Has this site helped create a revisionist history for GCA?

[TEPaul]

I agree with what has been said on this page about the use of the term "revisionism." Some tend to use it as a distortion of accurate and factual history when in fact it probably just means a change or revising of dogma or doctrine or accepted history whether it is true or not.

I would tend then to use the terms misinterpretation, misrepresentation or mischaracterization of the accurate facts of history from now on in place of the term "revisionsim."

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

The site has been good and bad for accreditation.

On one hand, there has been some remarkable work done to prove that credit was not being given properly for work done. When I got involved in trying to find out what courses Thompson really designed, there were 10 people for this site who helped me at some point run down leads. We took the Thompson’s Societies list from 130 (or so) to around 80. GCA can be helpful. People tend to choose the information that suits their purposes.

The other side of the site is that people often want to change accreditation to match their own beliefs on how things are done. For example, I was on site a hell of a lot for Muskoka Bay and was very involved in all aspects of the project, but I should not be given design credit. Doug provided the final routing and had the final call on all aspects – that makes him the designer regardless of what other things happened on site.

[Dan Boerger]

I would like to add another point. Let us not forget the ODG frequently gets more attention and accolades because, well, their work is old. I guarantee you there are woodworkers today who can make a quarter-sawn oak desk as well or better than anything a Stickley line craftsman did 85 years ago.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This site has developed a very clear, and IMO, rather romantic bias toward so-called "classic" architecture.  I personally prefer playing the Brook Hollows than the Dallas Nationals of this world, but I wonder if this would be the case if the "classics" had not been "updated" repeatedly since their beginning and maintained to today's standards.  For example, would we think so highly of Pasatiempo if the greens were running at 8' vs. 11'+ or #2 without 30-40 years of top-dressing crowning the greens and grassed in slow, grainy common bermuda?

Lou
Ignorance is bliss. This what Brook Hollow looked like before all the "updating".

TMac,

Thanks for posting that! I have seen it in the hallways of the Brookhollow Clubhouse and its a great example.

I once asked Bill Coore how he justifies any particular aspect of his "restorations" and he admitted that it is often more important to restore a course to what the members percieve than to what the actual original design was.  Look at the original pictures of Riviera - they had huge, fancy shaped greens, but CC "restored" the course to small greens.  They "restored" Brookhollow to a tree lined couse with small round greens, when that photo shows some large, square greens.

That is why I laugh at those who go nuts over historical restoration.  CC, Doak and a few others admit that there are always value judgments (while of course touting their value judgements as better than those of other gca's)

I will also disagree with TePaul on this one.  I don't think there is any willful mistinterpretation going on here, although there are a few (he and me included) who may be pretty strong willed about our biases in making interpretations. (he for the amateur sportsman, me for the professional gca, and BTW, you perhaps for the unsung heros)

[Phil_the_Author]

It was stated, "Lou, Ignorance is bliss. This what Brook Hollow looked like before all the "updating"." and then an aerial taken in 1926 was posted.

Sorry, but that aerial is the course AFTER its FIRST major set of changes. It opened for play on October 28, 1922. It measured 6,300 yards. In 1923 the course was nearly destroyed by a devastating drought that burnt off almost all of the turf and left the ground parched and cracked. This was followed by a series of severe late summer thunderstorms that flooded the entire property.

As a result, Tilly went back and REDESIGNED the course and it reopened for play in February of 1924. Now the course had different tees, numerous bunker changes and green rebuilds. The newly redesigned course now measured 6,600 yards; 300 yards more than when it was first opened for play.

Yes, ignorance is bliss...

[TEPaul]

"Come to think of it though, the most telling point about Merion is that C.B. Macdonald did not claim any credit for it in his own book, where he was certainly not shy about claiming credit for the rest of what he did."


TomD:

If one compares the courses that Macdonald was given more credit for in press reports (and on here) vs what Macdonald actually took credit for (in his autobiography) there are a few pretty stark differences. But it seems to get more complex than that in that there are a few courses and clubs which Macdonald really did have a lot to do with which he seems to seriously minimize his roll in and there may be some understandable reasons for that if one carefully analyzes the records of a few of those clubs.

One is actually The Creek Club which you worked on back in 1992-3, but unfortunately at that time those explanatory club records had not yet been found.

[TEPaul]

"I will also disagree with TePaul on this one.  I don't think there is any willful mistinterpretation going on here,"


Jeffrey:

I'm not making any distinctions here between willful and unwillful misinterpretations of historic facts----I'm simply pointing out that I believe there have been some serious misinterpretations, misrepresentations and mischaracterizations of actual facts and events on here and elsewhere.

Obviously, when this gets down to the way various clubs analyze and present their architectural histories they need to consider what I believe are some of these misinterpretations, misrepresentations and mischaracterizations and historical inaccuracies very carefully and I believe many both will and already have.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

My Good Mr. Paul, sir,

My take is that the provocative "revisionist" would mean "willful" misrepresentation, as it implies there is an agenda to serve.  Perhaps there is some of that going on.

The actual facts, despite such great advances of the internet, aren't as readily available in gca history, because they are often privately held. So, in most cases, the misinterpretations come from reviewing old newspaper clippings and other secondary source data other than actual club minutes, which the MCC and NSCC cases show.   Much of the discussion here isn' about actual facts, its about interpretations of news reports, which were made from pehaps limited information given to the reporters by the private clubs involved. 

Whethe intentional or not, those newspaper clippings could for the most part, be made up of only what those clubs wanted them to know, or deemed important, which most often did NOT include a detailed architectural breakdown.  Even if it did, the cub reporter would have to filter that data in terms of what it thought the audience wanted to know, further diluting the facts for those who use newspaper clippings as their primary source, no?

I agree with you that club records are the best source as proven by MCC and NS.  I agree with TMac that given the above, probably the gca only got mentioned if it was a big name consultant or perhaps well known local club member.  In any event, there seems to be a need for many to ID just one gca on a project.  We all would love to know more details than those old newspaper clipping, and even club minutes might provide.

[jeffwarne]

This week I am on one of my projects removing 15 bunkers because the municipality wants to reduce maintenance..we are also reworking bunkers to remove all flash and flatten the sand to help maintenance....will that go down 50 years form now as "how we wanted the design to look" or will anyone ever know or care that the changes were made.....and why....

That's great Mike-just take a lot of pictures so you have the inside track for the restoration job

[Tom MacWood]

It was stated, "Lou, Ignorance is bliss. This what Brook Hollow looked like before all the "updating"." and then an aerial taken in 1926 was posted.

Sorry, but that aerial is the course AFTER its FIRST major set of changes. It opened for play on October 28, 1922. It measured 6,300 yards. In 1923 the course was nearly destroyed by a devastating drought that burnt off almost all of the turf and left the ground parched and cracked. This was followed by a series of severe late summer thunderstorms that flooded the entire property.

As a result, Tilly went back and REDESIGNED the course and it reopened for play in February of 1924. Now the course had different tees, numerous bunker changes and green rebuilds. The newly redesigned course now measured 6,600 yards; 300 yards more than when it was first opened for play.

Yes, ignorance is bliss...

Phil
What changes did Tilly make to his 1922 design in 1923?

[TEPaul]

"My Good Mr. Paul, sir,

My take is that the provocative "revisionist" would mean "willful" misrepresentation, as it implies there is an agenda to serve.  Perhaps there is some of that going on."


Well then, My Good Mr Jeffrey Brauer, Sir, August GCA and Past President of the ASGCA, Peer of the Great State of Texas, Hockey Expert Supreme and other impressive titles too numerous to herein list-----that is your take on what "revisionist" means!

But that is not what I am stating on here, even if I have suspected some on here of it from time to time! But there is no reason to get into that ("it") at this point, unless we first discuss for ten pages or so and then agree upon what "it" actually means!

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "What changes did Tilly make to his 1922 design in 1923?"

Far too many to elaborate on here. 15 of the 18 holes were lengthened with two of them by more than 50 yards each and others by 30 & 40. Even the short par-threes saw drastic lengthenings (by percentage). For example, the 150 yard 8th now measured 165 and the tiny 125 yard 10th had 10 yards added. Every hole, including those not lengthened, had work done ranging from repositioning tees to bunker changes to putting surfaces changed. It was a major overhaul.

[Lester George]

Philip,

Sounds like a complete do-over.  After 1 year?

Lester

[Phil_the_Author]

Les,

When the course first opened it received rave reviews by everyone. There were no thoughts given to improving anything, yet one must look at the entire dynamic of what occurred locally to the course the very next year and nationally during the same time-frame with the effect of technological improvements and the effects they had on the game.

Locally the weather caused damage that was completely unexpected. There simply was no way to plan for a drought of the magnitude that they suffered. Remember, Brook Hollow was built with an automated sprinkler system, the first one in the southeast, yet it was insufficient to protect the course. It was so bad that they noted that, "The severe heat and drought of this last summer caused quite a little damage and expense, but Messrs. Dexter, Jacoby and Tyler rigged up a Ford tractor on the river bank and soon had sufficient water to take care of our needs..." The irrigation system as originally planned and installed drew its water from the Trinity River. That year it receded so far that the system inlet was now well above the water line and so nothing could be pumped to the course. That is why they jury-rigged a tractor to pump without which nothing would have benne saved.

When the reconstruction was finished, they noted that now, “The entire course is now piped. All fairways and greens can be watered at short notice. At some future day we will need a larger engine and pumping plant on the river, but for the present the out-put we have will do..."

Following the drought were the series of tremendous thunderstorms followed by flooding. Take a look at the aerial once again. Though this doesn't show it well, the Trinity River is located to the extreme left in the photo and the edges are barely visible. So it is actually quite some distance from the finished course. In addition, normal river height is some 30+ feet below the height of the 14th & 15th fairways, the two nearest the river. Now note what the club recorded. "The cost of finishing the course has exceeded our original estimate, due to excessive floods causing washouts and then droughts which made it necessary to re-seed and spot sod some of the greens and fairways several times. Recently we had the highest water since 1908. It was several feet deep over the 14th and 15th tees and partly out in the 15th fairway..."

So the unexpected weather problems forced the club to have to rebuild the course as the turf was still in its infancy and barely two years old, if that,  in most places.

Nationally, elite players were now using steel-shafted clubs with balls that consistently flew much further than just a few years prior when the course was being considered and then planned. Although at 6,300 yards it was a stiff test for most, those at Brook Hollow desired a course that would test ALL, even the finest of players. It was there hope to one day host national championships on the course.

So since they had to rebuild the entire course, they decided to make changes that would allow it to be able to handle any & all expected advances and those that weren't.

It was this same desire to keep up with and even get ahead of these advances in the game that inspired a number of courses during these same years to rebuild even within a year or two of their original creation...

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

Are you trying to make my point ("Ignorance is bliss") or taking another pot shot at me?

BTW, I've had a copy of the aerial you posted for years, compliments of a member with whom I've played out there a couple of times.  Philip had also shared some of his findings during the time he was working on behalf of the club.

There are a variety of reasons, some very good, others not depending on your POV, why the "classics" were repeatedly changed.  In that respect they are no different than the moderns, or any endeavor worth its while- nothing is perfect and man has a deep, innate need to tinker and improve.  Just ask Pete Dye.

I can see why this creates great confusion, and consternation for the designers, particularly when the changes are done by a competitior or in-house.  To the extent that we sometimes attribute roles, motives, intentions, etc. to certain people without reliable basis, we do assist in creating a "revisionist history".

BTW, did you respond to my inquiry on New Albany CC?  I have not heard anything about it and I am curious.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Your story makes no sense.

[Jud_T]

Isn't by definition history always revisionist? I'm sure in 50 years they'll all realize that Doak and Crenshaw courses suck

[Niall C]

Excellent and interesting thread. One small point about course changes in the early part of last century, from what I have been reading of contemporary newspaper articles over here, building a golf course seemed to be a continual process and if it wasn't Fernie/Park Jnr/Braid or MacKenzie redesigning or adding to the course then the greens committee and greenkeeper had a go at it as well. With that in mind Philips story on Brook Hollow doesn't surprise me.

As is obvious from a lot of these threads on older courses, its hard to get to the bottom of who did what particualrly as a lot of these courses evolved over decades rather than being built and perhaps a single redesign.

As for revising history, unfortunately a lot of clubs don't really care what there history is and are happy to stick with whoever was given credit way back when.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil
Your story makes no sense.

TMac,

Play nice.  If you know anything about Texas weather, it makes perfect sense! It can flood and be a drought nearly at the same time...

As to using a tractor to get further out in the river, I know of a few newer Dallas courses that have put pump intakes out into huge lakes and found that in a three year drought, they had to extend them ever further as the lake went down.  That does happen, and don't ask me how I know!

And it is very possible for Texas soils to crack up wide enough for a horse to fall in during big droughts and heave enough to push irrigation out of the ground.

I also believe that the Trinity River levees were built as a depression era WPA project, later than BH, but I could be wrong. Before that, there were many damaging floods along the river.  Later, the TR gave them problems of a different kind - they had some problems with water quality, with urbanization, particularly Love Field, just upstream polluting their water source.

[DMoriarty]

I too agree with TomM's  assessment early in this thread.  History should be revised as the facts dictate, and we see more and more instances where the accepted version of history is incomplete or just plain wrong.   It seems that the real problem is a lack of historical revision caused by an unwillingness of those who are heavily invested in their romantic legends to revise the legends when the facts so dictate.  

Another related problem is that some of the legends have so permeated our understandings that it makes it difficult for us to even consider challenging them.  Tom Doak, of all people, falls into this trap below, and about no less that Old Macdonald himself.  

. . .
Come to think of it though, the most telling point about Merion is that C.B. Macdonald did not claim any credit for it in his own book, where he was certainly not shy about claiming credit for the rest of what he did.
. . .

While mild, this is pretty typical of the common wisdom on Macdonald, even among those who think highly of his work.  For others, CBM was an arrogant, boastful braggart, ever a blowhard, and would have hogged every bit of credit out of every project with which he was ever involved.  But in reality, Scotland's Gift is far from a exhaustive compendium of the extent of CBM's involvement in golf course design.  In the book, CBM discussed NGLA at great length, but beyond this the only post-NGLA courses he discussed in any detail were the Lido, Mid Ocean, and Yale, and he discussed these three in a single chapter.  As for the others there are anecdotes here and there, but otherwise CBM pretty much glossed over them near the end of his chapter on NGLA, and in all of three paragraphs.  Given how these myths seem to die hard, it may be worth taking a look at the extent of CBM's taking credit for the rest of what he did:

      In 1911 Roger Winthrop, Frank Crocker, Clarence Mackay and other Locust Valley friends wished me to build the Piping Rock Golf Club courses.   I found they wanted a hunt club as well as a golf club.  Some of the leading promoters though tgolf ep-hermeral and hunting eternal.  Consequently, I had my troubles.  The first nine holes were sacrifices to a racetrack and polo fields.  However, all's well that ends well, for to-day golf is King and Queen in Locust Valley.   I employed Raynor on this job.  It would have been difficult to accompoish without him.  There was too much work and too much interference.  
     Next, James A. Stillman's friends lassoed me to lay out a golf course in Sleepy Hollow.  It seemed an almost impossible task to carry through; because we were told that William Rockefeller would not consent to any trees being cut down or removed.  I was almost inclined to throw up the task.   However, at a meetin which Cooper Hewitt, Jim Whigham, and I had with William Rockefeller and Frank Vanderlip, I was given free hand.  This was a hard task for Raynor in appalling summer heat.  
     Next came the St. Louis Country Club, 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 Golf Club, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deepdale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I have any personal attention after 1917.  

That's it.  A paragraph each on Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow and then a list of courses built after 1917 with which he was personally involved.  So it is not accurate to say he was not shy about taking credit for every project with which he had any involvement, is it?   Rather, it seems he failed to mention some projects and barely mentioned others.  If there is a rhyme or reason to it, it seems that he discussed projects where he was involved from start to finish.

[TomD, I don't want to get into it but Hugh Wilson (and others) did tell us who did what at Merion, at least in part.  Trouble is that until recently no one bothered to take what he said at face value or to figure out and understand the context of his remarks.   In fact the various Wilson stories are perfect examples of how these legends take on a life of their own and are hard to kill off even when evidence refuting them is staring everyone right in the face.]

________________________________________________________

Phillip,  I have read through your last couple of posts a few times and I have to say I too am having trouble understanding.    It sounds to me  from your description in the last post that:
1.  During the drought the club hooked up a tractor to pump water and therefore was able to pump at least some of the water they needed.  (. . . rigged up a Ford tractor on the river bank and soon had sufficient water to take care of our needs...)
2.  The course was not "finished" until after the repairs.  ("The cost of finishing the course has exceeded our original estimate. . . ")
3.  The repairs consisted of reseeding and sodding.  (due to excessive floods causing washouts and then droughts which made it necessary to re-seed and spot sod some of the greens and fairways several times . . .)

So I am not sure where you are coming from when you talk about a redesign.   It sounds as if the club did not even think the course was finished yet.  

Also,  on another note, I don't really understand what you mean by "redesign."    Do you consider moving tees back a redesign?   And if a few tees were moved back substantially (you say 50,50,40, and 30 yards) then the rest must not have been moved much at all.  Moving the other 11 back an average of 11 or 12 yards doesn't seem a big change to me.    Are you sure that, with the exception of the few longer tees, that they just didn't change the way they measure?

The reason I ask these questions is because I am curious, but also because we seem to have yet another situation where the claims being made don't seem to quite match up with the facts being presented thus far.   Whether or not this is what is happening here, it is always a problem when people refuse to back up their claims and legends with supporting facts.  

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
I don't care if it was hit by a tornado, lightning, flooded, burned down, and attacked by locusts there is no way they would completely "overhaul" the design one year after the course opened. The original design was inspired by PVGC and the course represented in the picture I posted was the result of that concept (in contrast to the course today). Adding 200 or 300 yards to a design is not "a major overhaul." Phil is playing games as usual.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

While unusual, rebuilding before or just after opening is not unheard of.  It sounds to you like Phil is playing games. I read his post as rehash of some club minutes and documents he has, not making someting up out of the blue.

It seemed the whole course had to be re-grassed and irrigated.  They moved some tees and bunkers. "Major Overhaul" is a subjective term, but to them, the whole course was out of play and it may have seemed like that.

If you two read Phil's recitation as such, its just as likely that you are hearing things as he is saying them, perhaps on account of your past trials and tribulations on gca.com.  Not that its not understandable, but I thought we were all in the holiday spirit and trying to get by all that......

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

This is definitely the LAST comment from me since I am obviously "playing games" with what I post.

Take a look again at what I wrote. You will note that I QUOTED something. What I quoted were minutes from the board meetings. Have you ever seen the minutes? You KNOW that I have. EVERYTHING that I wrote can be found in either the board minutes or accounts from the Dallas Morning News.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

I think it's been a pretty well known fact on here, and for some time now, that there are a few on here who don't put much if any crediblity in a club's board or committee minutes and particularly if they have never seen those minutes themselves. And that goes for people on here who quote those board minutes.

Matter of fact, the following is a very good recent example of the lack of credibilty that a few on here put in the things others who know more about these subjects say or have said:


"[TomD, I don't want to get into it but Hugh Wilson (and others) did tell us who did what at Merion, at least in part.  Trouble is that until recently no one bothered to take what he said at face value or to figure out and understand the context of his remarks.   In fact the various Wilson stories are perfect examples of how these legends take on a life of their own and are hard to kill off even when evidence refuting them is staring everyone right in the face.]"

[DMoriarty]

Phillip, instead of getting upset or offended, why not just present the evidence?  I read your posts above and I don't understand the conclusions you have drawn.   Perhaps you left out some crucial details?  

Did the minutes speak of an extensive remodel where nearly all the tees and many of the bunkers were moved or repositioned?  Because all I see is the part where the minutes mention repairs, specifically reseeding and sodding.    Do the minutes discuss the changes in equipment necessitating the added length?   Did the minutes describe bunkers being moved, etc?

Surely it would be better just to tell us what the source material said, rather than to give us your impression, wouldn't it?    If everything you wrote can be found in the newspaper and minutes, then it should be an easy enough thing to back up your claims with sources.  Remember, it is you with the claim that the photo he posted reflects the course after a "redesign." So shouldn't you back it up?   Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

As for the topic, this again goes to the root of the problem with getting the history right.   With the source material, we can at least all have a starting point to figure out what it means.  Without, it is just one guy telling another what they should believe.  One is likely to get closer to what happened, the other is not.

Here is an example.   You mentioned articles in the Dallas Morning News, so I just took a quick look at a few articles and I think your information needs some serious vetting.  For example, you claim the course was almost destroyed in 1923, had to be closed, redesigned and rebuilt, and then reopened in February 1924.  But a quick look at the articles, and it seems they were playing on the course throughout 1923, with the last event being a tournament there at the end of October, 1923.    The first event of 1914 was on January 10; an Vardon exhibition match   So if the course closed it was only closed for two months, which doesn't seem like much time to do a complete redesign of the course.  

Also as for the yardage, it was listed as 6300 yards in the paper in 1922, but it had earlier been listed as around 6500 yards.  Are you sure that the 6300 was from the tips?   If so, how do you know.

Are you sure you don't have the dates wrong? 

Again Phillip, no offense meant.  We all need to back up our claims with facts, because often all of our claims need some vetting.