It wasn't St. Andrews that had the most influence!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

As for the remainder of your post #47 I don't feel the need to prove you wrong about anything you might think. If you truly believe what YOU, at this point, think you see in the "over-written" dirt as the genius of Old Tom Morris's architecture, that some of those who lived well over a 130 years ago in his time and knew him couldn't quite see, then please don't let me even attempt to disabuse you!

[TEPaul]

"but please don't try to do so just by quoting some slightly older person than you who never took the time to look at the dirt either, or if he did, didn't know what he was looking for."

Rich:

I'm not sure how you view that particular sweep of time but the history of golf archiecture is only a bit over 150 years of age. That would make some of those writers on TOC and Morris I read such as Macdonald over 140 years of age now. I know I'm old but that's a bit more than a little older than me--like 80 years older.

So I guess you think the likes of Macdonald, Mackenzie et al didn't take the time to look at the dirt (as you say) and if they did they didn't know what they were looking at. Is it possible for you to make a remark that sounds more obtuse or more arrogant than that?  

[ForkaB]

Tom

I'm just in rope-a-dope mode now--waiting for you to punch yourself out with your serial posts.  Keep up the light jabs--they just tickle me!  You don't want to see me when I'm REALLY obtuse.

[LKoonce]

"I've heard many wonderful things about Old Tom Morris from a lot of the people of that day from the writing they left us with but Old Tom as a great early architect wasn't one of them that I've ever seen. Old Tom was probably basically a one day "lay out" architect on many of the other courses his name is attached to and those old "lay out" guys basically offered a simple routing scheme, period."

TEPaul:

How would you define "great architect" in this context?  Would you compare all golf architects through the prism of our own curent understanding of great architecture, no matter when they worked or what constraints they worked under (ie, financial resources, the absence of modern contruction techniques, etc.)?  Isn't it possible to call someone whose skills might seem rudimentary by today's standards, but who was years ahead of his contemporaries, "great"?  Would you say that there were ANY great architects during the period 1850-1890, or by definition is that an impossibility because of the rudimentary state of architecture?  

I also wonder about your notion that the fact that Old Tom may have laid out courses in only a day or so means that he can't be considered an architect, but merely a glorified keeper of the green.  Again, if he (and Alan Robertson?) were the first to spend any time at all laying out permanent courses, that to me could represent a watershed event in the history of golf architecture.  And given the fact that his layouts have provided the bones for some of the finest courses in the world today, I'm not sure I'd say that he wasn't "great" simply because his designs were overwritten to some extent.

Of course, this is a different question than the one originally posed: whether TOC itself or Old Tom had the most influence on golf.  On that score, I'd go with TOC rather than any single individual who has shaped it....

[T_MacWood]

Not being a student of architecture, nor a history of golf architecture, Rich's contrarian stance is not surprising. But I thought Mark Fine was a student of design, so I'm a little surprised he hasn't added more substance to support his theory -- there doesn't appear to be much conviction on his part (perhaps because the theory doesn't sound so good after further review).

Initially it was a very interesting theory, although it ran counter to what every golf architecture scribe wrote back then....maybe that is why it was an interesting.

The problem, it doesn't appear many of Mark's findings are based on fact. For example:

* Old Tom cleared all the gorse to create playing angles and options. There is no evidence he removed the gorse (that I have found). And the adding of two distinct holes per green and creating two distinct out and back routes was done to lessen congestion and for safety (and was most likely done by Robertson)

* That Old Tom was responsible for the plateau greens at St. Andrews

* That Old Tom wrote articles outlining his design principals

* That Old Tom believed in the concept of width to create strategy

* That Old Tom inspired, tutored, influenced the likes of Colt, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, MacKenzie, et al

Perhaps Old Tom does deserve more credit than he gets (then again maybe not), but certainly he doesn't appear to be the architectural inspiration for Colt, Ross, Tillie, etc.....at least according to Colt, Ross, Tillie, etc.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

Morris, Robertson and Playfair have all been credited for significant man-caused changes to TOC, and these were among the first to be documented. I really don't know where you're coming from on this issue. I feel you can safely say — some many, many decades later — that each of these gentlemen played a role in the birth of golf architecture.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
What about Hugh Hamilton..?

The point is Old Tom Morris didn't have the most influence on Colt, Ross, Tillie, Macdonald, et al. that has been claimed on this thread (St. Andrew's, Westward Ho!, North Berwick, Musselburough, Sandwich, Prestwick, etc, did).  If anything Old Tom, Tom Dunn, Old Willie Park's greatest influence on these gents was what not to do.

Did Robertson, Morris and Hamilton initiate the changes or were they instructed by the Green committee? What do you know of the Green committee's role?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
I wish I had the time to get into a heavy debate but I don't.  I have given a whole host of books/authors to research.  I suggest you dig up those books and then tell the rest of us that all those guys got it wrong.  

Everything I put in my initial post was believed to be true by one and/or most of those authors, etc or they would not have written it.  

Kroeger for example in his book states clearly that in his opinion "Old Tom's most important contribution was his removing of large numbers of whins on TOC and widening of the fairways to create angles and new options of approach,..."

Maybe someone like Kroeger is full of crap but I doubt it.  He claims to have researched dozens and dozens of books, articles, writings, letters, and maybe more importantly visited and played almost every Tom Morris course out there (or at least what is left of them).  As I said earlier, you can learn a hell of a lot visiting these courses.  And in addition to the course itself, the clubs always have old pictures, literature,...on and on of information.  

We won't decide on this thread about Old Tom but I stand by my opinion that he made significant changes to TOC and it was many of those changes that others saw and influenced their follow on designs.  A few of those contributions are outlined in my initial post.  

Finally, those who discount what Old Tom did because he laid out many of his courses in one day, just don't get it.  I suggest further research to understand why he did what he did and then draw your own conclusions.  
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

I know little about Hamilton. History has a way of being accurate. Morris, Robertson and Playfair have all endured...therefore, I take it to be that these gentlemen were, in fact, the primary instigators of change at The Old Course.

And...if they were indeed...then all of the architects that followed were certainly influenced by what went on at St. Andrews. Even TF, FR, IM, TD, GH, MF, SF, TL, NM, etc.

[TEPaul]

It's sort of hard to believe the attempts on here at revisionism, distortion and history reinterpreted.

By all known accounts of TOC, Allan Robertson was the first known man-creating architect at TOC and therefore probably anywhere. He's known to have created the 17th green at TOC, the Road Hole bunker (both believed to be the first man-made architectural features), the clearing of whins and gorse to some degree (Playfair), perhaps the expansion of greens for double pinning and therefore possibly a wider more strategically optional golf course. He was also Old Tom's boss at St. Andrews and possibly Old Tom's mentor.

Why then don't we just all call him the first and therefore most significant influence on golf architecture or TOC itself? Why don't we just call him more influential than TOC itself? Because it's just not true--no more true than it is of Old Tom Morris--despite all Old Tom's many contributions to early golf.

Mark:

This thread of yours sounds a bit like that thread you posted about Seminole a few years ago when you claimed that Dick Wilson redesigned that whole golf course. You even said you heard that reliably or had proof of that. But there is no proof of that because it's simply not true. And either is this present claim about the architectural importance of Old Tom Morris. He may have been very early but there's not much more to it than that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's sort of hard to believe the attempts on here at revisionism, distortion and history reinterpreted.

After almost four (4) years on this site you're finally starting to get it.

Congratulations.

There may be hope for you yet

[T_MacWood]

Mark
I've read most of the books you have cited...I've skimmed though Kroeger's book...you don't think he was guilty of embellishing Old Tom's architectural impact?

Forrest
From what I have read Playfair's greatest contribution was cleaning up the town of St.Andrews.

TE
I tend to agree with your assessment. If anyone should be credited with revolutionizing the Old course it is Robertson.

[ForkaB]

Toms (P and MacW)

I'll make it simple for you, based on what I know (little as that may be ) and what Mark has uncovered.

1.  It is widely believed and reported that The Old Course was THE seminal influence on most "Golden Age" designers.
2.  Mark makes a very strong case that Old Tom Morris had a substantial impact on the developemnt of the course in the crucial 1860-1900 period (after Robertson's death).
3.  Therefore, the course that the GA designers used as their template was largely OTM's course.

What Mark poses is a very provocative and serious historical question.  I, for one, would like to see the level of argument raised from sound bites and invective to attempts to find the "truth."  So far, I'm disappointed--particularly from the self-appointed "historians" who post on this site--given that my own academic training and prfessional experience has attuned me somewhat to discriminating between the rhetoric and reality of research and analysis, even on subjects such as GCA where I have such minimal interests, capabilities and experience.......

Come on, Toms, you guys can do better!  I think......

[T_MacWood]

Rich
The problem is #2, he wasn't able to support the theory with facts. It is his and your theory....its your responsiblity to present the facts the theory is built upon. Perhaps you can take over from here give us the supporting documentation for some of these questionable findings:

* Old Tom cleared all the gorse to create playing angles and options. There is no evidence he removed the gorse (that I have found). And the adding of two distinct holes per green and creating two distinct out and back routes was done to lessen congestion and for safety (and was most likely done by Robertson)

* That Old Tom was responsible for the plateau greens at St. Andrews

* That Old Tom wrote articles outlining his design principals

* That Old Tom believed in the concept of width to create strategy

* That Old Tom inspired, tutored, influenced the likes of Colt, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Hutchinson, Campbell, Wethered, Simpson, Park, Fowler, Alison, et al. They all knew Morris (and respected him), they all wrote about golf architecture, they all criticized the sorry state of Victorian design, none spoke of Morris as a positive influence on architecture.

Perhaps you have the documentation....my mind is open.

(I must say it has been an educational exercize [perhaps the education will continue with you now taking over]....I know I've learned a great deal about the history of St.Andrews that I hadn't known before...if anything my appreciation for Robertson has increased)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The problem is #2, he wasn't able to support the theory with facts. It is his and your theory....its your responsiblity to present the facts the theory is built upon. Perhaps you can take over from here give us the supporting documentation for some of these questionable findings:

Isn't what you're asking for the same thing that TEPaul and I requested of you with respect to the 16th hole and multiple tee theory you espoused regarding GCGC ?

Yet, you failed to produce the supporting documentation on both issues.

You should hold yourself to the same standards you request of others.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
On the multiple tee thread...I presented direct quotes from Travis (and dates). As well as the photo you have at your disposal of the mulitple 13th tees (I can't help it if you don't acknowledge clear photographic evidence). And described the map from 1950 (and the source of the schematic if you are interested in checking) which matches Travis's description and the photo of the 13th tee.

Regarding the 16th -- I presented numerous quotes (both from Travis and Emmet). By the way what was my theory and your theory of the 16th -- what exactly are we (you) looking for?

I'm surprised you would be questioning by ability to bring historical facts to the table....it really doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
First of all, the post I made on Seminole was with information I got from Ron Whitten when we played together at the opening of The Architects Club in NJ.  I appologize for not interrogating Whitten further and asking for detailed "evidence and proof" that what he was telling me was true.  What does he know about golf history anyway  
I told you, email him yourself if you want more "facts".

As far as this post, if it accomplishes anything, maybe it will get people thinking.  Nobody else has provided any more "facts" than I have.  If someone feels otherwise please lists these so called "facts" and prove to me they are facts.  I provided a bunch of references where much of my information was obtained.  Check them out yourself.  

It is interesting that the only comeback Tom M. has was his statement about an author like Kroeger suggesting, "You don't think he was guilty of embelllishing Old Tom's architectural impact"?  If that is the case, then we should question every author's account of past happenings.  If you want to do that, so be it.

We are all entitled to our opinions and I have stated mine.

Mark  

[T_MacWood]

Mark
If I'm not mistaken the theory is yours....therefore the burden is upon you to support your opinions with fact. My comeback to you was to say five of your most important findings do not appear to be factual.

* Old Tom cleared all the gorse to create playing angles and options. There is no evidence he removed the gorse (that I have found). And the adding of two distinct holes per green and creating two distinct out and back routes was done to lessen congestion and for safety (and was most likely done by Robertson)

* That Old Tom was responsible for the plateau greens at St. Andrews

* That Old Tom wrote articles outlining his design principals

* That Old Tom believed in the concept of width to create strategy

* That Old Tom inspired, tutored, influenced the likes of Colt, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Hutchinson, Campbell, Wethered, Simpson, Park, Fowler, Alison, et al. They all knew Morris (and respected him), they all wrote about golf architecture, they all criticized the sorry state of Victorian design, none spoke of Morris as a positive influence on architecture.

You have obviously gathered a good number of books on the subject....it shouldn't be difficult for you to find the info that backs up these individual claims (while you are at it, I'm still waiting for you to identify the Wethered & Simpson problem).

When doing research, I do think you should question the accuracy of a given book...especially a modern one trying to document a historic event or events. I don't know about you, but contemporaneous accounts are what I look for if possible, and hopefully from a number of sources. I don't think questioning Kroeger or Whitten or Shackelford or Klein or Doak or you or myself or anyone else is a bad thing. I know I have made mistakes in the past (and I'm sure I will in the future).

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
I really wish I had time to continue this debate.  I don't know what else to tell you.  I gave you a reference for example for Morris' rebuilding of the 18th green.  How the hell do I know if it is fact or not?  Did Robertson add the pot bunker at 17?  I think so but how do you "prove" it.  Like you, I can find references to these things but there really is no way to prove it.  

In the book "Bygone Days of the Old Course", an "eye witness" talked about the High Hole and the changes Morris made to it.  How do you prove that?

Sorry I have to run,
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It's amazing how you take and cite Travis's quotes as Gospel, yet you refute Charles Blair Macdonald's quotes.

It would appear that you accept quotes on a selective basis, only if they support your contentions.  
That's an interesting way of presenting your research.
Wouldn't that anomaly disqualify your research as legitimate ?

TEPaul requested, on numerous occassions, that you provide the schematic, as have I, yet you repeatedly fail to produce it, why ?

And then, why take Mark Fine to task for following your lead ?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
What Macdonald quote did I refute?

When discussing the use multiple tees and GCGC…..yes I would take the architect’s comments and descriptions of his work as nearly gospel. Especially when there is more than one article from this architect on the subject, and his descriptions are supported by photographic evidence and a map. It doesn’t get much more convincing than that. (If you are interested in the schematic….why don't you go to the library and find the book or call Tommy and have him post it…have you spoken to Tommy he’s the only person I know who can post)

Since I’m not sure what quote I have selectively ignored, its hard to comment, but to answer your question yes I think my
"research" is legitimate. You may not agree with my  conclusions, but I’m confident in my ability to research and present the info in balanced, accurate and logical manner.

Mark Fine didn’t present historical information to support his claims:

* Old Tom cleared all the gorse in order to create playing angles and options.

* That Old Tom was responsible for the plateau greens at St. Andrews

* That Old Tom wrote articles outlining his design principals

* That Old Tom believed in the concept of width to create strategy

* That Old Tom inspired, tutored, influenced the likes of Colt, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, MacKenzie, etc.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
Please define "historic evidence"?  I cited numerous books and authors who have made the statements I listed.  What else do you want, page numbers?  If you don't believe them, so be it.  You already discounted and don't believe Kroeger who surely put in thousands of hours of research on his book so why listen to my opinion?  He cites dozens of references, look through those.  

Maybe you don't understand Tom M., but sometimes conclusions/opinions are drawn from years of study and bits and pieces of information put together here and there.  Unfortunately, it's not always sitting there in a nice neat package waiting for you.  

I was just scanning through Pete Dye's book, "Bury Me in a Pot Bunker" and on page 50 he made the statement about The Old Course, "I played seven rounds in all - two in practice, two qualifying, and three in the tournament) to truly appreciate Old Tom Morris's strategy of design."

At least Pete is on my side (along with Rich)    

Maybe we should ask Pete how he got that opinion?
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Mark
Please define "historic evidence"?
Here are some examples of historical evidence. You wrote, "It was Old Tom who cleared the whins and gorse at St.Andrews and created a variety of angles and options." When asked to support this finding you could quote Balfour or Tulloch or Chambers or whatever historical source. The question remains what is the historical source of Morris removing the whins (and what were his reasons?). And did Old Tom ever mention anything about angles?

You wrote "It was Old Tom who believed in the concept of width to create strategy.." You could quote Old Tom or another contemporary of Old Tom on his theory of width and strategy. Where did you come up with this?

You wrote "It was Old Tom who inspired, tutored, influenced...the likes of Colt, Ross, Tillinghast, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Foulis, White...." You could quote any one of these fellows on how they were inspired, tutored or influenced by Morris. Did they write about Morris's influence?

You already discounted and don't believe Kroeger who surely put in thousands of hours of research on his book so why listen to my opinion? He cites dozens of references, look through those. I never discounted Kroeger or his research -- however I am discounting your conclusions. Are they one in the same...I hope not?

Maybe you don't understand Tom M., but sometimes conclusions/opinions are drawn from years of study and bits and pieces of information put together here and there. Unfortunately, it's not always sitting there in a nice neat package waiting for you. That is one of the bigger loads of crap you've come up with. Either you have evidence or you don't.

Why drag poor Pete Dye into your mess?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom M,
I think Pete Dye and I will stand by our opinions and leave it at that.  By the way, how many Old Tom Morris courses have you played and/or visited?  Have you even ever been to St Andrews?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

What Macdonald quote did I refute?

"This property was little known and had never been surveyed.  Every one thought it more or less worthless.  
IT ABOUNDED IN BOGS AND SWAMPS .....The only way one could get over the ground was on ponies"

So what happened to all of the bogs and swamps CBM referenced that ABOUNDED on the property,  where did they go, and why did you deny their existance and their subsequent removal ?

When discussing the use multiple tees and GCGC…..yes I would take the architect’s comments and descriptions of his work as nearly gospel. Especially when there is more than one article from this architect on the subject, and his descriptions are supported by photographic evidence and a map.

This is untrue and a total distortion on your part.

Show us the photographic evidence you allude to, on all the holes you claim had mutliple tees.
 
The map you cite is not a map, but a schematic created in the 1950's and it is in direct conflict with the photographic evidence as documented in the aerial circa 1936.  
Since Travis died in 1927, how could Travis have put multiple tees in at GCGC after 1936, when none existed in 1936 ?

You later contradicted yourself by saying that they were put in between 1938 and 1947, but you can offer no proof, despite being asked to present your evidence

It doesn’t get much more convincing than that.

It sure better get more convincing then that.

You have misrepresented what you would exhibit as supporting evidence, when you know that it's false claim.
NO MAP, and NO PHOTOGRAPHS EXIST, that support your contention that multiple tees were put in by Travis, or anyone else.

 (If you are interested in the schematic….why don't you go to the library and find the book or call Tommy and have him post it…have you spoken to Tommy he’s the only person I know who can post)

If you have the schematic, share it with us, don't try to duck the issue by sending us to the library.  Have Tommy, post the schematic, it can't be hard to do, and you two communicate regularly.

Just make sure that your 1950's schematic is not represented as a MAP, a deliberate, total fabrication and misrepresentation on your part.

I asked Tommy for a previous favor, and the results were more then disappointing, so I'll not be asking again.

You started your post by claiming that your supporting evidence was a MAP and now you claim that it's not a MAP, admiting it's a schematic.  How does one so dedicated to research misrepresent their findings or supporting documentation

Since I’m not sure what quote I have selectively ignored, its hard to comment, but to answer your question yes I think my
"research" is legitimate. You may not agree with my  conclusions, but I’m confident in my ability to research and present the info in balanced, accurate and logical manner.

If you're such a good researcher, post the schematic that you dug up in your research effort that you claimed was a map

Mark Fine didn’t present historical information to support his claims:

Neither have you