News:

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


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #125 on: April 18, 2010, 10:41:13 PM »

The "Sahara" was certainly popularized by # 2 at NGLA.

Tilly designed major fairway bunkers beginning at Shawnee which was designed in 1909 well BEFORE NGLA was finished, opened for play and popular. Actually one can make an argument that many of his contemporaries copied Tilly's bunker style...



Did Shawnee have a Sahara hazard?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #126 on: April 18, 2010, 11:25:43 PM »
Tom MacWood:

I'm on a hot srreak am I? Well, if I or anyone else on here can even remotely follow your laundry list of irrelevent questions about all the golf courses you pretend to have some personal understanding of and some knowledge of their history and architecture, the latest case being Westhampton which you have also never seen, then we would all be on hot streaks.

I know the 3rd at Westhampton well and I know the 5th at GCGC pretty well too even though I know virtually nothing about T. Suffern ("Tommy" ;) ) Tailer's Ocean Links in Newport because it was probably gone before I was alive and you as well or even George Bahto, believe it or not.

But I'll tell you one thing, it makes no difference at all if George Bahto said the 3rd hole at Westhampton is an Eden; the fact is it just isn't anything of the kind, period! I doubt GeorgeB thinks so and if he said that he will probably tell you that now if asked and if he doesn't and he actually thinks it is some kind of punchbowl Eden green then I'm just going to have to tell you that George is full of shit but I very much doubt he would say that he thinks it's an Eden if you asked him now and if he said it on here at some point in the past I have no doubt at all he would admit he was mistaken for some reason.

What do you know about the 5th at GCGC?

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #127 on: April 18, 2010, 11:47:48 PM »
"What do you know about the 5th at GCGC?"

Ah, what do you mean what do I know about the 5th at GCGC? I guess I've played it about ten times over my sixty five years. What else do you want to know about it and why do you ask the question? What do you know about it? Let me flipt that question to you and ask you what do you know about GCGC or the 5th at GCGC other than the one and only time you saw the course and the hole after playing the part of the access Duffus and showing up on the wrong day after claiming that the right day wasn't convenient for you or didn't fit into your schedule or some such other nonsense completely in tune with your arrogant MO on this website for the last decade or so! And where did you try to go next? You didn't do much better there either did you?

You're sumthin' else Tom MacWood and I think it's a good thing it has begun to show on here generally with the contributors on here as it has in the last few months. It's about time.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #128 on: April 19, 2010, 06:09:31 AM »
TEP
You obviously don't know much about the history of the hole....which is par for the course. The hole you've played is not the famous hole CBM copied. The hole was redesigned (the green was moved) by RTJ at the same time he altered the 12th. I believe the present green is new as well, designed by Doak. You need to get your facts straight...by the way I had a wonderful time at GCGC, thanks to Pat Mucci.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 06:30:55 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #129 on: April 19, 2010, 09:08:45 AM »
"TEP
You obviously don't know much about the history of the hole....which is par for the course. The hole you've played is not the famous hole CBM copied. The hole was redesigned (the green was moved) by RTJ at the same time he altered the 12th. I believe the present green is new as well, designed by Doak. You need to get your facts straight..."


Tom MacWood:

Actually I think I probably do know quite a bit about the history of GCGC's 5th hole, I guess I just was not clear yesterday why we are talking about GCGC's 5th hole as this thread is about Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916. It was probably something you brought up for some irrelevant reason trying to act like you know something again.

Ran Morrissett and I spent a day there with Pat going over the entire course and its architectural history and evolution in detail. I know the original 5th hole was considerably shorter and the green was moved much further out than the original. It looks like that may've happened in 1970. It looks like RTJ redesigned the 12th green in 1960 so maybe you better check your facts since you just said he redesigned the 5th hole at the same time he did the 12th hole.

Not that that is particularly important but if you feel it is I'll just call Mel Lucas and ask him for the exact facts on those two holes because Mel arguably knows more about the architectural history and evolution of the golf course than any man alive. Mel actually made his own drawings of the original 12th green before they took it apart and redesigned it.

But what I don't believe I ever knew or ever heard was that CBM copied the 5th hole at GCGC. Where did he do that? Frankly, I never even knew that Macdonald actually copied an American hole. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #130 on: April 19, 2010, 09:25:51 AM »
How many of these 129 posts are now snipes between the Toms?  Actually posting the history of the 5th or whatever instead of asking the other what they know may actually yield some readable info.

TePaul,

Specifically, I know there was always a lot of interest in the old 12th hole, and if that map included contours and any kind of detail, it would be a treasure to have a copy posted here!  Get to work on that will ya? ;D

I will crawl back in my hole now.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 09:48:38 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #131 on: April 19, 2010, 03:19:36 PM »

the hole photo you posted is the 3rd - it is a sunken version of the Eden ( very weird - one of a kind), but fun



Tom MacWood,

I'd have to disagree with George's categorization of # 3.
A "Sunken Eden" ?
That would seem to be a rather unique description, one that doesn't convey the configuration and/or play of the actual hole.
I think "punchbowl" is more appropriate.

It clearly bears far more resemblance to a punchbowl green and surrounds.
As I stated, it's blind off the tee due to the "punchbowl" effect, where the greens sits well below the fronting and tee elevations.


Whatever the case, though the punchbowl green is typical, a punchbowl short hole is not typical for CBM/Raynor/Banks.
Agreed ?

Tom, by short hole, do you mean a par 3, or a hole with a short approach into the green ?


Did Westhampton have the templates when it opened in 1915?

Based on the schematic, it would appear so.
Clearly the Redan, Short, Biarritz and Punchbowl are represented in that sketch.



Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #132 on: April 19, 2010, 03:37:40 PM »
Pat Mucci, you stated and asked:

The preponderance of AWT's work was in the 20's with a smattering in the late teens.

"Smattering" of courses? He worked on at least 36 courses that we know of between 1911 and 1919.

"Working on" and having the course listed with its opening date are two different things.
AWT's primary body of work is in the 20's, not the teens.
[/b]

It would be hard to imagine that AWT ignored the body of CBM's work in the early teens.

How many courses did CBM do between 1905 & 1919? Far fewer than Tilly did.

The number is immaterial.
CBM's body of work was significant in the EARLY teens, and since AWT lived close by, he would have easy access to them.
[/b]

Actually, based upon your reasoning, it would be hard to imagine that CBM ignored Tilly's work and was not influenced by him.

Only if you IGNORE chronological order of production


And again, Tilly wrote that CBM designed some "very good courses" but that he had a profound disagreement with him in his design philosophy.[/color]

In what year did AWT first visit TOC ?

1895

How extensively did AWT travel in the U.K. ? And, how often (years ?)

1895, 1898 & 1901 staying about 2+ months each time.

The "Sahara" was certainly popularized by # 2 at NGLA.

Tilly designed major fairway bunkers beginning at Shawnee which was designed in 1909 well BEFORE NGLA was finished, opened for play and popular. Actually one can make an argument that many of his contemporaries copied Tilly's bunker style...

In 1909 competitions were being held on NGLA.
Title was taken on NGLA's land in the spring of 1907, with work on the golf course begining immediately thereafter, hence, I don't think the time line, the chronological history, favors your position. 

In addition, NGLA's arrival was widely anticipated by the golfing world from the begining, thru construction to the official opening, I'm not so sure that Shawnee enjoyed that attention and scrutiny.

Lastly, as Tom MacWood asked, was there a "Sahara" feature in the original Shawnee layout ?


I think that AWT's body of work is exceptional and find his collection of par 5's to be amongst the very best on any designer ..... ever.
He seemed to have a penchant for good to great par 5's.

And I think that Mackenzie designed fabulous par-5s yet if you'll look back just a few pages there is a thread that was started by Joe Bausch based upon an article that Tilly wrote in which he compared his own philosophy of what makes a proper-length par-5 and why Mackenzie's belief that all 5's (Tilly's words not mine) should be reachable in two shots by the good player and that 480 yards was a proper length was wrong...

I think AWT's par 5's have fared better over time because of their length and elasticity.
In a static world, MacKenzie's par 5's might be comparable, but, as we know, the golf world is far from static.


To me, that seems to be one of the design areas where he distanced himself from other architects

Mike Cirba

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #133 on: April 19, 2010, 03:59:15 PM »

Believe me, whenever you find somebody really old whose recollections go way back such as Crump's caddie or Eb Steineger or even Joe Dye, the very best thing is to sit them down as fast as possible and pick their brains because if you don't the next thing you know they too will be gone forever and so will their valuable direct recollections, stories and remembrances!   :'(


Boy, isn't that the truth.

We were fortunate a few summers back to spend a few hours in the company of 97-year-old Attilio (Tilly) DePalma, who had caddied at Cobb's Creek in the 1920's and had been Joe Coble's caddy.

We were able to gain incredible insight in a number of areas that would have been impossible to know otherwise about the course and its inhabitants,  as well as the conditioning of the time.

Sadly, just a few months later this gentleman passed away, but it was an unforgettable day.

Phil_the_Author

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #134 on: April 19, 2010, 04:50:59 PM »
Pat,

The preponderance of AWT's work was in the 20's with a smattering in the late teens.

"Smattering" of courses? He worked on at least 36 courses that we know of between 1911 and 1919.

"Working on" and having the course listed with its opening date are two different things.
AWT's primary body of work is in the 20's, not the teens.[/b]

Pat, you misunderstood me, those 36 werecomplete and opened before 1920.

It would be hard to imagine that AWT ignored the body of CBM's work in the early teens.

How many courses did CBM do between 1905 & 1919? Far fewer than Tilly did.

The number is immaterial.
CBM's body of work was significant in the EARLY teens, and since AWT lived close by, he would have easy access to them.[/b]

Pat, if you take a careful look you'll quickly realize that the number is NOT immaterial. You state that tilly would have seen CBM's work because he lived close by, well the OPPOSITE is true also, especially as Tilly had designed more courses in more places than CBM had. By 1916 Tilly had been throughout the northeast, down to Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and on out to California. Tilly was aware of CBM's work but was not influenced by it.

Actually, based upon your reasoning, it would be hard to imagine that CBM ignored Tilly's work and was not influenced by him.

Only if you IGNORE chronological order of production

And again, Tilly wrote that CBM designed some "very good courses" but that he had a profound disagreement with him in his design philosophy.[/color]

In what year did AWT first visit TOC ?

1895

How extensively did AWT travel in the U.K. ? And, how often (years ?)

1895, 1898 & 1901 staying about 2+ months each time.

The "Sahara" was certainly popularized by # 2 at NGLA.

Tilly designed major fairway bunkers beginning at Shawnee which was designed in 1909 well BEFORE NGLA was finished, opened for play and popular. Actually one can make an argument that many of his contemporaries copied Tilly's bunker style...

In 1909 competitions were being held on NGLA.
Title was taken on NGLA's land in the spring of 1907, with work on the golf course begining immediately thereafter, hence, I don't think the time line, the chronological history, favors your position. 

Yes, there was LIMITED play at NGLA in 1909 and more in 1910. There was also limited play on Shawnee in 1910 and it officially opened for regular play several months BEFORE NGLA did. That is the true timeline

In addition, NGLA's arrival was widely anticipated by the golfing world from the begining, thru construction to the official opening, I'm not so sure that Shawnee enjoyed that attention and scrutiny.

Lastly, as Tom MacWood asked, was there a "Sahara" feature in the original Shawnee layout ?

No, there was not. Were there typical Tillinghast "great hazards?" YES. were there features directly copied from what tilly saw in the UK? YES Was anything done at Shawnee that was in imitation of or influenced by CBM? NO.
I think that AWT's body of work is exceptional and find his collection of par 5's to be amongst the very best on any designer ..... ever.
He seemed to have a penchant for good to great par 5's.

And I think that Mackenzie designed fabulous par-5s yet if you'll look back just a few pages there is a thread that was started by Joe Bausch based upon an article that Tilly wrote in which he compared his own philosophy of what makes a proper-length par-5 and why Mackenzie's belief that all 5's (Tilly's words not mine) should be reachable in two shots by the good player and that 480 yards was a proper length was wrong...

I think AWT's par 5's have fared better over time because of their length and elasticity.
In a static world, MacKenzie's par 5's might be comparable, but, as we know, the golf world is far from static.

To me, that seems to be one of the design areas where he distanced himself from other architects

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #135 on: April 19, 2010, 05:19:52 PM »
Pat, when I first went to Westhampton - it was one of my first Raynor course visits - Mike Rewinski called the 3rd an Eden hole.

Certainly it has about the weirdest bunkering imaginable - looks like some, early on, took some liberties.

For those who have never seen the hole, you can only see about 2 ft of the flag from the tee.

However, let's revisit the Macdonald/Raynor par 3's in general and at Westhampton (original yardage); the Short 135; Eden I'm saying hole 3; 170 yards; Redan hole 7, 190 yds and Biarritz 225 yds.


also on the course is one of the great holes RAYNOR built, the 9th - pictured below - that's the early aerial. It doesn't look like that today. The entire left option was removed years ago but the Master Plan we submitted included reestablishing that hole as near original as possible.

(How does Barker build this hole?)

This hole was a Lido hole called Strategy (15th I think) and was a Raynor adaptation of a Tom Simpson rendition to the Country Life contest.

Let me explain a few things I like about the hole - it's a teaser for sure.

You would like to play directly at the green (down the left side) - bunker problems to contend with off the tee and a nasty little bunker in the left front corner. Worse, the slant and shape of this green does not accept an approach well from the left line of play.

The green is pretty severe back to front and has all sorts of interesting contours to contend with.

Playing out the right - still severe bunker problems - and the hole got longer but the green is sloping, back to front, right at you. It is the best approach.

The first time there I putted that green for about 45 minutes, mostly from right rear to a pin located left front. The Mike came out and we putted to all sorts of pin placements.

The hole was ruined - I think it was the best hole strategy on the course.

If you look at the hole in today's Google Earth you'll see what I mean - the lost strategy, I mean.




..................    and by the way there are many Macdonald/Raynor "inspiration" holes on WHampton
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #136 on: April 19, 2010, 05:21:24 PM »
the green to the right is the Punchbowl green, coming from top to bottom
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #137 on: April 19, 2010, 10:28:52 PM »
George,

I'd take issue with Mike with respect to his description of # 3.

Interestingly enough, the trough or trench that bisects the fairway, that housed the bunker sand in your photo, remains an integral part of the 9th hole.

I've commented to a number of friends, who are members, that they should restore that cross bunker as it's an effective way to rein in length.  That's a great hole, especially when played into a prevailing wind.  While # 15 also has punchbowl like qualities in the surrounds, the green isn't a punchbowl green.  In fact it has a nice spine, another CBM/SR/CB feature, running across it.

In my mind, Westhampton is one of the most UNDER Rated courses I know.
If it weren't for it's lofty neighbors, it would be more widely respected.

It's a great golf course, with great traditions and a great membership.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #138 on: April 19, 2010, 11:14:00 PM »
George
Here is a comparison of Strategy at Lido and the hole at Westhampton. What do they have in common?

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #139 on: April 19, 2010, 11:36:36 PM »
"Here is a comparison of Strategy at Lido and the hole at Westhampton. What do they have in common?"


In my opinion, not much. I think this is a good example of why, despite holes with the same or similar names and/or despite the opinions of some that they are of the same architectural concept DNA somehow, that we, as analysts in the spirit of the traditional "compare and constrast" analytical method should begin to get more into the "contrast" analytical mode rather than forcing some holes into the "comparison" analytical mode!

In other words, let's try to concentrate more on the differences rather than the similarities!  ;)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 11:39:05 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #140 on: April 20, 2010, 06:49:48 AM »
Here is a par-3 designed by Barker at Detroit. On this map sand bunkers are referred to as sand pits and mounds are referred to as bunkers. This holes somewhat similar to the 3rd at Westhampton.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #141 on: April 20, 2010, 08:26:18 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I think you could say that the schematic is somewhat similar to almost any hole with fronting bunker.
# 6 at NGLA, # 12 at GCGC, Every short, Some Edens', etc., etc..

I don't think you can draw, with certainty, any conclusion that the 3rd at WCC was designed by Barker, based on the comparison of Barker's schematic at Detroit.  I think that's a quantum leap beyond reason.

In addition, # 3 at WCC is a pronounced punchbowl.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #142 on: April 20, 2010, 10:47:47 AM »
TomMac:

you said and posted: George

Here is a comparison of Strategy at Lido and the hole at Westhampton. What do they have in common?

Tom M - of course that a comparison - .....  THAT IS MY DRAWING FROM MY BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  DUH



Patrick: you said, "the green isn't a punchbowl green" on a Macdonald Raynor Pbowl hole, the only feature that is on their greens (originally) is two semi parallel spins running thru the green, side to side. They are not in the least parallel but off at slightly different angles to each other- note: NGLA Punchbowl green.

I'm, on other courses, this feature has often been lost over the years, either thru top dressing or just removed (not understood they are part of a PB green.

We have a lot of work to do on the left side of the 9th at WH because of they have let grow over the years. I'd like to post the Master Plan drawing but since we have not yet under contract, I cannot.

Believe me, it will be reinstated and will play near what it was, despite the new equipment.






If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

TEPaul

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #143 on: April 20, 2010, 11:27:14 AM »
"TomMac:

you said and posted: George

Here is a comparison of Strategy at Lido and the hole at Westhampton. What do they have in common?

Tom M - of course that a comparison - .....  THAT IS MY DRAWING FROM MY BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  DUH"



Georgie:

That is totally hilarious! Do not be surprised if Tom MacWood tells you that you have actually been massively influenced by HH Barker, the second best architect in America in the early teens and perhaps Horace Hutchinson, The Guide of all golf architecture and the transporter of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement all over the world!

Don't try to deny it either because he will never accept that or even acknowledge it.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #144 on: April 20, 2010, 07:19:48 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I think you could say that the schematic is somewhat similar to almost any hole with fronting bunker.
# 6 at NGLA, # 12 at GCGC, Every short, Some Edens', etc., etc..

I don't think you can draw, with certainty, any conclusion that the 3rd at WCC was designed by Barker, based on the comparison of Barker's schematic at Detroit.  I think that's a quantum leap beyond reason.

In addition, # 3 at WCC is a pronounced punchbowl.

That is not a fronting bunker - it is a mound as I explained above.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #145 on: April 20, 2010, 07:23:54 PM »
TomMac:

you said and posted: George

Here is a comparison of Strategy at Lido and the hole at Westhampton. What do they have in common?

Tom M - of course that a comparison - .....  THAT IS MY DRAWING FROM MY BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  DUH



Patrick: you said, "the green isn't a punchbowl green" on a Macdonald Raynor Pbowl hole, the only feature that is on their greens (originally) is two semi parallel spins running thru the green, side to side. They are not in the least parallel but off at slightly different angles to each other- note: NGLA Punchbowl green.

I'm, on other courses, this feature has often been lost over the years, either thru top dressing or just removed (not understood they are part of a PB green.

We have a lot of work to do on the left side of the 9th at WH because of they have let grow over the years. I'd like to post the Master Plan drawing but since we have not yet under contract, I cannot.

Believe me, it will be reinstated and will play near what it was, despite the new equipment.


George
The two holes don't look anything alike. Here is Simpson's original plan for the hole, and it looks nothing like the hole at Westhampton either. How did you come to the conclusion the 14th was Strategy?

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #146 on: April 20, 2010, 08:22:18 PM »
all these holes Macdonald and Raynor built are adaptations of a strategy and are not meant to be exact copies
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #147 on: April 20, 2010, 09:26:01 PM »

Patrick:

you said, "the green isn't a punchbowl green"

on a Macdonald Raynor Pbowl hole, the only feature that is on their greens (originally) is two semi parallel spins running thru the green, side to side. They are not in the least parallel but off at slightly different angles to each other- note: NGLA Punchbowl green.

George,

I'm confused.
# 16 at NGLA has a pronounced punchbowl putting surface/green.

# 3 at WCC has more of the punchbowl contouring in the immediate surrounds, not unlike # 1 on the 4th nine at Montclair.


I'm, on other courses, this feature has often been lost over the years, either thru top dressing or just removed (not understood they are part of a PB green.

We have a lot of work to do on the left side of the 9th at WH because of they have let grow over the years. I'd like to post the Master Plan drawing but since we have not yet under contract, I cannot.

Believe me, it will be reinstated and will play near what it was, despite the new equipment.








Patrick_Mucci

Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #148 on: April 20, 2010, 09:27:55 PM »

That is not a fronting bunker - it is a mound as I explained above.


What are the two circles straddling the line ?


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916
« Reply #149 on: April 20, 2010, 10:37:49 PM »
George
How did you come to the conclusion the 14th was Strategy? How many Strategies were built?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back