News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #375 on: September 25, 2010, 07:50:25 PM »
Mac,  While none of us are perfect, the blame for of every problem cannot be divvied equally to all.  To pretend otherwise doesn't help matters. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #376 on: September 25, 2010, 07:51:03 PM »
I never said equally. 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mike Cirba

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #377 on: September 25, 2010, 09:57:39 PM »
David,

Who has presented actual evidence here and who has provided nonsensical blanket statements of personal opinion without presenting a smidgen of evidence?

Its like listening to Sean Hannity go on mindlessly about the greatness of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin so huge is the disconnect between you and MacWood GUSHING over Barker and CBM, trying desperately to extend their respective spheres of influence to silly and unsupported extremes.

TMac asked me to start a thread to prove my points but I really won't waste any more time on this as Im very confident that to any objective, fair-minded observer here that I've already done so.

To you and Tom MacWood, no proof will ever be enough and that's ok too...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research, but in the long run, there really is nothing left to prove, and recent threads like the one on Shawnee must even have you feeling uncomfortable as it getting somewhere between embarrassment and parody, and overall very cringe-worthy so bizarre and twisted are the interpretations of the historical record...to what ultimate or useful purpose, most of us here will never know..
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 10:45:18 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #378 on: September 25, 2010, 10:25:39 PM »
"...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research,"

Mike Cirba:

That is a very smart remark; I've heard it before and concurred and now that you mention it again I concur again. Actually, that idea is about the only thing Ran Morrissett uses to defend or support putting Moriarty's ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" on this website.

There's no question that all those threads on Merion really did lead a few of us to do more research---eg the Merion historians and others did go back to MCC to look for documents that had been reposited there for over a century and were never transfered over to Merion GC when it was formed in 1942. And there has been an awful lot more found recently by people around here and particularly on subjects like Horatio Gates Lloyd and the fact that he just may've been the greatest "angel" any golf club and membership ever had!

I had a meeting with Merion's historian the other day and there will be a number of detailed research essays produced on specific subjects not covered that comprehensively in the club's history books.

With the US Open on the horizon Merion does need to tell its own historical stories with all the detail available to them or at least to have the research information available to the press. It will be necessary anyway when that USGA press tent is up and running in 2013 and there are 500-800 press people in it from all over the world looking for story lines and background informatoin. I spent a week at the USGA's press tent at Pebble this year and it's pretty impressive and it is necessary for a US Open host club and the USGA to be ready with credible and factually supportable historic information.

The last thing a club like that wants to see happen is for some press people to tap into GOOGLE and just have GOLFCLUBATLAS.com come up with a ridiculous, speculative and factually unsupportable essay like Moriarty's ("The Missing Faces of Merion" ;) ) come up or some of the deceptive and historically inaccurate posts by those two come up.

Merion will be ready with their own historical accounts backed up by their own contemporaneous records. And who will write them? Well, all I can tell you is it sure won't be GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and people like David Moriarty and Tom MacWood!  ;)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 10:34:50 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #379 on: September 25, 2010, 10:33:07 PM »
I stumbled across this old thread.  I am somewhat confused by a 1923 Golf Digest Top 100 list.  Is this of any value to our discussion or am I simply too tired to understand the gist of the posts?

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7178.0/
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #380 on: September 25, 2010, 11:07:31 PM »
Mac:

I don't remember who Brian Gracely was but I would take his initial post you put on here and put it to some close chronological scrutiny.

I wouldn't stake my life on it but I think GOLF DIGEST was founded by William Davis in 1950 and so I really do wonder what Brian Gracely was talking about in that post when he mentioned Macdonald and Golf Digest in 1923.

Frankly, a number of contributors (researchers/analysts/historians) on here don't have the vaguest idea what a timeline is all about or even basic chronology for that matter. ;)


Talk about initial posts! Check out the initial posts on the threads "Who desigined Shawnee" AND "Top courses in 1910." Both threads were started by TOM MACWOOD and the initial threads on both are indicative of him and his MO on here. His initial post on the "Top Courses in 1910" doesn't even make sense which is also indicative of Tom MacWood.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 08:17:53 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #381 on: September 25, 2010, 11:27:27 PM »
TEPaul,

I see now you are pretending to speak for Ran in addition to pretending to speak for Merion.

Your version of Ran's take on my essay is much different than what he posted about the essay on the website.

You really should quit pretending to speak for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.  It is embarrassing.

_______________________________________________

Mac,

I think Brian took a modern (2003) list and separated it out by the year the course was built.   As for the comments about the supposed 1923 list, I think Brian was being sarcastic but I have no idea about what.  Probably has something to do with the fact that both Chicago and WFW were listed as 1923 but WFW was listed higher.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #382 on: September 25, 2010, 11:36:19 PM »
"TEPaul,
I see now you are pretending to speak for Ran in addition to pretending to speak for Merion."


David Moriarty:

Not at all. I would never pretend to speak for Ran Morrissett and certainly not on his own website. I have only mentioned what Ran Morrissett and I have spoken about.



"Your version of Ran's take on my essay is much different than what he posted about the essay on the website."


Again, I can only tell you what Ran Morrissett and I talked about regarding your essay and it was definitely AFTER he put it on this website.



"You really should quit pretending to speak for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.  It is embarrassing."


I have no reason at all to speak FOR people but there is also no reason not to speak on here or otherwise about what they speak to me about regarding various subjects and issues discussed on here, such as your essay on Merion and your posts (and MacWood's) on here about Merion unless they ask me not to which neither Merion Golf Club nor Ran Morrissett ever has asked me not to speak about on here.

And as far as embarrassemnt goes, it's certainly not hard to tell it is very embarrassing to you that your essay was received the way it was by so many. That's just good old fashioned peer review, and it's too bad you didn't learn from it as well as learning something about the factual history of Merion which you said in that essay itself was your intention to do. It doesn't appear you were willing to learn anything; it only appears you became more and more adverserial as time went on towards those who actually taught you something about the history of Merion from club records you never had and apparently never even knew existed.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 09:12:31 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #383 on: September 25, 2010, 11:38:58 PM »
TEPaul

You are a petty gossip and a liar.   

I ought to tell the whole world the kind of things your "friends" say about you but I have more class than that.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #384 on: September 25, 2010, 11:59:30 PM »
"TEPaul
You are a petty gossip and a liar.  
I ought to tell the whole world the kind of things your "friends" say about you but I have more class than that."



That's quite the remark on a world-wide INTERNET website, David Moriarty!

Don't hedge or beat around the proverbial bush----go right ahead and TELL the WHOLE WORLD the kind of things my "friends" say about me. At the very least it should be entertaining, and entertainment is part of my business. What's yours?  ;)

« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 09:20:36 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #385 on: September 26, 2010, 12:00:48 AM »
"...perhaps on some masochistic level you guys serve an actual beneficial purpose of goading others to do more research,"

Mike Cirba:

That is a very smart remark; I've heard it before and concurred and now that you mention it again I concur again. Actually, that idea is about the only thing Ran Morrissett uses to defend or support putting Moriarty's ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" on this website.
. . .

Here is what Ran posted about my Essay when he put it on the website.   It hardly sounds consistent with the version TEPaul is gossiping about . . . .

Here is a synopsis  of David Moriarty's carefully researched and heavily footnoted  13,000 word plus paper on the subject of the beginnings of the East Course at  Merion.
 
HH Barker did an initial routing in  1910.

Fresh off their stunning success at NGLA,  Macdonald and Whigham were called in to consult in 1910.
 
Member Hugh Wilson was asked to oversee  the Construction Committee for the purpose of 'constructing' the course.  
 
The course was built in 1911 and seeded  in September of that year, according to Wilson.
 
In May of 1912, Wilson returned from  Scotland according to a ship's registry that David Moriarty found.
 
In the years that followed, holes  were modified and bunkers were added until the course became the flawless  design gem that it is today. Wilson, who learned quite a bit from his study of  the great courses overseas, played a crucial role in the development of the  design of the East Course from 1912 until his death in 1925.
 
However, David suggests that the concept  that he went to the UK and then routed/designed Merion is chronologically  flawed. Wilson's initial role was to construct the course, as opposed to  design it. In 1911, his primary exposure to classic architecture was the time  he and his construction team spent at NGLA with Macdonald and Whigham. Indeed,  Wilson's own writings pay homage to the help  that Macdonald provided.
 
David's research suggests that  Barker, Macdonald and Whigham deserve design credit for the holes that were  laid out and seeded in 1911. Wilson deserves the credit for the  excellent construction of the holes and for translating Macdonald's  ideals so well into the ground. The end of Part One concludes in 1912, so the  knowledge that Wilson picked up in the UK in April/May of 1912 had not yet  made its way into the design. As David says, that is for another  day.
 
Why people get upset with the notion that  Macdonald provided design thoughts and ideas at Merion based on the best holes  in the UK is beyond my ability to comprehend. After all, if you wanted to  build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just  done so?  ??? The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize  upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies  is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me.  
 
Congratulations to David for all his well spent time and effort in coming up with this document, which is both compelling and original. Ben and I cannot express our deepest appreciation to  David for selecting GolfClubAtlas.com to house it.
 
Have a read and see if you don't agree with David's own conclusions - I know I do.

Cheers,


As anyone can see, Ran not only provides his summary of the essay (mine would have been a bit different) he also offered his own opinion on the essay  as well as his opinion on the legend of Merion . . .

Why people get upset with the notion that Macdonald provided design thoughts and ideas at Merion based on the best holes  in the UK is beyond my ability to comprehend. After all, if you wanted to  build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just  done so?  ??? The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize  upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies  is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me.  

It is beyond my ability to comprehend as well, especially because there is no doubt CBM not only offered design thoughts and ideas from the beginning of the process to the end of the design stage, he also CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT!    Yet some still like to pretend he wasn't an important factor.  

And apparently because they cannot handle the message, they have taken to attacking the messenger as a full time vocation, now even sullying Ran's good name in the process.   To quote Ran again, it is beyond my ability to comprehend.  
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 12:02:30 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #386 on: September 26, 2010, 12:13:33 AM »
Ran Morrissett did say those things about your essay in 2008 over two years and more ago. Since then he has learned a whole lot about the history of Merion he never knew and he has learned a whole lot about WHY that essay of yours has almost no basis in fact and no value or use on here. As I mentioned above, in his own defense, the best he offered, after the fact, for putting that essay on here was that it really did get some of us from Philadelphia to do the in-depth research you never did and were incapable of doing. As Cirba said above, in a masochistic way that was probably a good thing. And it was a good thing as now Merion does plan to have a number of factually supportable research papers done on the subjects that have been discussed on here from time to time.

You should have collaboarted with us back then instead of treating this entire thing in such an adverserial manner. But that was your choice and not Merion's and not ours. And now you have no value. In the places it really matters you have no value, no support and no interest. In the places it matters most such as Merion you're of no value. But yes, you did inspire us to do the necessary searching and research and credible analysis and we all surely give you THAT!

For the rest, don't blame us, you did it to yourself and you continue to do it to yourself.

So as not to embarrass or minimize yourself further, for Goodness Sake, why don't you just stop this years long campaign now? ;)
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 04:12:05 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #387 on: September 26, 2010, 12:30:23 AM »
"It is beyond my ability to comprehend as well, especially because there is no doubt CBM not only offered design thoughts and ideas from the beginning of the process to the end of the design stage, he also CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT!    Yet some still like to pretend he wasn't an important factor."


What an ironic statement!

It was Wayne Morrison, and NOT you, who made the effort to go to MCC and find the April 19th 1911 board meeting minutes that mentioned that Macdonald CHOSE AND APPROVED THE FINAL LAYOUT! You had ZERO idea about THAT when you wrote your essay, Moriarty, since all you had was the Sayer's Scrapbook from not Merion or MCC but from the Pennsylvania Historical Society and NOT from Merion or MCC. Wayne Morrison found the all imporatant MCC Wilson report and those all important meeting minutes, and NOT you! You weren't even aware of them when you wrote your essay, you overarching PHONY! 


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #388 on: September 26, 2010, 01:09:28 AM »
Ran Morrissett did say those things about your essay in 2008 over two years and more ago. Since then he has learned a whole lot about the history of Merion he never knew and he has learned a whole lot about WHY that essay of yours has almost no basis in fact and no value or use on here. As I mentioned above, in his own defense, the best he offered, after the fact, for putting that essay on here was that it really did get some of us from Philadelphia to do the in-depth research you never did and were incapable of doing. As Cirba said above, in a masochistic way that was probably a good thing. And it was a good thing as now Merion does plan to have a number of factually supportable research papers done on the subjects that have been discussed on here from time to time.

You have no value, David Moriarty, none at all. In the places it really matters you have no value, no support and no interest. In the places it matters most such as Merion you are a joke.

Don't blame us, you did it to yourself and you continue to do it to yourself.

So as not to embarrass yourself further, for Goodness Sake, why don't you just stop this years long charade now? ;)

TEPaul,

You cannot even keep your own lies straight!  That is what happens when you lie about what other people supposedly said.   It sometimes contrasts with what the person has actually said.


Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #389 on: September 26, 2010, 10:03:21 AM »
This is a little different view of the top 25 in America circa 1910. I've highlighted in color all the design and redesign activity post 1907. The blue are those architects - both amateur and professional - who were experienced. The green is the lone inexperienced example - Aleck Bauer. And calling Bauer inexperienced may not be totally accurate because he had been studying golf architecture for years, which culminated in his landmark book 'Hazards.'

Atlanta Athletic Club - T.Bendelow (1908), H.Barker (1910)

Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)

Chicago - CB.Macdonald/HJ.Whigham/J.Foulis (1895), D.Foulis (1910)

Homewood - HJ.Tweedie/J.Pearson (1901), W.Watson (1910)

Ravisloe - J.Foulis (1901), R.White (1903), W.Watson/A.Bauer (1910)

Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)

The Country Club - W.Campbell (1894), A.Campbell/H.Windeler (1899), H.Windeler (1910)

Essex County - W.Campbell (1894), D.Ross (1910)

Myopia Hunt - W.Campbell (1894), H.Leeds (1899-1907)

Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)

Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)

Baltusrol - G.Hunter (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)

Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)

Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)

Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901), I.Mackie (1910)

Garden City - D.Emmet/G.Hubbell/A.Findlay (1899), W.Travis (1906-1910)

National - CB.Macdonald/D.Emmet/HJ.Whigham (1909)

Nassau - H.Murdock (1899)

Salisbury - D.Emmet (1908)

Pinehurst #2 - D.Ross/W.Travis (1907)

Mayfield - H.Barker/B.Way (1909)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)

Oakmont - H.Fownes (1903)

Ekwanok - JD.Dunn (1899), W.Travis (1905)

Columbia - H.Barker (1910)

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #390 on: September 26, 2010, 10:29:57 AM »
Tom MacWood:

It may be a fine idea for you to just completely ditch the whole idea of calling any of those men back then "inexperienced" because the actual historical fact is YOU really have no idea about that----eg it is all complete speculation on your part. You may not be as far advanced in that way YET as Moriarty is though. He seems to tell us that something is an actual and "verifiable fact" merely because he THINKS it is!  

And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong!  
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 04:13:43 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #391 on: September 26, 2010, 11:04:15 AM »
Tom MacWood:

It may be a fine idea for you to just completely ditch the whole idea of calling any of those men back then "inexperienced" because the actual historical fact is YOU really have no idea about that----eg it is all complete speculation on your part. You may not be as far advanced in that way YET as Moriarty is though. He seems to tell us that something is an actual and "verifiable fact" merely because he THINKS it is!   ??? ::) :o ;)


And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong!  ;)

TEP
With all due respect I can guarantee you I know whole lot more about the attributions of those courses than you do. You need to put down Cornish & Whitten actually begin to do some research. Don't get me wrong its a valuable book, but it was published in 1981...we've made of few discoveries since then.

TEPaul

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #392 on: September 26, 2010, 11:51:14 AM »
Tom MacWood:

With all due respect to you, compared to me you know virtually nothing of the history of courses such as Myopia, Merion, GCGC, NGLA etc, etc. And why would you since you've never been to most of them and know noone there. Just saying you do sure doesn't make it true and your remark about C&W is something you've been saying for years obviously just to be insulting.

I've probably forgotten more about many of the details of the architectural histories and general histories of some of these courses and clubs than you WILL EVER know, not to even mention that I have tens of thousands of the historical "assets" of many of these clubs on my computer.

And I also make a habit of not trying to involve myself in the historic discussions on here of courses I do not know and have never been to. One of those is Shawnee. You said I mentioned on here that is was definitely a solo Tillinghast design. I never said anything like that and you should not have said I said that.

But that's what you do on here---eg you just make things up by making something out of nothing, and Moriarty is the same. You two are the only ones on this website who do this.

That HH Barker train ride design of Merion East was the best example of you just making something up or making something out of nothing. Anyone who is aware you said that on here and then continued to defend it will never again view you as a credible golf archtiecture historical analyst.

And that is as it should be because you definitely are not a credible golf architectural historian or analyst.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #393 on: September 26, 2010, 12:40:59 PM »

And again, your architectural attribution on Brookline, Myopia and even GCGC or NGLA too is either incomplete or partially wrong!  ;)

TEP
How should those attributions read?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #394 on: September 26, 2010, 12:57:33 PM »
Okay...I am not as concerned about the architectual attributions as you guys are, but I am interested in what the Top courses were in 1910.  It seems there is little argument concerning Tom M's list on that front.  Do y'all agree?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #395 on: September 26, 2010, 01:17:42 PM »
Okay...I am not as concerned about the architectual attributions as you guys are, but I am interested in what the Top courses were in 1910.  It seems there is little argument concerning Tom M's list on that front.  Do y'all agree?

Mac
Which courses do you disagree with, and why?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #396 on: September 26, 2010, 01:24:25 PM »
Tom M...

I don't disagree with any of them.  I don't know enough about them to have an opinion.

My interest for this list is in regards to another research project I am doing.  I've got data on this project from the 30's forward regarding great courses and I am working my way backwards.  If this list is solid, which I think it is, then I've got another piece to the puzzle.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #397 on: September 26, 2010, 01:28:33 PM »
I misunderstood.

Mike Cirba

Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #398 on: February 03, 2011, 03:47:35 PM »
Just came across this Advertisement yesterday for Ekwanok.

Interesting to get the perspective of HJ Whigham from 1909 on what the top courses in the US were at that time.  

I never knew we had so much in common.  ;)


In 1901, Mr. Walter J. Travis, in his book "Practical Golf," had this to say:
"The eighteen-hole course of the Ekwanok Country Club, of Manchester, Vermont,
laid out last season, also has promise of being a really good one in time."

In the May issue of Scribner's Magazine, 1909, Mr. H. J. Whigham has this to say
" There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia,
but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor and the winter course at Aiken.
" There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden
City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these, one has
included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality
the best courses abroad."

The USGA Bulletin reported about Whigham's article in Scribners this way;

The season at Manchester, Vt., of
the Ekwanok Country Club, opens as
usual July 4, with the Independence
cup tournament. The reputation of
this course is thoroughly well established.
Mr. H. |. Whigham, in an
article in Scribner's Magazine, ranked
Ekwanok with Myopia and Garden
City as the only three which approached
in interest and quality the
best courses abroad.


btw...just looked at the list again on prior pages...since when was Walter Travis a professional??
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 03:52:40 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: America's Top Courses 1910
« Reply #399 on: February 03, 2011, 04:32:10 PM »
The article and this particular passage have been referenced many times in various discussions, probably even on this thread.  I am surprised it is news to you.

While the article does describe the general state of golf in America, it is primarily about NGLA and, given the author, is absolutely essential for any comprehensive survey or understanding of early NGLA.  Tom MacWood told you a few times that you really needed to include it on your supposed survey of the early literature on NGLA, along with a few others articles you neglected to post.   You ignored him and stuck mostly to your newspaper articles.  But then I guess that thread was never really about NGLA, was it?    

Anyway, it is really a terrific article, and goes into great detail about the underlying strategic principles incorporated into many of the holes.  It has been posted in its entirety here before.  

As for the quote in question, the advertisement was a bit misleading.  Whoever wrote the add would fit in well around here, because the person just cherry picked what they liked and ignored the rest.   The quote is cut off in mid-sentence.  (Another good example of why one must always follow up when relying on second hand sources.)

There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia, but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor and the winter course at Aiken. "There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these, one has included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long ways short of that perfection.  Is it not strange that with all the vast sums of money expended on golf links in America, so few course should be nearly good?

Later, after praising the climate and soil at Garden City, as well as the recent changes by Travis,  Whigham adds, ". . . even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out."

So Whigham was praising these courses, but faintly.  And he is nearly damning them in the next breath.  They are by far the best we have, but still they "fall a long ways short" of the interest and quality of the best courses abroad.  They aren't quite good courses, they are "nearly good."

"Nearly good" seems a very good way of describing the best of this early architecture.  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2011, 04:45:23 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)