Did the Golden Age 'Jump the Shark' with the Lido?

[DMoriarty]

Please forgive me for returning to the topic for a moment . . .

Jim,

So, every one of my suppositions has been discounted by facts?   I would agree that many of the posters have tried to discount my suppositions by hyperbole and indignation; but by facts or reason? I think not.

Early on I clarified that I was not concerned about the economic arguments or a historical account of the demise of the Lido, but rather was concerned with the issue of how MacDonald dealt with Nature as opposed to others of the era.  Sure, Tom MacWood properly corrected a few of my facts, but these facts hardly dimished my main proposition.  

Jim, last time you declared me the "loser" I asked you to identify where I had failed, and you did not respond.  Now that you have yet again chimed in on my defeat, perhaps you can point me toward these supposed facts which have diminished my argument.  While a more complete description of my position can be found at post #35, an abbreviated version follows:

The Lido represents a huge departure in approach to golf course architecture.  As George Bahto said, the design process was reversed.   Instead of building a course to fit the landscape, MacDonald built a landscape to fit the course.  Nature was demoted from dominant to subordant.  Granted, the early architects often tweaked nature to create features and strategy, but they still generally worked with the flow of the land, even if just as a jumping off point.  But MacDonald went much further . . . the landscape was completely irrelevant to his design.  

MacDonald doubted that a world class course could be created in such a manner, but the temptation of playing the roll of "creator" got the best of him.  He couldnt resist the opportunity to create a course free from the constraints of nature.

Some of my descriptions of the Lido have offended some.  Nonetheless, I stand by them, including these:
--  At the Lido, MacDonald's design process was essentially modern.   . . . .  MacDonald's subordination of Nature foreshadowed the modern era.
--  The Lido project was an act of arrogance.  MacDonald tried (in vane, judging by his comment quoted above by Tommy)  to duplicate and better nature.  

Please, Jim, remind me of the specific facts which counter my argument.  Surely as the defeated party I am entitled to at least that.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Len,
Glad to have you!

How are things in Boca Rio?!?!?!?!

Merry Christmas!

[TEPaul]

"Please, Jim, remind me of the specific facts which counter my argument.  Surely as the defeated party I am entitled to at least that."

David:

For God Sakes what's the matter with you? When you say something like this on your last post:

"The Lido represents a huge departure in approach to golf course architecture.  As George Bahto said, the design process was reversed.  Instead of building a course to fit the landscape, MacDonald built a landscape to fit the course.  Nature was demoted from dominant to subordant.  Granted, the early architects often tweaked nature to create features and strategy, but they still generally worked with the flow of the land, even if just as a jumping off point.  But MacDonald went much further . . . the landscape was completely irrelevant to his design."

Surely you must know by now that Macdonald could not possibly have built something at the Lido to fit it's landscape? How could he have possibly worked with the flow of the land there? All of us who know what Lido was both before and after the golf course project have told you numerous times that the site was basically useless for golf, swampland and underwater! How could Macdonald have built something to fit that existing situation? How could he have worked with that land flow?

That very fact alone is more than enough to discount your premise. Many of us have told you that if Macdonald had arrogantly destroyed something natural that could've in any way been used for a golf course at pre-project Lido that would've been an entirely different matter. But there wasn't anything there like that.

Do you truly believe that making one of the best golf courses in America out of a totally insect infested swampland with no other use at the time than that is arrogant towards nature--towards a insect infested swampland?

What is it that you'd expect Macdonald to have done and said? Do you believe he should have told those investors that Lido should not be used for a golf course because it should remain an insect infested swampland and that they were all arrogant imitators of God to have thought otherwise?

The facts have been supplied to you David--but for some reason you just don't want to acknowledge them. Be serious, how can you deny the logic of the answers that have been supplied to you?

But if you were to offer the premise that in an economic context Lido represented a symbolic "jumping of the shark" I, for one, would be more than ready to support your premise. But you made it clear in the middle of this thread that you didn't want to talk about Lido in an economic context, only in a strictly architectural context, even knowing that the economics of the Lido was the sole reason it didn't survive.

 

[DMoriarty]

Surely you must know by now that Macdonald could not possibly have built something at the Lido to fit it's landscape? How could he have possibly worked with the flow of the land there? All of us who know what Lido was both before and after the golf course project have told you numerous times that the site was basically useless for golf, swampland and underwater! How could Macdonald have built something to fit that existing situation? How could he have worked with that land flow?

Obviously Tom mine is not a question of whether he did a good job with what he had, but rather an examination of his decision to take on the project in the first place.  You dont have to tell me repeatedly that the land was useless for golf, as that is the core of my premise!  Why build on useless land?  Why not build on land suited for golf?  Surely you cant tell me that all the good golf land in long Island was used up by then?  
 

Many of us have told you that if Macdonald had arrogantly destroyed something natural that could've in any way been used for a golf course at pre-project Lido that would've been an entirely different matter. But there wasn't anything there like that.

Totally irrelevant to my point.  

Do you truly believe that making one of the best golf courses in America out of a totally insect infested swampland with no other use at the time than that is arrogant towards nature--towards a insect infested swampland?

Absolutely, the decision to go ahead with the project was very arrogant.  Arrogant toward Nature and toward golf, and toward golf course architecture.  By the way, just because he pulled it off doesnt make it any less arrogant.  

What is it that you'd expect Macdonald to have done and said? Do you believe he should have told those investors that Lido should not be used for a golf course because it should remain an insect infested swampland and that they were all arrogant imitators of God to have thought otherwise?

I'd expect Macdonald to do exactly as he did.  He was an arrogant man with a very high opinion of his own abilities and that arrogance was bound to get the better of him.  

But remember, he first refused the project.  He even told the investors that they could not create a world class golf course out of nothing.  But eventually his extreme faith in his own ability got the best of him, and he finally succumbed to the temptation of getting to be a "creator" free of all constraints.

The facts have been supplied to you David--but for some reason you just don't want to acknowledge them. Be serious, how can you deny the logic of the answers that have been supplied to you?

Lets strip away your indignation and examine these "facts."

--  The property was inhospitable for golf.    True, but rather than undermining my position, it forms the basis of my opinion.
--   MacDonald build a masterpiece.  Well, MacDonald doesnt really seem to agree with you, but even if this is true, it is entirely irrelevant to my premise.  This is an "ends justifying the means" argument.  It has nothing to do with whether MacDonald's approach was a departure from the norm.

Those are the only two "facts" I can find.

But if you were to offer the premise that in an economic context Lido represented a symbolic "jumping of the shark" I, for one, would be more than ready to support your premise. But you made it clear in the middle of this thread that you didn't want to talk about Lido in an economic context, only in a strictly architectural context, even knowing that the economics of the Lido was the sole reason it didn't survive.

I think there may well be a very good economics argument there, but I dont have the knowledge about the Lido or the period to carry the flag on that one.   Also, the economic discussion was really distracting from my main point.  WW I and II make it a difficult conversation, because they were intervening superseeding causes.

[Len Itnes]

Tom Paul,

If 10,000 truck loads of dirt was imported to build National, how can you be so positive on how it was used ?

How do you know that it wasn't used to build tees and greens, to fill in swamps and low lying areas or to crest existing hills ?

The entire area behind #7 green is at a much lower grade level then the 7th green and surrounding 7th fairway.  
There is no evidence of cut and fill in that area.  
Walking from # 8 tee, which is elevated, to the road that cuts across the hole, that land, and the land on the property to the right is at a much lower grade level then the 7th green, making cut and fill an unlikely source of the dirt for the construction of the 7th green.

With respect to the massive 8th green complex some say that the dirt to build that green came from cut and fill from the left side of # 9 fairway and the excavated bunkers on
# 9 fairway, not the low lying area to the right of the 8th green and fairway.

10,000 truck loads is a lot of dirt, especially for a site that you indicated was sandy dunes.

[TEPaul]

"Why build on useless land?  Why not build on land suited for golf?  Surely you cant tell me that all the good golf land in long Island was used up by then?

David;

I'm no mind reader of C.B Macdonald--I can only go by what he wrote about his reasons for taking the Lido project. And it's more than clear that he took the project because it gave him the opportunity to completely recreate holes and characteristics of holes from elsewhere and possibly holes he had in his mind that would've been restricted and restrained somewhere else by natural landforms more conducive to golf than the Lido was (basically not conducive to anything useful for golf!).

Macdonald did say he felt the complete creator at Lido and that's precisely why he took the project--eg to do those things he felt he couldn't do elsewhere because of natural restraints.

It's been a good discussion and again I don't agree with your premise in an architectural sense but I do in an economic sense believe Lido may have been symbolic of "jumping the shark". Macdonald may have been arrogant in many ways but in the case of the Lido I look at what he did architecturaly as optimistic not arrogant in an architectural sense. And I also look at it as a success in an architectural sense. Unfortunately, as we all know, in an economic and timing sense it was anything but successful.

Again, it's been a good and comprehensive discussion and I can't imagine there's much left to say about your premise.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
If 10,000 truck loads of dirt was imported to build National, how can you be so positive on how it was used ?
How do you know that it wasn't used to build tees and greens, to fill in swamps and low lying areas or to crest existing hills?"

How do I know that Len? Because in that day and age no body brought in truckloads of dirt for construction on a site like that. Back then they basically used very near proximity cut and fills for construction. The dirt was brought in as a medium to help grow grass (sometimes they even called those truckloads of dirt topsoil!)   .

Pat:

Why don't you just explain this stuff to Len and that way neither of you will have to post on here first. I already explained this type of thing to you when we were out there!

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
  You were the first to liken the back and forth of this thread to a match(post 34) and foresaw the likelihood of conceding same.
  You have been retrenching since the beginning and as I see it you have been forced to discard most of your positions and narrow the focus of those remaining just to stay in the match.
  I applaud your tenacity but think that the weight of knowledge disproving your remaining hypotheses has been provided to you, there are six pages of it.
  Your thread has been thought provoking and one of the most interesting in recent memory and in that regard you have "won".

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat/Len,(one in the same)

Show me the money! (meaning, show me the proof!)

(Why are you posting under this name and for what reason anyway?)

Please explain to me these questions I was asking earlier today, as a STUDENT of the Game, I ask you, the one who has been BACKSTAGE of this magnificent theatre to teach me where you have learned your.....Hurumph, hurumph, FACTS! ! ! !

Simply put, Pat, what size and type of trucks do you think they were using in 1907?

Were they steam power driven trucks? If so, this would add considerbly to the cost of building the course because at that time that type of equipment was probably hard to come by, way out on Long Island, and if they did use that type of equipment it more then likely had to be delivered out there which was costly in itself.

If more then likely, they used horse-drawn wagons, the loads were minimal at best. So when C.B. MacDonald, a guy who could over-inflate an ego or a statement the size of my stomach says, "Roughly speaking, I think we have probably put some 10,000 loads of good soil, INCLUDING manure, on the property" tells me, that paticular guesstimation could have possibly been off. I'm not saying it wasn't, but given that in other writings they used 6 inches of soil to cover the course which drastically reduces your SPECULATION. Or, did I miss some sort of publication or news clipping where MacDonald detailed this?

Please, help me, to help others believe you.

[frank_D]

Frank_D,
Your militant, I can respect that.

Dear Imperial Emperor     MMIII

As your deferent disciple and with all due reserved reverence and highest regard, I am humbled by Your recognition of my wholly unworthy post - please allow me to introduce myself(i)

ego sum frank_D  flagellum GCA(ii)

Your Ascetic Apostate
frank_D


PS - at great risk and in fear of diminishing my encomium it is with tremulous trepidation i must advise Your Excellency that in the event i shall become the successful bidder on Your Eminences' likeness currently available by auction and in taking possession of same,  it shall be delivered to me via UPS ground fob-shipping point (Sorry Sahib i only spring on Fed Ex next day air fob-destination for mint condition first edition Ed Kranepool baseball cards i purchase)

PSS Julius Caesar had it coming to him

(i) rolling stones - c MCMLXXII - all rights reserved
(ii) attilla the hun - c MCCCLII

[it would be of note to Brad "Brutus" Klein that i spent the better part of an hour with thesaurus, dictionary, world history atlas, legal counsel on copyrights and UPS and FED Ex route catalogs]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Frank, Frank, Frank!

Anymore, and and my head will explode like a watermelon in one of those Gallagher "Whose Line Is It Anyway" television shows.

Thanks all the same though on the bid. Bid high, so I can donate to my favorite charity, which at the moment is more then likely going to the Albert Einstein School of Medicine's Oncology Department.

[DMoriarty]

David,
  You were the first to liken the back and forth of this thread to a match(post 34) and foresaw the likelihood of conceding same.
  You have been retrenching since the beginning and as I see it you have been forced to discard most of your positions and narrow the focus of those remaining just to stay in the match.
  I applaud your tenacity but think that the weight of knowledge disproving your remaining hypotheses has been provided to you, there are six pages of it.
  Your thread has been thought provoking and one of the most interesting in recent memory and in that regard you have "won".

Jim,  perhaps you should take a look at my initial post and post 37.  I've been singing the same song from the beginning, I was just a little off key in the first verse.  

Once again, you state a conclusion with no supporting facts.  Name a fact any fact that diminishes my position, summarized above.  Surely in eight pages you can find one fact.  If you cant then perhaps it is you that should be conceeding, not me.  

[DMoriarty]

is pat really posting under under a ficticious name?  Isnt that his pet peeve?

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
You have yet to supply any data or heretofore unknown fact that has in any way changed the perception of Lido and its place in the historical record of GCA. You have failed to make your case.
Here are a few reminders of where you fell short.    

You said the GA "lost its way" with the advent of Lido.
- Not true. It hadn't even begun

You accused Lido of "symbolically" representing values that undermine the GA.
- Not true. Lido did not stand for or suggest anything that was contrary to certain values of that time, namely, building stratagems into golf courses instead of being satisfied with the status quo, the rudimentary devices common to the time.

You accused CB of "arrogance", of some sort of duplicity when you said "MacDonald tried (in vain, judging by his comment quoted above by Tommy)  to duplicate and better nature."  
-Not true. CB said of Lido  "One will always see however that it is the creation of man and not the creation of Nature, for it has, as most holes on this course have, the technical design of an architect rather than the inimitable design of nature."
This quote only shows he had no illlusions as to what he built.

You said Lido "represented a huge departure in the approach to GCA"  and consider that as evidence of the sell-out, the undermining of the Age.
-Not true. For one to believe that a transitive relationship exists between these statements one must first believe that men of talent and vision are willing to sit around with their thumbs up their butts and wait for someone else to be the innovators.


I'd continue but it's getting late.

[DMoriarty]

David,
You have yet to supply any data or heretofore unknown fact that has in any way changed the perception of Lido and its place in the historical record of GCA. You have failed to make your case.

It is very true that I have introduced no new facts or data, nor have I claimed to.  It also may be true that I have failed to make my case.  Another possibility is that the case is made, yet some refuse to accept anything that upsets their confortable view of the era.  Either is a far cry from saying that my argument has been defeated by facts, for both sides are relying on the same facts.

For example, you quote that MacDonald had no illusions about the grandeur of the project is my evidence that even MacDonald saw in hindsight that he fell short in duplicating the random throes of nature (contrary to the opinions of some here who of course have never seen the course.)

The fact is,  MacDonald reversed the process of golf architecture;  instead of building a course to suit the land he build land to suit the course.  Now you can diminish the import of this fact all you want, and you can disagree with my characterization of this fact, but nonetheless it is still a fact.  

By the way, as for some of your refutations, why not take on my argument as it is at present when defeating it?  Why instead circle back to the beginning to attack conceeded points?  

You said Lido "represented a huge departure in the approach to GCA"  and consider that as evidence of the sell-out, the undermining of the Age.
-Not true. For one to believe that a transitive relationship exists between these statements one must first believe that men of talent and vision are willing to sit around with their thumbs up their butts and wait for someone else to be the innovators.

And this I believe.  Golf was not the industrial revolution, and golf architects of the era were not by nature revolutionaries.  MacDonald was a revulationary and a man with vision, for he foreshadowed a type of architecture that wouldnt develop for many decades.  

Well . . . at least we agree that MacDonald was an innovator in this regard, which in and of itself leads me to believe that you too recognize that MacDonald was doing something different than his peers.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And this I believe.  Golf was not the industrial revolution, and golf architects of the era were not by nature revolutionaries.  MacDonald was a revulationary and a man with vision, for he foreshadowed a type of architecture that wouldnt develop for many decades.

David, I couldn't disagree more. Golf, for the most part entered this country just before the turn of the century. It grew leaps and bounds so fast, in almost like epidemic proportions that by the turn of the second decade, it had spread West and taken firm root past the Mississippi, through the Rockies and onward to Arizona, Oregon, Washington and California. It was even leaving its mark on the West Coast of Canada. It may not have been a "industrial revolution" in your terms, but when you visit Scotland and hear of all of the stories of young Scottish Golf Professionals who set off for the new world, they weren't leaving their homes and families just because they wanted to golf over here, they were leaving for strictly economic reasons.

America and beyond was where they could make big money--teaching this progressive "new" game as well as building courses; bringing equipment with them, from Scotland, the clubs and equipment it took to play the game. To me these are the limbs of the forming of this GREAT tree we all love.

Revolution? Absolutely! How do you think Spaulding got its start? Think of all of the other companies that branched out from this!

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
I have reached a personal conclusion: I think you have gotten more mileage out of your suppositions than Henny Youngman did with "Take my wife, please".  
   Your ultimate point seems to be that Macdonald sinned greatly by pumping muck to make a golf course when others of the time were working in harmony with the land. In your view this should be seen as detrimental and contrary to the "Golden Age".
   The major obstacle in your way, and one that you have yet to hurdle, is proving that Lido had any detrimental effect upon the golf course architecture of the time. This is the primary, salient point and one that you must successfully cross to continue on with the argument, that his "contrary to the time" building technique has any meaning whatsoever.
   Frankly, I don't think there is enough evidence in the historical record for you, or anyone, to "jump" the first hurdle.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I couldn't agree with you more and I hate to say that because I think there're a number of other potential discussions that could evolve on here even if tangentially about Macdonald and his architecture and philosophies on it resulting from the six pages of this thread.

But I doubt that'll happen on here because that first premise is still in the starting gate spinning its wheels and going nowhere. Regarding that premise---as the Boys say out in the boondocks---"That dog just don't hunt!"

[paul cowley]

re: 10,000 truck loads of dirt at the national......assuming 80 acres of cover with 6 inches of anything is only 10,000 six yd trucks[a good size for the day and conditions].......assuming 300[?] project work days ,33 trucks per day ....150 work days,66 trucks per day ....not a lot.

[DMoriarty]

Tommy,

You and I are of course talking about different things.  You are talking about importing golf to the US, spreading it across the country,  going forth and multiplying.  Call it golf manifest destiny, if you like.  

I am talking about the approach taken by golf course architects here (and there for that matter.)  Whether here or there, most were working within the general constraints of the land (Surrey apparently accepted.)   MacDonald was a revolutionary in that he went the opposite direction.

_______________
Jim and TEPaul,

If I left the two of you to define and argue my premise, we'd never have had anything to talk about.   Eight pages in and you guys are still stuck in my first post, arguing issue that have been buried since the beginning.  

   Your ultimate point seems to be that Macdonald sinned greatly by pumping muck to make a golf course when others of the time were working in harmony with the land.

I never said MacDonald "sinned greatly" or that he had done something terrible, nor am I trying to run him down or smear his name.  I did say that he approached Lido entirely differently than others approached their projects, and this constituted a major break with the rest of the Golden Age.  

    I also said that attempting the Lido was an act of arrogance on the part of the MacDonald, but I am certainly not the first to call C.B. arrogant, am I?  Any time an architect takes on a project for the thrill of becoming a "creator" and starts trying to match Nature bump for bump, I think it is fair to call them arrogant.  And by the way, I think what C.B. tried to do at NGLA was arrogant also (for different reasons), even though he pulled it off.

     I think that this is a large part of the misunderstanding.  You guys mistake looking critically at one of the guy's projects with some sort of personal attack aimed at dimishing his greatness.   If we cant look critically at these guys' methods and approaches, then what the heck are we doing hanging around this website?

In your view this should be seen as detrimental and contrary to the "Golden Age".

Contrary to the Golden Age?  Yes, it most certainly was.  Contrary in the architect's approach to the existing landscape.  Others generally worked with the existing landscape, C.B. created his.  

But was it detrimental?  I admit that my first post treats the Lido as detrimental to GAA.  But, very early on, I repeatedly conceeded this point, emphasizing that I was not trying to prove C.B.'s was detrimental to the Golden Age. Nor was I trying to prove any causual connection between the Lido and the demise of the Age. Thus the discussion about the departure being a "symbolic" departure, not a causal one. Thus my continued focus on the "Contrary" prong.  Thus the description of the Lido as a modern course.  Thus no mention of the "Detrimental" prong in post 37, where I try to set out my entire position.  I dont know how I could have been more clear.  

If this was truly my issue then both sides have been wasting time, we ought to have been discussing other C.B. courses influenced by C.B.'s approach taken at the Lido.  [By the way, the two WWs would make that discussion very difficult, as they were intervening superceding causes.]

So we are left with the "Contrary" prong.  And the architecture at the Lido was contrary.  A reversal of the process.  Something out of Nothing, as opposed to Something out of Something.

  The major obstacle in your way, and one that you have yet to hurdle, is proving that Lido had any detrimental effect upon the golf course architecture of the time. This is the primary, salient point and one that you must successfully cross to continue on with the argument, that his "contrary to the time" building technique has any meaning whatsoever.
   Frankly, I don't think there is enough evidence in the historical record for you, or anyone, to "jump" the first hurdle.

As I have said above, proving detriment to other GA courses isnt my "primary, salient point" nor even my point at all.  It hasnt been for a very long time, if it ever was.   My concern is with whether Macdonald's approach was contrary to the others of the time.  The fact that there are no direct Golden Age descendents of the Lido bolsters my point, rather than tearing it down.  As I have said repeatedly, regading MacDonald's approach to the using Nature and the natural landscape, the Lido was a modern course, not a Golden Age course.  

Why is it that you guys want to continue to argue with points I have conceded?  Perhaps we agree with everything else?  Perhaps you agree that, in process, the Lido is a modern course, and that it represented a major departure from the rest of the Golden Age?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sorry David, I just saw the statement, and felt the need to say something.

Paul,
Thanks for information, and education! I'm sure Len/Pat will understand the contstruction side of it much better in turn of the century terms, as do I!  

I'm sure for the day it was considered a lot though. Especially for the guy who was having to do all of the grunt work by hand or with a "Georgia Backhoe" (shovel)

[paul cowley]

tommy....assuming that in the highly unlikely event material was being loaded by hand ,50 trucks carrying 6 yds each ,could easily be loaded by a crew of 25 to 30 laborers daily...........or the weren't earning thier wage.


this info comes from one infinately familiar with a georgia backhoe.

10,000 trucks x 6 yds =60,000 yds
x 300 yds per day = 200 work days
200 work days x 25 laborers @ 2.00 [probably high] per day
= 10,000 dollars

still not alot.............

immigrant labor in the northeast was cheap and plentiful in those days....150 to 200 laborers on site would not surprize me.........and i bet more dirt was moved than estimated above............

[T_MacWood]

David
The period you are analyzing—the so-called Golden Age—was a period of experimentation. Its origin is traced back to Willie Park and the turn of the century, when he arrogantly attempted to build golf courses (Huntercombe and Sunningdale) on a God forsaken heath, in contrast to the common artificial Victorian designs on flattish parkland.  It was a successful experiment, and many others followed.

Another experiment occurred when Taylor and Lees took one of those flattish Victorian designs, and built ‘naturalistic’ earthworks to relieve the plain. The mountain ranges built at Mid Surrey were meant to emulate the dunes by the sea. That experiment didn’t catch on—perhaps because the man-made dunes didn’t seem so natural outside of London.

Macdonald was involved in another experiment which required a certain amount arrogance. At the NGLA the plan was to build a golf course that contained replicas of several famous golf holes. The golf course was an artistic success (and his protégés followed this example), but there were a number of architects—including Colt and Fowler—who thought it was a bad idea. This illustrates the so called golden age was not a period of a singular view or total agreement.

Another experiment was MacKenzie’s audacious green designs during an early period of his career—the wild greens at Sitwell Park are the most famous example. These greens were criticized on both sides of the Atlantic (and eventually I believe they were rebuilt). MacKenzie continued to build very undulating greens, but I would have to say the original experiment failed.

And there are many other experiments throughout this period (that were contrary to the status quo), in fact the success of this period was largely a result of experimentation. Architects were for the first time looking at golf design analytically. Studying the great courses of the past, and trying to identify why they were great, and taking those lessons and incorporating them into their own designs. Some of the ideas worked, others did not.

I suppose anyone involved in design could be referred to as arrogant. And anyone involved in experimentation could be called arrogant—trying something new or revolutionary requires confidence. I wouldn’t use the term arrogant however, it has a negative connotation, like using bias in place of preference.

There were direct decedents of Lido -- Alison’s Timber Point, Sea Island and Colony; MacKenzie’s Sharp Park. Another similar example was MacKenzie Bayside a few years later, built even closer to Manhattan on completely flat land. MacKenzie experimented with the use of undulation in lieu of sand bunker (there were only a dozen bunkers or some small number, I don’t remember the exact figure).

Back to Lido, I think it is interesting to look at Macdonald’s opinion of the design (at least in comparison to the NGLA). Darwin wrote that he thought Lido was Macdonald’s greatest design accomplishment (he joked that he only wrote it after returning to England and out of arms reach of CB). Macdonald view was that one would eventually tire of Lido, but that you would never grow tired of playing at the NGLA (perhaps due to its natural advantages). Darwin also made interesting observation – he said that Pine Valley was the hardest course in the world, Lido was the finest course in the world and that he would rather play on the National than either of them.

One of the reasons I believe Lido was an artistic success was because it was attempting to reclaim nature.  I imagine at one time that land was covered with dunes…in one of the construction photos you can see dunes in the distance. The course as built must have looked quite natural. But I also believe that Lido was an experiment doomed to fail, and that Mother Nature would've eventually had the last laugh. I suspect that the course would have been washed away at some point. Barrier islands like Long Beach are constantly evolving, moving, changing—the course was living on borrowed time. Storms come up and will often breach the narrow land, in fact the mud flat/swampy land at Lido may have been a result of one of these storms. I’m curious what the great storm in the late 30’s did to Lido.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure what the proper comment is here except I thought that this type of thread was much more in the spirit of this discussion group than Michelle Wie, tournament results, and gee, I'm visiting Washukegon tomorrow...where can I play?

It's sad to see how many former great posters have moved on....

[Peter Pallotta]

Now, don't you start thinking about joining them, Mike!

The term "keeping the faith" could've been coined for you.

Don't let the romantic fatalist win out.

Play some golf. Come up to Kingsley and kick my ass (or, watch me put together the round of my life, a Hogan-esque cloud of cigarette smoke adding to the aura).

Peter