[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

I am sorry you feel that way and thank you for your candor.

[paul cowley]

Bump .....I'm just glad I won't be around when, if sometime in the future, a group starts debating the extent of my design involvement with any of the dozens of golf courses I've built. That knowledge will go with me to the grave...where it belongs.

Even while I'm alive it's very difficult to precisely proscribe all the credit for each course...and to do it accurately from a historical perspective is nearly impossible....but maybe that's what these never ending threads are attempting to prove!

[TEPaul]

Paul:


I'm glad to see you say that on here. I particularly admire what you said last! THAT is precisely what most of these people on these threads need to know. I've tried to tell them that for years but they don't seem interested in listening. Maybe they'll be more inclined to listen to you, a professional architect; but maybe not; after-all, Jeff Brauer just explained the approximate percentage of projects that bought land before routing it in his career experience and then David Moriarty responded that that was not the way it was done in the old days. They may just be more interested in speculating and arguing; arguing and speculating. Too bad. To me there was nothing about architecture more interesting than spending time on sites and projects with architects watching them do what they do out there and talking to them or even collaborating with them about what they're trying to accomplish. It sure beats sitting at a computer plying Google and ship manifest lists about people a century ago!

Every now and again you might even get the feeling it's something like walking around in a flower filled field in France (pretty nice alliteration there actually) in the 19th century with Van Gogh as he looks for a place and perspective to set up his easel and begin to put paint to canvas.

Back in Feb 2003 Tom MacWood started a thread on here called "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" He wanted to know who developed the routing and concepts of every hole at Merion East. We told him we just don't know; nobody does, because things like that were never recorded and that they basically never are. It's too bad he was unwilling to listen or threads like those, and this one, probably wouldn't have carried on as they have for about the last seven years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

I understand the difficulty in ascertaining proper credit, but, in the ultimate, it's the guiding light, the officer leading the charge on his mounted steed that gets written up in history.

While wars are won with a collective effort, it's the generals who succeed or fail based upon their battle plan.
And, while the fog of war may blur that battle plan, at the end of the day, when credit is doled out, it's the leaders who get it, all of the other participants share in the effort to differing degrees.

And so it is with GCA.
The developer and the architect are generally given the Lion's share of the credit on a project.

Bakst and C&C
Hansen and C&C
Youngscap and C&C
Keiser and Kidd
Keiser and Doak
Etc., etc..

So while subordinates are involved to differing degrees, few if any want to delve through the minutia to quantify and determine exactly who did what.

But, when it comes to history, I think most want the record to accurately reflect who the primary contributors were along with the extent of their involvement.

While it's interesting for us to know who came up with the idea of the DA at PV and who had it crafted, most are content with the idea that PV in concept and construction was mostly the work of George Crump.

As you know, I'm not a "committeephile", I don't believe great artistic endeavors are the product of the committee process, and, I've never seen a statue commemorating a committee.  Someone usually leads the committee and makes the difficult decisions.

So, when a committee is mentioned, I think it's only natural to try to determine who did what with respect to a project.

Since there seems to be little in the way of committee minutes at Merion, I can understand Tom MacWood's and David Moriarty's curiosity and pursuit of more definitive information, no matter how distasteful that may have been to others.

[TEPaul]

"Paul Cowley,
I understand the difficulty in ascertaining proper credit, but, in the ultimate, it's the guiding light, the officer leading the charge on his mounted steed that gets written up in history."



Pat:

I can't imagine that there is any experienced and commonsensical golf achitect analyst and historian who would disagree with that.

The problem arose when a guy like Tom MacWood wanted to know who was virtually responsible for all the individual hole routings and individual hole concepts on Merion East.

Would you agree that that kind of thing is virtually unknowable for the simple and basic reason that kind of detail was just never recorded as it happened in the first place?

For the last two days I've been involved with Gil Hanse and an ad hoc committee to do a redesigned practice chipping and pitching green. There were about five of us out there all talking over a lot of ideas and concepts. In the next day or so I have to write some minutes about what was discussed out there but I'm going to reflect what the consensus of opinion was amongst that group in the last two days and not what every person thought and said to get to that consensus. I doubt it was any different when Wilson and his committee were routing and designing Merion East over those winter and spring months in 1911, and when that Wilson report was submitted to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911 that reflected what they had done in those months that resulted in the final plan they offered to the board on April 19, 1911 and that the board approved with a few important changes to be made like a land swap and the purchase of three additional acres and the lease of three acres of the railroad land next to the clubhouse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

A perfect example of "coming into knowledge" happened at my GCA.com get together at Hidden Creek when Bill Coore explained how the 8th hole evolved.

History would never record that fact.

Had Bill not been questioned about how he routes and designs holes/features, that information would never have come to light.

I'm sure that that's the way it is everywhere.

I could cite you instances at Boca Rio where a hole or feature was reconfigured, yet history will never record how, when, why and by whom.

That kind of detail is almost impossible to get into the history books.

Another PERFECT example is Sebonack, a course recently opened.

Yet, try to find out who did what and you run into a roadblock,.... political or diplomatic.

So, drilling down to detailed absolutes is almost impossible TODAY, let alone 100 years ago.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,
A perfect example of "coming into knowledge" happened at my GCA.com get together at Hidden Creek when Bill Coore explained how the 8th hole evolved.
History would never record that fact.
Had Bill not been questioned about how he routes and designs holes/features, that information would never have come to light."




Patrick:

No question about it. However, I am not aware of any GCA.com get-together at Merion East when Hugh Wilson was questioned about who did what regarding the routing and individual hole concepts and explained it. Or at least not while he was alive! 

Are you?


That's all I'm saying here. That's all I've ever said. In 99.9% of these projects it was just not recorded in that kind of detail.

Matter of fact, that is precisely what some of us would like to do with this USGA Architecture Archive---eg help promote a lot more of this detailed recording for posterity! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Agreed.

That's why I laud books like Lowell Schulman's "The Miracle on Breeze Hill" and Brad Klein's book, "Building Sebonack"

As good as those books are, they don't tell the entire story, but the story they do tell is more than sufficient for 99 % of the golfing population.

[Tom MacWood]

Speaking of that old Merion thread, here is a link to an old thread on this subject. I'm not sure if this was the thread TEP began suggesting Emmet was gay or if that occurred earlier.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,13033.0/

[Mike Cirba]

It's good to see that the arguments on this attribution stuff are not a recent GCA occurrence or phenomenon.

Nice to also see that Dev Emmet finally did get some acknowledgment for his significant contributions at NGLA, although he wasn't the primary archie.

[Tom MacWood]

It's good to see that the arguments on this attribution stuff are not a recent GCA occurrence or phenomenon.

Nice to also see that Dev Emmet finally did get some acknowledgment for his significant contributions at NGLA, although he wasn't the primary archie.

It also interesting to see whose position has remained consistent over time, and who has flip flopped.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's good to see that the arguments on this attribution stuff are not a recent GCA occurrence or phenomenon.

Nice to also see that Dev Emmet finally did get some acknowledgment for his significant contributions at NGLA, although he wasn't the primary archie.

It also interesting to see whose position has remained consistent over time, and who has flip flopped.

Tom MacWood,

It appears that you might have flip flopped.
In that old thread you indicated that we'll never know the details on credits for many courses, yet today you seem convinced that the credits are there provided your research is diligent.

Perhaps rereading chapters IX and X of "Scotland's Gift" would help clarify the extent of Emmett's involvement.

[paul cowley]

Patrick, you said "But, when it comes to history, I think most want the record to accurately reflect who the primary contributors were along with the extent of their involvement."

I agree...most would want that, but the devil is in those details...and as much as we would like to identify the person leading the charge, in most cases it its much murkier...too much smoke on the field.

Tom P my friend...since you were one of those involved in the now stalled construction of Aston Point...how would you distribute credit?

Pat...take me and my work with the Love brothers...Davis and Mark, as an example:

I am generally responsible for creating the routings and the land planning for our courses. I field input from the others and combine these ideas to come up with an agreed upon version. I then produce all the working drawings.


On roughly half of our courses, I also coordinate the work in the field....which is where the finished product is  most affected. We have experimented with a few different styles that Davis likes....this is usually dictated by the site....and then I try to make good design decisions in the field that reflect what I feel Davis would like.

Now say that in time between Davis' visits I make 100 design decisions, and after Davis reviews the work he suggests three changes. I feel like my paper has been graded a 97....not bad.....and along with this Mark will make multiple visits to create features and discuss strategies

So who in these scenarios is the leader of the charge?

Its tough, as there is none really....most golf design is a varying collaboration of
people and ideas.

We have started of late to give course credits as the Loves/Cowley....not that this makes individual credits any easier.

[TEPaul]

Tom P my friend...since you were one of those involved in the now stalled construction of Aston Point...how would you distribute credit?


Paul:

That's a very good question indeed. I feel I was out there enough with you and then with you and Forrest Fezler and with both of you and the shapers and then a couple of times with Mark and once with Mark and Davis.

And don't think for a minute that I wasn't watching and listening and thinking carefully and as you know I offered a number of my own ideas. To say I learned a whole lot I never suspected before about the way things go at least with your company out there in the field would be a massive understatement.

But if you really want me to try to distribute credit in the over-all or certainly in the details of who came up with what, and where and when on that project I might have a hard time trying to piece all that back together again and into a architect attribution credit distribution, even though a number of interesting things will always stand out to me about who came up with what and be in my clear recollection.

And for that reason I think we see this the same way even if we seem to be having a hard time convincing others on this website of it who have basically never been involved in something like that.

But from what I saw through that year or so in Maryland on that project I do not think it would be any exaggeration at all, and I don't mean this to flatter you on here either, but I think the majority of what I saw in this vein was from you Paul. It was a really fine education for me because I spent more time on that one than any other with the exception of Ardrossan that didn't continue either. What I really learned out there in Maryland though was where my weaknesses are with this stuff and where I feel my strengths are too. And I found out where your strengths are too and I have always felt and have told you so that I think yours are across the board. And when one adds in that ability I believe you have to really imagine various things outside the usual architectural box it was a great learning curve for me indeed.

I'm very sorry it didn't continue but for that we can thank the economy and these modern Wall Street gunslingers who would securitize my dog and cat if I let 'em!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I understand.

But, I don't think the situations in 1906 were similar to the scenario you reference.

GCA was in its infancy in the U.S. in 1906 and I don't think you had that many parties, with decision making authority, involved in a project.

Today, I would imagine that associates and field personel have imput and that some of that imput finds its way into the ground and the final product.

Determining who did what has to be minutia that only we geeks on GCA.com love.

[DMoriarty]

paul cowley,

Your Love Bros. example demonstrates in a modern context just how the "credit" given can be pretty misleading.  It would seem that clubs who hire Love or many other famous player/designers have a strong interest in that name being associated with the club regardless of the amount that person may have contributed.

Similarly, many of these old clubs may have come up with attributions which perhaps are more reflections on who the club wants to associate itself with what actually happened. The problem is even more pronounced for courses designed and built early on, especially during the transition between simple, quicky layouts and more complicated (and often more compelling) design and construction projects, because at this time they didn't necessarily think of or describe the process in the same way we do now, and oftentimes the so called "designer" isn't actually credited until decades later.

These are all reasons why I think our time is better spent discussing what actually happened than who should be credited.    Fortunately, at NGLA the history of what actually happened is all fairly well known, although there is always room to learn more.

[Tom MacWood]

It's good to see that the arguments on this attribution stuff are not a recent GCA occurrence or phenomenon.

Nice to also see that Dev Emmet finally did get some acknowledgment for his significant contributions at NGLA, although he wasn't the primary archie.

It also interesting to see whose position has remained consistent over time, and who has flip flopped.

Tom MacWood,

It appears that you might have flip flopped.
In that old thread you indicated that we'll never know the details on credits for many courses, yet today you seem convinced that the credits are there provided your research is diligent.

Perhaps rereading chapters IX and X of "Scotland's Gift" would help clarify the extent of Emmett's involvement.

I don't think my position has changed.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:


Then what is your opinion or position now on Emmet's contribution to NGLA and what was your opinion or position in the past on his contribution to NGLA?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I would think it is important for you to explain why you think this thread, and the question you now pose to Tom Macwood is being posted. Isn't it directly because of his statement on the Devereaux Emmett thread that Emmett should be given credit with the design of NGLA?

Wouldn't your question to him be better discussed in the topic where it is actually germane with a side reference to this thread?

[TEPaul]

Philip:

No, I personally feel it's more instructive to just bring up some of the older threads that bear on the same subject as a current one's post----in this case Emmet and NGLA as is the subject of a recent post on the recent thread about an Emmet Society. I will make a note post on that recent Emmet Society thread that the Emmet and NGLA thread from some months ago is back in Dodge and firmly grasping on to the barroom rail on the first page again.

[Kirk Gill]

Reading a thread like this makes me think about movies, because it's always interested me to see the way that credit is assigned in movie-making. Creatively we always talk about the Director, because he's in charge on the set of the movie, and it's typically the Director's "vision" that is reflected on the screen. But the director of photography and the cinematographer have must of the responsibility for what you actually see. And over it all, there's the Producer, who sometimes is just a money-man, and sometimes is deeply involved in the making of the movie (and is the one who accepts the "Best Picture" Oscar). Helpfully, at the end of the movie there's a list of credits, saying who did what. But movie historians know that even those credits don't tell the whole story.

Despite all of that, when most people talk about movies they'll say "Coppola's 'Godfather'" or "Wilder's 'Sabrina.'"

And isn't that typical with inherently collaborative efforts?

Did CBM "direct" NGLA ?

[TEPaul]

"Did CBM "direct" NGLA ?"


Of course he did. He may not have thought of everything----actually he is pretty forthcoming in his book about some of the things and people who helped him with various things----viz what he wrote about how Hutchinson helped him with green contours with his example of throwing stones on a board or whatever to create random contours. He also mentioned some of the things Whigam suggested and said, even though they weren't quite as specific as the Hutchinson example.

[Tom MacWood]

Right after the course opened for play CBM thanked Whigham and Emmet for the contribution so I feel it important we not forget their involvement in the design:

"For aid in the original purchase of the land and in the laying out of the course we must thank Mr. HJ Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()