[Tom MacWood]

Here's a description of the New Course at St Andrews from one of the links above:


"A classic links course with undulating fairways and delightfully challenging greens, it was set out in 1895 by Old Tom Morris.

Named the New to differentiate it from the original course at the Links which became the Old Course, the course remains one of the finest examples of Morris' work to be found anywhere."

You conveniently left out part of it.

"The New Course is often regarded as the oldest "new" course in the world. A classic links course with undulating fairways and delightfully challenging greens, it was set out in 1895 by Old Tom Morris.

Named the New to differentiate it from the original course at the Links which became the Old Course, the course remains one of the finest examples of Morris' work to be found anywhere.

The construction of the New Course was paid for by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, which engaged B Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh civil engineer, to plan the New Course, and entrusted the layout to Morris and his right-hand man David Honeyman"

[TEPaul]

But did B. Hall Blythe do PRE-construction architectural drawings for the NEW course before it was constructed, and if he did where is some evidence the drawing was done PRE-construction?

I'm not saying Blythe did not do that, I'm just asking where some evidence of it is? And if there is some evidence of it would that be the first PRE-construction architectural drawing ever done?

This isn't exactly rocket science; it's basically pretty straight-forward historic analysis.

[Tom MacWood]

But did B. Hall Blythe do PRE-construction architectural drawings for the NEW course before it was constructed, and if he did where is some evidence the drawing was done PRE-construction?

I'm not saying Blythe did not do that, I'm just asking where some evidence of it is? And if there is some evidence of it would that be the first PRE-construction architectural drawing ever done?

This isn't exactly rocket science; it's basically pretty straight-forward historic analysis.

Have you read Lewis's books? I believe his art and architecture book has a copy of the map too.

[TEPaul]

"Have you read Lewis's books? I believe his art and architecture book has a copy of the map too."


No I haven't. Have you? And if you have is there a drawing or map of the course that was done PRE-construction or would you prefer to just continue to hedge on that question as well? Perhaps you don't even understand the potential significance of it.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Will then get off your lazy ass and look them up. You've talking about this subject for years, its about time you do something yourself rather than relying on others to hand you the info on a silver platter.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Yet again we are fighting over the wording of those back in the 19th Century

Layout out by OTM
Contractor R.Duff
Designer/ plan Hall Blyth

The conflict is in trying to seek to discredit one in favour of the other, something Tom MacWood has been trying to do with Old Tom. Yet we keep coming back to the language of the day and fully understanding what it means in our modern day tongue.

Old Tom laid out the course, Hall Blyth converted it to a technical design or plans for Duff to construct the project. Yet what MacWood is saying is that Hall Blyth produced a plan, from that plan OTM set it out on the links. Now I would not disagree with that if that was the normal way or standard practice of the day but it was not. The sites were staked out, greens agreed as with the hazards, that is natural hazards, then upon agreement being reached re the layout, the fairways grass were cut ready for the construction of the course.  So why would Old Tom be asked to repeat a process that had already taken place. This procedure did not happen at Muirfield which had all three working together operated with Old Tom laying out the course, Hall Blyth producing the technical design ready for the construction to start being done by Duff.

As I mentioned we need to understand the language of the day, more importantly the MO of course design and construction process and last but not least money was very tight and did not allow for duplication, anyway that was not the way they worked back then.

Also The Green Committee of the R&A also set up a sub committee to over see the construction work of the New Course “A sub committee of the club, along with Old Tom Morris are charged with the duty of looking after the work, which will be immediately superintended by Mr R. A Duff, Edinburgh”

A further report that appeared in the local press of the 30.03 1895 also reads as follows
“It is too soon yet to say what a really good score ought to be, because hazards will be introduced by and by which will make the round, as now laid out, fulfils all the conditions of a first class course,  and reflects credit alike on the Committee of the club, on Old Tom Morris, and on Mr Duff, who superintended the work.” It goes on the describe the course and its overall length of 3 miles 1160 yards. Part of this report also appeared in a national newspaper of the day. The interesting point is the omission of Hall Blyth on both accounts. There are further publications that again omit to mention the involvement of Hall Blyth in the planning of the course. Another which was printed on the 11.04.1895 under the title of

“The New Golf Course at St Andrews
The relief course at St Andrews was opened yesterday, the first round being played by Sheriff Henderson and his son David against Dr. Duncan and Tom Morris. Its has been laid out upon that part of the Links on the far side of the Swilkan Burn lying between the present course and the sea, and Old Tom Morris has had a big share in the planning of the round, it is tantamount to say that the ground available has been utilised to the best advantage.” 

Now that is what I call praise for his design and of the man. It was the first few line in another national paper printed the day after the course opened. Reading through the whole article I see no reference to Hall Blyth involvement.

Having said all that, it is clear to me that the New Course project was a close copy of the way the Muirfield golf course was undertaken and so credit IHMO goes to each of the three main individuals involved each undertaken what they were good at in their own right.

Agree or not that’s your choice, but I believe I have furnished you with enough information based upon a quarter of the reports I have of the day, well yes they were actually of the day printed by the press on the following day. All credit OTM for laying out of the course, none mention Hall Blyth. I have also furnished further info of his work to oversee the contractors and if you check George Coburn his comments also confirm this.

Melvyn
 
PS As for the maps of St Andrews I have many including the Links Maps of 1821, 1836, 1875 and a few more as well.
 
PPS Its worth looking at the book MacWood suggested re the maps as on Page 45 confusion come in full force when Hall Blyth is credited with "The course was laid out by R Hall Blyth". there we go yet again using the word laid out yet was that not what Old Tom was siad to have done.  No disrespect but why was Duff's name not mentioned, it all goes to show that this book does not give a clear picture of who designer (laid out) the New Course and we must look to more articles printed on or around the time of design/construction of the New Course. They clear up the fog for me and name Old Tom as the guy who did the location of fairways, greens and natural hazards in otherwords designed (as we use the word today) the course.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

In your last post you said:




“Yet again we are fighting over the wording of those back in the 19th Century

Layout out by OTM
Contractor R.Duff
Designer/ plan Hall Blyth

The conflict is in trying to seek to discredit one in favour of the other, something Tom MacWood has been trying to do with Old Tom. Yet we keep coming back to the language of the day and fully understanding what it means in our modern day tongue.

Old Tom laid out the course, Hall Blyth converted it to a technical design or plans for Duff to construct the project. Yet what MacWood is saying is that Hall Blyth produced a plan, from that plan OTM set it out on the links. Now I would not disagree with that if that was the normal way or standard practice of the day but it was not. The sites were staked out, greens agreed as with the hazards, that is natural hazards, then upon agreement being reached re the layout, the fairways grass were cut ready for the construction of the course.  So why would Old Tom be asked to repeat a process that had already taken place. This procedure did not happen at Muirfield which had all three working together operated with Old Tom laying out the course, Hall Blyth producing the technical design ready for the construction to start being done by Duff.

As I mentioned we need to understand the language of the day, more importantly the MO of course design and construction process and last but not least money was very tight and did not allow for duplication, anyway that was not the way they worked back then.”





Personally, I think the answer to this important question has gotten beyond just understanding the language of the day or the terms used for the various phases of golf course architecture. I think we all who’ve studied this stuff and read many of these accounts from that early time (19th century) realize that numerous terms were used interchangeably and not particularly specifically to identify someone working with the various phases of golf course architecture or even working with a single one of the various and specific phases of golf course architecture.

My point and my question is that we get beyond the terms and arguing about what their specific definitions are and what they mean and try to figure out what various people actually did do and particularly when they did it and how in the entire process of all the various phases of golf course architecture and certainly back in the 19th century. Of course, I certainly do realize and admit that at this point trying to determine those various distinctions may not be easy for us to do well over a century later.




In his “In My Opinion” essay on here entitled “Beyond Old Tom Morris” Tom MacWood said this:

“For many years Old Tom Morris was thought to be the architect of the New Course at St.Andrews however the R&A and Links Trust now recognizes Hall Blyth as its creator in 1895. His formal plan is thought to be the first draft plan to use centerlines to indicate the proper path to the hole. His involvement with the New should not have come as a complete surprise, he had been heavily involved in the new layout at Muirfield in 1891 (along with Old Tom). Early reports mention his name prominently during the design and construction phases of Muirfield. The Honourable Company minutes of April 1914 confirm his important involvement: “On the motion of the Captain it was unanimously agreed to record in the minutes the club’s heartiest appreciation of many services rendered by Mr. B. Hally Blyth in connection with acquisition and preparation of the course at Muirfield,”




Apparently Tom MacWood thinks that B. Hall Blythe was the man who actually created the design of the New Course at St. Andrews (not just the design drawing or plan or map but the actual design itself); and I don’t just mean that he created a drawing of the design, I mean MacWood seems to assume Blythe created the design of the course itself (it’s routing and architectural features and placements etc) and then made a drawing of it for those who were to construct it.

If that is what Blythe was responsible for and did then of course he should be considered THE ARCHITECT of the New Course but it seems both you say and St Andrews itself says that is not the case at all, that in fact Old Tom Morris created the routing and design and staked it out on the ground or whatever and then Blythe made a drawing or map of plan of it for those who were to construct it. Or perhaps Blythe’s drawing or map or plan was even done after the fact of the construction of the course.


It seems to me MacWood is a bit confused about this, or perhaps he just doesn't understand or appreciate these distinctions within the golf architectural process or at least doesn't appreciate the importance of these distinctions and therefore has assumed (concluded actually) B. Hall Blythe should be considered the architect of The New Course. But if all Blythe did was make a drawing of what OTM conceived of as a routing and architectural arrangements before construction began then of course Blythe shouldn’t be considered the architect even though he should be considered as the man who drew the plan or map or drawing either for the architecture or of it.


This is my question and the only point I’m trying to get at. I think it is very important for pretty obvious reasons-----eg the understanding of who did what as well as when and how is that from which architectural attribution is always assigned or should be.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom to confuse matter even further have your read further into the book MacWood mentioned. To save time go to page 45 - link is
http://books.google.com/books?id=xYU1eWI37xEC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=new+course+st.+andrews+and+hall+blyth+1894&source=bl&ots=oUuxRN2HRi&sig=VNMyhlncWIXm9pfVM-vs_hNXzcw&hl=en&ei=B-ucS6rlN4rcNuemreYN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=new%20course%20st.%20andrews%20and%20hall%20blyth%201894&f=false 
Noting the following

Page 45

The New Course

The second course to be formed at St Andrews. It is not so new today, having opened in 1895. The course was laid out by Hall Blyth, a civil engineer, and the building and nuances carried out by Old Tom Morris and his trusted assistance, David Honeyman.

Here we go yet again using language that is just set to confuse the poor reader. I am not surprised that many have given up accepting whatever they read.

The important thing is to credit the right guy with the work of designing the courses – I  am not worried if it is or is not OTM, I just want the record to be correct that's my only aim. However I see a disinformation policy run by MacWood on anything to do with OTM, so excuse me if I do not agree with him on many issues. 

As for Muirfield it is clearly reported that Old Tom laid out the course in 1890 not 1891, (he did so in November 1890) and it was confirmed at the opening ceremony published on the 4th May 1891, the wording being “Old Tom Morris, St Andrews, who in the later months of last year went over the ground and laid out the course, was present and, appropriately enough, he ‘teed’ the ball (for Sir Alexander Kinloch)”

I have furnished enough info to confirm that Old Tom designed as we call it today both courses.
Don’t agree then fine just produce the same amount of proof and stop playing with just a word.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Thanks to Walter Woods, the long time superintendent at St. Andrews, and Peter Lewis, the long time historian at the R&A, B. Hall Blyth is now getting his due. Here are a couple of links, one to the St.A's site which reflects their official standing of the courses origin and also to Richardson's book on routing which touches on the BHB plan. If you are interested in seeing the plan there is beautiful color version of it Peter Lewis's series of books on the history of golf, and in particular St. andrews. Those books contain some of the best research and information I've seen in a golf book. One major advantage Lewis has is complete access to the R&A's internal documents. I've outlined the series of books below where the plan can be found.

http://www.standrews.org.uk/The-Courses/The-New-Course.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?id=xYU1eWI37xEC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=new+course+st.+andrews+and+hall+blyth+1894&source=bl&ots=oUuxRN2HRi&sig=VNMyhlncWIXm9pfVM-vs_hNXzcw&hl=en&ei=B-ucS6rlN4rcNuemreYN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=new%20course%20st.%20andrews%20and%20hall%20blyth%201894&f=false

Peter Lewis has been director of the British golf Musem since 1988 and the Royal and Ancient's golf heritage secretary since 2001, having previously been appointed the club historian in 1992. He is co-author of the three-volume History of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club - Challenges & Champions, Champions & Guardians and Traditions of Change as well as the co-author of The Professional Golfers' Association 1901-2001: 100 Years of Service and Art and Architecture of The Royal and Ancient Golf Club. In 1999 he was awarded the Murdoch Medal by the British Golf Collectors' Society for outstanding achievement in the field of golf history. Angela Howe was appointed curator of the R&A's Golf Heritage Department in 2001 having previously been curator at the British golf Museum. She has co-authored several publications, including A Grand Man and a Golfer: The Novelist George Whyte Melville and his Memorials and Good Men Remembered: A Tale of Golf, Empire and St Andrews.

Blimey, I knew Walter Woods was knocking on a bit but I didn't realise he was about in 1895 !

Tom Mac,

I haven't got a copy of the Peter Lewis book but I'm interested in the plan by Hall Blyth. What can you tell us about it, does it have a date for when it was drawn and produced ? Is it an as built drawing or a working drawing ? Basically, what is there about the plan which suggests that it was produced before the construction and not after ?

Niall 

[Mike Cirba]

From the sounds of it, one would specifically want to know if Blyth's drawing plan was dated before or after November 1890, correct?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

Muirfield Drg for your info

Muirfield Drawing sent to me by Muirfield GC


Copy From MacWoods Beyond OTM - note the wording from a plan by B Blyth Hall, which I presume is the one above
dated December 1891  - some 7 months after the course opened and 13 months after the course was laid out by OTM


Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Regarding your Post #82, I know just what you mean. If it was essentially OTM who came up with the routing and design of the New Course before it was constructed and before Blythe drew a map or plan or drawing of it then I don't see why anyone would call Blythe the architect of the course. And I agree the way the Richardson book mentions it is very confusing in that vein. The very same would be true with Muirfield.

If it was essentially OTM who came up with the routing and design of the New Course before it was constructed and before Blythe drew a map or plan or drawing of it then the following by MacWood in his essay "Beyond Old Tom Morris" would be wrong too:



"For many years Old Tom Morris was thought to be the architect of the New Course at St.Andrews however the R&A and Links Trust now recognizes Hall Blyth as its creator in 1895."




And the following from the St. Andrews Links website would be either wrong as well or very misleading.





"The New Course is often regarded as the oldest "new" course in the world. A classic links course with undulating fairways and delightfully challenging greens, it was set out in 1895 by Old Tom Morris.

Named the New to differentiate it from the original course at the Links which became the Old Course, the course remains one of the finest examples of Morris' work to be found anywhere.

The construction of the New Course was paid for by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, which engaged B Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh civil engineer, to plan the New Course, and entrusted the layout to Morris and his right-hand man David Honeyman."

[Mike Cirba]

This may be covered in Tom MacWood's essay, which I read back some time ago, but was Blyth a golfer?   If so, of what repute and accompilshments?   

Did he profess to design golf courses, or otherwise write about the game or advertise his services?

I may be wrong, but this reminds me a great deal of the creation of Cobb's Creek, where the designers of the golf course...the ones who did the routing and placement of artificial hazards, were a committee of Wilson, Crump, Smith, Klauder, and a few others, yet when one goes to the Fairmount Park Archives, and finds the April 1915 topographical map that the course was drawn upon, and which is the final, "approved" version that was built and opened thirteen months later, one sees the signed, affixed name to that plan of one;

Chief Engineer Jesse T. Vogdes

who even helped supervise construction...

Yet didn't plan a single hole or feature on the golf course, nor was he himself a golfer.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I thought I might give my take on the following statement that has been discussed:

"The construction of the New Course was paid for by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, which engaged B Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh civil engineer, to plan the New Course, and entrusted the layout to Morris and his right-hand man David Honeyman."

I give this without any research or knowledge... It is just something to consider...

Hall Blyth was a civil engineer, professional upper middle class man one presumes... OTM was a well respected local working class man.

When the R&A engaged Hall Blyth to "plan" the course, you could certainly interpret that they employed him to deal with all financial matters (as a civil engineer he would be best placed to estimate the cost of the course), to draw the plans (whether construction or as-built) and to put in place any permits that may have been needed. In other words, to provide effective professional project management. OTM would then work in conjunction with Hall Blyth as the architect of the course... i.e. OTM still designed it...

What do you think Melvyn? The two Toms?

[Tom MacWood]

Niall
I don't own the book either, but if memory serves me it is dated 1894. That is what the link I produced indicates. I believe the course opened in 1895. Next time I go the library I'll see if I can make a decent copy to post.

Ally
That is a possible interpretation, but the fact that Hall Blyth actually produced a plan tends to support his case as a designer IMO. Henry Leach wrote this in his obituary (in 1914):

“Mr. Hall Blyth was sixty-eight years of age, and a life member of the Royal and Ancient Club. Being an engineer by profession he could not help applying some of his engineering and constructional instincts to golf courses. Probably he was the first real golf course designer. Until he turned his attention to the business, which is now pursued ardently and thoroughly by many persons, golf holes were to a large extent made themselves, as it might be said. Nature, the lie of the land, suggested the places where putting greens should be made, the places for teeing, and the main route to the hole. In course of time it might happen that a number of persons who were agreed upon the point, such as the committee of a club or society that played upon the ground, would dig a hole for a bunker at a spot where it was considered there should be some punishment waiting, but this sort of thing was very sparsely done, for it was considered and generally found that Nature made quite enough trouble for the golfer. It was more or less in this way that most of the famous holes on the old courses came to be made, such as those of St. Andrews, North Berwick and other places, though in latter times bunkers were added according to carefully arranged schemes. But Mr. Hall Blyth considered that fine holes might be made without waiting for the slow evolution from Nature, and he set himself about the design and construction of such holes at St. Andrews itself, North Berwick, Muirfield and Gullane, and on these famous greens there endure testimonies to his fine imagination, great golfing judgment, and skill as a designer.”

Melvyn
I think the jury is still out on who did what at Muirfield. Were you aware when the course opened in May 1891 it only had 16 holes...do you know the reason for that?

[Melvyn Morrow]

I am finding this quite humorous and quite frankly a total farce. I have submitted reports and accounts of the proceeding on the day of the Opening and also before and after the said day. But that is not enough. I have a reports of what happened on the Opening day including the lunch and speeches, again that is not enough, all it takes is for a Mr MacWood to say ‘the jury is still out on Muirfield’  and all stops. All previous records/articles are void or of no value as the great man has spoken.

Fine, I feel that in time some if not many will come to realise that Tom MacWood does not have all the answers, in fact he has very few, well if that’s how he conducts his research then that down to him.

Over the last two years I have undertaken much research of mainly the Scottish clubs pre 1905 and it looks like my findings along with my understand of the design to build process of the 19th Century designers will remain within my possession for a great deal longer than I had intended. As for relying on the R&A, they through Angela told me Old Tom had no involvement nor did the R&A, that was in 2007. She did not know how David Honeyman died, surprising as he was on duty at the time and an employee of the R&A. Within a few months of my conversation with Angela I uncovered more information that totally contradicted the info she gave me, so I kept digging. My sources are in print and are contemporaneous with the opening of the courses both the New Course and Muirfield.

The jury is out, no Tom after much thought I feel that the truth is no long what matter, so its me that’s out. I have had enough of defending the written word against comments like it was not OTM.   

In closing I have re-looked at many reports from the 1890’s and the word to design the course as we understand the word to mean today was laid out, laying out, yet I have not see the word design used (on the couple of dozen reports I have just checked and they not only referred to OTM, but Willie Campbell and many of the latter day designers). The word design may exist but so far I have not encountered it as a reference to course design in the modern term.

This time I am done, the site has no need of me and nor I the site. Tom you are free to spill you views of how little OTM did and how he has been credited with so much work that was really undertaken by others. Your history of the game will be a reliable as those produced by the USSR between the wars. I am not say that you will re write history but may minimise that which may greatly differ from your point of view.  I would prefer to see the honest truth however it affects OTM – he would not want it any other way either.

Melvyn

[Ally Mcintosh]

Melvyn,

Please don't leave the site - your views are insightful and welcome...

It may just be a case that yourself and Tom need to avoid the same threads as each other from here in...

Ally

[TEPaul]

"I am finding this quite humorous and quite frankly a total farce. I have submitted reports and accounts of the proceeding on the day of the Opening and also before and after the said day. But that is not enough. I have a reports of what happened on the Opening day including the lunch and speeches, again that is not enough, all it takes is for a Mr MacWood to say ‘the jury is still out on Muirfield’  and all stops. All previous records/articles are void or of no value as the great man has spoken."


Melvyn:

I'm fairly certain you're just being sardonic with that remark. It doesn't really matter what Tom MacWood thinks of the architectural history of any golf club or the details of who its architect was; at least not until he can convince that club itself of what he knows or thinks that they might not know or think. It's definitely not enough for him to just proclaim the jury is out? Who's the jury? Who does he think the jury is? Who does the club think the jury is? I'd say they pretty much think the jury is them-----the club itself and their historians and collaborators.

I suppose it's possible for some clubs or courses like St Andrews to be influenced or convinced of something about their architectural histories and architects via this website but our experiences tell us it takes a lot more than that such as working with the club itself with what any of us find or reanalzye that the club has. I don't see he does that; perhaps he's just not capable of it for some reason.

Some of the courses and clubs he's questioned the histories and architects of such as Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia etc are generally aware of some of what is discussed on here because we either make them aware of it or they get interested on their own but basically his theories are just not cogent or credible to any of them that I'm aware of.

It doesn't matter to any of them what he believes about their histories, particularly the way he goes about it only on here; all that matters is what they believe and for any of us to realistically influence them and their thinking it generally takes direct contact.

That's the reality of it----all the rest of it is just talk on here, which is fine of course as it does seem to entertain some.

And you definitely don't need to leave this website because of MacWood or anything he's said to date. In the broad scheme of things he's just small potatoes even if he doesn't want to portray himself that way or admit it on here.

[TEPaul]

"What do you think Melvyn? The two Toms?"


Ally:

What you said makes sense to me as a possibility. Like any other course history analysis I just think everything that's available has to be analyzed or reanalyzed in this case. And I mean everything. That obituary by Leach makes some interesting points in favor of Blythe and I think Melvyn should make available everything he has or is aware of on OTM.

Unfortunately some of the specific details and distinctions we are considering and discussing just might not ever be specifically knowable for the simple reason with most of those kinds of details with the creations of early courses they just weren't recorded in all that much detail----at least not the kind of specific details some on here seem to be demanding today.

And to me the endless arguing over precisely what some of these terms they used back then is sort of a waste of time because it isn't hard to tell those terms were so often used indescriminately for various things to do with the processes and phases of creating golf course architecture.
 

[Niall C]

Tom Mac

Thanks, I would be interested to see a copy of the Hall Blyth plan.

The Henry Leach comments are interesting as they come from a noted golf writer (I haven't read much of his writing but I believe he wrote for either Golfing or Golf Illustrated) written within living memory of the period. I think I'm right in saying Leach would have been around then. I also think Blyth would have had some input on the courses mentioned on an ongoing basis as mentioned by Leach. From what I have gathered from contemporary newspaper articles of the time, courses weren't so much built as evolved and prominent players and committee men played a part in tweaking the course on an almost constant basis. Sometimes this meant the placing of hazards, sometimes it was moving a green or tee and sometimes even partially rerouting the course. In most cases however the framework ie routing , was as laid down by the man "laying out" the course.

Dealing with the production of plans, my impression is that many of the plans we now have were produced after the event for record/marketing purposes. I've found many plans in newspapers from the 1890's onwards, some of which are on Ed Odens thread. I've even seen a reference to "a plan of the ground" being produced for a site prior to the course being laid out, as early as 1892 however I take that to mean that the guy doing the plan is marking features on an OS plan to assist with figuring out the routing. This was done by an engineer like Blyth. Bearing in mind that these early copurse designers weren't draughtsman and that much of the work was done on the ground.

So while Leachs comments are interesting I'm still not convinced that Blyth actually was responsible for the design. Hopefully the plan will give us a clue.

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

This time I am done, the site has no need of me and nor I the site. Tom you are free to spill you views of how little OTM did and how he has been credited with so much work that was really undertaken by others. Your history of the game will be a reliable as those produced by the USSR between the wars. I am not say that you will re write history but may minimise that which may greatly differ from your point of view.  I would prefer to see the honest truth however it affects OTM – he would not want it any other way either.

Melvyn

Tiger back and Melvyn out on the same day?  Pinch me!

[Mike Cirba]

Melvyn,

I sincerely  hope you stay...your work here isn't done by a long shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()