[Tom MacWood]

What courses are on Raynor and CBM's resumes pre-1917?

[TEPaul]

"What courses are on Raynor and CBM's resumes pre-1917?"

The answers to that are on this 16 page thread. Those questions have been asked before and answered before from a good deal of credible resource material including CBM's own autobiography and Bahto research material and other credible material.

For starters, if you are interested in Macdonald's actual golf architecture resume (according to him) the only and single place you are ever going to find that articulated resume is in his own autobiography on his life and times in golf and architecture called "Scotland's Gift Golf."   

For some odd reason, Tom MacWood, you seem to think YOU, as a researcher/historian, can do better than that or than he could!

I would seriously doubt THAT! 

[Mac Plumart]

[Tom MacWood]

Excellent, could you give us a listing and timeline of the courses?

[TEPaul]

"Excellent, could you give us a listing and timeline of the courses?"


Sure, definitely. They can ALL be found right here on this 16 page thread; it's a hell of a resource in that particular vein. I checked and the listings and timelines are all there on the various posts of this thread.

Again, I think this North Shore GC architect and architectural investigation on this particular thread and a few other threads on here supplementing it recently is arguably the most successful and complete archtitect and course architectural attrbution investigation GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has ever had.

[Tom MacWood]

I'm sorry, I'll start a new thread. What are you afraid of?

[TEPaul]

"I'm sorry, I'll start a new thread. What are you afraid of?"


Oh Dear; here we go again!

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Why don't YOU simply post a list of their course resume's as of 1917?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I will because you can't, nor can TEP, or Mac his newest love interest.

[TEPaul]

"Why don't YOU simply post a list of their course resume's as of 1917? "


Phil:

At this point, I would have to say because even if he might not understand much he probably does understand he can't really argue with himself on here.

[TEPaul]

"Phil
I will because you can't, nor can TEP, or Mac his newest love interest."


Well, Glory F...ing Hallelujah!!!

Should someone recommend the self-proclaimed expert researcher/writer/historian, Tom MacWood, send it to North Shore GC and the assembled team of Doak/Urbina/Hissey/the club and perhaps Bahto and Shaeffer and see what they make of it or is that not good enough for the man from Ivory Tower, Ohio would thinks he never needs to go anywhere to do the on-site research most of the rest of us do and have to do?  


Aren't we all just super lucky?----as Tom MacWood says he is going to make a list for us that might be entitled "The courses on Raynor's and CBM's resumes pre-1917?"

[Phil_the_Author]

Well Tom,

Then since you complain so often when no one will answer your question I would think that you would want to answer this one...

If you believe yourself to be the only one who is able to do this, that is provide a list of the course's on Raynor's & CBM's resume's pre-1917, why do you keep asking others to do it and then get annoyed when they don't?

That is of course if you are correct in your ASSUMPTION that I can't, nor can Tom nor his "newest love interest Mac"...

Oh yes, I'm still waiting for YOU to answer at least the one question that I will now pose for the SIXTH TIME on this thread and that YOU KEEP IGNORING...

"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?" 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?[/b][/i]

You've had numerous questions asked of you a number of times on this thread that you have continued to avoid and not even acknowledge, no less not answer. Yet you have the audacity to complain that others don't answer yours!

You accuse me of practicing a double-standard and yet doing this is as clear a double-standard in actuality as anything that you accuse me and others of...

[TEPaul]

Mr Jeffrey, Sir, Esq., Former ASGCA president, man of many other Honors and All Around Good Guy, etc, etc;


Regarding your #527 of yesterday afternoon, I think this thread has morphed to some extent into an examination of what Charlie Blairgownie Macdonald said and meant to say about Seth Raynor in his autobiography on his life and times in golf (CBM's).

Nothing at all wrong with that in my book, as Seth most certainly was mentored by CBM and it is quite doubtful Seth Raynor would've ever gotten into golf course architecture had it not been for Charlie B Macd.

Not to digress, but it has always struck me as most interesting that Charlie may've been the first man involved in golf architecture design to have taken on a surveyor/engineer to be his constant partner in his interest and times with GCA (that in an of itself might be a most interesting and special subject considering that Charlie was dedicatedly copying things from abroad with concomitant maps and surveys of holes and such from abroad).

Well, Mr. Jeffrey, I digressed, and as a consequence of that digression the rest of what I planned to say to you just went plumb right outta my head.

So, LATER!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Not sure exactlywhat context you mean "producing documents?"  On this website, via research, etc.

There are really a lot of unresolved issues with that and on here.

As to producing dox here, my first thought was that none of us is required to produce anything for other people here. When I ask questions of those here who might have info I don't, I follow Mom's teachings and say "please" which doesn't always happen here.  It seems rude to ask others to  produce this list or that as if any of us is "owed" that by anyone.

There are also some questions as to intent with the Terrier accusing biographers of having an agenda of protecting the legend of their subject, and those authors believing that TMac has an equally "sinister" agenda of debunking long held histories.  I think he feels there are enough club histories in doubt that ALL are suspect.  There is nothing wrong with that basic attitude, but it is just as potentially destructive as being overly protective of existing history.

And what is the role of this discussion board?  If it really is a historical research site, I bet there are rules of discourse to serious sites of that nature.  Or is it a lively discussion group where no holds, other than common decency, hold us together

Lastly, there is the question of whether any or all of us suffer from "premature evaluation" of partial material, with all of us snickering that the other guy has the bigger problem.

There probably will never be an real answers.

[Tom MacWood]

Again we have a lots of opinions and speculation on what CBM meant (or didn't mean) we he said Raynor became a post graduate in 1917, but still no one has presented any facts to back it up.

[TEPaul]

Even though it has been mentioned to you on this thread a number of times you still don't seem to get it; what's going on with you??

Macdonald did not say Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture in 1917; he said Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture BY THE TIME of St Louis GC, Old White and the Lido. Those courses were begun in the 1914-15 timeframe, and not in 1917.

What Macdonald said about 1917 is that Raynor built 100-150 courses since 1917 that he (Macdonald) had never seen, with the exception of six he listed that he gave his personal attention to since 1917 that we know Raynor worked on with him.

Read the damn paragraph for a change MacWood----it's just not that hard to properly understand what it says.

[Jerry Kluger]

May I ask a question: I have always thought that CBM designed a golf course with a general idea that each hole should have unique design and playing features.  I don't mean to say that he did the same designs or features over and over but that he felt it important that each hole be looked at as special and individual. Earlier in this thread it was noted, I believe by TD, that there are quite a few ordinary holes at NS so much design work will be needed as opposed to restoration.  Would these presumptions lead to the conclusion that CBM had very little influence on this Raynor design?

[TEPaul]

JerryK:

I completely understand your question but assuming or concluding that since NS may've had a number of holes that weren't that good or interesting and that therefore CBM may've had less rather than more to do with it seems a bit sketchy to me.

When considering which clubs and courses and projects CBM had more rather than less to do with I think a pretty good comparision can be made with the projects he had more to do with and who the principals of those projects were. I think one will see if they do the research on who those principals really were that in most all cases we will see they were people remarkably prominent in the business and social world CBM wanted to be in, was in to a large extent, and wanted to stay in bigtime.

Since he never got paid for what he did in archtiecture (he never wanted to be paid for it and always refused it) it seems pretty loigical to me he would tend to do what he did in architecture for the kind of people who were important to him in his social and business life (his real job was a floor-broker or specialist on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange for Barney & Co.) and not others who may not have been that to him.

So I suppose the next logical question to ask (even as unattractive as the question itself may be to us today) about North Shore GC was if Macdonald was in some way anti-semitic.

On that score I have no idea at all but if he was it too would be somewhat understandable in the social and business worlds that were his life and times back then. It is hard to generalize with an issue like that but I sure do know it was a lot worse that way back then than it is today.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: I think your speculation about CBM is really unfair. I recognize that Wall Street back then was not a hotbed of religious tolerance but CBM was concerned with his friend and prodigy so I will not take the step that his social standing necessitated his disassociation with a project at a Jewish club. I don't think that he made it a secret that he was working with Raynor and he would not be hated for doing so. BTW: Do you think I was correct that CBM viewed each hole as having a strategic importance and it was important that the golfer recognize the particular feature of each hole when playing the course? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again we a lots of opinions and speculation on what CBM meant (or didn't mean) we he said Raynor became a post graduate in 1917, but still no one has presented any facts to back it up.

Here is where we occaisionally get pissed at you.....Its your theory and your theory alone that this passage means somehting. You then consistently misquote it to bolster your theory, and then demand that WE provide facts to back up your theory that most of us have dismissed. 

Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.

[Mike Sweeney]

Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.

Brauer,

Get the heck off of here. Logic, common sense and humility have no place here!

[Tom MacWood]

May I ask a question: I have always thought that CBM designed a golf course with a general idea that each hole should have unique design and playing features.  I don't mean to say that he did the same designs or features over and over but that he felt it important that each hole be looked at as special and individual. Earlier in this thread it was noted, I believe by TD, that there are quite a few ordinary holes at NS so much design work will be needed as opposed to restoration.  Would these presumptions lead to the conclusion that CBM had very little influence on this Raynor design?

Jerry
There were many, including Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin, who believed his original designs, as opposed to famous prototypes, were his best holes, but I would never say CBM had little influence on Raynor. CBM had a big influence on Raynor.

[Tom MacWood]

Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.

Brauer,

Get the heck off of here. Logic, common sense and humility have no place here!

At the very least facts were presented.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.

Brauer,

Get the heck off of here. Logic, common sense and humility have no place here!

At the very least facts were presented.

TMac,

Where were the facts presented about 1917 being a more important year for Raynor? (I presume that is what you are talking about) You presented and slightly misrepresented a quote from Scotland's Gift in 1928, together with your opinion that "It seems clear that 1917 was an important year for Raynor".  You also thought it "seemed clear" that Barker designed Merion because the trains went through Phillly, so I was not impressed.  

As to facts, actual contracts presented in this thread showed that Raynor did do some work on his own before 1917, specifically at NS.  You mentioned some speculation (with no facts from anyone, but at least you asked nicely) about model making somehow being relevant.

Now, I will agree that finding out just how formal the relationship between CBM and Raynor at NS and others in the "transition period" is an interesting endeavor for us to pursue.  I will also agree with you that some loose statements about Raynor not being influenced by CBM are quite wrong.  That Raynor rarely veered from the CBM template holes (whether copies of Brit holes or CBM originals, I would be hard pressed to name many original Raynor holes, as opposed to Raynor adaptations of CBM templates. I am sure George will chime in with a few.

In all seriousness, I want to be fair to you, and not go all TePaul on you with a name calling barrage, or any really negative statement that might stifle legit discussion.  So, if you can easily do it, please give me the post numbers where you presented facts in this matter, since I have forgotten them and don't care to look back through 16 pages.

Thanks in advance.

[TEPaul]

“Again we have a lots of opinions and speculation on what CBM meant (or didn't mean) we he said Raynor became a post graduate in 1917, but still no one has presented any facts to back it up.”




Once again, Macdonald did not say Raynor became a post-graduate in golfing architecture in 1917. He said he had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture BY THE TIME of St. Louis, Old White and the Lido which began considerably earlier than 1917, such as 1914 and 1915.

What Macdonald did say about 1917 (Macdonald's book was published in 1928, over two years after Raynor died) is that since 1917 Raynor built or reconstructed some 100-150 golf courses that Macdonald said he'd never seen. The only other thing Macdonald said about 1917 is that since 1917 six courses Raynor worked on were the only ones he (Macdonald) gave any personal attention to after 1917.

Here is Macdonald’s paragraph from his autobiography and it is definitely not hard to understand he did not say Raynor became a post-graduate in golfing architecture in 1917.

"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave any personal attention to after 1917."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()