[Mike Cirba]

While I don't pretend to know the nuances of the exact ruling that made men like Travis and Tillinghast "professionals" in 1916/17, the following article speaks to the ramifications in the Philadelphia area.   The article makes reference to an affected "Philadelphian", who is A.W. Tillinghast.

As an aside, I also find it very interesting to note how at least in Philadelphia at that time, there seemed to be no differentiation between "architecture" and "construction", and the terms are used almost interchangeably, which is not surprising considering that both Wilson and Crump committees charged with design and building the golf course were called at their inception, "Construction Committees".  

The one exception seems to be the writer's disdain for those who view the whole matter of construction as simply doiing a one-day "paper job" on a blueprint (which at that time was the modus operandi of most "professionals"), and then charging the club for what the writer seems to view as an inadequate job.

[Tom MacWood]

You have NEVER seen any of the Shawnee Country Club minutes and records... I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to the building of the Inn and golf course. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any documents related to Worthington's purchase of any of the properties in the Shawnee area. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen any of the documents stored at the Monroe County Historical Society relating to the different Worthington businesses that he located there. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the minutes of the Shawnee Community Association which was operated out of Worthington Hall. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the documents related to the buying of the properties that would eventually become Worthington's hunting Lodge and Buckwood Park. I HAVE.
You have NEVER seen the related to the purchase of SOME of the property of old Fort Depuy (he didn't purchase the orifginal 3,000 acres because the land had become split into numerous private farms by the 1890s) which he would RENAME Manwalamink, which is where he and his family lived, nor do you know WHY he renamed it that. IHAVE and I DO.

The reason I HAVE and I DO is because I am currently writing the 100-year anniversary book for the Shawnee Inn, Shawnee Country Club and Shawnee Golf Course, hired to do so by the current owners who have given me complete and unfettered access to everything, anything and anyone.

I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee.

By the way I was reading what you wrote about Shawnee in your Tilly book and the part about alpinization is in error. People were not arguing who were the first to introduce it in America, as just suggested. A club in Richmond, Va never claimed to be the first, as you suggested. You completely misread what Tilly wrote about alpinization. When he referred to Richmond he is referring to Royal Mid-Surrey in England, also known as Richmond or the Old Deer Park at Richmond. Anyone who knows anything about golf architecture history, and in particular the history of that era, knows Mid-Surrey was famous for its aplinization. I can hardly wait for the book in May - I'm sure it will be both fascinating and enlightening.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
If you want to discuss the Amateur issue take it to another thread...this thread is about the top courses circa 1910.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

So you now base your conclusions on "feelings?"  "I had a feeling you were bluffing. You don't have the foggiest idea who did what at Shawnee..."

I have already suggested once earlier in this thread who you should contact at Shawnee to see if I have been there researching, have been given complete and unfettered access to any and all records, been contracted to write the book and for YOU to ask for permission to do the same research if you would like.

Sorry that you can't simply admit you were wrong and that Tilly was inexperienced and untested as an architect in 1910.

And by the way, if you had ANYTHING AT ALL that even began to prove that it was the "experienced" Worthington who designed Shawnee you'd have posted it with the greatest of glee. You don't because there is none. So now that you have clearly shown yourself as one who doesn't want to "discuss" you also may have a nice one-sided conversation...

[Mike Cirba]

Mike
If you want to discuss the Amateur issue take it to another thread...this thread is about the top courses circa 1910.


Tom,

Actually, you're the one who introduced the whole idea of who did what by 1910 in terms of amateurs vs professionals.

It's the whole basis for your thread, isn't it, with the bolded attempt to puff-up the architectural contributions by golf pros by that time?

I'm merely continuing down the path you've cleared, Tom.

Hopefully later today I'll get back here and can provide much more info on the state of Nassau, Apawamis, Salisbury, and Fox Hills in 1910, although I'm not sure you'll like that info all that much, either. 

[TEPaul]

"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;"

Mike Cirba:

On the other hand, perhaps some Doak Scale Ratings on 1910 courses are not in order here! Or at least not unless the real interest of people like you and Tom MacWood is to just go on arguing with one another endlessly! 

[Tom MacWood]

"Unless you now want to call him a LIAR and call every other majopr golf writer at the time who praised Tilly for his design at Shawnee, and who didn't mention Worthington as doing anything in that regard."

Phil-the-author
I had a feeling you were bluffing. First of all because you pulled this trick before on the North Shore thread. At the time you were trying to make the case Tilly could have designed NS even though he never listed it on his master list. You produced your own list of eight or ten courses you claimed he designed, but never listed. When you were asked to support your list you said you couldn't because of an impending book. I then proceded to go down you list course by course showing why your list was bogus. The second reason I thought you were bluffing is your continued boasting you have internal documents, so therefore I guess we are supposed to believe these documents make your case. But when you were trying to prove Shawnee was a solo job instead of saying I have internal documents to prove it, you said old articles say Tilly designed Shawnee on his own, and anyone who doubts those articles is calling Tilly and every major golf writer a liar. By the way I don't believe every major golf writer wrote that Shawnee was a Tilly solo job.

Where did I write that Tilly was not inexperienced and untested? I don't recall writing that. Didn't Tilly lay out a golf course in 1899, which is about a decade prior to Shawnee?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

When I was about 15 years old, a bunch of us kids brought our clubs up in the woods, and through clearings, etc., and in a big grassy field I laid out a makeshift 6 hole golf course that we used to go around 3 times.   It even had a water hazard with a retaining pond that was built for a nearby development.

Would you consider me to be inexperienced and untested?   I sure would.

Yet on the basis of contentions you've made here repeatedly,  you would say I had golf course design experience developing a real estate course!    

I find it funny how you insist on giving design "experience" to people like Worthington who basically did the same thing I did on their own plots of land, and your most recent reference to Tilly's "Tomato Can Links" at Frankford in 1899 as reason to think he had design experience when he was hired at Shawnee a decade later.    

Tom Paul,

Who's arguing?  

Honestly, I'm finding this one of the most enlightening, illuminating, and educational threads ever on GCA.  

If we do it right, it's about the point in architecture where things moved from the rote, formulaic, boring, cross-bunkered courses done by hacks to thoughtful, strategic and "scientific" design.  

It's also about who the primary movers were in that revolution...the pros or the amateurs.

I think there's a lot to explore, frankly.

[TEPaul]

"Where did I write that Tilly was not inexperienced and untested?"


What a hilarious question! It seems Tom MacWood's virtual double negative logic and reasoning has totally confused even himself. I doubt this man could analyze his way out of a clear plastic bag! The best this guy can do, at this point, is just declare himself right and everyone else wrong about anything and everything. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,

Who's arguing?  

Honestly, I'm finding this one of the most enlightening, illuminating, and educational threads ever on GCA.  

If we do it right, it's about the point in architecture where things moved from the rote, formulaic, boring, cross-bunkered courses done by hacks to thoughtful, strategic and "scientific" design.  

It's also about who the primary movers were in that revolution...the pros or the amateurs.

I think there's a lot to explore, frankly."




Mike Cirba;

Who's arguing? Well, it seems Tom MacWood is unless you missed his #175. But if you did I can certainly understand why. However, I suppose one could accurately say that MacWood may not actually be arguing as much as just continually missing the point anyone and everyone might make. The best example of that on here is when Phil Young mentioned that when Tillinghast did Shawnee he was an inexperienced architect. Tom MacWood's response to that was to disagree and claim that CC Worthington was experienced. Phil Young wasn't even talking about Worthington, he was talking about Tillinghast but somehow Tom MacWood seemed to miss that point!  


"Who's on first?"

"No, who's on second."

I know who's on second but I didn't ask that, I asked who's on first."

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Yes, I saw post 175 but if Tom MacWood wants to dispute it perhaps he should simply provide his own Doak Scale numbers for any of the courses in question.

If he thinks that any of the Homewoods and AAC's, and Fox Hills that he put on his list compared favorably with either the three best courses in America at the time, or better yet, against the best courses abroad, then he can certainly give us some estimate numbers to stand by his claim just like I did.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba.

There you go again.  They don't have to be as good as the top 3.  That isn't what he is trying to determine.  Just stop.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba.

There you go again.  They don't have to be as good as the top 3.  That isn't what he is trying to determine.  Just stop.

David,

When he quotes me from the Tolhurst thread in the first post as the basis of his "exercise", and then seeks to disprove my statement, then yes, that is indeed what he's trying to determine.   I know you're not that naive and obtuse, David.

My statement was that in 1910, ALL of the best courses in America, and the only ones that were compared with good courses overseas, were designed by amateurs working within their own clubs.

His putting together a big list where Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA are intermingled with Homewood, Fox Hills, and every course HH Barker built at that time is meant to give the impression that they were indeed of the same architectural quality as Myopia, Garden City, and NGLA and is simply a transparent attempt to elevate the work of the professionals to the uninitiated, or casually interested.

Otherwise, he should stratify his list, or give each course a Doak Scale rating in an attempt to determine relative quality as I did, because the fact is that by 1910, ALL of the very best American courses were indeed designed by amateurs working for their own clubs and his list is merely designed to try to obscure that historical fact.

[DMoriarty]

So much for your statement, from yesterday, about how you would try to make this thread productive.  And so much for your statement that Tom could determine the number of courses to be included on HIS list.

When are you going to learn it isn't all about you?  When are you going to take Ran's suggestions to heart?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I really do hope we can have a productive discussion here because the fact that it was personalized to try and dispute my statement, it really is a great topic and time period  to explore that I don't think we've done here well collectively over the years here on gca.

But please try to be fair and equitable in your criticsms.  I really don't think you could fairly characterize any of Tom's overnite broadsides at Phil as some attempt to enlighten or elevate the discussion, so perhaps we can all try this again.

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

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!

Deeply flawed?

[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?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...here is something you informed us that Vardon said...

"As editor of American Golf Illustrated Max Behr wrote this blunt commentary in July 1914:

  “Vardon in a recent article in Everybody's Magazine places his finger upon the weak spot. After expressing the opinion that he noticed little improvement in American golf during the interim of fourteen years which separated his first visit to America from that of last year, he says:

   ‘This is not the fault of your golfers. They have not had the chance. It is the fault of those who are responsible for your courses. Because the American golfer is seldom put to a real test, he has not improved his game to any great extent. You have some good players over here, but they are not trained to play the right way. In other words, America is not getting as much out of its golf as it should. Your golfer can not play a proper game, because his course is not right.’"

It would be great if you would tell us/me what Vardon, Darwin, Hutchinson said about American golf course circa 1910.  I'd love to hear it.

[Tom MacWood]

Mac
If Mike spits the bit I'll dig up what I have.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac -

I assumed you knew about this site but maybe you don't. It's the archive of the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles. They have the American Golfer and Golf Illustrated magazines from about 1908-1930s.  Go to the link below, and click on the magazines you want, type the Author (e.g. Darwin or Behr or Vardon) and/or type in subject (e.g. NGLA, bunkers, Vardon) and/or type in the year (e.g. 1914) and tons of wonderful articles will come up.

Peter (PS - the link is so long that on this page it breaks it up into two lines, but if you can put the whole thing in your browser it should bring you there - I just tested it. And now I tested it shorter and it works too).


http://search.la84foundation.org/search?

[john_stiles]

LA84 is much more useable to me than USGA. 

USGA runs slowly no matter what machine I use.

Now back to regularly scheduled discourse.

[Tom MacWood]

I was wrong about Vardon & Ray and Oakmont, they did play there on their 1913 tour. They defeated W.C. Fownes and Eben Byers. To my knowledge Vardon never highlighted the course so you may have a point. On the other hand it was considered the favorite to host the 1914 US Amateur before bowing out.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'll try to get to your questions by the weekend.   In the meantime, here's some comments by foreign visitors about Myopia;

[Tom MacWood]

I was wrong about Vardon & Ray and Oakmont, they did play there on their 1913 tour. They defeated W.C. Fownes and Eben Byers. To my knowledge Vardon never highlighted the course so you may have a point. On the other hand it was considered the favorite to host the 1914 US Amateur before bowing out.

The other courses being considered along with Oakmont in 1914 were CC of Detroit, Mayfield and Ekwanok. Ekwanok was eventually chosen. Mike gives Ekwanok circa 1910 a 5 on the Cirba scale. Doak gives it a 6 or 7, and the course has changed very little over the years. Mike has a tendency to fly off the handle, making bold claims that have no historical support.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I'll try to get to your questions by the weekend.   In the meantime, here's some comments by foreign visitors about Myopia;

Thanks, but has anyone claimed Myopia was not one of the best courses in 1910? It is interesting to note their admiration for Willie Campbell. For some reason the club today does not acknowledge he worked there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()