BETWEEN two others that he left out when he placed the "timeline" on here. This is the paragraph from the timeline:

"It should be noted that copying of the Minutes was not permitted. I was told that digital images could be made but I did not know that in advance of my visit. I did have the front page and one of the two pages referencing the golf course of the President’s report dated March 13, 1915 copied by a librarian who used an overhead copier as the item was stapled in the scrapbook."

This is the paragraph from the REPORT that he emailed to the club on December 5th and that he cc'ed to me. Note the highlighted missing sentence included here:

"It should be noted that copying of the Minutes was not permitted. I did make extensive notes that I will make available. I was told that digital images could be made but I did not know that in advance of my visit. I did have the front page and one of the two pages referencing the golf course of the President’s report dated March 13, 1915 copied by a librarian who used an overhead copier as the item was stapled in the scrapbook."

Steve called me from the train after he left the NY HIstorical Society and told me that, although he was unable to make physical copies of the minutes, that he was able to copy them down on paper. It is these notes that are the word-for-word transcript from which he created both the report to North Shore and the Timeline for this thread...

Don't worry, I drink either diet coke or lemonade so you'll get off very easy!

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Tom MacWood on Today at 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: Mark Hissey on Today at 07:02:29 PM


And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?

This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.



Mark
Why do you care? You've already concluded NS should be considered an original Raynor design.


I have no interest in getting into a disagreement with you and nor will I."






Tom MacWood:

Don't do that. Don't say what you just did to Mark Hissey. Look, I am by no means a fan of yours and matter of fact it is pretty apparent to most on here familiar with this website that I despise you and you despise me for all kinds of past reasons and issues, but there are far more important things to do and discuss on here than that, so DON'T do that or say that and certainly not to Mark Hissey.

You've come a long, long way on this website, as have I, and as I've said so many times you are an awesome raw researcher although a disasterous analyst of what you find for apparently numerous complicated reasons-----BUT even I do not want to see you completely cut your throat and completely alienate and marginalize yourself with everyone that way and certainly not with a man like Mark Hissey who is clearly doing his level best for North Shore GC and the investigation into the historic accuracy of its golf club and golf course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

For someone who keeps complaining that discussing things with me on this thread is going to "throw a good thread way off the track..." and that he sees that his "fear that you would try to sidetrack this thread was well-founded..."

You just seem to want to keep engaging me. This despite my saying, "I am quite content to let them sit and accept your non-answers in response. Just don't accuse me of sidetracking the thread as I didn't raise the original points that I commented on... you did."

So what do you do, You accuse me of "avoiding my question, but I'll ask for the third time..."

Now Tom, you complain when I answer and then complain when you don't think I did (reread my posts and you'll see that I answered this not once but several times). Which way do you want it?

I will be more than happy to answer this question, but first, how about instead of complaining that you ask a question several times without getting an answer, apply that to yourself and answer MY QUESTIONS which I have asked several times without a response!

How about this one? It's quoted directly out of my reply #301:

[You asked] "I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?"

You asked it several times and then complained when no one answered it, yet it has absolutely no bearing on the question posed as to who is the architect of North Shore. How can I say it, let me quote the same answer I've now posted several times, including the question that YOU have not answered despite having been asked several times:

"George Bahto can answer that better than I. But let me ask you, WHY DOES THAT QUESTION MATTER? According to the records of the club that Steve has produced, Seth Raynor was hired on November 5th 1914 to advise on course design issues. On January 26 1915 the club "approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course." So whether this would be his 1st, 5th or 101st golf course design doesn't matter because the INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that RAYNOR was hired by North Shore for the express job of golf course architect. So again, in case you missed it, based on that set of facts, what possible relevance does the question "What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915" have?"

[TEPaul]

DaveS:

I spoke to Steve Shaeffer an hour ago---he's still out in Arizona. He transcribed the material in the New York Historical Society from the administration of that club within the timespan we're considering word for word. It is not his OPINION of what it said but what it said word for word. If there are any mistakes on what was transcribed on here it was either a transcription mistake by him or someone else on here who tried to quote what he transcribed from the original documents.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()