America's Top Courses 1910

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom the Mac,

Why can't you simply admit that Tilly was "inexperienced and untested" in 1910? He WAS! How can we say that for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY? Because his FIRST course wasn't even finished being built! yet he had design and construction control over the ENTIRE project!

You are being a fool in not admitting you are incorrect in this and with statements such as the one you also just made, "By 1910, if you had aspiration for anything good, you hired an experience professional or amateur golf architect..." you are compounding that.

You wrote:

"Phil-the-author, Are you disputing the fact that CC Worthington had a wealth of experience?"

Yes I am. A "WEALTH" of experience in designing golf courses. On what do you base that?

"If you don't think Worthington was actively involved in the design of Shawnee I've got a used car I'd like to sell you, it was owned by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays."

If you believe he was then I know that I can't buy it from her because you already did!

Tom, why do you think I keep pointing out that YOU have NEVER SEEN any of the orignial documents, correspondence, contracts, design drawings, etc... for anything to do with Worthington, the properties and businesses that he owned, the creation and building of the Shawnee Inn and its golf courses. NONE OF IT!

Yet I sit here at home with some of the ORIGINALS and BOXES of COPIES of the rest, each and every one of which I PERSONALLY made. I can't repeat this loudly enough... I've been shown EVERYTHING about all of the owners of the Inn, everything to do with the golf course since Worthington first spoke to Tilly about it until today. Worthington had nothing to do with the design other than walking on the Island with Tilly and talkinng about TILLY'S PLANS with him. He TRUSTED Tilly and recognized that he himself was incapable of designing a true championship course which is why he hired an UNTESTED and INEXPERIENCED Rubber Goods Salesman to design and oversee its construction...

"By the way Worthington also designed the Inn." Once again you show that you have absolutely NO IDEA as to what you are talking about. Have you seen the original plans and drawings for the Inn? Where on the drawings do you see the name C.C. Worthington as "Architect" or "Design Engineer" or anything else?

Write what you want about Worthington, Tilly and Shawnee. Unless you admit you've been wrong you but compound your ignorance...

[Phil_the_Author]

Shivas, you certainly understand. 

[Phil_the_Author]

OOPS! I made a mistake and posted it twice!

[Mike Cirba]

Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?


It might seem harsh to call the 1910 version of Baltusrol “awful”, Tom, but compared with both the top courses abroad as well as US architectural forerunners like Garden City and Myopia, Baltusrol surely was in a transition state somewhere between the awful, cross-bunkered, primitive courses of yore beginning to achieve mediocrity through some newer application of strategic principles and scientific bunkering, as the following 1910 article makes very clear.

Other courses on your list of top nominees are mentioned here as well, and not in a great light.  

It was against this clearly documented history of very mediocre to awful courses “designed” by golf pros from abroad versus those developed “inhouse” by top amateurs of those clubs (i.e. Myopia, Garden City, NGLA) who put in the time and study and work that top clubs in 1910 considered what a prudent course of action was.  

[DMoriarty]

Phil,  If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it?   What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why?  So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?  

Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not?   Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point?   Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris?  He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?  

_______________________

Mike Cirba,      

Has Ran appointed you Master of Lists, and assigned you with the task of telling others how to format theirs?

If not, then why don't you let Tom MacWood determine how many courses he wants to include on his list?  There is nothing wrong with moving a bit past the obvious few, is there?

Also, Mike, if you were truly interested in only including courses which could be mentioned in the same breath with the best in the world, then there was only one course in the US in 1910 that met that description.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You stated, "Phil,  If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it?   What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why?"

The answer to both questions is that I HAVE. I've said over and over that the records CLEARLY show that Tilly was the SOLE designer of Shawnee. That Worthington and his family lived in Manawalamink, that Buckwood Park was not what Tom thinks it is, etc... I have CLEARLY stated why I know this... That I have seen, and have copies of, all of the records and that I am currently working on a 100-year anniversary book about the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee CC and the golf course and that I was hired to do so by the same people who gave me access to all of the records... the owners.

Now, how about asking Tom Macwood to do EXACTLY what you asked me to do? To come out and say what he is simply alluding to and to do so with PROOF that backs up his claims?

"So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?" I HAVE done so. I've CLEARLY stated that they state that Tilly and Tilly ALONE designed the golf course and the subsequent redesign and rerouting of it in 1912-13 and that he did more "tinkering" with it through the years. I've said it on this thread and on the North Shore thread when Tom attempted to challenge it there saying that Robert White was hired to redesign Shawnee (he wasn't).

"Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not?   Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point?   Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris?  He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"

David, would it be fair to say that my more than 10 years of dedicated study of the life and work of A.W. Tillinghast qualifies me as being just as experienced and tested as an architect as Tom is claiming that Tilly was when Worthington engaged him in 1909 to design Shawnee? After all, Tilly had not designed a course or even overseen a construction of any or even lifted dirt by shovel to help build one, yet Tom claims that he was both "experienced and tested" as an architect.  

Come on David, this is so ludicrously simple that to argue it is foolish. I find it highly ironical that it is ME who is arguing that Tilly was untested and inexperienced when he designed Shawnee and that anyone, knowing that he hadn't designed a course or built one before this, would say that he was.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Tom (or anyone else) can add as many courses to their lists as they want.  

It's only when he tries to convince us that any of those courses were close or at the architectural quality level of the acknowledged three best at that time...Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA...all designed inhouse by amateurs...that I choke on my coffee and feel obliged to respond.

After all, Tom started this thread quoting me in some transparent effort to once again propagandize that Hugh Wilson could not have designed Merion, so if he wants to portray a wholly inaccurate representation of history in yet another attempt to do that, I certainly think some of us should have the right to question him and/or set the record straight.

It is, after all, a Discussion Group, last I checked.

[Phil_the_Author]

Thank you Shivas. What makes it worse is that I am sitting here in my home with COPIES of all of the actual documents for my work on the book. I personally made these copies after going through all the documents at Shawnee as well. I've visited the Monroe County Historical Society where the Worthington Businesses archives from the Shawnee area are located and personally gone through every page of them as well as the property records for the lands involved in Fort Depuy, Buckwood Park, what is now Worthington State Park and of course, for Shawnee.

Though he hasn't said it yet, I am certain that David wants to put the onus of proof on me rather than where it actually should be, on Tom Macwood for challenging a very well-known, well-recorded and understood history of the Inn, the area and the golf course's creation.

I also believe that he will ask me to POST the documents I have access to. I will not. They were given to me in confidence with the expectation that I would use them judiciously in the writing of the history book, and that is what I intend to do. The Kirkwood's, an amazing family and the longest owners of Shawnee Inn and golf course in its 100 year history, have no problem with my STATING what is in them, but they have not given me permission to publish them in any way other than what will be in the book.

So this really boils down to a matter of trust. If Tom and David don't trust my honesty and ethics in this, well so be it...

Remember, this all started because Tom stated that there wasn't any "untested and inexperienced" person hired to design an important golf course by 1910. That simply is not the case. He blew it with Tilly and just will not admit it. I would really rather this all end here as it is silly to continue...

[DMoriarty]

Dave, I'm just askin', but are you really looking for some sort of ancient, frayed-at-the-corners negative-proving document that says:

"I, Mr. Worthington, being of sound mind and body, do hereby decree that I had nothing to do with designing Shawnee"?

Are you really looking for that sort of proof of this negative?  C'mon, man, I know you better than that....  

Shivas, there is a big gap between "I, Mr. Worthington, being of sound mind and body, do hereby decree that I had nothing to do with designing Shawnee" and Phil's unsupported conclusions.  In short, Phil is claiming authority and expertise in lieu of directly supporting his claims.   I prefer to understand things for myself so I am curious as to his reasoning behind the conclusion.

If a man tells me that he's plowed through every doggone document at a club and there's no mention of a guy named Worthington having anything to do with designing or building a golf course, I'm prone to believe him - unless I have in my hot little hand something pretty doggone reliable to the contrary.  Do you have something like that?  If so, let's see it!

The problem is that Worthington is not just some bystander or outsider.  It was his course! I am asking Phil to at least explain his conclusion that Worthington was not involved.  And by explain I mean tell us the reasons, not lecture us on his research.  .  

_____________________________________________

Phil,   You didn't answer my questions.  Is it really too much to ask you to actually explain how you are so sure Worthington was not involved?   I mean other than generally referring to how much research you've done.

Regarding Tillinghast's other experiences, I thought my questions were pretty simple and straighforward, and a good chance for you to teach us something about Tillinghast.  Yet all you do is again lecture your the extent of your own research and expertise.   Here again are these questions.

"Regarding Tillinghast's design career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not? Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point?   Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris?  He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"

Do you mind answering them?  What's your purpose here, Phil?  Are you actually here to share and discuss actual information, or are you state your conclusions and pump your books?  
_____________________________

Mike Cirba,

Yes it is a discussion group.  Not a propaganda campaign.  So quit injecting your tired propaganda into every thread. We don't need you to tell us what to think of Tom's list.  

If, as you claim, his list speaks for itself, then then let it.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I answered your questions directly and completely. Sorry you don't like the answers. It is quite obvious that your sole purpose here is to argue. Go ahead, it will be one-sided...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Rather than try to censor me, why don't you just continue in your earlier vein of trying to question and refine the list, as per your Oakmont questions, which were very good and informational? 

I have many of the same questions regarding the early years of that course and think its perhaps an area we can all explore further.

In that light though, while I agree with your questions about Oakmont, I'm not sure why you aren't questioning other more dubious choices like Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury, among many others, all of which seem much less devwloped and/or much more deeply flawed in 1910 than Oakmont.

In any case, I think its a really good topic and I look forward to your posts that are both inquisitive and informational. 

[Mac Plumart]

Mike,

You are right.  This thread has the potential to be a great one.

I love seeing how courses are formed, change, morph, adapt over time.

I hope we can keep this train on the tracks. 

[DMoriarty]

Phil,  

If you think that repeatedly putting the word "CLEARLY" in bolds - as in "the records CLEARLY show" - is explaining the reasons for your conclusions, then we really don't have anything to talk about.  

And thanks again for not answering my questions about AWT's other, earlier experiences.  You are a real gent.

_______________________

Mike, I'm not censoring you, but I am asking you to quit wasting our time with your petty propaganda.   Like Ran said, it is largely a matter of self-censorship.

[Mike Cirba]

David, 

Agreed.

The next one to mention Mxxxxxx or insurance salesman is a rotten egg. 

There's plenty of room to mine a wealth of early course info without us all falling back into old habits.

I have a few other very interesting articles I hope to post tomorrow that talk abour this very critical time when US courses were transitioning from wery rote, mindless exercises into something much more interesting.

Let's not screw it up.  . JD

[Tom MacWood]

sg1009891#msg1009891 date=1284472024]

Tom Macwood...

To help us all get our arms around your architectural attribution conclusions, how would you list Old MacDonald and its architects if it were on your list?

Most of us are familiar with it and who had a hand in the process, but not a lot of us our as familiar with all of the courses you are citing.

Thanks in advance.

Its all subjective, but my view is if someone makes a significant contribution they deserve mention as a contributor.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...

Your last post was a bit garbled, but I think you answer was the following...

Its all subjective, but my view is if someone makes a significant contribution they deserve mention.

I think that is fair.

I can see how the golf clubs themselves wouldn't want to list every contributor as the de facto designer as it might be too voluminous and not as clean.  But nevertheless, I think it is neat to see who may have had a hand in the pie.

But what I think is even more neat is to see how these golf guru's of the era we are discussing moved in so many of the same circles and cross pollenated ideas. 

[Tom MacWood]

Phil,

My contention is that by 1910, the three courses that were clearly acknowledged as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA, which was just opening.

They were all designed by amateurs.  Thus, ALL of the best courses by 1910 were indeed designed by amateurs and my saying so is a true statement.  

I'm not including Shawnee because I don't believe it opened until 1911, correct?

Tom MacWood has tried to list a bunch of courses, primarily those designed by HH Barker, along side them on yet another "list", in some attempt to give courses like Waverly and Atlanta Athletic the same credentials when that is simply preposterous.

It doesn't fly to anyone who knows golf history and golf courses, but it might look like expert opinion to those with simply a passing interest.

Tom has started this thread by taking a statement I made on the Merion thread...that Myopia, GCGC, and NGLA were generally acknowledged as the three best courses in 1910, that they were all designed by amateurs, and that was the model Merion sought to emulate and did so, and attempted to refute it by seemingly creating a thread that is simply about generic golf courses by 1910, yet his motives are once again completely transparent, and every day he's tried to fit insults about "insurance salesmen" into the dialogue and then accuse others of using this as a Merion thread....it's quite  comical, really.

In fact, the irony is that he's only proven my statement to be more true than most probably realized, by his continued biased refusal to acknowledge hard physical evidence such as what I produced in last night's post.

Thanks, and no offense was meant to Tillinghast's early contributions here.

No Chicago? Mayfield? Ekwanok? Columbia? Oakmont? Pinehurst? Brookline? Baltusrol? I think you are projecting the opinions from the early 1900s to 1910. What do you know of East Lake and Waverly?

[Tom MacWood]

Baltusrol was pretty awful in 1910? What do you base that upon?


It might seem harsh to call the 1910 version of Baltusrol “awful”, Tom, but compared with both the top courses abroad as well as US architectural forerunners like Garden City and Myopia, Baltusrol surely was in a transition state somewhere between the awful, cross-bunkered, primitive courses of yore beginning to achieve mediocrity through some newer application of strategic principles and scientific bunkering, as the following 1910 article makes very clear.

Other courses on your list of top nominees are mentioned here as well, and not in a great light.  

It was against this clearly documented history of very mediocre to awful courses “designed” by golf pros from abroad versus those developed “inhouse” by top amateurs of those clubs (i.e. Myopia, Garden City, NGLA) who put in the time and study and work that top clubs in 1910 considered what a prudent course of action was.  

Mike
You called the course awful...the article posted presents completely different picture. Do you just throw crap against the wall hoping no one will call you on it? Baltusrol was one of the top courses in the country in 1910.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

You stated, "Phil,  If you have something productive to say about Shawnee, why not just say it?   What is the point of telling us over and over again that you know, without telling us what you know and why?"

The answer to both questions is that I HAVE. I've said over and over that the records CLEARLY show that Tilly was the SOLE designer of Shawnee. That Worthington and his family lived in Manawalamink, that Buckwood Park was not what Tom thinks it is, etc... I have CLEARLY stated why I know this... That I have seen, and have copies of, all of the records and that I am currently working on a 100-year anniversary book about the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee CC and the golf course and that I was hired to do so by the same people who gave me access to all of the records... the owners.

Now, how about asking Tom Macwood to do EXACTLY what you asked me to do? To come out and say what he is simply alluding to and to do so with PROOF that backs up his claims?

"So why not at least tell us what it is about those records which makes you so sure that Worthington had nothing to do with the design of Shawnee?" I HAVE done so. I've CLEARLY stated that they state that Tilly and Tilly ALONE designed the golf course and the subsequent redesign and rerouting of it in 1912-13 and that he did more "tinkering" with it through the years. I've said it on this thread and on the North Shore thread when Tom attempted to challenge it there saying that Robert White was hired to redesign Shawnee (he wasn't).

"Also, regarding Tillinghast's career, by 1909 he had had other experiences that helped him with design, had he not?   Would it be fair to say that he had studied the matter by that point?   Isn't the story that he spent some time at St. Andrews with Tom Morris?  He really wasn't in the category of not knowing anything more than the average clubby, was he?"

David, would it be fair to say that my more than 10 years of dedicated study of the life and work of A.W. Tillinghast qualifies me as being just as experienced and tested as an architect as Tom is claiming that Tilly was when Worthington engaged him in 1909 to design Shawnee? After all, Tilly had not designed a course or even overseen a construction of any or even lifted dirt by shovel to help build one, yet Tom claims that he was both "experienced and tested" as an architect.  

Come on David, this is so ludicrously simple that to argue it is foolish. I find it highly ironical that it is ME who is arguing that Tilly was untested and inexperienced when he designed Shawnee and that anyone, knowing that he hadn't designed a course or built one before this, would say that he was.

Was Tilly engaged to design Shawnee or oversee construction? What was his fee?

[Tom MacWood]

David,

Rather than try to censor me, why don't you just continue in your earlier vein of trying to question and refine the list, as per your Oakmont questions, which were very good and informational?  

I have many of the same questions regarding the early years of that course and think its perhaps an area we can all explore further.

In that light though, while I agree with your questions about Oakmont, I'm not sure why you aren't questioning other more dubious choices like Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury, among many others, all of which seem much less devwloped and/or much more deeply flawed in 1910 than Oakmont.

In any case, I think its a really good topic and I look forward to your posts that are both inquisitive and informational.  

Weren't you the same person who said Baltusrol was awful earlier today? Now you want us take your word that Fox Hills, Nassau and Salisbury were deeply flawed? What makes you believe they were flawed?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;

In that regard, I'd offer the following, based on their 1910 architectural sophistication and reputation;

NGLA - 9
Garden City - 8
Myopia Hunt - 8





Ekwanok - 5
Pinehurst #2 - 5
Oakmont - 5
Brookline - 5
Columbia - 5
Baltusrol - 4
Chiicago - 4
Mayfield - 4
Atlanta Athletic - 3
Apawamis - 3
Fox Hills - 3
Nassau - 3

98% of the courses built by 1910 - 0 to 3


p.s. Tom...just saw your last question.

I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.

Good question!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings are in order here, compared with the best courses abroad, as well as our understanding of what constitutes good design today;

In that regard, I'd offer the following, based on their 1910 architectural sophistication and reputation;

NGLA - 9
Garden City - 8
Myopia Hunt - 8





Ekwanok - 5
Pinehurst #2 - 5
Oakmont - 5
Brookline - 5
Columbia - 5
Baltusrol - 4
Chiicago - 4
Mayfield - 4
Atlanta Athletic - 3
Apawamis - 3
Fox Hills - 3
Nassau - 3

98% of the courses built by 1910 - 0 to 3


p.s. Tom...just saw your last question.

I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.

Good question!

That is quite a drop off from Myopia to Ekwanok. What do you base your opinion upon? Vardon? Darwin? Hutchinson? Travis? Worthington? Macdonald? Leach?

What was Vardon's opinion of the best courses in America? Which courses did Darwin like most? How about Hutchinson?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, being a professional architect, one who gets paid for the work, has nothing to do with being an amateur golfer. That is why the amateur question and ruling by the USGA in 1916 was so controversial. It declared people such as Tilly, professional architects, to be professional golfers simply because they designed courses."


Phil:

I think you are misunderstanding what happened in the teens with Tillinghast and his amateur status and certainly the way the USGA looked at it and probably Tillinghast as well.

[DMoriarty]

Tillinghast and Travis were the two most mentioned when the rule was extending the definition to architects was put into force in early 1917.   Travis is easy to understand, but Tillinghast a bit less so, because he wasn't as famous as a golfer, so it is harder to see how he was using his fame as a golfer for money.  But I guess he was famous enough as a golfer for writers to speculate that he would lose his amateur status.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Macwood,

You asked two questions:

"Was Tilly engaged to design Shawnee or oversee construction?"

Yes to both.

"What was his fee?"

You can read about that when the book comes out next May. I will only say that it was not very large. The information is in the files of Shawnee that I am not allowed to make public by my agreement with the owners. I know you're not going to like that answer but I will not break my agreements with them.

Tom Paul, I disagree with you, I believe that you are misunderstanding the Amateur status controversy of the teens. Tilly, who was still playing in a few AMATEUR golf competitions when the the ruling came out, was declared to be a professional golfer for two reasons, the primary one being that he designed golf courses for which he was paid money. The second had to do with his accepting money to write about golf. That aspect of the USGA's ruling is always overlooked and forgotten about. It is also the reason that Chick Evans asked for and got written permission for the writings that he did from the USGA and was able to protect his own amateur standing.



I