[Kyle Harris]

I used to play the 1-6, 16-18 nine all the time. Works well.

Back to the thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

...Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right.

In other words, you start your research with a predetermination that the club history is likely wrong.  Little wonder you discount them so easily.  It's self-fulfilling from your perspective.  When all you have is a hammer....

Dave,

Most club histories AREN'T architecturally oriented.

In many cases there are passing references to substantive changes, but, little in the way of details.

I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood in that I tend to view club histories with a sense of enlightened suspicion when it comes to architecture, since most club histories tend to view architecture as a collateral subject.

Most club histories are well intended, usually undertaken by a member or members with a passion for the entity and the club's activities, rather than the architecture.

TEPaul's architectural treatise on Gulph Mills is a rare find, and quite different from most club histories.

I have about two dozen or more club histories, mostly from courses you'd recognize and not one of them comes close to mirroring the Gulph Mills history.
Seminole devotes a section to each hole, but, from a different perspective.  Rees Jones and Vinnie Giles discuss the playability rather than the history or pedigree of the hole.  But, other than Gulph Mills, I haven't seen an in depth analysis of any course's architecture.

I tend to view club histories as romantic novels rather than definitive documents when it comes to architecture.

Assembling as much information, from as many sources as possible, would seem to be the prudent process.
But, often, club histories get it wrong when it comes to architecture.  I think, primarily, because most clubs didn't think of memorializing any changes to their golf course.  Remember, at many of these old great courses, a man or small group of men, often ran them, and when they did things, when they made changes, they weren't concerned about heavy documentation and leaving a paper trail for the likes of us.

I don't know if I ever told the story of Mr. Grace, my dad, the U.S. Amateur and Saucon Valley.  I believe I did, but, I'll repeat it.

Overnight Mr Grace deepened a bunker so that it would play more difficult after he watched my dad hit a 5-iron from the fairway bunker, stiff, on a hole.
When Mr Grace commented on what a great shot my dad hit, my dad thanked him and stated that the shot he hit was one that pretty much the entire field could hit.  Mr Grace then asked him how that shot could be made more difficult.  My dad told him that the bunker was very shallow and if the shot was to be made more difficult, the bunker would have to be made deeper.   The next day that bunker was deeper.
You won't find any green committee or board minutes to document the change.  And I know a club history wouldn't include it, unless Mr Grace wrote it and remembered the particular incident.  I'm sure that that wasn't the only change he ever made to the golf course and I doubt that any of the changes he made are documented.
Mr Grace, dictator supreme, summoned the proper resources and crew, and "Viola", a deeper bunker was crafted overnight.

I suspect that Mr Grace's method was the rule rather than the exception amongst those clubs where a dictator or oligarchy reigned surpreme.

So, unfortunately, while we search for the all encompassing facts, often, they're not there to be found.
Hence, you have to rely on a compilation.  And often, the compilation is missing facts or has mistated the facts.
Thus, I'm with Tom MacWood in not believing everything you read.
That's also why I tend to go with aerial and/or ground photos to determine the scope of the change.

Hope that helps 

[TEPaul]

"Hope that helps"


Helps? HELPS?

More than you may ever know Patrick Mucci!

That is one of the most important posts this website has ever had but it is not totally expository. There is much more to discuss---much more.

One of the most significant inclusions in tracking architectural evolution in the entire history of the art and science of GCA which is arguably no more than maybe 160 or so years old is to separate out the actual architectural history of golf courses themselves from the concomitant simultaneous histories of the clubs themselves such as tournament, memberships, parties, significant events and whatnot! 

We are getting there---we ARE getting there but these distinctions must be always made clear, and more clear. Our learning curve is still in its early parabola, I think!

[George_Bahto]

TM:

"George
That's quite a story. What is the source or sources for that info?"


That's only part of the story - came from various articles and club info
 
 
 

[Bill_McBride]

...Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right.

In other words, you start your research with a predetermination that the club history is likely wrong.  Little wonder you discount them so easily.  It's self-fulfilling from your perspective.  When all you have is a hammer....

Dave,

Most club histories AREN'T architecturally oriented.

In many cases there are passing references to substantive changes, but, little in the way of details.

I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood in that I tend to view club histories with a sense of enlightened suspicion when it comes to architecture, since most club histories tend to view architecture as a collateral subject.

Most club histories are well intended, usually undertaken by a member or members with a passion for the entity and the club's activities, rather than the architecture.

TEPaul's architectural treatise on Gulph Mills is a rare find, and quite different from most club histories.

I have about two dozen or more club histories, mostly from courses you'd recognize and not one of them comes close to mirroring the Gulph Mills history.
Seminole devotes a section to each hole, but, from a different perspective.  Rees Jones and Vinnie Giles discuss the playability rather than the history or pedigree of the hole.  But, other than Gulph Mills, I haven't seen an in depth analysis of any course's architecture.

I tend to view club histories as romantic novels rather than definitive documents when it comes to architecture.

Assembling as much information, from as many sources as possible, would seem to be the prudent process.
But, often, club histories get it wrong when it comes to architecture.  I think, primarily, because most clubs didn't think of memorializing any changes to their golf course.  Remember, at many of these old great courses, a man or small group of men, often ran them, and when they did things, when they made changes, they weren't concerned about heavy documentation and leaving a paper trail for the likes of us.

I don't know if I ever told the story of Mr. Grace, my dad, the U.S. Amateur and Saucon Valley.  I believe I did, but, I'll repeat it.

Overnight Mr Grace deepened a bunker so that it would play more difficult after he watched my dad hit a 5-iron from the fairway bunker, stiff, on a hole.
When Mr Grace commented on what a great shot my dad hit, my dad thanked him and stated that the shot he hit was one that pretty much the entire field could hit.  Mr Grace then asked him how that shot could be made more difficult.  My dad told him that the bunker was very shallow and if the shot was to be made more difficult, the bunker would have to be made deeper.   The next day that bunker was deeper.
You won't find any green committee or board minutes to document the change.  And I know a club history wouldn't include it, unless Mr Grace wrote it and remembered the particular incident.  I'm sure that that wasn't the only change he ever made to the golf course and I doubt that any of the changes he made are documented.
Mr Grace, dictator supreme, summoned the proper resources and crew, and "Viola", a deeper bunker was crafted overnight.

I suspect that Mr Grace's method was the rule rather than the exception amongst those clubs where a dictator or oligarchy reigned surpreme.

So, unfortunately, while we search for the all encompassing facts, often, they're not there to be found.
Hence, you have to rely on a compilation.  And often, the compilation is missing facts or has mistated the facts.
Thus, I'm with Tom MacWood in not believing everything you read.
That's also why I tend to go with aerial and/or ground photos to determine the scope of the change.

Hope that helps 

Not only is that a great story,  but it raises the question:

Are there any clubs today run by an autocrat such as Mr. Grace, or Mr. Fownes, or Mr. Macdonald, or any of the others who wrote the rules and called the shots at major private clubs in the 20th Century?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I would think that Sebonack, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Bandon/Pac and others have retained that form of leadership.
And, I think some of the great clubs are still run by oligarchies, but, their numbers are dwindling.
Democracy doesn't work well at golf/country clubs, that's why I've always favored dictators.
They "get it" and they "Preserve it".

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

A couple of things, because I didn't read the last half of your last post about your father at the US Amateur at Saucon that carefully.

But first about Tom MacWood and what you said about him not believing certain things about club histories.

That's fine and that is true of most all of us because there are plenty of things that are suspect about club histories but my feeling and my philosophy about challenging club histories and the factual information about club histories is that if someone wants to do it comprehensively they really should go to the club first about it and try to establish a relationship with them about it.

In that vein, it is definitely not lost on me or any other good and competent researcher or historian that that is just the way to do it, and the proper way to do it, and that has been shown over and over again for time immemorial.

But it isn't MacWood's way either because he can't do it or just won't do it or worse yet doesn't believe in it. To me that is complete Bullshit on his part and a massive excuse for just NOT doing it.

He has even gone so far on this website as to ADVOCATE that he thinks he shouldn't establish a working relationship with a golf club because that will somehow corrupt and compromise his objectivity about their history. That to me is the biggest Bullshit he has ever promoted and the biggest Bullshit imaginable. He probably says that because he is either unwilling to take the time and effort to do it like the rest of us or else it is an excuse because he knows he hasn't got the capability, for some reason, to do it like the rest of us and he is either unwilling or unable to explain to any of us what or why that is.

Either way, his method and process of essentially refusing to establish a working relationship with a club that's the subject of his intense research interest, as the rest of us do and have to do, is highly, and I mean REALLY HIGHLY suspect, and I think he should be exposed on here for it every step of the way.

On the other parts of your story about your Dad and Mr Grace, that is so coincidental to me because even though my Dad rarely spoke with me about golf or his experiences in it he did mention that US Amateur at Suacon to me once.

He said that he knew the Rules of Golf well enough but on one hole he had a short chip shot to the green and his caddie asked him if he wanted to have him leave the flag in or hold it for him.

My Dad saw Mr. Grace and Joe Dey standing right behind the green watching him (he knew Mr Grace and Mr. Dey really well and they knew him) and he told his caddie to take that flag out and get it as far away as possible because he wanted no part of hitting it in any manner shape or form even with a chip shot.

He also told me that Mr. Dey, even though a fine friend of his and his family's, looked at him askance at that tournament because at the time even if he was a pure amateur he happened to work for Spalding when he played in that US Amateur at Saucon and he knew that Mr. Dey was not completely comfortable with that at the time.

The world was pretty different back then for sure!

[TEPaul]

"Are there any clubs today run by an autocrat such as Mr. Grace, or Mr. Fownes, or Mr. Macdonald, or any of the others who wrote the rules and called the shots at major private clubs in the 20th Century?"



Bill McBride:

There are not. Today that would be a whole lot harder to do or be than in the days of C.B. Macdonald, W.C. Fownes or Eugene Grace. Mr Grace was a massively powerful man in American business (Bethlehem Steel) and he was prominent on the USGA but not as prominent as Macdonald and Fownes were in their time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

My dad was friendly with and respected Joe Dey.

As to Tom MacWood, it's pretty difficult to present yourself as a "friend of the club" and then embark upon research that may dismantle their history.  That seems to be a pretty uncomfortable position to put yourself in.
Essentially, you're gaining their trust and then, chances are, destroying their interpretation of their history.
Some would call that a betrayal of confidence.

As you know, sometimes it's difficult for a MEMBER to gain access to the club's archives.

Typically, the question from those in power is: "why do you want to do this ?"
And, they ask themselves, "why should we grant this individual the keys to the inner sanctum ?"
It's a naturally suspicious proposition and their concerns are well founded.
Everyone has a distaste for the unknown and most in power don't want to create waves on their watch.

So, I tend to disagree with you when it comes to how an outsider should go about getting on the inside.
I just don't see it happening, unless you think that PV, Merion, Oakmont, GCGC and others would welcome Tom or any other non-member GCA researcher with open arms.

Even if Tom or someone else decided to write a book on the course/club, I can't see them granting access.

If I was Tom or a researcher, I would think that the keys to the kingdom would lie with forming a joint venture with a member.
But, that's not so easy to craft. There has to be a bond and a trust that doesn't come casually.

I think Tom's methods are valid.
Newspapers, magazines, club histories, contemporary accounts, and, archive access if you can get it.
But, if you can't, what then ?

I can't fault Tom for his methods, and, don't forget, it's not like he lives in Ardmore, PA or Glen Head, NY.

Certainly his research has provided critical insight in a number of cases, and, while I might not agree with all of his interpretations and/or conclusions, this shouldn't be a "him against us" mentality.  Instead, we should use Tom's, and anyone else's, research as a foundation, which to build upon or fine tune.

It should be, "you're 20 % wrong, it shoud be that he's 80 % correct, now let's go research or fine tune the other 20 % so that we can get it right.

All too often it's been a tug of war between the parties instead of a co-operative endeavor.
That doesn't mean that we have to agree, but, I don't think the results of Tom's research should be a "PASS OR FAIL" test.
We should take that research that we can confirm and feel comfortable about and build on it.
And, we should discard that research that is determined to be erroneous.

It's not a complex issue.

It's rather simple.  Advocate for your research, facts, opinions and reasoning, but, with an eye toward getting it right rather than flaming out the other guy.

Debate, passionate, challenging debate is what unearths the truth, not categorically discarding information based on who brought it to the table.

End of rant

[TEPaul]

"As to Tom MacWood, it's pretty difficult to present yourself as a "friend of the club" and then embark upon research that may dismantle their history."


Patrick:


You are just so wrong about that it's shocking. Wayne and I have done that many times to the understanding and satisfaction of all. And in some cases I'm talking big-time architectural or architect attribution change.

Patrick, you and I kid around with each other a lot on here but don't kid around with me on something like this or you lose hands-down and you know that; particularly as I am pretty sure you have never been involved in a single situation where you proved to a golf club their architectural or architect attribution was wrong.

Do not try to fudge with me about something like this Patrick Mucci, because you know as well as I do I have every facility in the world to check out its bona fides and you know that too.  

As I've said for years on this website----as a raw researcher Tom MacWood is excellent---but as an historical analyst he is a proven disaster.

[Tom MacWood]

"Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right."


Tom MacWood:

You try to confirm everything? What do you mean by EVERYTHING? When you wrote that essay on George Crump did you try to confirm the accuracy of every bit of factual evidence you presented about Pine Valley in that essay?

When it comes to facts dealing with who did what and when in a club history, or any source like that, I try to confirm with as many contemporaneous sources as I can. I'm not infallible, I'm sure there are errors in everything I've written, but for the most part I think I do decent job of finding the facts. I would definitely confirm the facts gained from personal interviews with individuals trying to recall facts from decades earlier, otherwise I wouldn't use them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"As to Tom MacWood, it's pretty difficult to present yourself as a "friend of the club" and then embark upon research that may dismantle their history."

Patrick:

You are just so wrong about that it's shocking.

Wayne and I have done that many times to the understanding and satisfaction of all.
And in some cases I'm talking big-time architectural or architect attribution change.

TE, Wayne's a member of Merion and in addition is co-authoring a book on Flynn, hence, his entry to targeted clubs can't be compared to someone who has NO AGENDA, no book to write, no architect to glorify, no club with which to attach a pedigree.

You and I have lived in the golf/country club world for decades and decades, thus, you know how difficult it is for a perfect stranger to gain access.

To support the notion that Tom MacWood could just call the club and be given immediate access is disengenuous.
He has neither the contacts nor the pedigree to gain such access

I think he's done pretty well given the disadvantage of his starting point.

Patrick, you and I kid around with each other a lot on here but don't kid around with me on something like this or you lose hands-down and you know that; particularly as I am pretty sure you have never been involved in a single situation where you proved to a golf club their architectural or architect attribution was wrong.

I'm sure that disproving the architectural attribution was a by-product and not the purpose of your entry to a given club, unless your premise was predicated on upgrading the architectural attribution (from somebody to Flynn)

To suggest that Tom MacWood should call a club, announce that he wants to gain entry to their archives, for the purpose of discrediting their architectural attribution is foolish.  Even if he announced his intentions as research oriented, what club is going to let a stranger, an unknown commodity, gain entry to their records.  I can't think of a club that wouldn't say: "Thank you, but, no thank you.

Do not try to fudge with me about something like this Patrick Mucci, because you know as well as I do I have every facility in the world to check out its bona fides and you know that too.  

As I've said for years on this website----as a raw researcher Tom MacWood is excellent---but as an historical analyst he is a proven disaster.


While I haven't agreed with all of Tom's conclusions, I wouldn't categorize his analysis as a total disaster.
I think he's provided valuable information, some previously unknown.

In the field of science, when someone makes what they think is a "discovery", they usually issue a paper on it to the scientific community, for review, analysis, confirmation or refutation.

The scientific community DOESN'T attack the author.

The scientific community scrutinizes the work, the research and the conclusions absent personal attacks.

The same process should take place on GCA.com.
Let him put forth his premises, his theories, his conclusions and let them be scrutinized, confirmed, refuted, corrected or altered.

More good, more knowledge comes from that process than from just dismissing his premises because of who the author is.

I've disagreed with Tom on a number of issues and I've agreed with him on others.
My opinion is based on the presentation, not the presenter.

[TEPaul]

"When it comes to facts dealing with who did what and when in a club history, or any source like that, I try to confirm with as many contemporaneous sources as I can. I'm not infallible, I'm sure there are errors in everything I've written, but for the most part I think I do decent job of finding the facts. I would definitely confirm the facts gained from personal interviews with individuals trying to recall facts from decades earlier, otherwise I wouldn't use them."


Tom MacWood:

None of us are infallible.

However, I can hardly see how you can claim on here that you try to confirm with as many contemporaneous sources as you can if you neglect to actually visit and establish a working relationship with golf clubs about whom you seem to have an interest in their architectural histories. Pine Valley, Merion and Myopia and now North Shore would be very good examples of that with you. You can rationalize it all you want to and you certainly have, but in my opinion, you just can't get around that fact. Nobody can, and you are no exception.

[TEPaul]

"TE, Wayne's a member of Merion and in addition is co-authoring a book on Flynn, hence, his entry to targeted clubs can't be compared to someone who has NO AGENDA, no book to write, no architect to glorify, no club with which to attach a pedigree.

You and I have lived in the golf/country club world for decades and decades, thus, you know how difficult it is for a perfect stranger to gain access.

To support the notion that Tom MacWood could just call the club and be given immediate access is disengenuous.
He has neither the contacts nor the pedigree to gain such access

I think he's done pretty well given the disadvantage of his starting point."




Patrick:

I don't agree with that at all but I think I see why you would say it. Firstly, I don't believe you've ever actually gotten into something like this with clubs you don't actually belong to but a pretty good number of us sure have.

It may not be the easiest thing in the world to establish a good working relationship with various clubs but I maintain it just isn't all that hard to do if one goes about it correctly and I don't believe people like MacWood or Moriarty went about it correctly with a club like Merion and they know that.

That is my point.

On the other hand, you have some great examples of researchers who do and have gone about it correctly. That would include researchers such as Bob Labbance, Phil Young, George Bahto, Brad Klein, Geoff Shackelford, Dan Wexler, Kevin Mednik, and Wayne and I among others, and very much now including Steve Shaeffer as a result of this North Shore investigation.  

Again, that is my point, and I think it is extremely important to keep making this point.

[Tom MacWood]

Thanks, Pat.  So in other words, if you found a blurb in the Santa Fe Times from 1938 stating that Robert Trent Jones designed Augusta, you wouldn't automatically, out of habit, jump to the conclusion that the old fable about Dr. M and Robert Tyre Jones designing Augusta was just one big fat myth.

Skepticism?  Sure.  I agree with you about club histories.  They read like Danielle Steele books - heavy on the sap and romance.  That, however, does not mean that the minute a third-hand, heresay-on-heresay clipping shows up, we just assume that everything in the club history is wrong and leap to opposite conclusions.  

Look at the way you'd handle the lack of concrete evidence about that bunker vs. the way Tom M would.  You start with the understanding that the actual facts are often not ascertainable.  And you'd want facts before you'd consider whether that bunker story of yours was, well, bunk.  If Tom M, however, read anything, anywhere that implied a different story regarding the deepening of that bunker, he'd instantly leap to the conclusion that the first architect he could find that could be shown in some old microfilm to have spent a night within 50 miles of Saucon Valley in the prior 24 months must have made that change.  

That's all I'm saying...

Dave
It sounds like you've done quite a bit of historical research over the years. The one thing that has helped me in recent years is keeping an open mind. And I may have a slight advantage over some, especially those dedicated to a single golf architect. I don't have the emotional investment or underlying motivation to maximize one's legacy. By keeping an open and independent mind I believe you tend to find information others may overlook. An example is the little blurb I found in a British publication on Wilson travelling overseas, I actually overlooked it the first time I went through it, and only found it after seeing other evidence supporting the theory that he made the trip later (David M's essay).

Another obvious truth with golf architecture research (and all research for that matter), the more information you have the better, not only because having multiple independent contemporaneous sources is obviously an advantage in discovering the truth, but equally important you become familiar with individuals (and individual assocations) that are important but obscure. Examples of obscure but important names I've seen overlooked are Willie Murray, Leonard Macomber, John Wylde, Claud Harris, and Herbert Barker.

What are some of the architects or golf course projects you've researched over the years?

[Tom MacWood]

TM:

"George
That's quite a story. What is the source or sources for that info?"


That's only part of the story - came from various articles and club info
 

What articles? What club info? Could you be more specific?

[George_Bahto]

No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement

[TEPaul]

"The one thing that has helped me in recent years is keeping an open mind."

You just may have the least open mind of anyone on this website with the possible exception of Pat Mucci. The other fellow with the closed mind seems to have left some time ago.


"And I may have a slight advantage over some, especially those dedicated to a single golf architect. I don't have the emotional investment or underlying motivation to maximize one's legacy."


There's nothing wrong with having an emotional investment in a subject and to deduce that produces a motivation to maxmize a legacy is ridiculuous. Really poor logic there.


"By keeping an open and independent mind I believe you tend to find information others may overlook."


You seem to find a lot of information which is essentially irrelevent or only semi-relevent and then you proceed to try endlessly to make a mountain out of a molehill with it.


"An example is the little blurb I found in a British publication on Wilson travelling overseas, I actually overlooked it the first time I went through it, and only found it after seeing other evidence supporting the theory that he made the trip later (David M's essay)."


The fact that both you and Moriarty proved Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not 1910 was a very good discovery but what it ended up showing about the creation of Merion and its architect was definitely not what Moriarty concluded or apparently what you had concluded.

 

"Another obvious truth with golf architecture research (and all research for that matter), the more information you have the better, not only because having multiple independent contemporaneous sources is obviously an advantage in discovering the truth,"



Again, and for about the tenth time, it's so interesting you keep saying something like that while never even having set foot on any of these subject clubs and their courses. That lack of research has to contribute to basically missing probably more than half the available research material. Of course you could have tried to collaborate with others at these clubs who have access to that kind of material but both you and your friend have proven to be about the worst at doing that than anyone on this website.

[Tom MacWood]

No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement

George
What argument? I didn't know I was arguing with anyone. There are parts of your story that read a little bit like a fiction, so I was curious what was your source, specifically. Most writers of history don't have a problem supporting their findings.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
It sounds like you've also given a great deal of thought to the subject. For those of us interested in golf architecture history where can we find some of your historical essays. By the way I have your Gulph Mills report from 1999, and its very well done.

[Mike Sweeney]

[Most writers of history don't have a problem supporting their findings.

Tom,

First off, historians also sell books. Buy the book and then I assume George will have a reference section.

I think the problem is your post and process have a Michael Moorish (the filmmaker not our Mr. Moore) polemic quality to them. It is pretty clear that you like to champion the "little guy" architect. In many cases you have picked and probed and you have been either correct or you have pushed the conversation ahead. However, you have in many instances simply gone overboard.

You keep asking the same questions over and over about Mountain Lake like there is something deeper there and you lack the ability to step back and look at the obvious. It is 1915 in Lake Wales, Florida 50 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. People thought Walt Disney was nuts in the 1960's. Nobody wants to go to Lake Wales in Florida in 1915 unless you have a real prospect for a job. Do you really think there is a chance that Macdonald got on a train to Lake Wales in 1915? Even Raynor only made the one trip.

To date you have quoted one newspaper article from Miami (a day's trip in those days from Lake Wales) that had a date of 1917. The article was very unclear as to what that date was for - construction, legal founding, opening of the course.......

Tom, I have an impression of who you are and what you are trying to do. I wish for you own benefit and for the benefit of the researchers and writers here that you would take that laser like focus of yours and apply it situationally.

Cheers.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
 I don't understand your logic. How could posting the supporting info affect book sales? I would think if anything posting an excerpt from the book could potentially do more damage, which is what he did.

Why would you assume the source or sources will be in the new book? I don't believe the first book referenced or specified the magazines, newspapers, club histories, club archives, etc.

The reasons I'm questing the Raynor story at ML.

1. CBM said Raynor went out on his own in 1917.
2. In 1915 Raynor was a complete unknown and very unlikely to get any job without the help of CBM
3. Based on the hire of Olmsted, it would appear they were engaging the best of the best
4. CBM was known to use models
5. Raynor was a civil engineer, and not likely to use models. He designed 50+ courses during his career, and apparently did not use them
6. There is evidence of a later connection between Frederick Ruth and CBM. Ruth was director of the Bermuda Development Co. which built Mid Ocean.

What was the source or sources for your ML article?

[TEPaul]

"1. CBM said Raynor went out on his own in 1917.......
.........5. Raynor was a civil engineer, and not likely to use models. He designed 50+ courses during his career,......"



Tom MacWood:

If your above remarks on Raynor were from your research and analysis on Raynor in Macdonald's autobiography, you're not the researcher I thought you were and you're worse at analysis than I thought you were which was never very good anyway.


Here's what Macdonald said in his book:

"By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen."



Apparently you don't read very carefully or you just read things into what you research and analyze that aren't there perhaps because you enter into some of these subjects with various preconceptions, assumptions or conclusions that aren't necessarily accurate or true.

Is it any wonder no one on here seems to put much crediblity in the things you say anymore?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
It sounds like you've also given a great deal of thought to the subject. For those of us interested in golf architecture history where can we find some of your historical essays. By the way I have your Gulph Mills report from 1999, and its very well done."


Tom MacWood:

Thank you. The GMGC design evolution report from 1999 was the first thing I did which was not long after I got interested in golf course architecture. I did another design evolution report for The Creek Club with their historian in the last few years. Other than that the only other published architectural essays were with another fellow for a chapter in a golf architecture book out of Australia, a few essays or articles on architecture or architects in the GAP's magazine and in the USGA's U.S. Amateur Championship program at Merion in 2005 and the Walker Cup program at Merion in 2009. Other than that the only one I recall is a very early "In My Opinion" piece on this website.

I would also like to add, AGAIN, that all the architectural subjects I've been involved in researching, carefully analyzing and writing about involve clubs and courses I have a really good and long term familiarity and relationship with. I would not try to do it otherwise and I've always recommended the same process and method as absolutely necessary for anyone else, very much including you, who's interested in researching, analyzing and writing about the architecture or architects of golf courses.

Matter of fact, I think the only people I've ever heard of who have tried to research, analyze and write about golf clubs and the architecture and architectural evolution of their courses without FIRST establishing a good working relationship with the subject club and a real familiarity with the golf course is you and David Moriarty.

The other real irony to me is both of you have preceded and qualified some of your remarks on here that you are actually only trying to learn about the architectural histories of these courses! But yet both of you refuse to actually collaborate with anyone at those clubs and courses who know the architectural histories of those courses and clubs and who has access to and good familiarity with contemporaneous club material that is vital to know and to analyze for a comprehensive understanding of the course's architecture and its architects. The method and process both of you have not only used but also defended is far more confrontational than collaborative. Apparently your logic is that these clubs are always trying to hide some truth and not seek it out in the maintenance of some inaccurate "legend" story.

I don't buy that at all and I have never really seen it in the architectural subjects and investigations I've been involved in which are not exactly a small amount of them, at this point.  

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike
 I don't understand your logic.

You would get along with my wife.

How could posting the supporting info affect book sales? I would think if anything posting an excerpt from the book could potentially do more damage, which is what he did.

I believe that George was being generous not promotional.  However, it appears that advance excerpts are standard in the publishing world: "Online Publicity - The Web is an important new source of publicity. Foremost, it allows publicists and/or authors to find very narrow target audiences with relative ease." http://www.netread.com/howto/writers/index.cfm?article=promoting.cfm

Why would you assume the source or sources will be in the new book? I don't believe the first book referenced or specified the magazines, newspapers, club histories, club archives, etc.

I am not going to go through the entire book, but the first three paragraphs of Chapter 1 in The Evangelist are direct and attributed quotes/passage from Scotland's Gift.

The reasons I'm questing the Raynor story at ML.

1. CBM said Raynor went out on his own in 1917.

Please see Tom Paul's interpretation above which I agree with.

2. In 1915 Raynor was a complete unknown and very unlikely to get any job without the help of CBM

Who has said that CBM did not help him get the job? My guess is that CBM got him the job and said "Seth, bring me back some oranges!"

3. Based on the hire of Olmsted, it would appear they were engaging the best of the best

Who says that Raynor was not the best architect available willing to travel to Lake Wales? What evidence do you have that someone else was involved?

4. CBM was known to use models

What evidence do you have that CBM made the models himself?

5. Raynor was a civil engineer, and not likely to use models.

What evidence do you have that Raynor was a licensed civil engineer? My uncle had his law degree and never took the bar. What evidence do you have that civil engineers are not likely to use models?


He designed 50+ courses during his career, and apparently did not use them

Apparently? How so? What evidence do you have that models were not used and just not recorded?

6. There is evidence of a later connection between Frederick Ruth and CBM. Ruth was director of the Bermuda Development Co. which built Mid Ocean.

Ruth also worked with Banks at Mid Ocean and hired him at Whipporrwill in 1928, so your point is?

What was the source or sources for your ML article?

Tom, this has been asked and answered a number of times now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()