Private club architecture---public or municipal architecture and the architects

[Tom MacWood]

I would have corrected you last night, but your flying off the handle was such good entertainment it would've been wrong to interrupt it.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
By the way the Salisbury Links on my list has always been dated 1908, the first course of the Eisenhower Park complex was built some time in the teens. Also I added the locations on my list a few days ago and my Salisbury was located in Garden city. I don't believe EP is technically in GC.

I was a little surprised by your confusion, not totally surprised, just a little surprised.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You'd have us believe that you selected Emmett's 1908 Salisbury course for your list of greatest public golf courses through 1936, even though;

1) It became the private Cherry Valley by 1918
2) It was evidently  so accomplished architecturally that it was completely redesigned by Emmett for the CV club before 1927.

You'd have us believe that you were talking about that one even though the subsequent Salisbury CC four-course complex that was created by Emmett in 1916 and beyond included today's well-regarded Eisenhower Park Red course which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship, and whose now defunct #1 course hosted the 1925 US Publinks.

You thought that the Salisbury course on Long Island that hosted the 1925 US Publinks was the same one built by Emmett in 1908, and when I showed you your error, rather than admit that you don't know what you're talking about, you tell us this whopper.   THAT is the only reason your list included the erroneous 1908 date from the get-go.

I'm sure you're off now scavenging for some 1908 article declaring that the original course was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that fact it was completely re-designed before 1927 for the private Cherry Valley club tells us clearly that would be incorrect.

There is no point discussing any of this with a man who is not only a poseur, with little actual knowledge of his subject, but who is also now clearly intellectually dishonest.

[TEPaul]

Don't you two guys think you should take your continued arguing over trivialities about some list of public courses back over to the threads that are about those lists and contain those lists?

I'd prefer this thread discuss who the significant architects were who did public courses and particularly those who never did public courses as well as why they did and particularly never did public courses.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'd prefer that my thread that MacWood and Moriarty derailed on Hugh Wilson's involvement on public courses through his life to still be about that, but apparently they'd rather fill it with inaccuracies and gross errors about public golf so they can have their fill.

I think at this stage everyone sees it has nothing to do with facts or truth anyway, just more of their hopeless agenda.

As far as your question, I don't know of any architects who expressly declined to build public courses, and without that info, it's tough to separate the unwilling from the un-asked.   Do you have any insight there?

As far as the matter on the table between me and MacWood, either he selected a public course for placement on his dubious list of great public courses before Bethpage because he thought it was superb, without knowing that it 1) became private by 1918, 2) wasn't either the Salisbury course that hosted the 1925 Publinks Championship, or the 1926 PGA Championship and 3) was completely re-designed as a private club before 1927, or he just made up a whopper when caught not knowing these facts.

In any case, there is nothing of value to discuss with someone who is making up the history of public golf courses before 1936 by relying on Travel Guides from the 1950s as he goes along, because it is simply a game, and I'm not playing.

If you think you can get an honest intellectual discussion with any real value or meaning out of either of them, please go for it.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

This early article may be more of what you're hoping for here.   It seems most of these guys had good intent, but like today, land for golf courses was expensive, and that led to it becoming more of a private game than a public one in the US in those early days.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Thanks for that. That's a very fine article seemingly reflecting the sentiment of that early time for public golf by a few significant architects. I particularly note Macdonald's remarks but I wonder why he never tried or never offered to back them up by getting involved in a public course project as GAP and Wilson, Crump, Smith et al and apparetly so many others did?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You'd have us believe that you selected Emmett's 1908 Salisbury course for your list of greatest public golf courses through 1936, even though;

1) It became the private Cherry Valley by 1918
2) It was evidently  so accomplished architecturally that it was completely redesigned by Emmett for the CV club before 1927.

You'd have us believe that you were talking about that one even though the subsequent Salisbury CC four-course complex that was created by Emmett in 1916 and beyond included today's well-regarded Eisenhower Park Red course which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship, and whose now defunct #1 course hosted the 1925 US Publinks.

You thought that the Salisbury course on Long Island that hosted the 1925 US Publinks was the same one built by Emmett in 1908, and when I showed you your error, rather than admit that you don't know what you're talking about, you tell us this whopper.   THAT is the only reason your list included the erroneous 1908 date from the get-go.

I'm sure you're off now scavenging for some 1908 article declaring that the original course was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that fact it was completely re-designed before 1927 for the private Cherry Valley club tells us clearly that would be incorrect.

There is no point discussing any of this with a man who is not only a poseur, with little actual knowledge of his subject, but who is also now clearly intellectually dishonest.

Mike
Salisbury was not a private course turned public. It was from its inception a public course, and by all accounts a nationally well respected one. It hosted the 1913 Metropolitan Open. The fact that it later became private club has no bearing on this discussion.

You claimed Cobbs Creek was the best, most challenging public golf course built prior to 1936, and Salisbury Links is certainly a worthy challenger.

[TEPaul]

Can't deal with Jamestown and Beaver Trail, can you MacWood? Therefore it's probably better for you to avoid it and/or ignore it as usual, right? To EVER admit I (the self proclaimed expert reseacher/writer) may've ever made some mistake about anything is virtually unthinkable and unspeakable, right? Oh MY GOD, to admit I've ever been wrong----what a phucking disastah-----please don't even mention such a thing! 

[Tom MacWood]

Huh?

[TEPaul]

It's always better on your part to ask a dumb question rather than to answer a legitimate one, right MacWood?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba.   I am familiar (from old articles) with the Salisbury Links located in Garden City.  I don't know anything about the ones you throw out in your rant above.  As for digging up articles, there is no point given that once you make up your mind it is impossible for you to change it.  That said, off the top of my head I can think of a Travis article in his magazine, probably 1909-10, where he praised NGLA and two other courses; Pinehurst (with pending changes) and Salisbury Links.    

Go back and look at at Page 2 or 3 of the other thread.  Salisbury Links in on there and it is the 1908 course.  From the beginning I assumed (correctly) that the course on Tom's list was the course in the above-mentioned article and others.  Why you would assume otherwise is beyond me.  Perhaps if you read a bit more broadly on the region you would be familiar with just how well known the 1908 course was?

Plus Mike, you really should consider getting your facts straight before you flip out about these things.   I know it is easier to mischaracterize our position then try to crucify us, but you always get it wrong.  One would think you would tire of flying off the handle without reasonable basis, but since it happens with every couple of posts, I guess you will never learn.

Perhaps you need a new rule?    Make sure you actually understand another's position before you attack them.  Had you followed that one in the past we'd have 100s less pages.  
_____________________________________________________________________________

TEPaul, in another thread you offered an me an "olive branch;" something about me getting involved in the USGA's architecture archive project.  I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting, but generally I would be glad to help the USGA in any way I can, provided I felt I could make a positive contribution and that the project was advancing best interests of golf.  Honestly, though, I have serious reservations about this project and am particularly concerned about the willingness and ability of a few of those involved to actually compile and produce a complete, accurate, and relevant record of the history of these old courses.  

That said, it is possible that I have the wrong impression and I would be glad to discuss it with someone from the project. However, for what should be obvious reasons, I have no interest in discussing the project with you or Wayne.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, in another thread you offered an me an "olive branch;" something about me getting involved in the USGA's architecture archive project.  I am not sure I understand what you were suggesting, but generally I would be glad to help the USGA in any way I can, provided I felt I could make a positive contribution and that the project was advancing best interests of golf.  Honestly, t I have serious reservations about this  project and am particularly concerned about the willingness and ability of a few of those involved to actually compile and produce a complete, accurate, and relevant record of the history of these old courses. 

That said, it is possible that I have the wrong impression, and I would be glad to discuss the project with someone from the project. However, for what should be obvious reasons, I have no interest in discussing the project with you or Wayne."



David Moriarty:

I did offer you an "olive branch" of sorts but I do not recall offering you an "olive branch" or an opportunity to become involved with the USGA Architecture Archive, And after reading your remarks that are quoted just above there is virtually no way I would do that anyway! And additionally, there is no way I can offer you an opportunity to become involved with the USGA Architecture Archive. I could suggest it but the decision is certainly not mine alone. But again, after considering your remarks just above there is no way I would recommend you. Wayne Morrison is now also on the USGA Architecture Archive Committee and even if I wouldn't pretend to speak for him my sense is he would most certainly not recommend you either.

But I think you are mixed up on what I said on here about suggesting some participation on your part with the USGA Architecture Archieve; it wasn't you I was referring to in the past in that capacity; it was MacWood. I offered the consideration of that to him in the last 2-5 years and he said every time he was not interested. That's fine and fine by me, the offer was made and he refused it every time. As a consequence that did not do much and continues to not do much with my estimation of Tom MacWood's dedication or selflessness, in a voluntary way, of course, of doing much for the future and edification of golf course architecture to the public.

Frankly, I think MacWood is a selfish and self-consumed agent who is only in this for himself, as well as someone with a fairly transparent agenda that serves nothing to anyone but himself, and his own fairly jaded agrandizment. And even with that I don't view his potential capability or contribution as important in the slightest, no matter how he tried to go about it.  Actually, since I found out that Ran Morrissett considered paying MacWood for some essay or did pay him for one, I decided I would never again make a financial contribution to this website, nor will I again until Ran Morrissett gives me his word he will never do that again to someone like MacWood.

But I did offer you an "olive branch," Moriarty and I am again offering you one here and now. What I have in mind is that you and I do a collaborative piece (essay) on the life and times of C. B. Macdonald in things other than to do with just architecture. I feel there is a whole lot of material and interest there and I propose you and I collaborate even if the piece is something of a "compare and contrast" one.

But I am reminded that I offered you this "olive branch" in the past with the opportunity of collaborating on some interesting piece on architecture, and like MacWood, you refused, and in my recollection a couple of times.

But I did make the offer in the past and I am again and therefore the ball is in your court now.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is an article on Salisbury Links (Garden City) written by Walter Travis in 2/1908.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba.   I am familiar (from old articles) with the Salisbury Links located in Garden City.  I don't know anything about the ones you throw out in your rant above.  As for digging up articles, there is no point given that once you make up your mind it is impossible for you to change it.  


David,

Are you saying that MacWood got his idea to nominate Salisbury Links in his piss-poor  list of the best public courses through 1936 from you, but neither of you were aware of the subsequent four-public-course Salisbury CC that replaced it, one of which hosted the US Publinks in 1925, and another which hosted the 1926 PGA Championship so therefore they didn't make the list?

I don't get you, David.  Two weeks ago you rightly told us that you knew very little about public courses and last week you were pontificating like the Oracle of Delphi, taking the unwary reader through a virtual Mythical History Tour of the forces and evolution driving pubilc golf in the first few decades.   I sort of preferred when you didn't try to pull  a MacWood and didn't try to pretend you knew anything about this subject.  
 
I would assume you were both also unaware that the brilliant 1908 design that became the Cherry Valley Links was completely overhauled and redesigned by Emmett before 1927?

That makes sense, somehow.   Good to see your collaborative powers are consistent.

p.s.   You mentioned Griffith Park, which I thought might be a good contender, but I seem to recall George Thomas himself in the mid-20s said that Ojai Valley was better than a better-ball course of LA North (at that time), Griffith Park, and Red Hill combined, didn't he?   Perhaps he was enamored with his new creation?


Tom MacWood,

See...I knew you'd be scavenging.   Sounds really, really impressive.

Why do you think they completely overhauled this masterpiece before 1927?

p.s. courses like Beaver Tail and Belvedere were essentially the resort courses of their day, where rich folks "summered", so their inclusion in your list is dubious ,at best.   Do you think the average working stiff was spending their summers in Jamestown or along Lake Michigan in Charlevoix?   Or perhaps in Southampton or Garden City?

I have an article that calls Salisbury Links a resort, as well, but as far as I care, keep it on your list because it reflects the overall quality of what you came up with rather well, I'd say.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I am very aware of the Salisbury Links that later became Eisenhower Park, and hosted the Public Links. It came up on your other thread, I believe Phil was the one who suggested it. I'm still considering it, along with some other courses.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Now THAT's funny.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

See...I knew you'd be scavenging.   Sounds really, really impressive.

Why do you think they completely overhauled this masterpiece before 1927?

p.s. courses like Beaver Tail and Belvedere were essentially the resort courses of their day, where rich folks "summered", so their inclusion in your list is dubious ,at best.   Do you think the average working stiff was spending their summers in Jamestown or along Lake Michigan in Charlevoix?   Or perhaps in Southampton or Garden City?

I have an article that calls Salisbury Links a resort, as well, but as far as I care, keep it on your list because it reflects the overall quality of what you came up with rather well, I'd say.

When I played Cherry Valley they explained to me why the course was changed. It has something to do with a land exchange. The current course is across the street from where the old course was, something like that, but I don't remember the details. Why don't you look into it?

Resort courses? I don't believe they were associated with a hotel or a resort complex. They were daily fee courses located at a vacation destination/summer colony, but I don't believe they should be excluded based on that.  Would you agree Beaver Tail and Belvedere were superior to Cobbs Creek?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I've not played Beaver Tail, and only seen the two-dimensional drawing so I can't comment.

I have played Belvedere, and what I know of the original Cobb's Creek course, especially by 1928, I think the latter was superior.

Belvedere is a great place to play golf, has some very good holes and terrific greens, but also some rather mundane holes on property that is not compelling.   Tom Doak gave it a Doak Scale "5" in his book, which is an accurate assessment.

[Tom MacWood]

Actually its not that funny. I'm still trying to sort out the SL courses. I believe the PGA on one of the courses that was private and Publinx was played on the #1 course, which started life as a private club before being purchased in 1918. That leaves #2 and #5 and I'm not sure of their quality just yet.

Cobbs Creek was superior to Belvedere?

[Mike Cirba]

The 5800 yard, par 73 Salisbury Links course that became the private Cherry Valley GC and was completely redesigned before 1927, was considered a resort course for rich folks from inception as this 1908 article shows.

But that's ok...it's inclusion is certainly consistent with the quality and accuracy of most of the rest of the list so I vote to keep it!  

After all, we really don't want the Yachting Set to get offended if it's removed from the list of early public courses.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

The PGA was played on the #4 course, what is known as the Red course today...

Mike,

If you'd like to see what Beavertail ACTUALLY looked like I posted an aerial of the course from about 1928/29 as well as photo's of the clubhouse and greenkeeper's cottage.

[Mike Cirba]

Cobbs Creek was superior to Belvedere?

Tom,

Have you seen or played either course?

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Either the author of that article didn't know what he was talking about or you're misinterpreting his words. IMO the latter is more likely seeing that most of the courses he listed were not resort courses. The Salisbury Links was never a resort course. Here are a few clips, the first is an article from the Washington Post, the second is an article from the NY Tribune and last advertisement is from 1916.

I have not played Belvedere, but I've been there and seen the golf course. I can only imagine what it was like with its original bunkering.

[TEPaul]

Uh huh, those so-called "public" courses mentioned above and in those new accounts and ads sure do sound like our present day conception of a public golf course or even one created on the concept of Cobbs Creek!


"Come one, come all, we even provide facilities for you to park your yacht!"