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.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2003, 08:32:58 AM »
Tom MacWood,

There was no TV in the 40's and 50's (a little in the late 50's).  

That's interesting.  I wonder what it was that I was watching when I was in Junior High and High school, was it American Bandstand or Disney or other programs, and was that device with the moving pictures and voices, was that called a television set

He was better known for his writing than his design work in the 30's and 40's.

So now you say that he WASN'T known for his design work.  So how did everybody find out that he was doing design work if he wasn't known for it, there was NO TV as you allege, and very little was written about it ??????

This was not the case in the 40's and 50's, very little written and what was written was authored by RTJ

see my above remark

(I'm sure the USGA was lurking near some of those secondary jobs too.)

more conspiracy thoughts

I wanted to use your own words to recall what you said, rather than anyone elses.  
You did say these things didn't you?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2003, 08:38:13 AM »
Tom MacWood,
Many of the most famous modernizations took place in the late 40's or early 50's.

Could you quantify "many" and identify many of the most famous modernizations that took place in the 40's and 50's, including the most important aspect of those modernizations,
the scope of the work

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2003, 08:39:46 AM »
Tom MacWood,

You state that RTJ's involvement at ANGC in the 40's had a major influence on the alteration of golf courses.  How so ?
Nobody ever saw the limited amount of work he did, on three holes I believe.  In the 40's nobody ever saw ANGC and the Masters was just another pro tournament somewhere in Georgia, not the MAJOR it has become today.

The USGA in the 40's and 50's was hardly the force in golf that it has become today.

It's convenient for you to distort and mistate my position.
 
I stated that the advent of TV, the growing popularity of golf, Championship golf and Arnold Palmer contributed to movement by clubs to alter their golf courses.

You even agreed with that position stating that it had an effect in the 60's and 70's, and now you're disagreeing.
Make up your mind.

And, there's no doubt in my mind that the creation of water features was a tangential result of TV.  Viewers saw the 15th and 16th at ANGC and other courses with water features and they wanted ponds for their clubs.
Yes Tom, even GCGC added a pond where bunkers once existed on # 16, as did my club in NJ, and RTJ wasn't involved.

You were the one who accused RTJ of being a promoter, discounting the veracity of his spoken and published words,
and then you turn around and accept them as Gospel.
Which is it Tom, are his words the Gospel or were they merely promotional, without substance, you can't have it both ways.

T_MacWood

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2003, 08:50:17 AM »
I do not equate self promotion with lying.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2003, 08:56:22 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I merely quoted you.

The facts are, you said:

There was no TV in the 40's and 50's.
That RTJ was not known for his design work in the 40's & 50's
THat very little was written about architecture in the 40's and 50's,
That the USGA was lurking everywhere.
And yet, you allege that RTJ was responsible for all of these modernizations, despite the fact that nobody knew he did design work, and that the USGA was lurking behind the scenes, everywhere.

You've contradicted yourself, over and over again.

What you don't do well, is draw prudent conclusions from your research, but I'll let Geoff Childs follow up on that one.

You also seem to have a BIAS against the JONES"S  ;D

And now, you can go back to your specialty, which is making critical evaluations of golf courses you've never seen or played.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2003, 09:24:13 AM »
Bobby Jones was the biggest name in golf in the 1940's. The fact that he chose RTJ to remodel ANGC.....

Now you're either exagerating or lying.
RTJ never remodeled ANGC.  
You know it and I know it.
With your penchant for research, why weren't you candid in your post, why did you fail to state that RTJ only worked on three (3) holes at ANGC in 1946 ?  Your post would lead viewers to believe he altered the entire golf course.
And, I would bet, today, that few if any golfers know what three holes he worked on, and the scope of the work.


You seem to believe that TV is the only medium to disiminate info.

I never made that statement, that's just another one of your erroneous conclusions

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2003, 09:39:50 AM »
Tom MacWood,

You know better, and, if RTJ only did three (3) holes at ANGC in 1946, at a remote, relatively unknown golf course in Georgia, how could this have been responsible for the modernization of all the golf courses in America, as you would have us believe,

And, more importantly, where was the USGA lurking in 1946, in Georgia ?   ;D

It is you that insults the collective of GCA by trying to pull the wool over their eyes with your erroneous, self serving conclusions, and confusing contradictory statements.

But, that's okay, I understand where you have to come from.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2003, 10:38:38 AM »
Tom MacWood,

The first Masters wasn't until 1934 and the club was still broke and desperate for members and recognition.

In 1934 The Masters was broadcast on the radio by CBS, however, in the early 40's CBS declined to broadcast the tournament.

In 1947, the last hole of the USGA OPEN was Televised.

In 1953, the World Championship of Golf was televised.
In 1954, the USOPEN at Baltusrol was televised, And,
In 1956, the Masters was televised.
And, that's when ANGC hit the map

How did you come up with the notion that TV wasn't tied to golfs growing popularity and the explosion in the popularity of TV in the 50's.

You did say that there wasn't any TV in the 40's and 50's, didn't you ?

As early as 1945 Cliff Roberts knew that marrying The Masters to TV was the future.

History has shown the incredible link and impact generated by that marriage.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Were they, are they, considered "Classics"
« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2003, 02:04:56 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I would think that RTJ's work at Oakland Hills had a far greater impact on modernization then his work at ANGC.

As for the timing of The Masters,
The summers are out, the winter is out, so spring and fall would seem ideal, and tying the timing of the tournament to the end of spring training in Florida seems prudent.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2003, 02:05:30 PM by Patrick_Mucci »