News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2010, 11:42:36 AM »
TEPaul,

I was aware of the above information.

What's "critical" to the discovery process is the name of the publication and date of the article that Tom MacWood posted.

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #51 on: April 08, 2010, 11:56:22 AM »
"What's "critical" to the discovery process is the name of the publication and date of the article that Tom MacWood posted."


Patrick:

That's true. I believe that article is on this website someplace as I remember seeing it some time ago on here. Why don't you try to play the part of an actual researcher, for a change, and find it and bring it forward so we can all see it and consider it again?  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2010, 12:00:05 PM »
Patrick:

Let me ask you a question. What is your own opinion, at this point, about what the architect attribution of Westhampton GC and North Shore GC should be and how either club should present it, at this point?

And how do you feel, at this point, on the same questions for Mountain Lake GC?

What the Hell, now that we're at it let's throw in the same questions to you for Merion East, shall we? What is your opinion, at this point, on that course?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 12:02:49 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #53 on: April 08, 2010, 01:47:30 PM »
TEPaul,

Let me stick to Westhampton for the time being.

I'll be playing North Shore again, in May.

To me, the green complexes at Westhampton reek of CBM/SR

If you examine the putting surface and foot pad of the green on the "short" hole, # 11, it's about as CBM/SR as you can get.

If you examine the plateaued greens, like # 1 and # 14, The Biarritz 17th, the Redan 7th, along with other unique greens like # 15, I think you'd be hard pressed NOT to attribute them to CBM/SR's design concepts.

The body of some of the holes is also in harmony with CBM/SR's design concepts, as is the bunkering.

While it's true that there are some pit bunkers, ala GCGC, there aren't many of them, with # 2 probably having the lion's share.
 

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #54 on: April 08, 2010, 10:30:52 PM »
Tom MacWood,

The 15th hole appears to be missing from the schematic.

In what newspaper/magazine did your article appear ?
And what's the date of the article.

The article seems to state that the course is under construction, so I don't know how the author of the article can come to a conclusion relative to the quality of the golf course.

There was another course adjacent to Westhampton, Oneck I believe.
Is it possible the article is describing Oneck, which was located in Westhampton Beach ?
In addition, Oneck was called "The Westhampton Country Club"
And, it was on the Ocean with two holes requiring a carry over an inlet.
In the schematic, Westhampton does NOT have any holes requiring a carry over an inlet.

C&W list Westhampton as a 1914 design

Banks did not join Raynor until 1921, 6 to 7 years after Westhampton was crafted.

By then, the 15th hole was "in play", hence it's doubtful it would be omitted or difficult to discern on the schematic

Barker returned to the UK in 1915, so getting the dates of the article, date construction began at Westhampton has to help solve the mystery.

You're right. I didn't notice the missing 15th before. The map came from the club history and they attributed it to Raynor. The article is from February 1915. Barker returned to the UK in October 1915.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 10:40:31 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2010, 10:35:29 PM »
1910 - NGLA
1911 - Sleepy Hollow, Piping Rock, Merion
1912 - St. Louis, Greenbriar
1913 -
1914 - East Lake, Lido
1915 - Islip, CC of Fairfield, Westhampton, North Shore
1916 - Blind Brook, Shinnecock Hills, Greenwich, Mountain Lake


The bold are courses with confirmed CBM involvement.

Mike Sweeney

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2010, 12:48:31 PM »
1910 - NGLA
1911 - Sleepy Hollow, Piping Rock, Merion
1912 - St. Louis, Greenbriar
1913 -
1914 - East Lake, Lido
1915 - Islip, CC of Fairfield, Westhampton, North Shore
1916 - Blind Brook, Shinnecock Hills, Greenwich, Mountain Lake


The bold are courses with confirmed CBM involvement.

Tom

Is this a list of dates when the courses opened or when MacDonald and Raynor were involved?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2010, 01:54:54 PM »
Tom MacWood,

It was my understanding that Barker moved to and lived in Alabama prior to returning to the UK in 1915.
Do we know the date he left New York for Alabama ?

TEPaul,

My point, regarding Westhampton, is as follows.

Most of the CBM/SR template holes are at Westhampton.

So, why would a club invite another architect in to replicate the CBM/SR holes when CBM/SR were right down the road ?

Why wouldn't they retain CBM/SR to design and construct CBM/SR template holes ?

Inviting another architect in to replicate CBM/SR's template holes doesn't make sense, especially when CBM/SR were so conveniently located.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 01:56:32 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2010, 02:13:50 PM »
Patrick:

That is certainly one way of looking at Westhampton and its architect attribution, even if the way you presented it is in the form of questions. You and MacWood have a quite similar MO on here that way.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2010, 02:20:35 PM »
Patrick:

That is certainly one way of looking at Westhampton and its architect attribution, even if the way you presented it is in the form of questions. You and MacWood have a quite similar MO on here that way.


TEPaul,

Have Bob Huntley remind you of my methods when it comes to asking questions

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2010, 02:27:52 PM »
Patrick:

That is certainly one way of looking at Westhampton and its architect attribution, even if the way you presented it is in the form of questions. You and MacWood have a quite similar MO on here that way.

On the other hand, and to consider why some club of that time might consider Barker, for instance, we probably need to look at in a way that most on this website don't because they all seem to have become so fixated on Macdonald or Macdonald/Raynor.

By that I mean that even if NGLA had become well known and worthy of emulating somehow there were at least two other courses of that time that were apparently considered the same that way----eg GCGC and Myopia.

What was it that Barker mentioned to the developer at Ardmore about to sell land to MCC whose quality he could match on that site? ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2010, 03:16:44 PM »
TEPaul,

I think you have to remember that Barker was the PRO at GCGC, not the architect.

Westhampton is a clone design, a hybrid NGLA.

Why would you hire the Pro at GCGC versus the originators of the template holes at NGLA ?

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2010, 04:46:36 PM »
"TEPaul,
I think you have to remember that Barker was the PRO at GCGC, not the architect.

Pat:

I realize that; I've realized it for some years now. I think it is Tom MacWood you need to direct that remark to!


"Westhampton is a clone design, a hybrid NGLA."


I know that; I've known it for many decades. I think you need to direct that remark to Tom MacWood, not me!



"Why would you hire the Pro at GCGC versus the originators of the template holes at NGLA ?"


I think that is also a question that is far better asked by yourself of Tom MacWood, not me. I understand precisely why you ask it but apparently he doesn't and never has understood it. Good luck on trying to get even a remotely clear or intelligent answer to the question from him by the way. Don't forget, MacWood thinks Barker is the man who designed Merion East one December day in 1910 during a train ride from New York to Georgia and he has also said that he believes HH Barker was considered to be the second best architect in America at the time.

David Moriarty referred to MacWood's opinion on Barker in his essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."


From David Moriarty's "The Missing Faces of Merion:"


"H.H. Barker Plans a Golf Course[9]

To make the offer even more enticing, the developers even tried to supply the golf course, or at least the architect and design. They brought in a professional golf course architect, H.H. Barker, to inspect the site and to draw up a plan. Barker, originally from Yorkshire England, was a well-known golf professional at Garden City Golf Club. He had been a protégé of Sandy Herd and, just as Herd had, Barker left a promising amateur career to turn professional. According to Walter Travis, he and Barker had often discussed golf course design at Garden City, and Travis had encouraged Barker to pursue a career the golf course design business.[10] Barker’s design career was cut short when he returned to England in 1915 to join the Royal Air Force. Prior to that, he may have been the best-known professional golf course architect regularly practicing in America, and was probably second only to C.B. Macdonald among both amateurs and professionals. At the time he planned the course for Merion, Barker claimed to have already planned upwards of 20 courses. In the July 1914 issue of Outing magazine, the great British champion Harry Vardon wrote that Barker’s Mayfield Country Club in Ohio was the best course in America."

"[9]Tom MacWood, who has researched Mr. Barker’s career as a golf course designer, generously supplied much of the information regarding Barker’s history and courses."

« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 04:54:55 PM by TEPaul »

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2010, 12:36:48 AM »
I have played over 20 courses of Macdonald/ Raynor all over the country. I agree with Patrick that Westhampton exudes a plethora of vintage Macdonald School attributes. The greens at 9,15, and 16 are exemplars of the CBM style. As Patrick stated #11 is especially bold and compelling . WCC and Raynor's gem at CC of Charleston share strong design affiniities, as they both are artistically bunkered courses on relatively flat places of land.The greens at CCC are very good but the putting surfaces at Westhampton are out of this world.    

Even if HH Barker's DNA is found under the punchbowl  at WCC, it is my firm belief that Westhampton is a Seth Raynor design.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 09:59:53 AM by mark chalfant »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2010, 09:34:29 PM »
Mark,

It's hard to deny CBM's/SR's influence/style/design at WCC.

For those who have played and know CBM/SR courses and Westhampton, hole after hole creates a feeling of de jevu all over again ;D


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2010, 11:30:13 PM »
I have played over 20 courses of Macdonald/ Raynor all over the country. I agree with Patrick that Westhampton exudes a plethora of vintage Macdonald School attributes. The greens at 9,15, and 16 are exemplars of the CBM style. As Patrick stated #11 is especially bold and compelling . WCC and Raynor's gem at CC of Charleston share strong design affiniities, as they both are artistically bunkered courses on relatively flat places of land.The greens at CCC are very good but the putting surfaces at Westhampton are out of this world.    

Even if HH Barker's DNA is found under the punchbowl  at WCC, it is my firm belief that Westhampton is a Seth Raynor design.

Are you able to differentiate between what is Raynor and what is Banks?

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2010, 12:00:34 AM »
Tom

What about Morris County Golf Club in 1916. I see the club lists them as the architects that laid out the current course.

Tully

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #67 on: April 12, 2010, 06:26:15 AM »
Sean
I believe the original source for that information is Cornish & Whitten, but I've never been able to confirm it. The club website says Raynor was involved in 1916, Bahto says that Whigham & Raynor were involved in 1919-20 and C&W says that Raynor was involved in 1923.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 06:35:32 AM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2010, 07:56:26 AM »
I have played over 20 courses of Macdonald/ Raynor all over the country. I agree with Patrick that Westhampton exudes a plethora of vintage Macdonald School attributes. The greens at 9,15, and 16 are exemplars of the CBM style. As Patrick stated #11 is especially bold and compelling . WCC and Raynor's gem at CC of Charleston share strong design affiniities, as they both are artistically bunkered courses on relatively flat places of land.The greens at CCC are very good but the putting surfaces at Westhampton are out of this world.    

Even if HH Barker's DNA is found under the punchbowl  at WCC, it is my firm belief that Westhampton is a Seth Raynor design.

Are you able to differentiate between what is Raynor and what is Banks?

Tom MacWood,

Banks didn't join Raynor until 1921, long after Westhampton was designed, built and open for play.

Why would you imply that Banks had a hand in designing or building Westhampton ?

Or, do you feel that Banks was involved in a subsequent redesign of Westhampton ?


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2010, 08:06:16 AM »
Pat
The reason for my question is I don't know when the CBM/Raynor/Banks features at Westhampton were added. Do you know if they were part of the original design or added later? I'm also curious why they are so many descrpencies between the plan I posted and the course as built.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2010, 08:10:40 AM »
Pat
The reason for my question is I don't know when the CBM/Raynor/Banks features at Westhampton were added. Do you know if they were part of the original design or added later? I'm also curious why they are so many descrpencies between the plan I posted and the course as built.


Other than the 15th hole not being part of the schematic, what discrepancies are you alluding to.

Remember, that's not a detailed drawing, but, rather a general schematic that's so general that they left off the 15th hole.

I don't know if the lack of detail in the schematic allows anyone to draw finite design conclusions.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2010, 08:14:13 AM »
The bunkering scheme is the main difference I see.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2010, 08:54:26 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I don't think you can view the rough schematic and from it draw conclusions regarding the actual detailed bunker configurations.

The schematic is so rough that they forgot to include the 15th hole, so how accurate can it be regarding bunker detail ?

If the left an entire hole out, how can you place any significant value on the details of the actual golf course.

In addition, green chairman, over 95 years have made numerous changes.

I can remember aguing with one of them regarding the lengthening of the 11th hole, which I opposed.

# 7 is an interesting Redan, entirely constructed, as is the "Short", "Plateau" and other holes.

# 13 has been redesigned over the last decade or so.

So, don't take the flawed, general schematic as the blueprint for every detail on the golf course.

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #73 on: April 12, 2010, 09:35:34 AM »
Pat:

I've never been a believer in the "If it looks like the style of an architect then it must be that architect" school of architect attribution. I don't believe in it because I have seen it proven wrong so many times by other far more credible information.

However, if that kind of architect attribution method ever could be applied somewhat credibly it probably would be with the Macdonald/Raynor style as was proven in the primary thread on here begun by George Bahto on North Shore GC back in November 2009 and which continued to run until Steve Shaeffer finally proved with important material that it was in fact a Raynor design with some apparently help from his mentor Macdonald.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #74 on: April 12, 2010, 01:35:40 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I don't think you can view the rough schematic and from it draw conclusions regarding the actual detailed bunker configurations.

The schematic is so rough that they forgot to include the 15th hole, so how accurate can it be regarding bunker detail ?

If the left an entire hole out, how can you place any significant value on the details of the actual golf course.

In addition, green chairman, over 95 years have made numerous changes.

I can remember aguing with one of them regarding the lengthening of the 11th hole, which I opposed.

# 7 is an interesting Redan, entirely constructed, as is the "Short", "Plateau" and other holes.

# 13 has been redesigned over the last decade or so.

So, don't take the flawed, general schematic as the blueprint for every detail on the golf course.

How many prototypical template holes does the course have today? How many do you see in the plan?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back