Macdonald and/or Raynor 1910-1916

[Tom MacWood]

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


What are the two circles straddling the line ?

Sand pits

[TEPaul]

"George
How did you come to the conclusion the 14th was Strategy? How many Strategies were built?"

Tom MacWood:

I'm going to have to tell you that at this point, if I were you, I wouldn't be expecting a serious answer to your fairly recent questioins on this website because your questions don't really deserve one, or frankly much of any answer at all to some of these questions you have been asking some of these people on here recently such as the one above.

They're irrelevant. Do you want to be irrelevant too?

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

We must be birds of a feather or else good minds must think alike. I suggest Mr Thomas MacWood start a thread on Asbergers or some condition akin to it. That's bound to be more interesting and probably a whole lot more edifying as well.

[Tom MacWood]

Shivas & TEP
Thanking you for expanding our knowledge of golf architecture history. Since when does such a simple question generate such hateful responses? I must be on the right track. When did you two become interested in golf architecture history?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Your last response is just another in a long laundry list that indicates you have become beyond hackneyed and apparently to everyone on this site. Why don't you try to encourage David Moriarty to come back on here? Maybe he will agree with you for a little while at least.

You and Melvyn Hunter Morrow have fallen into the same boat apparently which is something like a broken record and truly boring! 

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
In the last few days we have had three apparent experts asked simple straightforward questions, and all three, for whatever reason, can't answer or refuse to answer the question. When I press for an answer (even if its yes, no or I don't know) you go into your person attack mode or one of your couple of henchmen, who normally has little interest in golf architecture history, sends out a shot. Clearly there is a double standard, and I think it is a good thing its being exposed.

1. Dean Paolucci: Does Glen Ridge have information to show what year Tilly redesigned the course?
2. Phil Young: What courses did Tilly, Low and Lees collaborate on?
3. George Bahto: How did you determine the 14th was a Strategy...did it share certain characteristics that all holes called Strategy have or was the hole always referred to and known as Strategy or some other reason?

[Tom MacWood]

Good Lord...what a waste of an hour and a half...reading all these nonsensical nonarguments and nonquestions from a certain "historian/researcher" asking the irrelevant, deflecting the relevant and generally ignoring every logical argument or question aimed anywhere in his direction....

what a waste of time...

Dave
What relevant question/questions did I deflect or ignore? If I missed a question, I'll answer it, or if my first answer wasn't good enough I'll try to re-answer it or expand on it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I am so pleased that you at now acknowledge me as an "apparent expert!"

I NEITHER "refused" nor intimated that I "can't" answer the question. I DID ask you to CLARIFY what you meant by the word COLLABORATE on at least three separate occasions so that I could answer it. YOU either could not or would not. For example, this is what I wrote in response #112:

"Which courses did Tilly, Low & Lees collaborate on?" Define what you mean by the word "collaborate."

Is this some kind of game? Designs and redesigns they worked together on.

Tom, your answer is EXACTLY why I asked you to DEFINE what you meant by "colaborate" as your answer doesn't. Are you asking me which courses they CO-DESIGNED or merely WORKED ON as in one did the design and layout another oversaw the construction another oversaw the turf... YOU be specific because what you are asking for isn't clear.

You once again gave a non-answer in response #116:

"Phil, Collaborate as in working together on the same project."

I then even gave you a PARTIAL ANSWER as I believe that you have an agenda on this point in my post #123:

Tom Macwood,

"Phil, Collaborate as in working together on the same project."

Sorry, but you simply are either missing the point or not stating what you actually believe without realizing it. That was why I asked you to define it as I feel that you think that Lees & Low didn't "work together" as in Tilly designed a course and they oversaw construction and truf issues but rather that you believe they CO-DESIGNED the courses they worked with him on which is something that DIDN'T happen. Tilly himself made models for the holes he designed and demanded that they be followed as closely as possible when he visited to inspect the course work. In fact, I recently visted a club where Tilly designed their course and because the constructors didn't follow his plans and models properly that they brought him back to redo the entire course, spending a lot more money in doing so.

Yet after all of that YOU STILL REFUSE TO DEFINE what you mean by the word "COLLABORATE" yet once again have the audacity to misrepresent what I have posted and then claim tha I am practicing a "DOUBLE STANDARD" by either "refusing" or not being able to answer your question.

Well since you are such an expert on the GCA "double standard" of not answering, let me now ask you for the SIXTH TIME ON THIS THREAD because you have REFUSED to answer this simple ON TOPIC QUESTION the 5 previous times it was asked by me:

What relevance does your question "How many courses had Seth Raynor designed by 1915" matter since it is a FACT that North Shore had signed Seth Raynor to a CONTRACT to DESIGN the new course?

I believe it's time YOU answered some questions... and just incase you forgot what you just wrote to Dave, "What relevant question/questions did I deflect or ignore? If I missed a question, I'll answer it, or if my first answer wasn't good enough I'll try to re-answer it or expand on it." I believe that i just gave a few examples...

[Tom MacWood]

Regarding what role each man played when they collaborated I don't know the answer. I do know early on Lees was better known as a construction man (and greenkeeper), but he also dabbled in design. Tilly and Low were golf architects exclusively, I don't believe either man was known for construction.

There have been a number architect-construction teams that have shared design responsibility, but in regards to my question I'm simply asking what courses they were involved with together.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

So for the SIXTH TIME, and after making a specific complaint about others not answering questions and how if you were made aware of relevant questions that you didn't answer that you would, you ONCE AGAIN avoid or refuse to answer my question:

What relevance does your question "How many courses had Seth Raynor designed by 1915" matter since it is a FACT that North Shore had signed Seth Raynor to a CONTRACT to DESIGN the new course?

Of course mentioning it like this now makes it SEVEN times it has been asked.

As regards your question and my asking for specific clarification, I now believe that you really don't understand what I am asking for because your answer, "Regarding what role each man played when they collaborated I don't know the answer. I do know early on Lees was better known as a construction man (and greenkeeper), but he also dabbled in design. Tilly and Low were golf architects exclusively, I don't believe either man was known for construction. There have been a number architect-construction teams that have shared design responsibility, but in regards to my question I'm simply asking what courses they were involved with together" is still non-specific.

I didn't ask you what role they played, "Regarding what role each man played when they collaborated I don't know the answer...," but rather asked what role you were specifically looking for an answer to.

Your statement "Tilly and Low were golf architects exclusively, I don't believe either man was known for construction..." is incorrect for both men. A while back Joe Bausch emailed me a copy of an old very early teens article from a Philly newspaper (If he reads this I hope he can post it because I can't remember where I may have filed it) where Tilly advertises himself as a "course constructor" and he was quite surprised to see this. Tilly personally oversaw a great deal of the construction work on a good number of his courses. We know this because he PERSONALLY wrote and advertised that he did. For example, here is one that he used throughout the teens:



Notice that there is NO mention of golf course DESIGN in the advertisement.

John Low did some design work, yet he was a construction man for Tilly. He aslo did construction work when not with Tilly such as the work he did out at Midwick in the late teens (after Tilly did a course examination and made recommendations to them) and up at Bluff Point (another earlier Tilly project that he may ahve worked with him on).

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

Not to muddy this pond further, but I do believe that many times in those days the idea of golf course creation, which included design, was referred to as "construction".

For instance, George Crump and his committee at Pine Valley in the winter/spring of 1913 while they were designing the holes and putting together the routing were called the "Construction Committee".

One wishes in retrospect they were more versed in our future vernacular distinctions because it would certainly clarify some of these matters, but alas...

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

That is true, but the reality is that Tilly specifically oversaw the construction of a number of his courses and advertsied that and wrote about that in articles as well. Actually, that both Lees and Low oversaw construction for him on some of his projects is a rather large compliment to them and shows how well he thought of them at the time.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
In the last few days we have had three apparent experts asked simple straightforward questions, and all three, for whatever reason, can't answer or refuse to answer the question. When I press for an answer (even if its yes, no or I don't know) you go into your person attack mode or one of your couple of henchmen, who normally has little interest in golf architecture history, sends out a shot. Clearly there is a double standard, and I think it is a good thing its being exposed."


Tom MacWood:

I didn't know I had any 'henchman' on here. Who are they? And I don't see any double standard on here either. We just try to have discussions on here about various architect/architectural subjects and often our questions and answers apparently don't sufficiently satisfy each other. It seems pretty clear from some of the posts just above that you're not exactly satisfying some of the important contributors on here with answers to their questions or opinions.

As for Dean Paolucci and any answers of his to your questions you should probably try a bit harder to understand that he does have a choice to not get into what he may view as arguements on here with such as yourself. And my feeling is certainly that all of us who really do have genuine interest in the architectural histories of these clubs should try to establish good working relationships with the people at these clubs and their architects that have information and something to offer. I think I have that kind of working relationship with Dean and Forse Design too. It would be nice if you did as well. But that too is your choice and their choice as well. I believe those kinds of relationships do not always just take place on this Discussion Group and website but apparently you don't look at it that way and only choose to go about it on here. Is there ever going to be any chance you might try it another way or both ways or are you just going to keep ignoring that issue on here as you have with many of these clubs and subjects? I suppose, at this point, you may feel that isn't even possible anymore. Is that true?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

That is true, but the reality is that Tilly specifically oversaw the construction of a number of his courses and advertsied that and wrote about that in articles as well. Actually, that both Lees and Low oversaw construction for him on some of his projects is a rather large compliment to them and shows how well he thought of them at the time.

Phil,

Did Tilly ever oversee construction on a project where someone else designed what was being constructed?

I'm pretty sure I've never heard that, but you would certainly know better.

Thanks

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

"Did Tilly ever oversee construction on a project where someone else designed what was being constructed?" No, he didn't.

In fact he rarely ever collaborated with another architect on a design before partnering with Billy Bell in 1937. One of those rare examples is Westmoreland which he and Billy Langford designed and reconstructed together in ca. 1919.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

"Did Tilly ever oversee construction on a project where someone else designed what was being constructed?" No, he didn't.

In fact he rarely ever collaborated with another architect on a design before partnering with Billy Bell in 1937. One of those rare examples is Westmoreland which he and Billy Langford designed and reconstructed together in ca. 1919.

Phil,

Thanks, that's sort of what I thought.

Given that information, wouldn't then Tilly's advertisements calling what he did "Construction" sort of wholly encapsulate what today we know as both design (hole conception and routing) and overseeing the building process?

[TEPaul]

"Did Tilly ever oversee construction on a project where someone else designed what was being constructed?"



Mike:

That's a good question not just on Tillinghast but a lot of architects of that time. It's also a hard thing to track historically but there are some vestiges of evidence on what was going on back then with various architects trying to partner up on some potential projects somehow. The most obvious one to me seems to have been Hugh Alison which makes sense since he wasn't an American. Obviously Mackenzie's MO that way is pretty telling too.

Because this is a golf architecture site and that's what we concentrate on there probably is a historic reality we are somewhat overlooking from that time and that is that most all those guys of any significance coming out of the teens and into the 1920s were probably just as interested, and perhaps more so in not just construction partnering but partnering up somehow in the rapidly developing world of golf course grass and how to understand it, use it and promote it.

This is a thread on Macdonald/Raynor in a certain era but I think I can tell you that come the 1920s Macdonald was not in a mood to be particularly helpful or collaborative at least with the incipient effort at the time to establish the USGA Green Section which was getting a lot of play and press in America at the time.

[Phil_the_Author]

Of course it would. Yet it was also used at the same time that he also SEPARATELY advertised his design services. He was actively seeking to grow his design firm into one of the first all-in-one golf course desigbn/construction firms. That is why he was able to state in his 1925 advertising brochure which listed a good number of his course projects that "These courses were planned by A.W. Tillinghast, and the most notable were constructed under the supervision of his organization."

[Tom MacWood]

Look, TomM, I was going with you and Moriarity on the Merion thing for quite a while there because you were coming up with new, interesting and logical theories for a while.  More importantly, you used to address specific questions or counter-theories (as we all know, DaveM never had a problem doing that, and actually sort of reveled in it..   ) .  Here, you're just making stuff up that isn't new, interesting or logical, and more importantly, you're deflecting every specific question or counter-theory proposed.  And this comes on top of repeatedly misstating/misrepresenting quotes from SteveS's notes on the North Shore minutes as quotes from the actual minutes themselves!

Go back to how you started on the Merion threads, and I can assure you greater receptivity to your "findings".  

If you are going to make insulting accusations at least have the decency to provide the examples, otherwise your nothing more than cheap shot artist. What questions did I avoid?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I should have been more specific, I thought you understood the difference between the dedicated construction guys like Peter Lees, Charles Mackenzie, and Walter Hatch (who also dabbled in design on occasion), and the all inclusive golf architects like Tilly, Mackenzie, Ross, and a whole host of others, who provided (or could provide) the whole shooting match, from design to construction.

But as I said who did what is not important to my question about which courses they worked on together. If you're worried about my interpretation or misinterpretation of who did what specify who did what when answering it.  

By the way it was George Low, not John Low, who was partnered with Tilly.

[Tom MacWood]

"What relevance does your question "How many courses had Seth Raynor designed by 1915" matter since it is a FACT that North Shore had signed Seth Raynor to a CONTRACT to DESIGN the new course?"

Phil
The question is relevant in determining if Raynor was working by himself or in collaboration with White and/or Macdonald at NS. The same source that said Raynor's plans were approved, or were subject to be approved by the president, also seemed to indicate some involvement by White and Macdonald. That question about who may have done what is the very reason this particular thread was started. I believe I have explained this before.

[Phil_the_Author]

No Tom, you have not addressed this question any time I asked it, and I must say that though you've finally done so, I don't understand your reasoning and am hoping that you can elaborate.

You asked the question in the course of discussing WHO was responsible for the design of North Shore. I fail to see how you see how the number of courses that Raynor had designed by January 1915 had any effect on his getting the contract since... he GOT the contract and, by the way, NO ONE ELSE did!

Raynor, CBM, White, Barker and anyone else you want to name; their course design resume's have absolutely NO relevance to the question of WHO DESIGNED North Shore as their own records have conclusively proven that ONLY Raynor was hired to do so. Other than the single mention of thanks to CBM there is NO OTHER REFERENCE or mention of him being involved in any way... none. Was he? It would appear that he mustv have had a minor role, in my opinion one of inspecting the finished product and making a few suggestions possibly, but even that cannot be stated as fact as there is NOTHING recorded anywhere that states it so. White seems to have been responsible for turf issues especially those involving the greens and possibly the day-to-day construction oversight, but even here one must be careful to limit stating as fact only what can be shown as fact according to the club documents. To imply that he was a collaborator in the design in any sense is severe speculation at best and not supported by anything produced so far.

So again, can you elaborate further on how you see the question as being relevant to the question of who designed North Shore in light of ONLY Raynor having been specifically contracted to and named as the person who would design it?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Sorry, but I must take exception to your statement, "The Golf Course Guide was published by the Golf Course Guide Co., apparently the company had some relationship to Golf Illustrated because of GI editor was also the editor of GCG. GCG is an excellent source of information because the info came from the clubs themselves."

If that is the case, please explain all of the discrepencies as outlined in my earlier post. Differences ranging from date of establishment to course yardages to even the existence of the course itself. Once again, you posted that the guides from 1917-1930 ALL stated that the course was established in 1917... they didn't as can be seen in the earlier post.

What is clear is that one CAN'T be guaranteed that the information contained in a single edition is accurate. The irony of this is how you are reasoning that it is "an excellent source of information because the info came from the clubs themselves" and yet have argued endlessly on a number of threads that what is contained in club history books can not be trusted...

Finally, if you actually believe that information directly from the clubs is from an excellent source, then explain how the Mountain Lakes history as stated on its website where it clearly says that Seth Raynor designed the course in 1916 (with NO mention of CBM by the way) is NOT an excellent source of information...

I said it was excellent source of information; I didn't say it was 100% accurate. Obviously with anything like the Golf Course Guide, which provides a massive amount of information, you are going to have errors and you need other sources to draw any definitive conclusion.

I don't have and didn't have a Mountain Lake theory that said the course was designed in 1917. I simply brought it up as one piece of evidence. In post  #21 I told Mike it was very possible the course designed earlier and that hopefully more evidence would come in. In post #55, after more info came in, I added Mountain Lake under 1916 on Raynor's list.

I addressed Pat's question in post #77.

I hope you are keeping track of other questions not answered by others.

[Tom MacWood]

So again, can you elaborate further on how you see the question as being relevant to the question of who designed North Shore in light of ONLY Raynor having been specifically contracted to and named as the person who would design it?

There was information in the minutes that suggested there was a collaboration between Raynor, White and possibly CBM. In his book CBM implied Raynor went out on his own in 1917. Raynor's early career is relevant to those two possibilities.

As far as Raynor's contract is concerned it doesn't preclude the possible involvement of CBM or White. CBM was an amateur, and therefore its unlikely he'd ever enter into a contract. White was contracted by the club as their professional, and could have easily collaborated. There is nothing in his contract that would have prohibited him.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M  (and/or others) -

Setting aside for a moment the debate about whether CBM (in his book) was implying that 1917 was a significant turning point for Raynor, my questions is: why should WE think 1917 was a turning point? Wasn't Macdonald still consulting with Raynor as late as  1920-21, when Tailer's "Ocean" course in Newport was built? And wasn't CBM's name prominently linked with that course at the time?

Peter