[Tom MacWood]

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses.   Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect.   He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad.   Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country.   Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.   The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America.   Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars.   From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses.   And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."

'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National.   Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."

"...Here again he was right.   For the National has been much more than just a good golf course:  it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.   Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.   Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie.  But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."



So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole and poetic exaggeration when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy honoring his recently deceased Father-in-Law?  

I wonder if Alister Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or Harry Colt, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy THIRTY YEARS LATER?

What's your question about Pickering?

btw...thankfully, we have the contemporaneous records of Pine Valley as they were designed and built, chronicled by Tillinghast, and months before Colt arrived.   Thankfully, as well, we have Joe Bausch finding those articles to offset the incredible attempts at misguided historical revisionism that seem too often to permeate and contaminate this site.

Mike
It all seems pretty reasonable to me. What exactly are you referring to that rises to level of hyperbole? He gives Mackenzie his due, but I reckon Whigham had some personal insight about the origins of CPC seeing that Raynor was the original choice. I recall seeing photographs of Robert Hunter, Marion Hollins and Whigham at the site as well.

Regarding PV there is no disputing Colt was hired to design the golf course, and regarding the other stuff there plenty of conjecture floating around, but that is all it is.

[Mike Cirba]

David/Tom,

Have a nice day!   

[DMoriarty]

David/Tom,

Have a nice day!   

Typical Mike.   Throw out a bunch of nonsense and when challenged, run away.  Unfortunately it is only a matter of time before he throws out the exact same nonsense again.    Presenting accurate reading Whigham is obviously not in his interest.

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
This is the Julian Graham photo of Whigham on site at Cypress in 1928 while construction was underway, accompanied by Mackenzie, Hunter and Hollins. Whigham would have had a better than average insight into the project. In another photo, without Hollins, he is described as the editor of Town and Country magazine.

[Mike Cirba]

Neil,

Good to see you here.

Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration? 

[Neil_Crafter]

Against my better judgement!

Mike, the Whigham eulogy mention of Cypress Point I read as being more about the inspiration of NGLA in the overall project sense, rather than specifically the course and its architecture. Whigham would have known a good deal about Cypress Point, the project, the course and its architects, far more than any of us have been able to dig out 80 years hence. Whigham specifically refers to the conception of Cypress, which as we know, belongs to Marion Hollins.

Mackenzie was no doubt familiar with NGLA, although we have no specific date found yet for him visiting there. In Spirit of St Andrews he describes CBM as "the father of golf architecture in America". Mackenzie would have been influenced in some way by CBM and the National.

[DMoriarty]

Do you agree with Whigham that NGLA was the inspiration for every great course Mackenzie designed in this country or do you think he was engaging in gross hyperbole and exaggeration?  

Mike Cirba,   This is just more idiocy on your part, and not what Whigham wrote.  Talk about "gross hyperbole and exaggeration."  
__________________________________

Neil,  

I agree with your reading.  I'd add the following . . .  

In Spirit of St. Andrews MacKenzie wrote of how CBM built a version of his prize winning "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido.  From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA):   "The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career. C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine."

Also, as you know, MacKenzie referred to NGLA as a "masterpiece," and noted his preference for NGLA over Pine Valley:
      North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland.  The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World.   In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example.   My personal preference is for the National.   Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.
     It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem.   At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them.

And . . .
      In the United States, golf courses are becoming more and more perfect. American golfers owe a debt of gratitude to Charles Blair Macdonald, who was not only the first United States Amateur Champion but the father of golf architecture in America.  
      He had an uphill fight in educating American golfers to an appreciate of a really good golf courses.  On the National Golf Links, Lido, and other links he made copies of famous holes of the old British Championship courses, which was an expensive way of constructing golf courses, but probably the only means of combating criticism and familiarizing players with real golf.  One learns by bitter experience how difficult it is to escape hostile criticisms when one makes a hole of the adventurous type.  
. . .
     A first class golf hole must have subtleties and stragetic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to to be condemned at first site by even the best players.  One can omly escape hosticle criticism by point out that a hole is a copy of such and such a hole like "the Road," "Eden," "Redan" or some other equally famous.  
     It was in this way that Macdonald was able to familiarize American players with real golf and make the work easy for other architects that followed him.  


And . . .
  The trouble in those early days was that all golfers except a very small handful of pioneers belonged to the penal school.  Today we have no such battles to fight. I hardly come across a thinking member of a committee who does not belong to the strategic school.
   Owing to the example and writings of C. B. Macdonald, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, and other able American golf course architects, the United States are absorbing the real sporting spirit of golf so rapidly that today, with the exception of St. Andrews and a few similar clubs, American committees have sounder views than have committees in the "Home of Golf."

I wonder if Mike will now accuse MacKenzie of engaging in "gross hyperbole and exaggeration" about CBM as well?

As for Merion Hollins, for what it is worth her father was one of the Founders of NGLA and CBM and Raynor were involved in the creation of her Women's National Golf Course.  And of course Seth Raynor was reportedly in charge of building CPC.
________________________________

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Would you expect that an article about Crump's influences on Pine Valley would pre-date 1910?    Really??

No, instead it goes straight to the point of Whigham's obviously over-reaching article where he states that Pine Valley (and EVERY other great course in the US between 1910 and 1940) is directly the result of NGLA, going so far as claiming that George Crump was emulating the National.

Mike, that's not what he said.
He said that NGLA was the "inspiration" for every great golf course in America, subsequent to NGLA.

Given the time frame between the creation of NGLA and the creation of great courses subsequent to NGLA and the date of Whigham's statement, I think you'd have to concede that his statement wasn't hyperbole

[DMoriarty]

Not only that, but the underlying Fowler article wasn't about Pine Valley and according to TomM was from 1913.  So Fowler wasn't writing about his ideal holes contemporaneously with CBM. By then the horse had long left the barn.  

[Tom MacWood]

Neil
That is a great photo. You have some of the biggest personalities and egos of the game apparently in total comfort amongst one another.

[Mike Cirba]

Neil,

Deftly handled, but my question was rhetorical as Whigham's statement was so over the top as to be clearly hyberbolic exaggeration, essentially crediting his Father-in-Law with every good thing that happened in architecture in the US from 1910-1940.    

It does raise an interesting question of what would have happened had the National never been built?

Would Donald Ross simply have vanished?   Mackenzie?   Colt??   Others like Fownes, Emmett, and Travis whose work preceded CBM?


All,

Everyone has heard of the Three Blind Mice, and here on GCA we seem to have our own version of the "3M's".  

In this case, they are just as blind, yet not nearly so benign.  

It seems to me that everyone actually interested in the truth here...Jim Sullivan, Bryan Izatt, Jeff Brauer...have all left town and probably wisely so.

So, with just our three M's left...Mis-Information, Mis-Anthropic, and Mis-Taken, I'm going to take their lead and I'll be very certain that I won't be Mis-Sing anything of worth.

Thanks to all who contributed here in a productive way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I have been following along as time allows, but nothing really to add and my tolerance for constant insults has diminished a bit.  As to your latest "hyperbole" I know what you mean, although I think Neil sums up the general feeling well - CBM was a general inspiration and already called the Father of Golf Architecture by the time of his death, and perhaps JHW just thought it was the right time to highlight that.  Did he go over the top?  Not if you consider it was a eulogy!

David,

I appreciate the quotes from Mac to underscore your opinion on this one.  It occurs to me that a thread tracing some of the specifics of how CBM influenced gca in America, with similar quotes from others, would be instructive. I don't know if you have any more specifics, but I enjoyed seeing the Mac quotes relative to CBM and wonder if Ross, or others have similar quotes?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

A while back you indicated that you would try to pull together segments of the source material which specifically contradict Whigham's article.

I have been patiently waiting and will continue to so do, but I was curious whether this was something you were still planning to do?   If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. 

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  While you are working on the issue mentioned immediately, I thought I'd pull up another view from he same aerial as above.  This one shows the shape of the Golf House Road.  While Mike has always told us that he knows the timing of the swap because of the free flowing curves of the road, I am not so sure this look supports that notion.   To me it looks as if a big bite got taken out of the golf course across from the clubhouse, about where I would expect given my understanding of the swap.





  

[Mike Cirba]

Yes, it was taken from across the street from the clubhouse and added up along the upper end of the 14th fairway, the entire 14th green, and almost the whole left side of 15, so that alternate routes could be provided around the quarry on 16.   The whole course needed to bow out at the top to facilitate play around the quarry holes.

It's ridiculousy obvious when compared to the parallel roads drawn on the November Land Plan.

The road in the development got built as planned, with curving symmetry.   You can see it in the picture, as well.   Look how it runs up to College Ave., exactly as planned.

The one bounding the golf course needed to be revised as is obvious in those photos.   Look how they cut it off before College Avenue, creating a triangle that was 130x190 at its base, which differed from the original plan that was certainly longer and narrower.
  
I'm amazed how little common sense is exhibited here.

I also posted this picture here years ago to make the same point.

[DMoriarty]

Funny stuff when Mike Cirba lecturing us about common sense.  He is about as qualified to speak about "common sense" as Osama Bin Laden is qualified to speak of non-invasive eye surgery.

Francis described the land Merion received in the swap as "land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long -- the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."   

Somehow, in Mike's version of "common sense" he thinks this means "up along the upper end of the 14th fairway, the entire 14th green, and almost the whole left side of 15."  In other words, he completely ignores Francis and just makes a bunch of shit up.

While this may be "ridiculously obvious" to Mike, it is just ridiculous to me.

[JESII]

David,

I do intend to do this but haven't spent any time on it yet. To be clear, my effort isn't targeted at discrediting Wigham, just to highlight some key differences of opinion from your interpretation that CBM was "calling the shots" and the committee's view that CBM was helpful in an advisory way. I think the Road Hole conversation will be important in making the distinction...as will any of the template at Merion.

You can do something to help...you can give me the Lesley article, and anything from those four or five known committee members, Sending privately or publicly is fine with me.

Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

As you know, I think advisor is the right title, even if when it comes to routing they allowed or relied on CBM to pick the final from among their 5.  I say that because he didn't have the responsibility to come up with any final decision or take any action leading to the final construction, land selection, etc.

I know it was not as formal an agreement as I would have today, but still,  there were contracts in place for everything at MCC, from land transfer to construction, and CBM (for his own reasons) didn't have a contract there, nor was there one for his just hired associate Seth Raynor.  But, no doubt he was a very trusted advisor.

Hence, I believe the original accreditation is correct, although like everyone, love to think about the details of his advice.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I wouldn't mind seeing it again, but hope you don't get lambasted for posting the same article over and over again!

If I would have known these things would go on so long, I would have cut and copied every document to my computer.  My bad.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

It's posted, thanks.  

They can lambaste me all they want...I keep going back to facts which is why I post them.

One thing I noticed in reading it again....Lesley makes the point with some amazement how different the two courses are from one another, yet doesn't attribute that to different architects, or the influence of CBM; instead he tells us that they were purposefully made different for variety.   He also continues to use terminology consistent with the times, citing "construction" and the men who "built the two courses", seemingly not differentiating between design and build in the least.

There has also been some discussion whether the safe, alternate route around the quarry on #16 was determined a necessary feature by the Merion Committee, with some like Jim Sullivan contending that they didn't "have" to do it.   I think Jim is simply not imagining the difficulty of that hole without it for the average club member playing with hickory.

As you know, I contend that the whole reason the course needed to be broadened in that area and 14 and 15 swung out well to the west of where originally intended (and thus, the Francis Swap) was simply the need to create an alternate route for average members to navigate "around" the quarry on 16.

In any case, Lesley gives us a clear indication;

Pictures show these holes, the
sixteenth being the first of them. It is a long drive
that will land the player anywhere down the fairway
in view of the green which beckons him on to it across
a deep gulley or quarry bottom, filled with sand and
long grass, the jagged rock walls of which present
moral hazards, which to the ordinary golfer seems
terrible. A good second, with a brassie, flying across
these difficulties, finds its way on to the green where a
large undulating surface welcomes the courageous
player who has found his way home in the two
orthodox shots.

[Mike Cirba]

Francis described the land Merion received in the swap as "land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long -- the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee."

David,

The only problem with that theory is this isn't what Merion actually purchased.

If you're telling us that prior to the Francis Swap Merion had not originally intended to purchase any land north of the south boundary of Haverford College, only giving themselves about 80 yards beyond the quarry to work with (despite CBM's admonishment that "much could be made of the quarry" as a hazard  ), and despite the fact that the Johnson Farm ran for 328 x 150 yards north to College Avenue, then it still makes no sense..

As Bryan Izatt pointed out last week, Merion didn't buy a 130x190 parcel of land in some swap, if that's how you're interpreting Francis.

Instead, as part of their overall purchase they bought a triangle of property that is 130 yards at the base (southern boundary of Haverford College) and goes 328 yards to the north, encompassing the right side of Golf House Road the entire length, and maintaining the existing historic eastern Johnson Farm boundary along the entire length.

In fact, Merion ended up purchasing the Johnson Farm to its historic original boundaries on the east, on the north, on the south, and on the western portion below Ardmore Avenue.    The only border that wasn't simply the historic existing border was the western side above Ardmore Avenue where the property was sub-divided for real estate development.

Are you saying that Merion didn't originally intend to purchase any of the Johnson Farm land north of the south boundary of Haverford College prior to the swap?  

At the end of the day, they still ended up purchasing a narrow triangle of land 138 yards long beyond that 190 cited by Francis, 76 of which only included the right side of Golf House Road, and the next 62 gradually widening to include the curve of Golf House Road to the west and running along the existing historic eastern boundary of the Johnson Farm.

Are you saying that if Merion had found a way to fit the final five holes into the cramped space south of Haverford College, that they would not have purchased any land north of there?   If so, how do you think Golf House Road would have been configured and would Merion be on the hook for the right half of the 328 yards of Golf House Road north of there?

Why do you think they wouldn't have wanted to use any of the 328 yards x 150 yards of the Johnson Farm north of the Haverford College boundary?    

[DMoriarty]

David,

I do intend to do this but haven't spent any time on it yet. To be clear, my effort isn't targeted at discrediting Whigham, just to highlight some key differences of opinion from your interpretation that CBM was "calling the shots" and the committee's view that CBM was helpful in an advisory way. I think the Road Hole conversation will be important in making the distinction...as will any of the template at Merion.

Jim, This is fine, but let me clarify a few things as well.

1.  This all started because you claimed that Whigham's statement was in "significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved."  I don't blame you for backing off of this because it obviously is not the case, and no evidence exists supporting your original claim.

2.  As for your new, watered down claim, I am still interested in seeing you try to support it, but I'd appreciate it if you not stack the deck before you even start.  You present the issue as my view versus the committee's view.  But in my mind, my view and the committee's view are one and the same!   You may disagree, but that makes it my view of what the committee meant vs. your view of what the committee meant.

3.  As for your request for more information from the Committee, Mike posts the Lesley article but apparently he hasn't read it.   Lesley distinquishes between those who constructed the course and those who figured out the problem when he was thanking the various groups for their contributions.

4.  As for additional information from those on the committee, there is the Hugh Wilson chapter and Francis' Merion Memories article, both of which have been posted repeatedly.  They are your claims, so what else backs them up? 

______________________________________

Mike Cirba

I am done responding to your nonsense.   As a friend reminded me recently you have been proven wrong on almost every position you have ever taken, yet you have learned nothing at all and are still as likely as ever to pretend like you have all of the answers despite your track record!  The fact that you cannot even make a point without grossly misrepresenting my position (as you do immediately above) ought to tell you something about the merits of your positions, yet you remain oblivious.   I do your ridiculous claims more justice than they deserve by even responding.   

[JESII]

Yes David, I can.

Because they are in significant contradiction to the material at the time written and said by everyone else involved.

It's worth saying, this is only discarding your interpretation of Wigham's words...there's every chance he knew exactly what CBM did for/at Merion and it's exactly what Merion has always credited him with.

Why would CBM go from "calling all the shots" in April 1911 to never showing up again? The construction phase lasted a while if I'm not mistaken...

Here's my entire post David.

My argument is, and always has been with your interpretation of HJW's words as "calling the shots"...nothing watered down about it. It's always been about your interpretation versus my interpretation.

[Mike Cirba]

3.  As for your request for more information from the Committee, Mike posts the Lesley article but apparently he hasn't read it.   Lesley distinquishes between those who constructed the course and those who figured out the problem when he was thanking the various groups for their contributions.

I am done responding to your nonsense.   As a friend reminded me recently you have been proven wrong on almost every position you have ever taken, yet you have learned nothing at all and are still as likely as ever to pretend like you have all of the answers despite your track record!  The fact that you cannot even make a point without grossly misrepresenting my position (as you do immediately above) ought to tell you something about the merits of your positions, yet you remain oblivious.   I do your ridiculous claims more justice than they deserve by even responding.   


David,

I must say, that is an absolutely ludicrous interpretation of the Lesley article, which should come as no surprise to anyone.

Once again, when confronted with actual facts versus specious speculation, of which you are the acknnowledged Master, you have no cogent response but simply resort to insults.

So be it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()